Good evening everyone. I'd like to welcome welcome you to the city of Kate May's Historic Preservation Commission on November 24th, 2025. It is six o'clock on the button. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting
has been provided. If any member has reason to believe that this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time. Hearing none, if you could join us for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. To the flag of the United States of
America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [snorts] >> So before we begin, I'd like to welcome our newest commissioner, Judy Decker. Welcome, Judy.
>> Lauren, do we have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Becker. Yes, >> Mr. Ta. >> Here, >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes, >> Miss Pagno. >> Yes, Miss Wilson. >> Here,
>> Mr. Stevenson. >> Mr. Miss Decker, >> here. Mr. Hamaran, >> here. >> Mr. Curts. >> Okay, so Judy, welcome again. has been issued um or has taken her oath of office.
Chris, do you have any comments about this? >> Uh we accepted it in writing. Uh and Judy's certified her oath in writing and we have that on file with the board secretary, so she is ready to act tonight. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Well, that that makes it official.
>> Glad to have you. >> Thank you very much. >> Yes. Okay. At our last meeting, we tabled the meeting minutes from the September 15th meeting. You've all received a copy of those from Lauren via email. Hopefully you've had a chance to review them. Yes. >> Yes. >> Like to entertain a motion to approve those minutes, please.
>> So moved. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second. >> Moved by Miss Bagno. Seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. Miss Wilson Strick, >> yes. >> Miss Decker,
>> abstain. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> I'm sorry. >> It was your name. Yes, >> Mr. Tessa. >> Abstain. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> Okay. We also have minutes from October
20th meeting. Um, also have been given to all of you for review. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve approve those minutes as well, please. >> I'll I'll move. >> Second. >> So moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Mr. Hammer. Roll call vote, please. Lauren.
>> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Bilsonik, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> abstain. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> abstain. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
We also have a payment of a bill to our solicitor dated November 5th that you've all received and reviewed. Like to entertain a motion to approve this payment. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Miss Wilson Stritic, seconded by Mr. Hammer. Roll call vote, please. Lauren,
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Shik, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. We also have four resolutions for
confirmation this evening. Kindred and Kerwick at 8:30 Washington Street. Resolution 202542, ACTG Holding LLC, 909 Corgi Street. Resolution 202543, Havland at 1317 New York Avenue,
resolution 202544 and Cottage at 37 LLC, 37 Jackson Street, resolution 202545. Like to entertain a motion to confirm these resolutions. >> I will move that.
>> Second. >> I'll second. >> Moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Miss Wilson Strick. Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> abstain. >> Mr. Hammer,
>> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> abstain. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. And we have a nice long list of applications approved and denied in review. The review committee's been pretty busy. You're all welcome to come and see us on Tuesday mornings.
So, I'd like to entertain a motion to approve these applications that have been previously approved and denied in review by our subcommittee. >> So, moved. >> Do a second. >> I'll second it. >> Moved by Miss Pagno, seconded by Miss
Wilson Sturdik. Roll call vote, please. Lauren. >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. I'm abstaining on at 701 Columbia Avenue. >> Miss Sagno. Yes. Miss Wilson, >> yes. Miss Decker, >> abstain.
>> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. Only 1023 Washington Street. >> Mr. Ta. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. Except for Yunst at 11:09 Washington Street. I need to abstain due
to proximity. Okay. So, moving on to the part of the meeting where we hear applications. Before we do, you may recall that at the beginning of this year, we held a series of alignment workshops between all of us
as commissioners and we aligned around what the real purpose of our work here is at its core. So, I'd like to ask Judy if she would please to share that to sort of set the tone for the evening. >> My pleasure. The purpose statement for HPC's work is
to serve as a catalyst for guiding and valuing Cape May's historical, cultural, and natural resources in ways that inspire and unite our community to store these resources for the benefit of all so that present and future generations can continue to express the unique
quality of life we share in this place we love. >> Yes, in this place we love. Thank you. Okay. So, our first application is the city of Kate May on Howard Street, Harbor Lane, Virginia Avenue, Reading Avenue, etc. for the sewer main
laterals, etc. >> If you state your name and your role in the project, Mr. Dietrich. >> Uh Paul Dietrich, uh city manager and city engineer for Kate May City. >> The floor is yours. >> Thank you. Um back again to uh review a
uh upcoming road and uh utility project. Uh this is for our fiscical year 26 application to the uh New Jersey Infrastructure Bank to receive uh essentially grant funding to uh replace and upgrade some of our uh water and
sewer infrastructure. The the four streets as uh Mr. Mr. Becker previously said, uh, we're looking at a portion of Howard Street, portion of Harbor Lane, Virginia Avenue, and Reading Avenue. And, uh, one of the questions I usually get is, well, how
did we pick those streets? Well, we uh, the city back about in 2022, uh, instituted a comprehensive study on different areas and did a u videoed a lot of the uh, sewer pipes to to verify
and look at their condition. And then the engineer uh created a uh priority list. So we look at when we're going to try to do roadway work, where can we improve both our infrastructure undergrounds because there's no sense paving the roads on top if the
infrastructure underneath is in bad condition. Uh the other areas that we try to prioritize are uh water manes that might have lead service line connections to them uh so [clears throat] that we can be in compliance for the uh D and EPA mandate
by 2031 to have all of our lead service lines replaced. Uh so this is our essentially our next batch of roads that we're looking at uh to get funding for. Um, and then the next question you probably are asking, well, why am I here at the HPC about
replacing pipes underground that nobody will see? Well, because we receive uh we're [snorts] receiving state uh funding and it's a project. it. The D requires uh the state historic preservation office to review the application and any application that the
city has where the um city is making an application, they want the re recommendation and comments from you on on whether or not it meets the requirements. So, here we are uh to replace um infrastructure beneath the ground. We'll obviously be repaving the
road, replacing some sidewalks. Um I don't believe there's any detriment to uh the historic district. Um and if there I don't believe any of these roads have um uh slate or um brick though there might be an occasional spot. We
are over on Howard so there might be something where we would have an impact. Most of that would be just if we find it and we disturb it we just re reset it back in place. So to the to any extent that would be the greatest extent that we would have. Um, but we would have no
intent on removing any slate or brick sidewalk or curb from the uh district. >> Thank you, Mr. Dietrich. So, instead of going around the room, does anybody have any questions for our city engineer?
>> You you're confirming, Paul, that that you're doing sidewalks and um and and and that is part of the streetscape, but you're not touching any buildings. >> Correct. We're not touching any buildings. >> No buildings are affected. and and those sidewalks and curbs and etc. you're
putting back to cover over what you find. >> Correct. And and and really the only place would be touching them is where the service connection would be going from the the main into the to the home that would be servicing that. So you're looking at real limited disturbance even in those instances.
>> So I only have one question. Do you know of any trees that will have to be removed in order to >> I don't believe so because most of the utility infrastructure is set away from the trees. So we usually don't have to get involved in in the trees. >> Great. But if if so, we just need to go before the shade tree commission. That's
all. >> Yes. Yep. >> Of course. >> Any other questions? >> See, seems to me that the and and as you know from all the other times you're here, the projects that are taken on by the city are subject not to approval by this commission, but to receive an
advisory report. So I will move um that the HPC issue a favorable advisory report um on the submitted application. >> I will second that. >> Okay. So moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Carol. Could I have a roll call vote, please? Lauren. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes.
>> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. to enjoy the rest of >> all the work that's going on at Ocean
and um uh Ocean and Washington Street. >> Is that just a widening of the sidewalk? >> We're just widening the sidewalk, but we're also going to add an additional bench there and create a ret the same retaining wall that was there around the bench. We're going to extend that down
um to have a seating wall similar to what was done down at um at the Cove. So, it'll be a brick with a uh blue stone cap and uh but we're going to add a secondary bench there. Uh the residents of Victoria Tower as well as Mac had kind of requested that just to
kind of increase the seating and and separation between Victoria Towers and the city public space. >> Thank you. Good. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. >> Have a good Thanksgiving everyone. >> Thank you. You too. >> Okay. So, next project on our
applications list is I hopefully I'm going to pronounce this correctly, Ryan. Um, there is an error in the agenda. It is not 824 Washington Street. It's 824 Kierney Avenue. So, do we have a representative of this project? Please come up and join us.
>> Which one is this now? >> Uh, it's Carney. It's this. It's >> Carney. >> Yeah, it's the it's it's pirate. >> Pirate. >> [clears throat] >> Good evening. >> How are we? >> We're great. How are you >> doing? Good, thank you. It's always a beautiful drive down here.
>> Oh, if you could please. >> It's a beautiful place. If if you could state your name, please, and what your role the project is and your address. >> Absolutely. Seiel Karisa Lopez. I am the representative for Trinity Solar and I
live in SE uh 7204 Fernwood Avenue, Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. Thank you. >> Could you just spell your name for me? I'm sorry. >> Sure. S E A L T I E L first name. Last
name C A R R I Z O S A hyphen L O P E Z. I didn't pick it. >> Giving it to me. >> I have a hyphenated last name, too. [laughter] So, >> and please accept my apologies. I probably won't be able to repeat that. Yeah. >> I go by teal. >> Like the color >> teal. >> Teal.
>> Oh, perfect. >> Like cockatal bird. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Teal. >> And you're the representative of Trinity Trinity. Yes. >> And you, sir, >> George Ryan, R Y O N. >> Could you please hit your button? >> That needs to be green. >> Green down there. >> There we go.
>> There you go. >> George Ryan, 824 Kney Avenue, R Y N. Thank you. So before I turn the presentation over to you guys, I would just like to introduce one issue because this will come up three times tonight. We have three submissions for
photovoltaic installations. I just want to make it very clear that our design standards speak very clearly to this on page 51 by saying that solar technologies are not appropriate for all roof services in historic district. In other words, minimally or not visible
locations may be considered. So that then requires us to look at page 12 on in our standards which defines minimally visible as able to be seen but does not call attention to itself or detract from significant architectural features of the building. So that is an
introduction. The t the floor is yours. >> Hello. Yes. >> Yes. At this location we meet all those standards. You will not see any of our systems. You won't see our inverter, nothing. >> So, where are the inverters and the line sets? >> The inverter is going to be located next
to his meter box, >> which is actually in an enclosed section on his back porch. Um, so you can't you can't see it even if you walk down his um his garden. >> Okay. So, I I think I can kind of cut to the chase here if you don't mind,
everybody. >> No, please do. >> Yeah, I went and took a a good look at all of these sites today. And what's really quite remarkable about how you've placed these, it's not in any way visible from Kierney or from Stockton or from what's the side street to the uh
Jefferson. >> So they're completely not visible. Not only not minimally visible, not visible. So I congratulate you. >> Thank you. Yes. Uh he made sure >> we did that when we were designing the system for his house. >> So does anybody on the commission have any questions for these gentlemen?
No, I mean I'm I think the our our perception isn't and [clears throat] the representation is that they're not visible and you've confirm that because that's really the primary standard. >> Absolutely. >> So not visible does it for me.
>> So I would like to go ahead and move to approve this application. >> I'll second that. >> Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss Wilson Stritic. We have a roll call vote, please. Lauren. >> Mr. Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Shredik,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. It's pretty pretty quick. >> Happy Thanksgiving. Yes. Quick and effective. That's how we >> long drive for five minutes, right?
Yeah. [laughter] Thank you. Next application similarly is for a solar panel installation by Herner at 1215 Washington Street. [snorts] [clears throat] >> If you if you could please state your
name and your address and your role in the project, please. >> Isaac Crumb. Uh 739 McCormack Drive, Tom's River, New Jersey. >> Okay. 08753 and uh I'm a representative of Triny Solar. >> Do you know that guy? >> Yeah. Sorry. You're both from Trinity, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay, great.
>> Could I get the spelling of your last name, sir? >> C R U M. >> C R U A >> U M >> U M >> M. >> And the first name was Isaac, right? >> Isaac. I S A C. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh William Her 1215 Washington Street.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Okay, the floor is yours, >> Mr. Chair. a member of the tennis club recuse himself who's not on the board or anything. >> Um, this is not for the tennis club. >> Not yet. That's the next >> I'm getting ahead. >> Yeah, you are.
>> It's okay. This is across the street a little bit. >> If if Tom's voting no, he can recuse himself. [laughter] >> With your luck, he he'll >> put putting it out there. Um, so this project again I believe meets the criteria that you guys would
like. Aesthetically obscure from the front of the street. I don't believe anything would be visible. Now his electric meter is on the front side of the home on the right hand side. >> The side. >> Yes, on the side of the home. And that is where the inverter typically goes,
>> but it would be minimally invasive, I would believe. But that's up to the discretion of you guys. Okay. Any comments from folks on the commission instead of going around the room? Questions, comments for these folks?
>> I am just a little bit concerned that some >> Kevin, could you please press your button? >> I am just a little concerned that some of those might be visible from the street. It would be the uh on the drawing P1 uh sheet PV2. If you look at the the drawing carefully, you'll see
R5. So the front the front peak of the roof slopes down and back and then this is on the side of the roof um of the addition on the back. So if I look at R5, it strikes me that the two panels by
themselves at the very rear that might be visible from the street. I think that could solve itself by putting them on the other side of the of the roof. Um because the others I believe would be pretty well hidden by the peak. So, I also went and took a very close
look at the property. And it's interesting because Kevin is correct from the depending on which orientation you subscribe to, I'll call it um south from the south west, the six panels that
are on this back wing right here are actually highly visible from the street. And the reason, of course, is because the distance between your home and the adjacent home is almost as if it were an empty lot. So, unfortunately, those do not meet our criteria. From Lafayette
Street, they're also quite visible. However, the other panels, the nine that are on the main slope of the roof, facing essentially north, are only just barely visible through one small window between two houses. I took a few photos
today so I can I can show you what I'm talking about. So, I'm I'm wondering if there's a way that you would be able to install more of the panels with the group of nine to try and get at least close to the kilowatt output that you're seeking.
[clears throat] >> Isaac, that question is being deferred to you. >> So, you're talking about on the R4 roof design. >> U the R4 >> to put more of the panels there. I'm sorry. Yeah, the R4 is perfectly fine. Um, again, just that one tiny little
window just briefly between two houses on Lafayette, >> but unfortunately the R5 are quite visible from Washington Street. >> And the the slope of that roof is quite steep, so they're even more visible due to that. >> Do you feel if two of the top upper
panels were left on that threshold that would create a problem and moving the other four to the R4? >> Uh, unfortunately not. So if you take a look at the this at least this one photo that I have this is actually taken from Lafayette that that that slope is quite steep. It's probably 12 and 12 I'm
guessing. I didn't look at your did you calculate that? Probably did right because you have to create the bracks for them but it's very steep. So therefore because of this large space between your house if you're facing your home and the one to the left it's almost as if there's a full open lot there.
which means those six panels uh depicted in section of roof R5 are highly visible from Washington Street. So I don't believe our standards would permit any panels on the R5 portion, but you could if you could load up R4 and at least get it looks like you might be able to get
at least five more there. So you might might be one or two panels short. >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes. >> I have a quick question, >> please. is does that hip that hip roof does that continue all the way down to the corner of R11?
>> I don't know if it shows here or not. I'm just not sure if they're >> No, it doesn't. >> You understand what I'm saying? >> I do. The R11 and R10 are lower pitch. >> They're lower pitch, but I'm saying at the top of R5 and R seven >> where they meet. >> Yeah. >> Would that continue down like it does on
the lefthand side on the right hand side? [snorts] So that valley would be in there. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. >> You see what I'm saying? >> That's a really good comment. You might be able to put another couple of panels in R seven and not be visible. >> We should be able to accommodate those panels in
>> Oh, if you can do that and eliminate all the panels on R5 >> and resubmit drawings accordingly. Seems like what I'm hearing from folks is that that would be acceptable because you would meet our standards. >> Okay. Um, when would I be able to resubmit that to you to gain approval
then? >> Okay. So, what we can do, and I'll check with our solicitor here, but this is fairly straightforward and simple. We could pass a resolution this evening that is conditional upon you submitting to us revised drawings depicting that
all of the solar panels would either be on R seven or R4. Would that be acceptable to you, >> Mr. Chairman? Yes, >> if I may, because you guys may want to conference and make sure that it serves your power needs and all that analysis.
So what we could do is you could ask a for an adjournment to the next available meeting. Wave the time for decision for the board to make a decision tonight and that would get you to the next meeting. In the meantime, you could submit a revised plan showing exactly what we're
talking about tonight and then you'd be at next month's meeting for potentially a final approval of that submitted plan. >> John, I believe is an early meeting because December I think is the 14th. Yeah, if I'm not mistaken too on this drawing,
this this particular part of the roof right here, I think would serve the same purpose as this, would it not? >> Actually, I don't I don't believe the panels are going to be able to accommodate on that threshold because of fire safety setbacks, right? Still adhere to. >> That's the other issue [clears throat] you have to deal with. Yeah. >> Okay. So, but I mean the the the fact is
that this application is not going to be approved as submitted with the R5 coverage. Okay. So R5 is verboten for any panels because they'll be seen. U maybe the best thing if I'm understanding Chris correctly is to
table this and uh and bring it up um at uh at the next meeting. >> Next meeting is December 15th by the way. So it's roughly three weeks away. >> Are you okay with that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That would let you do your calculations, let you site the panels on the acceptable um roofs, right? And and
that way you could just bring it up. So, if that's okay, I'll just I'll just pass I'll uh I'll propose a motion to table uh this application for the next meeting um with the applicant waving the 40-day. >> Now, question before you put that motion into movement. If I am able to locate
them to the R4R7, you could actually make an amendment tonight to move forward with it. I would just need to bring you that information before that meeting. >> I thought we were going that way until I heard our solicitor >> our solicitors advising us otherwise. If if that's if you're confident that you can make that work, I think we can
probably address that by way of condition to an approval tonight. I just I don't there's no rushing you through that that analysis tonight at the table. I know we're throwing that at you now. >> Understood. But [clears throat] we would either have to make that power possible
for him or we'd have to pretty much withdraw our moving forward. Correct. >> Or reduce the the targeted kilowatt. >> Either way, they would have to be removed off of R5. So, correct. We're we're good with moving forward with that condition. How would I bring you guys that information before >> if you're okay with that and which means
we won't need to table it. We could approve this tonight, assuming that you would get the votes necessary under the condition that there would be no panels on R5 or any any roofs visible from the street. So, in other words, to keep this simple, you would accommodate
all of the panels on R4, 7, 11, and 10. >> Agreed. Great. So, do I would like to make that motion? >> You just you just made it, so I'll second it. >> Yeah. Great. Everybody hear that motion? >> So, we have a motion to approve based upon the condition that all the panels
be on R 4, 7, 10, or 11 >> or that no panels be on R5 >> and none on R5. >> And they've waved the time limit. >> Well, they've not they're not tableabling this. We're approving this. >> It's an approval. >> And all he would need to do is submit a revised roof plan depicting that. >> Okay. >> Deal.
>> Great. Okay. And you would you would submit that provision presumably to the review committee. [clears throat] >> Yes, >> that'll be the condition of approval matching those those uh parameters. >> So just so you can understand what that means, you would not be required to make a new application. You don't need to pay another fee. You would simply submit the
supplemental drawings. We meet every Tuesday morning. And if you have it in by what is it, the Friday before Tuesday, we can generally accommodate folks. Lauren, >> Monday, >> a full week before. >> So if you one day? >> Yep. just one day before. >> Great. Okay.
>> So, if you had the drawings to us on any Monday, the very next day, Tuesday morning, assuming that they are compliant with our standards, we could approve them and review and you'd be done. >> Sounds great. >> You can do it before next meeting if you choose to. >> I I will choose that.
>> Yeah. Our next meeting is tomorrow. No, at the next one, which would be next next Tuesday. Okay. All right. So, we have a motion by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Testo. Could we have a roll call vote, please, Lauren? >> Mr. Carol. Yes, >> Miss Bagno. >> Yes, >> Miss Bilsonik.
>> Yes, >> Miss Decker. >> Yes, >> Mr. Hammeran. >> Yes, >> Mr. Tessa. >> Yes, >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. >> You're very welcome, ladies. >> Okay, our next application, City of Kate
May, Kate May Tennis Center at 1020 Washington Street. So now your time to do >> Y. It's close. You'll be doing okay. >> So um if you could all please state your name, your address, and your role in the
project. >> David Dtori, 804 Westfield Avenue, Kate May, New Jersey. >> Vindi, 11 Saddlewood Drive, Kate May Courthouse. Uh, I'm the architect. >> And what's your role, David? >> Helping them project manage. >> Okay, great. To the
>> Scott Maslo, 182nd Avenue, Gate May. >> And your role in the project? >> President of the tennis club. >> Of the tennis club. Okay. So, I'm going to ask Mr. Ta to abide by this conversation. I need to recuse myself because I'm a member of the tennis club. >> And I think that's the same for Mr.
Carol >> and for um >> Well, we have we have we have something of an issue here. Will you? >> Um because because I'm personally acquainted with the president of the tennis club and has been provided me with professional services in the past. >> Well, we still have enough to vote for a
>> four members. That's where >> Okay. So, Kevin, um or Janice, how about if would you be willing to lead this conversation? Okay, great. Thank you. >> So, we we have we have four. We're good.
>> Just before we get started, uh >> it's your fault. Ma'am, can I get your the spelling of your name again? I'm sorry. >> V is in Victor. I V is in Victor. E N T I >> first and last name. I'm sorry. It's it's hard to hear over some of this
chat. >> Linda the Venti. >> Got it. And you're the architect? >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, you're going to present your plan to us for Oh, you don't have >> I I don't have the plans on me, but I happen to know about the project.
It's a It's a small uh addition to an existing pro shop. The existing uh storage area is 13 ft wide by about 20 ft deep. Going to tear that port part down. We're going to make a an addition
that's about 20 feet by 20 feet deep. It's going to be at the same It's going to have the same roof as the existing pro shop. And we're doing this for ADA purposes. We have a uh 1 and 12 ramp which will be painted the same as the
existing, made out of the same materials as the existing. The building itself will be clad in the same siding and it will be the same color as the existing. The roof will be uh dimensional shingles may be a different color.
>> I would I would ask the board if if we can go with an alternate also while we're here and go ahead and approve a standing seam roof which we actually have in there. >> Okay. >> Be great as an option if we manage to to pull it off funding wise.
Do you want do you want to use the plans here? I'll give you those if you want to reference them. We >> appreciate it. >> Yeah. Right. Because um this pages in here. >> So, everyone familiar with where the the existing pro shop is?
>> Just to be clear what what the addition is, the building's already there. It's been there for years. It's the pro shop. There's a front stair that is currently serves as the entryway to the office and the deck, but what you're going to do is put a ADA ramp in actually in front of that to wrap around and connect to the
existing porch, >> right? >> That's really the heart of the exterior addition, right? There's nothing else that's being expanded. >> There's close to court number four >> is >> on the opposite side. >> On the opposite side is a shed that has double doors right now and it's going
we're going to tear that down. It's actually attached to the main building, but the roof line is a little bit lower right now >> where it says cans only. >> Yes. >> So, it's we do have pictures. >> So, there's the existing Yes. existing conditions there. And actually,
aesthetically, uh, in my opinion, it's an improvement, right, where it's continuation of the same gable roof line. Um, and ultimately vastly improved and also clearly we're going with ADA accessible bathrooms, full bathrooms front and back. Um, we have a great junior's program that's been developed.
I don't know if you're all aware. Um, so yes, more and more traffic ultimately down there and this gets the compliant bathrooms downstairs if you haven't been. Our current current uh restrooms are actually upstairs in the adjacent historic building. >> Um, that we hope to go with the New
Jersey Historic Trust in another year or two and renovate that building as well, restore that building. >> And the roof that you'd [clears throat] like to do is the standing seam roof. I think so. Ideally, you know, option one, if you will, we're going to go with an asphalt shingle. Um, same to match
what's existing. But while we're here, of course, like to capture it in this application if you simply would like to allow us the alternate of a standing seam. >> Would you do it on both parts or just >> Yes, on the pent roof, on the awning, if you will, and the main roof. Yes.
>> Sounds good to me. What do you guys think? You have questions? >> You prefer that? >> I think so. We were exploring it. Obviously, there's a big board, lots of people involved, and we also have a committee dedicated to this design right now. >> Um, >> that sounds like fun. >> But yes, >> and cost
>> ultimately cost the whole determinant. >> So, you want to propose to the board either, you know, those either would be acceptable. >> Yes. Yes, please. You can choose from the however your board decides or lands on >> wherever our basis is. >> For same or you want to upgrade to
>> upgrade as the alternate, >> the board agrees. >> Yes, please. other problems with that? >> Not at all. The building is actually in the center of the tennis complex, so it's really not visible from the from the streets. >> It's not visible from the street from Washington. Um, and as you guys know,
I'm sure you saw in the application also, this is the non-contributing building. That's right. >> Versus the contributing brick to the right. >> And is there no survey for this building? >> There's survey, meaning a civil engineer survey or the um historic
>> property survey. Uh, so I did I don't know if you it should be have been incorporated in there. I actually emailed originally the city. You actually you don't have anything on file for that. >> It was either built in ' 62 or 63. The whole c the whole complex was uh first
formed in ' 62 deed it over to the city and then the city leased it to the tennis club. The pro shop was built in 63. So >> So it probably doesn't have a survey. >> Correct. >> Yeah. The only building that has a
survey is the is the more historic the late 1800s that you're probably all well aware of that was part of the physic estate originally is the history of that building. >> Sure. >> Is this patio new on this? >> It's not that's existing. >> That is exist. >> So yeah, that's that's actually there and we actually might aesthetically make
some more improvements um at the end of the day. Okay. >> So no additional impervious surface. Yes, you're not. >> So, there will be, speaking of why we're talking about this, and this is part of why it's going under the city of Cape May, um, is there's, uh, ADA improvements that are sitewide. So, I
don't know if you've seen that. It's actually on the website, >> okay? >> But they are incorporating their sidewalk extension via the Kowanas Park coming out of the park past that that is actually going to go in front, which is great for our kids especially, but we're going to run. They're ultimately, you
have that site plan there. If you look at the gray, this is all the sitewide city improvements. So all this gray right now, most of you probably know we don't have any sidewalks. >> All these are part of the city's plan for accessibility and that's why we're
kind of tackling this project in conjunction with the city. >> We're fully funded and that's happening in the next that's probably happening in the spring. I know they have it out for bid right now. >> It's shutting out a bit, but no problems with egress, right? Everything's going to just run as smoothly as it always does. Okay.
>> Yes. >> I have two questions. Um there's a a note on the second page of the application says that a um one specimen, this is a tree or something is compromising a court in the building footprint. Are you planning to remove a
tree then? >> Yes. >> And you've been to the shade tree commission? >> We have not been to the shade commission. We actually went via Paul Dietrich and he was there and he sees it's inside of the footprint of our extension of our building where a foundation needs to go. >> So So
>> it's almost easier to show you, but >> you'll actually there's no So you'll remove the tree and then I assume replace >> correct. It's sitting right on the edge of where the new foundation currently. There's not a foundation. It used to be a garage that we're tearing down that you see in the existing conditions. >> Um so naturally we're going to have to meet code and we're going to put a
footing in. Okay. It >> sits right there in between the court which is actually terrible for our court also. It's literally growing in the fence line. So kind of kind of tackle too. >> And the purp the purpose of enlarging the uh shed portion of it is the uh NJTL
uh kids program has been a a huge success and we need some space to have the kids bowl. It's just making part of it. It we need a space for the kids to have their supplies uh snacks and things like that. and it would be too constricted with the ADA uh
bathrooms put in there. It just would have diminished what we could do for the kids as far as getting things out. [snorts] >> How large how large is the tree? >> How large is what >> the tree? >> Diameter of the tree is probably 20 inch. Just just guessing from being on
site. >> One last question. The exterior lighting is referenced as dark sky compliant. How are you achieving that? Just is that >> you should you should have a [clears throat] submitt. You have a cut sheet of a suggested light fixture that should be >> I saw the cut sheet. >> They think ultimately that you would all
all be satisfied with again if we change from that I understand that we will bring you in a cut sheet. We'll do >> come in anything that changes we will obviously come in front of the board. >> Okay. Are there any other questions? >> No.
>> Well, um would someone like to make a >> I'm sorry. Can I ask one more question? So on the cut sheet? >> Yes. >> It's it's really a function of just the lumens. It's not a matter of shielding. Is that what you're saying to me? >> Dark. Well, in this case, both. So you actually have shielding from from the
upper canopy, right? So particularly Yes. >> I got it. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Question about the tree. Um I just I just know that when trees come out, you're required to go to the shade tree commission to
>> we'll revisit that. It was instructions and working coincide with working with the city. But >> yeah, you you must get an approval from the shade tree commission. If if Paul did it, that's fine. But I I know that's a requirement for us. >> So I'll make a motion for approval
conditional upon approval by the Shade Tree Commission for removal of the tree. >> I'll second that. Okay. Could we have a roll call? Lauren. >> Miss Pagno. >> Oh, yes. >> Miss Wilson Shy.
>> Yes. >> Miss Decker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammer. >> Yes. >> There we are. >> Thank you all very much for your time. >> Good luck. That's mine. >> Okay. Our next application, Carese
>> at 411419 Beach Avenue. This project for everybody's edification has been submitted for final review. A couple of months ago, this same group of folks presented to us and had conceptual
approval to move forward. So, we're we're seeking final tonight. Is that correct? >> We are. >> Great. If you could please all introduce yourselves by telling us your name, your address, and your role in the project, please. >> On behalf of car, >> when you say on behalf of Carney, could
you elaborate, please? >> I'm the attorney. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> I'm the restaurant operator, Sean Carney, 411 Beach Avenue. >> Uh Morris Clark, DAS Architects. I'm the project architect. Uh 1628 JFK
Boulevard, uh Philadelphia. >> Thank you. Uh, Greg Standean, also from DAS Architects, uh, senior project manager, 1628 JFK Boulevard, Philadelphia. >> Can I get your last name again? I'm sorry. >> Standean. Sten. >> Welcome, gentlemen. The floor is yours. >> Okay. Um,
although I was not here for the preliminary approval, it is my understanding that it was conducted at that at that time. Uh, there were some minor concerns, uh, expressed by the board. Uh it is my understanding that those concerns have been addressed. We
are here for final approval. Uh it is also my understanding that the only condition as it was left um the last time my clients were here was that they got zoning approval. We have been before the zoning board. We have obtained approval. >> Did this also include the areas for
signage not being exceeded from zoning? >> Yes, that's that is correct. >> Okay. >> We covered all the issues that that were u associated with the building and the proposal. So having said that, I have Mr. Clark beside me who would like to go over uh the plans. Uh just as a general
overview, we are proposing uh with regard to the outside renovations to move the entrance way, which as you all know is a entrance way that is not really Victorian or even complimentary to uh the the whole it's been there
forever. We're all very used to it. That's for sure. >> One might say one might say Mexican. Uh, >> what's that? >> Mexican from the 16th century. >> It has its own time and place. >> Yes, it does. Well, I remember when it was SIDS, when I was just a young boy, and that's exactly how it looked back
then, and hasn't changed a bit since. But but in any case, I I I believe that what's being proposed here is much more consistent with with with the the the town and what the city would like to see on its beachfront. But having said that, I give the floor to Mr. Clark. >> Uh, thank you.
Um so just starting to go through our package real briefly. The 001 some existing photos. So you can see uh the contributing building on the right in uh photo number one and the non-contributing building which is
really mostly the facade we're talking about today. Uh to the left being the carnese with the bricks and stucco uh which we're looking to move that uh facade. Page two is just some additional photos from the uh surrounding neighborhood down the street and some
showing some context on the next uh two pages. Page 005. This is our existing site plan as the uh building is today. You can see on the left hand side again the
non-contributing portion of the building which is the facade that we are mostly um will be working on with the relocation of that uh entrance and changing of the facade and then we are updating some windows on the contributing portion as part of this um
so that everything matches. 006 is our proposed plan. This shows that we are moving that uh entrance from the car's main room, that uh circular shape from, we'll call it the right side of that portion of the
building to the far left in what is currently that little gable end. And we're extending uh that facade and creating a new uh more traditional facade uh as part of that work. And we are proposing to replace the doors and
windows in the contributing side, which is the right room known as the other room. If we actually skip to I think the elevations would be better on we'll go to the colored ones on 612. Here you can really see the meat of the
matter here. Uh number two is our existing south elevation where it shows the contributing building on the right. our non-contributing building, the main Carney's ent uh Carney's main room building which is brick with some stuckle and wood trim and uh some as
some some shingle roof. We are proposing what is above that has been before you with the uh more traditional uh trim these folding sliding windows uh with their wood mullions and our signage. So the signage that we
went for approval at zoning is only for the carne sign. I know in the renderings here it shows the restaurant food drink above our windows, but that was removed from the zoning application and is not signage that we are seeking approval for tonight. So, we have two signs that are
the Carney's logo sign on this facade and then the um the side of that same entrance uh which is kind of overlooking the mini golf course next door. Again, the uh the more traditional
facade look here for the car's main room with the recess door being moved to the lefthand side. Uh new door. We do have new lighting to light the signage as well as some down lights underneath um
for the recess door for for code purposes. Um our our our F windows are folding sliding windows. And then as we move over to the contributing building, you can see that the bay windows we've taken the large kind of picture windows that
were there and really are not um correct with the time and we are adding um again casement and folding sliding windows. Casement being H and the folding sliding H windows in the bay window with that same wood um mullion and wood look that
wood window. And we are also proposing on the contributing building, the Carney's other room to install the trim, the kind of angled trim that had been there many years ago and at some point was taken was was taken away. So we're matching that. >> You mean on the first floor?
>> On the first floor, right? >> Um to match on the property >> to match the second floor. >> Uh 613 is the is the side view. So this is the east elevation. So again, you're kind of seeing the building. It's on that the angle of the street as it's
going away. Our new entry, which is kind of that story and a half space um with with with our second piece of signage. And then our proposed, we're taking down that brick and stucco. And we're coming back with um a brick water
table at the bottom, foundation water table, and then some wood lap siding and our trim. And again our our casement windows. >> Yes. And again the the writing that is shown in elevation one uh will not be
there. The family dining establishment live music shores and uh finest on 614. Our finish schedule is here. of these finishes are al also show up in our packet of materials along with our application. We did provide as part of
our package a materials list for both the contributing building and the non-contributing building so that it was um clear even though there was some there's some overlap on finishes and color. We wanted it to be clear what was for each building in that application. So the brick is really on the
non-contributing building. Our new roof material is the uh the shingles, our paint colors on our new wood um our facade that is that's the the wood moldings that you see um for the columns underneath the windows and creating that
what we'll call tonight a sign band even though there's no signage actually in those uh recesses. And then as well material for our horizontal siding, our standard wood trim, our windows, and our doors are all
specified on that plan as well. And just to round out the package, at the at the uh end of the package, we have some building some wall sections showing our uh wall assembly, existing roof
assembly, and how we're putting in these new wood windows and the trim that we're going to be using to create the the facade. I can go through them if you'd like, but there are uh three sections there. And then the last two pages are uh the
elevations of the carne signage which will be wood wood painted um like cutout CNC cutout signage that will be applied to the sign band in this um shape. They are under the um total 20 square foot
between the two signs uh that zoning allows for. >> Okay. Thank you. So, um, [clears throat] going to go around the room and ask for folks to ask questions, but I'd like to initiate the conversation by saying to you, Mr. Clark, and your team that this
is an extraordinarily well put together submission, quite comprehensive, everything almost with a few questions I have are uh are included and very nicely done. So, thank you. >> Shall we start over here with Mrs. Baldwin? The only question that I have um when
you went to the zoning board, all of the conditions and um uh and changes that were made, could you state them please? >> Excuse me. >> The conditions and or changes that were made at the zoning board. >> Okay. Well, um, initially what was put
before the board is, uh, the major concerns that the zoning board would have, and that is what are you changing the number of seats and, um, the configuration of the interior, whether it would reflect on whether additional parking would be required or any of those other things. And [clears throat]
what was presented from the board was that nothing was going to be changed in that in the interior than what is there. that all the changes were basically just the relocation of the entrance way and that the seating numbers were not going to change. Therefore, the parking requirements wouldn't change. Everything
was basically going to remain the same in that regard. The only thing that's really changing is the outward appearance. >> And then the signage is that you said okay. >> Okay. >> So, yes, what we would be approving tonight would remove the secondary signage panels. They'd be excluded from
the submission. Correct. That's correct. Got it. Okay. Yeah, we would if we were going to do them in the future, we'd come back and find HBC and Great. >> Mr. Carol, >> we don't actually control >> Were you finished? I'm sorry. >> Yes, I was. Thank you, Chairman. >> Y >> I thought you were asking Tom if he was finished. [laughter]
>> We don't control colors, but I have to say if these are the colors that you're planning for it, uh they're very nice. You know, it's colorful, it's beachy, uh you the windows are darker, which kind of pulls them back in, lighter on the outside. So, the color placement goes
along with what we have on many of our historic buildings. Uh maybe not as bright as as this, but for a beachfront fun place, as the sign says, fun. Uh they work very well. So, I hope you stick with them.
>> That is the intention. Yes. Thank you. >> We finished. Okay. Great. Mr. Ta. >> Well, uh just to get the posture of this as it comes before us straight. This was before us before. Did we give it conceptual approval? >> Yes. >> And so >> what you were narrating tonight was sort
of a repeat. It's not changes, right, from the conceptual approval? >> No, I think the m the only the only change that was from conceptual to now was on the first floor contributing building adding those angular uh trim. >> Those are those are different from they weren't there. they weren't there. They
hadn't they haven't been on the building and um it was a photo was brought to our >> and the exclusion of the secondary signage panels >> and the secondary >> and and I have I have to say and although Tom will praise you for color I will praise you for taking that non-contributing structure and turning it into something really attractive.
>> Thank you. >> I mean one could have a lot of fun inside but the outside was nothing you'd want to [laughter] I mean and I didn't mean to disparage Spanish colonial or Mexican architecture. I just think that it was it was it served its purpose for
the time and and this design is just there's there's nothing about it that isn't a great improvement. >> Yeah. I mean we thank you. We were looking to you know a goal of of Sean and DAS was was to to make this >> well you've left you've you've enhanced
I think the contributing structure and put those windows and doors >> a right and I have no idea whether they've been changed over time or not. uh but you've put it back into the setting that it ought to have and there's just no way I can I can tell you how much I appreciate what you did to
the non-contributing structure. So I think it's I think it's a great design. Your material sheets as you've separated them all seem to be um acceptable for all the materials that you know what we what we approve. >> We've been here a time or two. >> Yeah. I as as I was expecting Dave to
show up tonight at this >> Well, he he couldn't be here. just had uh hip replacement surgery on Friday, so he's uh he's >> not not up and around yet, but um >> so this this is really an excellent improvement. >> He wishes he could be. >> It it really is. >> Thank you. >> I'll save mine for last. So, Miss Wilson
Strick, have you questions? >> Um no, I just can join the chorus of compliments. Uh we're working on a award program next year and when we look at all the projects that come before us,
we're looking for the kind of spirit that you brought to this one, which is how can we make it more contributing. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> I also think it's a vast improvement of compliments. I think you did a great
job. I just have um one question that may have been covered in um previous meetings. The um windows that are marked in IN 612, you said they're going to be folding, so you'll open it in the summer. Are they going to open out towards the sidewalk or in towards the
dining room? >> Um I on the contributing building, they do open out with >> They do open out >> because it's Isn't it sort of narrow under there? I wonder if it's going to obstruct >> still uh it's like 4 foot8 when they're open. If you're at a there's not
actually a column at its location, but if the column was in front of you, that's where you would be. You're over five foot in front of it when they're open. >> They sit over we have currently we have planters out there along the front and they sit right over those planters. >> Oh, okay. >> So, you won't be knocking anybody off.
>> We will not. >> And then I I just have a comment. I also think the blue is really lovely. Um, I'm a little concerned about the the contributing building. It appears that you have um the recessed areas are all blue with the red trim on the windows, but it looks like the columns and the
spandrels will remain white. Is that correct? >> The the columns on the contributing building >> on the first floor >> on the first floor will remain white with those angled uh trim trim elements. [clears throat] >> Right. So, it's really great that you returned all that. I think it just looks
a little strange that you have two colors on the facade. I >> think it was more so to separate the business and the residential apartment. >> Okay. >> So, you know, like a constant question that we'll get is how do we get to your upstairs dining? >> Right.
>> Um, so the point was kind of to make the business be one and the apartment that is not accessible uh be separate from the business. >> Okay, I get it. Thank you very much. Again, compliments. I think it's lovely. >> Thank you.
>> I liked it the first time it was here. I like it even more now. I think it's wonderful and much improved and much needed. And thank you for the good job. >> Thank you. >> So, um I'm glad somebody else can see the color because I can't see blues and green. [laughter]
>> That That's why you're our color consultant, Kevin. >> Except that it looks great. Um just two quick comments. One is the the that cross beams that are on the first floor were on the property report. That's where that came from. And it also ties to the fence, if you will, to the left
of the um non-contributing building. It sort of has a bit of that same appearance. Um two quick questions of my own. The doors that are on the contributing building are really just egress, right? They're not the people are not are they or are they entering there as well? I thought they were just
entering at the at the tower. >> No, they're entering there as Yeah, that's an existing entry. In ingrass, egress. It works for both. >> Just curious because it when I was looking at the floor plan, it didn't look like there was a you know, a guest waiting uh you know, arrival point there. So, I was thinking that must be
like a fire exit or or a way out of the building. Not not really a way in. Um it doesn't matter. I mean, we don't we don't get into the inside of the building anyway, but it it it would be another point where you'd see traffic coming out into the out into the sidewalk area. The other question is
just the lighting above the carney sign is that >> also still designed for the dark sky initiative. >> Yeah. So that's really uh angled back at the building and cut off so that it is really only >> so they're gooseenecked or something. >> They're gooseeneck and they're coming
back and there is there was a cut sheet >> provided in the package of that. >> Okay. >> Um so they are really only lighting that. There's no light leading up. >> We're good. I have no other comment. >> Okay. I have four questions and they're all very at the detail level.
>> Yeah. >> So it the first one has to do with the the simulated divided lights. So on all of your window specifications, um I believe that it describes by this last statement that insulated glass
features an internal shadow bar so that it does replicate divided lights. So in other words, they're not just stuck on the inside and outside. There is the shadow bar between the insulated glass. Is that correct? >> It is inside the glass. Yeah, it's inside. So, it looks like it goes all
the way through, right? So, the only other question about that is, and my first three questions are all about the options that are in these specs. >> So, it says that the options are 58, 78, 1 in >> [snorts] >> um putty profile, and there's also a contemporary profile. So, what is the
profile since those are all the options that you're proposing for the simulated divided lights and the size? Uh do you remember? >> So here I selected I'm looking at product summaries for for your uh window specs. >> Yeah, it's in here. Do you remember?
[clears throat] >> Um >> I can make a recommendation, >> please. >> So um generally at at this scale, the 7/8 inch putty profile would probably be most appropriate for both the
I'll say the the um contributing building and the non-contributing building. Would that be acceptable to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can get that. Yeah. >> So, 78 putty SDLs. Second question. Um, there windows D and
I and only I is a is what I'm going to question here for a moment because only I is in the contributing building. D is not. There are two windows that I think are in the two bay areas of the um contributing building. It says the sill is comprised of an oak interior and an
extruded aluminum exterior. So for a contributing building that would not be appropriate. >> They are wood. The only aluminum should be the um the track that they're moving in inside the wood. >> Ah okay. So it actually says that the
sill um is an extruded aluminum exterior. So we just need to verify that the sill will in fact be painted wood. uh on window I >> for you. Yeah. >> Okay, great.
And last one is really simple and it has to do with this the hardware. So, at first I couldn't find what the material was, but it's rub bronze. Great. Is that what you're also proposing for the contributing buildings doors?
Um, >> yes, I do believe so. >> So, this is very clearly a contemporary doorpole. Think we'd like to see an alternative choice to this that's a little more complimentary to the period of the building.
>> Okay. >> Done. >> Done. Great. I'm >> not going to argue over hardware. >> All right. >> You tell me what you want, I'll put it on there. Well, I would leave that up to your architect to select and get your approval. Yeah, make sense.
Okay. So, I think what we're hearing is that if anyone would like to make a motion, I would suggest that it include the following four conditions. One is a resubmission of elevations to exclude the secondary signage. We only need one
copy of that. The reason for that, by the way, is we have a field inspector who goes out to verify that what's been approved is actually being installed. He needs an accurate set of drawings to have for reference. So, I actually think we need three copies, right? >> Yep. >> Three copies. >> Three copies of the revised elevations.
Second would be clarification, and this could be in letter form of you're going to be using the 7/8 inch putty simulated divided lights. Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay. Third, that the um uh the sill for the eye windows in the contributing building would be wood. >> Yep.
>> And fourth would be a more historically appropriate set of door ples. Okay, >> sounds like a motion to me. I'll >> I mean, and since that has all the substance of a motion, I'll make a motion to grant final approval to the application as submitted with the
conditions that Mr. Becker has just outlined and with the um submission of of materials um satisfying the conditions required to be presented to the review committee for its um review and approval.
And do I hear a second? >> I second it. >> Okay. Moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr. Hammer. We have a roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Bilson, >> yes. >> Miss Deckard, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran,
>> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. So, thank you again for a very, very wonderful submission. And just so you know, um, normally when there's this many conditions, we would probably ask you to come back, but these are very
simple and straightforward. They can be approved, I think, quite readily by our review committee. >> Yeah, we'll get that package out to you right away. >> Be great. Thank you very much, gentlemen. >> Yep. >> Very nicely done. >> I know.
I've watched it disappears. Okay, got it. Okay, next, please. Fiser at 10:13 Stockton Avenue. And this is for a final submission. We also reviewed this and granted conceptual approval
back in September, only two months ago. So, welcome back. >> Thank you. >> If you could please just state your name, your address, and your role in the project, please. >> Alan Fischer, homeowner, 1013 Stockman. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you. Christina Amy, architect, 716
Asbury Avenue, Ocean City, New Jersey. >> The floor is yours. >> Um, so since we were last here, we'd also been to the zoning board uh because we were changing this from a twounit uh dwelling to a single family dwelling.
Um, you probably know the bulk requirements vary for the different uses in this zone. So for instance, we needed um impervious coverage variance because the existing structure uh was
>> you do have micr >> and I'm losing my voice. So please tell me if you need me to repeat or be louder. Um apologize. [snorts] >> So um [laughter and clears throat] uh impervious coverage um was an area that we needed a variance on. There were existing non-conformities from the
existing house that we needed to formally get variances on. Um, one of the other, um, items, um, was, uh, it turned out the DCA had talked to, uh, Craig Hurles about extrapolating the,
uh, parking requirements from the RSIS. So, therefore, we had to add a parking space from the last version you've seen and what you have. And we're not we didn't increase the driveway size at all. We had uh, space to accommodate that additional space. Um since we were
last year from a design standpoint having nothing to do with the zoning board, um we had proposed um kind of lattice panels for for plants to grow on the two sides of the porch um towards the front portion. We've removed
them and only placed it slightly back further uh to still give my client his privacy for his morning coffee. >> So only in that one bay, right? >> Correct. Only in the one bay. [laughter] Um and um in addition to that um there were
uh discussions about window uh divided light arrangements um from the last meeting. >> What did you discover? >> We discovered um that the most attractive divided light configuration
to my client is the 9 over one. However, because we have a array of window sizes in the existing house uh in which the proportion of the overall window is shorter to its width rather and there's a large number that are larger that
actually a combination of a six over one for those shorter windows that are about 3 feet 3' 4 tall roughly maybe 38 a couple but um to the larger windows that are five feet or larger um you know the nine over one work in those because they
are tall, their proportion of the window is much different than the shorter windows. Uh so you'll see an array predominantly in the dormers um of a six over one look. Again, some of those are egress casements. So, they
have the 2-in sash simulated rail. Um, and the let me get the right scrolling out here. And the uh there are a couple bathroom windows and other random windows. Again, existing sizes that um
are just a shorter proportion, a shorter and wider overall sash sash proportion. I think the bottom line, we did take feedback. We removed several of the 9 over1 windows. >> Okay. I don't want to interrupt you, but
are you done? >> I believe I am. >> Great. So, um, couple things. Once again, a beautifully composed submission. It's comprehensive. It has everything we need to assess it, and it's a very skillfully done project, I would like to say.
>> Thank you. Um, and almost nothing has changed from the conceptual review. You've just given us a bit more detail with the exception of the additional parking place, the screen being limited to one bay, and the decision about the configuration of the grills in the windows.
>> Correct. And the uh cut sheet, I believe, for the windows specifically says about the prime. >> Thank you very much. It does. So, given that, I would like to suggest that instead of going around the room, I would just invite anybody who has any questions or comments to make them, please. I I' I'd like to ask what may be
the dumbest question of this and that's just having not been here for the original presentation. This is a replacement of substantially all windows. >> Yes. With the exception of there's a um a window at the stair that has some uh leaded glass that is going to remain or be repaired I should say.
>> And the reason being just for aesthetics or or just because they're in bad shape or because they were perhaps this has already been asked. >> It was there are already replacement windows. They're not original windows. Yeah, >> there we go. >> And it's brings me back up to my [laughter]
>> So, so you are you are replacing with higher quality windows that have already been already been replaced of lower quality. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Got it. Got it. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Just just one quick I guess two
questions on drawing HPC10 in the proposed right side elevation. There is a window in the middle that does not have the divided lights on the top. Is that intended or >> the
>> Are you referring to the stained glass window? >> Is it the second window from the right? >> Oh, left. Sorry. Is the second window from the left on the first floor? >> Yes. Is that >> Oh, that is the stainless. Yes. >> Next to that little window right the
small Okay, I got it. I I I knew I'd hit that probably. And I see that the uh Kevin, thank you for making me look at this elevation a little closer. We left the proposed lattice above the railing on that elevation. And I would be happy to assuming you're going to grant
approval, give a revised HPC sheet uh HPC 10 sheet not showing that lattice on that it's it got left. It didn't get erased on that one elevation. It is correct on the proposed left side elevation. On the right side, it didn't get erased.
I have to ask a question, John. And John, I'm going to defer to you on this about the lattice. If the lattice is simply hung from two hooks on the ceiling and two at the bottom to stabilize it so it's not, you know, swaying in the wind, that's removable, is there a reason why we we couldn't do
that on multiple panels there on the side? I'm just I I'm just I it doesn't strike me since it's easily removable that that would be a problem from a our standard standpoint. I I I get if you fix it then that's a
different story. But if it's just a removable panel of lattice, I don't [snorts] know that that's a problem. Do you know what's your opinion on the standards? >> We would love to have that option. If not, and you feel strongly about it, we'll take the back bay as a win. But if we have that optionality that would
>> So as I recall, Mr. Carol, you were um speaking mostly about that. Do you have any comments about that? >> No. >> Okay. No, the answer is he doesn't have any comments about that. >> So Kevin, are you saying So let me ask you this. >> Yeah, I'm I'm [snorts] saying if you fix that panel in place, then all bets are
off and you and you shouldn't extend it beyond the one one panel because then it becomes obtrusive, you know, from the standpoint of the standards. But if on the other hand, it's just simply a panel that is hung from some hooks. If you left the bottom alone, it would simply sway in the wind, but it just, you know,
the hooks just keep it in place. Easily removable. I'm not sure that that's a problem from a standard standpoint. And I'm just trying to >> so I'm going to push back on that a little bit. Um because to continue them in that front bay cons con considerably
alters the visibility through that layer which is such a consistent ordering device for porches along the streetscape where there is a transparency between the front edge of columns and that space before we get back to the official
windowed facade of the building. whereby when they're limited to just the back bay, they're already well behind that transparency and seem perfectly appropriate to me. So, I would I would suggest that >> that's a good point. Yeah, about that.
>> No, not to be argumentative, our next door neighbor. >> Yeah. >> And that front bay has this screening in place. So, there are we would not >> there are no unencumbered views down the block. Still, I'm happy with the back
bay. Um, I'd like to have the option of putting that up like in the summer. It's a those porches are so close that if you're sitting on that porch and you're dining, it's like you're sitting in >> Okay. So, I'll I I I would propose a um
a hybrid approach that if you had a removable panel that went from the new post to the middle column, which would essentially align with the front facade of the building. So, I'm looking at drawing um HPC11. >> Ah, >> so that that I think would be
acceptable. >> Good. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Did you guys all hear that? >> Yeah, I I agree. I think the removable panel is important to this because otherwise we really are tampering with the >> So in other words, I think what you're hearing um pending a a motion is that I
think we're finding we're lining I think around it being acceptable to use removable panels from the new post in the front bay on elevation proposed left side elevation >> from the new post back. >> Yes. >> Yep. He's saying post this.
>> Yep. The new post. Yes. So this area >> what do you mean by the new post? >> The new post is the railing post >> on uh HPC1 >> on HPC1. >> Yeah. >> So therefore the transparency from the outermost face of the facade to the front columns would remain fully open.
>> Good. Good. >> Just as a >> one one last question. Are you changing any of the landscaping plan with your modifications to the driveway >> other than there's grass that will be removed to accommodate the driveway? >> No.
>> Okay. >> So, John, just to be clear, you're you're advising them they can add one additional panel on that side. Okay. And they'll be removable. >> They have to all be removable. Yeah. And is would you like that to have the one additional panel for privacy?
>> Please. >> So just want to be clear might [snorts] be talking about three panels, right? There's the proposed permanent one that was relocated to the area of the chimney towards the rear of the coffee area. And
then we're talking about one or two temporary um >> actually I think we're talking about all of them becoming removable. Okay. In in order to get the additional panel,
I think all should be constructed the same way, which would be removable. >> So, that's not how I interpreted that. Um, it it it's it's it I think we were all fine with the panels, the three panels in the back bay between the last two columns being permanently fixed. I
think we're okay with that. >> Okay. I think what we were talking about is any additional ones limited to the middle new post between the front bay of columns would be removable. >> And my question was because Miss Amy referenced kind of offered up, hey,
we'll take down the one near the front doorway that's depicted on the plans right there, >> but we've shifted that to doing uh removable panels for that side and maybe the other or just one. This side actually is still
forward of the front face of the house. So this side would still be removed on the drawing because it's >> correct. >> Um the house kind of has a an L-shaped porch. >> Okay. >> So it's really the uh portion of the porch that is uh aligned with the front
of the house back only that would have panels. So from that that proposed right side elevation um you never really see that because the bumpout bay that exists of the building would block that. >> Okay. So no matter what the applicant's
proposing to remove the uh lattice in HPC 10, right? >> Correct. >> Now we're talking about HPC1. Correct. >> And this discussion about the new post. >> Correct. >> This is the only elevation where we're going to see a removable panel now. And this is going to go
>> there's there's two options here. There's the permanent area that's already the area of the chimney, the coffee nook, and then frontward. And then there's a middle post there. So which side of that, if I'm looking at this plan, it's going to be the left side or the right side? >> Left side of that post. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Right.
>> So to preserve that. >> So So it's a solid set of panels. It looks like a solid set of pants with an open >> preserve the openness between the solid wall of the front facade and got it and and the breezeway on the correct so you can see down. Correct. Got it. Okay. >> So, I think what we're hearing is that
there are two conditions. >> One is to remove the panels that are shown on the proposed right side elevation on HC10. >> Correct. >> And the other is that should you choose to do it and I think you go ahead and show them. removable panels between the
new post and the middle column on the proposed left side elevation. That would be removable. Yep. >> I have questions or comments otherwise. Yep. Please. >> Yes. Um I'm not comfortable with the permanent
panels. It's sort of enclosing the porch and I I believe it's going to affect the railing. How is it going to be attached to the railing? Permanently attached to the original railing and the posts. Yes, the adjacent neighbor. There's a photograph on HPC10.
>> Um where and I I know it's a you know it's zoomed you know it's small that you can't see the closeup with 11 by7 but there's actually a uh 2x4 um that is goes from the uh beam of the porch down to the railing
>> and then the lattice each of those in this photo there's three panels. Each of those three panels each has a 2x4 with lattice in between. So it's a 2x4 with lattice in between and then another 2x4 for the next panel adjacent to it. So there's really a gap of I don't know 4
to 8 in off hand because they have multiple panels so that the two are different. So um that's the way the neighbors panels were installed were installed and what um was found
attractive to Mr. Fisher in same neighbor's house. And so that was kind of our intention was to kind of replicate that construction. >> And just to be clear, this is not your standard say quarter inch lattice work that you would see below a porch. This
is, you know, inch inch and a half thick cedar. So in terms of a fixing it, it's it's actually grooved to mirror the profile of that railing. >> It's a different scale. Just to be clear, we we didn't review these this
lattice or it probably wouldn't have been approved. So, we can't really consider that. I It was very >> Oh, you're saying the neighbors >> your neighbors. I I appreciate that you that you included that. Um unfortunately, things happen in the historic district that we have no
control over. We have better control now because we have a compliance officer. So, if our panels were um similar in proportion, but uh just hanging as opposed to fixed, would that
be more satisfactory to you? >> I would prefer that they were hanging in removable as uh Mr. Hammer suggested because it's a slippery slope. If if we start approving these panels, like the lots of people that have closed porches all over the city are going to want to
put permanent panels up and before we know it, they might be windows. Um I think it could be easily accommodated in in a way that, you know, you're just really leaving a half inch space and they could be attached um pretty
permanently without really affecting the original porch. It's it's a I I think it's a really nice plan. I think it looks great. I appreciate you. Um but that's that's my comments. >> If I if I understand where we are now, we're we're debating between fixed and
removable panels with respect to all the panels. >> Correct. Right. I just want to make sure we No, I I I have to say I I don't really object to the fixed panels. They're large. They're But I don't think they they they deter at all from the from the attributes of the house. And
they're located if they're fixed, they're located. Although I have some fear that anything that we say is going to be removable turns out to be fixed because it's a, you know, it's a problem to keep putting them on and off. But as for the ones that are shown and that we've been talking about before Judy's comments is fixed, I don't I don't have
a problem with them being fixed in place. So I don't think we we agree on on the necessity to me. They don't they don't work a detriment to the bill. So Judy, um I I really appreciate your comments. Would like to point out though
that they would only be on that very left outside face of the porch. So that the proposed front elevation on HC10 is still transparent all the way through. So it's not as if they are enclosing against the solid surface. They're not.
They're floating in space. Therefore, I really what I'm trying to point out is proposed front elevation on HC HPC10. >> If they were to turn and wrap that back corner, then I'd have a problem because that would be enclosing that space. It's not. It's really just a visual screen from the neighbor. There's still the
transparency through the porch looking from the front. >> See, my only my only reason for recommending it is simply that, you know, from a visual standpoint, I don't think it's very different whether it's fixed or removable. you know, if it's up, it's not going to look terribly
different. The logic of having it as removable, though, is really in keeping with our whole theory and philosophy about retaining the contributing status. So, they're already making a few changes here and there on the building. It's not much. I mean, that's the good news and that's one of the reasons why we gave you conceptual approval and I think
you'll see final approval is that, you know, we're not we're not I don't think jeopardizing the contributing status of the house. But anything you can do, anything that is reasonable, a reasonable accommodation that doesn't really impact what the homeowner is, you know, is trying to achieve, which is
privacy and so forth. anything that that affords that that removability that's just a step in the right direction from the standpoint of protecting the contributing status because the you know when the property survey or the next time the you know the the property is reviewed it's a removable piece that
makes it very easy and very clean I think that's that's my logic in in making the argument for for the removability I mean it's no different than what we always say about >> you can't fault the logic no >> obviously it's I don't I mean I don't think it's to be taken down. It looks
like less of a change. I I guess I'm just going to go out on limb and say and with all the lack of expertise, I don't think that a couple of fixed panels will change the contributing status. >> I don't think so either. >> That's just my opinion. I hope it's shared with viewers.
>> Mr. Fischer, what's your comment? >> Um I don't think the aesthetics will be changed principally whether we affix them or not. So my argument is one of practicality. We will put them up. They will never be removed. >> Correct. >> That's fine. >> And so if I have things that are hanging
on hooks, whether it's in wind or other kinds of situations, I'd rather have it permanently fixed where it's okay, >> just to avoid that as a safety hazard, because the reality is other than hurricanes, we'll never pull them down. >> That's the pract That's the reality.
>> I'm glad you brought that up because that's I'm sitting here thinking, well, maybe your street doesn't have the wind that my street has. Hell yeah. [laughter] I think every street >> I really don't know that I want wooden panels flapping, >> especially at the scale that I was
talking about. >> I I couldn't agree more. >> Now, we have a house next two doors away from us. That's um the Levy Nephi house, and they have fixed lattice that's been there probably for a
couple generations. And it looks really nice. It looks integrated. It does afford privacy to the porch and it's you might want to look at it Christina because it's not just a 2x4 that that
you that you fix it to. Um the structure of the lattice is a fixed in a in a fairly elegant way that allows some space above the railing. So you really see the definition of the ballusters and
the railing and then you have this panel that's fixed. It's been there for 50 years and we have a lot of wind on our street. Um, it does it does it does create
more of a room for that porch so that when you walk by you see the you can have that neighborly thing, but you're not having a a full view down the street. And I think the compromise of leaving that front area open and then
having an elegant solution to a fixed um lattice and Tom always talks about privacy lattice. You haven't spoken up about that, but >> well this is >> you can tell the difference between some cheap yes easy lattice and good lattice.
I don't know what that is, but >> well, privacy lattice has as much light coming through as solid wood around it. Uh, so it ends up with like 25% is see-through and 75% is the cross wood.
Uh, but I'm I'm still thinking about the lattises here. Uh, in all my years on this board, temporary things become permanent if that's what the people really wanted in the first place. And I won't go into many examples of that around the town, but there's been a lot
of those that, you know, they get up and we just don't have the enforcement to say you got to go back to the plan that you had that we approved 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or whatever. Uh, as you walk up that street, if you have more panels
coming out, you're not going to get that open front porch looking because they're getting an angle look. Uh when we when I brought up the idea of having just the panels in the back, you have that on the plan right now. And I just really don't
think we should support having another panel out there. You could have some kind of awning arrangement curtain uh for when you're dining out there that you know could be pulled across, but I don't think another panel out there uh would be something we would be happy
with for the long term. If we're >> say out there, Tom, do you mean here? >> It means >> out here. >> Out here. >> Right there. >> In place of anything else. >> So, where are we folks? >> Uh, >> well, I would like to ask something. This may be to two totally different
things, but if you recall last month, we denied the closed porch idea on Pur Street because you thought it was very important and I we all agreed with you that they you be able to see straight through and that the porches, you know,
complemented one another. It's almost the same idea because we want that openness. But I mean, we have to be consistent. >> Oh, I don't know. >> Well, if I'm going to >> No, I wasn't saying I thought that the
fixed one should go all the way to the front. >> I'm sorry. >> The compromise of having the panel in the front was that it would not come before that one ballot. >> Oh, no. I was just talking about what we
did last month on Perry Street. Well, that that was totally different condition. >> This one this one already has this one already has a a through look. Okay. >> So, so it's not closed. And and it and it seems to me that one of the things we have to get straight here is um yes um
we are responsible for um enforcing our standards. We're enforcable. We have we've got to we've got to trace them down and and defend those. But we also have to respect um the desires of the homeowner. I I think that counts as a fair amount for
for for what what's at issue here. >> So I have a I have a reconciling proposal, but Judy, you have a comment. >> I was just I think the fourth panel was if they were not fixed, but the proposal is not for four panels. It's for three.
>> Correct. So I I I will support the current proposal given the arguments everyone >> so I would >> but I I don't think the fourth panel as Tom said was not proposed in this. So if they're going to be fixed I think three is pretty reasonable. That's what you asked for. It's probably what's
necessary. >> So I'd like to point out a geometrical relationship. >> [clears throat] >> So, if we're looking right at the elevation itself, it's a little bit deceiving because the piece that sticks out for the bay window is actually
significantly deeper than the actual corner edge of the house inside the porch. So, if you look at the floor plan, you can see that quite readily. Right? Follow what I'm saying? >> Yes. >> Right. Mhm. >> So, I'd also like to point out that this
is not a solid panel. [clears throat] There's about a foot space at least between >> each of the panels. So, what you're guys what you're seeing is that vertical white member, those two vertical whites, that's not a column. That's just space. Correct. >> Correct. >> Right. So, there's actually space
between the column and the first panel, space between the first panel and the second panel, space between the second panel and third panel, and space between the third panel and the column. Right. So given that geometrical association or or I would say relationship that I just
called for, if you were to add a fourth panel that was exactly the same as the first three and space the same distance from the column as the one that exists. I would propose that as a reconciling way of of of
harmonizing this in a way that we could all perhaps align around. So, it would be adding a fourth panel, but it be exactly the same size as the first three. And it would also be spaced away from the column. It's not touching the column. So, I think that's one of the things that you're missing perhaps in these drawings is there's spaces between these panels. That's not a solid between
the panels. And therefore, the edge of that panel would roughly align with the edge of the house in the distance or 13t 9 in away as opposed to sticking out past that like the bay window does further. >> Right. >> Right. And that to me would be an
appropriate architectural geometrical response that actually helps define that space in a more private way for you to use accordingly. >> Be thrilled with that? >> That would be my proposal. >> So you're proposing adding four
>> one fourth panel same size as the first three spaced equidistant from the column as the others are. >> Permanent. >> Permanent. >> Permanent. >> It's going to be permanent no matter what. It is what I mean. and and it's a lot better that you take that approach
rather than it swings from hooks and >> well and also when you're talking about permanent I think with in terms of preservation changes that are removable without damaging the original fabric are less offensive or less difficult to
approve. >> Right. So Kevin that that answers your question >> versus flying in the wind. Um definitely for >> it's gonna be anchored. [laughter] >> Yeah. [laughter] >> So can we table this for just a second?
Um we're kind of talking in circles here. So I'd like to pause the panel discussion. Are there any other issues anybody has with this proposal? >> Are we only talking about the the lattice panels? That's it. Right. Tom
>> on on HPC10 the other side of the house >> it shows three panels. >> No, we've already we've already >> already that's >> we've already established they're not present. >> Definitely out. >> Correct. Your your suggestion is one more panel on the other >> one more panel on the left side. Yep.
>> So if all we're talking about is the panels, I would like to make a motion. [snorts] I would move that we approve this as a final submission with two conditions. One is you resubmit HPC10 without the three lattice panels
showing. And the second is adding a fourth panel at your discretion that would match the existing three equidistant from the column on the left on the left elevation. >> Good. That's my That's my motion. Is there a second?
>> Yes. Yes. And I will second that motion. >> Okay. Any further discussion? There's a motion on the floor. >> So, um, could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Mr. Carol, >> no. >> Miss Bagno, >> no. >> Miss Wilson Shik,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hammerin, >> no. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> So, that motion fails. >> So, we need a new motion. I will make the motion to stick with the the project
as is with the three panels on one side and the panels on the other side eliminated. >> I'll second that. >> Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Mr. Carroll? >> Yes. >> Miss Bagno? >> Yes. >> Miss Wilson? >> Yes. >> Miss Decker? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Hammeran? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta? >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Permanently affixed. Yes. Yes. >> Firefight. >> Y. Okay. >> All right. They are >> Thank you very much. [laughter]
>> That was much to do. Much to do about panels. >> Yeah. Much to do about lattice. >> It's a great project. >> Yeah, it is a great project. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Moving on, please. Um, next application is for Cape Rock Condominium Association, 1520 New Jersey Avenue.
>> Mr. chairman, [clears throat] as a as a result of proximity, I'm going to recuse myself from the Cape Rocket. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So, as our applicant is um coming to the table, I'd like to with full disclosure
state that I've actually met with Mr. Tupper and his board on site at least twice. I think it actually has been three times, >> I think. So, >> and Mr. Mr. Tupper and a member a couple of members of his board have also come before us in the review committee at
least once. Was it twice or once? Just once. >> So, with that said, um if you could please tell us your name, your address, your role in the project. >> Sure. Uh thank you. Uh Ron Tupper, 1209 Cape May Avenue. Uh I'm also the president of the board of Cape Rock
Condominiums at 1520 New Jersey Avenue. Uh and as part of that um part of that role uh I get to guide 76 unit owners in the selection of anything that we do
[laughter] at Cape Rock. Um and so uh so as part of that uh we uh we have recognized a need to uh update the railings that we have at Cape Rock. And you can see in some of the pictures the
existing railings have gone through a few different boards over time. And so there is a a variety of of uh current rails. The far majority of which are galvanized uh metal that has been painted and is uh
missing uh a fair amount of paint. Um, and I I would describe the area and I I'm I'm guessing, by the way, I'm not going to get a lot of compliments on the quality of the submitt, and I apologize for that. Uh, but we we didn't hire an
architect to do plans to uh to to replace the the railings. Uh but I would direct you to really to the photographs which show there are um there are patios on the left and right and a pool area in the middle and then there are walkways
for the second and third uh floor of the building. Um so you can see kind of from a from a distance as well as uh as a as close up a variety of railing styles. again, the far majority of which is um
is is galvanized uh metal. Uh over the over the past some number of years prior to my being on the board, uh various pieces of that railing were were replaced with a tubular uh style. And my understanding is the guidance from the
HPC at the time was the for instance one of the walls of the pool which you which you can't see from the street was replaced with the tubular uh but the the rest was not allowed because it was uh visible from the street. >> So our proposal at this point is to
replace all of the existing metal. Uh so there a couple of ramps were updated very recently and we feel it's kind of a waste to go ahead and throw that uh non-metal uh material out. But to
replace all of the metal on the the the patios, the pool area, and the walkways uh with a vinyl uh product here. You can see here it's called a T- rail style. Um
and and we had a choice of caps and we got guidance from the subcommittee that that this cap was uh was more preferable and that this railing style uh was more pre preferable. Uh and the general membership has uh has voted their support of replacement of all the
railings with this rail with this cap. And so we come here seeking your approval uh to do just that. Okay, Mr. Tupper, I just have one really quick question, just a clarification before we open it up for questions. >> Sure. >> That is the two the two details that
were sent by Murphy Fence. >> Um there's only two of them and they look like this. They have Murphy fence. >> Yes. And that is clearly not to scale. >> Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out is the spacing between the spindle seems odd there. >> Yeah. Yes, that is as I say, clearly not
to scale. So the the um the the brick where there are some brick peers. >> Um I would guess there to be one or two spindles within that dimension. They sent me over this drawing uh as the illustration. You can kind of see the
existing metal curls around over top of that column. Uh that is it is not a scale drawing. So really the purpose of this is just to show how the posts and >> the posts go next to the brick >> and then there's a >> brick. >> That's exactly right. >> But the spacing of the spindles is
inaccurate. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Does this reflect the spacing of the >> It does. >> Uhhuh. >> I believe it's three and a half inches, but it it may be four. I honestly I don't >> recall.
>> We encourage No. Well, you um [clears throat] our building code says you it has to be four or less. >> Yes. >> And we usually encourage uh three uh inch opening for one inch uh spindles in
the middle to give it the historic look that uh is up in that area of town. >> So my >> Yeah. >> Uhhuh. >> Yeah. I I I believe they're inch and a half spindles, but I do not have a I
apologize. has a tape measure. Uh >> see, >> a tape tape measure on that. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> This is, by the way, uh courtesy of Murphy Fence, who tells me they've provided this product in multiple uh
locations throughout the city. >> Okay. So, the spindles are an inch and a half. The space between them is three and seven, but seated, so you can't change, right? That's a pre-manufactured. That's right. Well, well, that's good because the
spindles are bigger than just the inch. That's that looks too flimsy to have an inch. So, an inch and a half really does give it the beef. Sure. >> And you're up in an area of town where all those big shingle style homes have real heavy railings. >> That is true.
>> Which are you hold up to the storms too. >> Yeah. Mr. forget. Becker gave us guidance to go look at the streetscape. And so we took 25 pictures of other uh other properties with uh you know, clearly no no clear guidance as to uh as
to what it should look like, but but we believe that we at least need to make Cape Rock consistent throughout the property. I think I'm going to make a move that uh we approve that for all the railings on
the buildings and around the pool knowing that the railings that are newer that are to the staircases would remain the same. [clears throat] >> Can I get just clarification the railings that are on the staircase that are going to remain the same where is
that in rel on the property? >> So uh in the center of the at in the rear or the front? >> No, sorry. So, the the rear is is just one solid brick wall with windows uh to uh properties.
I can't imagine they appreciate the Cape Rock being right in right right behind them. It's not an attractive facade on the uh towards the beach block. Um but the front parking lot has a pool kind of in the center. So there's basically three sections. Uh has a pool in the
center and the handicap or the the ADA walkway on the left has that uh tubular rail. >> That would be on the other side. >> Yeah. on the other side of that building. >> A point of interest, many years before that building was built, one of the
owners in front of the uh tried to get all the neighbors together to buy that land back there so that they could control what was going to happen to it >> because they were afraid that uh a motel appearance would appear. So, and I'm not picking on it.
>> No, no, listen. That's exactly what did happen. If I am successful one day, I will arise uh for you in in in front of this uh board again and request permission for a >> demolition. No, I will not be that, but
a more attractive version of the [laughter] of the building. Yep. >> I didn't mean to put words in. >> No, no, no. At some price, I'm sure, but but that price is is much higher than it would have been at that time. >> Yeah. Just to clarify, this is all on
New Jersey Avenue. >> I'm sorry. >> Just to clarify, this is all on New Jersey Avenue. >> It is all on New Jersey Avenue. That's correct. Well, I shouldn't say that. That the end on Brooklyn. >> Well, with the exception of the end. >> Yes. >> Y Tom Tom, I'm I'll I'll second your motion with a condition.
>> Um a mandatory form in the packet was not completed and that is the taxes. >> Well, >> yeah. So, it it actually um it has been done. I apologize. It was not done at the time of submitt. Again, there was 78 taxpayers. Um, and the agreement we had
was we would not be on the docket tonight if they had not been all been satisfied. And they were all satisfied uh last Friday. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I would 78 >> simply because we don't have the actual document. I'd just like it to be as a
form of order conditional upon upon being >> uh so so my I talked with Deb Lindholm. She said she was bringing the document uh over across the hall on Friday. I >> I apologize. I don't know where it sits. I was out of town. >> Condition of a permit. Anyway, so um I
have a a question uh just on the sample that you've brought in. >> Sure. >> Is the spacing that we just measured and talked about, is that the proposed spacing that you're going to use throughout the site or is there going to be something different? I I uh I believe
that that is the the manufactured product. So I don't think I can change the spacing on that. Um if you want to give guidance, I will certainly give guidance to Murphy, but I I don't believe that that is a uh changeable >> clear on what the board's voting on. We
just yeah >> like kind of handmeasured that and that if that's okay to the board, that's fine. And I just want to be clear about it because >> there there is a one page that has photograph one and photograph two that shows actually a lot more spacing between the
>> Yeah. So that that those photos are of the pressure testing that they did to the railing system. >> Um so I can uh it actually if you look uh at the at their their drawing dimensionally actually says 3 and 78 uh
spacing. Okay. >> On the on the material drawing. So Tom would make that part of the motion then. Sure. That the spacing be uh three and 78 >> 3.875 >> 3 75 and the um balance rates themselves
will be inch and a half. >> Yes. I think that they are >> Is that okay with the second? >> So I would just I would ask for clarification that Yes. Actually >> Uhhuh. uh their printed document says 1.375 but they crossed it out to 1.5. So I believe that that is okay.
>> So I there has been a a motion and a second for approval of this submission with two conditions. One is that all payment of tax forms be on file. The second is that the spacing throughout be the same as this sample which is 3.875 in between inch [clears throat] and a
half width spindles. >> So sounds like a roll call votes in order. Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Trick, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamron, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker,
>> yes. >> Thank you so much. [laughter] >> We've been at this a long time, Mr. >> I listen, I I appreciate your uh you are all volunteers. I have the pleasure of being the volunteer on the Cape Brock board. I appreciate all of your time. >> Thank you, sir.
Next application is Noacowski at 276 Windsor, a revocable trust at 276 Windsor Avenue. If you could please state your name and your role in the project. >> Uh my name is uh Christopher Ston. I am the um sales rep for EMT Solar.
>> You want to keep it? >> Okay. Um and [clears throat and cough] I'm sorry, what's your last name again? >> Ston. Sex T O N. >> Okay. Mr. Ston, I think I can cut right to the chase here. Unfortunately, I don't think that um we can entertain
approval of this because virtually all sides of this roof are visible from the street. I made a little map here and made a little arrow from the street. all the different locations where these roofs are visible and they
include the corner of Grant and Park, the corner of Windsor and Park, further east on Windsor and actually also from Grant Street. >> So from unfortunately I was looking for a place on the site that you might be
able to put PV panels that were not visible. >> And there's one small place. >> Yeah. and it's on the the shed roof >> and and that's tiny and and only facing towards um Windsor. Unfortunately, this this the roofs on this house are so
prominent that you see all of them from basically everywhere. >> Okay. Even that lower portion in the back there, if we were just able to do those uh you know, not on that the the top part. >> I'm not quite sure where you mean. Do you have >> Oh, you have them numbered. So, are you
talking about MP3 and MP4? >> Yes. >> Unfortunately, no. >> Because this the ste the the this roof is such a steep slope >> that you can see that quite in fact that's actually quite prominent from Grant Park. >> Oh, right. Okay. I wasn't thinking about it from that way. I was just thinking
about it from Windsor Street. >> Well, that's that's the issue, right? >> Because it unfortunately this is only the second house in from park. So, it's so open. I mean, as soon as you pull up um Grant and are making that right to go up park, it's like right in your face.
>> I mean, you need to you need to stand virtually on all sides and look up and look around and and it just shows up. >> Gotcha. >> So, I sat there for a while studying this trying to figure out where could we because really want to encourage the use
of as much renewable energy supply as possible. the unfortunately the position of this house and its roof configuration. I I couldn't find a place. Maybe you can, but I couldn't. >> Uh I'm actually kind of relieved because we he was like on the deadline for the
tax credit and you know going through this process if we get one failed inspection. He's he's you know I can't give him one. So I'm kind of relieved. Half and half. >> So um point of order.
>> What's the action we need to take? Um, and I think if there was some way to problem solve this, we would offer the applicant an opportunity to kind of reformat this and come back. But if it doesn't look like that, >> seems we should >> entertain a motion in favor of the
application and you can vote accordingly. >> The only way that uh I would be able to redesign this would be to put it on the shed, but then the tree would have to be cut, which is another problem in itself. >> You'd have an issue with the shade tree commission at that point. Yeah.
>> So, I have a question. Um, M Mr. Sexon, right? >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Would you prefer to withdraw the application >> as opposed to us voting and denying it >> if that's uh I mean,
>> do I mean, do you need to show your >> you may want an indication from the board >> uh >> for your for your own customer. >> For your owner. Got it. Okay. So, um, I would like to entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion that we approve the application. >> I'll second that motion. >> Motion by Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr.
Ta. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carroll, >> no. >> Miss Bagno, >> no. >> Miss Bilson Shurik, >> no. >> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> no. >> Mr. Ta, >> no. >> Mr. Becker, >> no. It's unanimous. >> You got me excited when you made the
motion. I thought I was like, oh, he's going to approve it. Sorry you [laughter] had to sit through this whole meeting for that. >> A very positive thing, too. >> Merry Christmas. >> Thank [laughter] gives you that gives you a record of denial if you couldn't you couldn't make it up the slope. >> It's more than plausible denial. It's
denial. [laughter] Yeah. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you guys. >> Fortunately, you had to sit through the whole meeting for that. [clears throat] >> Oh, I know. >> This one. >> Oh, right, right, right. Yeah. Yeah. this. Wait a minute. What are you looking at?
>> That's the house. >> Oh, right. Right. >> Yeah, that. >> Oh, yeah. It's completely different. Okay. Um, >> we have a final application from Waxman at 931 Corgi. >> Are you Mr. Waxman?
>> I guess that's you. >> It would appear by process of elimination. You You are Mr. Waxman. >> Okay. Sir, if you could please tell us your name, your address, and your role in the project. >> Gary Waxman, owner, 931 Corgi Street,
Kate May. The floor is yours, sir. Uh, appeared here, a little over a year ago, I guess. Uh we received conceptual approval for a wooden shed in the rear of the property, shower
enclosure, uh pavers to replace um concrete u I believe even a fence replacing chain link with
wood. Let's see if there are any others. So there actually six six components. >> Yeah, there also uh some uh exterior doors. There was a uh front door where we removed a it was either metal or
fiberglass we put in a wood door um and three wooden storm doors around the property. So, we were told to go back because there were some setback violations for the shed
uh in particular and non-conforming use. So, we went to the zoning board uh where we recently received a board resolution um allowing the various uh you know
providing various variances for us to uh finish the project. >> And Mr. Waxman, do you have a resolution number from um zoning planning approval? >> I think it's actually back here, John. >> Is it? I didn't >> I think there's a copy of the resolution >> there. There is a >> Yeah. See, see, part part of the problem is the paperwork here doesn't exactly
match up. Um this is your old submission over here. It's not been updated, but the resolution of the planning board here is actually part >> the fin the final >> 28 2025. I apologize. you you got you got your planning board approval, but
your your face sheet acts like you don't even need it. >> Um, so just to be clear, Mr. Waxman, um, just want to make sure that we're understanding this application because it was a it was a challenge to try and understand the scope of what's happening
here just because it's been revised so many times. So I believe that you're asking for six components for us to approve. One is a fence and that's along the side, front, and back. three different heights, right? >> Yep. >> Um doors that um not quite sure where
the locations are. Third is a new construction of a new shower enclosure. Fourth are new pavers um to replace where the concrete is currently cracked. [snorts] Fifth is uh a a portion of a
new deck. Again, not quite sure where exactly that scope is. And sixth is construction of a new shed. Is that the entire scope? Yes. Okay. >> Just a couple questions. First of all,
>> no, we approved approval of that a year ago. >> The shed is partially constructed. >> We stopped. Yes. Yep. Either this. Yeah. >> So, it's in the rear corner of the house. Yep. There were um
I guess hardware there for the shower. We just wanted to put uh three wooden sides with some wooden lattice. Just a rough enclosure. Yep. Right. >> Yeah. I I think the fence is the easy is the easy part.
>> Fence is easy. >> The uh there's there's no nothing you can't do to improve a chain link fence and replace it with what you're doing. >> We completely agree. It's just it's a bit of a project. >> That one is that's almost a a a win-winwin. Um, and you and you show the cut sheet and and all the other stuff. U
part part of the problem I have aside from the location is I don't see cut sheet identifications for example for the door >> doors. >> The doors or the fence >> I'm [laughter] having well the fence I'm willing to bet goes around the perimeter of the but it should >> but he shows a picture of his neighbor's fence.
>> Yeah. >> But with no dimensions or anything that's that's >> I saw one picture that shows his fence and the neighbor's fence. Here it is. >> And he says uh he's going to match the neighbors. >> See, one of the things that really helps us if you do like a a drawing of the
property, if not the survey, then at least a sketch that shows us and and and you're and you're you got you know, you have a some some of the fence is shown and some isn't. I I'm I had a lot of trouble locating where things are going
here. So I have a proposal to make if if um in order not to protract this conversation. I think that the the challenge that we're having unfortunately Mr. Waxman is that the documentation that would be required for
us to fully assess this simply isn't here in in a clear way. So I would like to propose that perhaps we table this if you would be willing to so that that would give you an opportunity to submit
the following seven things. Ready? >> I'm ready. >> Right. >> So the first would be a narrative that clearly describes the scope of work across all of these six components.
The second would be let's start with item scope item number one which is the fence is cut sheets from the manufacturer of exactly the fence you propose to install and I believe that there are three different fences you're proposing
the sixoot is a solid one the 4oot is pick it like your neighbors and I'm unsure what the the >> the lower one in front >> the lower one in front is so number one's a narrative number two is cut sheets of all the proposed fence materials.
Two, the doors cut sheets of the proposed of the doors you are proposing, which would need to be wood, and a very clear indicator of where maybe a floor plan that indicates which doors are
being proposed to be replaced. Third, which actually is also a requirement and a condition of your zoning requirement, are construction details with dimensions and materials cut sheets of the shower enclosure.
So that would be item number four. Shall I continue? I think there was a mixup here. I was provided with a copy of the pro submission uh by Miss Keenan. I think it's the wrong one because I we've we've
provided all this. This is what led to the conceptual approval. >> So, in other words, what is in this packet is not what you're proposing. >> I believe that that was superseded. I I showed up I was given a copy of that said these are what you need to submit and I don't think that's correct. Okay. So,
>> that would be corroborated by the fact that we're looking at says it's a 2024. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> So, we don't have the right papers in front of us. >> It appears that might be the case. Um >> this is helpful. So shall I continue through this list just so we have >> you may but for example we gave cut
sheets designs of the doors it was provided by woodsmith Taylor Smith um u you know we have cut sheets of of everything >> two separate well there's kind of two I would say aspects of this one is the cut
sheets but the other is really clear clarifying where you're proposing to do what and some construction details of what you're proposing so if I could continue then I would suggest suggest. We already talked about the fence and the doors, the shower, again, construction details, um, with the dimensions and materials you're
proposing using, including cut sheets. Then the pavers. Um, there is one site plan that kind of has a red color on it. Um, but it's really hard to distinguish. The PA material was approved as well previously. >> Well, the PA material is approved, but
the scope of where you're proposing to put the pavers is very unclear. We need to see that. Really again there's two purposes to this submission. One is so that we can understand it clearly enough that we can approve it. Second is this set of documents is the doc is the set of documents that's given to our field
inspector to ensure that what was approved is actually being installed on site. And when things are less clear that just opens it up for all kinds of misinterpretation. That's why we're asking for very clear documentation. Okay. The fifth is um the
I don't know what the scope of the deck replacement is. So again, an indication of where you want to replace the deck with cut sheets of the proposed materials. And lastly, the shed construction details. What what you've given us are construction details of a framing plan
and a and kind of a floor plan, but unfortunately there's no roofing materials, siding materials, or door cut sheets, at least in what we were given in this packet. all all previously submitted. >> Okay. So, we just need to get all that stuff from you. >> So, does this mean I come back before
the uh full board again? >> I believe that that would be the only way to do this because of the scope of the work. So, what we're what we're suggesting if this would be acceptable to you would be to table this application and if our solicitor could explain the
implications of that. >> We just want to confirm that you'd be waving the time for decision. board can't really I if you submitted this stuff it's not before the board tonight and they need to see a complete application. So we would need to take this to the next meeting in order to
fully consider the materials that you've indicated you submitted. So we'd be asking you to wave the time for decision so the board wouldn't have to vote on an incomplete application tonight. >> Seems fair. >> If you don't wave that time approval is automatic. So so we have to ask you to wave it to allow us next decision. But
it's just a matter of if the tableabling result in you submitting papers that comport with what we just said and handle it at the next meeting. >> Yeah. The next meeting is >> three weeks off. >> Yeah. Next meeting is exactly three weeks from tonight.
>> I do recall us having this exact discussion when you came in for conceptual I think too. >> Yeah, we did. >> Just went through. >> Yeah, we did. >> So wouldn't surprise me that there's a revised submitt out there. >> Yeah. But it's on a shorter time frame. Earlier in the month, next month, you
can come back right back in and submit. >> And Lauren, what would be the deadline for Mr. Waxman to submit the application in order to make the agenda for December 15th? Would that be uh Friday, December 5th? >> Yeah, Friday, December 5th.
>> So that gives you all of this week and all of next week. Unfortunately, you have Thanksgiving in the way, right? But if you had a new >> there are improved papers if there are more papers that he can he can correct put together from >> so if you would resubmit your application by uh a week from this
Friday December 5th we could have it on the agenda agenda for December 15th if you are willing to table the current submission. >> I am willing. >> Then I will make a motion to table the application um pending its resubmission and waiver by the applicant of the 45day
um approval period. I'll second it. >> So moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Carol. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker,
>> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. And Mr. Waxman, if it would help you at all, um, we have our review committee meetings on Tuesday mornings. We're going to have one tomorrow morning
between um 9 and 10:30. And if you'd like to come and chat about this a little further to get further clarification, you're more than welcome to do that. And if you even wanted to come in with what you have as a a submission for us to review it to see if it's complete either tomorrow morning or a week from tomorrow morning, be happy
to re review that with you. >> We'll see you next Tuesday. >> Okay. All you need to do then is just make an appointment with uh Lauren Emer there and I think the time slots are 9, 9:30, 10 and 10:30. >> Very good. >> Sorry the whole meeting for this.
>> Always good to see you. >> Well, hopefully you won't be last. Thank you for Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] >> I hope not. But >> in fact, it would be considered old business. >> It would be. >> So, >> thank you, Mr. Waxman. All right. Thank you all.
>> So, I see nobody in the audience. So apparently we have no public com would you would you have any public comments to make Mr. Waxman? >> Don't be cute. >> None. >> Okay. Thank you. So let's open it up for discussion. Um I I'm holding that there's only two things but others may
have things. So Janice u might you give us a brief update on the uh historic preservation awards? Well, we um we have identified 17 nominees and we have our judges lined up. Uh Lauren is getting the packets
ready for us. Um so the building awards are moving along well. Lorraine has a date nailed down with the SHA fund. Do you want to talk about that, Lorraine? >> Sure. Um so May the 13th of 2026 at 7
o'clock Put that on your calendar. Save the date. That is going to be our award ceremony. >> Beautiful. And it's at the shelf, right? >> The shell hunt. >> Yes. >> So, uh we're now working on the criteria for the stewardship and leadership
awards which will be >> um publicly collected. So the difference between the building awards which are all projects that have come before the HPC in a certain time frame leadership and
stewardship are awards that we imagine we could do every year the city could do yearly. And in terms of the building awards we're hoping we're working toward a simple sustainable easily tracked
record of all the applications. So if you imagine that instead of imagining ourselves as only critics of projects throughout the year, we're looking for, wow, this could be an award-winning project. Because one thing Pip seemed a
little disappointed in when I talked to her recently was based on the numbers this time, it seemed like we would only have enough good projects for an award every three to five years.
and her comment and I think our original feeling was the more we can award projects the better. So once we have a better sense of the excellence that's coming before us and we're
tracking it and we have a a simple process with jurors who are looking forward to doing it because they know what they're getting into. I think um it should be a sustainable award program and I love the idea that it can be
another part of moving our dialogue with the community out of oh they're so difficult or it's really hard to wow look at that and look at that that was really great and this is this
is what we're we're trying to encourage. So Judy, did you have anything to add about the committee? >> Um, no, just about the maybe the leadership in the stewardship um awards that we were revisiting at our last meeting,
which will be not judged by the jury, >> right? >> But internally. So anyone who has any ideas about those two awards, we'd appreciate any feedback. Um >> yeah, we're going to try to get the um
word out through publicity and on the website and circulated among the boards, maybe a letter um asking for nominations and those nominations will be simple but uh clear, you know, requiring
um photograph, a little bit of history report coming into the office. Lauren will keep them and then probably in February or March we would do the decisions. Uh we're still kind of
working out the details on that. >> We should have that for the most part, I would think, at our next meeting. >> Yeah, we're going to meet again in two weeks. Yep. We meet a week before the >> the the HPC meeting. So, we should have a lot of that kind of pinned down, but
really start thinking about the Okay. And we were also looking with stewardship, the length of time somebody has um has has had that uh stewardship, but also is it the committee that should
look at possibly um judging that or coming back to the full HPC for both stewardship and leadership. >> So just think about it. >> Thoughts? questions.
>> Just a big thank you. >> It's been not done yet. >> No, it's been a hu [laughter] So, it's been a huge effort. >> Janice has worked tirelessly on this and done a fantastic job. Well, I'm excited about having a database of projects and figuring out how the database should
work because one of the questions I had when I was um asked to be on this commission was I wanted I wanted to be able to look at what has come before and how you know sort of the numbers and understand that the data and the data is
not that complex once we figure out what we're looking for. I mean, I said at the previous meeting we had 110 possibilities, but then we weeded out the ones that were just fences or roofs or had not gotten their cos or hadn't
even been started. >> Yeah. And the more we're in touch with how projects are approved and then how they're moving forward, the the more congruent our our approach or at least me personally, my approach to every
month's packet will be more [clears throat] >> Yeah. >> more knowledgeable if I if I kind of have a better sense of what's going on. >> You know, we we both came on this commission at the same time. >> Yeah. and and I know it's been um a very
important thing to you to improve the image of the HPC and its relationship with all those people who are applying for going through the process. um perhaps misunderstanding and um and and I just think that this is it it goes a a
part of way a long way really in improving uh where where we are in terms of recognizing the importance of what people are doing and showing some appreciation for it and I I know how that import is important to you and certainly important to us but but uh it's hardly anybody who could do a
better job in that respect. Well, I have a great team >> and Kevin. >> Yeah, you really really have a bunch of slackards. Slagards. >> John helped us with uh the the marathon culling. >> Yeah. Well, we all know Judy is about
102 octane on this. So, uh [laughter] >> I think we're very I think it's very exciting that we're, you know, reigniting this awards program. I think it's going to be great. I think we'll get a great turnout and it's it's turning a leaf for us. I think it's really good. >> How how long had you served as secretary
before you joined the Zust body? >> It would have been I think four years in October. >> So So I I was just going to add that that your perspective of seeing a gazillion applications and and and siphoning through them and talking to us about them gives you enormous
perspective for that, you know, for that that role. >> So again, we're really appreciative. >> Yeah. I mean, I think I think we saw some nice applications this evening and some things that clearly weren't weren't um going to fly, but you know, we'll keep them in mind for next time whether
it's three years or five years or two years. It depends on how many applications we have. But, you know, I think John said this would be a standing committee. So after the awards, you know, we'll we'll maybe look for different members and and keep it going because Janet has
um really made a great uh rubric. [laughter] Is that what it is? The process >> simple. And I also think it's a great place for bringing in a few people possibly from the community who might be potential members of the HPC.
>> Yeah. Particularly if they're young folk. >> Younger people. Oh, yeah. I Well, I I have my one. >> Here you go. With age discrimination. >> No, just getting the perspective of of a younger >> We do have one person. She's just in school. She's just not available that much, but maybe next year. >> Would that be Hannah?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. She's been sitting in on a couple of the Tuesday morning sessions. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> Well, thank you very much for all this. I think it's fabulous work. And and guys, we need to give Janice a hand. She's been working tirelessly on this.
[applause] Um I just have one other thing. Um wanted to give you guys a very quick very brief update on the Columbia Capstone project. It's really quite remarkable. >> Um these set this set of professionals.
So remember these are not college students. These are are graduate students who are actually practicing professionals in their field. And essentially what they're doing is they are assessing the intersection between climate resilience and historic
preservation. And they've divided up their capstone project into assessing three different aspects of this. One is what is the economic value of um our historical status status and resilience. In other words, what is our historical
status and resilience worth? Second is um what is the social value? what maintaining the historical legacy is worth and then third what are some technical solutions to preserving and and I would say harmonizing if you will
um climate resilience with sometimes it's it appears to be in conflict with historic preservation. So I think this could actually be a pretty good roadmap of ways for us to be interpreting and thinking about this. Um I've sat in with
I think three calls now. We had two since our last meeting where where the students made um initial findings presentations and I believe that the uh next to final presentation will be sometime I in the second week of
December. So I will that's something that they're going to do online with us and it's primarily the the participants from from the city have been a lot of folks but it's primarily led by um Justine Mgaro and um and Paul has been very involved and Lorraine you've been
involved quite a bit as well. So, uh, I will let you know as soon as I have a definitive date and time and encourage all of you to join that because I know that a couple of you, Kevin, you were there when they were here in October and Janice, you were here and I Chris, you were here too, right?
>> I may have been, but I was just going to say I think there's going to be a presentation. There is at the next week council meeting. >> Oh, there is. >> Yes. So, Justine Justine will be there. Not the Columbia students, but Justine will be there. So, >> to give us an update. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. So, she's going to provide some uh additional information,
a presentation. So, if anybody could >> So, a council meeting worth attending. >> It would be a council meeting worth attending. Um, that'll be on December 1st. >> Feelings. >> December 1st. >> December 1st. >> Second. >> Monday. >> The first. Oh, I'm sorry. The second, which is a Tuesday. Thank you. >> What time is it?
>> Uh, 5:30. >> Yeah. 5:30 now. >> Okay. So I just have to say that the value of what we are receiving from these from this capstone project is immense. This is hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of research being done and given to us. It's quite remarkable.
So all right, that's all I have. Anybody else have any open or items that you'd like to discuss? >> Not not a not an open item officially, but having just visited both Charleston and Savannah, I would urge everybody to go take a vacation.
It's it's remarkable to see along the eastern seabboard at least the dedication to historic preservation that exists in both of those cities. I felt um smaller but right at home in in terms of what we do and and what goes what
goes on there. So before I adjurnn, I just have a thank you to um since this is a week of giving thanks. I have um gratitude to all of you for the effectiveness and efficiency and kindness with which we have been
conducting these meetings. Tonight was a great example of it. Even when we don't agree, we're able to come to resolutions that are I think helpful to us and to our constituents. So thank you all for that. >> Um thank you for >> Thank you. >> Do I have a motion to adjurnn? So moved.
So moved. >> All right.