Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gilmanton panel moves to clarify historic-district rules on trim, materials and preservation
Summary
The Historic District Commission resumed work to make regulations less subjective, tentatively allowing alternative trim materials that match wood visually, endorsing dimensional trim guidelines, prioritizing preservation on period homes, and proposing a formal definition for non-conforming structures.
The Town of Gilmanton Historic District Commission resumed a work session on March 26 to revise its historic district regulations with a stated goal of making requirements clearer and less subjective.
Commissioners discussed whether trim color must match a building's body and considered allowing more flexibility in the Meeting House district so trim can be harmonious with neighboring properties. The board also tentatively accepted the use of alternative materials for trim, such as cellular PVC (Azek), provided the materials have "the same visual appearance as wood when viewed from the public way" and are installed with similar dimensions and methods to traditional wood trim.
The commission reviewed dimensional guidance, suggesting corner boards be a minimum of 5½ inches to accommodate modern lumber, with bottom sills and skirt boards generally wider and frieze boards equal to or slightly narrower than corner boards. Commissioners agreed to add language at the start of the primary-structures section prioritizing preservation of original materials on period homes and to consider specific material exclusions for period properties (for example, certain vinyl sidings).
Staff member Bre Daigneault proposed adding a formal definition of "non-conforming" structures in an exemptions section to clarify that structures existing prior to the regulations or previously approved may be repaired or replaced in-kind. Member Justin Caldon offered to construct a physical mock-up of a house corner with examples of approved materials and a replacement window to serve as a visual guide for applicants.
The board also revisited the 250-foot setback requirement, noting it currently applies to the Corners district but not the entirety of a parcel in the Meeting House district; the commission tentatively agreed to maintain the 250-foot rule for consistency while reserving further discussion about visibility from public ways.
The commission scheduled continuation of the regulations review at the "Windows" section in a future meeting. The work session included technical and design-focused discussion, with no formal regulatory changes adopted at this meeting.
