Historic District Commission
Minutes
Land Use Meeting Room
August 7, 2012
Members present: Chair Jason Berger, JB; Steve Sample, SS; Elaine Steinert, ES; Lucy Kennedy, LK
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, PA
United Church of Christ, Church on the Hill, 169 Main St., Map 46 Parcel 18, replace all shutters.
ES recused herself as she is a member of the Church.
Walton Wilson, the Chair of Trustees for the Church on the Hill made the presentation and brought a sample of the proposed louvered shutter. Mr. Wilson stated that of the 68 exterior pine shutters estimated to be seventy years old, thirty five are falling a part, fifteen could be braced and saved for a few years, and some a little longer than that, but the thought is that it would be best to replace all of them at once. The proposed shutters would be of the same design as the existing, but made of cedar. They would be factory milled and the same size as the existing except that the louvers would be more flush with the facing than the existing which extends 1/8th of an inch beyond the facing. LK expressed her concern that the louvers in the proposed shutters would not be the same
measurement. Mr. Wilson responded that the replacement shutters could be milled at a significantly lower price, that there are few craftsmen who could do the work and have completed to fit in the time frame. He added that the variation in the louver dimension was of no practical distinction or use. The shutters would be hung using the existing hardware and the shutters would be painted black.
LK, acknowledging that she was new to the Commission, asked SS and JB if an application such as this would typically go to the Historic Commission for verification for its consistency with the architecture. Both SS and JB responded that they have made decisions in the past without the added layer of review by the Historical Commission. Mr. Wilson said that this shutter been put on many buildings that are on the National Registry. LK said that her objection is that the proposed shutter looks different. She would like to know what the original design was as she feels that the Commission’s responsibility is to maintain historical accuracy. She asked if there are photos taken 65 years ago. Mr. Wilson said that he has only seen distance photos, nothing that would show that detail.
The church wants to get the shutters in place before the winter as a bad winter could result in the existing ones falling off. SS and LK felt that the Historical Commission should have the chance to document in photographs the existing shutters. SS said that he would write a letter to the Historical Commission to ask them to do so.
SS made a motion to approve the shutters, painted black. LK seconded the motion but with the proviso to communicate the change to the Historical Commission so that it can be documented. The Commission voted to approve 3-0. SS will write the letter to the Historical Commission.
The Gables Condominium Trust, 81 Walker St., Map 40 Parcel 25, various improvements related to landscaping, fence, brick pad for bench and one additional parking space.
Making the presentation was Craig Okerstrom-Lang, landscape architect. An overall improvement plan for the entire property with most of the improvements being in the back yard and color photos of the existing conditions were presented to the Commission. Mr. Okerstrom-Lang reviewed the detailed description of the project that was submitted with the application. Landscaping, perimeter fencing, bench and the widening of a gravel parking space by two feet were the changes proposed in addition to the removal of a stockade fence, dead trees, debris, brush and invasive vines. The jurisdiction of the HDC extends 150’, therefore, only 20 feet of the stockade fence is within the District.
SS made a motion to approve the application as presented. LK seconded the motion and the Commission voted to approve 4-0.
Anthony Chojnowski, “SWTRZ”, 38 Church St., Map 43 Parcel 158, sign.
This meeting was scheduled as the first on the agenda, but applicant was running late, so time slot was changed to accommodate.
Mr. Chojnowski presented his application. He will be using the same sign post as the previous business and the sign measures 12” X 36”.
LK made a motion to approve the sign as presented and ES seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 4-0.
Sign Bylaw Draft Discussion-The draft prepared by the Planning Board was given to Commissioners at the July 17, 2012 meeting and emailed to them on the same day.
JB confirmed that everyone had read the draft prior to the meeting and that LK had sent her comments to the other Commissioners via email.
SS said that the Planning Board is working on a sandwich board sign bylaw and definition of a sign, but
this draft does not take in consideration sandwich board signs. SS said that the BOS wants a sandwich board sign bylaw in effect by the end of this year.
JB said a change in the Zoning Bylaw does not change the HD Bylaw. He reiterated that under the HD Bylaw the only things exempt from review by the HDC are temporary signs which are given by special permission by the BOS. He recalls that the reason for the recent for discussion to amend the bylaw was because merchants in the HD wanted a simpler, shorter process for sign permits and that that would be under the authority of the BOS. JB stated that before a decision is made to rewrite bylaws it should be determined what it is that they wish to accomplish. His understanding is that the merchants are asking for more signage, banners etc. and a shorter review process.
Note: Within the HDC Bylaw, there is an excerpt from the Zoning Bylaw which refers to Section 7, Signs and Outdoor Lighting. Recodification of the Zoning Bylaw now puts this language now in Section 5.2.1 General and Section 5.2.3 General Standards.
The Commission debated at length the reasons for considerations for changing the Zoning Bylaw or not changing it, and that if changes are made, the General Bylaw, Zoning Bylaw and Historic District Bylaw must be in agreement. Discussion included, but not limited to, suggestions to delete the requirement of notifying abutters regarding sign applications thus shortening the process, or being more specific on sign requirements and allowing the Building Inspector to approve.
JB said that the Town decided to have a Historic District in 1975 and that the Commission is bound by the HD Bylaw. The process takes time, but applications are given priority to be placed on the next agenda provided there is time to give a fourteen day notice to abutters. The HDC Bylaw states that abutters are to be given a 14 day notice of a hearing for any proposed change in the District. The HDC Bylaw mirrors MGL Chapter 40 C. JB has spoken to Town Counsel, Frederica McCarthy, who has indicated that the reviewing authority for permanent signage in the District is the HDC.
LK suggested that the HDC provide the Planning Board an edited copy of the HD Guidelines which is very specific about different kinds of signs and relay to the PB that this is what the HDC wants.
LK made a motion that the Commission write a proposed bylaw dealing with all signs in the District which addresses the inconsistencies with the HD Guidelines, HD Bylaws and Zoning Bylaws. SS seconded the motion.
LK offered to draft a document.
JB said that he did not want to start a rewrite until everyone was clear on what it was they wished to accomplish.
LK made an additional motion that a proposal be written down and shared with the Planning Board clarifying the relationship with the General Bylaw, Zoning Bylaw and rewrite the HD Bylaw with regard to signage and present to the Planning Board, with the primary purpose to make clearer and streamlined. SS seconded the motion.
JB stated that he wants to know what the purpose is for wanting to amend bylaws. He asked if it is for making it simpler, clearer, or for taking away the responsibility from the BOS. He said that there are legal implications with regards to liability and insurance. He recommended that the Commissioners read the HD Bylaw and MGL Chapter 40C and pick up the discussion at the next HD meeting.
The Commission agreed that it would be helpful to have a meeting with the Planning Board and Channing Gibson, the Selectmen’s representative. SS asked to put this on the Planning Board’s agenda for the next meeting, but PA reminded him that there was already a meeting with the BOS regarding Economic Development and that the Town Planner prepares the PB agenda. SS will speak to the Town Planner to work out a future date for this discussion.
Approve Minutes:
June 5, 2012: Tabled since June 19, 2012 until JB, CC & SS are available.
June 19, 2012: Tabled since July 17, 2012 until SS, CC & JB are available.
July 17, 2012: LK made a motion to approve the minutes. SS seconded the motion and the Commissioners agreed 4-0.
LK made a motion to adjourn and ES seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-0 to adjourn at 8:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
