Loading...
2008 FORMER Historic District Commission minutes May 29, 2008 The Northampton Historic District Commission Minutes of Meeting May 29, 2008 City of Northampton Council Chambers, 220 Main St., Northampton, MA Members Present: Time  Chair, Marisa Labozzetta 7:00 – 8:15 pm  Norman Winston 7:00 – 8:15 pm  Marthan Lyon 7:00 – 8:15 pm  Edythe Ambroz 7:00 – 8:15 pm  Bruce Kriviskey 7:00 – 8:15 pm Pauline Fogel Staff:  Planner Director, Wayne Feiden 7:00 – 8:15 pm  Planner, John Frey 7:00 – 8:15 pm 7:10 PM Marisa Labozzetta called the meeting to order. She introduced the board members to the citizens in attendance. She noted one member, Pauline Fogel, is absent and also one member slot is currently unoccupied. ELM STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE CHANGES Martha Lyon presented to the public an overview of the Elm Street Historic District proposed changes. Highlights from the presentation included…  The Elm Street Historic District was created in 1994 and the ordinance & design standards are unchanged since that time.  Martha presented a history of Elm Street’s development.  The ordinance revisions are designed to 1.) give a clearer definition of the application requirements, 2.) offer detailed design standards, and 3.) facilitate a better application and review process.  The changes include a revised and more extensive list of exemptions not requiring review.  The design handbook will include 1.) a definition of the character of Elm St, 2.) an explanation of the review process, 3.) specific design standards, 4.) a section on energy efficiency, and 5.) resources for homeowners.  The goal of the ordinance is to 1.) help homeowners make historically sensitive changes, 2.) help homeowners easily prepare the application, 3.) help guide the commission to make fair and sensitive decisions, and 4.) serve as support to the homeowners. PUBLIC COMMENT  Eleanor Wakin stated every house in the district has already undergone changes. This is an evolving district currently focused on a mix of residential homeowners and renters. She has mixed feeling about the evolution of the district and questioned the commission if the current standing of the homes is the standard.  Marisa Labozzetta answered she believed the commission might encourage owners to change back the character as improvements are made over time. It is important to maintain historic character regardless of what it may be.  Eleanor Wakin continued by stating her concerns regarding restrictions to lighting. Her major concern is that in today’s environment lighting equals security. She believes any choice regarding lighting should be left to the owner in order to fulfill their personal sense of safety and security, especially as city budget cuts will likely results in decreased street lighting in the future. She believes the new design standards may be too restrictive.  Marisa Labozzette stated the design standards would be reviewed and re-written to coincide with state law and local ordinance.  Bruce Kriviskey stated the design standards would be primarily regarding the style of fixtures, while intensity and direction of light is governed by local ordinance.  Another Elm Street resident questioned the board regarding their power to restrict change in the district.  Marisa Labozzetta explained the purview of the board regards only exterior facades and landscaping visible to the public from the roadway. The process is fairly simple; if the change is on the list of exemptions then work may proceed without application. If the change is not exempted then the owner should contact Peg Keller in the Office of Planning & Development to submit an application, Peg will review and respond within 14 days. If the work requires committee review a public hearing will then be arranged and the Historic Commission will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.  Bruce Kriviskey added the Building Department knows not to issue a permit until the Certificate of Appropriateness is granted.  Another Elm Street resident noted her concern that the design standards seem more about the tone of the present characteristics of the neighborhood and not the actual structures.  Edythe Ambroz explained there is a continuum of appropriateness for the neighborhood. As times changes building systems evolve as well, especially in regards to energy systems and usage. Yet at the same time it is possible for the neighborhood to observe and appreciate the historic element. Though difficult to regulate the design standards need also to consider lot size, landscaping, and open space.  Marisa Labozzetta noted the commission might only encourage homeowners in regard to their open spaces. For instance, the only control the commission could have regarding driveways is with respect to grading.  Bruce Kriviskey stated the design standards must be functional for today’s residents. It is important to preserve the character of the neighborhood as a whole, so changes must be absorbed in that context. However, structural changes need to be reviewed on an individual building case-by-case basis in order to protect value of the neighborhood.  Martha Lyons noted that while creating the guidelines to forced the commission to see the context of the whole picture. Since there is such a wide array of styles it is difficult to write strict design standards. What makes the district is the context of the whole.  Louise commented that in at least one case Smith College has paved a front lawn to provide parking spaces (between student center and the quad). She feels this is to the detriment of the district and should be regulated.  Wayne Feiden stated that does not fall under the purview of the Historic Commission but rather through city zoning regulations.  Another resident asked how the Smith College Overlay District affects the Elm Street District?  Wayne Feiden clarified that the Elm Street regulations will still apply to Smith College buildings within the Elm Street district. Likewise, the churches and other large building on Elm Street must abide by the Elm Street regulations.  Another Elm Street resident asked if there are plans to increase the size of district. Specifically, he suggested the district should include houses on side streets, which are still visible on Elm Street.  Marisa Labozzetta noted the Elm Street Historic District has received money from the Community Preservation Act in order to document the area. Currently, plans to expand include only areas within the Smith College Overlay that are not currently within the Elm Street District. She noted they would consider adding more homes at the request of abutting homeowners.  Bruce Kriviskey noted other districts within town could easily be created with their own sets of standards. He encourages the commission to keep individual districts small in order to emphasize the specific character of that area. He envisions as many as twenty historic districts in Northampton.  Another Elm Street resident questioned whether the design standards are geared to preserving homes as they standard today or by their original design. Many changes to character have already taken place of the years.  Bruce Kriviskey noted this crops up in many living districts. His standard is that if the change has acquired significance of its own then that characteristic should be preserved. Original is not always best, so long as the changes are characteristic of and appropriate for the area.  Marisa Labozzetta closed by stating the process for approval of the new design standards. The Historic Commission will first send the draft to City Council. City Council will assign it to the Ordinance Committee who will hold a hearing on it and then approve. It will then be sent back to the City Council for approval, which requires voting at two meetings. There will be numerous options for citizen comment at these meetings. 8:15 PM Board adjourned.