Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Historic commission tables Huntington Lane barn addition after debate over lost features and classification
Loading...
Summary
The Norwich Historic District Commission on April 15 tabled an application for a 15-by-24-foot addition to a Huntington Lane barn after commissioners disagreed over whether the work is an 'addition' or changes to a secondary structure and raised concerns about losing historic windows and altering the pond-side view. Chair Regan will seek guidance from the State Historic Preservation Office.
The Norwich Historic District Commission on April 15 agreed to table an application for a 15-by-24-foot addition to a barn on Huntington Lane, citing uncertainty over how the district design guidelines apply and concerns that the project would remove historic features.
The applicant's representative, Dan, described the proposal as "the addition itself is, 15 by, 24," and said the lean-to-style addition would match existing siding and have a shed roof and sliding barn doors. He said the roof line would meet existing eave lines and estimated the new roof junction would be about 12–13 feet above the structure.
Commissioners focused much of their discussion on whether the work should be treated as "an addition" governed by the guidelines for attachments to main buildings or as work on a secondary structure (a barn), which is covered in a different section. Commissioner Megan Campbell warned that the change "changes that whole barn, that whole side of that barn, which is so picturesque right now," expressing concern about the project's visual impact from the pond. Chair Regan said she had "mixed feelings because it does seem to work with how we would require additions to be built in the Star District based on the design guidelines," but acknowledged the apparent conflict between guideline sections.
Commission members also noted the proposal would remove two windows on the barn face and discussed whether the addition would remain subordinate to the historic building as the guidelines require. The applicant said the homeowner believes the property is zoned for farm use and intends to keep alpacas, but the commission noted zoning and livestock issues fall under a different authority.
After extended debate, the original motion to approve the application was withdrawn and the commission voted to table the COA to the next meeting. Chair Regan said she will "reach out to my contacts at the State Historic Preservation Office" to clarify which guideline categories apply and to advise whether the proposal should be reviewed as new construction, an addition, or work on a secondary structure. The commission also suggested the applicant consider a separate new outbuilding for animals as an alternative that could simplify review.
The motion to table passed; the commission asked staff to gather additional guidance and for the applicant to provide any further materials requested before the applicant returns to the commission.
