[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:40] There we go.
[0:44] Calling the meeting to order. This is the York Historic District Commission, town of York, our regular monthly meeting. I'm calling the meeting to order at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2nd. Welcome to anyone watching us at home. We do not have attendees. This is our monthly meeting. We're appointed by the board of staff.
[1:10] to maintain the character of historic districts and landmark buildings,
[1:15] according to Article 12 of the town's zoning ordinance.
[1:19] Our job is to review applications for certificates of appropriateness,
[1:24] determining whether or not proposed changes to any structures designated in the ordinance
[1:30] are consistent with its guidelines.
[1:33] These guidelines are based on the secretary of the interior standards
[1:38] for the treatment of historic structures.
[1:40] My name is Scott Stevens.
[1:42] I chair the commission.
[1:44] I'm joined by John Covino, Donald Rose, and Carrie LePray.
[1:49] We are all here.
[1:50] So we have a quorum.
[1:52] We have a full house.
[1:54] I would normally open a public hearing,
[1:57] but there is no one here to participate in a public hearing.
[2:01] So the first thing I would like to do is discuss our efforts to modify the Article 12.16.
[2:22] That's something I assume you and I have maybe a couple of copies for our friends.
[2:31] You're very familiar this. We've been working on it for a long time. We did hear back
[2:36] from the town attorney last week, and John Covino and I made
[2:46] – she made suggested changes.
[2:50] We accepted most of them and altered one bit of wording. I just want you to be aware of
[2:58] what we submitted then to the planning board for its public hearing on June 11th.
[3:07] And I can, John, do you want to talk about the changes?
[3:12] Should I do that?
[3:17] My suggestion would be that neither of us do.
[3:21] Since this is a public meeting, we don't want it to get into Advice and Council, and that
[3:26] doesn't matter.
[3:28] Your call, Mr. Chairman, but that would be my suggestion.
[3:30] I think what I'll do rather than go through it line by line is just generalize that her changes were intended to clarify and highlight important aspects of her interpretation of the enabling legislation and these have to do with who is eligible and under what and what the requirement is.
[4:00] which is a maintenance plan consistent with our standards.
[4:06] So that was achieved by moving around some things,
[4:15] not changing the wording, but just simply moving things from one place to another
[4:21] and maybe
[4:27] I don't read a change of, minor changes of wording. Going through it, we quickly
[4:34] decided to accept the changes and then we just made a minor word to week.
[4:43] So I have to apologize if what I sent to you, Mr. Paragraph or so, the other day I thought
[4:53] that was what Dylan Smith was going to submit to our attorney rather than what
[4:58] you're going to submit to the planning board. When you asked if there was an
[5:02] attachment I said no and then you just mentioned it's going to the
[5:06] planning board as oh my that's right yeah we were under the gun that day he had to
[5:10] get the materials to the planning board so I don't need to submit it to the
[5:15] planning board now okay all right that's fine yeah it turns out but I feel bad
[5:21] that I gave you what appeared to be and turned out to be incomplete because I thought it was for a different person.
[5:26] I'm sure that was a fair and it took me a lot of time on my part.
[5:30] So this is in the pipeline and on the 11th car in John are going to attend that public hearing.
[5:39] Unfortunately, I can't, I made an obligation before I knew there would be a public hearing that day.
[5:45] I appreciate your doing that in my stead.
[5:51] Any questions or comments?
[5:58] So the planning board will have had this ahead of the meeting.
[6:02] Yes, they will have this.
[6:04] The public at the meeting to ask about it.
[6:06] The public might be.
[6:07] They won't have seen it.
[6:09] I think it will have been, I think any of their materials will be,
[6:13] will be attached to agenda whatever else.
[6:18] I will just ask you, Scott, after making sure I have what they have.
[6:26] Right.
[6:27] Good.
[6:28] So this is the first public hearing with them to get input and then is there a-
[6:35] Well, we had a public hearing earlier in the year, got their input, so and this is not a
[6:43] major reconstruction of it. So this is the second public hearing of a slightly
[6:50] tweet version. Broad concepts being the same.
[6:55] What's the next step? They will act to recommend change or not recommend it. Then it
[7:06] will go to the board of the select board and they will have a public hearing and choose how they act up.
[7:16] Do we know, I assume the planning board has a separate attorney than we have?
[7:21] No, the attorney serves all all of them.
[7:24] Okay, I was just envisioning that they de-decented to their attorney.
[7:38] So the stuff that's crossed out, that's way back from the very beginning?
[7:43] That goes from the original.
[7:43] Yeah, this is the format that they get because it shows what's been eliminated from the current wording in the ordinance.
[7:54] And anything that
[8:01] remains is either originally there or what we have added.
[8:06] Okay. Are there things in italics or what you add?
[8:09] The things in italics are what she are.
[8:16] No, the thing.
[8:18] Yeah, I think the things in italics are changes that she made.
[8:26] But I'm not sure that, no, maybe that's, I think the things in italics are the changes,
[8:32] are all changes. They have to be. She didn't do this much work on it. They're all, all
[8:37] our changes are in italics. And I think, I'm sure Dylan did that with what we sent him
[8:45] because he knows how it's supposed to be presented to the planning board. So it didn't change
[8:50] the wording, it merely changed the font.
[8:53] Yes, she had some comments on the side.
[8:55] Right.
[8:55] I think in a town.
[8:56] Right.
[8:57] Okay.
[9:03] Other comments or questions?
[9:06] If not,
[9:10] I'd like to raise another matter.
[9:12] Are we good?
[9:13] Yeah.
[9:14] Right.
[9:16] So what I want to point to, I'm sure I mentioned this, but in the in Article 12, 12.8,
[9:27] Improvements not requiring historic district commission review.
[9:33] 12.8.1, nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any architectural feature of any building or structure where such repair does not involve a change in design, material or appearance.
[9:52] So, that was the issue that came up as we approached this meeting this month.
[10:04] There were a couple of submissions regarding a historic house in a historic district.
[10:15] And I think what they were doing, I, of course, we don't see everything until it's ready
[10:21] for us to consider, right?
[10:23] But I think what was happening is people were bringing it to code and saying, do we need
[10:28] to submit an application for a certificate of appropriateness?
[10:33] And then code, the Director of Code Harry Norton, Jr., contacted me and said, do you think
[10:43] we need to?
[10:44] and that conversation got a little bit stretched out due to his time in my time, not coinciding,
[10:53] but my clear impression was there was no change of design form or material, so no.
[11:04] But it occurred to me that we've had instances where observant members of this commission
[11:11] or others have said, you know, there's something going on at this house, you know, in this
[11:17] historic district and we didn't talk about that. So I thought we should suggest protocol
[11:24] to the code office, how these, for how these things are dealt with. So we are not surprised.
[11:33] And so that we're on the same page and everybody understands the standards that we're applying.
[11:39] What I would suggest is that, like with letters involving historical or archaeological
[11:47] resources where we have to, we get requests from engineering firms or whatever site planners
[11:56] to look at their site maps and tell them whether there is anything of potential value there
[12:02] that they need to plan for.
[12:04] The way we handle that now is they come to me and I consult the main historic preservation
[12:12] commission in their superior maps, I consult our maps and then I write a letter that says
[12:17] yes, there is something within 500 feet or no there isn't and then I inform you.
[12:23] I think we should basically do the same thing but I welcome your thoughts and I don't have
[12:30] have to be the gate. Any one of us can, it's a pretty simple judgment I think. Any one
[12:37] of us could, I want to make sure that one person isn't making all the decisions unless
[12:45] you are entirely comfortable with those coming to me only.
[12:56] Comfortable with that. I'm just thinking, oh, it brings to mind the question of who decides
[13:03] that there's no change in these things because sometimes people say, oh, it looks the same and we say, well, it doesn't really look the same.
[13:12] You know, I guess the materials is the obvious thing. I mean, if they're not changing materials, then they sort of get a pass.
[13:24] But I mean, is there a burden of proof for them to say we're not changing these things?
[13:31] or is it just, like you said, you just...
[13:36] It's, that's a great question.
[13:37] It's a, it's a little bit of a sketchy area
[13:40] because if you're replacing an asphalt shingle roof
[13:46] with other asphalt shingles,
[13:49] I don't even think you need a permit now.
[13:53] I think it's...
[13:54] Yeah, no, it's your right.
[13:56] Considered maintenance.
[13:57] So, code might not ever even see it until the job is underway, and then if what if they're
[14:05] drastically different shingles, I don't know if that's an issue or whatever, but maybe
[14:14] that's a bad – well, we don't regulate color, that's the interesting –
[14:18] Well, I've always – we regulate color of material, we don't regulate paint color, but I've
[14:24] I always wondered whether asphalt shingled color fell in there.
[14:29] I mean, you wouldn't want that wet bright red asphalt shingles
[14:31] in the middle of the district or something.
[14:33] But I didn't know whether that would ever come for us,
[14:37] or like you said, it would just pass out.
[14:40] I mean, there are architectural shingles,
[14:42] and then there are whatever others,
[14:45] and so how precise do we need to be?
[14:48] These are good points, and I'm afraid we'll only discover
[14:53] or how we should improve our protocol by seeing something that we wouldn't have agreed.
[15:00] It might be worth a workshop with the code office to talk about this and really get into it in detail. And possibly some elaboration of the ordinance to help property owners know, understand the standards in a more nuanced way. I was thinking, too. For instance, composite wood or whatever wood.
[15:29] And would somebody think that was the same thing as whatever?
[15:34] It's not, yeah.
[15:37] So yeah, I think a workshop isn't a bad idea.
[15:39] We could go over the whole procedural thing to do that.
[15:42] Right, we could talk about procedure, talk about materials.
[15:48] Materials are getting to be a gray area these days.
[15:55] I just hope I don't live along enough for vinyl sighting
[15:58] to become the story.
[16:01] Are we there? Oh, no. Scott, I object. I hope you do live. Let me, let me
[16:07] rephrase it. I hope I don't serve long enough in the seat. No, I also hope you serve
[16:13] longer. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Anyway.
[16:16] So okay. If, if that, do we agree that's the best
[16:20] approach to have a workshop, a discussion, I'll find out what the protocol for that has
[16:27] to be whether they come to one of our meetings, whether a delegation of us can go to theirs.
[16:35] I think if we all go, it has to be a publicly noticed meeting, but I think if two go and
[16:43] have this conversation and report back, then that is appropriate.
[16:51] I think you did it before a long time ago, didn't you?
[16:55] We were, for a while, meeting routinely, quarterly with the code office.
[17:01] And I think that would be a really good thing to resume doing because it – there's a
[17:10] surprising amount to talk about and it helps avoid miscommunication, especially now with
[17:16] the transition that we're making to our administration being done by the Code Office.
[17:21] They're really working – they're being very thoughtful and attentive to what our
[17:30] needs are and what the appropriate procedure is, but their – but questions do come up.
[17:35] So we should do that.
[17:40] One or the other.
[17:41] I think that might be the better way to go if – if a couple of us went to their meeting,
[17:45] I think asking them to come to one of our meetings is a lot, and I just think it's better
[17:55] to present a policy in a public hearing rather than present the process of getting there
[18:02] in a public hearing.
[18:04] Oh, I see what you mean.
[18:05] If they get to our meeting, it would be.
[18:06] It would be public, and it's not a workshop.
[18:09] Right.
[18:11] Yeah.
[18:12] Right.
[18:13] Okay. Well, but I guess what you were saying before about the change or the ordinary maintenance
[18:20] repair. I mean, you're saying the code enforcement is going to consult with one of us and say
[18:25] this is what they're proposing. Is this a change? I would say we can request that. They are
[18:33] of course in charge of their own procedure. And they may say now we're, we think we understand
[18:39] and we'll be careful and we'll let you know.
[18:41] But I think it would be good to have the conversation.
[18:45] This has come up a couple of times lately
[18:49] because I also had somebody talk to me informally
[18:54] about their roof and what they had to go through
[18:59] in a historic district, what they had to go through
[19:01] to change it and was aware of that provision
[19:04] and of the lack of a need for a permit, etc., so it's come up now twice within a month.
[19:14] It seems we need to clarify that, again, in the interest of doing our job as well as possible
[19:23] and making life as easy as possible for the people in the historic districts.
[19:30] Then, with your blessing, I will arrange that conversation.
[19:37] Does anybody care to volunteer to join me at a meeting with the...
[19:44] I can, if you want, if you want.
[19:46] It would depend on timing.
[19:47] Yeah, okay.
[19:48] I'll let you know when they ignore me and will figure that I think I should be there, but
[19:54] but I would welcome other sharper minds.
[20:02] Okay. Is there, we have minutes to look at?
[20:06] Yeah.
[20:06] Yeah,
[20:10] and again, the back and forth and the posting.
[20:12] Who sends the minutes?
[20:14] We could go over procedurally in a workshop or something.
[20:18] Yes.
[20:44] Okay.
[20:45] Meeting the minutes of May 5th, 2026.
[20:50] I'll move. They be accepted as submitted. Do I have a second? I will second. Is there
[21:00] any discussion?
[21:04] There being no discussion? I'll ask that you vote. I vote as unanimous.
[21:16] acceptor? Is there any new business that we should treat?
[21:25] Not other than the old business. Any old business that we haven't already
[21:32] treated.
[21:35] If not, I will accept a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn at by 52 on the
[21:44] state. Motion by Donald Rose to adjourn. Any discussion? All in favor? All right. Thank you,
[21:55] to my friends.