Historic District Commission
March 2, 2016
Minutes
Members in Attendance
Jason Berger (JB); Ken Fowler (KF); Pat Jaouen (PJ) (alternate); Mark Smith (MS); Elaine Steinert (ES)
Staff in Attendance
Gwen Miller (GM), Town Planner
Guests
Rob Murray; Lou Allegrone; Anthony Allegrone; Lou E. Allegrone
Ferioli family; Lesley Murray
KF called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
He said minutes from the previous meeting are lengthy and recommended that members review and bring their comments to the next meeting for discussion and approval.
Stephane Ferioli, 94 & 100 Church St. (Map 43, Parcels 86 and 87)
JB recused himself.
The applicant is seeking Certificates of Appropriateness to renovate the existing building at 94 Church St. with new windows, roof, and siding, and construct a new building at 100 Church St.
Mr. Ferioli said that 94 Church St. would undergo a full renovation. This includes replacing all windows, roofing (black architectural shingles) and siding (white HardiePlank). Trim work (columns, etc.) would be either saved and renovated or replaced if beyond repair.
The new building at 100 Church St. would be constructed in the same Greek revival style as 94 Church, with many of the same features (corners, windows, reveal, shingles, roof pitch, exterior and trim materials). In addition, the building would have an exterior porch and a parking area using materials compatible with other parking lots in the historic district
A fence is also needed to meet zooming requirements, since the new building abuts residential property. The fence would be wood, 5-6 feet high with spacing and will cover an existing chain-link fence. The garbage container will be enclosed. Two retaining walls will be added on the parking lot side, made of grey Versa-Lok stones. For safety, a small fence will be built above the smaller retaining wall.
Existing curb cuts on Church and Franklin Sts. will be enlarged; one new curb cut will be added and two removed on Tucker St. Mr. Ferioli is aware that ZBA approval will be required for this.
Discussion included:
- Timing. Mr. Ferioli said the 94 Church renovation would be completed first (spring and summer 2016), then construction at 100 Church would begin.
- Foundation: Mr. Ferioli said that though it is low to the ground, there are no real problems with the foundation at 94 Church.
Rob Murray, who owns property at 85 Church St. and is president of the Lenox Chamber, spoke in favor of the application. He said attention to these properties will be an asset for the downtown area and help pull people down to the end of Church St. He believes Mr. Ferioli respects the values of the town and its historic requirements and he hopes the HDC will support the project.
KF asked if members needed a site visit before voting; they said a site visit was not needed. MS made a motion to approve both parts of the application (for 94 and 100 Church St.); ES seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
Kenneth and Frances Fowler, 25 Church St. (Map 43, Parcel 168)
KF recused himself; JB assumed the chair.
The applicants are seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the windows within the existing framework.
KF explained the need for more energy-efficient windows. They will be the same size as current windows so no construction is needed. They will be white and consistent with other windows in the historic district. Three have a 6-over-1 grid and the replacements will have the same. The other windows are 1-over-1 grid and may be replaced either with the same grid or with the 6-over-1 grid.
PJ made a motion to approve the application; MS seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
A.C Enterprises LLC (Walker House) Notice 64 Walker St. (Map 40, Parcel 24)
The applicants are seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to remodel the existing building.
MS disclosed that he has a current relationship with Allegrone, working at BCDS as coordinator/
representative for the school. There were no objections to his remaining for the discussion and vote.
Anthony Allegrone provided drawings and photos for the proposed improvements to the Walker House. He said the building will become eight apartments: four one-bedroom and four two-bedroom.
The majority of the improvements are repair and replacement items. For example, there is rot and deterioration at the eaves; trim needs repairing; clapboards need replacing. There will be new windows (Pella or Andersen architectural series) throughout and new shutters.
He spoke about key features of the renovation at each elevation:
North elevation (front): Most is repair/replace work. He pointed out one new door that is required by code as a secondary means of egress (the door will be in a place where a window used to be).
West elevation: Most here, too, is repair and replace work. The only change is to swap out an existing door with a new window that will match the other windows.
South elevation (rear): Mr. Allegrone pointed out that the plan is to push out an existing wall out as far as the existing porch columns.
East elevation: Again, the work is mostly repair/replacement. It will include insulation to increase r values and glazing of some windows. But this elevation will retain the aesthetics and the arch.
Discussion items included:
- Roof: will be replaced with slate-looking shingles; rooflines/pitch will remain the same
- Architectural details: dentil details and other historical touches will be retained; columns in the front will be replaced with either wood or fiberglass (fiberglass columns were used at the Curtis)
- Exposed part of basement at foundations: the amount of concrete one could see from the street will be minimized; grading will be improved so there will be little reveal of the concrete foundation; one will be able to see 8 inches of concrete on the back of the building; the stone wall will remain.
KF said this project was reminiscent of that undertaken at the Gables – changes in back but minimal changes in the front. The changes don’t detract from the architectural integrity of the building. KF asked if members needed a site visit before voting; they said a site visit was not needed. JB made a motion to approve the application MS seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
HDC Guidelines/Bylaw Revision
JB said the group needs to come together regarding proposed changes, then hold a public hearing so there can be a public comment period. The bylaw needs updating if only because there have been changes at the state level that must be incorporated.
KF suggested that this be the only agenda item for an upcoming meeting. The next meeting is March 15, 2016, at 5:30 pm. The group agreed to have this be the sole agenda item.
As to the guidelines, ES said the guidelines exist because the bylaw doesn’t include some things that need to be included to help applicants through the process. Unfortunately, the guidelines are not binding and this causes confusion among applicants.
JB has done some preliminary editing work on both bylaw and guidelines and would be happy to share his work as a template/starting point for the group discussion. JB added that, though the guidelines are not binding, they are intended to give an applicant a sense of the current board’s thinking. In addition, the bylaw itself is very difficult for an applicant to get through.
Approve Minutes
None.
Other Business
None.
ES moved to adjourn; PJ seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 pm.
| 
