Historic Resource Commission

Schenectady Historic Resource Commission Meeting Minutes September 26, 2024 I. Call to Order Commissioner Yager called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Roll Call  PRESENT: Patricia Yager Chair; Richard Unger, Zakhar Berkovich, Michael Barron, Sergy Dossous Assistant Planner, Sean O’Brian Assistant Counsel  ABSENT: None  EXCUSED: None III. Conflicts of Interest None IV. Adoption of Prior Meeting's Minutes Motion made by Commissioner Berkovich to approve the minutes of August 22nd. Motion seconded by Commissioner Barron. Chair called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. Call for Members of the Public to Speak on Agenda Items None. VI. Old Applications or None None VII. New Business Note: Unless otherwise specifically modified by the HRC, all applications approved by the HRC are subject to the following minimum conditions of approval:  Prior to any work beginning, all necessary permits shall be secured; and  All work shall be completed within one year. A. Consideration for approval submitted by Leticia Ajodah to replace the roof. The property is located in the Union Triangle Historic District at 1025 University Place. Mr. Stelianos Paros (The contractor) came before the Historic Commission to present his application to replace the slate roof with the Owens Corning Roof Estate Grey Architectural Roof Shingles. He explained that there were no modifications to his application since its submittal. Page 1 of 8   Commissioner Unger asked, if he was standing on the sidewalk and looked at the roof, would he be able to tell the difference between the existing slate and the proposed shingles after the work had been completed. The applicant responded that you would be able to tell the difference. The Commissioners briefly discussed the following elements of the application concerning:  Whether the Owens Corning Roof Estate Grey Architectural Roof Shingles is the appropriate replacement for the roof.  If there is a material other than slate with a similar look. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion to table the application as submitted.  The application was incomplete due to the lack of material samples. Commissioner Barron seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, so the Chair called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by John Snow to replace the roof. The property is located in the Morris Ave Historic District at 15 Morris Ave. Mr. and Ms. Snow came before the Historic Commission to present their application to replace the roof with Owens Duration Architectural Shingles, with galvanized white drip edge, and replace the metal flashing with grey or black metal. He/she explained that there were no modifications to his application since its submittal.  Commissioner Unger asked if the flashing was copper. The applicant responded that, no it was not copper.  Commissioner Unger asked if the gutter on the side room would be replaced. The applicant responded that, yes it will be.  Commissioner Unger asked, if the roof over the side room would be replaced, and Commissioner Yager asked if the roof was shallow enough to use shingles where it would not be visible. The applicant responded that, yes it will be replaced, and stated that the roof has enough of a peak to where it will be visible, and the replacement will be in kind with metal. The Commissioners briefly discussed the following elements of the application concerning:  Whether the existing shingle on the roof is Architectural shingles like the one that is being proposed. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion to table the application as submitted to the end of the agenda:  Not enough information Page 2 of 8   The applicant agreed to call her contractor to find out what is material of the existing roof is. Commissioner Berkovich seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, so the Chair called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration for approval submitted by Samuel Taveras and Rachel Satiago to get their HVAC unit approved. The property is located in the GE Plot Historic District at 1156 Stratford Road. Ms. Satiago came before the Historic Commission to present her application to get approval after the HVAC unit was installed without the Historic Resource Commission's approval or a building permit. She explained that there were no modifications to his application since its submittal. Commissioner Barron asked if there was any approval or permit for the work that was done. The applicant responded that no permit was issued for the work. The Commissioners briefly discussed the following elements of the application concerning:  If the HVAC line can be installed on top of the brown trim and be painted to match instead of being next to it. RESOLUTION Commissioner Berkovich made a motion to table the application as submitted.  Due to insufficient details for the new installation plan for the HVAC unit  The application had agreed to bring a schematic showing the proposed installation plan. Commissioner Unger seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, so the Chair called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Brigitte and Alexandra Strelka to remove two trees. The property is located in the GE Plot Historic District at 1188 Avon Rd. Resolution Commissioner Unger, findings: Subject to appropriate conditions of approval, this application meets applicable City Code requirements of Article 10, Section 264-76 c and supports the 2022 Community Forest Management Plan policies regarding the provision of replacement trees to maintain the city’s urban tree forest and tree canopy. Page 3 of 8 Moved to approve the application submitted by Brigitte and Alexandra Strelka to remove the two trees requested for removal, with the following conditions of approval: The applicant shall be required to file a report or letter from an ISA-certified Arborist or an ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® RCA certifying that tree removal is warranted due to the poor health of the tree, damage to the tree, or risk to the safety of persons or property due to the condition of the tree. The applicant has submitted an email from arborist Peter Frisoni stating that tree removal is warranted due to the poor health of the trees. This letter shall be deemed acceptable in this case, as the Commission’s application requirements were not available to the applicant at the time of application. 2. The resulting 2 tree stumps will be ground and/or removed. 3. Prior to securing a tree removal permit and initiating tree removal, the applicant shall submit their proposed tree replacement plan to the HRC for review and approval. The replacement plan shall include the following: a. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing all structures and trees greater than 9 inches in diameter within 30 feet of the trees to be removed, including off-site trees. b. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of underground and overhead utilities. c. Identification of the replacement tree(s) species, caliper size at planting, and caliper and canopy size at maturity. Replacement trees must be selected from the city’s approved Master Tree List. d. A planting plan showing the intended location of the replacement trees and appropriate tree spacing. e. The replacement trees shall be planted in tree pits with a surface area of approximately 24 square feet for small trees, or 32 feet for medium or large trees. f. For any required replacement tree not to be planted on the property, such tree shall be provided to the city, located in the city’s nursery, for the city’s future use and the benefit of the public. 4. Where applicable the pedestrian (vertical) distance between sidewalks and tree canopy shall be maintained at 8-12 feet. 5. Required permits shall be obtained before initiating the removal of any tree(s) 6. All approved work and conditions of approval shall be completed within one year of HRC approval Commissioner Berkovich seconded the motion. Following a brief discussion and clarification of the timing of replacement tree plan submittals and certified arborist letters, the Chair called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Consideration for approval submitted by Colin Ridgeway to remove a tree. The property is located in the GE Plot Historic District at 1164 Wendell Ave. Resolution Commissioner Unger, findings: Page 4 of 8  1. Subject to appropriate conditions of approval, this application meets applicable City Code requirements of Article 10, Section 264-76 c and supports the 2022 Community Forest Management Plan policies regarding the provision of replacement trees to maintain the city’s urban tree forest and tree canopy. Moved to approve the application submitted by Colin Ridgeway to remove the silver maple tree located on the northside front lawn at 1164 Wendell Ave., with the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall file a report or letter from an ISA-certified Arborist or an ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® RCA certifying that tree removal is warranted due to the poor health of the tree, damage to the tree, or risk to the safety of persons or property due to the condition of the tree. However, in this case, the applicant’s and Commissioner’s observations found the tree to be severally deteriorated, therefore a certified letter is deemed unnecessary, as the Commission’s application requirements were not available to the applicant at the time of application. 2. The resulting tree stump will be ground and/or removed. 3. The applicant shall submit their proposed tree replacement plan to the HRC for review and approval. The replacement plan shall include the following: a. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing all structures and trees greater than 9 inches in diameter within 30 feet of the tree to be removed, including off-site trees. b. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of any underground and overhead utilities. c. Identification of the replacement tree(s) species, caliper size at planting, and caliper and canopy size at maturity. Replacement trees must be selected from the city’s approved Master Tree List (Norway Maple, Silver Maple, Green Ash, and White Ash are not permitted). d. A planting plan showing the intended location of the replacement tree(s) and appropriate tree spacing. e. The replacement tree(s) shall be planted in tree pits with a surface area of approximately 24 square feet for small trees, or 32 feet for medium or large trees. 5. Where applicable, the pedestrian (vertical) distance between sidewalks and tree canopy shall be maintained at 8-12 feet. 6. Required permits shall be obtained before initiating the removal of any tree(s) 7. All approved work and conditions of approval shall be completed within one year of HRC approval Commissioner Barron seconded the motion. Following a brief discussion and clarification regarding certified arborist letters, the Chair called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. F. Consideration for approval submitted by William Roberts to remove three trees. The property is located in the GE Plot Historic District at 1350 Wendell Ave. Page 5 of 8 Resolution Commissioner Unger, findings: 1. Subject to appropriate conditions of approval, this application meets applicable City Code requirements of Article 10, Section 264-76 c, with only Condition 2 applying to this application, and supports the 2022 Community Forest Management Plan policies regarding the provision of replacement trees to maintain the city’s urban tree forest and tree canopy. Moved to approve the application submitted by William Roberts to remove three front yard trees located at 1350 Wendell Ave., with the following conditions of approval: 1. The small dead tree at the southwest corner of the property and the two diseased maple trees on the north and south sides of the front lawn shall be removed. 2. The applicant shall file a report or letter from an ISA-certified Arborist or an ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® RCA certifying that tree removal is warranted due to the poor health of the tree, damage to the tree, or risk to the safety of persons or property due to the condition of the tree. However, in this case, the applicant’s and Commissioner’s observations found the tree to be severally deteriorated, therefore a certified letter is deemed unnecessary, as the Commission’s application requirements were not available to the applicant at the time of application. 3. The resulting tree stumps will be ground and/or removed. 4. The applicant shall submit their proposed tree replacement plan to the HRC for review and approval. The replacement plan shall include the following: f. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing all structures and trees greater than 9 inches in diameter within 30 feet of the trees to be removed, including off-site trees. g. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of any underground and overhead utilities. h. Identification of the two replacement tree species, caliper size at planting, and caliper and canopy size at maturity. Replacement trees must be selected from the city’s approved Master Tree List (Norway Maple, Silver Maple, Green Ash, and White Ash are not permitted). I. A planting plan showing the intended location of the two replacement trees and appropriate tree spacing. j. The replacement tree(s) shall be planted in tree pits with a surface area of approximately 24 square feet for small trees, or 32 feet for medium or large trees. 4. Where applicable, the pedestrian (vertical) distance between sidewalks and tree canopy shall be maintained at 8-12 feet. 5. Required permits shall be obtained before initiating the removal of any tree(s) 6. All approved work and conditions of approval shall be completed within one year of HRC approval Commissioner Berkovich seconded the motion. Following a brief discussion and clarification regarding certified arborist letters, the Chair called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Page 6 of 8  B. Consideration for approval submitted by John Snow to replace the roof. The property is located in the Morris Ave Historic District at 15 Morris Ave. Mr. and Ms. Snow came before the Historic Commission to present their application to replace the roof with Owens Duration Architectural Shingles, with galvanized white drip edge, and replace the metal flashing with grey or black metal. This application was tabled for the end of the meeting so that the applicant could gather more information from their contractor. Discussion for this application was reopen after the applicant called their Contractor for more information.  Commissioner Unger asked if the flashing was copper. The applicant responded that, no it was not copper.  Commissioner Unger asked if the gutter on the side room would be replaced. The applicant responded that, yes it will be.  Commissioner Unger asked, if the roof over the side room would be replaced, and Commissioner Yager asked if the roof was shallow enough to use shingles where it would not be visible. The applicant responded that, yes it will be replaced, and stated that the roof has enough of a peak to where it will be visible, and the replacement will be in kind with metal. The Commissioners briefly discussed the following elements of the application concerning:  Whether the existing shingle on the roof is Architectural shingles like the one that is being proposed.  After calling the contractor the applicant did verify that the existing shingles were Architectural shingle designs.  The proposed replacement will be Owens Corning Tru-Defination Duration Architecture Slate Stone Grey. RESOLUTION Commissioner Berkovich made a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the following conditions of approval: 1. To replace the roof with Owens Corning Tru-Defination Duration Architecture Slate Stone Grey. 2. To replace all the damaged drip edges, or metal flashing with aluminum or like metal. 3. To replace the underneath wood, if damaged. 4. All work to be completed within one year; and 5. Prior to any work beginning, all necessary permits shall be secured. Finding that:  The application is a Type II SEQR,  With the motion’s conditions of approval, the application will be consistent with the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Building Rehabilitation numbers 2,5,6, and 9. The application will comply with City Code Article X, Section 264-73. Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Barron seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, so the Chair called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously. I. Miscellaneous  The Commissioners discussed 212 Green Street and wanted to know why it was removed from the agenda. City Counsel explained to them that the trees are in the public right of way, and they are the City’s responsibility and therefore the CITY does not need the Historic Resource Commission's approval to take care of its properties.  The commissioners discussed the Design Guidelines for the City of Schenectady.  The Commissioners discussed the new tree applications and ways to handle them in future applications. II. Adjourn Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Berkovich. Seconded by Commissioner Unger. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM. Page 8 of 8