HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2018 Meeting Town Council Chambers 6:00 PM HDC meeting

Transcription

1 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Town Council Chambers 6:00 PM HDC meeting Present: Absent: Kristen Carron, Chair; Gregory Maxwell, Lauren Drury, and Nicole D Amato. Matthew McGeorge, Vice-Chair, Erinn Calise, and Andrew Barkley. Staff: Lea Anthony Hitchen, Assistant Town Planner and Andrew Teitz, Legal Counsel. Ms. Carron, Chair of the Commission, started the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Carron read the procedures into the record as follows: Each person addressing the Commission will state his/her name for the record. Although the Commission does not generally swear in applicants or their representatives, all witnesses are responsible for providing the HDC with true, accurate, and complete information. The applicant or the applicant s representative shall present the request before the Commission along with arguments and material in support of the application. HDC members will then have the opportunity to discuss the proposal and ask questions which are pertinent to the application. All other persons wishing to speak in favor of or against the application will then be asked to do so. All speakers are asked to avoid repetitive comments and confine their comments to those which are relevant to the application at hand. Cross examination by the general public may be allowed only if the Commission feels it would be appropriate and useful. All questions from the floor will be directed through the Chair only. After all of the relevant facts have been heard, the Chair will call for a motion. Once the motion has been made and seconded, the HDC only will discuss the motion followed by the Chair s call for a vote. Only active members of the Commission shall vote. The alternate will sit as an active member with full voting rights only when a regular member is unable to serve at any meeting. During the discussion among voting members, no further testimony from the floor will be accepted unless specifically requested by a Board member. Every effort will be made to render a decision this evening. The minutes of this meeting will be on file in the Planning Department within

2 Page 2 of 8 14 days. Certificates of Appropriateness granted this evening will be available in the Planning Department within two (2) days of this hearing. The hearing of any HDC application which has not yet started before 10:30 p.m. will not be heard this evening and a special hearing date will be scheduled. This rule, however, may be waived by a majority vote of the Commission. All decisions of the HDC are final and legally binding under the authority of Article XI of the East Greenwich Zoning Ordinance and Article 45, Section 24.1 of the RIGL. All decisions of this Commission may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Review. Ms. Carron added the HDC considers local standards as well as Federal guidelines when reviewing applications and noted this is a collaborative process between the Board and the applicant. Ms. Carron explained the sequence for review of applications and its helpfulness to understand how the process works before the Board hears the applications. She noted each application is reviewed in of itself; the Commissioners receive the applications prior to the actual meeting in order for each Board member to review the content. The Board members identify properties and character defining features and historical and architecturally significant to the district that are taken into consideration. When applicants come before the Board there is a discussion in order to better understand the project at hand and answer questions that arise. The Board determines the standards that apply; hearing applications in this type of forum allows the Board to discuss alternatives, offer suggestions and provide support for the applicant to hopefully have a successful outcome and possibly save money. Ms. Carron introduced the Board members and Staff present and read the application items into the record. Historic District Commission Hearings 1. Sage Goodwin 70 Kenyon Avenue; Map 84 AP 2 Lot 69 Demolition of Well House FINAL (Submission based upon Zoning Violation) Demolition of Greenhouse FINAL 2 nd Hearing for Demolition 2

3 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Carron motioned to continue the hearing to the following meeting, being December 12 th, at the request of the Applicant. Seconded by Mr. Maxwell. 2. Jeffrey Lynch 68 Friendship Street; Map 75 AP 2 Lot 214 Addition of Covered Front Porch FINAL Ms. Carron stated Commission standards #4 and 5 apply to the application. Standard 4 states that all proposals for additions and architectural changes shall be appropriate to the original design of the building or to later changes which have historic significance of their own. Standard 5 states new construction includes substantial additions or modifications to the exterior of existing buildings. The design of new construction need not be an exact or modified copy of historic styles and could be totally different in concept. However, all proposals for new construction shall be compatible with the surrounding buildings in size, scale, materials and siting, as well as with the general character of the historic district. Mr. Jeffrey Lynch, of 68 Friendship Street, represented the application. He explained he is requesting to construct a 6 x17 front porch addition to the existing house. He already received HDC conceptual approval because he had to receive a dimensional variance from the Zoning Board of Review since he has since obtained. Mr. Maxwell noted the proposed materials will match the existing, the porch will add appeal to the structure, the construction will suit the house as well as match the neighborhood aesthetic; he therefore did not have any objections to the proposal. With no further questions from the Board Ms. Carron asked for a motion. Mr. Maxwell made the following findings of fact: 1) A written application has been submitted by Jeffrey Lynch. 2) The property in question is located within the East Greenwich Historic District, specifically 68 Friendship Street. 3

4 Page 4 of 8 3) The property in question is a contributing structure; it is representative of a c mid-twentieth century ranch home. 4) The building does contribute to the historic and architectural significance of the district. 5) The work proposed by the applicant would not affect the character defining elements of the existing buildings. Motion by Mr. Maxwell to approve the application at 68 Friendship Street for a covered front porch addition. This is consistent with Commission Standards #4 and 5. Seconded by Ms. D Amato. 3. Timothy Pavilonis 21 Liberty Street; Map 75 AP 1 Lot 309 Replace Garage Doors FINAL Ms. Carron stated Commission Standards 2 and 4 apply to this application. Standard 2 states if existing materials have deteriorated beyond repair, the new materials shall match the original in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities. Standard 4 states all proposals for architectural changes shall be appropriate to the original design of the building or to later changes that have acquired historic significance of their own. Mr. Tim Pavilonis of 21 Liberty Street, owner and applicant, represented the application. He explained there are two existing garage doors located in the rear detached garage that need to be replaced. The doors are in poor condition and are of a plywood material. He noted the existing doors are manually operated but would like the new doors to be automatic. Ms. Carron did not have any objections to the request but suggested eliminating the nonessential hardware. Mr. Pavilonis was concerned about not having any hardware on the door in case power went out and had to manually open the door. Mr. Maxwell commented the Commission discourages faux hardware features but functional hardware should be acceptable. 4

5 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Drury questioned the proposed window pattern and whether the window configuration was acceptable. Mr. Maxwell felt the windows proposed in the garage doors are actually an overall improvement and the muti-lite panes improves the look of the property. With no further questions from the Board Ms. Carron asked for a motion. Ms. D Amato made the following findings of fact: 1) A written application has been submitted by Timothy Pavilonis. 2) The property in question is located within the East Greenwich Historic District, specifically 21 Liberty Street. 3) The property in question is a contributing structure; it is representative of a c late Greek Revival home. 4) The building does contribute to the historic and architectural significance of the district. 5) The work proposed by the applicant would not affect the character defining elements of the existing buildings. Motion by Ms. D Amato to approve the application at 21 Liberty Street for replacement of garage doors. This is consistent with Commission Standards #2 & 4. Seconded by Mr. Maxwell. 4. Jerry Zarrella, Jr. 9 Union Street; Map 75 AP 3 Lots 88 & 89 Modification of Final Plan Change of deck material and addition of railing/gate to rear deck FINAL Ms. Carron stated Commission Standard #5 applies to the application. The design of new construction need not be an exact or modified copy of historic styles and could be totally different in concept. However, all proposals for new construction shall be compatible with the surrounding buildings in size, scale, materials and siting, as well as with the general character of the historic district. 5

6 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Jerry Zarrella, Jr. represented the application. He explained the project is currently under construction and one of the units has a buyer. He reminded the Commission members he originally received approval for meranti wood decking. Mr. Zarrella asked if he could change the meranti decking to a more maintenance free product and requested to use the Timber Tech Legacy Collection which has the texture and integrity of real wood grain. Ms. Carron said she had no issues with the change in decking product due to the project being new construction, it is a small section of deck area, and the back deck is not visible to the street. Mr. Maxwell commented the Timber Tech product looks similar to an ipe wood product. Given the limited impact to the overall project and that it is new construction; Mr. Maxwell felt the proposed Timber Tech product was a suitable alternative product. Mr. Zarrella also informed the Commission that he would like to install a railing system in order to close in the open deck layout for a buyer with a pet. He proposed using the Transform or Hampton series by Intex. The new railings will be a composite material. Mr. Maxwell recommended a simple railing design and the whole structure should be consistent with the same railing. Again, Mr. Maxwell had no objections to the request due to it being new construction and it being located to the rear of the building. With no further questions from the Board Ms. Carron asked for a motion. Mr. Maxwell made the following findings of fact: 1) A written application has been submitted by Jerry Zarrella, Jr. 2) The property in question is located within the East Greenwich Historic District, specifically 9 Union Street. 3) The property in question is a noncontributing structure; it is new construction. 4) The building does contribute to the historic and architectural significance of the district. 6

7 Page 7 of 8 5) The work proposed by the applicant would not affect the character defining elements of the existing buildings. Motion by Mr. Maxwell to approve the application at 9 Liberty Street for the substitution of decking material; the new material will be Timber Tech Legacy Collection in expresso. Additionally rails have been approved for the deck to the rear of the structure; the owner can use either the Intex Hampton or Transform series. This is consistent with Commission Standard #5. Seconded by Ms. Drury. 5. The Division Group 1727 Division Road; Map 79 AP 12 Lot 86 Complete Demolition of the c.1789 Andrews-Briggs House 1 st Hearing Ms. Carron indicated the Applicant has requested a continuance in order to provide additional information but did not indicate a date to be continued to. Atty. Teitz suggested continuing the application to the December hearing. He asked Staff to check in with the Applicant since the Commission is not going to keep postponing the application indefinitely. The Commission should allow them to withdraw without prejudice or they should give the Commission a definitive time of returning with additional information. Motion by Ms. Carron to continue the application to the December 12 th meeting. Seconded by Mr. Maxwell. Historic District Commission Business After Hearings 1. Minutes: Review and approval of the August 8, 2018, September 12, 2018 and October 10, 2018 meeting minutes. 7

8 Page 8 of 8 Motion by Ms. Carron to approve the September 12, 2018 minutes as written. Seconded by Ms. Drury. Staff indicated the August and October minutes are still in process. 2. Approval of Historic Tax Credit Application Richard and Lori Fuka, 34 Brayton Street, being Map 85 AP 1 Lot 278. Historic Tax Credit Application signed by Chair Ms. Carron. 3. Commissioner Comments Mr. Maxwell pointed out the windows installed at the 9 Union Street new construction project are the Anderson 400 Series window which was properly approved by the HDC but the grilles between the glass version were installed as opposed to the interior/exterior grilles. He cautioned the Commission to be very explicit in future window applications. Ms. Hitchen noted the Monti application for door replacement at 71 Greene Street withdrew after the October meeting and will now restore the existing door in lieu of replacement. Motion to adjourn by Ms. Carron. Seconded by Mr. Maxwell. Approved 4 0. Adjourn For additional information, please contact the Planning Department. Respectfully submitted by: Lea Anthony Hitchen, Assistant Town Planner 8