Historic Resource Commission

APPROVED 11/28/16 Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 2016 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Britt called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Mark Meigher STAFF: Rima Shamieh, Assistant Planner; Jennifer Mills, Secretary ABSENT: Ryan Bailey, Assistant Corporation Counsel III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to adopt the September 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Department of Development Updates Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that the Stockade Pump House project will be coming up, and the City would like the Commission to have input on the project. She noted that the formal planning process will most likely not begin before December 2016. Ms. Shamieh also noted that this winter the Department will be undertaking some housekeeping tasks and will be seeking the Commissioners’ feedback regarding these items, which will include the previously discussed revisions to the City Zoning Code, developing a written policy specifying the types of work that staff can and cannot approve on a project, and composing a new decision letter template that will be sent to the applicants explaining the parameters of their approval or denial. She stated that consideration of these items will most likely begin at the December 2016 meeting. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 1 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 VI. NEW BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Michael and Christina Brady to replace the storm door and restore the size of the original door opening. The premise is located at 851 Union Street. Michael and Christina Brady appeared before the Commission. Mr. Brady explained that the current storm door is ten inches smaller than the opening and thus the previous owners of the property had filled in the space at the top of the door with ill-fitting plywood and 2x4s, thus resulting in an unattractive and drafty doorway. He stated that through his volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity he was able to obtain a replacement door that is the exact size of the original opening and is in very good shape. Commissioner Wiles asked if the glass in the new door is single pane thickness. Mr. Brady stated that it is. Commissioner Wiles asked if the glass will be changed out with a screen in the warmer months. Mr. Brady replied that it will be. He stated that he restored the oak door behind it several years ago and it is in very good shape. Mr. Brady noted that he would like to restore the natural finish on the storm door and stain it. Commissioner Yager noted that through her research on the subject she learned that polyurethane finish over the stain is not recommended as it cannot withstand the elements and will eventually peel. Mr. Brady stated that he is aware of this and will use an appropriate marine varnish intended for an application such as this. Commissioner Yager asked if the new door has hardware on it that Mr. Brady intends to re-use. Mr. Brady stated that it does not and that he could take the hardware off of the existing door and use it, but that it is in a fairly bad state of disrepair. He added that he has a collection of appropriate hardware and believes that he will find some pieces that are historically appropriate and in good shape. Commissioner Britt stated that she would prefer a simple design for the hardware. The Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Britt asked the other Commissioners if they felt that the hardware should be specified in the decision. Commissioner Wiles stated that if the Commissioners believe it is significant enough that they need to exactly specify the hardware then they can, or they may simply state that the applicant may use historically appropriate hardware of his choice. The Commissioners agreed that they were comfortable leaving the specific design up to Mr. Brady. Commissioner Wiles asked if the hardware would be brass or aluminum. Mr. Brady stated that he would most likely choose brass, but would be happy to use whatever the Commission approved. Commissioner Wiles stated that he did not have a definite opinion, but would most likely lean towards brass. The Commissioners concurred. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 2 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve the application to replace the storm door to fit the original opening and remove the wood that was added to retrofit the opening, with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The replacement door will be refinished and sealed with a product appropriate for this application. 3. The replacement door will be fitted with simple brass hardware. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. There is currently a storm door on the doorway but it does not fit the original dimensions of the space. The applicant was able to find an appropriate replacement door that fits the original opening and will allow for the removal of the additional wood added to retrofit the doorway. This will result in a significant aesthetic improvement to the property. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by Richard Unger on behalf of St. George’s Episcopal Church to remove and replace three trees with four new trees. The premise is located at 30 North Ferry Street. Richard Unger appeared before the Commission. He explained that the church would like to remove and replace four trees. He stated that the trees are Norway Maples that are at the end of their lifespan; he noted that they have all been hit by lightning and are ant-infested, and that a large limb from one of the trees recently fell on to the sidewalk in front of the church. He stated that the church would like to have the trees removed by early November. Mr. Unger next distributed an addendum to the original application, noting some necessary changes to the proposal that had come to light since the initial application was submitted. First, he explained that the trees proposed for planting are of the variety Red Sunset instead of the proposed Autumn Blaze. He explained that the Red Sunset shares the same characteristics of the Autumn Blaze – it is a hybrid of the Sugar Maple and Silver Maple, it is seedless, and its plant zone, height, canopy, shape, life expectancy, and color characteristics are the same. Second, he noted that the largest caliper that they have been able to find at this time is 2 to 2 ½ inches, which is what they are now proposing to install this fall. Commissioner Yager asked if they would be able to wait and see if larger caliper trees would become available. Mr. Under replied that they could, but that they would prefer to plant the smaller trees now and allow them a chance to become established prior to the winter. He noted that if planted now they will most likely be 3 ½ to 4 inches in Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 3 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 caliper within a year. Lastly, Mr. Unger explained that the current proposal is to plant only the three trees shown closest to the sidewalk at this time. He stated that their landscaper has advised against planting the fourth tree closest to the cemetery as its roots would be very close to the headstones and grave sites and might risk disturbing them. Mr. Unger noted that they most likely would decide to replace the fourth tree with a smaller, decorative understory tree, but that this decision has not been finalized yet. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Unger if the church has already obtained permission to remove the existing trees. Mr. Unger stated that they have. Commissioner Lowry commented that he lives across the street from the church and can attest that the current trees have become not only unsightly but dangerous, and he would support removing them. Commissioner Bennett asked if the canopy of the new trees will block the view of the church. Mr. Unger replied that as they grow they will be pruned to ensure that the canopy is high enough to allow for the view of the church from the street. He stated that they want people to be able to walk under the trees, and for the lawn to survive, so they have already discussed this maintenance with their landscaper. Commissioner Bennett asked if the trees will be far enough from the sidewalk to prevent the roots from damaging it. Mr. Unger replied that this has been taken into consideration, and the trees will be set back ten to fifteen feet from the sidewalk. Commissioner Bennett noted that he supported the idea of not planting the fourth tree or the alternative of planting a smaller decorative tree, explaining that he believes that a larger fourth tree would leave the site looking too cluttered. Commissioner Yager stated that in order to gather further information about the proposed trees she had contacted the arboretum. She explained that they had noted that this particular tree can be fragile and needs regular trimming, as well having roots that come close to the surface. She also noted that the arboretum told her that these trees may also eventually need to be cabled. Mr. Unger stated that they are aware of these characteristics but feel that they are acceptable trade-offs for the more desirable traits of the trees. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Unger if the church would be willing to submit a letter for the Department of Development property file stating the species of the removed trees, their circumference at breast height, and a count of the number of rings in each tree. Mr. Unger stated that they certainly would be willing to try, but that he is concerned about the ring count since the trees may be hollow in some places. Commissioner Wiles stated that he understands that a ring count may be difficult or impossible, but any attempt to record the number would be appreciated. Commissioner Britt agreed. Commissioner Wiles noted that they may be able to get close to figuring out the actual age of the tree, which may help in future research into the types of plantings that were done at different times in the Stockade. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 4 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Unger if the church is seeking approval of the fourth, smaller tree as a part of this application. Mr. Unger said that they would appreciate the Commission being flexible enough to allow the fourth tree with the species to be determined at a later date. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve the application to remove three trees and replace them with four new trees as submitted with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The identity of the trees has been changed from Autumn Blaze to Red Sunset. Both are a hybrid cross of a Silver Maple and a Sugar Maple, and share similar characteristics. 3. The caliper of the trees will be 2 to 2 ½ inches. 4. The original application called for the planting of four new trees. The modified application being approved is for the planting of three Red Sunset trees along the fence side of the property, as shown in the application. 5. The fourth tree, shown near the cemetery in the application, will not be a Red Sunset, but may be a smaller, decorative understory tree should the church decide to plant it sometime in the future. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The church representative has stated that the trees will be pruned regularly, both for the health of the trees and to maintain the existing view of the church from the street. 3. The church representative has agreed to provide a letter for the property file noting the species of the existing trees, their circumference at breast height before removal, and if possible a count of the rings of the trees once they are cut down. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration for approval submitted by 508 Union St., LLC to remove storm windows; restore and paint existing wood windows, exterior doors and cornices; restore masonry façade; remove awning at side entry; replace a portion of the roof. The premise is located at 508 Union Street. Tony Ward appeared before the Commission. Mr. Ward noted that he had appeared before the Commission for a preliminary review of this property several months ago, and that a large amount of the restoration work is now underway. He noted that the only project on the building that is not in-kind work is the roof, which will be finished with a different surface than currently exists. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 5 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 Mr. Ward briefly reviewed the work that has been undertaken on the building thus far. He stated that the metal cornice and wood eaves have been repaired, and all of the brick work has been structurally restored and re-pointed. Commissioner Britt asked what the condition of the brick was once the vines were all removed from the surface of the building. Mr. Ward replied that it was not good and that the brick had separated from the surface behind it and there had been extensive water damage inside the building. He stated that they have been working with a structural engineer to secure the brick back to the underlayment, and that the work has cost in excess of $30,000. He noted that it is now completely stable and the brick has been cleaned and re-pointed. Commissioner Yager noted that if the natural wood doors are refinished a polyurethane product should not be used, due to the potential problems with peeling. Mr. Ward stated that structurally the doors are in very good shape, and they plan to remove them, replace the front veneer with new mahogany and clean the existing hardware. He noted that they would be sealed with the appropriate marine varnish. Commissioner Yager asked Mr. Ward is he intends to replace the awning over the door, or the aluminum storm windows. Mr. Ward stated that the awning and windows have already been removed, and that he has no intention of replacing the aluminum windows, but that at sometime in the future a tenant may request that the awning be replaced. Commissioner Britt noted that should they decide to replace the awning with anything other than what was there they would need to return to the Commission for review of the replacement. Commissioner Britt noted that she appreciated the time and attention being given to the restoration of the building. The Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Britt stated that the discussion should center on the changes to the roof, as this is the portion of the work that is not in-kind and thus falls under the purview of the Commission. Mr. Ward noted that the existing roof contains asbestos, so proper abatement procedures will be followed. He noted that they have applied for state and federal tax credits to help off-set the costs of the rehabilitation of the building, as well as seeking funding from other sources. Commissioner Wiles asked if they had received the necessary approvals from the State Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Ward responded that they have not yet, but that he is scheduled to meet with SHPO the week of October 24th, and that he has been working with them extensively to this point so he feels confident that they are moving towards the necessary approvals. Commissioner Britt asked if the replacement roof will be an EPDM membrane material. Mr. Ward responded that this is the product that he is proposing to use. He explained that the roof currently has three different surfaces: metal, shingle, and membrane. He stated that the new proposed material will be a gray single-ply membrane. Commissioner Wiles asked if they plan to wait to repair the roof until they find out exactly what the extent of the tax credits will be. Mr. Ward replied that they are confident that they will receive some credits, and that if they wanted to Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 6 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 cut costs they are allowed to choose not to remove the asbestos roof and instead cover over it, however they have decided that they would prefer to remove the asbestos and ensure that the new roof is of the highest possible quality, despite the higher cost. Commissioner Britt stated that essentially the part of the application under the jurisdiction of the Commission is the replacement of non-original asphalt shingle roof with EPDM, which is the most common roofing material used today on surfaces like this one. Commissioner Wiles noted that his only reservation about approving the project at this time is that he does not want to imply that SHPO must approve the project because the Commission did. Mr. Ward stated that he would be amenable to an HDC approval contingent on SHPO approval. The Commissioners agreed that they would be comfortable moving forward in this direction. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve the application to replace the existing roof surfaces with a gray single-ply EPDM membrane roof with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. While there was extensive information in the application regarding other restoration and repair to the building, the only element described there-in that is under the jurisdiction of the Commission is the replacement of the roof, which is approved as submitted. 3. The aluminum storm windows and awning on the building have already been removed. If in the future the applicants wish to install a new awning or make any changes or additions to the existing wood windows they must return to the Commission for review. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The Commission is aware that there are pending applications for state and federal tax credits which are currently under SHPO review. That review proceeds independently from this approval process. Motion passed unanimously. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Christine Galvin to replace the front steps. The premise is located at 105 Front St. This application was not considered as the applicant failed to appear at the meeting. E. Consideration for approval submitted by Andrew Pivaceh on behalf of Doug Griset to replace the front steps and railing. The premise is located at 1132 Adams Road. Doug Griset, owner of the property, and Andrew Pivaceh, the contractor who is doing the work, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Griset explained that the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 7 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 current front walk and steps were there when he and his wife bought the home in 1975, and that they have repaired the several times over the years but need to be replaced at this time. He noted that he and his wife are the second owners of the home, and while they believe that the existing steps and walkway are not original to the house they have not been able to find any photographic evidence of what was originally there. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Griset if he believes that the stairs were originally wood. Mr. Griset stated that he does, because most of the exterior of the house is wood so he doubts that they would have introduced a different material. Commissioner Yager asked if he has checked the Historical Society for pictures of the façade. Mr. Griset stated that he has and that they did not have any photos showing the steps. Commissioner Britt noted that MiSci also has a collection of photos of GE Realty Plot homes. Mr. Griset stated that he had not contacted MiSci, but he noted that most of the historical pictures of his home are of the inside, because this house is where the first reception of a television broadcast in the United States took place. Commissioner Britt asked why they are proposing wood railings, as iron railings are currently in place. Mr. Griset stated that he feels that wood would provide the most stability and be the easiest to grip when using the stairs. Commissioner Britt noted that historically there would not have been a railing, as none was required by code, and that most railings added later to houses in the Plot were simple pipe railings. She asked Mr. Griset if he is set on using wood. Mr. Griset replied that he would be willing to use whatever material the Commission feels would be most appropriate. Commissioner Britt stated that she believes that pipe railings were used because they appeared to be the least obtrusive. Commission Wiles commented that he believes that the pipe railings were an aesthetic choice, since they could easily be manipulated in many ways. Mr. Pivaceh stated that because there are so many different styles of wood trim used on the front porch he believes that metal railings would be the best choice, so as not to add another conflicting wood element. Commissioner Britt stated that she would prefer wood given the style of the house, but asked if the Commissioners had any objection to leaving the choice of material up to the applicant. The Commissioners indicated that they would not. Commissioner Britt stated that she would propose giving the applicants the option of using wood in a style similar to that found elsewhere on the porch, iron similar to what currently exists, or a pipe railing. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Yager commented that iron or pipe would require less maintenance on the part of the applicant. Commissioner Britt asked if the applicants had chosen a specific paver for the front walk that they would be able to submit to the Commission for review. Mr. Griset stated that they would be willing to do so. Commissioner Wiles stated that he believes that it is sufficient to generally describe in the decision the color and size of the approved material. Commissioner Britt agreed, and asked the applicants if the pattern of the pavers would be geometric, as opposed to random. Mr. Pivaceh Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 8 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 stated that it would be a regular, geometric pattern similar to those shown in the sample photos provided. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Griset his opinion on using the existing railing or one very similar to it. Mr. Griset stated that he is hesitant because it is very thin and he feels it is difficult to grip well. Mr. Pivaceh commented that they could use a similar railing with a thicker top handle which would be easier to grasp. Commissioner Wiles stated that the Commission can approve that a pipe railing, metal railing, or wood railing would be acceptable. Mr. Griset asked if they would be required to come back for further review after they decide on a railing material. Commissioner Wiles stated that they would not, unless what they decide to use is very different from the alternatives discussed at the meeting. Mr. Griset stated that he would be amenable to this. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to approve the application to replace the front steps, railing, and front walk as submitted, with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The wood steps are accepted as proposed on the application. The railing for the steps will either mimic the existing railing, be constructed of wood in a style similar to that used elsewhere on the porch, or be constructed of a simple metal similar to a pipe railing. 3. The front walk will consist of pavers laid in a regular geometric pattern similar to the example photos provided in the application materials. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. There are no known photos or other documentation illustrating the original front steps. However, wood was a very commonly used material for front steps both in this area and at the time of the construction of the house. It is also the primary material of the exterior of this home. 3. At the time when the house was constructed railings were not required or generally used on steps, thus they have appeared over time in a variety of different configurations and designs. Motion carried unanimously. F. Consideration for approval submitted by George Gordon to partially demolish the garage. The premise is located at 31 N. College Street. George and Elaine Gordon appeared before the Commission. Mr. Gordon noted that in August they had received approval from the Commission to replace the exterior wall on their garage because it was not originally meant to be an exterior wall and was failing. Mrs. Gordon distributed and reviewed a statement explaining what has transpired since. She stated that when they obtained their permit from the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 9 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 city to take down the wall they were told to call the Inspector after the wall was removed so that the site could be inspected. She explained that when he conducted the inspection, the Inspector stated that the wall to be constructed to replace the wall that was removed would require new footings and foundation. He also stated that the back wall would also have to be replaced, with new footings and foundation to be installed there as well. Mrs. Gordon stated that in order to accomplish this the digging and preparation would encroach on the neighbor’s property. She explained that it was also noted that the roof rafters, which are 2 by 6 and 2 foot on center, are not in good shape and would have to be addressed, as some of them have split and cracked over the years. Mrs. Gordon noted that she and Mr. Gordon feel that the cost of replacing the garage is not only unaffordable but also impractical. She stated that the Inspector also stated that it would be more feasible to tear it down. Commissioner Britt asked Assistant Planner Shamieh if there is any written report of the Inspector’s visit to the property. Ms. Shamieh stated that there is a file for the property in the Inspector’s office but unless a citation was written or a formal letter was sent regarding the property there would be no reason for a written report of a site visit. Commissioner Britt stated that her concern regarding this project stems from the fact that the Commission would essentially be approving a demolition, which sets a precedent. Ms. Shamieh reviewed the section of the code regarding demolitions for the Commissioners. She noted that the applicants can go to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a hardship appeal if the reason why they cannot repair the garage is financial, but issues of whether or not an applicant can afford to repair a property is not a concern of the Commission, nor is it under their purview. Commissioner Britt asked Mr. Gordon if he knows when the garage was constructed. Mr. Gordon replied that it most likely dates from the early 1900’s, but he is not sure of an exact date. Commissioner Wiles commented that the exterior wall, which was failing and was removed, was not originally meant to be an exterior wall, so the original intent of the builders is not what is left. Mrs. Gordon distributed a photo of the garages taken when she and her husband originally purchased the building over thirty years ago. The photo shows the original attached garage of the two neighbors. Commissioner Britt commented that the argument could be made that the building was compromised by the previously approved demolition. Commissioner Yager asked what the condition is of the portion of the garage that remains. Mr. Gordon stated that as previously noted the rafters are not in good shape, but that they will be able to use some of the wood used from taking down the portion of the garage to sister the rafters and stabilize them. Commissioner Wiles asked the applicants how one would enter the portion of the garage that would remain if the other portion is removed. Mr. Gordon explained that there is a door at the rear of the storage room. Commissioner Britt stated that Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 10 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 she remained uncomfortable with approving a demolition when the reasons given for not repairing the garage are mostly financial. Commissioner Bennett stated that he is concerned about the resulting break in the street wall if the garage is removed. He commented that removing buildings in this manner often leaves a streetscape appearing to have a knocked out tooth, which can draw the eye and be noticeably unattractive. Mr. Gordon commented that they would be willing to make the space attractive with landscaping and a wall at the back edge of the space. Commissioner Britt stated that she keeps coming back to the hardship appeal because it is not under the Commission’s purview to consider financial concerns. Commissioner Bennett asked her to elaborate. Commissioner Britt explained that what is unaffordable is relative to different property owners, so there is a provision in the code to allow applicants to appeal to the BZA if they are not willing or able to comply with the HDC decision due to financial concerns. Mr. Gordon stated that he believes that the portion of the garage that remains is not historically significant and the wall has already been removed. Commissioner Lowry noted the argument could be made that the demolition of the wall created the current situation and thus a full demolition has become necessary. Commissioner Britt agreed, but noted that Commissioner Bennett’s earlier point regarding maintaining the street wall is a significant concern. Commissioner Lowry agreed. Mrs. Gordon noted that building a wall even with the end of the storage space at the rear of the parking area would partially address the street wall concern, as the view into the private yard space would be blocked. Commissioner Britt noted that stockade fence, which is used on the perimeter of the property, could also be used. Commissioner Wiles stated that he believes that the discussion is placing too much emphasis on the idea of demolition when in fact what is taking place is the necessary modification of the building due to an earlier attempted repair. He asked the applicants if they could move the garage wall three feet away from the property line so as not to encroach on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Gordon stated that the remaining space would still not be a garage, as there would not be enough room to fit a car in it. Mrs. Gordon stated that although there might appear from the exterior view to be room, there is an interior wall which would prevent a car from fitting. She noted that if the proposal is approved and the portion of the garage to that interior wall is removed, there would be room for a parking space in the area where the garage once stood. Commissioner Bennett asked if it would be feasible to build a new freestanding garage in the space. Mr. Gordon replied that it would not fit in the space. Ms. Shamieh suggested the idea of removing the old garage and the storage space that they are proposing to keep and building a new garage in the space, set back from the neighbor’s property. Mrs. Gordon stated that the she believes that the storage area and the room that it attaches to are historically significant and should not be removed or compromised. Commissioner Lowry noted that an alternative would be to remove the interior wall between the existing storage area and garage and shift the garage away from the neighbor’s property Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 11 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 line. Mr. Gordon responded that the amount of work necessary to do so would be financially unfeasible. Commissioner Britt noted that she empathizes with the situation of the applicants, especially since a portion of the garage has already been taken down. Commissioner Wiles noted that the demolition of the wall was approved and permitted. Commissioner Lowry stated that he supports the idea that any decisions dealing with financial issues should be handled by the BZA. Commissioner Britt noted that when demolition is considered it should involve imminent danger and a plan for new construction, however she acknowledged that this case is more complicated due to the space constraints and the wall having already been removed. She went on to state that she believes that this decision could still set a precedent and thus must be considered very carefully. Commissioner Craven questioned why, if the neighbor’s demolition of his garage is what initially caused this problem, the neighbor could not be held liable for the situation. Ms. Shamieh replied that this might be the case, but because the demolition of the neighbor’s garage happened so long ago it would be hard to prove the case that the demolition ultimately caused the wall failure and the ensuing problems. Commissioner Britt stated that if the reason for not carrying out the initial approved application is overwhelmingly financial the application it should ultimately be considered by the BZA. Commissioner Lowry agreed. Mrs. Gordon stated that the reason the current situation exists is due to the neighbor’s removal of their garage, which was beyond their control. Commissioner Britt agreed, but noted that the main reason that they are providing for not carrying out the previously approved plan is monetary. Mr. Gordon asked what would happen if the garage is left in its current condition over the winter and ultimately falls down. Ms. Shamieh stated that in that case they would be required to rebuild the garage. Commissioner Britt asked Ms. Shamieh when the BZA next meets. Ms. Shamieh replied that the next meeting would be in approximately three weeks. Commissioner Craven asked Ms. Shamieh is there is any chance for a building code waiver being allowed for an historical property such as this one. Ms. Shamieh noted that New York City does have specific building codes for historical properties, but she is unaware of any special provisions allowed in Schenectady. She noted that she can speak to the building inspector for further information. Commissioner Wiles stated that he believes that the discussion is still stuck on the idea of demolition when it doesn’t have to be. He explained that if they took the entire rear of the structure down that would be a demolition, but if they are simply modifying the end of the building and redeveloping the space it is a different issue. He noted that there must be a plan for developing the space to make it attractive and appropriate, such as adding a window to the new blank exterior wall, adding landscaping around the space, and perhaps constructing a wall or fence to properly screen the yard. Mrs. Gordon stated that they would be happy to do this, perhaps Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 12 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 even constructing a wall from the cement blocks that were removed form the garage wall. Commissioner Britt noted that the downside of the BZA financial hardship process is that if the demolition is approved by the BZA the property is essentially out of the purview of the HDC. Ms. Shamieh noted that the applicants would be required to come back to the Commission for approval of what they would propose to put in place of the garage. Commissioner Wiles disagreed, stating that if he was representing the applicants he would argue that any further redevelopment would be a financial hardship and thus they should not have to do anything further with the site. Commissioner Wiles stated that treating the application as if it is not a demolition but a modification of the previous approval provides the opportunity for a dialogue about what will be installed in place of the garage. Commissioner Britt agreed, stating that she still believes that a case could be made for the financial hardship route, but in this case there is a previous HDC approval that is being modified due to unforeseen circumstances. Commissioner Yager asked if the applicants should resubmit their application showing their plans for the new space based on the discussion at the meeting. Commissioner Britt stated that they could allow the applicants to take down the rest of the garage and return with a plan for the new space. Commissioner Lowry stated that in this case they would just be approving a demolition. Commissioner Britt noted that the Commission could allow the revision to the original approval to take down the garage conditional on them coming back with a new plan for the space. Commissioner Wiles noted that they would be required to return with a plan for the space. Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that according to the code a new plan should be in place prior to allowing any demolition. Commissioner Craven noted that one wall has already been removed and time is of the essence. Commissioner Wiles suggested that the application be tabled until the November meeting when the applicants can return with a new proposal. The Commissioners agreed that this would be the best option. Commissioner Bennett suggested that the applicants could consider continuing the stockade fence at the sidewalk and installing a gate to shield the parking space and protect the street wall. Commissioner Britt agreed that this might be a good alternative, as the street wall is a very important feature of the streetscape in this area. The Gordons agreed to develop the plan for the space and return to the November meeting. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to table the proposal until the November 2016 HDC meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 13 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 A. Pre-application meeting with First Reformed Church regarding alterations and additions to the Annex and Poling Buildings. The premise is located at 8 N. Church Street. Brandon Stabler and Sarah Raymond of Mesick Cohen Wilson Baker Architects presented the proposal for discussion. Mr. Stabler explained that they are seeking feedback from the Commissioners regarding the project and any potential problems that they might see so that they may be addressed prior to the formal application being made. Ms. Shamieh stated that she urged the applicants to come in for the informal discussion due to the nature and scale of the project. Ms. Raymond reviewed the plans and explained that the majority of the work will be interior renovations and will include upgrading insulation and fire protection. She noted that the proposed exterior renovations are mostly due to ADA compliance. She explained that the current handicap ramp does not meet code and thus the new hallway addition to house the handicap ramp is being proposed. Ms. Raymond stated that another large portion of the exterior work is the roofline modification to correct the symmetrical appearance of the third story, which had previously been modified after a fire in 1946, and add slate to better delineate the roofline. Commissioner Britt noted that she likes the idea of adding the slate even though it was not originally used in this portion of the building. The Commissioners agreed. The Commissioners and the applicants discussed potential finishes and materials for the new additions, and the idea that new additions should not necessarily be made to appear to have been original but should speak to the fact that they are later construction. They also reviewed the overall design of the plan and how the modifications to the buildings relate to the functionality of the church. Commissioner Britt asked that the applicants include material and finish samples with their formal application. Commissioner Wiles noted that it would be helpful if the application included a written narrative explaining the church’s reasons for the proposed additions and modifications and how they will support the church’s functions moving forward. The applicants agreed that they will make these elements a part of their upcoming application. B. Invitation to submit comments regarding the Union College Special Use Permit application for new tennis court lighting. The project site is located on Union Avenue across the street from the Union Triangle Historic District. Assistant Planner Shamieh explained that because the tennis court project borders an historic district the Commission is an interested party and invited to submit comments regarding the application. Commissioner Craven asked if the neighboring residents will receive letters informing them of the application. Ms. Shamieh stated that they would. Commissioner Yager asked if it is known if the light would be cool or warm light. Ms. Shamieh stated that she did not know. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 14 of 15  APPROVED 11/28/16 Commissioner Britt stated that typically sports lights are meant to imitate daylight. The Commissioners concluded that they had no objections to the proposal and did not offer any comments at this time. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Britt, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –October 17, 2016 –Page 15 of 15