Historic panel OKs rebuilt shed on North Cove Road

Other Committee · Meeting of September 15, 2026

Old Saybrook's Historic District Commission approved a rebuilt shed at 158 North Cove Road and weighed a new historic-marker program. The commission voted unanimously to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the 10-by-12-foot shed after member Tamara Laurie recused herself, saying "I am going to recuse myself from this application." Members discussed producing historic-home markers at roughly $100 in production cost, with one member floating a $140 homeowner price, routed through the Old Saybrook Historical Society since the commission cannot accept payments directly. The commission also continued researching a possible expansion of the North Cove Historic District near the South Green, pending a field visit from state contact Jen Scofield, and said a design-criteria regulation rewrite will return in October pending attorney review.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,327 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of September 15, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

Checked against the record: before publication this article was automatically compared with the meeting transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Minutes

Background and stakes: Routine business opened the meeting, but the minutes correction mattered for the commission's record: a property discussed at the August 18 meeting needed to be documented as entirely within the historic district, not partially, and a reference to wood shingles needed to be corrected from the "art house" to the town archives building.

The question before the body: whether to approve the August 18 minutes with Barbara Harmson's two corrections.

Substantive content: Harmson told the board, "I think it's the second page where discussion about the portion of the property is and is not in the historic district... my recollection is we look at a map and we determined that the entire property is in the historic district, so I thought that should be corrected to read that." She also noted the shingle material discussed in the minutes applied to the town archives, "a separate building, not the art house."

Deliberation: No member disputed either correction; the exchange was brief and procedural.

Procedural steps and outcome: The board voted by voice to approve the minutes as amended; no opposition or abstentions were recorded.

Implications: The corrected minutes become the commission's official record for future reference on district boundaries, which could matter if the property's status is revisited.

Staff Report: Window Replacement Exemptions

Background and stakes: The town building official has authority to approve certain exterior work administratively, without a commission hearing, when the work qualifies as ordinary maintenance.

The question before the body: an informational report, not a decision point, on exemptions already granted.

Substantive content: Staff liaison Lynette Wacker reported the building official approved exemption requests for window replacements at 191 North Cove Road and 148 North Cove Road. Both were approved as "ordinary maintenance," with no change in appearance or design; one of the two involved a change in window material but, per Wacker, no resulting change in appearance. A member asked whether the commission's exemption form had been fully updated per prior discussions; Wacker confirmed it had, aside from incorporating the commission's new logo, and noted the building department has moved to an all-electronic, auto-filled version of the same form with identical content.

Implications: None beyond confirming staff process is functioning as the commission previously directed.

Public Hearing: Certificate of Appropriateness, 158 North Cove Road

Background and stakes: Any exterior change to a structure within the historic district requires commission approval through a certificate of appropriateness. This was the meeting's only hearing.

The question before the body: whether to approve a certificate of appropriateness for rebuilding and enlarging a backyard shed at 158 North Cove Road.

Substantive content: The applicant, identified in the meeting only by the first name Tara, described a plan to rebuild the existing shed to 10 feet by 12 feet, in the same location, using board-and-batten siding described as "a little bit different design than what's there currently" but consistent with the home's existing materials. The shed's back corner would remain roughly five feet eight inches from the property line, per a survey conducted the previous year, and would not be moved farther from that line than its current position. The door would continue to face the driveway; the left side would face north toward North Cove Road with no windows on that side, and a skylight would be added on the back. A commission member asked about the siding material referenced on the application as "board and batten," which the applicant confirmed before the board moved to close questions.

Before discussion, member Tamara Laurie recused herself: "I am going to recuse myself from this application." Commission members separately noted the shed's roughly six-foot setback from the property line would not meet the town's standard code for accessory structures today, but agreed the issue fell under zoning review, not historic-district review, since current rules exempt sheds of 120 square feet or less from needing a certificate of zoning compliance and allow them as close as two feet from a property line. One member observed, "my garage is 449 square feet, not 450, for that exact same reason," referencing the same 120-square-foot threshold used by many applicants to avoid additional permitting.

The deliberation: Members voiced general support for the design during discussion after the hearing closed. One member said, "I think it's good that they're keeping it, you know, taking down the one part," referring to a portion of the existing shed footprint, and another agreed the project fit well with surrounding vegetation.

Procedural steps and outcome: A member moved to close the public hearing; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote. A member then moved "approval of the application for 158 North Cove Road based on the facts, representations, plans and application materials provided during this meeting and public hearing." The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote, with Laurie recused.

Implications: The applicant may proceed with construction under the approved design; the zoning setback question raised by members was not resolved by the commission and would need to be addressed, if at all, through the separate zoning process.

Old Business: Design Review Criteria Update

Background and stakes: The commission has been revising its design-review criteria and regulations, a project carried over from the August meeting, with outside legal counsel now reviewing draft language.

The question before the body: how and when to bring the revised criteria back for commission review ahead of a future public hearing.

Substantive content: A staff member reported that the commission's attorney, referred to only as Nick, has completed his review of the regulations and has his own recommendations, including on a proposed amendment to Section 4 concerning an exemption related to color. Member Rich Peters, who could not attend Tuesday, had asked to be part of the criteria discussion; the board said it intends to take the matter up in October, assuming the revised draft is ready and a quorum is available.

The deliberation: A member raised a procedural question about whether it was appropriate for the commission to discuss the draft language internally before presenting it at a public hearing. Staff confirmed an informal discussion among members could be placed on a future agenda, with the attorney invited only if the board develops specific questions it wants answered directly, to avoid incurring additional legal expense. "Let's not incur the expense unless we know we have specific questions," one member said, with another adding they could decide later whether that conversation should happen by Zoom or in person.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. The board agreed to circulate the attorney's revised draft to members when ready and to place an informal discussion on the October agenda.

Implications: The timeline for any formal public hearing on revised design criteria depends on both the attorney's draft turnaround and whether an application forces an earlier October meeting.

Old Business: National Register District Expansion

Background and stakes: The commission has for some time explored expanding the North Cove Historic District, or pursuing National Register recognition, for additional properties near the town's South Green, rather than pursuing individual listings that many properties likely would not qualify for on their own.

The question before the body: whether and how to move the South Green expansion effort forward given the unavailability of a state contact to conduct a field review.

Substantive content: A member reported last speaking with a state preservation contact identified as Jen Scofield, who had offered to visit and help identify logical district boundaries but has not yet had the chance due to statewide workload. In the interim, the member said they reviewed historic resource inventory sheets for houses in the South Green area and found at least one structure the sheets identify as likely qualifying as a "contributing structure" if the district were expanded, suggesting the inventory sheets could help identify a viable expansion area without waiting on Scofield's visit.

The deliberation: Members noted that, as with the prior formation of the North Cove district, an expansion would require affected property owners to vote to approve inclusion. One member said, "I think there's a misconception that a historic district means there's going to be regulation," and the group agreed an educational effort and public meetings would be needed to clarify that expansion would not impose new restrictions. A member reported having already contacted property owners who previously wrote to the commission, to tell them the process "is probably going to be, you know, a process that's not going to happen quickly," and that any outcome would likely be a district expansion rather than individual listings.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. The member who reviewed inventory sheets agreed to continue that research as a way to identify likely expansion boundaries without further delay.

Implications: Any eventual expansion would require a formal vote of affected property owners and public hearings; the commission is still in a research and outreach phase, with no application or hearing yet scheduled.

New Business: Historic Marker Program

Background and stakes: The commission has discussed creating a standardized historic-home marker program for years without resolution, according to members, largely because the commission itself cannot accept homeowner payments or donations.

The question before the body: how to structure a payment and ordering process for homeowners who want a marker, given that the commission cannot handle money directly.

Substantive content: Members said the cost to produce a marker is roughly $100, based on pricing information gathered from a vendor at a regional fair; one member noted a Branford historical society charges $350 for similar signs including research. One member suggested charging homeowners $140, acknowledging, "I don't think it's the right number," but floating it as a starting point above the $100 cost. The plan discussed would have homeowners pay the Old Saybrook Historical Society, which cannot itself profit but could retain a markup over the $100 production cost to offset its administrative work; the Historical Society would then write a check to the sign vendor, referred to in the meeting as Sign Pro, to produce and deliver the markers. One member summarized the arrangement: "So we talked about a difference between 100 and 140, so 140 goes directly to the historical society... and we pay for nothing, correct, it's zero cost for the commission."

The deliberation: Members debated whether routing homeowners through the Historical Society was the right model, with one member suggesting homeowners could instead deal directly with Sign Pro using a pre-set price and standardized design, while the commission simply supplies an intake form. Another pushed back, arguing a direct arrangement would "dilute" the educational and civic value of working through the commission and Historical Society: "If I'm a homeowner and I have a house that's a hundred years old... and I'm working with the historic society or the commission on this project, it just has more clout then, oh, I saw this article and I got to go to sign pro to get my sign for my home." Members also discussed logistics, including that the Historical Society does not know its own business hours for accepting payment and has no paid staff, and compared the proposal unfavorably to the complications the town faced accepting donations for the ghost-sign restoration, which required the finance director to set up a special bank account. Members agreed the commission has no mechanism to accept donations and cannot retain profit above cost.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. A member agreed to contact a Historical Society representative, referred to as Marie, to determine what payment methods the society can accept and report back. Members also discussed timing a promotional magazine article around the marker program, with a submission deadline members said falls around November 11, positioning the piece to run near the winter holidays as a gift idea.

Implications: Any homeowner wanting a marker will likely wait on the Historical Society's payment-process decision before an order can be placed; the commission's own role would be limited to promotion, design standardization and, potentially, volunteer installation.

Other Business: Ghost Sign Conservation and Kate Expansion

A commission member reported that a contractor, referred to in the meeting as Cannings, completed consolidation and conservation treatment on the town's ghost sign that week. The member also said architects working on a nearby project referred to as the "Kate expansion" have expressed interest, informally, in creating a new painted wall sign similar in style to the ghost sign, though the idea has not been formally proposed or approved and may not move forward. No vote was taken; the item was informational.

WHO WAS THERE

Barbara Harmson, commission member, present in person Tom Stephenson, commission member, present in person Helen Cantor, commission member, present in person Tamara Laurie, commission member, present via Zoom, recused from the 158 North Cove Road application Krista May, Clerk, present in person Lynette Wacker, staff liaison, present in person Rich Peters, commission member, absent Tara, applicant for 158 North Cove Road certificate of appropriateness

ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Old Saybrook Historical Society — proposed partner to collect homeowner payments and issue checks to the sign vendor for the historic-marker program; contact described only as Marie. Sign Pro — vendor members said would produce historic-home markers under the proposed program. State preservation contact Jen Scofield — expected to conduct a field review to help identify boundaries for a possible North Cove Historic District expansion near the South Green. August 18, 2026 meeting minutes — amended and approved at this meeting regarding district-boundary and building-material corrections. Historic resource inventory sheets — reviewed by a commission member to identify potential contributing structures for a South Green district expansion. Town building official exemption approvals — cited in the staff report for 191 and 148 North Cove Road window replacements. Town zoning rules on accessory structures (120-square-foot threshold) — cited by members discussing the 158 North Cove Road shed's property-line setback.