January 9, 2007

The meeting was opened and called to order at 7:00 p.m.

HEARING FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR SIGNAGE, 20 CENTRAL SQUARE, JOE SANVILLE: Mr. Dingman stated that according to Planning Board Secretary Jan Laferriere not all abutter notifications were sent out for this hearing because Mr. Sanville had not included himself on the list for notification. Therefore, the hearing would need to be postponed unless Mr. Sanville indicated that he had no concerns with not receiving notification in the mail. Ms. Gordon stated she had no problem with allowing Mr. Sanville to speak relative to his sign, providing no other members did. Mr. Dingman made the motion to waive the notice to the tenant, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Greenwood. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Dingman noted that Mr. Sanville had supplied, with his application, a proposed design for the sign in black and white and that the application stated that the sign was to be made of "poly" (polyvinyl chloride). He asked if Mr. Sanville had a scale diagram, drawing, or photograph of the proposed sign placement so that the Commission could consider this in its review. Mr. Sanville said that he did not. Mr. Dingman also asked Mr. Sanville if he had a sample of the material to be used for the proposed sign so that the Commission could inspect it and Mr. Sanville responded that he did not. Mr. Dingman explained to Mr. Sanville that his application was incomplete based on not having enough information available for the Commission’s review but that the Commission could instead conduct a PCC (preliminary conceptual consultation) that evening with Mr. Sanville in order to help him prepare for a continuation of the hearing at the next HDC meeting. Mr. Sanville agreed to this and asked that the Commission let him know what he needed for the next meeting.

Mr. Dingman continued by asking Mr. Sanville for the size, materials used, and maker of the proposed sign. Mr. Sanville stated it would measure six feet wide by three feet tall and be constructed of white polyvinyl chloride with black artwork. Venture Print designed and would make the sign. Mr. Dingman said that the Commission did not support the use of gloss/shiny vinyl signs in the District and preferred natural materials such as wood or, if synthetics were used, that they at least be painted to resemble wood. Ms. Heaney asked where the sign would be placed and Mr. Sanville stated it would be centered over the door of his business, which occupies the righthand two-thirds of the Tukey’s Block building on Central Square. Mr. Greenwood asked if the sign would have any lighting, to which Mr. Sanville responded "No."

Mr. Dingman asked Mr. Sanville if he had gotten the information needed prior to filling out his application. Mr. Sanville stated he got the application and filled it out assuming Venture Printing was familiar with making historic signs. Mr. Dingman gave Mr. Sanville a copies of the Commission’s signage guidelines, a list of approved typefaces, and the Historic District Ordinance with its goals and purpose. He suggested to Mr. Sanville to review them, and get a copy to Venture Print in order to help them help Mr. Sanville with bringing his sign design into compliance. Mr. Dingman said that all of these materials can be obtained on the town’s website for future use should Mr. Sanville or Venture Print need a copy.

In preparation for the next HDC meeting, it was agreed that Mr. Sanville would need:

1. A scale diagram of the front of the Tukey Block building showing where the proposed sign would be placed; and

2. A sample of the proposed signage material.

In addition, it was suggested that Mr. Sanville have Venture Print re-design the sign artwork so as to remove the contemporary, cartoon clipart characters on the current design, as use of such artwork was not in keeping with the spirit of the Historic District Ordinance.

Mr. Dingman made the motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2007. Ms. Heaney seconded the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Goodrum introduced himself to the board asking if he would need to come before the board to change the windows in his building (the former White’s Block). He wanted to remove the current, original windows in the building in order to replace them with new, energy-efficient versions as these would save him a considerable amount of money with his heating bills. He indicated that the Code Enforcement Officer had said to check first with the HDC before making such changes. Mr. Dingman asked if the change in windows would create a substantial change in the building’s appearance. Mr. Goodrum said that the current windows are 1 over 1, but he was considering 6 over 6 divided light with a PVC-clad wood sash. The Commission felt that if there is no significant change in appearance and the new windows are simply to replace what is currently there, then this act would fall under "general maintenance" of the building, something that the Historic District Ordinance does not regulate. Mr. Goodrum asked if he could get a copy of the Historic District signage guidelines and Mr. Dingman referred him to the town’s website.

Jeffrey Goodrum asked if there were HDC guidelines for lighting, as he wanted to add recessed lighting on the front of the building. Mr. Dingman stated that while the Commission regulates the appearance of external lighting fixtures, changes in exterior lighting are the purview of the Planning Board. However, should Mr. Goodrum seek to change the building’s exterior lighting the Commission and Planning Board could conduct a joint hearing to make the process more time-efficient for the applicant.

Mr. Goodrum asked whether or not changing the building’s front door would be regulated by the Comission. Mr. Dingman stated again if it is being replaced with one of identical style and look, then it would be considered general maintenance, something not regulated by the Commission.

Mr. Goodrum asked if taking down a sign on the building and replacing it would warrant coming to the Historic District Commission prior to removing the sign. Mr. Dingman stated that all new signage must go through HDC Certificate of Approval process. Mr. Goodrum thanked the HDC for taking the time to answer his questions, and Mr. Dingman thanked him for coming in.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Marden, Secretary