Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Features Pergola Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HDC splits on ornate pergola at Spring House; commissioners require simpler design and remove gates, approve separate sign
Summary
The Historic District Commission did not approve the pergola design for the Spring House property outright, directed the applicant to simplify the design (removing gates and reducing ornament), set a potential special meeting for further review, and separately approved one sign in the applicant’s packet.
Get email alerts on the Site Features Pergola Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The New Shoreham Historic District Commission split over an ornate pergola and associated site elements proposed for the Spring House property (owner/applicant Thomas Martucci) and directed the applicant to return with a simplified design. The commission separately approved a logo sign included in the applicant’s packet.
An initial motion to reject the pergolas as designed failed on a 2–2 tie. A commissioner later moved that the application be revised to remove gates and be simplified to two main columns (no elaborate gates or multiple stepped columns) and that the revised submission be returned either at a special meeting or handled administratively if the design met the commission’s requirements. That motion was seconded and advanced with recorded aye and opposed votes during the meeting; commissioners discussed setting a special meeting (proposed April 24) if an in‑person representative could attend.
Owner Thomas Martucci described the proposal as an effort to create a ‘‘very elaborate and classy’’ entry to call out the property’s entrance and to improve safety and lighting on a previously poorly lit patio. "I was trying to create something very, classy, intricate ... to really try to kinda set a very elaborate and, classy setting to come into the property," Martucci said. He also said he had replaced rotted posts and raised post height to accommodate festival‑style lights to illuminate the patio for safety. "They were rotted and snapped ... The only thing difference is the height," Martucci said of the new posts.
Commissioners objected to what several called ornamentation that did not fit the building’s 1890 vernacular. "For me, the building is relatively simple of a particular period. This is the presentation that you've given us is far too ornate," a commissioner said. The commission suggested a more restrained approach — two central columns with a single cross member and railings rather than four columns and decorative gates — and asked the applicant to consult the town’s lighting and signage ordinances when finalizing materials.
The commission also addressed the applicant’s replacement posts. Martucci said the previous posts were rotted and shorter (about 4.5 feet) and that he installed higher posts (about 8 feet) to string lights safely over the patio. Commissioners asked for documentation of what had been in place previously; the commission noted that changes to landscaping and freestanding posts fall under HDC review in New Shoreham. "I think it would be important when we talk about the post and have some sort of documentation as to what was there before," one commissioner said.
On signage, the commission approved the logo sign that had been included in the packet at the January submission. Commissioners reviewed restrictions in the town sign ordinance and noted separate limits for freestanding signage (maximum structure height and clearance and sign face area). The meeting recorded a motion to approve the sign; the chair called for a vote and recorded ayes and opposed responses and moved to finalize that portion of the packet.
The commission instructed the applicant to submit revised drawings showing the simplified pergola (two main columns, no gates) and to consult staff about whether the revisions could be approved administratively or must return to a meeting. Commissioners discussed scheduling a special meeting in late April to review revisions if an applicant representative can attend; Martucci said he may be unable to attend daytime Monday meetings because of personal obligations and asked whether an electronic or staff approval path would suffice.
The commission’s concerns centered on visual compatibility with the building’s historic character and the level of ornamentation proposed; commissioners repeatedly asked for drawings that reflect a more restrained vernacular and for compliance with lighting and signage ordinances before permanent fixtures and larger elements — such as pergolas and elevated posts — are finalized.

