Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-10 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2019 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Reese Perkins, Chair Brandi LeRoy Wayne Mallar Alfred Banfield, Assoc. Member Tony Manzo, Assoc. Member Michael Pullen, Consultant to the Commission City Staff Present: Sean Gambrel, Planning Staff David Gould, Planning Officer Paul Nicklas, Asst. City Solicitor Jeff Wallace, Code Enforcement Officer Chair Perkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PROJECT REVIEW 1.198 Broadway – Steven Farren, Applicant Replace Wood Fence with Vinyl Fence (“After-the-Fact” Application) Chapter 148 - Historic Preservation, Certificate of Appropriateness Edith Dyer presented the application to the Commission. She and her husband, Mr. Farren, moved into the home at 198 Broadway roughly a year and a half ago and have been doing work to improve the property. She stated that the fence in question was untreated wood, was very weathered, and was falling over in several locations. She felt that the fence needed replacement and when considering options, looked to mimic the design of a fence across the street, which was a white stockade fence with a see-through decorative element at the top of the panel. She notes that the changes are primarily in color and design, that the fence was installed in the same location as the previous fence. Ms. Dyer stated that prior to construction she spoke with somebody in the Code Enforcement office who indicated to her that she did not need a fence permit, as the fence was under seven feet tall. That person made no mention of the possibility of needing any approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. The fence was installed in November 2018. Some time after the fence was installed, the applicants were contacted by the Code Enforcement Office regarding their fence, and the likely need for a permit, and required approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. Chair Perkins asked for Mr. Pullen to provide his report. Mr. Pullen noted that a fence was specifically listed in the definition of a structure in the ordinance, so the standards for evaluation for alteration or construction of a structure were applicable. Mr. Pullen then noted several elements of the new fence which differed from the prior fence, including the change in height, design, and color. Mr. Pullen then contrasted the design of the new fence with the design and placement of the fence across the street, which the applicants wished to emulate. Mr. Pullen then went on to discuss the various sections of the Historic Preservation ordinance which would apply to a change such as this. Ms. Dyer explained that she was attempting to make an improvement to her property, without changing the form of her historic house. She stated that she felt it was an improvement to replace the weathered and failing fence that had existed. She noted that there was a variety of fencing that was likely inappropriate or in poor repair in the vicinity of her property. She also pointed out a number of properties in the vicinity that had vinyl elements or were otherwise likely in violation of the ordinance. Chair Perkins asked Jeff Wallace, the City’s Code Enforcement Officer to offer his experience on the situation. Mr. Wallace reviewed the process by which the applicant had arrived at this meeting, including his notifying them of the violation, his visit to the site, and conversations he had with the applicant. Mr Wallace explained that any fence over seven feet in height required a permit from his office, and that the solid portions of the fence in question were under that height, though the decorative portion did extend above seven feet. Mr. Wallace stated that he had spoken with his staff and nobody had recollection of speaking with the applicant or recently instructing anyone that they did not need a permit for a fence they were intending to construct. Chair Perkins asked Mr. Wallace if the fence in question would require a permit. He said that it would, since the total height was over seven feet in height. Commissioner Mallar asked at what height the fence would be considered a “spite fence”. Mr. Wallace replied that a “Spite Fence” is solid to a height of eight feet, and that was why he was initially concerned with the measurement to the top of the solid panel, rather than the top of the decorative element. Steven Farren, applicant, spoke to the Commission, explaining that the fence had only recently been installed, and that it did need some adjusting that was not able to be done before winter set in. He noted that if the concern with height was minor, that the fence could likely be adjusted downward at that time. Ms. Dyer reiterated that it was unclear that the fence required a permit, based on the information she had read in the Historic Preservation pamphlet and the conversation with the Code Office. Chair Perkins asked for public comment on the application. Leann Mallonee of 180 Broadway spoke in opposition to the fence. Ms. Mallonee noted that she was not a direct abutter, but that the fence is noticeable from her property and the visual difference is significant. She noted that the fence did span an area that before was not enclosed, and that the blockage of view across several back yards has changed the feel of her property. She stated that some large trees were removed in order to accommodate the fence. Additionally, she stated that she was not in favor of the vinyl material of which the fence is constructed. Brittany Cyr, and abutter on French Street, spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Cyr stated that the fence directly abutted her property, and that she found it aesthetically pleasing. She feels strongly that the new fence is a significant improvement over the old fence, which was in poor condition. Benjamin Cyr, also an abutter on French Street also spoke in favor of the fence, stating that in his opinion, the fence is a dramatic improvement over what had existed previously. Chair Perkins closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Banfield stated that his primary concern was not with the fence itself but with the feel of the neighborhood overall and how the fence impacts that feel. He stated that he felt that the fence is too tall, and because of its mass and the bright white finish of the fence, it really comes to the foreground and visually pushes the historic home to the background. He stated that he believed the fence across the street was not a good comparison because it is shorter, set back further, and was the same color of the house, such that it appeared to be an extension of the house. He felt that in this case, the fence appeared to be the dominant feature and the house to be an attachment off to the side of the fence. He is concerned about how the fence changes the historic character of the house. Mr. Banfield wondered if the color of the fence could be changed to better match the house, or if the panels could be shortened, which might reduce the visual impact of the fence. Ms.Dyer stated that per the code, she believes she has the right to install a fence up to seven feet in height. She stated that when she & Mr. Farren were considering designs, they looked to the fence across the street because it was attractive and fit in with the Historic District. Ms. Dyer additionally stated that the additional enclosure was a short section which used to be for a driveway that is no longer used. She noted it was their desire to close that area off because they have had significant problems with uninvited people cutting across their property. Commissioner LeRoy moved approval of an “after-the-fact” permit for a vinyl fence to replace a wooden fence, as presented in the application. Commissioner Manzo seconds the motion. The Commission voted three in favor, two opposed to the motion. A Certificate of Appropriateness requires four affirmative votes in order to be approved, so the motion failed. Chair Perkins described the process from this point to the applicants and their rights to appeal. The Commissioners discussed when they would meet to finalize the Notice of Decision for the project, and determined that they would meet at 5:15 pm on Monday January 14 to do so. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS 2.2018 Minor Revisions Planning Staff Sean Gambrel presented the list of Minor Revisions that were approved in 2018. Mr. Gambrel noted that the City is receiving roughly two applications a month, and that most are quite minor in scope. He further noted that staff and the chair have been trying to use the Minor Revision more often when it is warranted, in order to not cause lengthy delays for simple alterations to buildings. 3.Approval of December 13, 2018Meeting Minutes Minutes were approved unanimously as presented. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.