The most prominent point of discussion revolved around Howland Hall, associated with the Howland Community Hall. Members of the commission had previously approved renovation plans, but new proposals surfaced, prompting a detailed examination. The changes included removing a concrete stair on the south side of the building and adding a new entry. A notable concern emerged due to the absence of an existing window opening behind the removed stair, which spurred a debate on the building’s aesthetic symmetry.

To address this, the commission considered adding a window to enhance the building’s symmetrical appearance. However, the presence of a partition between two offices obstructed the proposed window’s placement, making relocation unfeasible. As a solution, the concept of a “ghost window” was introduced, wherein a window frame and sill would be constructed on the wall but filled with shingles to mimic a real window’s appearance without actual functionality. This idea aimed to achieve symmetry without altering the building’s internal structure.

The discussion of the ghost window was met with varying opinions. While some members supported the idea for aesthetic reasons, others expressed concerns about altering the building’s historic character for the sake of symmetry. The representative assured the commission that the trim around the ghost window would match existing windows, maintaining visual consistency. However, the necessity and historical significance of the ghost window were questioned, especially since there had never been a window in that specific location.

The procedural aspect of approving the ghost window also raised questions. Some members were uneasy with approving the changes without a public hearing, emphasizing the importance of thorough consideration before making a decision.

In addition to the Howland Hall discussion, the commission reviewed several applications for certificates of appropriateness and non-applicability. A proposal for a deck extension on Windward Way was presented, detailing a six-foot by fifteen-foot extension on the house’s south side. The commission deemed the application straightforward, leading to unanimous approval after a public hearing yielded no comments.

Another application involved a pool complex and pergola on Main Road. The applicant requested a continuance to the June 3rd meeting, which the commission granted. This procedural approach ensured that all necessary documents would be reviewed in advance of the next meeting.

The commission also addressed applications for certificates of non-applicability, including a fence on Main Road. The owner planned to rebuild the fence, and the commission granted the certificate, noting their lack of jurisdiction over such structures. Two additional certificates were issued between meetings, including one for Betty Slade for exterior trim repair and fascia board replacement and another for William Hunt, who replaced a rotted wood gutter with a fiberglass one on Main Road.

During the meeting, there was also a brief discussion about a church building’s proposed modifications. The conversation focused on window placements and the extension of a new addition. A suggestion was made to retract the extension by 20 inches to encompass a well within the structure, reducing visual impact and saving materials. This potential alteration was well received, aligning with the commission’s previous concerns about the extension’s visual impact.

The commission concluded with plans for a tour to update the monitor’s report and a proposal for a PowerPoint presentation by Nathaniel Allen on repairing 18th and 19th-century wood frames. The meeting ended with no further discussions, and a motion to adjourn was unanimously approved.