Historic District Commission
Minutes
Land Use Meeting Room
July 6, 2010
Members present: Chair Jason Berger, JB; Steve Sample, SS; Jim Harwood, JH;
Member absent without notification: Ken Fowler, KF
Elaine Steinert, ES arrived at 6:10 pm during the presentation of the Legacy Banks.
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
Wendy C. Philbrick, 6 Cliffwood Street, Map 43 Parcel 69-1. Certificate of Appropriateness to remove an existing chain link fence at Cliffwood St. frontage and Main St. frontage and install a new 38” fence with 42” posts.
Christine Sprague, architect for Ms. Philbrick and Ms. Philbrick were present.
Ms. Sprague presented a site plan showing the location of the proposed fence. While construction is going on to build the house, the chain link fence which goes around three sides of both two parcel will remain for security.
The Commission requested that if the entire frontage is not done, at least do one length of fence for the return. To make the application clear, Ms. Sprague drew additional detail on the plan submitted.
The proposed fence will be white, made of recycled materials under the brand name of Trex and style will be Chippendale.
JH made a motion to approve the demolition of the existing chain link fence and the installation of the new fence in the Chippendale style as sketched in on the drawing. SS seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 3-0.
Legacy Banks, 25 Main St., Map 43 Parcel 20, a new 24” X 24” double sided sign. David Hicks of Legacy Banks Location for safety.
Making the presentation were John Renzi of Graphic Impact Sign and David Hicks of Legacy Banks.
Mr. Hicks told the Commission that Legacy Banks had followed the direction of the Commission and appeared before the Board of Selectmen to request permission to put the directional sign on public property. The Board of Selectmen approved Legacy’s request, but were now before the Commission to seek further approval. He said that the Bank has complied with the raised letter and the format of the materials and the design of the other signs recently approved by the Commission.
JB stated the application was filed for a Certificate of Non-Applicability, which is the choice of the applicant, but questioned the choice. The applicants explained that they had been instructed to file for the CN-A and have found that the process had been confusing. . JB explained the process, and that it is the Commission’s job to determine if the sign request is appropriate. Further he said, the Commission cannot tell an applicant which Certificate to request. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Hicks said that he would apply for the C of A for the placement of the sign for the directional purposes of safety factors. Surveys have been taken and the public continues to back out on to Main Street when they realize that this drive does not provide access to the public parking that is in the rear. The intention is to better define the purpose of this drive with the expectation that will reduce the occurrence of people backing out.
Public Comment:
Jim Biancola questioned if the applicants had appeared before the Planning Board prior asking the Board of Selectmen for approval of the sign placement on Town property as per the Zoning Bylaw. The applicants confirmed they did make their presentation to the Planning Board over 2 years ago. SS pointed out that the process had not been followed in this situation, but that the Planning Board was aware and have discussed the failure of following the proper procedure.
Letters
In a letter received on June 30, 2010 from Frank Newton wrote that he has no objection to the sign, but asked that the sign “Do Not Park in Driveway be re-installed. Mr. Renzi stated that the sign had been knocked down, and it will be re-installed. .
Board Discussion:
SS feels that the materials and directional sign are appropriate.
ES no objection to the sign placement request.
JH stated that he was not sure that the applicants should have had to come before the HDC again, but since they were, he said that the issue is appropriateness of location of the sign, number of signs, and if this is or isn’t a business sign. If it is a business sign, do they have a hardship?
JB feels that it is more of a hardship. He is concerned about the height of the sign and the number of signs. He stated the Commission should promote consistency from one application to the next. Another issue is that a traffic study is not on file which leaves the question: “Is it a hardship?”
The minutes of May 4, 2010 were reviewed.
JB suggested that a motion be made for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
SS made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness as amended and ES seconded the motion. The motion did not pass as two voted in favor, SS and ES, and two, JH and JB voted against.
JH made a motion that the Commission consider granting a Certificate of Hardship due to traffic at this particular location. SS seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 3-0-1. JH abstained.
Suzanne Pelton, Historical Commission Plaque Program. Jim Biancola was present to fill in for Ms. Pelton if she was not available, but he was unable to stay beyond 6:30 pm. Therefore this matter was not discussed.
Minutes:
- April 20, 2010-ES made a motion to approve the minutes and SS seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve the minutes 3-0. (JB, SS and ES).
- May 4, 2010-JH made a motion to approve the minutes and ES seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve the minutes 4-0. (JB, SS, ES and JH.)
New Business:
ES mentioned that she noticed a sandwich board styled sign located at Shots. The Commission agreed that the Building Inspector should be notified.
JH made a motion to adjourn and SS seconded the motion. The Commission voted to adjourn 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
