HISTORIC
DISTRICT COMMISSION
Public Meeting
October 25, 2006
Judge Welsh Hearing Room
2:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Polly Burnell, John
Dowd, Marcene Marcoux,
Carol Neal, and E. Clothier Tepper
Members
Absent: Nathan Butera
Staff: Maxine Notaro.
Work Session
2:30 p.m.
The
work session was called to order by Carol Neal at 2:43p.m.
Marcene
Marcoux handed suggestion detailing her opinions on what does and what doesn't
come under the purview of the Historic District Commission (HDC). Each of the other commissioners also had
their notes and the following discussion was held. Maxine Notaro reported that a contractor had come in just today
and said what he wanted from the DRM and the HDC was a consistency about what
projects need an Administrative Review and what projects need a full review.
Discussion
centered on the General By-Laws 15. Local Historic District specifically on
15-7-2 which deals with "Certificates of Non-Applicability." It was clear that Maxine wants direction
from the HDC in how to handle all the projects that come before her.
Carol
Neal was wary of approving decks without dimensions. It would have to be an exact replacement if we were to approve it
administratively. Polly would like to start out looking at all deck
applications until they feel comfortable about people replacing them. Carol said we have policies on windows,
fences, etc. We have worked on it and
now have policies in place.
Carol
wants to get opinions from the Commissioners.
What do we want to see and what do we want to hand out to the
staff?
It
was stated that Town counsel said that the general by-laws couldn't change
because they were adopted by the town meeting.
The only way to change them would be to have a public hearing.
John
Dowd said he was not really in favor of the "one for one" replacement
not requiring any oversight by the HDC because then we can’t improve on the
design. Is there a way we can have the
people come before us? He cited a
building that could have been immensely improved but "one for one"
proved to be expedient and that's why that route was chosen.
On
a "one for one," Marcene said, "Let it go." John Dowd continued discussing how buildings
could be improved but instead they chose "one for one." John said that’s because the applicants
didn’t have anyone in there helping them and educating them.
Clo
feels there is a conflict by giving people more issues than they want.
Marcene
Marcoux feels people should be able to replace a "one for one." Polly Burnell said that we’re not here to
convince applicants to do something.
Maxine
emphasized that it’s very important when people come before us to give them
firm guidelines. Carol responded by
saying that we’re not always dealing with black & white issues.
The
rules now reads that if the project involves 25% of the value of the house and
a specific dollar amount, then the project needs to be reviewed. This rule then involved many contractors who
began presenting projects in phases. To
close this loophole, the projects will be reviewed for the past two years. Do we have to do that with HDC?
Roofing
is not an issue and will be done administratively through the Building
Commissioner. HDC will oversee windows and
decks; roof decks should be minimally visible from a public way.
John
Dowd suggested that maybe the Monday before each meeting – one of the
Commissioners should go down and go through the pending cases with a sub-
committee and decide on whether a project is an administrative review or a full
review. Windows should wait for the next available Board meeting. Motion:
Roofing and siding will come under the Building Commissioner provided
they are clapboards and shingles in a "one for one" installation with
the proviso that the clapboards have a 4" exposure. These changes will be put on at the next
public hearing.
Motion: John Dowd Seconded: Polly
Burnell Vote: 5-0-0.
Approval of minutes for
October 11, 2006 meeting.
A motion was made, seconded,
and approved unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2006
meeting.
Correction to minutes of
September 27th.
Meg
and Maureen sent an e-mail to make a correction to the September 27th
minutes. At the top of page 3, DPW
should read DEP. It was so noted.
Administrative Review 3:30 p.m.
Pending Cases
Neal Kimball, 135 Bradford
Street
This
case was postponed per Neal Kimball's request.
59 Commercial St
Deborah
Paine presented a letter from a structural engineer saying the cottage at the
rear, directly on the water, has to be demolished. He completed a walk-thru of the cottage and determined that it
should be demolished.
Deb
believes that 1) it has no historic significance, and 2) there is too much
powder post beetle damage.
Marcene
Marcoux said that the last meeting was not a full review – just a conversation
– and if the demolition is allowed – we have to have a full review with
complete plans. The project has to be
noticed out. The last meeting was an
informal meeting. Deb Paine said she
has a permit to remodel. Marcene continued saying the Commision needs to see a
plan with dimensions. Deb Paine said to
tell her what to do and she’ll do it. Deb would like to come back with a plan
with trim details that you will approve.
She’s already talked to Neal Kimball about doing another design plan.
Deb
would like to notice it out and go ahead with the demolition but it has to be
noticed out first and there will be a 4 week delay.
383 Commercial St – Bull
ring condos.
Rick
Pozzo says he wants an administrative
review of the windows. The windows he want to use are bigger than the windows
now there.
Marcene
Marcoux asked for a clarification. This is a major change and we would feel
more comfortable if you come back with a complete package on November 8th
when you’re already scheduled. Rick Pozzo
continued that all he now wants is permission to go ahead the plans he has
presented.
Rick
already has approval to do the other side of the building. Now he needs help with the west side and
wants guidance.
John
Dowd said that what seems to be changing is that the picture windows seem to be
going away and better ones are being suggested. Rick then asked – on Nov 8th then are we subject to an
appeal process? By the 8th
you could order the windows immediately.
Motion: Accept sheet 82-10-13 with the addition of
one more window on the ground floor.
Motion: John Dowd Seconded: Carol
Neal Vote: 3 in favor,
Marcoux
opposed and Burnell abstained.
Public
Hearings 4:00 p.m.
The
Public Hearing portion of the meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m.
2006-77
Application by Rhoda
Rossmore and Amy Germain for a Certificate to be issued in accordance with the Provincetown
Historic District Commission established under the General By-Laws, Chapter 15
of the Town of Provincetown. The applicants seek approval for recent demolition
and reconstruction of the rear portion of the property located at 150 Commercial Street, Provincetown, MA.
Rhoda
Rossmore and Amy Germain handed their plan packets to the Commissioners. After looking over the submitted plans, the
following motion was made.
Motion: Accept as presented in accordance with
Guideline 15-11-15 New Construction and Additions
Motion: John Dowd Seconded: Polly
Burnell Vote: 5-0-0.
2006-78
Application by Mark P.
Kinnane of Cape Associates Inc. on behalf of Gail Williams for a Certificate to be issued
in accordance with the Provincetown Historic District Commission established
under the General By-Laws, Chapter 15 of the Town of Provincetown. The
applicants seek approval to alter the previously approved plans by increasing
the wall height of the cottage to 3’ 6” and add two small dormers to the North
and South elevations at property located at 4 Dyer Street, Provincetown, MA.
Mark
Kinnane presented the case. Initially
he had approval and originally bumped up the cottage. The owner didn’t like the final product and asked the architect
to redraw the plan and increase the height.
It was built in 1920 and Polly cited
Guideline B – the structure shall be retained. A new building will be too out of scale and too tall. Clo Tepper agreed with Polly. Carol Neal said that the structure now
becomes completely out of scale –and she cannot support this. John Dowd agrees. Mark wondered, "What if we eliminate the dormer?" The answer was No.
At
15.5 feet – it would now become 2 ft higher than the original proposal. Marcene
Marcoux said that the design previously approved was much more in keeping with
neighborhood.
Motion: Deny proposal of permission to make the
cottage larger by increasing the wall height of the cottage by 3 ft. given
Guideline 15-8-1 Criteria for Determination
Motion: Polly Burnell Seconded: Marcene
Marcoux Vote: 5-0-0.
Motion: Give permission for the elimination of two
formerly approved attic windows in the main house. Given Guideline 15-8-1
Motion: John Dowd Seconded: Carol
Neal Vote: 5-0-0.
2006-79
Application by James Watkins
and Delwyn Trent for a Certificate to be issued in accordance with the Provincetown
Historic District Commission established under the General By-Laws, Chapter 15
of the Town of Provincetown. The applicants seek approval for the full
demolition and reframing of 1 of 3 roofs (left side of house parallel to
Nickerson Street) due to failing rotten support system, raise this single roof
height from existing 7.6 feet to 9.8 feet (exterior) and from 6.5 feet by 8.6
feet (interior) and to expand the existing shed dormer on Nickerson Street to
12 feet wide by 8.6 high from 6 feet wide to 6.5 feet and to add two windows
(from 1 to 3 total) at property located at 6
Nickerson Street, Provincetown, MA.
Carol
Neal was recused as she is a direct abutter.
Deb Paine presented the plan and history of the project. She wants to raise the roof 2 feet since
everything is very small and rotted.
Deb
Paine stated that she doesn’t have enough ceiling height to work with. She has no room for headers for the windows
and thus wants to increase the ceiling height.
Also she wants to enlarge the dormer. Would like to take the roof down
and rebuild it.
Chip
Brock, a neighbor, said it’s very hard to navigate when you’re in the
house. Just going up a couple of feet
won’t have that much of a visual effect.
He
spoke in favor of the proposal.
As
presented, the HDC is not yet convinced.
Polly Burnell said that it’s on a street with unaltered houses.
If
Deb Paine could get a foot and a half she would probably be able to make
do.
John
Dowd said that the bow window downstairs is the key feature of that house and
the dormer above it diminishes this.
Deb
said what she’s trying to accomplish with the dormer is to gain room for a bed
and needs headroom. Clo Tepper feels
the design proposed makes the whole house out of scale. Deb wants direction about the dormer.
Motion: Roof height can be added by 1 ft to agree
with the pitch of the roof and remain the same. Dormer of shed confederate having 2 windows of the same size and
proportion with spacing between to agree with the already existing. Trimmed the same. in accordance with
Guideline 1-8-1 Criteria for Determination
Motion: John Dowd Seconded: Clo
Tepper Vote: 3 in favor- 1 opposed Polly Burnell
Deb
Paine will be coming back with suggested plan complete with elevations, etc.
Adjournment happened at 5:38
p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Evelyn Gaudiano
E. Rogers Gaudiano
Approved by _____________________________ on ___________, 2006.
John Dowd, Chair