Hollis Historic District Commission

Transcription

1 Hollis Historic District Commission Minutes of the May 4, 2006 meeting Draft Copy Call to Order Chairman Liz Barbour called the meeting of the Hollis Historic District Commission to order at 7:30P.M. The following were present: Liz Barbour, Paul Hemmerich, and Dave Gibson, Regular Members; Mark Johnson and Nora Lewis, Alternate Members; Ed Makepeace, Member and Planning Board Representative. Staff present: Kimberly Dogherty Absent: Frank Cadwell, Pam Tebbetts Jim Cram, and Dick Walker Appointment of Voting Members N. Lewis was appointed to vote for F. Cadwell on all cases. M. Johnson was appointed to vote for P. Tebbetts on all cases. Mark Johnson, former HDC selectmen s representative, was appointed as an alternate member to the HDC. On behalf of the entire board L. Barbour welcomed him back. Case #06-08 Application of Maplehurst Construction to replace the front entrance door and sidelights, basement windows, and install a new walkway at the property owned by Nancy Bliden located at 28 Main Street in the Historic District. Note: The applicant is also repairing the foundation and painting the building Dan Poirier, Maplehurst Construction, represented the applicant. D. Poirier explained that all of the work he is requesting to do stems from replacing the foundation. He asked to remove #6 from the scope of work document that was submitted, which details his plans to replace the front entrance door and sidelights. D. Poirier explained that he would submit the specification sheets for the door and sidelights at next month s meeting. D. Poirier requested to replace the basement windows with vinyl windows that were designed specifically for basements. He explained that these windows would be ideal for protection against the wetness of this location. The windows would open in for ventilation and have a screen. The applicant passed around photos of similar basement windows that were installed for another project. P. Hemmerich questioned if the basement windows were below grade. D. Poirier stated that they were almost entirely below grade but probably 10% above. M. Johnson questioned who signed the application. Fredricka Olsen raised her hand and explained that she was the property owner s daughter. M. Johnson questioned her authority to sign for her mother. Fredricka Olsen stated she had a power of attorney to do so. P. Hemmerich moved and E. Makepeace seconded a motion to accept the application for Case #06-08 as amended. The motion carried unanimously. The applicant stated that he was not requesting permission to replace the front entrance door and sidelights at this time. D. Poirier explained that he needed to replace the foundation because it had buckled. The front of the house would be excavated and everything would be removed. The vegetation, walkway, and granite steps would be removed but

2 replaced. The granite steps would be set aside for re-installation. The top course of the finished granite foundation, which means the stone is cut a lot squarer and cleaner will be set aside and everything below grade would be removed and replaced with new materials. The original granite would be re-installed. The area would then be reseeded and replanted with smaller materials. The walkway would be replaced with new red bricks that were made of a harder smoother material. He explained that the new walkway would be safer for entering and exiting the home. Any siding or corner boards that must be removed will be replaced in kind with cedar clapboard and painted white to match existing. D. Poirier explained that his intent was not to straighten the house but instead just to stabilize it. L. Barbour questioned if the replacement siding would be of the same size reveal as the existing siding. D. Poirier stated yes. L. Barbour asked about lighting. D. Poirier explained that on the left side of the door a light and outlet were installed on top of the plaster. He would like to relocate the light up and over to the left for better lighting. He proposed a hanging lantern because it would be more appropriate than what currently is there. He would like to remove the outlet and relocate it to the lower part of the building. P. Hemmerich asked if he could submit the lighting specifications at next month s meeting along with the door details. D. Poirier stated that he would. Fredricka requested permission to paint the window sash white. The sash is currently painted black. The Commission did not see any problem with the request and asked the applicant to file a paint registration form at town hall. P. Hemmerich asked that the window would remain the same and clarified that the muntins would just be painted from black to white. D. Poirier stated yes. M. Johnson stated that it was one of the most beautiful and significant houses in the Historic District. M. Johnson was pleased that the applicant was restoring and replicating. P. Hemmerich agreed. The Commission had no concerns at this point in the discussion. L. Barbour offered information to help the applicant choose the door for this home. The National Park Service, Secretary of Interior Standards offers a wealth of information for Historic Homes. L. Barbour gave the applicant their website. E. Makepeace moved and D. Gibson seconded a motion to approve the application for Case #06-08 as amended. The motion carried unanimously. The Commission tabled review of the front entrance door and sidelights until their June 1, 2006 meeting. The applicant agreed to submit specifications for the intended work. Findings of Fact: 1. The structure is a contributing building on the National Register of Historic places 2. The foundation will be replaced with original granite. The siding and cornerboards will be replaced in kind with the same reveal and material as the original. 3. The vinyl basement windows were approved because the reveal is almost below grade. Case #06-09 Application of Ernie Van Tassell to replace a sliding door with two windows at the property owned by the applicant located at 22 Ash Street in the Historic District. Ernie Van Tassell represented himself. He apologized about submitting the application late. M. Johnson did not see a problem with reviewing an application that was submitted late but wanted to make a formal motion to waive the 14-day deadline requirement. The Commission had differing opinions on whether a formal vote was necessary. E. Van Tassell explained that Ladd Place needed to be painted. While getting paint quotes he realized that many clapboards would also need to be replaced. He stated the entire front of Christopher s would need to new clapboards. E.

3 Van Tassell stated that he already filled out the paint registration form. His son was a contractor and would be doing the work. His son would need to start next week, which was why the application was submitted and accepted late. E. Van Tassell requested permission to remove and replace a sliding door with two 6 over 6 colonial windows. The windows would measure 24" wide x 46" long. E. Van Tassell stated he needed to replace the door with windows for ventilation. The building had been neglected over the years and E. Van Tassell stated that most windows did not open. He stated that he had mullions hand carved in 1986 to give the building a colonial look. The applicant felt replacing the door with windows would be a great improvement. The applicant stated that time was an issue and he could not wait 4-6 weeks for custom ordered windows. E. Van Tassell stated that he had spoken with the chairman regarding the request and she was very helpful. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on whether the waiver was necessary and why there was a 14-day deadline requirement. The chairman stated that the discussion did not affect this applicant and therefore should be tabled until later on in the evening. M. Johnson moved and N. Lewis seconded a motion to waive the 14-day deadline requirement. The motion carried unanimously. The applicant submitted a sketch of the proposed windows along with a Harvey window brochure. The applicant explained that he had come as close as possible to the window suggestions from the chairman. E. Makepeace moved and D. Gibson seconded a motion to accept the application for Case #06-09 as amended. The motion carried unanimously. This motion reflects the addition of the window specifications and the sketch submitted at the meeting. The window brochure highlighted Majesty custom wood windows manufactured by Harvey. E. Van Tassell stated that all of the windows in Ladd Place were different. He was not sure what direction the Commission preferred to follow. He proposed a white 6 over 6 colonial window that was wood on the inside and vinyl on the outside. E. Van Tassell felt anytime a window would need to be replaced in the future this type of window could be installed. P. Hemmerich asked if the muntins were exposed on the exterior. L. Barbour asked if they were permanently affixed. The applicant stated that he was not a contractor and did not know. E. Makepeace asked if they were grid between the glass or permanently affixed muntins. The applicant did not understand the technical terms being used. E. Makepeace asked if the wood went all the way through the window. The applicant stated no. P. Hemmerich interjected and stated that it was a simulated divided light window with grilles between the glass (GBG) but it also had permanently affixed interior and exterior muntins. The secretary clarified that the proposed windows were vinyl GBG windows with permanently affixed exterior muntins. L. Barbour stated the technical term was simulated divided light. L. Barbour felt the key points were that the windows were not snap in muntins or GBG. L. Barbour confirmed that two windows would be installed in the same frame opening as the sliding door. The applicant stated yes. L. Barbour questioned how many inches would be between the windows. The applicant stated 4". P. Hemmerich confirmed that the new windows would be installed tight to the upper corners. The applicant stated yes. D. Gibson felt the windows would be an improvement. Findings of Fact: 1. The barn was altered to operate a business 2. The sliding door openings are not character defining.

4 3. The window replacement would convey an improvement to that portion of the building (Barn) 4. Simulated divided light windows accurately convey an appropriate muntin profile L. Barbour considered the home and the barn two separate structures. Wood is compatible with an historic building built in L. Barbour felt that all of the current material were wood and should be maintained as such. L. Barbour questioned the material of the trim on the existing windows. The applicant stated it was 3 ½" pine. L. Barbour stated that according to the National Park Service wood is a defining character. L. Barbour stated that she would not approve the request for these two windows if it meant that any of the windows in the main building could be replaced with vinyl. L. Barbour stated the facade of the building was enormous and vinyl windows would be very visible. Ernie did not disagree with L. Barbour s opinion. P. Hemmerich stated that non-wood windows with permanently affixed exterior muntins would appear the same. L. Barbour asked to table the discussion regarding wood vs. vinyl with permanently affixed exterior muntins until later. The Commission agreed that the conversation did not apply to this specific case. M. Johnson moved and P. Hemmerich seconded a motion to approve the application for Case #06-09 as amended. The motion carried unanimously. New Business L. Barbour announced two open positions on the commission for alternate members. She stated that she was specifically looking for a business owner or landscape specialist to fill these vacancies. Wayne Zold, SAU office, asked the Commission earlier in the month if the upper elementary school needed their permission to install new playground equipment. The Commission found that the only public road with access to the school was Drury Lane. The only property on that road is the school. The elevation of the playground was elevated and already had a fence to block view. E. Makepeace moved and D. Gibson seconded that the proposed playground equipment would not have a significant impact on the public view and was not reviewed. The motion carried unanimously The Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding paving of driveways and parking areas. They also discussed if the screening of these areas should be regulated. M. Johnson pointed out that the HDC ordinance gave the HDC the authority to regulate paving. After many different opinions the Commission directed the secretary to get a decision from town attorney. The secretary agreed to contact town attorney and ask the following two questions: 1. Does the HDC/Planning Board have the right to review paving of a gravel driveway or parking area either residential or commercial? This is after a site plan review has been completed and approved. 2. Does the HDC/Planning Board have the right to review screening of paving a driveway or parking area? (Again I am not talking about the site plan review) If a business owner wishes to pave their existing driveway or parking area can the HDC/Planning Board regulate? L. Barbour expressed her opinion regarding the importance of HDC members understanding their role. L. Barbour stated that Hollis is one of the leaders of preservation in the state. L. Barbour pointed to a handout from a preservation manual and asked that Commission members ask themselves these questions when reviewing all cases. L. Barbour felt the make-up of the Commission was very important. L. Barbour intended to thoroughly educate all new members before they participate in a meeting. L. Barbour informed the Commission that the HDC reference Library was moved to the Library. She also stated that the library had offered to purchase some new reference materials for the HDC. The HDC agreed to table the discussion of appointing the building inspector as the sign board until F. Cadwell was in attendance. The members in attendance agreed that they would like to continue as the Sign Board until the Sign Ordinance is updated.

5 The secretary asked if the Commission would support a motion to allow the town to charge an administrative fee for all HDC applications. The secretary had done some research and found that surrounding towns did in fact charge this fee. The fee recommended at $25.00 would cover the mailing of packets, abutter notices and the cost for copying all information. The Commission did not make a decision and tabled this discussion until next month. Committee Reports: No updates Approval of Minutes There were not enough members present to review the minutes of April 6, Adjournment M. Johnson moved and E. Makepeace seconded to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Dogherty, clerk