Historic Resource Commission

APPROVED 1/17/17 Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wiles called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Commissioner Wiles noted that due to the excused absence of the Chair, Commissioner Britt, he would be chairing the meeting. Commissioner Wiles explained to the public that there would be only four Commissioners present at the meeting, which is the number of Commissioners that is required to be present for a quorum and the number of votes that is required to approve an application. He explained further that if any of the applicants were uncomfortable with this they were welcome to have their application be considered at another meeting when more Commissioners would be present. He stated that if at any time during the consideration of their application an applicant should feel that they would prefer to stop the discussion and wait for a future meeting they would be welcome to do so. Commissioner Wiles also noted that during the consideration of a proposal if a Commissioner should decide that he or she would like to here the opinion of an absent Commissioner on a particular application they may decide to abstain from a vote on the application, which would then require that the application be considered at a future date. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; Mark Meigher; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry STAFF: Rima Shamieh, Assistant Planner; Ryan Bailey, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Yager, seconded by Commissioner Meigher, to adopt the November 28, 2016 Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS - Applications Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 1 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 A. Consideration for approval submitted by Edwin Rueda to remove two trees. The premise is located at 1091 Wendell Avenue. Edwin Rueda appeared before the Commission. He explained that there are two large Norway maple trees on the edge of his property, directly next to his garage, that are decaying and in danger of falling on his or his neighbor’s garage. He explained that the section of land where they are growing is approximately four feet by fifteen feet and they do not appear to have been planted there intentionally. Mr. Rueda noted that the roots of one of the trees are damaging his driveway, and may also eventually damage the slab foundation of his garage and his neighbor’s driveway as well. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Rueda for more information regarding the location of the trees on the property. Mr. Rueda explained that they are on a thin sliver of land between his and his neighbor’s property, towards the rear portion of the yard. Commissioner Wiles asked if there are other trees on the property. Mr. Rueda responded that one tree on the Wendell Avenue side of the property, one on the Union Avenue side, and one small decorative Japanese maple that he planted recently. Commissioner Meigher asked if there are other trees behind those targeted for removal. Mr. Rueda replied that there are some smaller evergreen trees behind them. Commissioner Meigher asked if the evergreens will be visible after the Norway Maples are removed. Mr. Rueda stated that they will be. Commissioner Wiles asked if the evergreen trees belong to the applicant. Mr. Rueda stated that they are on the rear property line, and that he would need to look at a survey to determine if they are in fact his or the neighbor’s. Commissioner Yager asked Mr. Rueda if there is space on the property for another tree to be planted. Mr. Rueda stated that he does not believe that there is sufficient room, given the three other trees that are already growing in the yard. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Meigher, to approve the application to remove two Norway maple trees located adjacent to the garage as submitted with the following condition: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. Norway maple trees are considered an invasive species that often have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. These particular trees are located in a space where they were most likely not intentionally planted, are in poor condition, and have the potential to damage nearby buildings and driveways. 3. The small portion of land where the trees are located is not conducive to planting new trees. There are three other trees in other locations on the property. Motion carried unanimously. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 2 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 B. Consideration for approval submitted by Lynn Carman Bodden and Peter JB Carman to replace the fence. The premise is located at 29 Front Street. Lynn Carman Bodden and Peter JB Carman appeared before the Commission. Mr. Carman explained that in August of 2016 a large limb of the silver maple tree that had been located in the front yard fell to the ground and damaged a large portion of the picket fence. He stated that the new fence will be located where the old fence was, and will be stained white to match the trim of the house. Commissioner Wiles stated that the assessment photo shows the fence going around the corner. Mr. Carman stated that it did and will be replaced that way, but since the damage the rest of the fence was removed and is being stored behind the house. Commissioner Wiles asked for further information about the tree. Mr. Carman responded that it was a large silver maple tree that was rotted and had to be removed. Commissioner Wiles asked if the tree has already been taken down. Mr. Carman stated that it was removed soon after the limb fell as it was in imminent danger of causing more damage. Mr. Carman stated that they are replacing the fence in the same location except that they are proposing to add a gate by the driveway, which hardware on the old fence indicated might have existed previously. Commissioner Wiles asked if the old fence had posts every eight feet. Mr. Carman stated that they were approximately every nine to ten feet, and that the new fence can be customized to match this configuration. He noted that the height will be the same at four feet. Commissioner Wiles asked if the fence will be on level ground. Mr. Carman responded that the ground underneath the fence varies slightly but that the fence will be as level as possible. Commissioner Wiles asked if the fence is to keep children or pets in the yard or if it is primarily decorative. Mr. Carman stated that it is decorative. Commissioner Wiles asked if the applicants would object to a condition of approval stating that the fence must be kept as level as possible. Ms. Bodden stated that they would not. Commissioner Bennett asked the applicants if they were aware if the tree was intentionally planted. Mr. Carman stated that they did not know if it was, but that it had grown way too big for the space. Commissioner Bennett stated that he feels that the property looks much better without the tree, as the space has been opened up and the house is much more visible. Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that silver maples are discouraged in urban environments because they grow very large very quickly and are not strong trees and thus are prone to losing limbs. Commissioner Wiles asked the applicants if they would have any objection to planting a street tree at the front of the property. Mr. Carman stated that they would not, adding that there had previously been a street tree that had been removed by the city. Ms. Shamieh stated that they should contact OGS or Retree Schenectady for information regarding the appropriate tree to plant. Ms. Shamieh noted that the style of the proposed fence is different from the previous picket fence, particularly as it is articulated by larger capped posts. Commissioner Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 3 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 Bennett asked the applicants why they chose this particular style of fence. Ms. Bodden stated that they preferred this style over the plain picket style, mostly due to the size and spacing of the individual slats. Mr. Carman noted that in historical photos dated prior to the assessment photo the fence is an iron fence, and not the picket style. Commissioner Bennett stated that he would make a motion to approve the application. Commissioner Meigher stated that he wanted to discuss the style of the fence further, as he felt that it was very different from the previous picket style. Commissioner Bennett agreed, stating that the fence definitely has a more contemporary feel. He commented that he understood why the applicants chose the style and why they like it, but that he believes that it definitely has a more suburban feel to it. He added that he believes that the simple white picket fence would be more appropriate for the style and era of the house. Commissioner Wiles noted that the style chosen by the applicants also has a heavy bottom rail, which is smaller and not as visible on the traditional picket style. Commissioner Meigher stated that the fence proposed looks to him to be more of a craftsman style, and not as appropriate with the house as a simple picket is. Mr. Carman pointed out in a brochure other styles of fence, including a more traditional picket style, offered by the manufacturer they wish to use, who is located in Slingerlands. Commissioner Wiles asked Commissioner Meigher to elaborate on what he bothered him about the proposed style. Commissioner Meigher responded that he believes that the style is completely different from the previous picket, not only due to the size and spacing of the slats, but also because of the larger capped post and heavy bottom rail. He explained that while the picket fence might not have been the original fence, it was what was there for a very long time. Ms. Shamieh reminded the Commissioners that they should consider what is historically appropriate for the property. Commissioner Bennett stated that he understood Commissioner Meigher’s concerns and that to some degree he shared them. Commissioner Bennett asked the applicants if they initially chose the new fence style because it would let in more light. Mr. Bodden stated that they had. Commissioner Bennett asked if they had considered the picket style shown in the brochure. Ms. Bodden stated that they had, and that this was their second choice if the first was not approved. Commissioner Bennett stated that he would approve of the more traditional picket style, labeled as C401 in the brochure. Commissioner Meigher agreed. Commissioner Wiles asked the applicants if they would be willing to use this style if the Commission specified it in their approval. Mr. Carman stated that they would. He added that the only problem would be if the C401 style has rounded pickets, which they do not want to use and thus would have to find another style with flat pickets. The Commissioners agreed that they would support this proposal. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to approve the application to replace the fence in the same location as previously existed as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 4 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 2. The style of the new fence will match that of C401 in the submitted brochure from Long Lumber and Supply Corp., and will have a traditional picket style with rectangular, not rounded, pickets. 3. The fence will be as level as possible. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The applicants stated that they wish to use a flat, rather than a rounded, picket style. If the C401 style provided has a rounded picket the applicant will choose a similar style with a flat-sided rectangular picket. 3. The Commissioners and the applicants examined the brochure showing approximately ten different fence styles available from the manufacturer that the applicants wish to use and worked together to agree on the C401 style, with the intent that it will produce an appropriate traditional picket look. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration for approval submitted by Lisa Borg and Amol Kapur to install handrails. The premise is located at 3 Front Street. Lisa Borg and Amol Kapur appeared before the Commission. Prior to the beginning of their presentation Assistant Planner Shamieh briefly reviewed her staff notes on the property, explaining that an application had been filed for this property for the same issue earlier in the year, but the owner passed away before the application was considered. She stated that Ms. Borg and Mr. Kapur are the new owners of the property, and are also having a problem with the front steps. Ms. Borg explained that the landing is very small and when the storm door is opened, which opens out, the person entering has to step back onto the very narrow first step. She stated that it is very easy to lose one’s balance and fall off the side of the landing, as she has already done twice herself. Thus she explained that they would like to install two handrails to the sides of the stairs to try and mitigate the dangerous situation. Commissioner Yager asked if it is feasible to attach the railing to the landing overhang and siding on the house as shown on the photo. Ms. Borg stated that she composed the photo simply as an example, but would have to let the professional contractor decide exactly where it is safest to attach the railings. She added that she does not believe it feasible to attach them to the door frame because it is too narrow. Ms. Shamieh asked if at some point they plan on changing the front steps and landing. Mr. Kapur stated that they would like to eventually, but at some time in the future. Commissioner Yager stated that she believes it should be left up to a professional to decide where exactly to place the railings, since if they were attached somewhere where they could easily loosen or come out it would make the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 5 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 situation even more dangerous. Commissioner Bennett asked the applicants if they know what is behind the siding. Ms. Borg responded that they know that there is wood there, and that there is an interior wall perpendicular to the entrance area, but that they are not certain where the studs are located. Commissioner Wiles asked the applicants why they chose two railings instead of one. Ms. Borg stated that when she looked at similar styles of homes in the Stockade most that had railings had two, but that they would be willing to have only one if the Commission felt it more appropriate. Commissioner Yager stated that if there is a safety concern she believes that two would be better. Mr. Kapur and the Commissioners agreed. Mr. Kapur stated that perhaps the contractor could attach the railing to the house with a split anchor which would be located directly on the studs. Commissioner Wiles agreed, stating that he has confidence that a professional contractor will properly attach the railing so that it is safe. He asked the applicants if they are proposing the exact railing style shown in the picture. Ms. Borg stated that they are, explaining that she had seen a very similar style elsewhere in the Stockade and she thought that the clean and simple design would be appropriate. She noted that they will be having the railing custom fabricated, so that it will be made to their specifications. Commissioner Meigher stated that he has concerns about the spacing of the posts on the proposed design as compared to the other example provided in the application. He stated that the example shows posts much more closely spaced, while the mock-up of the applicants’ steps shows them much farther apart. Mr. Kapur stated that the number of post would be dictated by where they can be attached to the steps, but that they would be evenly spaced. Ms. Shamieh stated that there is very likely a building code stating how the posts must be spaced. Commissioner Wiles asked if the applicants knew the exact measurements of the porch. Ms. Borg stated that they did not. Commissioner Wiles suggested that often porch railings will have a top and bottom rail, with the posts attached in between, and the railings would them only have to be attached to the steps at the top and bottom. The applicants and Commissioners concurred that this would be the best solution for how to attach the railings to the steps. Commissioner Wiles stated that the concern is that the post be evenly spaced and have a regular rhythm, and this design would ensure that this was possible. The Commissioners agreed. Motion by Commissioner Meigher, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to approve the application to install two porch railings on the front stoop of the home as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The railings will have no more than six posts or balusters on each railing and no less than three. The balusters will be evenly spaced on each railing. 3. The railings will have a bottom and top rail, so that the balusters will be attached to the railing and the railings will be attached to the steps only on Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 6 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 the top and bottom of the steps. Each individual baluster will not be attached to the steps. 4. The railing will be a simple black iron railing in the style shown in the photo submitted with the application. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The situation created by the small porch landing and narrow steps is a chronic problem and possibly dangerous for those trying to enter the front door. The Commissioners and the applicants worked together to find the best possible solution to address the problem. Motion carried unanimously. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Jaime Pastiglione of 214 Union Street and Michael and Kelly Burns of 212 Union Street to remove tree partially straddling the property line. The premise is primarily located at 214 Union Street. Jaime Pastiglione and Michael Burns appeared before the Commission. Mr. Burns explained that the two properties share a driveway which splits into two at the rear of the property. He stated that where the driveway splits there is a very large black walnut tree which has reached the end of its lifespan and has become very dangerous. Ms. Pastiglione stated that large limbs have fallen from the tree, and that the large number of walnuts that fall from it have damaged cars and other personal property, and have even injured people. She also noted that the roots of the tree are damaging the driveways. Mr. Burns stated that they have spoken to several different tree service contractors who stated that if they were to cut the tree back it would simply grow out in the same manner again, and eventually cause the same problems. Commissioner Yager stated that she is concerned about the loss of a tree in the space, and asked if the applicants if they would be willing to replace it. Mr. Burns replied that there is a large area of green space directly behind where the tree is now located, and that they would be happy to plant another tree there. Commissioner Bennett asked if they would want to replace the tree if given the choice. Mr. Burns said that they had agreed that they would like a tree in the space, albeit one that would be a more upright shape and less of a nuisance. Commissioner Wiles asked if this is the only tree on the property. Ms. Pastiglione stated that she has two smaller flowering trees in her yard, and that the green space between the driveways has five or six large cedar trees. Commissioner Yager stated that when looking down the driveway she believes that it is important that a tree should be seen in the space. Commissioner Wiles stated Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 7 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 that the existing tree was obviously planted there intentionally, and that there are other similarly placed trees in the surrounding area. He explained that he believes that a new tree should be planted in the green space so as to support the original intent of whoever planted the walnut tree. Commissioner Yager gave to the applicants copies of some information regarding suitable urban trees that she had found in her research. Mr. Burns stated that he also had been researching what might be a suitable tree for the space. Commissioner Wiles asked the applicants if they had any objection to planting a replacement tree. The applicants replied that they did not. Commissioner Yager commented that black walnut is a very desirable wood and that the applicants might look into preserving it for sale or use. Mr. Burns stated that the tree contractor had stated that there wasn’t a long enough span to be worth selling the wood. Commissioner Wiles stated that often tree removal contractors are not aware of the value of the wood being removed, and that even an eight to nine foot span is worth preserving. He encouraged the applicants to research the topic further. Motion by Commissioner Yager, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to approve the application to remove the walnut tree between the two driveways and plant a replacement tree in the same location as submitted with the following condition: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The walnut tree that is being removed has become a danger to property and people. The Commissioners agreed to accept the removal of the tree as long as it is replaced with a tree in the same general location, as it was clearly the original intent that a tree be seen at the split in the driveway when viewed from the street. 3. An elm tree was discussed at the meeting but there are other species which might also be appropriate. The applicants will work together to choose a tree that will grow to a suitable size and shape and will achieve the goal of filling the space without becoming a danger or nuisance. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Assistant Planner Shamieh stated that an email had been circulated to staff and Commissioner Britt from Jackie Mancini, Director of Development explaining that HDC Meetings may no longer extend past 10 p.m. due to staffing and safety concerns. Ms. Shamieh also noted that she and some of the Commissioners had received an email soliciting suggestions for topics for historic preservation conference training for 2017. She noted that she did not know why only some Commissioners had received the email but that she would distribute it to everyone and that all suggestions are welcome. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 8 of 9  APPROVED 1/17/17 Commissioner Wiles thanked the Commissioners for making motions during the meeting. Assistant Planner Shamieh reminded the Commissioners that it is important that they have evidence of specific criteria to back up their decisions so that they may not be accused of being arbitrary or unfair. She also noted that it is important that the language of the decision be very specific and that the Commissioners should not rely on the application to communicate the necessary details. In light of the recent situation on North College Street, Commissioner Yager asked Ms. Shamieh if there is any way that Building Inspectors might be able to provide written notes specific to their inspections of a property. Commissioner Yager felt notes in writing from the inspectors regarding historic property issues would be helpful, since Commissioners are sometimes asked to consider those inspections when reviewing applications. Ms. Shamieh indicated that asking for written comments on every property inspected would not be a realistic expectation of limited staff resources, but perhaps if there are specific properties that come into question the inspector could speak directly with Ms. Shamieh, who could then relay the details of the situation to the Commissioners. Counselor Bailey felt something might be done, and would look into it. Commissioner Yager felt concerned that if Commissioners rely upon an inspection report that is not memorialized in writing, as part of their decision process on an application, and there is a protest of the decision by the applicant, the Commission is on shaky ground defending their decision. Although she appreciates the heavy workload of the inspectors, Commissioner Yager felt there must be an efficient way to provide some form of the report. Counsel Bailey and the Commissioners briefly discussed the procedures for denying or failing to take action on an application. Mr. Bailey explained that once an application is deemed complete it must be acted on within 62 days or it is automatically approved. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –December 19, 2016 –Page 9 of 9