Historic District Commission
Minutes
Land Use Meeting Room
October 16, 2012
Members present: Chair Jason Berger, JB; Steve Sample; SS Lucy Kennedy, LK; Elaine Steinert, ES,
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, PA
PVI Lenox Village, LLC, 60-68 Main St., Map 43 Parcel 196-New construction of a one story, 1880 square-foot addition onto the east side of Nejaime’s Wine Cellar.
Making the presentation was Attorney Phil Heller and John Barry of Barry Architects. Also present were Drew Davis of PVI Lenox Village and Joe Nejaime’s, owner of Nejaime’s Wine Cellar.
Mr. Heller stated that the property, referred to as the Village Center, was developed in the 1960’s and this building was originally Bull’s Garage. It became Nejaime’s Wine Cellar in 1999.
Mr. Heller wanted to orient the Commission to the existing structure and what is proposed. The project is for the expansion of an existing retail store. The lot size is 1.3 acres with 215 feet of frontage on Main St. Nejaime’s is 3024 square feet and is located on the east side of Lenox Village. Mr. Heller said that the current density of the property is 17 percent. With the proposed addition the density would increase to 20 percent. Mr. Heller noted that the applicant will be appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit. The plan submitted has been amended to show an existing foot path which the applicant considers to be a good circulation pattern for the downtown area.
Mr. Barry stated that the present building is non-historic but complimentary to other buildings in the area. He provided photos of the existing building and said that the addition will be the same elevation. He reviewed the plan which shows the proposed landscaping and a rendering of the proposed addition. He said that the design elements will match the existing building with a new cupola on the side. The siding on the addition will marry the existing, and the windows will have the same dimensions. The rear of the building will be cleaned up, and a pea stone walk will be put down. There is a retaining wall of pressure treated timber which will be increased in length and composed of split face concrete block.
When asked by JB if the retaining wall would be visible from the street the presenters stated it would not. JB questioned the applicants if they wanted the HDC to review the wall, because if so, first it had to be determined if the wall is within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr. Heller said that this matter was not before the Commission at this time. He stated that the applicant wanted to get approval from the HDC on the façade so that they could quickly get on the ZBA agenda with hope to get the foundation in before winter. If necessary, the applicant will return to the HDC to seek approval of the retaining wall.
The siding will be fire resistant fiber cement board “Hardie Plank” with the appearance of wood. The final color will be beige.
LK said that her reading of the Guidelines says that the siding should be wood or brick and that the paint should be white, which is the color that is predominant in the District. Therefore she believes that the siding should be clapboard and painted white.
JB, reading from the Guidelines, Section 26, said: All siding, other than brick or stone, must have the appearance of painted wood. He went on to say that in the past the HDC has approved a number of projects that use this product.
SS made a motion to approve the project as presented. ES seconded the motion. SS amended the motion to include that the brick on the addition will match the existing brick, but if that is not possible, the applicant will come back to the Commission for review. SS also amended the motion to include that the roof will be the same color as the roof at the post office which is “CertainTeed Landmark Cobblestone Grey” and the smooth finish cement board will be installed vs. the wood grained cement board. The Commission voted to approve 3-0-1 with LK abstaining.
Town of Lenox, the Community Center 65 Walker St., Map 43 Parcel 145-
Remodeling project at the Community Center which includes the following:
- Replace non-compliant double 34” doors with one 42” door
- Pour new concrete slab on top of existing concrete slab to provide landing that aligns with interior finished door
- Replace existing siding with new siding to match existing
- Replace existing asphalt ramp with new asphalt ramp with courtesy handrail and curb edge protection
- New trim to match
Making the presentation were Ed Sprenkle and Don Ferry of Bradley Architects Inc. Also present were Town Manager Greg Federspiel and Kim Graham who is the Director of the Community Center.
Mr. Ferry said that the intent is to keep character of building as much as possible while making these improvements. He reviewed in detail each of the points listed above. It is proposed that the work, which includes insulating the wall cavity, will be done in phases. Some of the project is to comply with handicap accessibility guidelines. Mr. Ferry said that the proposed siding would be “Hardie Plank”. It would be done in two phases with the first phase to replace the siding under the cavity. The existing siding would be removed, insulation put into place and then resided. The first phase is under the canopy.
LK said that she was not willing to approve this application until she has presented the proposed project to the Historical Commission at their next meeting of October 24, 2012. Her concern was the use of “Hardie Plank” or any product for siding other than wood. She felt that she would be overruled by the Commission. SS agreed with her regarding the proposed material for siding.
JB responded that he was not opposed to input from the HC, but wanted to make it clear that it is extremely important for the Commission to be consistent with all applicants. He stated that this product has been approved in the past for projects in the Historic District.
LK commented that the Commission appears to say yes to all requests when costs are cited, or there is an exception to the rule, and if that is the Commission’s mode, she will refrain from checking further.
JB responded that the Commission is charged with looking at the aesthetics and that if the product looks like wood, then the Guideline supports the use of the product. He suggested that if the Commission wasn’t comfortable with the product, this should be addressed.
LK read from Section 26 of the Guidelines: Where replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match the existing siding in material, size, and design.
The replacement with wood of existing non-appropriate siding materials, such as vinyl and aluminum, is encouraged. All siding, other than brick or stone, must have the appearance of painted wood. Sample shall be presented for approval. LK said that if the Commissioners think this has the sufficient appearance of painted wood, and if we say yes to this application, then any siding replacement in the HD can be this product as this will become a precedent. An exception specified was possibly the Church on the Hill as it is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Graham stressed that only the clapboard would be replaced with the cement board product, not the trim.
Mr. Ferry reassured the Commission that the architectural features would remain as they are which is wood.
There was no public comment and no correspondence received.
LK made a motion to approve the proposal as presented. ES seconded the motion and the Commission voted to approve 4-0.
Approve Minutes:
August 7, 2012-SS made a motion to approve the minutes. LK seconded the motion and the Commission voted to approve 3-0-1. ES abstained as she was not present at this meeting.
September 4, 2012-LK made a motion to approve the minutes. SS seconded the motion and the Commission voted to approve 3-0-1. JB abstained as he was not at that meeting.
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.
September 18, 2012: Tabled until SS, KF & LK are available.
October 2, 2012: Tabled until JB; KF; LK are available.
LK made a motion to adjourn. ES seconded the motion and the Commission voted to adjourn 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
