December 2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

enthusiastically support a proposal to re -construct a porch the same size and scale as the original. Staff is less enthused about the proposed porch, which is about 50% bigger than the original, and seems out of scale, and disproportioned. Staff notes, however, that the presently existing porch is at least 50% smaller than the original, and thus equally out of scale. For these reasons, staff declines to make a recommendation for or against the side porch, as presently proposed. Staff notes that if the addition to the original milk house/summer kitchen were removed, there would be room to make the proposed masonry addition larger than is presently contemplated, and this might make it possible for the owner to accomplish what he wishes to accomplish with a side porch no larger than the original, leaving the second storey windows and the West facing parlor window uncovered. The proposed handicapped -access ramp leading to the side porch is.well designed, and well located, pending reconsideration of other elements of the porch design. 5. Proposed eight foot tall wood fence. Staff concludes that this fence is proposed to mitigate light from the parking area into the neighbor's home and yard. This is a proper and reasonable consideration. However, Staff notes that the neighbors already have a very nice hedge along their lot line, and suspects that they might not like so very tall a fence immediately South of such a fine hedge, cutting off its light and air. Also, while some eight - foot fences may be graceful and lovely, others can be reminiscent of a cattle slaughter yard. Staff notes that a leading feature of Italianate and Victorian homes was great attention to lovely views along sight lines from windows, doorways, and paths. These are sometimes, but not always, enhanced by fences. Staff recommends that the H.P.C. be given a more specific description of the specific fencing proposed, and that any fence approved be no larger than is minimally necessary to protect neighbors from car headlights in the parking lot, unless some asthetic or historic reason can be given for a larger fence. 6. Staff recommends that the request to remove large trees be denied, for the reason that the trees reflect the property's history and development, and therefore are required to be retained pursuant to the standards applicable to this and every local landmark property. The only exception in the Standards allows for removal of "plant materials and trees in close proximity to the building that are causing deterioration to the building's historic fabric", and that exception is not applicable here. 7. Staff has no opinion regarding the proposed removal of the ship -lap wood frame garage immediately behind the milk house/summer kitchen..