Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

Chairperson Brian R‎. ‎Dunphy‎, ‎Vice Chairperson Paul Miller‎

Members‎: ‎Maria‎-‎Teresa L‎. ‎Cozzolino‎, ‎John Dziurman‎, ‎Nicole Franey‎, ‎Micheal Kilpatrick‎, ‎Dr‎. ‎

Richard Stamps‎, ‎Jason Thompson‎

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, March 11, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Brian Dunphy called the Regular Historic Districts Commission ‎

Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

2.

Maria‎-‎Teresa Cozzolino‎, ‎John Dziurman‎, ‎Paul Miller‎, ‎Richard Stamps‎, ‎Brian ‎

Dunphy‎, ‎Jason Thompson and Nicole Franey‎

Present

7 -

Micheal Kilpatrick

Absent

1 -

Also Present‎:‎ Derek Delacourt‎, ‎Deputy Director‎, ‎Planning Department‎

Kristine Kidorf‎, ‎Kidorf Preservation Consulting‎

Judy A‎. ‎Bialk‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Dunphy announced that a quorum was present‎.‎

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

All decisions made by the Historic Districts Commission follow the guidelines of the ‎

Secretary of the Interior‎'‎s Standards for Rehabilitation‎, ‎MLHDA Section ‎399‎.‎205‎, ‎and local ‎

Ordinance Section ‎118‎-‎164‎(‎a‎).‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2010-0120

Minutes of the February ‎11‎, ‎2010 ‎Regular Meeting‎

A motion was made by Cozzolino‎, ‎seconded by Miller‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Approved as Presented‎. ‎The motion CARRIED by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Cozzolino, Dziurman, Miller, Stamps, Dunphy, Thompson and Franey

7 -

Absent

Kilpatrick

1 -

ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMUNICATIONS

6.

1. MHPN 30th Annual Preservation Conference Brochure

Dr‎. ‎Stamps announced that on May ‎1‎st‎, ‎the Oakland County Historical ‎

Commission would be sponsoring a workshop called “Preparing for ‎

Commemoration of the Civil War‎.‎” This ‎150‎th Anniversary will demonstrate ‎

ways that communities can remember and commemorate through parades‎, ‎

cemetery walks‎, ‎plays‎, ‎poster contests‎, ‎re‎-‎enactment groups‎, ‎poetry contests‎, ‎

and movie nights‎, ‎showing Glory‎, ‎Gone with the Wind and Gettysburg‎-‎types of ‎

movies‎. ‎He asked the members to spread the word‎, ‎and if anyone was ‎

interested in ways a community could commemorate the Civil War‎, ‎they should ‎

contact the Bloomfield Library on the corner of Telegraph and Long Lake‎. ‎He ‎

added that the event would be from ‎9‎:‎00 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎until ‎12‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, ‎and recalled the ‎

quote by President Lincoln‎: ‎“They shall not have died in vain‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller mentioned that he was at the Rochester Library and noticed a display ‎

of some artifacts from the previous inhabitants of the Rochester area‎. ‎He ‎

reported that Dr‎. ‎Stamps was giving a presentation on the area’s original ‎

inhabitants on March ‎21‎st at ‎2‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, ‎and said that he was looking forward to ‎

attending and wanted others to be informed‎.‎

There were no further announcements brought forward‎.‎

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

7.

Chairperson Dunphy noted that there was one request from Ms‎. ‎Melinda ‎

Hill‎. ‎He advised the audience members in attendance that if they wished ‎

to speak on any non‎-‎Agenda or Agenda items‎, ‎they should complete a ‎

speaker‎'‎s card and turn it in to the recording secretary‎. ‎He reminded the ‎

speakers that they had a maximum of three minutes to speak‎. ‎

Melinda Hill‎, ‎1481 ‎Mill Race‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48306‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill ‎

believed there had been a hearing for the O’Neill Pottery‎/‎Dunn home‎, ‎

and asked for an update and to find about the property’s status‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy confirmed that there was a hearing by an ‎

administrative law judge on behalf of the State Historic Preservation ‎

office‎. ‎The hearing officer had several weeks to make a recommendation ‎

to SHPO‎, ‎and the HDC board would be advised of the decision‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2010-0023

Vacant Parcel located on Winkler Mill Road ‎(‎HDC File ‎#‎08‎-‎001‎)‎

Applicant‎:‎ Nathaniel Brock‎

Sidwell‎:‎ 15-01-227-017‎

District‎:‎ Winkler Mill Pond‎

Request‎:‎ Certificate of Appropriateness‎

-‎ Construction of Barn‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt recapped that the Historic Districts Commission had heard ‎

the subject item previously regarding the potential to relocate an older ‎

barn structure to one of Mr‎. ‎Brock’s parcels near Winkler Mill and ‎

Washington roads‎. ‎Subsequent to that meeting‎, ‎there were several ‎

discussions with Mr‎. ‎Brock regarding location and the process‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎

Brock provided a plan and elevations showing the barn‎. ‎He recently ‎

updated the drawing to be more detailed‎, ‎labeling colors and materials‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock was present requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to ‎

re‎-‎locate the barn‎. ‎If the HDC was ready to entertain the request‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎

Delacourt noted that a draft motion had been provided‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman indicated that as much as he supported the proposal‎, ‎he ‎

wished to bring up the fact that it was necessary to go through the ZBA ‎

process first‎. ‎He had talked with Mr‎. ‎Brock about it‎, ‎but the ZBA meeting ‎

was cancelled‎. ‎There were certain violations‎, ‎and he did not know if the ‎

HDC should approve it before they knew if the ZBA would approve it‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy said he understood there were some zoning issues‎, ‎

and he asked Mr‎. ‎Delacourt to address those‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt clarified that the Ordinance required the applicant to come ‎

to the HDC first in this instance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock would have to get a front yard ‎

variance‎, ‎and he proposed to combine his lots‎. ‎The ZBA would also have ‎

to review the height for an exception‎. ‎There was specific language in the ‎

Zoning Ordinance to allow historic structures to exceed the height ‎

limitations for detailed accessory structures without requiring a variance‎. ‎

One of the criteria was that the HDC approve the structure and its location ‎

prior to the ZBA review‎, ‎so there was no requirement that Mr‎. ‎Brock had to ‎

go to the ZBA first‎. ‎He could go to either board first‎, ‎and the matter would ‎

be conditioned on the other board providing the appropriate approval‎. ‎He ‎

assured that the HDC should not be concerned that it did not go to the ‎

ZBA first‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock thanked the Commission‎, ‎and he noted that he had done a lot ‎

of research on barns‎, ‎barn moving and the process‎. ‎He had also done ‎

some archeological survey work with Dr‎. ‎Stamps‎, ‎who had requested that ‎

they meet at the site after the January meeting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock originally ‎

thought that he would just find a barn and move it‎. ‎He had a hard time ‎

finding one that met the size specification‎. ‎He found one in another ‎

community and was hopeful‎, ‎but because the structure had not been ‎

maintained over the years‎, ‎water caused much timber frame damage‎. ‎He ‎

located a barn in Ortonville that was in storage‎, ‎having been taken down ‎

in ‎2004‎. ‎It was considerably larger and a different style than he had ‎

hoped‎, ‎but he learned that many people oftentimes will take an original ‎

timber frame structure and put it together according to their specifications‎. ‎

The barn was dated ‎1867‎, ‎and he hoped to use as much of the original ‎

barn as possible‎. ‎The timbers were ‎8 ‎x ‎8 ‎and in great condition‎. ‎He ‎

showed a picture of what he hoped the barn would look like and pointed ‎

out the windows and plaster work‎, ‎and said he was open to suggestions ‎

from the HDC‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps confirmed that Mr‎. ‎Brock and he met and spent time going ‎

over historic maps and property information‎. ‎His assessment was that on ‎

the larger parcel‎, ‎there was archeological potential‎, ‎and in the area where ‎

they planned to put the barn‎, ‎it would not have a negative impact‎. ‎If he ‎

was writing the report to the State‎, ‎he would recommend that the project ‎

move forward‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any other questions or ‎

comments‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller stated that he reviewed the information and the enhanced ‎

drawing‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock had said that the barn had a gable roof‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Miller ‎

asked him if he had seen a picture of the original barn‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock said he ‎

had‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller asked the dimensions of the original barn‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock said it was ‎40 ‎ft‎. ‎x ‎60 ‎ft‎. ‎It was documented as it was taken ‎

down‎, ‎and that information was available‎, ‎if needed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller clarified ‎

that Mr‎. ‎Brock wanted a ‎25 ‎ft‎. ‎x ‎40 ‎ft‎. ‎barn‎. ‎He clarified that the roof and ‎

siding were gone and that Mr‎. ‎Brock would be buying the timbers‎, ‎which ‎

would be transported to the site‎. ‎After the foundation was in place‎, ‎the ‎

timber frame would be erected‎, ‎and then a new roof would be added‎. ‎He ‎

did not think having a different style roof was an issue‎. ‎He thought that a ‎

metal roof was ideal ‎- ‎it was more energy efficient‎, ‎recyclable‎, ‎fire proof ‎

and very long‎-‎lasting‎. ‎He had noticed cut stone on the earlier drawings‎, ‎

and he asked if Mr‎. ‎Brock had changed his mind about that for the ‎

foundation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock said that the gentleman who did the drawings imagined a faux ‎

stone facing‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock stated that he did not want faux‎. ‎The next step ‎

would be river rock‎, ‎but to face that much and go up the sides‎, ‎it seemed ‎

too costly‎. ‎They liked the plaster look‎, ‎which was also commonly done‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller recalled comments at an earlier meeting that the barn should ‎

clearly be distinguishable from the original structure‎. ‎If they used a ‎

cement or concrete block foundation it would set it apart‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller felt ‎

that Mr‎. ‎Brock had a wonderful vision and an adventure ahead‎, ‎and he ‎

did not have any concerns about the color or hardware being compatible‎. ‎

He did have a concern about the steep slope‎. ‎He was one of the original ‎

proponents of the Steep Slope Ordinance‎, ‎and he was curious how the ‎

structure fit in with the Ordinance‎, ‎if there was consideration of a steep ‎

slope‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt confirmed that it was considered a steep slope‎, ‎and he said ‎

that the original sighting of the structure would have placed it on top of the ‎

slope‎. ‎Because of the Ordinance‎, ‎the structure was moved about ‎20 ‎feet‎. ‎

The structure would probably still be within the setback from the top of ‎

slope‎, ‎but it would not require a variance because it was a single‎-‎family ‎

property and the City Engineer could issue a permit‎. ‎The City Engineer ‎

had been concerned about the impact to the top of slope‎, ‎but because it ‎

was pushed back and was minimally in the setback‎, ‎he did not believe ‎

there was an issue‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock commented that siding and roof materials rarely lasted‎. ‎An old ‎

barn from the ‎1830‎’s would have been re‎-‎sided and re‎-‎roofed a number of ‎

times‎, ‎and finding an original situation was very unlikely‎. ‎He asserted ‎

that putting new material in the old way would put a structure in place to ‎

last for the next century‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller agreed‎, ‎and said that in other areas of the country where there ‎

were more chestnut trees‎, ‎people would frequently use them as the wood ‎

of choice‎. ‎He maintained that they had incredible weather endurance‎. ‎

He noted that the key to keeping a barn in good shape was a good roof‎, ‎

and that they were usually redone several times over the years‎. ‎He ‎

added that he was very impressed with the proposal‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked how much of the barn would be restored from the one ‎

in Ortonville and how much would be new‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock responded that the timber frame would make up the frame of ‎

his barn‎. ‎Beyond that‎, ‎it was a matter of determining the condition of the ‎

rafter pieces and utilizing as much of that material as possible‎. ‎The ‎

frame was the main structure‎, ‎and the rest would be new material‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Thompson asked if the consultant had any thoughts about the project‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf said that her opinion was that the work would meet the ‎

Secretary of Interior Standards‎, ‎especially with the change in foundation ‎

materials from stucco to concrete block‎, ‎as well as the new siding and roof ‎

materials‎. ‎It would clearly be a new building‎, ‎which was her primary ‎

concern‎, ‎and since Dr‎. ‎Stamps had addressed the archeological piece‎, ‎

she felt that it warranted a Certificate of Appropriateness‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Thompson said he appreciated what Mr‎. ‎Brock had done‎, ‎and ‎

indicated that he had no objections‎, ‎and he looked forward to seeing it go ‎

up‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any further questions or ‎

comments and whether anyone was prepared to make a motion‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Miller‎, ‎seconded by Franey‎, ‎in the matter of File No‎. ‎HDC ‎

08‎-‎001‎, ‎that the Historic Districts Commission ‎APPROVES ‎a request for ‎

construction of a barn on a vacant parcel identified as Sidwell ‎

15‎-‎01‎-‎227‎-‎017‎, ‎located in the Winkler Mill Pond Historic District‎, ‎for ‎

Nathaniel Brock‎, ‎6425 ‎Winkler Mill Road‎, ‎with the following Findings and ‎

Conditions‎: ‎

Findings‎: ‎

1‎.‎ The subject site is a locally designated Historic District located in the ‎

Winkler Mill Pond Historic District within the City of Rochester ‎

Hills‎. ‎

2‎.‎ The plans for the new barn structure appear to be compatible in mass‎, ‎

height‎, ‎scale and design features with the Winkler Mill Pond ‎

Historic District‎. ‎

3‎.‎ The addition of a new barn structure as a non‎-‎contributing resource in ‎

the Winkler Mill Pond Historic District will not have a detrimental ‎

effect on the existing contributing and non‎-‎contributing resources ‎

located in the surrounding area‎. ‎

4‎.‎ The proposed design‎, ‎texture and materials to be used in the ‎

construction of the barn structure do not lessen the historic integrity ‎

of the Winkler Mill Pond Historic District‎. ‎

5‎.‎ The applicant proposes to reconstruct a historic barn structure ‎(‎circa ‎

1867‎) ‎on his property‎. ‎The portions of the barn that will be ‎

reconstructed were obtained Ortonville‎, ‎Michigan‎, ‎where the barn ‎

originally sat‎, ‎although it was subsequently dismantled and placed ‎

in storage‎. ‎

6‎.‎ The proposed new construction is in keeping with the Secretary of the ‎

Interior’s Standard for Rehabilitation and Guidelines Number ‎1‎, ‎

Number ‎8‎ and Number ‎9‎. ‎

Conditions‎: ‎

1‎.‎ The reconstruction will utilize the primary timbers from the historic ‎

barn‎, ‎in addition to new materials that will be historically accurate‎. ‎

The exterior vertical siding will be rough milled‎, ‎1‎” x ‎12‎” tongue and ‎

groove pine‎, ‎painted Sikkens Navajo Red‎. ‎

2‎.‎ The roof will be a standing seam pre‎-‎finished charcoal gray Fabral ‎

metal roof‎. ‎The choice of this roofing material will differentiate the ‎

new reconstructed barn from any existing contributing resources in ‎

the District‎. ‎

3‎.‎ Doors located on the four sides of the reconstructed barn will be ‎

located as depicted on the plans dated received March ‎9‎, ‎2010‎. ‎

The doors will be painted red with white trim‎. ‎

4‎.‎ Windows of the four sides of the reconstructed barn will be Marvin ‎

simulated true divided light wood windows‎, ‎painted white‎. ‎

5‎.‎ The foundation for the reconstructed barn will be white lime mortar ‎

stucco over a ‎12‎” wide concrete block foundation‎. ‎The use of ‎

these materials will differentiate the reconstructed structure from ‎

any existing contributing resource in the District‎. ‎

6‎.‎ The hinges depicted on the left side elevation will actually be installed ‎

on the outside of the ventilation windows‎. ‎

7‎.‎ A gravel driveway will be constructed leading from Winkler Mill Road ‎

to the front elevation of the reconstructed barn‎. ‎

8‎.‎ All work proposed for the subject site shall receive all appropriate ‎

Building Department permits prior to any work being performed‎. ‎

9‎.‎ The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals for the proposed work prior to any work being ‎

performed‎. ‎

10‎.‎ Any work‎, ‎other than what is indicated on the plans dated received by ‎

the Planning Department March ‎9‎, ‎2010‎ will require additional ‎

review and approval by the City’s Historic Districts Commission‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there was further discussion on the motion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman felt the wording for the motion was good‎, ‎but he thought that ‎

number finding four‎, ‎“the proposed design‎, ‎texture and materials used in ‎

the construction of the barn structure should say “do not” lessen the ‎

historic integrity‎, ‎rather than “appears to‎.‎” He noted that he went through ‎

the Secretary of Interior Standards and he said number eight dealt with ‎

archeological resources‎. ‎He said there was an exploratory situation‎, ‎and ‎

he thought they should add it‎. ‎It met three standards‎. ‎Those ‎

recommendations were added above‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock had talked about ‎

lead‎-‎based paint‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked him if it existed on the original ‎

items‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock said he was not sure‎. ‎There was a photograph of the date ‎

painted on the inside of the barn‎, ‎and he felt it was likely done in lead ‎

paint‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that it could be encapsulated‎, ‎but if it had to be ‎

removed‎, ‎he recommended using a product called Peel Away‎, ‎carried at ‎

Sherwin Williams‎. ‎He recalled that they used it on the Western Knitting ‎

Mill and it went up like wallpaper and when pulled off‎, ‎all the lead paint ‎

was removed with it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock agreed that he would like to do something ‎

with it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brock mentioned the location of the driveway on the Site Plan‎, ‎and ‎

noted that there was also a gate‎. ‎He wondered if they should move the ‎

driveway and keep the vegetation‎. ‎If there was enough room‎, ‎he would ‎

like to swing the driveway in front of the gate‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller said that they were led to believe that all old paint had lead in it‎, ‎

but he advised that it was not always the case‎, ‎especially in structures ‎

from the mid‎-‎1800‎’s that were residential and rural in nature‎. ‎Lead‎-‎based ‎

paint was expensive‎, ‎and it came from a paint manufacturer‎, ‎whereas ‎

much of the paint people used then was made at home‎. ‎There were all ‎

kinds of recipes‎, ‎so before Mr‎. ‎Brock spent a lot of money‎, ‎he suggested ‎

that he should make sure it was necessary‎. ‎Regarding the drive‎, ‎when ‎

putting in a new entranceway‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller reminded that it usually required ‎

a base‎. ‎He observed that if Mr‎. ‎Brock could use what was already there‎, ‎it ‎

would be helpful‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy suggested adding a condition regarding the ‎

approval needed from the ZBA‎, ‎and he called for a vote‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brock noted ‎

that the hinges on the ventilation windows on the left side elevation should ‎

be on the outside‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller agreed to the added findings‎/‎conditions‎.‎

A motion was made by Miller‎, ‎seconded by Franey‎, ‎that this matter be Approved‎. ‎

The motion CARRIED by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Cozzolino, Dziurman, Miller, Stamps, Dunphy, Thompson and Franey

7 -

Absent

Kilpatrick

1 -

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Dunphy noted the applicant present who had recently ‎

purchased in the Historic District‎, ‎who wished to get some input from the ‎

HDC‎. ‎He asked Mr‎. ‎Delacourt to brief the Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt introduced the applicant‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Haffner‎, ‎and said that he ‎

recently purchased ‎1431 ‎Washington Road‎, ‎in the Stony Creek Historic ‎

District‎. ‎It was not identified individually in the Ordinance‎, ‎and the most ‎

recent survey sheets showed it as a non‎-‎contributing resource‎. ‎The ‎

applicant was required to come before the HDC for any work done as ‎

defined in the Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Haffner was interested in tax credits and in ‎

restoring the house‎. ‎There was some damage to the roof‎, ‎and water was ‎

leaking into the building‎. ‎They were proposing to fix the damage and ‎

re‎-‎shingle the roof with similar material‎. ‎Staff was comfortable with this‎, ‎

and it would not normally require going to the HDC‎, ‎but Mr‎. ‎Haffner did ‎

want to talk about some future projects as well as the roof‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Haffner advised that his wife grew up in the area‎, ‎and for ‎16 ‎years they ‎

had been planning to move back from New Mexico‎. ‎In December‎, ‎they ‎

fell in love with the house and wanted to get it back in the original shape‎. ‎

They closed last Friday and were living there‎, ‎and they wanted to get it up ‎

to livable form‎, ‎since the previous owners had trashed it‎. ‎They needed to ‎

keep the rain outside‎, ‎and he pointed out the water damage inside and ‎

out‎. ‎The drywall was dissolved on the roof and ground floor‎. ‎There was ‎

also an unattached carriage house‎, ‎and the roofs were redone fairly ‎

recently with low grade shingles‎, ‎and all of it had to be replaced‎. ‎He went ‎

through the damaged areas‎, ‎and said that some of the rafters had been ‎

replaced and some cut off and replaced with a mixture of ‎2 ‎x ‎4‎’s and ‎4 ‎x ‎

4‎’s and a stripped tree trunk‎, ‎which was cracking‎. ‎Part of the roof was ‎

repaired by ‎1 ‎x ‎14‎’s and when they tried to repair it‎, ‎they tried to level the ‎

decking with shims‎. ‎The deck was not stable and was failing‎. ‎They ‎

wanted to restore the building and replace the rafters to make it strong‎, ‎

and he assured that they would work with the HDC with everything ‎

needed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Haffner introduced Mr‎. ‎Sulley Gibson from Gibson Design Group‎, ‎the ‎

builders‎. ‎He met the Haffners last week and inspected the roof‎. ‎They saw ‎

that the original roof joists were horrible‎. ‎He had talked with the City’s ‎

Building Inspector about what they planned‎, ‎and they decided what was ‎

needed‎. ‎They wished to remove the flat roof over the entrance of the ‎

home and put an EPDM roof on top‎, ‎and they were present asking for the ‎

HDC’s blessing so they could get started‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked the Commissioners if anyone had concerns ‎

about the project proceeding as routine maintenance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman indicated that he had some concerns‎. ‎He asked if they ‎

planned to remove the whole roof and rebuild it‎, ‎which was confirmed‎. ‎He ‎

asked if it would be the same pitch‎, ‎which was also confirmed‎. ‎He asked ‎

what they were doing for ventilation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibson said they would have to resort to the conventional small ‎

ventilation boxes because they had gabeled venting with power vents‎, ‎

and with that‎, ‎they could not use continuous ridge venting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman ‎

suggested that they could cover the vents‎. ‎He said that he was worried ‎

about the pots‎, ‎asking if they would be just on the back side‎. ‎He stated ‎

that he would not want them on the front‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibson said he understood‎, ‎but he had not discussed it with Mr‎. ‎

Haffner‎. ‎They could close the gable vents off and put in continuous ridge ‎

venting for everything‎. ‎He was told by the Building Inspector that he ‎

could not do that because there would be co‎-‎mingling of the air and it ‎

would not convect‎. ‎If they shut off all the gable vents by sealing with ‎

plywood on the inside‎, ‎they could use ridge vents‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that he would personally prefer that because he ‎

thought it was a better ventilation system‎, ‎but he was against the pots‎, ‎

maintaining that it would change the character of the building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibson noted that there was not one vent there now‎, ‎although there ‎

was continuous soffet venting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that the construction ‎

probably went back to the ‎1870‎’s‎, ‎and the tree trunks were used then‎. ‎The ‎

spacing between the roof boards was probably an indication that they ‎

used wood shingles‎, ‎which had been destroyed‎. ‎He asked about the flat ‎

roof‎, ‎and what was on it‎. ‎He asked if they were putting a rubber roof on it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibson said they would put down insulation and use a termination bar ‎

to seal it against the flashing area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked the color‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎

Gibson said it would be black‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked if it would be seen ‎

from the road‎, ‎and was told nothing could be seen from the road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Dzuirman asked if they had to vent the flat roof‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Gibson said he ‎

did not believe so‎. ‎He said that the flat roof covered a kitchen addition ‎

from ‎1986‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked if there was a solid fence across the front of the ‎

house‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibson said it was and that it was in disrepair‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Haffner ‎

said that was one of the things he would be bringing before the HDC to ‎

review‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller said that from what was showed‎, ‎he thought that the flat roof was ‎

just above the ceiling joists and that it should probably be stuffed with ‎

insulation‎. ‎He understood Mr‎. ‎Gibson’s concern about the ripple and said ‎

it was the shimmed up‎, ‎built up roof decking that was moving and that ‎

caused the ripples‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibson said there was a deck on top of a deck‎, ‎

but the secondary deck was only fastened in certain points‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller indicated that he did not have an issue calling the re‎-‎roofing ‎

routine maintenance‎, ‎but he stated that there was nothing routine about it ‎

when they had to re‎-‎frame and re‎-‎do roof rafters‎, ‎etc‎. ‎That was the ‎

Building Department’s authority‎, ‎not the HDC‎. ‎He confirmed that typical ‎

asphalt shingles would be used‎, ‎and that they would match the color‎. ‎He ‎

asked about the height‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Gibson went over the pitches‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller ‎

asked if the gable vents were pre‎-‎built vinyl‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibson thought they ‎

were wood and not a typical thing a vinyl company would produce‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Miller said the survey sheet showed it was owned by an M‎. ‎J‎. ‎Millard in ‎

the ‎1800‎’s‎, ‎but Mr‎. ‎Gibson had called it the Chapman House‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Haffner ‎

said he researched it at the Van Hoosen Museum‎, ‎and a relative of the ‎

Chapman’s sold it in ‎2004‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps mentioned the ‎1 ‎x ‎8 ‎or ‎12 ‎ft‎. ‎subroofing‎, ‎and asked if Mr‎. ‎

Gibson if he had a picture‎. ‎He asked the dimensions again‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibson ‎

said it was variable and all over the map‎. ‎The shim was across the ‎

original decking‎, ‎horizontal with the roof‎, ‎and the decking on the outside ‎

envelope was just floating‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps observed the cuttings‎, ‎and said ‎

they did not appear to be modern boards‎. ‎He said he was very happy that ‎

Mr‎. ‎Haffner was saving the house‎, ‎and he wanted to support and ‎

encourage him‎. ‎The boards were antiques and when dismantled‎, ‎rather ‎

than totally ripping them out‎, ‎he asked if they could save a sample for ‎

him because it was a perfect example of a pit saw cut piece of wood‎. ‎He ‎

asked Mr‎. ‎Gibson if he knew what type of wood it was‎, ‎and was told ‎5 ‎¼ x ‎

14 ‎or ‎16 ‎- ‎exceptionally wide‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps asked the measurement around the log‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibson said it ‎

was ‎4 ‎½ to ‎5 ‎½ square‎, ‎but he did not think it was original‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps ‎

reiterated that the project had his support‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Franey welcomed Mr‎. ‎Haffner to the neighborhood‎. ‎She thought that ‎

what he was doing was great‎, ‎noting that she drove by that house a lot‎. ‎It ‎

was occupied and then vacant‎, ‎and it was sad that the people before him ‎

did not do the right thing‎. ‎She was glad someone stepped up to restore it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman echoed everyone’s comments‎, ‎but said he wanted to be ‎

careful‎. ‎He wondered if there was anything the HDC needed to do legally‎, ‎

because it was a little more than maintenance‎. ‎He wondered if they ‎

needed to provide a C of A or a motion‎. ‎He thought that the Building ‎

Department needed some guidance‎, ‎as well‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that if the HDC felt it was necessary‎, ‎they could ‎

certainly make a motion that the roof work as presented was appropriate ‎

and they could add conditions‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked if the Meeting ‎

Minutes could be used‎, ‎to which Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed‎. ‎They could ‎

provide them to the Building Department‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked the color of the shingles‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Gibson said it was ‎

just a slightly deeper color ‎(‎Heather Blend‎) ‎than what was there‎, ‎which ‎

was covered with moss‎, ‎but he assured that it would not be ostentatious‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps asked about it being a non‎-‎contributing sight‎, ‎having been ‎

built in ‎1870‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy referred to the survey sheet‎, ‎which ‎

said it lost its historic appearance‎, ‎but it did not say at what point‎. ‎There ‎

were alterations made in ‎1986‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt added that it was not ‎

identified at the inception of the Ordinance as a contributing sight‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said it was great that Mr‎. ‎Haffner wanted to go after State tax ‎

credits‎, ‎and he reminded that they might be able to get them for a new ‎

kitchen and new heating and ventilating systems‎. ‎He reminded that the ‎

State was a stickler for good photography‎. ‎Everything had to be ‎

documented extremely well‎, ‎and if done properly‎, ‎he felt they should get ‎

the credit‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Haffner said they were keeping close records‎. ‎He advised ‎

that there were historical pictures of the house‎, ‎and he said he could bring ‎

them at a later date so the HDC could better advise him about ‎

proceeding with things such as the trees and the fence‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman ‎

said that would be great‎, ‎and he suggested that they contact the SHPO ‎

office soon‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that he provided Mr‎. ‎Haffner the whole ‎

packet regarding tax credits‎, ‎and Staff was going to contact SHPO‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps said he hoped that a ‎1870‎’s house could have whatever was ‎

inappropriate removed to do whatever they could to shift it from ‎

non‎-‎contributing to contributing‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked Mr‎. ‎Delacourt if a motion was needed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Delacourt did not believe so‎; ‎they just wanted the HDC to be able to see ‎

what Mr‎. ‎Haffner was planning‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt thanked Mr‎. ‎Haffner for his ‎

willingness to go before the HDC‎, ‎which he said made it much easier for ‎

Staff going forward‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Miller asked about emergency maintenance‎, ‎such as a hole in the ‎

roof‎, ‎advising that an applicant was allowed to repair that to preserve the ‎

integrity of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed that Staff would allow that‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf informed that the Commission could delegate a list of things‎, ‎

like an asphalt to asphalt roof replacement‎, ‎to Staff‎, ‎and what Mr‎. ‎Haffner ‎

was doing fell under those guidelines‎, ‎even though there were some ‎

structural repairs to be done underneath‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy agreed it ‎

would be an administrative approval in this case‎.‎

Next Meeting Date - April 8, 2010

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was ‎

scheduled for April ‎8‎, ‎2010‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission‎, ‎and upon motion ‎

by Miller‎, ‎seconded by Cozzolino‎, ‎the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at ‎

8‎:‎28 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

_________________________ ______________________________‎

Brian Dunphy‎, ‎Chairperson Minutes transribed by Maureen Gentry‎

Historic Districts Commission Planning and Development Department‎