Laserfiche WebLink
44 <br />IV. COMMUNICATIONS: <br />Mrs. Lord questioned if anyone would like to take on the task of finding out all of the deadlines <br />for applicants to get plans in and for legal notices to go out. The Heatons were delayed one <br />month because of being misinformed by the Building Dept. <br />Mrs. Lord indicated that at the last meeting they discussed a walking tour through Butternut <br />Ridge Rd. She did not talk with her neighbor, who had suggested it, because she doesn't think <br />they are going to be able to plan that this winter. Mrs. Davis indicated that she wasn't at the last <br />meeting. Mrs. Lord explained that the board talked about the possibility of trying to institute <br />some kind of walking tour of Butternut, which could be sponsored. It was just a suggestion and <br />the board thought it would be a good idea to plan it out this winter. Mr. Corell questioned if it <br />would not be too long of a walk for some people. He questioned if a Lolley the Trolley type of <br />tour wouldn't work. Mrs. Lord indicated that becomes expensive, but agreed that he had a good <br />point. The board members all agreed that it would be a good idea to put together a wallcing <br />tour. Mrs. VanAuken suggested having different guides and breaking up Butternut into smaller <br />sections to tour. Mrs. Lord indicated that they had tried to have a Lolley the Trolley tour. They <br />had an all day Sunday afternoon event. The tour went down Butternut into the valley and then <br />back up. It was very difficult to give the talk and drive the Trolley. You can not slow down and <br />speed up because of the traffic. She thought there was enough interest in this that the board <br />could get something rolling with Dan Neiberding of Gareau Dr. She suggested a committee <br />meeting on this subject sometime in January after the holidays. <br />At this time board member, Anthony Smeraldi, and his wife, came into the meeting. <br />V. CONIMITTEE REPORTS: <br />Mrs. Lord questioned if everyone reviewed the Landmarks Information Sheet in which the <br />Building Dept. can hand out Landmarks applicants. Mr. Barker indicated that he had read <br />through it and found discrepancies. Paragraph B is why the Heatons were delayed in getting <br />their proposal through this board. The heating vent turned on at this time and what was said <br />could not be made out. Mrs. Lord questioned of this would help people understand why they <br />were being told to go to the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Barker indicated that if a person goes <br />into the Building Dept. and the Building I3ept. says oh, you live in the historical district, hands <br />them this sheet and says this is what you have to go through. He believes that there is enough <br />literature here to let them know what they have to do. Mr. Corell suggested that part (F) was <br />also iinportant in there, because it lets people know how they can appeal this boards decision. <br />Mrs. Lord indicated that the only other thing she could think of to add to this would be the <br />people that it applies to. Maybe in the header or footer, they could put in something about <br />property in the historic district and/or Butternut Ridge Rd. Mr. Corell recommended that <br />Guidelines for Property in the Historic I)istrict should read across the top of the page. Mrs. <br />Lord questioned if the board could think of anything else that the page should have on it. So the <br />only change to this should be the heading, "Guidelines for property in the Historic District or <br />Landmarks". <br />Mrs. Lord indicated that they all received the correspondences and she trusts that everyone reads <br />. .. .. <br />t em. <br />2