Town of East Windsor
East Windsor Historical Commission
11 Rye Street
Broad Brook, CT 06016
________________________________________________________________________
Minutes – November 9, 2006
A regular meeting of the East Windsor Historical Commission was on Thursday, November 9, 2006 at the East Windsor Town Hall.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.
A quorum was established with all members present.
There were no minutes to approve. The Commission did not meet in September and October.
Correspondence included: Preservation Magazines, Forum News, October workshop on traditional building restoration, Memos from the selectman’s office regarding the Town Newsletter dates and deadlines, National Preservation Trust Seminar Brochure, Connecticut Preservation Trust Newsletter, Letter of Resignation of Germaine Hoffman.
Added Agenda Items Included: Introduction of Peter Daglio, new alternate to the Commission, and Letter of the Resignation of Germaine Hoffman.
Old Business:
District 12 Schoolhouse: The town brush hogged around the building in July.
One of the trees was also taken down, but not removed. The roof hole was patched by Dave Noga, the appointed contractor. The work was paid for from funds in the budget. A discussion was conducted regarding the need to close upper story windows and obtaining estimates for structural repairs. It was concluded that several bids should be obtained for the work. The Town Building Officer should be consulted to be sure all structural issues are addressed. Subsequent to estimates, sources of grant monies would be researched at the local, state and national levels. More discussion followed about how to solicit volunteers and get more community involvement. It was concluded that at least two people would be needed to work full-time on the project to research grants and track them. These should preferably be community volunteers.
Demolition Delay: The Commission resumed its discussion of the letter of complaint to be sent to the Board of Selectman regarding the issues and events surrounding the handling of the demolition of structures at 93 Depot Street.
It was explained to the Commission that the demolition delay ran completely on the tobacco barns, as there were many complications in the process. First, the developer provided the chair with the name of an individual who was to dismantle the barns for which there was no business address or phone listing. Another name was provided. The second name provided to the chair was a person whose number was disconnected. In point of fact the person had died in an accident. The individual’s partner called the chair and followed up with a letter. Before our commission would take any further action the siding on the barns was removed. This occurred in May. Then the developer took down the framing and then came in for the permit. The permit was not released at that point because
there was a question as to whether or not a violation of the ordinance had occurred. If a violation had occurred there was a fine of $100.00/day. A call was placed to the Town Attorney. He was called several times, but no answer was received by the June meeting or by the July expiration date of the permit delay. The Town Attorney did not return the calls until august 23, 2006. He provided an opinion that indeed a violation had occurred because the statute indicated hat as long as the delay is in force, the building, nor any part thereof, cannot be demolished. The maximum fine depending on a judges ruling could be up to $9,000.00. The Chair informed the building department of this opinion immediately. The Town Attorney also commented however, that it was his opinion that the town would need a policy to pursue this matter further. What this comment meant was debated by the Commission. The conclusion of the Commission was that the Ordinance is a law and when a law is established it
needs to be enforced. Any violations need to be pursued for remedies. During the discussion there was a question as to whether the policy the Town Attorney was referring to had to do with the availability of funding to pursue legal matters. Ultimately, however, it was concluded by the Commission that if the law (the Demolition Delay Ordinance) was broken then it should have its penalties enforce and hat the fees in the town should be structured to cover legal expenses, either by attorney retainer or funding.
The Town attorney also raised the question of abatement of hazardous materials. He felt more research needed to be done regarding this. However, information abatement procedures from the Connecticut Preservation trust already answered this question.
In conclusion of the discussion, it was decided by the Commission that the Commission should meet with the Select Board to discuss these issues and to clarify the many uncertain points, such as the following:
1. There should be policies and procedures that establish precisely how the Planning and Zoning and Building Departments work with our current Commission. We should all work in concert when historic structures are involved in a developer’s plans. It should be made known that the Planning and Zoning is noncompliant with its support and does not communicate appropriately. Clear communication procedures should be outlined and followed at all times. Without them, the town agencies and commissions have additional work and the town loses money, either through redundant work or loss of fines.
2. Our Commission is a standing commission with Demolition Delay oversight and therefore should not be considered only advisory.
3. There should be clear policy known to all commissions about how and when to involve the Town Attorney in legal questions. Otherwise, the town again loses money.
4. There should be a clear message sent by the town regarding ordinances as law and they should be enforced regardless of cost. Otherwise, the message sent by the town is that it is okay with us if you break the law here in East Windsor.
5. Perhaps the town needs a Policies and Procedures book to be given to each commission on its establishment so that there is no confusion.
6. The Historical Commission individually would like its significance to the town clarified. If the commission does not garner respect as a commission of value established by ordinance, then it cannot function.
The following were decided on:
1. Establish a meeting date to meet and discuss these matters with the Select Board.
2. Outline appropriate communication flow to make work of our commission manageable and prevent excessive cost/loss of money to the town.
3. Draft letters to the Select Board, Town Attorney, Building Department and the Connecticut Preservation Trust.
4. Outline questions for clarification.
5. Create a timeline of events.
New Business:
A discussion followed regarding the future of the East Windsor Historical Commission. Points considered:
· Dissolving the Commission
· Continue the Commission as it is
· Meet as a Commission less frequently
· Approach the Commission workload differently
Due to the Commission’s role with the Demolition Delay Ordinances, dissolving the Commission does not seem to be a viable option.
The following comments were made by Commissioners:
Marilyn Butenkoff: The Commission should continue as it is until it meets with the Select Board to resolve issues surrounding town politics and procedures, which presently make the commission’s work difficult. The commission should have only one goal this year: Evaluate the District 12 Schoolhouse. And we should meet as needed for the demolition delay matters.
Paul Scannell: Concurred with Marilyn Butenkoff. The Commission should have one goal this year and no other projects, especially since we have little “inter-agency”/”system” support. The commission also needs to continue Demolition Delay oversight and endeavor to increase our negotiation time through early involvement with developers in the planning process. The District 12 Schoolhouse needs to be assessed regarding work that needs to be done and the commission needs to apply for any appropriate grants.
Irene Clifton: Agreed with Marilyn Butenkoff and Paul Scannell. The Commission should concentrate on the schoolhouse. The commission should outline our problems with the selectman, especially issues with the chain of communication and ways to involve the commission early in the planning process to avoid demolition delay issues and establish how the Town Attorney should respond when there are violations. The East Windsor Historical Commission should have authority to conduct its business like other standing commissions.
Michael Hunt: A meeting with the Select Board is essential so that the commission can determine what value it has to the town. The Commission may be able to hold fewer meetings once policies and procedures and goals are clear. The Commission is connected to the Demolition Delay process, but early notification would help.
Peter Daglio: Questions with the Demolition Delay Ordinance need to be cleared up. This is paramount, especially hose regarding policies and procedures and the use of the Town Attorney, so no more time is wasted needlessly.
Added Agenda:
A motion was made by Paul Scannell to accept the resignation of Germaine Hoffman. The motion was seconded by Marilyn Butenkoff. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. A motion was made by Marilyn Butenkoff to draft a letter of gratitude to Germaine Hoffman for her service on the commission. The motion was seconded by Paul Scannell. The motion passed by unanimous approval.
Marilyn Butenkoff suggested that the East Windsor Historical Commission place a write-up in the Town Newsletter about the commission’s work and our need for ton citizenry to volunteer to assist us, especially our need for a volunteer secretary.
The chair responded that on behalf of the commission, she completed and educational presentation to the third grade at the elementary school using artifacts from the W. H. Thompson National Registry Property.
A motion was made to adjourn by Paul Scannell and seconded by Marilyn Butenkoff. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8 P.M.
| 
