My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/2/2009 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Minutes
>
12/2/2009 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2018 5:05:52 PM
Creation date
3/28/2018 1:19:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/02/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
maintenance product would save taxpayers money over the long terra. The Chair appreciated Ms. <br /> L urent's goal but added that the Commission has been charged with protecting and preserving the <br /> hi toric and what contributes to the both the District and the Town. <br /> )4r. Picard questioned whether the character of the building would be impacted if the existing trim <br /> were replicated and material other than wood used in its place. The Chair and Mr. Picard further <br /> questioned whether or not a synthetic material would hold up better than wood over the long term, and <br /> what would then be the alternative. Ms. Laurent reported that the manufacturer offers a lifetime <br /> warranty on the product. lis. Spencer agreed that the building was meaningful and needed to be <br /> preserved. Mr. Robbins also agreed with Mr. Picard. Commission members discussed when the trim <br /> was installed and Ms, Laurent reported that it was not replaced during the 1996 renovation. <br /> Commission members were in agreement that, based on the Guidelines, use of synthetic materials <br /> would be discouraged and trim should be replaced with like materials, and that they would therefore <br /> recommend use of wood for the trim. Mr. 1 ills questioned Ms. Laurent's preference who reported the <br /> Town's preference to use the PVC material for the purposes of long term maintenance. <br /> Mr. Mills made a notion to close the hearing. Motion seconded by Mr. Robbins, All voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> Each member was asked for their vote on whether or not they approved use of a synthetic material to <br /> replace the existing wood trim. <br /> Ms. Spencer-no; Mir. Robbins-no; Mr. Mitis-no; Mr. Picard-no; Chairman Gurney-no <br /> The application for Certificate o Appropriateness was disapproved, <br /> An application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability had already been completed allowing the Town <br /> to use material in kind. The Town v ill not be using yellow pine, but will use hardwood. <br /> Mr. Mills made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability used on the fact that <br /> the material will be replaced in kind with wood. Motion seconded by Mr. Picard. All voted <br /> unanimously. The Certificate of Non-Applicability was signed by Chairman Gurney and Mr. <br /> Picard,, <br /> Certificate of Appropriateness <br /> Applicant: Pier Iovino <br /> Location: 302 Main Street(Assessors' Map 36, Block 93) <br /> Request: Replace front porch windows <br /> Torn Reynolds represented the applicant to discuss proposed materials for the project t amain <br /> Street. The owner had considered both the double hung windows and rolling windows to replace the <br /> existingFlorida style windows located on the porch. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the over is now <br /> p � <br /> considering use of the rolling window which more closely resembles existing windows that were <br /> installed 12-13 years ago. Mr. Reynolds indicated that there would be no grids on the window, the <br /> trim would be white in color and a 3 inch flat and sill nose would be added. <br /> Mr. Robbins questioned the difference between the computer image shov ing double windows and the <br /> existing house photo which shows triple windows. Conunision members also questioned a previous <br /> issue of roof sag. Mr. Robbins noted that in previous discussions single units were recommended <br /> because there was no header, Mr, Reynolds reported that vertical support was being enhanced to allow <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.