Historic Resource Commission

Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes August 14, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Secretary Jennifer Mills called the meeting to order at 6:55 PM. Ms. Mills explained that because both Commissioner Britt and Commissioner Wiles were absent from the meeting she had been asked by staff to call the meeting to order, at which time the Commissioners present would decide who would serve as Acting Chair for the meeting. The Commissioners chose Commissioner Craven. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to have Commissioner Craven serve as Acting Chair of the August 14, 2017 Historic District Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Although the meeting had a scheduled start time of 6:30 p.m. it was delayed in starting until Commissioner Bennett arrived, as without him there were not the four Commissioners present required for a quorum. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dr. Dean Bennett; Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Ben Wiles, Vice Chair STAFF: Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Because there was a lack of a quorum to vote on the August 1, 2017 Meeting Minutes it was decided that they would be approved at a future meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Harline Andrus to install vinyl siding on 3 sides of the apartment building. The premise is located at 13-15 North College Street. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 1 of 15 Harline Andrus, property manager for the site, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Andrus had appeared before the Commission at the July meeting, when this portion of the proposal was tabled awaiting further information. Commissioner Craven asked if she had any additional information for the Commissioners. Ms. Andrus stated that she had provided additional photos of the building from all angles and had understood that the Commissioners also wanted an opportunity to visit the site themselves to determine if it is visible from the public right of way. She added that she also found other buildings on North College Street that are vinyl sided, and provided photos of those buildings. Commissioner Craven asked Ms. Andrus how the siding would be applied to the building. Ms. Andrus replied that she had no idea. Commissioner Craven stated that usually firring strips are nailed to the surface, in this case the brick, and then the siding is adhered to the strips. She asked Ms. Andrus if she knew how the edge on the non-sided elevation would be finished. Ms. Andrus stated that she does not believe that the edge would be visible around the corner. Commissioner Craven read a section of a related preservation brief that explains that the siding would be adhered by nailing into the brick, thus permanently damaging the original façade. She explained that based on this concern she is would not approve the siding as it would cause irreparable damage to the building, which is the Commission’s responsibility to protect. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Andrus why the owners want the vinyl siding. She replied that she believes that they thought that it would preserve the brick, which needs extensive repointing. She also stated that most likely the cost of repointing the brick would be significantly higher than installing the siding. Commissioner Bennett stated that he understands that the sides of the building for which the siding is proposed are not visible from North College Street, but the Commission’s authority is anything visible from a public right of way and he believes that the siding would be visible from other vantage points. Commissioner Craven agreed, stating that it would be visible from Green Street, looking down a driveway. Commissioner Yager stated that she had done extensive reading on the application of vinyl siding to brick and that in many cases moisture and mold can build up in between the surfaces and permanently damage the building. Commissioner Bennett stated that he feels that vinyl siding is completely inappropriate for this style of building. Ms. Andrus stated that she had provided photos of other similar buildings in the Stockade which had been vinyl sided. She asked why this was approved. Commissioner Yager stated that they might have been sided before there was an historic district in the area. Commissioner Craven stated that the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 2 of 15  Commission cannot retroactively require inappropriate work to be undone. She stated that she has many concerns about this application, including that the siding will be visible from the right of way, the corner edge will most likely be visible from North College Street, and the siding will without question permanently damage the brick. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Yager stated that if the goal is to preserve the brick there are much better ways to achieve that end. She gave Ms. Andrus a copy of printed information regarding brick preservation methods. Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to deny the application to install vinyl siding on three sides of 13-15 North College Street. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The Commission believes that applying vinyl siding to the brick façade will permanently damage the brick and jeopardize the future of the whole building. 3. The area in question is visible from the public right of way on Green Street. 4. The proposed siding would end on the corner of the building and would most likely be visible from North College Street. Motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration for approval submitted by Steve Strichman to replace side porch stairs, removing one step by cutting into the porch, and painting with previously approved colors. Remove concrete steps in front and replace with a wood porch using existing railing if salvageable. The premise is located at 1175 Stratford Road. Steve Strichman appeared before the Commission. Mr. Strichman explained that he is proposing to make changes to two of the porches on the house. He stated that on the side porch he would like to replace the steps by sliding them back one step into the porch, and perhaps removing the bottom step if it is too shallow and does not meet code requirements. He noted that he believes that in the past the steps were set back into the porch as he is proposing, as there is evidence that the board at the porch floor has been altered and the top posts are more narrowly set. Mr. Strichman stated that as the steps are currently configured they stick out into the driveway and have been a hazard. He added that he would like to reuse the existing rails if possible and remove the metal gate at the top of the stairs. He noted that the steps would be painted the previously approved colors. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 3 of 15  Commissioner Bennett asked why Mr. Strichman might not reuse the railings, as he stated. Mr. Strichman responded that the railings do have some damaged wood, but he believes that because with the new design they will be shorter they most likely can eliminate the damaged portions and rebuild the rest of the railings with existing materials. Commissioner Yager asked if the top step will be narrower and the original top post will be retained. Mr. Strichman added that they will be, as he believes was the original design. Mr. Strichman stated that the front porch steps are currently cast concrete and are deteriorating rapidly. He referenced a 1963 photo included with his application which shows wood front steps, and explained while they have no other photographic evidence that wood steps were original to the house, they do feel that they are more in keeping with its style than the concrete. Mr. Strichman explained that they are proposing to build wood steps with a tongue and groove landing and to reuse the existing railings. He noted that there would be lattice on the sides of the steps, and the colors would also be the previously approved colors. Commissioner Craven asked if the new steps will have a beveled edge. Mr. Strichman stated that they will. Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve as submitted the application with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The side porch steps will be cut back into the porch with the top step built between the existing top posts. The bottom step will be removed if it is too shallow to meet code requirements. The colors will match those previously approved by the Commission. 3. The existing side porch railings will be modified for reuse or replaced in kind. 4. The front steps, which are currently deteriorating cast concrete, will be replaced with wood steps, with a beveled edge, lattice sides, and a tongue and groove landing. They will be painted in the colors previously approved by the Commission. No new colors will be introduced. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. These repairs to the front and side steps bring the house closer to the original intent of the design. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by Elliot Tropiansky to replace 3-tab shingles with architectural shingles in the same color. The premise is located at 26 Front Street. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 4 of 15  Kevin O’Connell, roofing contractor for the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. O’Connell stated that Mr. Tropiansky would like to remove the existing three- tab shingle roof, which is failing, and replace it with the Owens-Corning TruDefinition architectural shingles in Quarry Gray. Commissioner Craven asked Mr. O’Connell if he could speak to why the owner chose the architectural shingle style instead of the three-tab. Mr. O’Connell stated that he believed that it was because the architectural shingles come with a much longer warranty than any three-tab shingles currently available. He added that Mr. Tropiansky chose this color because it is a very close match to the existing roof. Commissioner Craven stated that the architectural style shingles are not appropriate for this roof style, which would have originally had slate shingles in a more symmetrical application. Commissioner Yager agreed, stating that in this case the roof was so high she felt it was very difficult to view from the street. Commissioner Craven agreed. Commissioner Lowry stated that because of the height he does not feel that it will be visible to any great degree, and would feel uncomfortable requiring the three-tab shingles in this case, due to the visibility and the longer life of the architectural shingles. Commissioner Craven suggested that the motion could state that it is the applicant’s choice to use the architectural or the three-tab shingle, in a similar color. The Commissioners agreed that this would be acceptable. Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, to approve as submitted the application to replace the roof, with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The applicant may choose to use the Owns Corning TruDefinition architectural style shingles in Quarry Gray as submitted with the application, or a similar color three-tab shingle. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The architectural shingles are more asymmetrical in design and application and are not as appropriate for this style of building as three-tab shingles, which would more appropriately mimic the symmetry of the original slate roof, but in this case due to the height of the roof and the very limited visibility the Commissioners saw fit to allow the property owner to choose which type of shingle to use. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration for approval submitted by Judy and Greg Miller to demolish the existing garage, to be replaced by arborvitaes and to install a 6-foot high Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 5 of 15 wood stockade fence painted brown to match the trim. The premise is located at 1037-1039 Gillespie Street. Judy Miller and Chaya Tal appeared before the Commission. Ms. Miller explained that they had previously appeared before the Commission and had been asked to bring information from an engineer stating that the garage is not salvageable. She explained that they had done so and had included his report in the application. Ms. Miller stated that in place of the garage they are proposing to add a 6-foot-tall stockade fence with arborvitae planted in front of it. The fence would be placed where the front wall of the garage would have been and would serve to eliminate the extended view into the backyard caused by the loss of the garage. Commissioner Craven noted that the fence will not be as high as the garage gable would have been. Ms. Miller stated that the arborvitae will grow quite tall. Commissioner Bennett agreed, adding that they are very fast-growing and will most likely have to be trimmed down at some point. Commissioner Craven noted that on Union Street there is a wide driveway that one can look down and see what is now the side of the garage; once the garage is removed that site line will be significantly extended. She explained that she has concerns about maintaining that visual wall so that in looking in from Union Street one does not just observe property after property of paved back yards and parking lots, which she feels are taking over Gillespie Street. Commissioner Bennett stated that he believes that the property is quite a way away from Union Street and that the view from there should not be a major concern. Commissioner Craven stated that the garage does serve as a visual break in the view, and when it is gone much more will be visible from this vantage point. Commissioner Bennett asked if the garage could be rebuilt in the future if a different property owner wished to replace it. Commissioner Craven stated that it could, with the necessary approvals. Commissioner Yager agreed with Commissioner Craven’s concerns and suggested that an L-shaped fence be used to mimic the effect of the garage wall from the Union Street side. Ms. Miller stated that there is another garage on a property further away from Union Street. Commissioner Craven stated that the garage in question is set beck further and is not in this site line. Commissioner Yager stated that she would support the idea of the stockade fence extending in an L-shape along the property line. Commissioner Craven added that it might also help to eliminate the problem of people cutting through the back yard. Ms. Miller stated that there is currently a chain link fence around the back of the yard. Ms. Tal asked if the Commission would want the fence to extend all the way along the side to the back of the yard. Commissioner Craven state that it would not be required but that the applicants might want to consider it to preserve the privacy of the yard. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 6 of 15  Commissioner Craven asked what the applicants plan to do with the existing garage slab. Ms. Tal stated that there is no slab, just broken up pavement, which they plan to remove and eventually pave a parking area in the back yard. Commissioner Craven stated that they need a paving permit from the City before doing any paving work. Commissioner Craven asked the Commissioners if they had any objection to the L-shaped fence. The Commissioners indicated that they did not. Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve as submitted the application with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. When the garage is demolished a six-foot stockade fence will be installed where the front of the garage was and in an L-shape along the southern side to mimic where the garage would have been. 3. A minimum of three arborvitaes will be planted in front of the fence. 4. Prior to undertaking any further paving on the site, the applicant is aware that they must obtain a paving permit from the City. 5. Prior to demolishing the garage, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the City. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. This approval of this application serves only as the HDC approval of the garage demolition. The applicant must still obtain all other necessary permits and permissions from the City prior to razing the garage. 3. The proposed fencing will mimic appropriately the visual placement of the garage in that location. Motion carried unanimously. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Emily Childers to replace and paint the two front entry doors. The premise is located at 118-120 North College Street. Emily Childers appeared before the Commission. Ms. Childers explained that she would like to replace the two existing front doors, which she feels at this time are beyond repair, with the doors from Lemieux Doors as shown on the cut sheet submitted with the application. Commissioner Craven asked if the doors are wood doors. Ms. Childers stated that they are. Commissioner Yager asked if she plans to replace the thresholds and trim. Ms. Childers stated that she would like to replace them in kind. Commissioner Craven stated that the new door looks very similar to the existing and is an appropriate design for a building of this period. The Commissioners agreed. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 7 of 15  Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve as submitted the application to replace the two front doors with the door design by Lemieux Doors as shown on the cut sheet provided with the application and to paint the doors Benjamin Moore Hadley Red (HC-65), with the following condition: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed in one year. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The replacement door design chosen is in keeping with the existing door design and is historically appropriate for this application. Motion carried unanimously. E. Consideration for approval submitted by Chris LaFlamme to paint the 3rd floor gable and redesign the front door. The premise is located at 8 Union Street. Chris LaFlamme appeared before the Commission. Mr. LaFlamme explained that he had sought out historical photos of the building when looking for ideas about how to repaint it most appropriately, and he came across a photo dated from 1892 which showed the third-floor gable end painted a dark color. He stated that he spoke with Gloria Kishton of the Schenectady Heritage Foundation about the photo and she suggested a dark hunter green or terra cotta for the third floor; he also thought a dark blue option would be appropriate. Mr. LaFlamme noted that he also sought advice about redesigning the front door, which is currently a mid-century design, and that he has included his design proposal as a part of this application. Commissioner Craven asked what color he is proposing for the decorative half timbers on the third floor. Mr. LaFlamme stated that they would remain a dark brown, both on the third and second floors. Commissioner Craven asked if the second floor will remain the same color. Mr. LaFlamme stated that it will, as it is the original unpainted stucco. Commissioner Yager commented that she is concerned that the darker color will cause the half-timber accents on the third floor to have much less of a visual impact. Mr. LaFlamme stated that on the third floor there is only one decorative half-timber trim piece. Commissioner Craven asked if the window trim color will also remain dark brown. Mr. LaFlamme stated that it will. Commissioner Craven stated that she is not an expert on this architectural style and asked the other Commissioners if they have any concerns or comments. Commissioner Lowry stated that he is comfortable deferring to Ms. Kishton’s advice in this case. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 8 of 15 Mr. LaFlamme stated that he would like to get approval to choose either the dark green or blue. He explained that some of the trim on the eaves is currently a dark green, and he believes that the dark green was the preferred color of Ms. Kishton so that it would match. He noted that if he chooses the dark blue he would eventually change that trim color as well, but that he might not be able to do it at the same time as painting the third floor, due to time constraints with equipment rental. Commissioner Craven asked the Commissioners if they would object to leaving the choice up to the applicant. They indicated that they would not. She asked if they preferred one of the blues presented, and the consensus was that they preferred the darker of the two blue colors, Sherwin Williams Salty Dog (SW9177). The Commissioners reviewed the sketch of the new proposed front door design indicated that they thought it was appropriate. Mr. LaFlamme stated that he would eventually like to redesign the side porch, and asked if the Commissioners had any suggestions. Commissioner Yager presented a photograph of a wood design which she felt would be in keeping with the style of the house, adding that it was difficult to find appropriate examples because this style of house typically did not have a porch like this one. Mr. LaFlamme stated that he would return in the future with a proposed porch design. Commissioner Bennett suggested that Mr. LaFlamme consider removing the trees that are planted directly in front of the house, as they are blocking portions of the façade and could eventually damage the foundation. Mr. LaFlamme stated that he has already removed one of the trees and would most likely remove the others. Mr. LaFlamme noted that between the third and second floors there is a narrow line of shingles that he would like to replace in kind. Commissioner Craven stated that as long as he is not proposing any changes he may replace it without the Commission’s approval. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve as submitted the application with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The third floor will be painted either Sherwin Williams Salty Dog (SW 9177) or a dark hunter green similar to the shade included in the application. 3. The front door will be replaced with a wood door matching the design indicated in the application and will be painted the same color as the third floor. 4. The trim and half-timber accent boards will remain dark brown. 5. The applicant has permission to remove the trees growing close to the front of the house if he chooses to do so. 6. The woodwork on the eaves may be painted the same color as chosen for the third floor. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 9 of 15  Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The approved painting is consistent with the historical photos provided, which show the third-floor gable as a dark color. 3. The proposed new front door is a much better match to the original intent of the design than the existing contemporary mid-century door. Motion carried unanimously. F. Consideration for approval submitted by Forrest Dalton to install new roof flashing and to replace roof with lifetime architectural shingles. The premise is located at 1078 University Place. Forrest Dalton and his roofing contractor Eric Montgomery appeared before the Commission. Mr. Montgomery stated that the current slate roof is beyond repair and needs to be replaced. He explained that they originally proposed architectural shingles but have decided that they would now like to use the Slateline faux slate asphalt shingles, which would be more appropriate for this application. Commissioner Craven asked why they believe that the slate must be removed. Mr. Montgomery stated that they originally wanted to repair it but the slates themselves are deteriorating and the underlayment and flashing have failed, allowing water to damage much of the interior of the house. He explained that his company does slate roof repair and their first intention was to repair the existing roof, but they determined that it would not be feasible. Commissioner Yager asked if they had considered the artificial slates that are now available. Mr. Montgomery stated that he is not happy with the long-term appearance of that product, as the artificial slated can fade and curl over time. He mentioned an example of a house on Sunnyside Road in Glenville that had used them a few years ago and they already need to be replaced. He also noted that they must be installed one by one, as traditional slates are, and thus the labor cost can be prohibitive. Commissioner Craven stated that the Commission is always hesitant to approve the removal of a slate roof. Mr. Dalton stated that he had originally intended to repair it, but because it had not been properly maintained for so many years the water damage to the underlayment and rafters is extensive and they will need to be replaced when the slate roof is removed. Mr. Montgomery stated that replacing the roof and underlayment will preserve the building, and without this work continued damage would occur. Commissioner Yager stated that the color of the new shingles should be as close as possible to the original, which is a lighter, slightly Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 10 of 15  warm/pinkish slate. The Commissioners reviewed the available color choices on the sample board provided. Commissioner Bennett stated that he was not comfortable choosing one color at the meeting and believes that it should be done at the site, in natural light. Commissioner Craven suggested approving the shingle style and allowing the applicant to choose the color. The Commissioners agreed. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to approve as submitted the application with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The approved replacement shingles are the GAF Slateline Lifetime Design Shingles, in the color of the applicant’s choice, excluding the Victorian Red. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The loss of the original slate roof is regrettable, but the extensive damage to the roof underlayment and rafters has unfortunately left no other option. The Commission feels that the thorough repair and replacement of the roof will be the best way to preserve and protect the rest of the building. Motion carried unanimously. G. Consideration for approval submitted by Stauber Irrevocable Trust to replace rotting basement window frames with wood frames painted to match the building. Replace current plywood/Plexiglas boards with vinyl windows. Replace exterior door of second apartment with exterior grade door, painted brown. Paint trim with a historical brown color. The premise is located at 40 Union Avenue. Chaya Tal appeared before the Commission on behalf of the building owner. Ms. Tal explained that the current basement windows are rotted and in need of repair. She stated that the applicants wish to replace the outside window grates because they are necessary for security purposes when the windows are left open for ventilation purposes. She added that the interior vinyl windows are the only ones that they could find available for this application, and that the window frames would be constructed of pressure treated wood which would eventually be painted dark brown to match the trim on the rest of the house. Commissioner Bennett asked what color the vinyl portion of the window would be. Commissioner Craven stated that she believes that white would be too stark of a contrast against the dark brown frame. Ms. Tal stated that she knows that the windows are available in beige, which they would be willing to use, but she is not certain if they are available in a darker color. Commissioner Craven stated that she would approve beige. The Commissioners agreed. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 11 of 15  Ms. Tal stated that the proposed door is fiberglass, which is longer-lasting than wood. She explained that they are proposing the half-circle window at the top because it will allow some light in but will still be secure. Commissioner Craven stated that the proposed half circle design is not appropriate for the period of the building. She added that although this is a back door it is visible from Gillespie Street, and that she does not recall the Commission ever approving a fiberglass door. Commissioner Bennett agreed, stating that he believes that the door is very visible and should be replaced in kind. The Commissioners concurred. Ms. Tal stated that she is unaware of where they could obtain a wood door of a similar design to the existing. Commissioner Craven suggested the Albany Salvage Warehouse. Ms. Tal asked if the design must have square panels and windows. The Commissioners agreed that it should. Motion by Commissioner Yager, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to approve as submitted the application with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The rotted basement windows will be replaced with pressure-treated wood window frames with beige vinyl interior windows. The frames will be painted dark brown to match the rest of the trim on the house. The new windows will open in, with the hinge on the bottom edge. 3. The iron bars will be painted and reinstalled to allow for ventilation and security. 4. The exterior back door of apartment #2 will be replaced with a wood door of a similar design as existing – with rectangular panels and two rectangular windows at the top. 5. The door and the trim will be painted Sherwin Williams Rockweed, which is consistent with the character of the house. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. Although the door is a rear door it is clearly visible from Gillespie Street. 3. The window style has been approved to allow for proper ventilation of the basement, to help avoid potential further moisture damage to the building. Motion carried unanimously. H. Consideration for approval submitted by Stauber Irrevocable Trust to replace 4 windows on the east side first floor with white vinyl windows, paint trim black, and to replace the vegetation on the eastern side with a pathway. The premise is located at 852 Union Street. Chaya Tal appeared before the Commission on behalf of the building owner. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 12 of 15 Ms. Tal explained that they would like to replace the rear four windows on the side of the house with vinyl replacement windows, and paint the window trim black. She stated that they do not believe that the vinyl portions of the windows can be seen from the right of way. Commissioner Yager asked if they plan to replace the rest of the windows. Ms. Tal responded that they do, but that this apartment is vacant so at this time they are proposing only these windows. Commissioner Craven stated that she cannot recall ever approving vinyl windows when they are at all visible from the street. Ms. Tal Stated that the cost of wood windows would be prohibitive. Commissioner Yager asked what type of windows they plan to use on the rest of the building. Ms. Tal stated that they would use wood windows. Commissioner Craven explained that while they can be sympathetic to financial concerns, the Commission is not allowed to consider these concerns when issuing their decisions. She stated that there is an appeals process if the applicants believe that they will be unable to complete the work as approved due to cost concerns. She added that the reason these buildings are inexpensive to purchase is that they need extensive work. Ms. Tal explained that the basement was recently flooded and that it is always wet. She explained that they would like to install a French drain in the basement that would drain via a pipe doing to the storm drain, but that to install the pipe they would have to dig up the landscaping on that side of the front steps. She explained that at that time they would also like to install a pathway from the side of the house to the street, so that the tenants could take the garbage containers from the side of the house to the street without walking on the neighbor’s property, as they do now because of the landscaping there. Commissioner Craven noted that the garbage cans cannot be stored on the side of the house if they are visible from the street. Ms. Tal stated that they would be willing to put up a gate from the house to the property line to hide the trash cans from view. Commissioner Bennett stated that he thought having a path from the side of the house parallel to the front walk would look strange. He suggested making a path perpendicular to the front walk along the front of the house and attaching it at the foot of the front steps. Ms. Tal agreed that this could be an option. Commissioner Yager stated that the tenants would most likely not use that path and simply cut across the lawn. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Craven stated that she is not adamant about preserving the landscaping in question but she believes that there should be some plantings at the front of the house. She suggested that the Commission could approve the removal of the landscaping as is necessary for the drain work, and require that the applicants return with a proposal for adding landscaping elsewhere in front of the house. Ms. Tal stated that they could put a gate on that side of the house and move the landscaping to the other side of the front steps. Commissioner Yager stated that it does not have to be a gate but if they plan to leave the garbage cans there they do Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 13 of 15  need to be screened, at least with some sort of panel. Ms. Tal stated that if it is only a panel they would have to access the cans via the neighbor’s property, so she feels it must be a gate. Zoning Officer Epstein stated that he would have to see the proposed plan to make sure that a setback would not be required, and that most likely a variance would be needed for a gate. Commissioner Yager stated that this question could be investigated before the applicant returns for approval of the replacement landscaping plan. The Commissioners agreed. Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve as submitted the application with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The four windows proposed to be replaced on the side of the house must be wood windows. Vinyl is not approved. 3. The vegetation on the east side of the front steps may be removed for the drainage work. The applicant will return to the Commission with a plan for replacing the vegetation somewhere in the front of the house, either in the same place or elsewhere, as well as a plan to provide the necessary screening for the garbage containers. At that time, the proposed walkway from the garbage containers to the street will be revisited as well. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. Wood windows are required from this application because the Commission believes that the windows are at least partially visible from the street. 3. The removal of the existing landscaping is necessary for the drainage work to be done. This drainage work will help to protect the lifespan of the building. The Commission supports the replacement of the landscaping either in the same location or on the other side of the steps, but believes that some landscaping must be maintained in the front of the house. 4. The garbage cans cannot be visible from the street and the property owners need to formulate a plan to shield their view while allowing access to them without requiring going on the neighbor’s property. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Craven, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 14 of 15 The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –August 14, 2017 –Page 15 of 15