Good evening everybody. We'd like to call to order the City of KMA Historic Preservation Committee meeting, the first one of 2026 here on January 12th, 2026 starting at 601. If you could all um oh one more thing 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 everybody could please
join us in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Lauren, could we have the roll call, please? >> Mr. Becker >> here. >> Mr. Ta >> here. >> Mr. Carol >> here. >> Miss Bagno here. >> Miss Wilson Shik here. >> Mr. Stevenson, Miss Decker >> here, >> Mr. Hammer
>> here, >> Mr. Curts >> here. >> Okay, so we had a revised version of the minutes that were emailed this afternoon or I guess it was this morning from Lauren. Did everybody get a chance to review the revised minutes? >> If so, I would like to entertain a
motion to approve those revised minutes. >> So moved. >> You tied. Which one? I'll see. >> Okay. >> So, moved by Miss Bagno, seconded by Mr. Hamron. We have a roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno,
>> yes. >> Miss Wilson Shredik, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. You also were able to review hopefully in your email a bill from our council,
general counsel. And I would like to entertain a motion to pay that bill. >> Not to not to be too late with anything. I'll move the uh payment for the bill. >> I will second that. >> So moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr.
Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Vagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. So since this is the first meeting of 2026, this is our official
reorganization meeting. So uh oaths of office will need to be taken and I'd like to turn it over to our general counsel, Mr. Gillan. >> So uh we have Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Carol being reappointed. I think just for clarity of the record, we we'll have Mr. Hamaran who's um shifting into alternate
one and Miss Decker just for reorganization purposes. So if everybody could wear raise your right hands and I state your name. >> I Thomas Carol >> Judith Decker
>> do solemnly swear that I will >> that >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the state of New Jersey. >> I will support the Constitution United States of Jersey. >> That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Therefore, I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. >> And to governments established in the United States and in this state >> and governments established in the United States and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people >> and that I will faithfully and partially
and justly >> that I will faithfully and partially and justly >> justly >> perform all duties of the office of historic preservation commission. member >> perform all duties of office of historic preservation commissioner >> according to the best of my ability
>> according to the best of my ability >> and that I will not use my office to grant preferential treatment >> that I will not use my office to grant preferential treatment >> nor to seek personal gain >> nor to seek personal gain >> favor >> favor >> or advantage not available to the
general public >> or advantage not available to the general public >> congratulations everybody >> thank Bravo. Welcome everyone. So part of reorganization is reappointing for the year 2026 a chairperson. So I'd like to
entertain any motions for a nomination for a chairperson for 2026. >> Mr. Chairman, um I will move the renomination for of yourself, John Becker, to be chair of the HPC for this term of 2026. >> I'll second that motion.
>> So moved by Mr. Tesla, seconded by Ms. Wilson Strick. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta,
>> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> abstain. >> Okay. Equally, um, I would like to nominate Mr. Ta as the vice chairperson for the year 2026. >> I'll second that. >> So moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss
Decker. We have roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Trick, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Also, I would like to nominate the
appointment of legal adviser and solicitor to the commission as Chris Gillan Schwarz, Esquire, as our legal adviser and solicitor to the commission for the year 2026. >> I second that. >> So moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carol, roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes.
>> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. I would also like to move that we designate the Kate May County Herald as the official newspaper of the commission
for the year 2026. Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Curts. Have a roll call vote, please. Mr. Carroll, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes.
>> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. would also like to move that the draft meeting schedule that was distributed to everybody for HPC's 2026 meetings via email um be approved for this year
noting that it is always the third Monday of the month with the exceptions of February due to President's Day and also November due to other holidays. So I hear a second. >> I second. >> Schedule approval moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote,
please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum. Yes, Miss Wilson. >> Yes, >> Miss Decker. >> Yes, >> Mr. Hammeran. >> Yes, >> Mr. Tessa. >> Yes, >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> I would also like to move that the HPC
member review committee on Tuesday mornings be composed of myself, Mr. Curts, and u Mr. Hamron with Mr. Ta on call as needed. >> If you're moving, if you're moving, John, I'll second the motion. Great.
>> Oh, you moved it. >> Yes. So moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Ta. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker,
>> yes. Okay, that I think ends the portion of tonight's meeting for reorganization. Moving on to uh ratification of resolutions. The resolutions that were previously passed are as follows. Perry Street Associates 229 Perry Street
Resolution 202554 Han 1017 Lafayette Street resolution 20255 Hija 1149 Lafayette Street resolution 202556 Waxman 931 Corgi Street resolution
202557 do I hear a motion to approve those resolutions and ratify them? >> So move >> second. >> Great. So moved by Mr. Carol seconded by um >> Did you Did you car cover the authorization resolution?
>> We already did that. >> The last one under Waxman. >> There's an authorization. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. >> Point you that authorized. >> Okay. Yes. Authorizing the appointment of Christopher Gillan Schwarz, esquire solicitor that we had just appointed. >> I still move. >> Okay. >> Still second.
>> Thank you, Mr. Carol. >> Thank you. Uh so moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Miss Bizagno. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Shurik, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Tasto, >> yes.
>> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Also call to your attention the applications listed on the agenda that were approved or denied in review. I would like to entertain a motion to ratify those as well. Please,
>> I move that we approve those. >> Do we hear a second? >> I'll second. So moved by Mr. Hammer and seconded by Miss Basagno. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno,
>> yes. Miss Bilson, >> yes. With the I abstain on Deario, 26 Congress Street. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Testo, >> uh, yes to all with the exception of an
abstension for Cape Rock Condominium. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Okay, time to move into um the portion of the meeting to hear old business and new applications. But before we do, just like to remind us all that at the
beginning of last year, we had a series of alignment workshops for all of us. And at the first of those, we aligned around what is the real role of this organization, our commission. and we further authored a statement about what
is the purpose of our work. So in order to establish the energy and the tone in the room, I would like to ask if Miss Basagna would be willing to read that to us. >> I'd be pleased. The purpose statement for the HPC's work to serve as a
catalyst for guiding and valuing Kate May's historical, cultural, and natural resources in ways that inspire and unite our community to steward these resources for the benefit of all so that present
and future generations continue to express the unique quality of life we share in this place that we love. >> Thank you. So, I'd like to um move one item in the
agenda up to the top instead of waiting for old business to be at the bottom. I think it makes more sense that we start off with old business. Anybody have any objections to that? >> Done. >> Great. So, um would the representatives of the project for soal at 81st Avenue
please come and join us? So, just to note folks, um Paul Kiss, who is here with us this evening, who is the architect on the project, met with us in in the review committee. Um, after our last meeting, you may recall that we had
approved the project with the condition that a brick wall be built from the back of the house to the driveway along First Avenue at the setback in order to make sight lines from the sidewalk from eye
level such that the pool would not be visible. In the meantime, um these folks came up with another solution that they would like to propose to us. Hence, Mr. Kiss is with us. And I believe you have in our packets we have
um documents that he submitted, but he also has a color version which would be useful because some of them are colorcoded. So, if you could please distribute those, that'd be great. Mr. Kiss. >> Thanks, Paul. I also brought um a larger version of the diagram that's on your tiny little
11 by7. >> Do you want to hand that to me? I'll pass it up. Mr. Kir. >> Yeah. And I can handle those too. Paul, if you want to start. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kiss. The floor is yours. >> Okay. So, there um there's the screening of the pool, but there was also the issue of the fence. Um and um we um asked if we could submit an alternative fence to what was submitted on the
original application. Um and so that is what we have here in the packet. And there are two fences on the property. Um we have the um the classic space picket swooped which is um 4t high at
the posts. The posts are all 6x6 posts and it swoops down to about three feet and I'll show you where that is on site. And then the the pool fence around the side and rear is a classic cedar board on board uh 6 ft high with 6x6 posts.
So the this is the site um uh with Beach Avenue in the front and First Avenue on the right. The sidey yard on the left is where we have the privacy fence going back to the garage and returning. The front yard
angling across for the sight triangle and back down is where we have the picket fence. I'm sorry, can you see it? Um, and then the rest of this is the subject of the next part of this and that is um
keeping the pool not visible. So, we talked about at the last meeting uh putting a wall along the edge of the pool in alignment with the house at the setback so we could build a wall at eye level, 5 and 1/2 ft high, because we're not allowed more than 4 feet in the front yard. And this yard on First
Avenue is considered a front yard. Well, that seemed like a good idea that night, but then the next day I was talking with my client who um I apologize, she could not be here, and she did give authorization for me to speak on her behalf. Okay. um
it cuts the whole backyard from the whole sideyard, which is a major portion of the use of the property. So then it occurred to me, well, the sidewalk is lower than the property by at least a foot. And if we simply build our landscape buffer up from the sidewalk,
we can put a 4ft high wall on top of that and effectively block the view of the pool from the street. And that's what that's what I'm showing in in this diagram that you have in front of you. Uh if you if you look at the one on the
one on the bottom is kind of a blowup, but the one on the top uh gives you the entire um the entirety of the property with uh First Avenue um which is relatively level. It doesn't vary more than a few inches along the
whole property. Um we build um a curb along this property line to raise the landscaping and then we build our 4ft high brick wall. Um and if you if you look at the figure of 5'4 eye level and and draw the line across it goes to the
opposite end of the pool rendering the pool not visible. Um, in addition, there will be um the dense landscape buffer and as much as you all want the pool not to be visible, they would like privacy from people walking by on the street as well. So,
they uh they fully intend to maintain that. Um they would be willing to um put something in the deed regarding that as well. >> And to what are you referring with what they would be willing to have in the deed? uh that they would maintain the landscaping
and wall as approved. >> Okay. So, just like to invite any comments. Let's go around the room. Kevin, start with you. Any comments? >> Seems like a reasonable strategy. >> No questions. >> Um well, I'm looking at our page for
fences and I don't see any brick walls. Do we have brick walls in Cape May City and front yards? Do we have brick walls in front yards? >> Plenty of them. Yeah, there's several. Yeah. >> Four foot high. >> Yes.
>> Okay. It just it it doesn't refer to anything. It just said contemporary fences contemporary in design may be appropriate for non-contributing properties provided the material is wood. That's what it says. But >> Right. Right. That's a fence versus a wall.
>> Okay. I don't think we cover walls. Um it just seems like a lot of wall. So, the wall is going to be all around the whole entire front yard. >> It'll start at the corner of the house behind the porch. >> Um, go out towards the street. Um, be
set in about 5 ft from the property line and then Yes. all the way down and returning to the garage building. >> And it'll be red brick. Um, it it will be it's red brick with with like a white wash.
>> Okay. >> All right. That's that's the only com. >> Okay. >> Is that similar to the foundation of the house? >> Yes. Is it'll be the same brick >> matches the foundation, right? >> Yes. >> Janice, >> is there any planting in front of the brick wall?
>> Between the brick wall and the street is going to be a dense vegetative um barrier. Yes. That's what these folks are. >> Yeah. >> Saying that they would maintain in perpetuity, >> right, >> as a deed restriction. >> Sounds good. Thank you, >> uh, I I think it's a reasonable
alternative. It it um achieves the objective that we were talking about before, which is to shield the pool from view. And it's high enough and dense enough to do that. And I think that um, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly
acceptable as as an alternative. Uh, I I would say that for our purposes, knowing that landscaping can be um not as permanent as you might expect it to be, uh, and and in recognition of the fact that right now our standards do say
that landscaping isn't supposed to be considered permanent. I I would uh uh be willing to support this if it did contain the covenant that would have the landscaping buffer be maintained and and that can be worked into a to a
restriction that can be recorded. >> And it sounds like this applicant is conceding that and proposing that as as offering that as a condition. >> Yes, that's right. >> Okay. >> And and we have we have done that before. So it's not that we're inventing the wheel on it. It's just a desire to be sure that that barrier which does
make the difference between site and non-sight. >> Absolutely. >> Effective. Yeah. So, I'm I'm supportive of your of your revision, >> Mr. Carol. Um I I don't need a picture of a brick wall to know what a brick wall looks like, but how about the top of it? That have a limestone
off-white cap to have a real feel of many periods of history on brick walls were done that way. Um, it could be that. I was picturing more of a a a brick rollock sort of a cap, more of a decorative rollock cap out of brick. So,
we didn't introduce another color and material there. >> Um, well, that kind of rollover cap goes way way back in history. Uh, just go to Colonial Williams, find it. Um, I really
think that if you did that with a limestone cap, uh, it would be a very, very durable thing that, uh, it just offsets the height of it a little bit by the lightness of that, bringing it down. So, I would I would prefer that to
trying to do uh, making the brick wall more brick decoration. Would you be okay for me to work with my client on a design and submit it to review committee? >> Yes, >> I'd like to do that. >> Thank you.
>> Yogi. >> Acceptable. >> Thank you. >> I I just have a quick question because we're looking at L1 and L2. Um L1 showing the revision bubble on it. Both
of them are landscape plans. which what is the difference between the two of them? >> Um L1 has the existing survey on it and L2 has the diagram on it and it's just the revision. There's no difference in the
content. >> Okay. So you're just depicting >> L1 was presented previously, >> right? >> So it's revision bubbles. You're just and the bubbles are reflecting the revision that you completed and L >> L2 is a new drawing >> is the new drawing without the revision.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. >> Sorry, Mr. Mr. Chairman. I did find the wall the standards for walls are on >> Yeah. >> page 44 if anyone wants to read them. >> Any comments?
>> You didn't find anything that you can't use brick. Adding a new wall is not appropriate in a visible location without evidence as this creates a false sense of history. Successive retaining walls to recont contour a landscape are not appropriate. >> It's it's new construction.
>> Understood. >> And my understanding is that um fences are not specifically not allowed as visual barriers for swimming pools. >> Correct. >> At at present, no. So, I only have one question and that is um will there be any implications with
regard to obtaining zoning approval for this revision? >> No, I don't believe so. >> That's a question that's going to have to be confirmed with the zoning officer. >> Okay. So, I would like to move that we
approve this submission. >> Mr. Chairman, we do that. I just asked some follow-up questions. Yep. Um, Mr. Kiss, this is we we had a discussion at the last meeting and this is a different concept that's
interesting and and seems to I mean this visual aid is very helpful. Just um want to confirm a few things. So the the visual barrier here and align it with the standards which is what I think
you're trying to do. So if we we the premise of this is that uh pools are intrusive features under the standards and should not be visible from the public right away. Not minimally visible but not visible at all is the
standard. And then page 12 which is vegetation, seasonal foliage and fencing are not considered as they may be removed over time. What the applicant is proposing here is not necessarily although there is some vegetation proposed here. I'll get to that in a second. You're proposing a on new
construction. This is a blank slate lot essentially. It's not a contributing structure. It's not a modified structure. It's a blank canvas right now, not rated structure. You're proposing a brick 4 foot high wall combined with some landscaping. But if
we separate the landscaping proposal for a second, the what's rendering this not visible is the brick part. Right. >> That's right. >> Because of this diagram that you've given. I mean, the the landscaping is going to add to that, right? It's probably going to >> it's it's serving two purposes. It's going to add a little bit more screening
for the pool itself. Probably create a more interesting visual environment for the pedestrian streetscape. Is that is am I put not I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's seems to be what >> I think that's a fair characterization. I would say we are not relying on landscaping at all for the visual barrier. The brick wall is going to
provide that by the grading we are doing by virtue of the existing sidewalk elevation which won't change. So, it's these unique conditions and site elements that you're able to combine, but really at the heart of it, it's that brick wall. >> Yes. >> Um, in the orientation that you're
proposing here. So, then um what you're proposing, Mr. Carol referenced, uh, about the cap. I think the standards reference brick with a blue stone cap is one of the references in the standards, but I think you'd like the opportunity to conference that with
your client because obviously it's a material selection. and then maybe have that material selection reviewed and approved in the review committee. Is that what you're >> That's correct. >> It would likely be a limestone cap. >> Okay. Would be a lighter colored limestone cap as one of the alternatives. Um I I just would say also
that although you may be relying just on the brick wall, the um the perpetual vegetation covenant adds both um a shield from the street >> so that you can't see the pool, but it also adds the privacy element for your
client. So they can't see tall passers by going going up First Avenue >> and passers by aren't seeing them in their yard because they're going to be taller than four feet. >> So uh finished product just to complete the the questioning from my standpoint
at at the point that you the project's completed. What is the zoning officer HPC complianceer going to see out out there? It's going to see they're going to see the brick wall proposal here with a cap to be determined and review. And then what type of specimens and what's
going to be the the height of them at installation. And you may have put it in here. I just want to confirm it for the record. >> He has he has a landscape. >> I do have a landscape plan. I don't know if the height is specified.
I don't think we got into that level of detail if uh it >> and understanding that that's not really what's keeping it from being seen. I'm just trying to get a sense of what what the out the zoning out zoning and HPC outcomes going to be for the land the
combination of the two. Well, so the next step would be um for us to uh submit our grading plan and landscape and wall plan um to first to the um the
engineer of record for the subdivision because we need their approval first. >> Can I fasttrack this a little bit? >> Yeah. >> Would it be fair to say that it's going to be no less than the height of the brick wall? Is that >> the landscaping? >> The the trees that you're putting in.
>> Yes. Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I would say six feet tall. >> Okay. I'll accept that. I just wanted to get an idea that it's going to be at least >> Yes. >> 6 feet tall. >> There there won't be little mini plants. >> Right. That's that's that was my point. I thought that would be the case. That's why it wasn't a trick question.
>> If they are, you're going to have trouble with your maintenance covenant. Yeah. >> So, four feet wall and mature plantings of no le no less than six feet. >> Yes, that's fair. And that's and the reason I'm asking that is because if we're going to make a
condition, I want to make it as easy as possible to see whether it's in compliance or not. So if one of those starts to turn brown and we see that it's dying, it needs to be replaced with another at least 6 foot high. Is that acceptable? >> That sounds sounds good.
>> Okay, that's all my questions. So, so, so how what the status of this was final with conditioned last time before this? >> Yes, because the last >> So, we we have a final with conditions and we've now changed the conditions.
>> The resolution was not created based upon the last >> it's still conditional to to approve. It was it was it was drafted and then the applicant had this discussion in review and wanted an opportunity to before the last approval was finalized to kind of
revisit this pool screening issue. >> So ultimately this that's going to modify that portion. >> It does. But the question that's arising in my mind is if there are city approvals, can this be anything more than conditional? >> Oh, it is conditional. >> I'm sorry. It was final last time. It it
it's always going to be conditioned on any other. >> Sorry. What I what I meant was was conceptual, not conditional. >> You meant conceptual. >> If if they need to get some other approval, it it's going to be conditioned on that
anyway. But you're going to have to have a conversation with the zoning officer about this orientation of this wall and whether it's an issue or not. I I seem to remember I don't know if they're going to deem it a retaining wall and if
they are there might be a twoft limitation in there but I'm that's just from memory right now. I haven't looked it up. >> Well, it's not a retaining wall because it's not retaining. >> I understand. So, I'm Look, I'm not arguing for or against that right now. I'm just saying it's it's a question
that >> Let's just assume it's a good oldfashioned wall. And all all I want to do though is understand whether I'm approving something tonight that is really conceptual because of subsequent city approvals that may be needed or whether it's going to be approved as final with conditions. I'm I'm in favor
of the application either way. I just wanted to know >> how many feet >> we're approving. >> Total feet is this wall. How many feet of brick wall are we installing here? >> Length of it. >> The whole wall. It's three sides. It's a It's a yard. It's a yard wall. It's not
a pool fence. This is a brick wall enclosing now a yard. It's >> serving as a pool fence. If it was if it if it wasn't a corner lot, it it would be the fence. Um >> but it's it extends way beyond the pool.
Goes all the way almost to the you know the whole sideyard side front yard. I mean, it goes way beyond a buffer for the pool. >> It's a little over 100 ft. >> That's a new element
>> that we have never seen. >> And it's a brand new house >> and it's very prominent >> and it's in the So, how many more applications are we going to have for this type of wall? >> I think it it only would come up on a
corner lot because if a standard lot would have a fence all around. Well, this is also a compromise because of the pool, but it introduces something visually prominent. And one of the things we deal
with here very often are people saying, "Well, right down the street, they did this." >> Yeah. I believe it sets a precedent, so I can't support it. I'm sorry. Not 100 foot. I mean, I think it's a nice idea if it
was a different town somewhere else. So, this is Cape May in our historic district and I've never seen this before. Um, I've seen it in Williamsburg, but we're not Williamsburg.
This is a Victorian town. It's not a Victorian. We've definitely seen small brick walls, but you know 100 foot of brick wall. That's just my Thank you. >> I'll just note for the record looking at
section 525-57 regarding fencing uh subsection E3 and indicates solid fences or walls um located in any required yard area may not exceed four feet in height. fences
may be constructed to six feet in height when located in the rear. So, it does reference the concept of a solid wall in the fence regulations, but I don't that doesn't touch on your comment, which is more of a streetscape issue.
So, you can confirm that with the zoning officer. I'm I'm I'm comfortable with a final if the board is it's discretionary call but ultimately I think if this is approved in some manner if they need relief that this is it's kind of like
fully baked and then they pitch it and see if it's if not you come back with something else. So I have a few comments if if there aren't if everybody has commented. So I would like to suggest that what you've
presented here is more than just a brick wall. When one has the discussion about a brick wall, one images a freestanding brick wall. But that's not what you've done. You've actually layered it with elements that are of three different heights and four different layers of
elements. First there's a curb. Well, actually, first there's a planting bed. Then there's a a 12-in raised curb. Then there's a 7 foot 4inch wide planting bed in which are 6 foot or higher trees behind which is a 4-ft brick wall. So, it's not as if the brick wall itself is
the definition along the street. It's a very layered and therefore I think very highly mitigated the impact of that brick wall by virtue of those layers. So, I find it a very creative and and u quite successful solution. One one correction. Um that 7.74 is the
elevation. Um it's it's four feet back. >> Okay. Sorry. >> It's still hidden behind the >> Yeah. Yeah. It's still exactly >> which your client has uh has promised to maintain in perpetuity. Correct. >> So it's really 5t from the property line is where the wall is. >> So it's not as if the the walls right up
against the sidewalk, which is a whole different condition. >> So John, can I ask a question? >> Sure. because what you're describing sounds to me more like a builtup burm with a wall and landscaping. >> So it's very what I was referring to is what he's showing in this blown up
section. >> Right. >> So here's the sidewalk, there's planting, there's a 12-in curb, there's four feet of planting in which are six foot high trees, and then there's the 4ft brick wall behind all of that. >> Because we do see BMS and grading that
has been part of the mitigation because of the elevation needed with the flooding. >> So, uh, that's sort of the way I imagined it when you first presented it. Um, but then Chris brought up the
question about whether 4 foot wall would be considered a retaining wall in this situation. >> And that that's more of a zoning concern. the the design of this is 100% streetscape and whether it's acceptable
to the board. >> I mean there are other features that that flow from not only not only do we have a stepped rise which which prevents the view of the pool. If you think about the
vegetation and you think about the wall and you think about the steps, it also mitigates the height of the structure itself. So, so it it actually has a a number of points to it. I I mean it's I think it's it's a really nice solution.
Um it and it achieves what you need to do, which is to say privacy for your clients, protection for the pool, um and uh keeping that pool out of out of sight from the public right away. So um yes, the only point I was trying to make is that it's not as if this is a solid
edge. There are a layer of four different elements, two of which are composed of vegetation that mitigate the hardness of an edge, which I find really in this case a pretty creative solution to the conditions of a corner lot. >> I agree.
>> That's just my comments. So, um, with that said, I would like to make a motion that we approve this as a final solution with, and when I say approve it, I'm talking about the revised proposal as depicted on L2 and
L2.2 dated the 6th of January, 2026 with three conditions. One, approval of the cap design by the review committee, submit a cut sheet and a and a doc and documentation of that. two that mature trees no less than 6 feet in height be
maintained in per perpetuity as a deed restriction and number three that um it receives necessary approvals by zoning andor other municipal offices that are gerine that's my motion >> and it's intelligible enough and I will
second the motion >> it was >> yeah it was >> good thank you >> it's because you take really great notes so second the motion >> okay so moved by Mr. Becker seconded by Mr. Ta. Roll call vote please. >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. With all respect to the people uh
adepting to the the brick wall, I do think the setback and the trees are sufficient to kind of hide that a little bit and soften it. And with the height of the house, I think this works well. So I I'm voting yes. >> Miss Bagnum,
>> Miss Wilson, >> I will say yes. I also agree with what Tom said. I trust that these people obviously they love the spot. They're going to have a beautiful house and they will do a good job of maintaining the
landscaping. And if it's a covenant, then that is part of the rationale for allowing such a large amount of wall. >> Miss Decker?
>> No. as per page 44 of the standards. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. On to new applications. The first
on our agenda is Swain's Hardware Incorporated at 305 Jackson Street, a proposal for solar panels. Please join us, gentlemen. If you could please state your name and your address and your role in the project. >> Hi, Kyle Gagliardi, owner of Swain
Hardware, 305 Jackson Street. >> My name is Daniel Bazy with Superowered Solutions. >> Green button. >> My name is Daniel Basy with Superpowered Solutions. We're going to be the installer on the project for >> Can I get the spelling of your last name?
>> I M as in man. B as in boy. E S I >> Welcome gentlemen. The floor is yours. >> Um so our our first application um if you guys do or don't remember had um solar panels that were visual to to the
pedestrians that would be walking by or just visual in general. Um what we were able to do on our latest revision is we did shrink the amount of panels that we are going to be installing. Um fortunately we do have a parapit wall on the roof. Um, so the resubmission just
has the solar panels on the flat roof portion of the store. Um, so that they would not be visual to anybody who's down on the ground. And I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
>> So just to um I don't know if any any of you have been able to go look at the site. I I Yes. um went and took a good look at the site and it appears from site observation that these panels would not be visible from anywhere any public right of way because they're hidden behind a significant parapit. Just
wanted to put that on the table. Any any instead of going around the room any comments here folks? >> Okay. So I'm confused. So these all these panels are not going to be on the big shed roof >> that might that's the old >> that's the old submission.
>> So the drawing that we're approving the proposal we're approving is is as depicted on >> oh this tiny >> PV 1.0. Yeah. Um and I'm looking for the date here. >> 1242025. That would be Yeah, >> that's that would probably be when we
submitted it. Might have a November. No, it's got >> Yeah, >> I can't read that number. >> Not to the fullest extent, but >> you know, it it's still something. Yeah. >> So, just to be clear, the proposal that
we're approving is the photovoltaic array layout as depicted on PV 1.0 dated 124 2025. Any other comments? Right.
>> Kevin, >> Kevin, >> there's usually some kind of a box or something that, you know, captures the power coming off the photo photo voltaics and then that in turn feeds into the building in some way. Where do you have that placed? >> So, our our main panel is going to be on
the back of the um we'll call it the Butler building portion of the store, the newer the newer portion of the store, but it'll all be hidden. Um really, it's all interior to the >> Well, the Yeah, the inverter and the disconnect are very small. They'll be on the opposing side of the main panel. Um
but the the computer is going to be very small now cuz we downsized the system. Before, I believe Joe had the inverters on the roof. Um, but now since we're changing everything, the inverter is going to go right on the other side of the panel. So, we just got a pipe right to the other side of that wall. And then we can run our pipe uh adjacent to the
other piping that goes up to the roof and then everything will be hidden. >> Okay. And there's some kind of a screening system or whatever on the back side of the building for that. Do you have like either landscaping or something just to further hide it? >> So, a as it stands right now, the mini golf course actually has a large
retaining wall. Um so the man and it's probably like a six or eight foot tall retaining wall just in a small um area that we can you know the public can't get to that okay >> area of the store. >> I can't I can't picture that. That's the only Yeah. See? >> Yeah. I could point to it on the
drawing, but >> would you? >> Sure. >> So, it would be hard to kind of describe the mini golf course like follow this line, >> right? >> Like just so that there's almost maybe 10 ft and there's a large retaining wall
here that I can't even see the mini golf course at that angle. >> Okay. >> God bless you. >> Bless you. >> Okay. So, just to be clear, folks, um if anyone would like to make a motion, this would exclude the prior drawings that were submitted with the application last
month. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the plan as submitted as with the revisions that are that are associated with it. the original drawings not to be considered in the in the approval. Um with with an
appropriate screen presumably around the um the the mechanical units that are associated with it. Um nothing to be placed assuming it's already screened well but >> that it is screened and >> talk about screening the inverters. >> Yeah. Just make sure there if the existing may be fine. I can't picture it.
>> Yeah. >> So >> okay. >> All right. There is a motion on the table to approve this based upon the latest uh design submission including screening of the inverter equipment. >> I'll second it. >> Was that Judy? >> Yep.
>> Great. So moved by Mr. Hamron, seconded by Miss Decker. >> Can I ask a question before? >> Sure. I'm sorry, Mr. Now, to get better angle on the sun, are are these panels going to be laying flat on the roof or angled up a little bit to get a better
advantage towards the sun? >> So, exactly. They'll have a little angle. The way the brackets are set up, um it'll be like this. So, it'll be facing the sun in whatever direction that it gets the best um sun to it. >> Okay. >> To get the most power out of it. >> Now, will that uh stick out above your
power pit that go around the roof? So, it's only about this high, I would say, the top of the panel. >> So, the power pit's probably up here. You're not going to be able to see it from the ground at all. It's only It's very short on the roof. >> I'm holding you. >> Well, guess it it'll be inspected to
see, right, that it complies with permission, but your testimony is that the panels because of the parapit will not be visible for any public right of way. Um, even though they're angled to catch the angle of the sign. Yep. >> That's what I understand you to be saying. Yes, sir. Correct. Okay. >> Thank you. Yeah, of course.
>> So, there is a motion on the table. Any Oh, for any any further questions? >> There's a motion on the table by Mr. Hammer and seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno. >> Oh, yes. Miss Wilson. >> Yes.
>> Miss Decker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta? >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I would just like to thank you for keeping Swains going alive. I appreciate that. >> Major major part of our town's history.
It's been there so long. It's a a really wonderful store that everybody enjoys. Uh whether they're getting the gossip in the town or a needing plumbing or somebody >> gossip or or rumors, I think would be a better definition. >> Yeah.
>> Well, Tom, I great addition. >> I do appreciate that. Um, you know, me and my wife, you know, really fought to ensure that everybody knew that we were keeping it a hardware store because I say rumors because at one point people thought that we were getting rid of it. And I think that, you know, if you guys come into the store and you see either
me or my wife working there and you understand the passion that we have for that store and, you know, >> there there are a lot of mills around. The rumor mill, unfortunately, is not always the the best. And and I and I think that the point Tom makes is echoed by a lot of us who believe that there
ought to be something more than big box stores um taking over all the hardware in the country. >> Yeah. No, it's it it's always been a special place in my heart. So to have really the opportunity to be able to carry on the legacy that the Swain family has >> carried for 135 years.
>> Yeah. Is a is a is a pretty big, you know, opportunity and and it's uh Yeah. It's one that we don't take lightly and we're really proud of the store and we're proud that um it's gonna be a year next month. Well, in a few weeks that we've owned the store. So, just that fast, you know, a year has come and
passed and we also had a baby in that amount of time. So, it's been quite the year for us. >> We wish you we wish you good luck and cheaper power. >> Yeah. >> I'm willing to bet you're surrounded by friends of Swain's Hardware in this whole I'll say. Yeah. Yeah. Support of the community is everything.
I'd like I'd like to add I'm not sure the HPC knows that Swain uh carries our our brochures in their paint department. That's right. >> For the appropriate colors. A lot of people shop for paint there. They call us when the brochures run out and I really personally appreciate that. Thank you very much.
>> That's right. >> And thanks for your diligence in pursuing a matter of sustainability. >> Yeah, we got it figured out. >> We did, man. Thanks for coming and talking about it at the review committee. It was wonderful. >> Appreciate it, John. Yep. Thank you all. Have a good night, guys. >> Next on our agenda, SA Properties LLC,
394 Congress Street. >> I'm going to recuse my Oh, wait. This one I don't have to. I'm not >> this one. It Yeah. >> Nope. >> I can listen. >> Hello. >> Good evening. If you could please state
your name, your address, your role in the project, please. >> William Alexander, 394 Congress Street. >> Thank you. You're the owner, correct? >> I'm the owner. Great. >> Hello, Paul Kiss, the project architect. >> Welcome back, Mr. Kiss. The floor is
yours, gentlemen. >> Thank you. Um, so if you recall, we were here a few months ago. Um, and um, there were some concerns. Um, as as
I recall, three concerns. One was the fence, one was the shutters, and um the other was the overall height of the building. Um regarding the fence, we are no longer proposing a fence. So that is
off the table. Um I have um I have a couple different um options to to show you uh for the shutters based on our discussion. Um, and then I'll dive into what we've done to um, address the height question.
So, what I have here is the the drawings um, the full-size drawings of what is in the packet that was submitted. um the um we had some shutters that were full-size shutters on one side of a window and
that that's what really um I think um everybody objected to. So we've I moved a couple of windows so that the shutters are traditional one on each side sized appropriately for the size of the window. We have uh French doors. This is the front facade, by the way. I'm sorry.
On sheet A3, um we have um three sets of French doors, and I'm proposing um full doorsiz shutters, which would be appropriate to close over a French door. I also showed on sheet A3A
um the house with no shutters um and the house with conventional shutters on the windows and bfolding shutters on the doors. Um and that was one of the suggestions for the shutters that that we couldn't get one on each side. Um so speaking to
that on the left side There are two windows that are close to the corner on sheet A4 and those will be biffolding shutters and the rest are conventional shutters.
What I am um requesting is is approval of what is depicted on on A3, which is the full-size shutters for the French doors and the shutters on each side for the conventional windows and the two sets of bifolding on the side.
So that's the shutter issue. Any questions on that before I move on? Just are they panled or louvered or are they a mixture? >> Um they are louvered on the doors and panled elsewhere.
>> I'm sorry. You you did say they were fully functional. are fully functional regular shutters that swing with um uh S style tiebacks. >> And what window did you move from the original submission >> on the front elevation? The one all the
way on the right, which is kind of behind a column. It was near the corner. >> We moved it over so we could fit the shutter. >> Okay, Mr. Kiss. >> Yes. And and I'm maybe a little slow tonight, but what can you just explain
why why we have A3 and A3A? What what was the purpose of >> A3A is is showing alternative solutions to the shutter question. >> Is that what that those were prior iterations, but you're saying you want to go with A3 or
>> No, this is alternates I'm presenting as possible alternates >> for the HBC >> for the HBC's consideration. >> Got it. Okay. And my preference is what's on A3, not what's on A3A. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Any other presentation items?
>> Yes. So, um, moving on to what we've done. Um, we we talked about the height of the building. We we already were starting out a couple feet lower than the maximum allowed. Um, so I did a few things to bring the scale of the
building down further. We lowered the roof pitch uh from 9 on 12 to 8 and 5/8 on 12, which still allows a functional third level but low ceiling. Um, we lowered the entire first floor 4 in
and then further I lowered the front porch itself 1 ft 4 in. So the peak of the roof is 1 foot8 and a quarter lower than the previous presentation. The biggest difference is going to be the perception of the height of the
porch from the street. Um because that is um now 1 ft 8 lower than what was originally presented. Um, so then we did
we did a study of the streetscape and that information is uh presented on on drawing A7. So, the original I'm sorry, the original presentation had all the houses up and down the street.
We did a study or commissioned a study of the houses right in the immediate vicinity of the proposed house >> and that's on page A7. What we found is um the street is is
wildly inconsistent. You have one-story houses on slab on grade. You have vacant lots. You have houses that have um sheer facade straight up. Um most of the houses have large quantities of steps in the front yard. Um
so there's not really any consistency. It's so it's hard to to really say whether or not we fit in because there's no consistency on the street. It's not like in the center of town where you have row after row a very similar house. Um
so the design bear with me one minute. So if I can explain how how we brought the perception of the the porch elevation down. Um, one is to burm up
and create a landscape bed um, in the front yard. >> Then we lowered this whole portion of the porch, as I said. So, we created a a two-level porch. So, you come up the main steps and then up a couple more
steps before you get to the the entry door. Um, that's to break up that long run of steps which you see on a lot of the houses on that street. Um then looking at the design of the house from
the side, you have the street, you have a little bit of burming, you have a landscape bed, you have a porch, it steps up, you have a a twotory porch roof, and then you have the third story set way back um in in a
pretty traditional format, but it really layers the house back from the street. Um, and we also have trees in the front to help grow up and soften the whole
impact of the of the structure. Um, as I've said before, we are trying to get the cars out of sight. That's why we um are proposing to park underneath with um the entry to the garage set almost all the way in the middle of the
property, very far from the the right side property line. Um sorry, I just want to make sure I hit everything I wanted to point out. Um one of the things that is is going to be coming very soon, the next date that
they might be voting for the statewide regulations is January 20th. we might know then if it's going to go into effect, which is going to require everyone be 5T above FEMA flood elevation to their first floor. Um, and
I would point out that that is um that is a foot lower than what I'm proposing. So, new houses are all going to be when this passes much higher. Um, and there we can't avoid
that. um renovations um if they're not historic will have to be raised also. So, we're going to be seeing it. We have to deal with it. Questions on that and it's a little complicated. >> It's not proposing to meet that standard.
>> This will be above that standard. >> Okay. >> Above that standard, but of course, we're building now and looking ahead to the standard that's going to be in place. If we were a foot lower, that would be we couldn't be any lower than that under the new standard, >> right? >> Um, taking advantage of another foot,
which is less than we asked for initially, allows us to get that parking underneath the house and out of sight. >> So, you're a foot above that standard, but also you brought down the entire building height in this revised proposal. >> Yes, we brought down the building height
um 1T 8 and a quarter, brought the porch down a couple of feet. So, um we in in that study of the surrounding properties, um we have there's a table that shows um porch elevations porch elevations above
the front yard and >> is that on is that table on another drawing? >> It's on A7, >> right? But it's so small the way we have it. And that's why >> looking at the peak of roofs in the streetscape area. Yeah. It's just very difficult to see.
>> I I know I should have brought I apologize. I should have brought a bigger version. I didn't think about that. >> Um but above the above the raised birmed up landscaping, this proposed porch is 5.1 ft. The average porch elevation above
the front yard is 6.99. So the appearance of our porch is going to be less than the surrounding h not every house on the street but the immediate neighborhood houses. >> Can you can you give the other the the highest peaked roofs on that street
within that streetscape? >> Yes. So >> 42.93. >> Where is I see >> we have good eyes. And they're proposing 45 >> 45.81. >> Okay. They're proposing that it would be two feet in taller
across the street. >> Thank you. >> And um what's interesting is they're also in were able to accomplish that while still increasing the height of the flood elevation at floor level by three feet. So somehow they save two inches
somewhere. >> Ceiling height. What what is height of the third floor ceiling in here? >> Uh well, it's sloping. So the highest point would be probably be 8 feet and then down from there. >> Uh we might have that on here.
>> So um Mr. Kiss, a few other things that you'd like to present. >> Uh no, I'd like to answer any questions. >> I'd like to in this case start over here with your questions, please. So,
the fence is a non-issue. The shutters, um, I'm okay with, and I'm happy that you moved that, uh, one window. Um, the height, um, unsure, and I'd like to hear everybody else because it's, you know, it's still high. I understand the
argument. Um, but I'm just curious to see. Um, but I'm a non- voting member as well. So, >> thank you, >> Mr. Bo. Big structure.
Fits in there very well. And I like the fact they moved up for the flood. It's going to happen anyway. The height of the building is because of the due laws of the land that are requiring that and all people coming for
us mostly want to have more living room in their houses. Uh so you got a combination there and I think because of these new laws we are all going to be dealing with higher houses on almost every street in town except the highest part of the town. Uh, one thing that
really does help this house is having two wraparound verandas. So, as you look at the house from the street, the verandas come out and really hide the height of the house. And on top of that, the roof structure then has been reduced
to not be a dominant feature. So, I I I really do think this will fit in very very nicely. Uh, those verandas help it an awful lot. And uh uh I I I hope you get great use out of that. Having lived
in a house that had a wraparound verandle on Columbia Avenue, uh it's the greatest feature you can ever have. So I'm I I I'm in favor of the of the of your proposal and everything you've come
up with. >> Mr. >> Well, I I echo most of what Mr. Carol had to say. um to said it before I did. Uh I I I think we have to recognize that there has been effort made here to lower this building. Uh and and and and that
done uh in a way that things have been compressed uh so that the overall height is lower. The the porches have been lowered so they don't look like they're too high from people seeing the the house has um it's also had it's got some
some step look to it. Um and and and really the fact that we're facing here is that one might say that this is higher than some of the houses, but they haven't been raised yet. So So we could have a
situation where where this structure um looks high now and as soon as the new standard standards are enacted and people have to do what they have to do, >> those houses will consequently come up to the level of this house. So to to me, height is really not a big issue here.
Uh particularly because you've made every effort to keep it down, which is which is a favorable thing to do. U and you know to to turn for a little second, the shutters have never been a problem for me with or without. But my personal
preference would be to do the shutters on it. I think it adds a lot to the to the to the unified look at the house. So that's that's my view, John. >> Yeah. If I if I can add just you brought up an interesting point that our our proposal is 4'8 in below the current
maximum height allowed and that's with raising the first floor to to what will be the new flood elevation. So theoretically when the new flood elevation comes in the zoning is going to be revised to raise the maximum height even more. Yeah, >> that was the point I was trying to make
too, that you've raised the for flood purposes the floor by three feet, but you've only um raised the roof relative to adjacent roof ridges by 210. So given >> and down from your original proposal, >> correct? Yeah. Okay,
>> Miss Wilson. >> Well, 313 Congress Street's roof height is 40 ft. And that home was approved before I was on this commission. When I saw that go up, I was
shocked. It impacts the surrounding streetscape in a really undeniable way. It seems out of place. And I looked at the um specs you you gave us
and I saw that the front yard setback is about 15 ft. Even though the zoning law requires I think >> 20 >> 25 >> 20 >> should be no more than 20 >> 20
>> but it's the average in this street which I'm you know I was just trying to grapple with the idea that we're dealing with n 19 many 19th century homes some in this street
they're all over the place in terms of their provenence But our our charge as a historic preservation organization, I mean commission, is to think about
creative solutions to fitting in and not dominating the existing historic fabric. Directly across from this house is a perfect example of an absolutely beautiful authentic historic
house that has been maintained by the owners without fanfare for a long time. And when I thought about the size of this house being that close to the
sidewalk directly across from this other house, it was really hard for me to to feel good about it. Um, I romanticized the lifeguard house. It
you know, your t your story about it really touched me. Uh, we all romanticize the smaller, older homes. So, I guess what I'm saying is I'm having a hard time with it.
That's about all I can say. Well, I wasn't here for the first review. Was it before I was seated? I think. >> Yes. >> Right. Um, I I actually want to thank you because I think it's a
nice simple house. It it looks it doesn't have a lot of crazy roof lines. Um I agree about the porches. I think they're really nice. Um I'm a little disturbed about the height. I guess the third floor must have a fantastic view because the third floor is really just a
loft and a deck. Um, so it's it's not, you know, necessary space, but um, I basically think it's it's a pretty nice design for the for, you know, it certainly fits in a lot better than some
of the other houses on the street. It's a much nicer design, a more traditional design. Um, the only thing, and I'm not sure if this came up before, but the the vertical boards under the porch, usually we ask for lattice, and I just wondered
if that was negotiable or not, but um I mean, it it is going to be the highest house on the block, but at least it doesn't it seems to be a nice traditional design. >> First of all, I think it's a lovely
home. I prefer the shutters. My only question is this. Usually I have an opportunity to drive past these properties, but I'm a teacher and it's exam time, so I didn't get there. But I
see that it's 398. Congress 3 I mean 394. 398 has got to be across the street because it's an even number. >> So this is the actual block. I just >> Right. But what house is right next to this? Do you have any
>> these two? >> They're not right next to it. That's across the street. >> There you go. >> That's an even number. That would be across. Oh, that's right. Okay. Okay. I got it. >> You showed it in line, right, Mr. Kiss? >> Yeah. They're in line before I found the actual lot.
>> So, you have the advantage on me. >> I was like, where is this lot? And I agree. The street is just very >> All right. So, so yes, it is that. That was exactly the word I was going to use. All right. So, that's next to it. Okay. >> Yes.
>> So, a couple of things from my standpoint. One is I I remember asking the question which houses when you showed this were nearest to the the plotton question. So, I find A7 very helpful. Um, it is an eclectic group of bu of buildings. I mean, there's not any
one particular standard in there. Um, and maybe it's perhaps unfortunate that uh 344 Congress Street is one of the smaller houses on the block and it happens to be right next door. But that said, if you look at the other houses surrounding it, um 355 Congress is a two
and a half story house, which is essentially what this one is. It's just not elevated. 329 Congress is two stories plus a high roof. Um, so I don't think this is out in inconsistent with
the streetscape. I think it it it actually should fit the streetscape. Okay. Um, I'm I'm the opposite on the shingles. I thought I thought, and I'm going to defer to Mr. Carol, our resident expert here, but I thought shingled houses did not have um did not
typically have shutters on them. And I noticed that the only house on the street that actually is a shingled house, 325 Congress, does not have shutters. So, I just I I I don't have a strong feeling either way on that. I I guess I I'll go along with the, you know, either direction on that, but I I
thought a shingled house typically did not have shutters. Um the uh the rest of it I I remember I went through all the um cut sheets. They look like they're all present. I don't see anything missing on those. um the discussion about the um the
elevation and the planning beds around it I think softens the you know the the um uh sort of that basement level if you will of the structure. Uh again if you look at the other houses um you know actually most of them have been elevated
at least somewhat. So I, you know, that is already being taken into account in the height with the exception, unfortunately, of a 344 Congress Street, which is is simply just a one and a half story house. Um, so I think I think it's
a pretty good solution. It seems to fit. I don't have an objection to the anything from a streetscape standpoint. I think the shutters are an open question and I I just am just giving my own opinion on that one, but I can I can live with either direction on that.
What what is it Tom? >> Oh, can I just add a little bit to that? Uh to to Judy, you have a very good idea with taking a lattice work because with the vertical boards that adds to the raising the eye to the the height of it.
So, a cross lattice trim would help reduce that. And there's one thing about windows and shutters. You know, a house that has flush windows with the walls and no shutters has a walllike look to it and and it's horrible. Windows should
be set back in and then the shutters help bring it out and break up that feeling of a solid wall. And uh the house is not really shingle style. It has a little bit more feeling of italionate with the double verandas
around the wraparound verandas. Uh so I I think we are in agreement. >> So a couple of comments. Um I agree that the lattice would be preferable, but I also see that why you did the vertical because directly behind that is a
concrete block wall because it's essentially a a solid wall. So there's a likely a way that you could space the lattice out just a little bit and maybe paint that wall a dark color so that it would recede and it would appear as if it was space behind the ladder.
>> I was going to bring that up and suggest it. >> Great. Would that be acceptable to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, um I struggled with this. Um no less than three times I I spent significant time on the street walking up and down
trying to get a sense of it. Um, and I will say that your drawing A7 has been incredibly helpful because it helped me reframe what I experienced and reinforce what I experienced on the street that of the eight houses that are on the block
north of Congress plate constituting 50% that would be of that 2 and a half story plus race porch configuration. So given the eclecticism of that street, it didn't seem ultimately inappropriate
to me. But before I go any further, I believe that there are folks here from the community who would like to um make some public comment about this project. And I would like to invite them forward to do so. >> Sir, can you please turn on the Yeah,
it's green. And just identify your name and address. >> Sure. Good evening. My name is Jack Courier. Uh I'm the owner of 398 Congress Street. Uh which is the house on the right of uh 394.
>> Can you spell your last name, please? >> Sure. Not like Courier Post. It's C U R I E R. >> Thank you. >> Courier Knives. >> Please proceed, Mr. Courier. >> All right. We're seeing if we can get hooked up here.
Um, it's saying it's asking me. Uh, let me try it. >> Kate May meeting hall. Let me try that one. See if we get It's saying I'm connecting to Kate May
meeting hall. You have to be logged in. I know that. Lauren, do you have a login information? >> They tested this earlier. >> Is this the Kate May meeting hall? Is that the right one? >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> There we go. >> Okay. >> Well, first of all, thanks for your time. Uh, this is a difficult presentation for me because the applicant and I grew up next to each other. I grew up spent my summers here at 398 and and the applicant at 394 and
we went through the sailing program at CYCCM. And uh so when I first saw this application, which was one business day before the September 15th meeting, uh I was shocked because it's a big structure
and I I had been for years encouraging the applicant as my father has had encouraged his father to improve and move on from the house. So, it is difficult for me because when I got that application just before the September
meeting, I I said to the applicant, I've known you all my life. I'm closer to him than my two brothers. I can't say anything negative about it, but you know, we are here for uh see if I can get this thing going.
You know, we're here and I I know I'm preaching to the choir here for the historic design standards and and that's what I think we should focus on. And starting off, we have new structure should not be so out of scale with the surrounding buildings as the loom over them.
And and we feel the proposed 394 looms over the five abudding one and twostory properties. The size of this house is much larger than abudding properties and the size is misrepresented on the HPC application.
What I mean by that is that this is the exact copy of of the application that you have. And uh wh sorry about that. See if I can get this. And
here's here's here's my house 398. Uh here's 394, the one that's, you know, being proposed, and here's 344. And if if you look here, the the bottom of the house is is not level. So in
other words, between 344 and 394, there's almost half a story that this picture is too low. And we come over to our house. This is a full story that this house is lower than reality.
Here's a little graphic uh we put together for the five representative houses. Now, this one is 394. It's proposed. If you take a look, I I've done a very diligent job at lining up the level of the houses so they're truly
uh at the same level. And you can see how 394 is towering over the properties here. Uh I also uh want to point out sorry for that flipping around. Another important aspect as you know of
the design guides here is site new construction to be compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of setback orientation and spacing. I see that orientation of 395 doesn't match. It faces to the side, not the front. And the staircase is opposite of
the streetscape. And if we look at this 3 386 has a has a little porch, stairs going down. Whoop. Sorry about that, folks. Uh, and I'll try not to do that again. And then 340 also has a little
porch, stairs going down. 344. No different. Our house here has a very small little deck. It's more like a landing behind a bush with stairs going down. But here we have the front of the house, not facing the street, but facing our house with two doors and a garage
door. And that's completely opposite of the orientation right in this streetscape. And there was discussion earlier today on on the height study. This is the THG height study. that's new to this application.
And let's focus in because I agree I needed my magnifying lens to call these numbers out. But here's the bottom line. Here's proposed 394 5.125 ft porch above the elevation cur
front yard. And here are the averages. 697. Well, Jeepers, you look at that and you say this lowered front deck is is below the average. That's pretty good. But I I struggle with this because four small Whoops, sorry. Four small houses are
emitted from this study. 315, 330, 334, 336. These there's It isn't eclectic, but why would you ignore these houses from the house from the height study yet include
313? Everybody knows 313. and the 313 is further from 394 than these. So I I don't I don't think that's a fair deal. And then the other uh point I'd like to bring is I think it's very
biased data. Porch above curb front yard. Here's 347 Congress Street right across the street from 394. That's right. 347 is right across from 394. This and all the other data is the
height from this porch to the curb 8.34. But 394 it's the height from the deck to the top of the raised bed garden 5.15. If we come back up here to this height study,
all of these homes in this study, it's the height above the curb. This number is simply this number minus this number. Except for 394. This number is the height of the deck
minus the height at the top of the raised bed garden. I don't think the commission should be looking at these numbers as they're presented. again, uh, the proposed 394 5.125
versus the house across the street 8.34. If we take a look here, I've added in those those Whoops. Sorry about that. Here, I've added in those four small houses. Look, look at these decks how low they
are. And so, the average that you're seeing is 6.97. But when you add in the four houses, it's 5.55. And if you forget about that 5.125 and have the same data, which is the
height above the curb, it's 8.69. So it's not a situation where this proposed deck is less by almost 2 feet. It's it's greater than three feet in this area. and and and I don't know if
you folks are aware of that, but that's what you have in front of you. And and I'd like you to know what it is with those four small houses in. So, I'd like to This is uh this is our house in 398 Congress Street. And this
house my parents built in 1987. I would say that the uh the couriers from Collinswood first arrived at Congress Street and my mother and grandmother rented apartment at 394 from 1948 to 58. And then when my
brother came along, they rented from the same small structure. 398 was just like 394 built on the ground, no heat. My parents bought it in 76 and then in 87 when they wanted to retire, they got permission to build this house from this
board. And I'd like to just focus in and I'm talking about height here. Originally, this house was going to have a 7 foot uh basement. Little did the builder John Ty or my parents know that you can't do that on Congress Street. And so John Ty
ended up putting a slab right at ground level and that's where it is now. But if we built a a walk-in basement that ends up being a three-story house and that three-story house was looming over 394.
And so we lowered it to the lowest possible amount because we're a tight neighborhood and and the elevation is about 10 feet. And that's where it stands today. right here at 359 Congress Street. This
is uh approved by this board a few months ago. This first floor elevation is 11.15 ft. This is right across the street on Congress Street. It's on the corner of Congress and Park Boulevard.
And uh so I I I just struggle with why uh it's okay to approve a 13 or 14 foot elevation and which also allows for a garage under it when there's another garage already
proposed on the property when uh 11.15 is right down the street and we're at 10 ft and that's perfectly fine. And uh that's what I'd like to say. So I guess I just want to wrap up by saying
the floor area ratio does not include deck space. And so when you have a house with an enormous and uncanny amount of deck space and and and a comment to Mr. Carol, I agree, aren't
Verand's great? your veronda legendary. But this isn't a corner property. This is an undersized lot in a tight neighborhood. And those side verandas are 23 feet from our house. And it
totally ruins the the view and overshadows and overlooms our house. So there's a distinctly different situation where you have a corner house with wraparound verandas and and and I've
looked at all the houses in the R2 zone. I haven't seen any wraparound verandas that are other than a corner property. And so we're getting back a floor area ratio. I look at this and I say, is this
a masterpiece of architecture that has maximized the density of the building on an undersized lot? I have every confidence that the applicant and the architect would agree to that. But that density, that height that looms
over, I think is a distortion of the historic design standards. And that's squarely in the purview of this board to deny if it feels that it's too large for the neighborhood. So, thank you for your time. I'll take any questions if you want.
>> Mr. Curry, I have two questions for you. >> Sure. >> Did you email or can you provide a copy of your presentation to the board secretary if you've not already done so? >> Coming right now. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And and the second question is, do you
have any questions for the applicant or the professional right now? Uh, not at the moment. No. >> Okay. Mr. Kiss, Mr. Alexander, do you have any questions for member of the public? >> Um, I'd like to know his uh qualifications as an expert on the what
he's testified to. >> Is he an architect, an engineer, a planner? You hear, Mr. Kiss? >> Yeah. Well, I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Hampshire where I work. But I'm not making this
pre presentation as a licensed engineer. I I I I asked Mr. Kiss uh if what what are are you questioning in the data I have? Uh because what I'm stating are
your numbers and I'm stating the numbers of the houses that were admitted >> Mr. And like for example the 11.19 on 359 Congress that comes right off the record that's in in the uh zoning office.
>> So that that was going to be my follow-up question is Mr. Curry that I understand that you gotten you pulled the data from the submitt of the applicant. Then you've added your own findings in here and those findings were sourced by what data? You went into the
construction office and got old plans or what? How do we get those like on 359 I got the plans >> for the three houses that were between when we talk about curb height there's really not a lot of difference of curb
height like 394 is about 3.96 and uh 313 I well let me pull it up >> but the ones that you've bolded here 336 334 315 and 330 those were the that's the data you've added correct
>> right so And how did where did that data come from? >> It's an extrapolation between the houses that are on this height study and on the other side of the height study. So for example like say 315 is very close is
the house next to 313. So there's 3.69 and 313 and then 315 is is.1 inch off you know. So, if there's a discrepancy, we're talking a fraction of an inch because the house on the other
side of 315 is um probably 325 and that's 3.06. So, we're just talking some fractions of an inches between there. And uh I I I it's it's trivial when we're talking
curb height because you can see there's a slight slope of the street going down from 394 actually from 398 is the peak and it slightly goes down to where the creek is and then it slightly goes up to 313 and we're only talking a handful of
inches. So I and when we see these numbers like 8.69 69 versus 5.125. Uh if we look back at this slide here, there there's no mistaking that all of the data except for 394 is getting
pulled from the height of the the deck to the curb while 394 is a height of the deck to the top of the raised bed garden. That we're talking feet there, not fractions of an inch. So I I think it's relatively firm data and the
distinction of of ignoring those four small houses is pretty notable. >> So I I know you don't you don't have you probably don't have a flood elevation certificate for for 398 in front of you. But what what are what are you relative
to the base flood >> 10.1? We were asked by Sarah Jane Alexander, SA Associates, the the the mother of this applicant, to lower it as much as possible and and I believe at the time
10. We do have a flood elevation. I don't have it with me. I have a copy of it. >> But your belief it's it's 10 plus 10.1. >> Yeah. >> So I have a question for you, Mr. Kissle. The there are a number of designed flood elevations and base flood
listed on um elevation on Elevation two on A3 and clarify some numbers if I could please. >> So the new porch elevation is at 13.65. Is that correct?
>> Uh no 12.65. >> That's the lower porch. Correct. >> Lower porch. >> The one that faces the street, right? But the one that's flanking the street is 12.65. Correct. >> Street is 12.65. The veronda that wraps is 13.65. >> Right. So what we perceived from the
street is the 12.65. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And based upon your discussion earlier about the new statewide code that likely will be approved would require that elevation to be what? To be compliant with the flood elevation code
>> 13. >> It's interesting. Um, so basically what you're saying is that above the base flood elevation or design flood elevation of elevation 10, you're going to be 2.65 ft above that. Correct.
>> For for that porch >> for the front porch. Correct. >> Correct. And for the rest of the house, you're going to be 3.65 ft above that. Correct. >> All right. Well, that's pretty interesting because um Mr. Mr. Curry are looking at at your report here. If we
assume and I'm willing to completely um for this purposes of this discussion revise in my head these numbers so that what you said the 5.125 in terms of above the curb should be 8.69. Is that correct?
>> Yes. If we incorporate into it the additional emitted your your terminology emitted houses the average would be 5.55. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So that means that if we subtract the 8.69 which is what is being proposed at
394 from the average of all other houses the the difference would be 3.14 ft. Correct? >> Yes. >> That is almost exactly the difference between what the current code is and what the new code is. So what I think I'm suggesting is that um by virtue of
our need to preserve homes um from flooding, which may be the most important thing we can do to preserve our historical character given the um threat of um storm surge and sea level
rise. that that three feet that is being proposed as the statewide code difference between the average on the street and what's being proposed is pretty much spoton. So I have to support that because that to me is a is preservation
>> and I the the whole point of where what I was pointing at was the perceived height of the front porch above the landscape bed. >> Understood. >> The table does have the actual height also. Well, that's why I wanted to I wanted to understand what Mr. Courier was presenting, which I I'm I'm assuming
is accurate. I'm not questioning that at all. In fact, I think your data is actually making the same case I'm trying to make. So, thank you for bringing that. >> John, you're you're you're dazzling me with the math. Um, but I I have to say that overall, I think we need to look in
terms of the future and and what will happen as homes are raised. >> Well, that's my point. and and I I am I'm I'm agreeing with you with respect to your conclusion. I was having trouble ticking off the math. >> Oh, but but that's I mean that's really the point here. Um the there there has
been there has been some mitigation between the original proposal and where we are now >> and and and I have to say from a from a streetscape point of view just a visual I I don't find this greatly out of touch with the whole streetscape. I this is a
this is hard to put your finger on any particular height because there's so much variation in it. Yes, some are some are really low, close ones are really low, but I I I do think that that what's done being done here is being done in 2026 and it it takes into effect the
fact that we're going to have to deal with raising houses in Cape May and that applies to what's going to go on in Congress Street and and it may be a situation where over time the houses next door get raised. So I I
I don't find the current discrepancy so large and I find the planning for the future by putting this the way it is is is really one that helps us preserve structures rather than makes them subject to risk. So I I must say I'm I'm
I still believe that the that the presentation and the design um accomplish that. So I I I completely understand your concerns. Um as a neighbor, I would >> Mr. Chair,
>> may I finish just a second? >> Yes. >> Um as as a as a neighbor, um of course one wants to as much as possible keep things the way they are. Um I I'm assuming. Um, but I want to thank you and applaud you for the data that you brought to us because this is, I think,
important educationally for us because what you've done is you've filled in the blanks for all of the neighborhood homes and really made, I think, the argument about the need to raise these homes in order to get them above the threatening
flood plane level. And unfortunately, the data of what currently exists is from is for houses that are likely going to be significantly damaged if we unfortunately experience what's often
predicted as um not unusual flooding in the near future. So, >> as I look at the plans, the third floor of this house is actually just extra
space. Uh, uh, you know, a sitting room, a deck. If that if you looked at some of the houses around like up Congress Street, the Krillley house that has a Belvadier on the top, two layers, uh
many houses through that area, uh particularly ones done by uh Button in the the 1850s and 60s are two stories, lots of verandas, a sloped roof, and we eliminated the third floor on this
house. You could bring that whole thing down and you still have four bedrooms with private baths, all kinds of living space, uh, endless verandas on it, and it would be much more in keeping with the neighborhood. And and I I really do
think that you're probably not the only neighbor that's getting concerned about that. And in all the neighborhoods, >> a few more speakers are here tonight after me. And I'm sure there's other speakers here to speak tonight on this application. >> Oh, are there other folks from the public who would like to speak on this project?
>> Oh, please, by all means, please come. Are you Are you folks? >> We're not done. I got mine. >> Oh, well, I'm done. This is another presenter. >> Okay. My lovely wife. But >> Okay. >> Wait, I need that. You're going to do that over there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Hi. >> Mr. Chair, I'm just I'm just presenting that thought as something that could go
into this to uh make it much more compatible between uh our responsibilities for streetscape and the zoning ordinance and the neighbors. >> Okay. So, I I would just like to comment that normally we um we have a policy of
trying to limit presentations to no more than five minutes. So, if you could try and abide by that, that would be helpful. >> PowerPoint is on again. >> Okay. I'm Kelly Carter Courier, 398 Congress Street. I've been I've been in Cong in in Kate May since n
um 20ou I don't even know what year. Whatever 30 some odd years 37 years. Um I've been looking at this for four months now >> and when you do when you look at paper it doesn't do it justice. I've taken
photos. I enlarge it on my computer. There's so much detail in there. I don't even know how anybody on this board would have time to look really what's going on. I was friends with Bill. He hasn't talked to my husband in four months.
Um, so the first slide is I just looked at the front view of the length of the deck to one side of 394 and then ours. So, the length of the deck on 344 is about uh five time about 15 feet and it's only
about five or six feet off the ground. Bill's proposed is 42 feet long. It goes past the house, which is a 32 by 32 and a half by 32 and 1/2 house. It's not a huge house. It's got a zillion things in it, but it's not huge. The decks actually are there's more deck. If you
could live on a deck, there's more living space outside than inside. And this is my concern. We all know what decks do. They provide noise. And our and our neighbors all have decks. And you can hear the conversations. You can hear our conversations on our decks. And our decks are between three to five or
six feet off the ground. This front deck is 42 feet about long around well it would be 13t up off the ground. And then the next deck would be another 9.1 ft I think it is or 10t. Okay. And then that
wraps around the front door. Doesn't even exist. He's put the entry door on the side. Um, which is going to face my yard and my three bedrooms and my outside shower. I had I had a neighbor that said, "Well,
just put a roof on your outdoor shower." Well, first of all, KA doesn't allow that. And second of all, I'm not going to do that. So then my house I'm sorry this I'm just letting I'm just letting my 398 I don't even have a front deck. I have a landing that's 7 ft long and it's
about five or six feet off the ground. Okay, the rear view that's my deck to the left. My rear view deck is about 5 to 6 feet off the ground and it's 37 feet long and I used to call it a runway because I had it put in in 2019. and
the proposed deck. Those are the That's the rear deck. Okay. You have You haven't even talked about rear decks. There's seven decks on this house. That means seven noisy crazy. I mean, we all know and Okay, so the back decks, the top one
that's about 30 feet off the ground, maybe more, is 16 feet long. It comes out of the house 13 feet. I I know these numbers. I I looked at setbacks. I looked at I mean I have been doing this since September 15th.
Those other two back decks, one of them again is 13 ft off the ground. The next one is about whatever I said 10 ft later. And those are about 42 feet long and they wrap around. Then
um the house I can't even see it. 344. That deck is about 7 ft off the ground and it's 5 10 about 20 ft long. Okay. And that's the house next to him there. Okay. Next slide, please. All right. The side view. This is a a
big concern of mine. These side decks facing my yard about 23 feet away from my house. those two decks again 13 10 to 13 feet above the first one then another 10 feet
and then I can see the third deck which is like 30 ft off the ground and that is 13 ft off the house. Okay, those two side decks are about 50 feet long each
noise. And guess what? We can smoke a pot in Kate May. So, guess who's going to be smoking pot on those decks, especially if they get rented? And guess where they're going to go? Into all the neighbors yards. And pot stinks. I'm sorry.
Personally, anyway, so I showed people this these pictures and and they said, "This is a hotel." And I said, "What are you talking about?" So, I went down Grant Street to an RS zone neighborhood. And again, I
did this in September. I have been I have ridden around the whole Kate May. I've read the HBC standards. Um any Oh, sorry. Okay. So, this is Oh, first of all, nobody's mentioned this, but this is actually a fourstory house. It's
not a two and a half story house. So, to the left is the Elcott, and I measured there. They have two decks, 96 ft long each. The first deck is about I don't know four feet off the ground and I'm not using sea level so add another
couple feet whatever the top the second level is 96 ft but guess what Elka is on the corner it's in an RS zone then next door is Bill's proposed that's facing my yard
50 foot 50 foot 16t at the top Um, so the linear footage, Alcott linear footage is 192 ft. The proposed 394 linear footage is 276
ft. When I add up all the linear footage, um, okay, next one. I'm almost there. >> I love my deck in the back. I like that it's close to the ground and when my neighbors are out, I try to be really,
really quiet. And I also don't rent or anything like that. Okay. Now we have the Lokai. I I call it Lokai. I'm sorry. It's called local. I just learned that today. That is in the C3 zone. I believe it's a hotel/moel district
that belongs there. It's a hotel. Everyone I've shown this picture of Bill's house to says he's building an oversized hotel on an undersized lot. It looks really nice in your photos. It looks
really small and pretty and yes, it's a beautiful house. And if it was on a corner lot in with more land, go for it. Again, one deck provides crazy amounts of
noise. Think about all the hotels around here. think about. Anyway, um Oh, and the local the local um hotel is about 40 feet each thing. I didn't go with a tape measure today. I was thinking about it. Um
but again, the front the front thing is their front deck is a is nine steps up. I think Bill has at least 13 or 14. I don't know. Um I'm not an engineer. Um, anyway,
anything else? >> Yeah. Could Could you I think >> could you wrap it up, please? >> Okay. Okay, I will. Hold on. A house shouldn't a house should not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. This is a four-story house, and it will impact it. Um,
the decks are looming over our yards and our neighbors yards. And with each deck there comes more and more noise. All right. And I have so much more but um thank you.
>> Thank you ma'am. >> So I I just have one one re real quick question for you. No. >> Yeah. >> Based upon what I heard you focus on and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is it would it be an
accurate understanding that you have concerns about the amount of deck area and with regard to the height? Is that accurate? >> Yeah. >> Would you say that's does that are those the core of your concerns? >> The height? Yes. Height of the deck.
>> Height of the deck. So, I just wanted to be clear. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um we have other folks from the um public who would like to present and speak. Please, if again you could introduce yourself with your name, your address, please. >> Sure. I'm Sam Parker. I'm at 251 Windsor
Avenue. So, I'm behind the couriers and >> corner of my I'm in the backyard. So, the corner of my >> sir, you said 251 Windsor. >> 251 Windsor. >> And just before you get started, >> the corner park in Windsor. >> Thank you. Just before you get started and anybody else that wants to come up,
you'll have an opportunity to speak. We we just heard a lot of public comment before and feel free if you echo those comments you can say. So we don't have to go through and reiterate comments. If you have new new comments limit to the and I'll also say this I appreciate the
concerns with the neighborhood. >> We don't decide things like pot smoke and noise at the HPC. We we're concerned with streetscape and I understand those are concerns elsewhere but here we're just concerned. I own houses. I own >> the house on Windsor Avenue, which is a
historic district. I own another house in another town, historic district. Unfortunately, until 10 years ago, I owned a house in another historic district. So, I really appreciate what you guys do and uh what goes on here. Uh let me say a couple of things and and my
wife Christine is here. We've been here 50 plus years in uh Kate May. Um, so let me I live on Windsor, but I walked down Congress and for those of you that have been here a long time, Congress has
evolved a lot and I think in a positive way. In ' 85 there was a flood that caused a number of the cottages sort of this the cedar shake cottages got raised >> and I think that kind of picked things up and then a number of the houses have
been have been renovated over the time and yeah it might be a little bit of a hodgepodge but it's it's it's a nice cottage street and um I was even the there's a house
that just got redone across the street, which I think this architect did, which when I heard he did this house, I was like shocked because I thought he did a beautiful job across there and then I see this thing and I it just doesn't
fit. It's It's I'll give you back elevation. As far as I can see, the elevation, yeah, they're going to change the laws. Well, guess what? You're doing the elevation so you can put a garage underneath. Well, that's that's wrong. That as as um Jack pointed out, there's
a house being built right down. They just put the foundation up last week and the foundation's about this high right down the corner of Park in Congress. You can drive down and look at it. There's no reason why can't do the same thing here.
And the decks, well, I mean, that's really a design thing. I mean, you know, I it's just it's inappropriate to the area. And yeah, it's an eclectic set of houses, but it's a I don't say cute
street, but it's it's a cute street now. I think it's a lot cuter than it was 20 years ago. And and I think dumping this house in the middle of it takes a big step back. both both the design and the
um and the elevation. So, um anyway, thanks for all your time. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Others in the public who would like to speak and share, please. >> Again, if you could please state your name and your address.
>> I'm Joy. Joy Grinding and I live >> Sorry, what's your last name? >> Joy Grinding. >> How do you spell your last name, ma'am? G R Y N I N G. >> You can you can crank the microphone down so I don't have to stand. There you go. Just like that. >> And your address, ma'am?
>> 249 Windsor. >> Thank you. >> And I'm directly in the backyard of this edifice that's being proposed. And I don't know anything about elevations. And what I do know is that three I'm in
the back. So imagine my backyard. I'm going to walk out there and I have three massiveized decks. >> These aren't little decks. My home was built almost a hundred years ago. John Bailey, I'm sure you all know John. His house and my house were built by the
same builder, old Mr. Dallas. They're almost a hundred years old and they haven't changed in the hundred years. So, I know that's we change is necessary. I know that's the way it is. But, do I want three massive decks in my backyard? No.
One would be great. They want to eat outside. They want to have That's wonderful. I like that, too. So, I have no objection to one nicesized deck, but what the heck do you need another one just as big above it and then go above that and put one that's a little bit smaller? What are you going to do with
all these decks? And you must be going to live outside, I assume, because the house inside, I don't think, equals the size of these massive decks. Now, on the front of the house, maybe you want to look and see the street. You know, you want to see what's going on. Okay, a
deck out there. That's great. Maybe one on the side, but really three massive decks in the back. That's my complaint. So, I don't have anything more to say. It's just I can't imagine reading my paper with 43 people looking down at me. And that's what it would be because
they're going to loom up here and look down while I sit and read the paper. Really, that that's all I had to say about that. So, thanks for your time. >> Thank you for your comments. Are there others in the audience who would like to speak on behalf of this project or not?
>> Okay. >> There's there's a lady. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> And again, if you could please state your name and your address. >> My name is Anita Novino and I live at 351 Congress Street. And thank you very
much for the compliments to my house. I live in the old house. Can I get your address again, ma'am? I'm sorry. >> 351 Congress Street. >> Thank you. >> I live in the old house across from the proposed house. >> Uh there is nothing about the house in
question that looks like a hotel to me. It looks very much like a historic home in North Carolina. Um I have heard commentary about noise. Um everyone has a different tolerance
for noise. And one would think that if you live in a resort town where people are walking often in the street talking across the street to one another and people are vacationing,
you must develop a tolerance for noise. You should be able to uh the house design looks lovely to me. I don't live in a large house. I don't and I am right across the street from this house and I don't have a
problem with the height or style of the house. So basically I'm saying that I'm in favor of the house. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this project?
Yeah, my name is Albert Nino. I'm at 351. I'm her husband. >> Albert Molino. N O V I N O. No wine. And I also across the street. Now I've listened to the people on on Windsor. And you notice we're the only people
from Congo Street. Now the carriers and uh Bill have been friends for 50 years. They've grown grown up together and it's really seems a shame that because of the self-serving interest of the people of the couriers
that they've put such a strain on the neighborhood trying to get people to talk against this house. Now, as you have approved certain other houses on Congress Street that are large, there's one right next to me that was built. I remember that the foundation was and I
asked the builder was 10 foot before they even started building. And I guess it's all predicated on what FEMA is uh requiring. And it seems like FEMA is going to require even a higher elevation, which is really unfortunate. So you're in a position now to make a
decision about a house that is going to be done now or start it now with the with the premise that in the future it could be even higher. Now, if he didn't build this house and if he sold his property, somebody else
is going to come in and try to build a house. And as you realize in this this committee, all the people that are coming in and building new houses, they want big homes. Even if the third floor is unoccupied or it's just for storage. And the homes that have been approved by
this board, previous boards on the street, there's three or four of them. They're all high and they're all threestory. And I think what Mr. Alexander has done and his architect have done is a really nice nice
feature in the neighborhood. I mean, I would have preferred we've been down here for over 35 years. I would have liked to seen the street staying the same way. The Sears Kits house, it would have been great if they would have stayed that way, but that's progress. and you're going to have to decide to
allow him to put a nicel looking house even though it may be larger than some of the other existing houses. But I think it's the wave of the future and all the neighbors in Congress Street are in favor of it. Two of them are in Florida. One of them, I believe, wrote a
letter to the board. I know they usually don't accept letters, but they're >> we can't accept that. If they're here, they're here. >> I understand. But unfortunately, some of the neighbors, the immediate neighbors, one lives in New York, he's in favor of it. And the couriers went around and
tried to get everybody to object to it. And none of them agreed except, I guess, a few people on on Windsor. I would like to see this approved by this board tonight so we can put a rest to the all the friction that has gone on in the neighborhood and the friction that is
caused by the carriers because they live next door. I don't know if you've looked at their house. I know you took a walk and I don't think that's a representative of of the way that the rest of the neighborhood looks. That's all I'm going to say. So, I hope you approve it. >> Thank you for your comments. Thank you.
Are are there any other members of the public who would like to speak? So, I would like to ask you gentlemen, hearing the comments that you heard from the folks who are um I'll say less than enamored of the project, do you have any
revisions that you think might begin to address or assuage any of those concerns or not? This is an opportunity to potentially find ways to reconcile what appears to be a bit of a conflict. I think a couple minutes. >> That's fine. So I I can actually frame
that a little bit. So the two concerns that I heard and anybody else clearly the two concerns that I heard were was an abundance of deck space and height issues. So Mr. Carroll pointed out a few minutes ago that the third floor and
Miss Decker also did the same is essentially a loft and a deck. So that's something to consider. it's as something that you may or may not find necessary for your house. It's not for me to judge. So, I'm suggesting is that given
that the two concerns that I think we heard were deck area and height, is there any chance that you would be willing to make some sort of revision to address those concerns? That's really the question I'm asking.
>> And and I would suggest that we take a short break. I would ask for a short recess so I could discuss your >> Okay. So, why don't we recess for would 10 minutes be all right everybody? >> Sure. >> Would that suffice do you think? Have a little chat. We'll uh reconvene at 8:15.
It is now 8:05. Short break please. feeling. >> Can't just go on with the next one and let them come back. >> Is this yours? >> I don't think so. >> I haven't seen one of these in a while.
>> Yeah, I need a bigger one. >> So, you know, Well, we shouldn't discuss this. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> One of the meetings, >> the couriers came in for a garage edition. Probably remember that or not, but they
want to put it It's like people with glass houses throw stuff. >> Now they they have their house there. >> He looks into the garage behind it.
>> Yes, she did. I'm talking. Okay. Well, this is why we shouldn't be discussing. >> I mean, >> people out there will say, "You're listening to one side and not the other."
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. For his antique car. >> Yeah. >> We hear a lot of >> Yeah. Yeah. I have my house on Hugh Street. Uh the house next door to me uh is like 5 ft
between my house and theirs and it has three decks on the back of the house. Uh and when it was a private home, no problem. Now that it's a whole house rental, if I I I finally even made some signs for him to, you know, put out by
the back door saying, "Please remember you're in a residential neighborhood. We do sleep here at night. We're not on a oneweek vacation like you." >> Some problems with the uh the hotel or >> across from the
band, they were playing music like >> Oh, yeah. Oh, we that that's that's been one we've been beating up for a long time. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Ela's >> who have broken every rule in the book. You know, they they've just gone ahead
and done what they wanted to do. They get dragged before the board. We've made them undo some things. And those things cost the city a lot of money. You know when when we have to, you know, put our staff around here and go after people
who have done things without >> talking about the raising of FEMA, but I mean I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Flood plane. >> I have reservations about what's going to happen 50 years >> and I won't be here to see it anyway. >> Yeah. >> But an old house
>> lift it or do that? uh unless you want to improve it and then then you have to bring things up >> and sometimes you can't get insurance for it if it's >> We've been lucky we haven't been able to get insurance the old house
>> I'm very glad I bought on you street is high ground I don't have to worry about raising my house >> yeah it's funny when they raised the house >> my wife went over that $100,000 to raise
the hand. So I think I didn't want to do the job price. So I don't know. I mean I'm looking at it >> and it's a brick foundation. >> Second, you know, I'd be afraid to the house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> We'll see. >> Thanks for your time. I didn't mean >> Hey, thanks for being here tonight. >> Yeah. I I wish we heard from more neighbors before things happened, too. Uh it's very rare that we get somebody
in until after the things happen and then they say, "Who in the hell did that?" >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I've said that myself. Brother kids, they are
I mean that's >> the work. I mean, >> yeah. Let's get this resolved. You probably retired. >> We have a house. Well, I'm I was glad I was glad to see.
>> So, I know you ran it forever, then you sold it, then you had to take it back over. And my wife and I did I guess all the people, >> you know, one one week of the month
in reserve in the reserve and bomb with all the books and everything. and made me feel a little. >> Oh, this We had we have cranberry. >> My mother's the oldest
>> until years ago I own property there >> my brother still lives there >> it is holding up it's a major part of it it's holding up it's like a lot of
They started forever. I mean, it was stunning. There's something under here. I'd say Okay, it's time >> back to work. I don't want to be involved. >> Would like to reconvene the city of Kate
May's Historic Preservation Commission. Is now 8:17 following a short break and we left just before the break by asking a question of our applicants if there would be anything that they would consider in response to what they heard from the public comments. So, the floor
is again yours. Well, we heard we heard some negative um comments and suppositions about the use of the house and we heard some positive comments that feel it fits in with the neighborhood. Um I think I'd like to
talk about the quantity of decks. Um the side so-called decks are passageways. They're not wide enough to to do anything other than maybe a couple small chairs to see the sunset. Um they're walkways. They're to create that
wraparound veronda. And I can come up with I'm sure you all can come up with plenty of homes that are not on corner lots that have wraparound verandas. Um I did a restoration on Jackson Street years ago, Christopher Gallagher House, that has a full wraparound veronda just like this.
Um, the third level is is well, first of all, the house is not going to be rented. This is a a family house for a family that is basically Bill and his significant other who have no children, no grandchildren, no nieces and nephews.
There are not the the guests that will be visiting might be an adult couple here and there. >> And Mr. Kiss, just like the noise and the pot smoke, whether you rent it or not is not a factor here. >> Okay. Okay. Go ahead. But I'm just want to clarify, you know, for the record, the third level is intended as as a
space for needle point painting and the the extra elevation to be able to hear the ocean, to be able to see the lighthouse is is an important aspect of the design for my client. Um the um we also put place the air conditioning
units there. So, we definitely need access for for that for maintenance. um as far away from the courier's house as as possible. Um so um we feel we've we've made many
compromises to to make this house more um more befitting the neighborhood, lowering the overall height um um almost 4 feet, the the porch changes. I everything we presented I I I really feel we feel um we've we've met the uh
criteria. So we don't feel any changes are necessary. >> Okay. So uh in response to um the public comments are there any comments from any of the commissioners that you feel are necessary to be heard?
If I can. >> Uh how wide are the different verandas porches? >> Um so when you say >> which way wide >> from the building to the railing from the building to the railing >> you say there are more walkways than
they are seated the sides. >> Mhm. So, um, on the side >> looks like about six six to seven feet. >> So, let let me go through it. Um, great. >> So, on the the first floor plan, um,
I'll measure off the floor plan. It's, um, six feet from the house to the railing. At the entry door, the entry door is recessed another three feet. >> Yeah. Um the the street facing porch is also six feet from the house to the
railing. Uh it gets a little wider where it's uh 10 and 1/2 ft. Um the the back deck is set further away uh from the side property line. Uh
it's about almost 30 feet to the side from the um courier's property line. Uh and that that deck is 13 ft deep. >> Mhm. And the the second floor is the same dimension.
>> So the walkway along the side of the house with the exception of the recess for the door is a 6 foot wide. >> Six feet. Yes. >> Got it. Okay. That's actually a very typical width of a Cape May porch >> with rockers and >> your feet up on the rail.
>> It's actually quite tight. >> That's a That's a tight >> That's That's a tight That's a tight porch. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. A lot of them are. >> Okay. Um any other questions or comments from my fellow commissioners?
Okay. This is a um a final application. Would anybody be willing to make a motion regarding this project? >> Before before the motion's made, I did want to make one other point and it's it's really more of a technical one and doesn't relate to the to the merits. I
just wanted to say that that we appreciated your doing the application with um a material sheet that is fully compliant with everything that we needed to see and to use the adequate cross references to your cut sheets. So, so we
that helps us a lot in in being able to assess the materials. Just a technical comment. So before a motion is made, there were at least two items that we were requesting be revised as conditions. One is that this one isn't
really a condition. It's a clarification that what we would probably be proposing in a motion is that the shutters be installed as depicted on A3 as opposed to A3A. Correct. >> And the second is that you would be installing lattice below the porch as
opposed to the vertical boards. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do I hear anybody making a motion? >> I'd like to just point out a few more things if I can. Okay. >> Uh I'm I'm very serious about changing that roof line. And I just want you to
look at some of the houses around town that have a roof, something on the top where you can see the lighthouse and the sunset, whether it's a captain's walk, a widow's walk, a Belvadier, or a cupilla.
But I mean, just Look at all these examples of historic houses that make the roof line come down and not have the kind of roof that you're putting on it. And you also can hide air conditioning
up that uh the Virginia hotel has this air conditioning on the top and they boxed it in to make it look like a cupula with no windows to hide that. I think that could help bring the whole thing down and make it more in keeping
with historic structures in town and that that's a very strong point for me. I I also think that uh maybe that side veranda could go away and have a front porch and a back porch.
I think these would be things that would really help the neighbors. >> Although somebody said noise is something you should get used to. Uh now that the house next to me on Hugh Street is a rental, one of my biggest problems is getting to sleep in the summer
because the back porches are where the parties always start. But I won't hold that against you. So, do our applicants have any response to Mr. Carol's comments? >> I appreciate your comments. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Once again, like to entertain a motion to approve this project and see where it where it lands. >> Yeah. Got to come down sometime. I'll make that motion with the conditions that you specified. Yes. With respect to the lattice and with respect to the shutters. >> Do I hear a second?
Second. >> So moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr. Hamron. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> no. >> Miss Bagdum, >> no. >> Miss Bilson Strick, >> no. >> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes.
>> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Motion fails. >> Motion failed. >> I would really like to make a suggestion. if you would be willing to table this
>> uh and go back and rethink the things that you've heard uh and and keep the application alive and and just consider some of these things that would be friendship in the neighborhood and still
give you plenty of house and space. Uh you know I I think it if you came back with some of these changes it could go through. I I will say procedurally the applicant was just given that opportunity and they asked to go to a vote, but nothing excuse me, nothing
prevents the applicant from resubmitting a different concept and taking some of these comments and coming back with something new. >> Thank you, Chris. >> I would like to make a comment if that's okay. It seemed like a lot of the objections of the next door neighbor
were that the house was a side entry. And I think maybe if those comments had come up early in your designing, but it seems like very late in the game to change the side entry to a front entry at this point. But um I also agree
about the third floor. So that was my no vote. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, next on our agenda is I'm may mispronounce this. Cucker at uh 1200
New York Avenue. Did I pronounce your name correctly? >> Oh, you're here representing the owner. >> I am. >> Okay. >> Cooker. >> Okay. And we'll allow you to set up and then
you can introduce yourself. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, >> as I had told you later, I must leave and I defer to Mr. Curts. >> Thank you, Miss Pagno. Have a wonderful evening.
>> So, Mr. Kurts, you are now a a voting member as an alternate. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you, sir. >> Deborah, please introduce yourself and what's your role in the project? Good evening. My name is Deborah Slonwhite. I'm a partner in Asher Slonwite and Partners Architects. Um I
am representing Dennis and Diane Cooker, the owners of 12 what 1200 New York Avenue. Um you should have your full packet in front of you. I did bring just this enlarged rendering of the front elevation. >> Excuse me, Deborah. Just do we have um
some verification that you're authorized to speak on the owner's behalf? Yes, the owner should have contacted >> Yes. Yes. I have that. >> Yes. The attorney as well, Diane Cooker. >> If if our secretary has it, we have it. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Yes, we did take care of that. >> And the floor is yours. >> Thank you. Um Dennis and Diane Cooker do send their regrets. They are out of town right now. So, I am here on their behalf. Um, the home, as I mentioned, at 1200 New York Avenue was is a contributing structure built in the
1910s. Your property report is included in the packet. Um, upon examining the building, unfortunately, no original windows exist. Every window in this home has been replaced and the siding has also been replaced. Um, in fact, some of
the sighting is vinyl and there is an anacronistic um, as called out in the report, a Queen Anne style shiplap course at the very top of the front elevation which we are planning to remove in the process of our renovation. Um, our clients purchased the home in
2020. They do not rent it. Um, it is a family home used weekends, holidays, and through the summer. Um, our project started with the client's request for an a second floor addition. We are not
proposing to expand the um imperous coverage on the lot. Our proposal is consistent with zoning. Um, we do not anticipate needing any variances. >> So, you're seeking final tonight. >> We are seeking final tonight. I did come on a t a couple Tuesday mornings. So the
some members of the board have >> So it's a good it's a good idea to check though the box. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not check the right box? >> Yeah. >> Oh, ours has got a big blank there. So I've just >> checked final. >> It is final. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um we are here for final approval. The
project began with the request for a second floor addition above an existing first floor addition to the home. Um, we then expanded that to have two second floor additions as seen in your packets
um on sheet 3.0. Um, I highlighted all of the changes in yellow. So, you can see the existing home is the white, the additions are in yellow. Um, the additions proposed are symmetrical in keeping with the style of
the home. Each addition is roughly 150 square ft. basically adding bathrooms to an older home which of course doesn't have enough bathrooms. Um the additions are differential to the existing home. They are set back from the street as well as the ridge of the proposed
additions is about 3 ft lower than the existing ridge. Um we in order to come into closer compliance with flood code are proposing to lift the house roughly 16 in out of the ground. Um we have
worked with a landscape architect familiar to this board. Um Good Grounds Design. Connor McCannernney is the proprietor. He has worked in Cape May several times on other projects with our firm. Um in order to mitigate the lift of the home, which we know is not
desirable, we are proposing new brick planters at the front elevation. Um all new landscaping is shown on the landscape drawings which are again included in the packet in the L series L2.1 through the end of the set. Um we
have made application to the shade tree commission because we are requesting removal of three trees. They are in fact not necessarily shade trees. It is a magnolia, a crepe myrtle and an evergreen hedro. It is my understanding that the application has been received
by the shade tree commission but has not yet been voted upon. Um, new exterior me materials for the home. We are proposing a horizontal clabard with corner boards. As I mentioned earlier, none of the existing windows
are original. So, we are proposing all new um wood windows. I did do a full window schedule towards the back of the set as well, the 3.5 and 3.6. Six. Just calling out each type of window and confirming that they will be replaced to
match the existing size. We are not proposing using stock windows. They are all custom wood windows again to replace the existing replacement windows. Um, new landscaping, new sidewalk paving. All the materials are laid out in your
your sheet. The biggest change I feel aesthetically to this home is on the rear elevation. It is a corner lot. We are not touching either front facade as they face the two streets. But on the rear elevation, as shown on page
um 3.4, there is what appears to be an addition. If we're looking at the existing south elevation on um drawing one on 3.4 for to the right there is a one-story addition which currently houses a
kitchen. The fenestration pattern is not desirable um in in any way. We are proposing not to change the size or the footprint of that addition but rather to replace an existing door fixed sidelight
and window with one sliding glass door. Um again it will be wood to be in keeping with historic standards. um any we are unfortunately removing a few windows from the side elevation where the new additions will be added.
The additions do have smaller windows, historically accurate shutters that are operable wood shutters. Um so aside from that rear elevation, everything we feel is is in keeping with the historic nature that rear elevation is not
visible from the street just for your own edification. Um the existing garage is also considered a contributing structure. The only proposed change to the garage would be a new roof. It is not on this application.
We will submit that separately as a um maintenance application in the future. >> Thank you. I would like to just make everybody aware that Deborah has come before the review committee a couple of times on this project and I would really
like to compliment you on an exceptionally comprehensive submission. >> Thank you. >> Yes. So, let's go around the room. Kevin, comments, questions? >> Thank you. Um, yeah, first of all, I' I'd like to say the same thing. This is one of the easiest programs to look
through um of any of the architects we see and I I really my full compliments to you. Thank you >> um for doing that. Um well, I think first of all my my initial read is that the additions are not obtrusive and they fit the standards that we have um for
for additions. They're not they're not competing with the original historic house. Um they're set back. They're smaller in scale. All those kinds of things. So I think we're complying with the standards to accept this. Um I would say a couple of things. One is um uh to
just make sure there's nothing going on with the garage, right? Because the garage is also a contributing structure. >> The garage is a contributing structure. We are not intending to change it, to lift it, to do anything to it aside from the client did agree to replace the
existing asphalt roof with a cedar roof to match the home. That's >> again, I understand that was not part of our application tonight. We will fill out the necessary paperwork, but that is the only intention with the garage is to in fact replace that existing asphalt roof with a cedar roof to match the new
roof of the home. >> Okay. >> But that's forformational purposes to you're not you're not asking for approval, right? >> If you can approve it, that'd be great, but I don't think you can because it's not without papers. We won't >> So, no, that is just for your information. >> Yeah, we we would need the cut sheets for the roofing material and all that kind of thing. So,
>> the cut sheets are within here because we're we would use the same roof as the house, but I >> they're not designated. >> I checked no to the garage renovation. >> Um, in the end, the client in discussions with her, uh, >> I requested that she consider it because
I think it would make the project better. It is more cost to her. It did not make it into this application, but I will make sure the correct paperwork does get filed. >> Okay. Um one one item that I did notice is where the uh placement of the relocated um central CU platform is.
>> Yes. >> Um New York is the front facing of front face of the building. >> It is. >> So I I would have argued that it' be it's going to be viewed visible from one of the two streets, but I would argue it'd be better to have it visible from
reading than from New York. So the current placement, my preference personally would be around the back. I would just note that um the fence that is planned for the structure has to be of wood construction. Um and I think you know that
>> yes it is um detailed on the landscape architect covered that it is on page L2.2 it is a wood painted fence the structure to the inside of the property. >> Okay. >> So your pickets are are to the outside. >> Want to make sure that that was clear on there
>> and it will also be relocated. the existing fence actually does not sit physically on their property. So, it is a new fence that will be relocated to be conformant with uh actually sitting on their land. And and again, just a a note, um I can't say I'm wild about the
the railing going up to the front porch, but I I think that actually may be somewhat consistent with that style and era of >> It also may be code. >> It is required by code. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I need something has to be there. I just I that that rot iron railing
wasn't would not have been my choice. That's all. >> We are relying on the existing highback benches on the porch to to meet code as far as a guardrail from the porch. Unfortunately, due to the number of risers required because of lifting the
house, we do have to provide a guardrail for people to use it. So, we opted honestly for the simple black metal um with the hopes that it is the least visually intrusive. Um I'm working on a property right now at 1515 New Jersey.
It has the same railing. I was hoping that there is historic precedent. >> I think you could come and have a look at 1501 Beach and you'd find the same thing. >> Yeah, we were hoping that it does kind of blend in and disappear as opposed to a white picket, but I appreciate your your thoughts. >> That's it. I have no other comments.
Yeah, I also want to compliment you. I think you've done a beautiful job. Is it Is this your third colonial revival in Cape May or the second one? You did another elevation on a colonial revival. >> I did 504 Jefferson 1550 New Jersey. This application and I will be here next
month with another application that we were unfortunately not able to motivate the landscape architect in time. >> Yeah, I think uh I think you've done a really nice job. I agree with everything Kevin said. I I do not like the railings. Um, I think they look very
contemporary. Um, and then of course my other comment is the black windows, but they're wood. They can be painted. I mean, it makes the house look modern. It doesn't look like a colonial revival, but um, we don't, you know, we don't legislate paint
color, but I guess your client wants black windows, >> correct? >> Yeah, I think you've done a nice job. Thank you. >> So, I do have a question for both of you. Um, would your approval of this project be contingent upon uh some alternate railing or not?
>> No. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. >> I think it's a nice project. I'm happy that you're benches. >> Yes. They are a key not only aesthetic but also historic aspect to the home.
>> Yeah. I feel also that it's like a really thoughtful and sensitive um update. I love that you're replacing vinyl with wood and cedar, >> trying to make this town better. >> When I first looked at it and I looked
at the survey, it mentions the the chimneys and the fenestration as, you know, authentic and I think the survey was probably done before the vinyl. Um, so it's great that you're bringing the quality of materials back.
>> I looked at A3 and I thought on the addition I was I was wishing there were windows on that side, >> but I you mentioned that that's the rear of the house, correct? >> And I know they're bathrooms.
>> Um, so >> how much window space can you put in the back? Yeah, we, you know, we did have windows on the rear elevation. We ended up having to remove one due to plan constraints and the client said, "Just take them both out. I want it actually
to balance." So, I removed both of them. >> Yeah. So, um yeah, it's it's a very well put together and sensitive um Thank you for all these updates and talking to your client about them.
>> Can Can I just add one more comment? I'm sorry before Jim jumps in >> I I see to you >> I you know from my perspective I I guess I just come back to the most important thing I think we can do is protect the contributing status of the houses right and there's nothing about the additions
that strike me as you know being inconsistent with that I think you know that the two additions will not complicate the continuing contributing status of the house actually I think like some of the other projects we've seen around here this is this by going
back to the original materials, going back to the matching shingles on the roof on the roof of the garage when you bring that forward. All of that in my mind just completely helps the the the whole cause for continuing that contributing status. So, I just think those are
>> Well, it's good you made that comment because it's going to echo some of the things I was about to say like try to keep this short. Just a question for you first. Um, how do you suppose that this got out of balance from left to right with the railing and the I mean because
it clearly was designed to have matching porches and porticos and they were probably even open. >> It does appear that they were both infilled at different periods of time. As you spend time on this property, which I have, um, if you're facing from
New York and you're looking at the home to the right, the way the columns are engaged in the infill, if you will, is appropriately done. >> Um, the lefthand porch, which became the kitchen on the driveway side of the home. They actually built around the
columns, so there's an odd space behind the columns. Um, I can only imagine that it was just done it at two different times. >> Well, and and I mean the the rule for this, of course, is symmetry, symmetry, symmetry where possible. And you know, I
it probably is less than saying I struggled. But I always get a little queasy when I see the front elevation change um as this changes. But when you've made these changes, you've made them um in terms of the two additions
subordinate and and and capable of being discriminated um from the original, even though when you see them, it all sort of blends in. Had had I been a designer of this colonial revival, I might have put those in >> to begin >> to begin with. I'm a little troubled by
the hiding more of the chimneys, but at least some of them survive. you can see that they're there. Yes. Because otherwise they're really beautiful full view >> chimneys and and uh and and so I think on balance
>> um I I too would come to the conclusion that this is this these changes would not I don't have the expert opinion on this but I do I don't believe they threaten the contributing status of of this property. And one um last point and and Kevin made it uh earlier and that is
the number of things you're doing including replacing windows that aren't in good shape and not original with >> with with although modern constructed all wood um you're going to give the house um and and changing the siding um
in places pushes it back in the direction of original materials which I think is helpful in any balance. balancing act. So I I'm I'm supportive of your project. >> Thank you. >> Sir, >> uh having bought a house that had four
bedrooms, one bathroom with a tub only, I can appreciate exactly what they want to do with this. Um I'm joining Judy with the worry about the iron railings out front standing out a lot more than they do in any of these
pictures. And I would like to uh if I can make the motion to approve this, leave the option open to change the front rail to a wood rail. And I personally would like to show you some examples of things that you could do
there that you might find much more accompanying to the house than the iron rails. >> Do you anticipate wooden handrail that I'm holding or wooden pickets that support it? wooden handrail with uh not
connected to the house but kind of freestanding to hold on as you go up either side of the stairs. >> Do you have a the construction date for the house? >> Um we are anticipating starting construction. >> No, I'm sorry. The original construction >> 1910 >> per the property report. >> Yeah.
>> Um I'm sure my client would be more than happy to entertain a different railing system. Okay. In all fairness, the home that we completed at 504 Jefferson, we had to lift and therefore add railings. We added a white picket, vertical picket with a railing. I find it to be
extremely distracting because of the visual weight of it compared to this, >> but I'm happy to come and would >> love to see your ideas >> because the rail the metal railing that we chose, we really chose for the simplicity and with the hopes that it
would disappear. Mhm. >> But if you have a better solution, they would wood handrail sounds wonderful. I'm worried about the verticality of it and how it's supported. >> I don't want to see white pickets on the front of this house. >> I just find it too heavy. >> Think I can still help you. >> I'm that that would be great. I love
love to hear it. Love to see the photos or come by the properties. >> I love it's just I used to have a colonial and these additions didn't take anything away from the house. Didn't make it look too chunky. They just fit
right in there if I go up. Um, I have to agree with Jim. I'm just concerned about the chimneys because they're a big part of the colonial house, but they're there. I know. I'm torn between Tom and Judy with the railings because I
What comes down >> a simple metal >> just >> No, we don't need it. You can just support it with with very very little handrail with support. I I would just point out that 1910 1911 in the
construction time of this an increasing amount of metal railing was being used >> and and that's it's it's the steel era. I mean it's the turn of the century. Iron and steel were finding their way into um >> lots of parts of houses.
>> Thankfully um the way the building code and I know you're a historic board not worried about current building code. I don't need that vertical pick at every four inches. I only need the handrail to be graspable so someone walking up the steps has something to hold on to. So thankfully
>> I agree with you though. The the white pick >> it's heavy. It's heavy. We did it at 504 Jefferson. I don't love it, but it's it's where we ended up on that one. So >> would a center iron rail be more appropriate? I don't know.
>> Break break break up a small stairway. >> Yeah, the stair isn't wide enough for that. That's what we're doing at 1550 New Jersey. >> Four and a half, five feet. It's not wide enough. >> All right. >> Um, >> but besides that, you know, the house is love. I mean, I I like the
the sliding door. >> Just trying to simplify it. >> Who was who was the old owner of that? Ben, somebody who was very big in the yacht club. >> This house. >> Yeah. Yeah. Long time ago. >> Yeah. Long time. >> Yeah.
>> Before my time. >> Your last statement. >> I have to compliment you on this submission. It was extremely easy to follow. >> Um and the amount of detail that you put into it, the cut sheets, everything was
um spot on. Um the railings I could go either way. Um but I think you did a wonderful job. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You know, not have to come back. I used to have a colonial with a center metal railing >> just for two steps and it worked.
>> That wouldn't have been on beach, would it? >> No. >> No. >> No, I didn't. Oh, I did have one there too. >> I know you did. There was one in the >> I had one there on beach drive, but that was a much thicker railing. >> So, in the interest of time, let's move forward. >> Yes. >> Um, I just have one comment and one question.
>> Yes. So the only clarification I'm seeking is the cut sheet for the standing seam metal roof indicates both 1 in and one and a half st standing seam. So we just want to verify that you'll be specifying one inch. Neither I could not find any place that indicated
it was one inch. >> I am happy to agree to a one-inch standing seam. >> Great. Um, are you open to addressing the front handrail with a different solution to address the concerns raised here this evening?
>> Absolutely. >> Okay. Therefore, I'd like to make a motion. >> John, I have >> Yeah. I have I have another comment. >> So, you would make that a condition the change of the air conditioning. >> So, that >> Okay. Okay, cuz you said that was just
an opinion, not a condition. So now it's a condition. >> So let's ask why where why those um HVAC units are located there. There may be a technical reason. >> So they currently exist on the rear elevation of the home. Um the homeowner
prior to engaging our firm did actually seek and gain approval to move those units. She never did the work. So, I'm not sure. I didn't go to the zoning office to verify that, but I certainly can. Um, the request was because they
spend so much time in the backyard and these units would be kind of in their private garden area that they move to the more utilitarian side of the house where the driveway is. I'm happy to push them further back on that elevation if that would help.
Um, >> so I I'm going to push back on that a bit because what the way you've done the landscape plan for the back of the house, relocating them back where they were would not work. >> It it would not work. And
>> and I would also like to say that this is one of the best screens of uh HVAC units that I've seen proposed to us. >> Extremely well done. >> L2.1 is the landscape. >> Yeah. Look at L2.5. That's probably the
best view of of this. >> 2.5. L2.5. >> L2.5 is a rendering. >> Yep. >> Um showing how the house would sit. Um and then the L2.1 is the landscape plan showing
where the units currently are. We are um envisioning a raised vegetable bed. >> Yep. >> So the the backyard really does become kind of an oasis for this relatively modest size home. Um the existing uncovered deck is to remain. It's really where they live except
>> my question is about the front door. >> This is a new front door. >> No front door is existing to remain. Okay, that's the existing front door. >> It is um I don't know. Did our renderer change it? >> I didn't I didn't
>> It is not intended to be changed. It is listed right on this cut sheet as existing to remain. Um there is a photo of it on 2.1. It is a large pane of glass over two
panels below. The mullion pattern on our renderings may be inaccurate. But it is an existing door planned to remain. I would not touch that door. >> Okay. >> Do you think it's an original door? >> It's wood.
>> Okay. >> It's in decent shape. >> Okay. >> Um the sidelights do appear to be original. >> Yeah, it's also um facing north. >> So, it's been well protected. >> It's been well protected. Yeah. >> No, the client has no intention in changing that door. Um, I do believe it
is on one of your one one of these pieces of paper called out as existing to remain. >> Yeah, it would be on your materials checklist. >> It is on your materials checklist under door. It says front door to remain. Their rear entry door is to be replaced with a wood slider. >> So, I would like to point out that the
only prohibition about HVAC units is that they not be in the front yard and not be visible from the street, which includes the screening, which in this case, the screening is extremely well detailed. So would that suffice to mitigate your
concerns, Mr. Hammer? Okay. >> Same with you, M. Decker. >> I didn't say anything about the >> Okay. I was just I was just about the railings and I'm not going to die on the health of the >> rail. So, with with all that said, then I'd like to make a motion that we
approve this as a final submission with the following three conditions. One, of course, approval by the Shade Tree Commission. Two, the agreement for the one-inch standing seam for the metal roof. And three, a revised front wood handrail for
approval by the review committee. >> Agreed. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second it. >> Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Kur. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson,
>> yes. Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Thank you once again, Deborah, for an excellent present. >> Thank you, >> Deborah. I have a question. >> Give me a call.
>> Or John, maybe >> tell you what. >> It says cedar roof, but this looks like asphalt. Is that just because the rendering is not very sensitive? >> Did you hear the question, Deborah? >> Deborah, she had a question. >> Amazing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The rendering the rendering looks
like a asphalt. >> Yeah, I figured it was because I looked at your application says cedar figured it's just digital. >> Okay. So, folks, folks, I'd like to move on because um we're running close,
perilously close to being out of time if we get to 10:00. So, if we could please move on to the next gentlemen, if we could please move on to the next submission. Next application would be, excuse me if I'm mispronouncing this, but >> Duff at 2011 Congress Street
for solar panels. >> I have to recuse myself. >> So, we have one recusal. Please state your name and your address and your role in the project. >> Oh, well, we spoke earlier today. Yes. >> Sir, could you could you could you turn
on your microphone, please? Yeah. My name is Clark Droth, 2011 Congress Street. Go by the name Trip. >> So, um, would you like to make any comments on this? The the submission is very self-explanatory. Is there anything you >> Yeah, it's just just, you know, looking
for the solar. >> Okay. >> So, I I'd like to cut to the chase here if I could, folks. Um, probably many of you went and looked at the site. um spent some time there this afternoon and all of the proposed locations for the solar panels are
visible from multiple locations as it turned out and you told me that I could call you Trip when I met you at the site today. Trip and I met at the site and we had a little chat and we talked about potentially an alternative move for at
least accommodating roughly 50% of the size of the photovoltaic array if and you would have to see the house to understand this but the the um there's a porch that faces South Lafayette and it's uh it's it's a porch that has a
flat deck on top of it. It's a sizable porch and and you can see it in some of the photographs. But the second floor deck, should he choose to do this, I would suggest he could put a roof over that second floor deck, which would be a
flat roof. This is a non-contributing house, and it would be highly consistent with the the street patterns on the rest of South Lafayette, where that occurs in numerous places. and use that roof to put >> I think we calculated you might be able to get 14 panels up there.
>> Yeah. >> So that's just a suggestion because if if none of the roofs of the existing home or garage are not visible from a street, which is the case here, what alternatives do you have? And I think that this might be one that you
might cons. I know it's not >> obnoxious, if you want to call it that. I mean, I wasn't ready for a presentation, but it's not your typical a- roof. It's not even 45 degree angle, I don't think. It's more kind of like that. It's not flat up there. You saw it.
>> Oh, I saw. >> But you really have to walk a couple hundred feet away from it to see it. And probably the panels would be more in a direction like that, not like that where you're looking right at them. But >> and I agree with you, you do have to
walk uh well, it depends on where you are. It was pretty far down the street. >> One house down on Congress one direction, one house down on Congress the other. Lafayette again one house down either direction. So unfortunately our are our our even though we would
like to encourage renewable energies systems um our standards would not permit you to do this as proposed. So I have a question for you. Would you consider tableabling this application to explore with your solar provider means
by which you might be able to install solar panels should you consider a roof. Um because it's pretty clear that if we were to vote on this this evening, it would be denied. But if you wanted to table it and come back with an alternative alternative proposal, we'd
certainly consider it. That's up to you. Before you answer that, you heard earlier we we had the Swain's application. >> Yes. >> They came in a few months ago with a basically non-conforming plan and instead of voting on that and potentially getting denied, what what
they did is >> requested an adjournment >> or to for it to be tabled indefinitely. And that kept the applicant in queue. They could talk to their professional and then when they were ready, they reached out to the board secretary with a revised submitt and said, "Hey, can you put us on the agenda?" So it keeps
you in quue if you want to kind of explore an alternative rather than resubmitting on a similar concept. >> Sounds like a good idea. >> And you wouldn't have to spend another application fee. >> Yeah. Yeah. I was hoping to maybe use this forwardinking board as I heard from
394 when we were talking about what the future will bring, >> you know, with the height level going up and all that. >> Future is not going to bring visible solar panels. >> It's not I don't know. Until one day, it's all coming. We all
>> until Wait a minute. Until the technology of the solar arrays are such that they're truly building integrated solar photovoltaics, in which case you can't distinguish them from, for example, roof tiles. We're really close to that >> being at that day. When that happens, this will likely shift. >> Got it.
>> Yeah. >> So, what would you like to do at this point? >> We can table it. >> All right. Well, then I'll make a motion to table the application. Um, and the applicant has to wave the 45day decision period. That's going to that's going to come with tableabling it indefinitely, right? >> Sure.
>> Okay. >> Motion made to table this application by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Hamron. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker,
>> yes. >> Pleasure meeting you today. >> Wish they were all this quick, don't you? >> Yeah. Wow. >> Thank you, lady. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to our last application of the evening. It's the local Stockton LLC at five Stockton Place.
Gentlemen, if you could please state your name, your address, and your role in the project. >> I have >> Oh, yeah. Uh Chad Ludman. My address is uh 560 Shunpike Road, Kate May Courthouse.
>> Kyle Toth. I am an architectural historian with PSNS and that's at 3 Mountain View Road in Mar New Jersey. >> So just as a context um maker here, you folks may recall that this applicant was here last month and there were um eight outstanding issues that we asked them to
address. Um they have been addressed quite clearly in a letter by Mr. to that's part of this application. Um so I would like to refer all of you to that letter and uh the floor is yours. >> Yes, and thank you for referencing that.
And so just so you're all also familiar, I should have mentioned last time um but to cover my ground here, I'm I'm not new to Cape May. I've done several Shipo funded surveys of the city over the years. So I'm very familiar with with the city as it stands and and where the
different types of architecture come into play. So I I want I'm just covering what I should have mentioned last time. So this I'm not coming from this I know I give a North Jersey address, so I'm not coming from this cold uh in terms of how I evaluate this. In the interest of time, since we've all been here for a while tonight, I I think I'll defer to
you if you have any questions on any of the points that I made in the letter. Uh it's also all material that we covered briefly in the previous meeting. So I'm happy to answer questions if you have questions about any of it. Otherwise, I'll leave it to you, too. So in summary, it appears that the only new
piece of information that you're submitting tonight besides responding to all eight issues is the drawing on AO2 of the revised fence on the one side of the property. >> That and we included in the other drawing, we included details that you requested for
>> the railing details. Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. So um in instead of going around the room, I would like to just simply ask if anybody has any comments or questions to this applicant. I have a quick >> I'd like I'd like council to explain
where we are vis the outstanding issues and the uh and the litigation. >> So I'll just substantively first uh in terms of the fencing outcome. I just want to be clear as to what the applicant's proposing to do here for the board so we understand visually what the
outcome is going to be. So you have the vertical fencing installed right now from both you can see it from the back essentially from Howard Street. You can also see it from the front partially on Stockton. Right. >> Horizontal. It's horizontal. >> Horizontal. Right. Right. What what
you're proposing to do is install vertical boards on the Howard Street facing side. Correct. >> Correct. >> And then on the Stockton facing side, you're still going to see horizontal boards. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um
>> so this elevation will remain the same. >> That elevation is going to change I think is what >> that elevation will be changed. >> Yeah. >> The rear. >> So that will be that will be those horizontal planks will be made vertical and they're not obvious. There will be different widths than >> does that make sense?
>> That side will remain horizontal. Is there a reason why the whole fence? >> Uh neighbors like the fence, they signed off on it. It's it's not really very visible from the front of the street. >> So So the So the the verticality we're
talking about are pickets >> and they're nailed over the horizontal members. >> No. So the horizontal members are going to be removed. They'll be furring on the interior so that the the posts will now be on the interior yard side rather than the street facing side and the vertical
new vertical pickets will be. >> So we're looking at a typical pick fence with the inside fairing and the >> correct that are shown. >> Is this your drawing of that fence? >> Yes, it is. >> Funny. It just doesn't seem to look like a fence. Well, it's only one segment of
the from post to post >> picket spacing is one and a half is one half to 3/4 on it. That's what it's reporting to say. >> So, it's a tight it's a tight >> Yeah, we want it to be a privacy fence
still, but we do want to have some ventilation come through it still. We would be reusing the existing material. So the widths are just based on taking those existing boards off and ripping them down. >> Okay. So So the horizontal stuff is
being ripped down to create the pickets. Yes. >> Correct. Got it. >> So just to clarify, make sure I understand that the the new vertical boards will be on the fence along Howard Street. >> Correct.
>> And that's that's the only change. The other horizontal board portions are going to remain the same in this proposal. Right. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the only other thing I would confirm for the record, and again, I'm going to reiterate that this should not be considered relevant to your analysis
of whether this is okay by the streetscape standards, but just the applicants confirmed, their council has confirmed that upon approval of a revised proposal that they're going to withdraw and dismiss the pending
litigation. Um, that's that's correct, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is it important just to state these eight issues on the record or does this letter suffice? >> I I would just ask that Mr. Ludman
confirm that this December 31st, 2025 letter >> prepared by Mr. To >> that represents your proposal. You reviewed that letter. >> Yes. >> And essentially you would sign this. He signed it. But this is your work. This is what you're proposing to do to the
city. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's acceptable to me. >> I'm sorry. >> Go into the resolution. >> All of this will. Yeah. >> All eight. >> So, I feel perfectly satisfied that all
eight have been appropriately addressed. I would move that we approve this project as submitted based upon drawing CO1 and the letter dated December 31st. >> I will second that motion. >> I would before before we vote I would
just have one one other question. >> Um this has been going on a long time. So Mr. Toth and Mr. Lumen can you comment on the timing for completion of these items? I've already contacted my contractors and put them on notice. So, we should we
would ideally be doing this next month. >> All of it? >> Yes. I mean, assuming that we don't get held up by the building, I don't know if we need to go to submit anything to the building department or anything like that, but >> Well, next month, if assuming this is approved tonight, you would have a
resolution after the next meeting which would serve the basis for a building permit. Um, but I I would re reiterate what I indicated to your council, which is the first two things to focus on would be the pavers >> and the stairs.
>> And we're going to do all the work at once. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm using one contractor. He'll he'll start and he'll finish. >> Okay. >> For have any questions about that? >> Your explanation? No. I I probably the only thing that maybe wouldn't be 100%
done would be the plantings based on the time of year that we're doing it. We might probably finish all the plantings in spring. >> Okay. >> Which also haven't I haven't designed yet with my landscape architect, but >> should a timeline be in the resolution as well?
>> Um, it could be. I mean, it's in our interest to get it done as soon as possible. >> Right. Right. But so and knowing that that's that's a consideration for the board and for the city, I mean would you propose a a deadline to get this completed? Because assuming you get this
stuff completed, it's a roadmap to getting a CO instead of being under a TCO too, >> right? >> So can you propose a timeline for completion of these items? >> I guess I'm my only question is so I have I I'm not exactly sure of the city's timeline
>> from here. There needs to be a resolution >> then I can submit for building permits. >> So I'm not sure all that all that >> assuming the resolution is passed in February >> after the issue. >> Yeah, you'll have a assuming it's approved tonight, you would have a resolution in February, which would then
be a basis to pull a construction permit for this work. >> Oh, okay. >> So your your your timeline for pulling a permit really begins after I think our first meeting in February is February 9th. Yeah. Um,
>> rather than a Sounds >> like it's going to go slower than I >> Yeah. Rather than a hard and fast deadline, could I suggest a time frame in which you'd like to see it completed? Be it four months or six months or I don't. >> I mean, I I was even thinking that you could say, you know, prior to Memorial
Day weekend, this stuff is going to be done. >> I I would say as soon as practicable, but not later than, >> right? >> Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I don't think it you guys don't want that stuff out there Memorial Day weekend, right? So, absolutely not. And that's that it wasn't a trick question.
I'm trying to just get get that out, right? That >> it's Kate maybe. So, it's hard to lock down the contractors as you know. I mean, I think they'll we'll all be fine, but >> and I don't know if the building department is going to hold me up at all. >> So, those are the things those are
things kind of out of my control, right? complete the job. >> Well, I that I mean setting a realistic target um I I think and recognizing a resolution the earliest it's going to be adopted is in February. Um that this
work would be completed no later than Memorial the Friday Memorial Day weekend. >> You know that's fine. >> That's good. >> Everything correct? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Lman, does that work for you? >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. So, I will revise my motion to
approve this application as submitted with the timeline for completion as soon as practical, but no later than the Friday of Memorial Day, 2026. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second. >> Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> I'm going to vote yes, but I'm going to express um two things. One, I had a lot of trouble getting through the breeze
blocks. Uh and and you've convinced me that that they're appropriate enough given the um the timing of the construction of this. And the second is I don't like to have applications that have had stuff done and then you come
for approvals. That is not the way we do things. So I hope and I and I'm really happy to get this behind us with full approval here and we settle all our differences. But in the future, please come first. >> I guess I'm not cons I'm not understanding what your
>> what frustration is. >> There are things here that just weren't approved before we approved them tonight. I think your architect understands that >> they were approved by the building department. >> We're talking about the historic preservation commission and our jurisdiction. All right. We don't need to go down this path tonight.
>> Right. So that's I vote yes, >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you. >> Okay, that concludes our applications. Are there any comments from the audience? >> Public comment is all we had. We had
>> the public make their comments already and there's nobody left. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Would you like to be Would you like to make a public comment? Oh, >> good timing.
>> Okay. Um, just a few things for discussion. Um, just a couple things. I will not be able to attend the February meeting. >> We'll be out of the country. Thank you, gentlemen. So, Mr. Ta has agreed to chair that meeting for us. Just wanted to let you know. Um,
>> John, it's it's my job. >> It is your job. Yeah. Thank you very much. Um, our our general counsel has drafted a signage ordinance as we have been discussing. Um, I I finally was able to take a look at it. I have I think I
would like to if we could convene a call between the three of us to chat a bit about it. I think there there are three things that still need to be addressed. One is materials, two is language content, and three I forget. I have them in my notes. So, if we could do that, I'll send an email to both of you. Still
willing to do that? Yes, >> that'd be great. So, we'll see what our availability is. Sound good? >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Um, uh, I would like to also check everybody's calendar. If now, great. If not, or I can follow it up
with an email. I'd like to schedule an alignment workshop like we began last year. Last year, we did it on February 20th. This year, um, I'm proposing either February 26th or March 5th. And it would be that would be a Thursday from 10 in the morning until two. Lunch
would be provided. And the primary purpose of it would be to align around what are our priorities for 2026. So, I have a secondary request which I've been >> Oh, I'm sorry. February 26th, which is a
Thursday, or the following Thursday, March 5th. You are proposing >> 10 to two. >> 10 to two. >> March 5th is a Sunday. You mean March 2nd? >> Maybe.
>> It's a Sunday then it's Yeah. So >> I can't make March 5th. >> March 5th is >> Oh, I'm sorry guys. >> That's a Thursday. >> I am. Yeah, it's a Thursday. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. February 26th or March 5th. >> Okay. Thursday. >> So, um, can anybody commit to those
dates now? Kevin can do both. >> 26. >> I'll need to check. >> Possibility. I can't do the >> but you'll have my response right away. >> Okay. So, right now the the majority of folks say they can make it on the 26th.
Is that accurate? >> I can. >> Okay. So, Lauren, could you please check um the calendar with the city to see if we could have this room from I'll say um 9:30 to 2:30. >> Thanks, Lauren. on on February 26th.
Okay. So, um the second request is, and I've been asking this for the last couple of months, but now I'd like to uh put a deadline on it, is for the issues that you believe are most important for us to address in 2026 as a commission that
then can be open for discussion. And I'll call it designing, if you will, a process for moving forward on them. I would like to ask you to submit those to me by email no later than January 26th, if you could
please. And this does not need to be an exhaustive list, just the stuff you think is really important. And I would like to suggest that what I'm holding is number one is getting the historic district amendment
resolved. Yes, the horse historic district map boundaries >> amendment and the second is get our bylaws revised. >> Right. So those are two big ones and there's there's a lot of others that I think are second tier. Um and Judy has one that I think is equally important.
That's the property reports. >> Right. So that would that's >> we're falling far behind. >> Yep. That's that's first tier also. So those three. So any others if you could please forward to me via email. I'll consolidate those and see where they overlap and and we'll open up the
meeting with a discussion about that. Okay. >> Where where did you come out in terms of budgetary process of funds for the property reports? >> Um we had a meeting with Paul about that and there was a certain amount allocated for this year which we did not use. I just don't know whether that got rolled
over into this coming year. >> We need to meet with him. >> We need to meet with Paul. Okay. You're shaking your head. No. here. >> Okay. Um, so the last issue I have um and you might you guys might have others
is I would just like to give a quick update or have Janice give us a quick update on the HPC Historic Preservation Awards. um letters went out to all of the um nominees congratulating them on being nominated
and asking them if we had permission for when the jurors arrive on February 7th with a snow date which I think is the following Thursday or February 14th. No, February 7th I think it is. Right. >> It's the 7th with a backup of the 14th
Valentine >> Saturdays. >> Right. Saturday. um if they need to for whatever reason walk onto the property to observe it from another viewpoint beyond just the street, did we have their permission? That's not a means by which their nomination would be um
invalidated. It's just that's permission that we're seeking and and Chris helped us write that letter and that all went out and all the packets are completed. And Janice, I think you said you sent those out. >> Yeah, they went out. >> Great. So the real issue I guess that um
we're asking about is a little a little update on the stewardship and leadership awards. >> So I printed up um a list of the award categories that's current now so I can hand that out. Um
Kevin can have one. And um the stewardship and leadership awards are going to be judged by the committee and they are open to public nomination. Um the committee will meet tomorrow. We're going to talk about how to
publicize them. The nomination forms will be on the city website and um it's a fairly simple nomination process. We do require that the person being nominated or the organization
agree to be nominated. So, there's no secret winners. Um, >> we thought we would publicize this within the next week or so and I think Lorraine has mentioned it at council already. Uh, it should be mentioned
publicly here. um we want to try to promote it as much as we can and the nominations will be due by March 31st and the commission the committee meets on the 14th of April. So that's when we
would um go through all them and the nominations will come to Lauren. So they'll be housed in the uh office here. Um let's see what else did I want to tell you about? I have um edited and
updated the description of the program which we started with last September. I don't have copies, but I can email it out if you guys would like it. Um but we hope that the city will be able to update the HPC website with all the
information about the award so that when people hear about it, you know how that is. I mean, we have six weeks to get an application. People are going to hear it. They're going to go, "Oh, I know somebody." And then they're going to forget about it. So, it has to be
available somewhere easy. And we will be um accepting a online application, but we think probably Oh, we're not. Okay. We want pictures and >> Well, just like the puppeteer over here.
The support documentation includes letters of recommendation, publicity, photos, anything significant about challenges of the work for >> this for both stewardship and leadership >> for the building stewardship. for the leadership. It would also be letters of
recommendation but also their projects, their impact and um any documentation that that is apply applicable. So Judy or Lorraine, do you want to pipe up and more? Did I forget anything?
Am I missing this or is there a date uh date back that we have to deal with? Can these projects be in the last so many years or >> No, because stewardship is an ongoing thing. So, one of the qualities that we'll be looking at is how long has this
property like like the mainstay been a a contributing structure that really adds to the value of our community. I mean, we want to create positive peer pressure for historic preservation as opposed to, you know,
>> people griping about having to come before us. >> So, Janice, do you have a a date that you're targeting for when the online application will be able to be downloaded by folks? >> Well, I'd like it up by next week, but I don't have the ability to put it up. So
the question for the powers it be is how fast can you >> has it? >> Oh great >> so within two weeks roughly would be >> probably. >> Okay. Is it just going to be you and
>> No, Jake's gonna be there. >> Jake Jake's coming. I think Hannah might be coming. I can't make it. But Hannah Hannah Jake is going to be there. And I did see a text from Hannah. So
>> she can zoom in. >> All right. So we're gonna we're gonna finish up thems. >> So Hannah can zoom in and she's technically good. >> Young school. >> Yes. Yeah, >> we got somebody under 50.
>> Yeah, she's been participating. >> A gym. >> Hannah is good technically and she can zoom into the meeting. So, that's an idea. She might be able to help with the >> Yeah, >> thank you for that update. Does anybody
else have any other comments for discussion before we consider ajouring? >> Oh, one thing I want to add. Our date is firm. May 13th, 7 to9 at the Chaon >> and there's been an offer by John to do
a cocktail pre >> pregame >> HPC and the jurors. I've let the jurors know about the date. I've asked them to, you know, hold the date if they can. And um so please put that on your calendar.
>> May 13th. It's a Wednesday evening. uh at the shop it's 7 to 9 >> and if John does the cocktail party before it probably be like 5:30 or >> yeah I'd say probably 5 >> 5 to 6:30 >> something like that because the child
fund's walkable prevent people from getting together >> oh so you're asking if that is it >> I would suggest we take that one offline Let's have that let's have that discussion offline. >> But it would at least be for the jurors
>> and the and the committee. I would like to open it up to all of HPC >> and and your and your significant others. >> This is not where you get rid of all the rest of the line. >> There'll be much better things there than that.
>> Another date that you might think about if you're interested is the Saturday of the site visit. But we are going to have bagels and coffee here at 8:30 in the morning before they do their site visit. It's going to be just a brief coffee. Um the jurors include Darthy Guzo, who's
the former spo head of SPO. She was the head of the New Jersey Trust. Um Steven Smallen, who we all know well from his wonderful work on the design. and Joan Berkkey who's an architectural historian who has um known and loved
Kate May for many years and >> with really strong credentials. >> They're all really really good jurors. We have a fabulous juror and they're all excited about it. >> That's on February 7th at 8:30 with the meet and greet type coffee. And if it's
a horribly snowy day, it'll be the 14th, Valentine's Day. Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments, or issues that folks would like to raise for discussion this evening? >> I just have one last reflection. Um,
thinking about how challenging one of the projects was this evening. Um, I'd like to applaud all of us and all of you for the decorum and the professionalism and the energy and the tone with which that was addressed because I thought we
handled that really well and it could have been um handled not well. I hope you agree with me. Yeah. So, thank you for all that guys. It was it was >> it was a challenge, right? >> It's not over. >> No,
>> I have a question about that. I didn't know what the people were going to say. >> Um, and I've tried to be really objective and, you know, refer to the design standards whenever I make a comment, >> but I had to be really honest that I I
just had a hard time with it because of its impact on the street. >> And that sounds kind of maybe arbitrary or subjective. And I'm just wondering is that
appropriate or or inappropriate? >> That's more appropriate than the noise and the pot smoke and anything else. That's exactly what you're supposed to do as a member. So that feeling of my god, what am I going to look at when I walk down the street? because you had
the reaction to A7 that I did when I go down Congress sheet >> and you know not to it's not it's not a ar you know uh Franklidd Wright may look beautiful in some other setting but maybe not here right so that one that really large house that looks like it
should be in Breaidge Colorado would be really nice there but maybe not on Congress Street so I I I think your comments and the feeling is valid and it's exactly tied to that stuff so I would support that comment And we we we made a a denial tonight. >> We did
>> of of an application, but in all of the discussion, the the range of comments that were aired from either side, either sector is far from arbitrary. >> So So we can't be arbitrary, but what what I saw tonight was a lot of measured
discussion from all of us on every every one of those points. >> I think we >> it was my first And I was going to say I was asking did John try to diffuse this or you just let it go away and do what we did.
>> But it was like Jesus you don't want to put put neighbors against neighbors, >> right? >> That's that's bad for this. >> I think we have to we have to really be serious and require these streetscapes
to be accurate and well done. I think his page seven, I like that he had all the heights. That was very helpful, but the scale wasn't exactly accurate. And I think we need to force them to give us accurate streetscape views. It's really
vital for us because otherwise in the field we end up with something that is >> Are you suggesting that that be something we add to our um application? >> It is. It's on the application, but they seem to struggle with it. Some of the some of them I think it's a really hard
thing to do on a regular basis. It would be hard to make that a requirement like in every single case because it requires a lot of fieldwork and a little bit of expertise to get that right. So I don't think he was trying to submit that in terms of like this.
>> Well, I mean it's it's a jump from the kind of picture when we were talking about streetscape and the things you have to file. They usually included views of a few pictures, right? and and you're suggesting something. >> Well, but and that's normally I think what Chris's point is that's on the application. >> Yeah. But that's normally sufficient.
Yeah. It's when we're talking about height and mass issues of a brand new home, new construction, that sort of thing where we might need a little more detail. >> Katherine's done that before. >> Well, they all they've all done it before and some of them have really done a great job. >> Yeah. >> And some have just done an adequate job.
I think he did the best he could and it that page was really helpful for all of us. >> Really helpful. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So you know >> where property >> you certainly is the application should
be deemed incomplete if we don't if we're not satisfied with the streetscape pages that >> okay so that >> that leads me to um believe that one of the other chores or tasks of the review committee would be to look at all
applications before they come before this commission to determine whether or not there's something else we need in order to properly evaluate them. >> That's a great idea. >> I think that's really an important thing to do. >> I think you should. >> Okay. So, Lauren, I'd like to suggest that that be something that the Tuesday morning committee does. We look at all
applications, >> even the ones that go before the full commission to deem >> their completeness and whether or not there's something that we'll need in order to properly assess them. Okay. Yeah.
>> Washington has perspective on that street. I don't care. I don't >> me It's an eclectic bunch of houses. Nothing's going to fit. Nothing's going to be exactly streetcape match. I look at it as
anything really accept that. I mean honestly I tuned that totally out and just looked at it from the standard standpoint and I came away with the impression that it is not a particularly building
that it was >> but that's that's why there are seven votes >> I I I saw it as you did. I saw it as you did. >> So guys this is what democracy is supposed to be in my view. this is this is what's supposed to happen.
>> So, congratulations to all of us for hanging in there and let and we did we did offer the applicants >> the option >> to reconsider, take a break, take a breath and and maybe come back to us and they refused to do that and the outcome
was therefore um not in their favor. >> Not because of that, but >> any any comments from our solicitor about >> take a chance. No, >> that was a comment. >> I think the decision is entirely
defensible. That's That's my >> General. No, no, he told me to call him General. >> I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn. >> Seconded. >> All right, guys. I think um a motion to adjurnn, please. So move. >> Seconded. So adjourned at
>> 9:37.