Calling to order the Kate May City Historic Preservation Committee meeting of July 20th, 2026. It's currently 6:03 p.m. 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, everyone would please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to theublic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All >> Miss Secretary, do we have the roll call, please? >> Mr. Becker, >> here.
>> Mr. Ta, >> here. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno >> here. >> Miss Bilssonic. Mr. Stevenson >> here. >> Miss Decker here. >> Miss Mr. Hamaran >> here. Mr. Curts.
>> Okay. So, this morning emailed to everybody were the minutes from our last meeting of June 15th. Everybody get a chance to review those? >> I would like to entertain a motion to approve them then, please. >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. I'll second. Move. So moved by Mr. Tesla, seconded by
Mr. Carroll. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> abstain. Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
Also, we received via email from our secretary an invoice. So, I would like to entertain a motion to pay this bill to Chris Gillan Schwarz Law LLC for the last month's work. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> So, moved by Miss Decker, seconded by
Mr. Stevenson. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
>> Resolutions for final approval as rat to ratify from last month's meeting. First is Cape Amida LLC 918 Stockton, resolution 202625. and then Welchman LLC 1122 Washington Street resolution 202626
like to entertain a motion to ratify those. >> I'll second. >> So moved by Mr. Hamron, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagnum, >> abstain. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes.
>> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. Mr. Ta. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. Except for Welchman. Resolution 202626. I need to abstain due to proximity. >> Next. Conceptual approvals.
Elmmyer 520 Elmyer Street, East Land Theater, 717 Franklin Street, and Huntington House LLC 107 Grant Avenue. Motion to approve these. >> I'll move. >> So moved by Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr.
Hammer. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes, except I excuse myself on Eastland Theater Company. >> Miss Pagno, >> abstain. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta,
>> yes. With abstension on Eastland. >> Mr. Becker? >> Yes. And then lastly, applications approved and denied in review. The list that you all see on the agenda. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve those as well, please. Motion.
>> So moved by Mr. Stevenson. >> Very quiet tonight. Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Ta. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta,
>> yes. With all but a um an abstension with respect to McMahon, 1416, New Jersey, and Martinstein, 101, Philadelphia. >> Mr. Becker. Yes to all except for Welchman LLC, 1122 Washington Street. I
need to abstain again due to proximity. Well, we have a special guest with us this evening. On May the 13th of this year, you may recall that we had historic preservation awards ceremony held at the Chaon Hotel with maybe 100
or so people there. Quite an amazing event. One of our recipients, however, was unable to attend that evening. So I would like to present to Mr. Corbin Cogwell a proclamation on behalf of our mayor. This is from the office of the mayor. Whereas Mr. Cogwell has been a longtime
bastion. Bastion. You're a bastion. Yeah. of Kate May's preservation efforts as a pioneering bed and breakfast owner, volunteer at the Kate May Lighthouse, and member of the city's historic preservation commission for an inspirational record of 26 years of
dedicated service. And whereas Mr. Cogwell's institutional knowledge and expertise as a restoration carpenter has assisted hundreds of applicants realize their dream homes through cooperative adherence to HPC standards. And whereas Mr. Cogwell continues his community
service through his volunteering at the Episcopal Church of the Advent. Therefore, Zachary Mullik, mayor of the city of Kate May, does hereby present the 2026 Historic Preservation Commission Leadership Award
to Corbin Cogwell and encourage the public to celebrate his contributions to the city of Kate May with the same enthusiasm and dedication that he has graciously bestowed upon us all. Corbin One last thing to mention is this is a
new award and it's called the Carolyn Pitts Leadership Award and Corbin's name is now on a brass plaque on the wooden plaque which is out in the corridor outside of HPC's office. Corbin, the floor is yours.
>> Well, first of all, I'd like to thank members of the commission for the this other honor that they bestowed upon me. I think I got it. And they, you know, I didn't do this for for
glory. Uh I'm a firm believer in the 19th century uh phil philosopher philosoph philosopher uh Jorge Santana
he said the very important quote those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it this I've I've gone through had this since I was in high school where a few years later Mr. Carol went through the same school. Uh
there are some other people I'd like to acknowledge, some that we've have heard of, but 50 years ago, three members of this community bucked the trend. The trend at that time was to tear
everything down and put motel and hotels up. uh Carolyn Pittz who was the the head architectural historian for the park service and uh Ed Bramble worked
together. They got the information for the to the secretary of the interior to get our design. Then along came Bruce Minik who's as mayor. He he succeeded the
uh people who didn't want strike preservation and he accepted the this and he appointed Irv Tannenbomb who was an uh a um physician here in town house on Columbia
Avenue at Gurnie Street. and he was the first chairman of the committee that eventually became this this body. Another important person that was uh
death I know it's I know it's on here somewhere, but he he was the one who took my idea of codifying what we had as the guidelines. They were all on printed and actually
were about as worth as about just a piece of paper because you could go to the they were not part of the code. So you go to apply your appeal to the board of zoning and they would
50% of the time they turn it turned our work down. So we then got uh uh the got the guidelines codified. We received
a an award from I believe it was New Jersey Historic Trust because it was the first codified book of uh guidel of of standards in the D in the in the state.
And that lasted us from 19 from 2000 till just a couple years ago when we got our new book the commission and I I would like thank to all the commissioners I worked with during the time
because they all had the same idea to pro protect what we have today. uh the first two chairman that the chairpersons that I served under, Judy Dioro who was an inkeeper and Skip Laughlin who was an
inkeeper and a builder uh did a lot to firm up this. Skip got the first HPC awards for the for people who uh had done good work on their houses.
Judy Dioro had a uh little saying for those who who botched it, they called them remodulers. >> Victor Benson was was who I was trying to think of as chairman of the committee to get the standards.
I could probably go through and list dozens of people and I've missed people. So, I'm not going to try to do that, >> but I thank all the all the commissioners I
worked with. They've and you all are commissioners. Anybody tells you you're not, they don't know what they're talking about. But because you are on a commission, you're members of commission. You are members of you are commissioners, which is a
little above just a member. So once again, thank you all. Uh continue doing the good work. Uh there's sometimes I see I see the work that goes through and I'm not quite sure
how good it is, but >> doing our best, >> but that's all we can ask. So you all have a good evening. Those of you who are here, good luck. The commission is unless they've
changed. They're not as uh hard as it sounds. So no, the hardest hardest one I had was when we when the Church of the Advent was doing a lot of renovation work. That's what stand down here Franklin
Washington Street >> and found out that uh with churches there are and in a commercial district even the churches have setbacks. So So have a good evening.
>> Thank you. So you also may recall that a little more than two years ago, we all as commissioners convened for about half a day in a workshop and aligned around what is the core purpose of our work and wanted to utilize a purpose statement to
state that very clearly to set the tone for all of our meetings. So Miss Decker, would you please read that purpose statement for our work, please? The purpose of HPC's work is to serve as a catalyst for guiding and valuing Cape May's historical, cultural, and natural
resources in ways that inspire and unite our community to steward these resources for the benefit of all so that present and future generations continue to express the unique quality of life and share in this place we love.
>> Thank you very much. So, let's open it up for tonight's applications. First on our agenda is Miller at 535 Bank Street. If you could please come up to the table, state your name, your address, and your role in the project.
Just so uh everybody on the commission can be a little bit more informed about this group. Um I think we've met with these folks six or seven times. um they've become uh weekly attendees at our Tuesday morning meetings and they
came before us at last month's meeting. Subsequent to that, they came and spoke with us on the Tuesday morning review meetings two maybe three more times and they are here to present their revised application. So the floor is yours folks.
>> Okay. My name's Paul Massing. >> It's green but you have to speak up anyway. >> Yeah, speak right into >> My name is Paul Massing. I'm a contractor, but I'm the person facilitating to renovate the property. So, >> Allison Wallace Paul is helping me with this project. >> Okay.
>> She's looking to buy the buy the property. >> Okay. We changed the drawings to give it a hyphen to try to make uh the historic portion of the house stand out and be what
um be appropriate. So it wasn't sub subordinate though. Um, we did have a lot of help. Uh, we sat with the board to try to make things appropriate. Um, uh, we downsized actual size, but still
trying to give as Mrs. Wallace size proper that she would be able to do this. So, we're on the same page. would like to save this property so like to keep the historic value and the historic um but also we want to make it
functionable. So for her family so >> so are you suggesting that the drawings speak for themselves? >> I think so. But you know I would agree >> about anything yes >> because it's it's actually very straightforward from the last
submission. So, um, if that's the case, I would just like to ask we'll go around the room real quickly. Kevin, have any you have any comments or questions? >> First of all, remember, >> Kevin, just hit your Sorry. >> Sorry, I thought I had
to try to comply get into this thing. >> You got Corbin. >> Yeah. >> Think Think of you being at a rock concert or band. >> There you go. Um, if you remember the uh the applicants came to the full commission last time and one of the things that we talked about at at that point were if you make the house a
hyphen house, it looks like you could probably make the addition work. If you just build it straight onto the back, um, that would probably be not something we'd accept. And so the um, uh, they came back with a a hyphen
house design. Um I think they made u you know a good attempt to uh keep the front house the historic portion of the house um separate and discreet and distinct. Um they are restoring the front porch which um to the historic historically
accurate um uh approach which I think we should you know see as a positive. Um they've concluded the best way to do this is to separate the garage and did that. Um I think I think at this point you know they they've met the
requirements that we put in front of them uh the last time they were here before all of us and they came back as John said probably six times in in various at various points to try different designs with us and try to make the the in inside you know work
with the outside and and I think have succeeded in that. So that's my my commentary on it. >> Thank you. You have any comments be questions? I have more questions. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to add one thing. >> Sure. >> I just want to say we also turned the
addition to make it long so didn't stick out so far from the house, right? >> Uh the existing house. So we're trying to make that look. >> Yeah. The addition is limited to 20 ft wide. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> I think it's vastly improved. Um I think it's appropriate. I think
you're going to be much happier with this layout um of your new home and um I think it's appropriate. I like it. >> Okay, great. >> Good luck. >> I I think you've done a great job since our last meeting and I know you've been working hard with our review team and I
appreciate the fact that you guys are spending all the time working with us, >> but I think the end result here is fantastic. You know, I know you guys have a rough spot there >> and you you need some kind of leeway, but I believe this is really a perfect job. Okay, great.
Th this this is a was a very difficult situation. A difficult situation because our standards usually required when you did additions that they not be larger than and overpower the original structure. And I I think that and and I
think we're sympathetic to the fact that there are some places where you start that are so small that it's difficult to do anything u within the confines of keeping it small. Um this is a a change which you've really reduced what you
were doing. I I hope it's adequate for your purposes in considering purchasing the property, but it is a great improvement. uh and I I think you've taken the the time and I guess this is one of those situations where a lot of efforts get rewarded by the product. So
so I think you've I think you've uh crossed over the threshold. I I was not supportive of where you were with this size uh before I I am supportive of where you are today. I do have a a minor question that is and and I think it's great that you open up the front porch. Was there historic evidence that that
porch was open and then and then >> Yeah, I believe so. Yes, it was open and we we did ask to make it a little a little larger than what it was just so it's more usable. I think it's only six feet and we wanted to go 8t. So >> yeah, it just it makes me feel more comfortable that you're actually going back to a situation where the porch
existed before as open because it doesn't look that good closed up and and and given the fact that opening it will create more space in front and give you a a better a better view. So, I I'm I'm I'm supportive of what you've done. Uh, and I think this is about as good as you
could have done under the circumstances. >> I would like to say that the work that's gone into this shows that you're not here for good luck. This has been a long excellent thing. And I really do want to uh thank our chairman because I don't
think even some of the members know that John lost sleep the night that you were here and sat up and did some drawings of his own which he gave to you which kind of get got things going again. So uh that that just shows how much the
members here uh work. I love this little cottage and I think it's just so great that rather than losing something like that, you want it as a home and we've worked it all out. >> Yeah. And we do really appreciate John's help. This is a big deal.
>> Yeah. And everything echoing everything that everybody said here. You have a challenge. I mean, you're you have a property that's, you know, you know, a house that's on the property line. You have to move it over. you have to figure out. Um, but you've done a wonderful job
with um with the the the reiteration of all of this. Um, the only question I have is uh on the site plan it shows the garage there. Um, but I don't see architecturals for the garage. Um,
were were there I don't know if that was part of the um the review committee or not? Yeah, we >> unless I'm missing them in my pocket. I didn't. >> Yeah, I thought I did, but did you do something?
>> Is it stop? >> Was that something that you reviewed that with with them, John? >> No, but but to be honest, like so you know where we're at. >> We gladly come back to do the garage. The garage is more that we'd like to have a garage, especially if they have
parking or whatever. We would gladly let you see that or do something again. It's more square footage. Make sure our zoning worked. Make sure everything worked to give that to you. This is we just want to make sure it's a >> conceptual approval. It's a conceptual approval. So, so you'll have the opportunity to come to this even one more time.
>> Yeah. Okay. Just that that would be, you know, something you'd have to satisfy and yeah, very easy to do. >> We do have some drawings. I just I think the size changed a couple times to be honest for the footprint to make sure the zoning work because we don't want to ask for any variances or anything else. We want to do what fits on the property, right?
>> So, and there was some previous coverage, all those things that you only wanted to make it a certain size, but we felt like the house didn't have as closet space or that kind of stuff and definitely need storage. So, it's definitely something I think she needs. So, >> and final we would >> Right. Okay. >> Okay.
>> It's a great question, >> but I Yeah, I I think that you know everything that you've done here u very good work. Thank you. >> So, you guys win this year's frequent flyer award. Thank you. Um I would very simply like to move for
conceptual approval noting that we will need zoning approval. Um one comment there is the deck will need to be 10 ft away from the garage. I checked that with the zoning officer. So I just need to revise the deck configuration. >> May I just speak on that? >> Sure. >> Um after I talked to the zoning officer,
we were thinking that we're raising the grade and stuff. So there'll be only a small deck and a couple steps and there will be a blue stone patio or something that we believe would be in the back and no wood deck. So >> as opposed to it >> so we can keep it 10 feet from the garage. >> If it's paving it can be within 10 ft of the garage. If it's a built structure it
must be 10 ft away. So great. Okay. So um and the only other thing that's missing then would be for the final approval would be the elevations of the garage and of course the uh um cut sheets for the exterior wood windows. You gave us cut sheets, but it doesn't
specifically state exterior wood prime. So, we'll need to see that with the final. But for conceptual, you have more than adequate documentation. I would like to move that we approve the conceptual submission or application as submitted >> and and you would but you would note the two pieces that
>> those two pieces you having moved that I will second the motion. >> Great. So, so moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Ta. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta,
>> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Thank you very much. >> And enjoy enjoy your visit. Good to see you. We'll see you soon again, I'm sure. >> Thank you. I appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> Next on our agenda is Mchugh Group. Um
that's 1101 New York Avenue. And we have more frequent flyers arriving this evening. Good evening, folks. If you could please tell us your name, your address, and your role in the project, please. >> Uh, Jackie Renie. Um, address for 1101 New York Avenue. Uh, I guess we are
contractors on it. >> John Renie, 11:01 New York, contractors on it. >> Okay. So, just a little um I can give a brief summary here. There was some work done at the site that was a demolition of a deck that was unsafe that they had
removed but had not submitted. The owner had not submitted an application for that when they came to us to put additional work with regard to a patio and a new set of well a new garage door but that's changed and a new window. We
couldn't approve that because we had never approved the demolition of the deck. So, I believe you are here with this application in order to get the demolition approved, the window, the door, and the patio all as one consolidated submission. Is that correct?
>> The window was approved, but it didn't say that is correct. >> Right. In the whole packet, >> right? So, what you've done, I think what you've done is you've removed the whole other submission. This is one brand new submission that incorporates everything, right? That's right. >> Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you like to make a
presentation or is that adequate? I think I can keep it simple. I think I have everybody broken down simply in it. So, I'll just go through it in order if that makes sense. >> Laura's yours, Jackie. >> All right, here we go. Um, so the
violation list uh which is the first uh packet after the application um number one existing multi-level deck was removed. Owner and son removed it. We came in after, but we said we would come to battle for all of
this, whatever it may be. Um, so we're that's part of the application number one. That's simply put. Um, number two, on the violation, um, second floor doors removed and replaced with windows, that was prior approved on 210. Uh, so I copied and
pasted it there. So you can see that that was already approved. It just was not scanned in the full 40page packet. I think like half of it scanned in. So then we got that fully scanned and I think I submitted all that. So that should be a non-issue because it was already approved. Um
number three, this was our doing the double door that was existing before we put the window in. We had approval to put a window in there. Um during construction, >> the owner pretty much was like, "Can we just take that door, repurpose it down
below?" It's a wood door that was existing. Uh >> it was a metal garage door that was there prior, >> a rusted metal garage door prior. And I never thought anything of it. The guys were in the middle of work. They kind of just went through it. >> Yeah. And that's clearly depicted on this page, folks. >> Yeah. Sorry, my marker didn't come
through. Super clear. Um so that existing door got moved down below. So that that's definitely one we were in violation for. We were just rolling with the project. didn't think anything of stopping the job and putting they were there doing the work so they continued with that. Um that's part of
the application. The last one he we were unaware of this as well. He had his landscaper remove an existing was it pavers? >> Uh it was concrete slab and pavers. So,
he had his landscaper and when I went back to him and asked him for a permit, he said he did not do it and he was not interested in jumping in to help out. So, we just said we would take care of it. He went with a smaller blue stone patio. I don't think I had Well, I guess
it's hard to see, but the picture on number three, that was the old patio. It stuck out further to the left. Um, and he went with a smaller patio. So, those are the four that we're coming to for approval or the three we're coming to
for approval. >> The landing >> or the stairwell? >> No, we already have the approval for the stairwell, but we weren't moving forward with that until we got this. >> So, just to clarify, the last drawing, which is the sketch of the site plan with the 212 in by 248 in blue stone PA
patio, those are the correct dimensions. >> That's the correct dimensions of what put in. Yes. And then the specs are right before it of what he used. >> So unless I miss my mark, this feels fairly
straightforward to me. Um even though it's let me restate that it's highly convoluted just because of all the different submissions, but the way you've packaged it in this one consolidated submission feels pretty straightforward to me. So instead of going around the room, I would just
simply like to ask if anybody has any questions or comments and if you do, please proceed. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. Y um I see the and this is very nicely done. Um you had to pick up some pieces which were quite interesting.
>> Thank you. >> Um but it looks like there are three levels here. Uh one at ground level. Uh to the right you have the the stairs and that door and the window. Um, do you have are there going to be stairs going up to that or what are you planning on doing?
>> So, the whole door that was there, we had approval that's now a window. He didn't want the deck there and the deck wasn't safe. So, when he was thinking about doing it and we had approval for the windows. Okay. >> Um, so we also now have approval for a staircase. If you look at the I guess
the midlevel deck, it's like a big window and there's a door there. Right now, there's nothing. >> Yep. To the right. >> Yeah. We have approval, but we didn't We have HPC approval, but we didn't do anything more with that until we got through this, but we have approval to do a mahogany staircase coming off that
door, a se a simple landing with a staircase going straight down. >> Okay. >> But no no deck going back or anything like that. >> So, it's it's already approved and it's going to it's going to land on that uh on that uh stone blue stone patio. >> Yeah. And that was already approved, but I don't think I brought it because I
knew we didn't need to kind of go backwards and see that again. Yeah, >> I may have it if you want to see it though. >> That was the only question that I had. >> Okay, >> I'm okay. >> Yeah. Uh, as as put together from everything that has transpired here, I I
have no problem supporting what you've done. But it illustrates to me two problems. One, um, one should know with a contributing property, you come out and get approvals where you need them and not leave others to come pick up the pieces later on. and we take a dim view >> of of work that's done without
permission. Uh and this the second really is that um it's really good to put stuff together in one piece so we can understand it. >> Oh yeah. >> And uh you know had had this been just put together in one piece I don't think we would had any problem.
>> There have been a lot of pieces. >> I I hope I hope there are some lessons taken. >> Oh yeah. >> About it's not so hard a process and you know about it. Yes. So it's not so hard a process to just do it right the first time. >> Yes. >> Um I have a question about this window.
>> Yes. >> So these are four over fours. Did the homeowner put that those windows in? >> No, we did. We had the approval for that in February. >> Okay. Because there's this is a contributing house and there's no four over four windows in this house. So it would have been more appropriate to put
one over ones in there >> as for the rest of the house. Unless I'm not seeing them somewhere. No, we had the approval for those windows. We we uh submitted the specs and everything. Sorry, I got to get back. >> Okay. Are you going to trim that out or is it Why does it look like it's not trimmed out in white? Those windows.
>> Are those windows trimmed yet? >> That might have been an old picture. >> Okay. So, they've since been trimmed out with wood. >> I know. The kitchen windows I think they were waiting on. >> Everything's been trimmed out with cedar. >> It's just >> What number is that, Judy? I'm sorry.
>> I don't know. It's not number. Those those windows are at the rear rear of the house, right? >> Five pictures. The page with five pictures. >> I move. >> So, I understand you're going to put uh a landing and stairs at this door. >> Yes. >> Okay. And no decks at all.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Still moved. My question was about the door, too. So, it's been answered a few times. >> Just just one quick one. the um the door that was on the second floor and is now coming down. It is the same door you're
bringing. You're not replacing it. >> Nope. >> Yep. It was the same door just moved down. >> Okay. >> I still don't know where I put my paper. >> There. Of course. There it is. That one she was saying. So, at the risk of complicating something that's already um been
convoluted, you have another application into us dated the 15th of May. >> Add more to it. >> Which is to add um or to replace the roof with asphalt shingles because they're existing asphalt shingles. >> Oh, wait. We don't have that in. I don't
know. >> That's that has nothing to do with us. >> Yeah, he jump he he's takes care. >> There's a lot of jumping going on. So So that's not your >> That has nothing to do with us. I think he has Dave Adams doing his roofing. Yes. So, I would assume that Dave Adams is >> Okay. Because this has not been approved
yet, mainly because we haven't approved this project. Therefore, we weren't going to approve a subsequent one until this one's approved. >> The only other one we have submitted a couple weeks ago, or maybe it was last week, I forget. I sent two weeks ago um
was he he wants to do four new things. He wants to change the old what do you call lattice. Yeah, he has he has um horizontal lattice and he wants to go to the standard lattice. It's all wood, too.
>> That was part of it there. But you might have even we might have just put that on the back burner or maybe it's still sitting on file until we got through. >> I don't think we've seen that application yet. The re what reason I'm bringing this up yeah >> is because what I'm trying to clarify is if you look at the photograph that's in that submission
>> you can see where because the old deck had been removed there were some shingles that had been removed and this has all been opened up to both so what we're trying to figure out I'm trying to figure out is what application is there for repairing that and the removed
>> did get put back on >> so yeah so everything on that side of the house where there was work done to those windows and where the that door was replaced with the garage door on that wall. Those shingles were replaced hatched more or less. >> So the question is is that in a
submission someplace? >> I don't know if >> I mean it it matched the >> No, you No, you guys don't have this. Yeah, we don't we don't have >> The only reason I'm bringing this up is because now we're looking at maybe one or two other submissions to add on top of the prior three that have come in and
I'm trying to get some clarity around one consolidated submission. >> So, if there was a shingle missing or fell off, I mean, a shingle was replaced. The same exact kind of shingle. >> Okay. But you see how there's underneath where the old deck was. >> Yeah. >> The old deck had really functioned as a
screening for the space that's underneath the floor, which is the screened in porch. Correct. >> So, we submitted a new packet, but that's not it for lattice. >> I know that's what I'm trying to get to is I would like to see what that So, we can approve this, right? Right.
>> I'm just trying to understand what's next in terms. >> So, maybe we can give suggestions for what the next application ought to be, how it should be for for >> That's exactly where I'm headed. Please. >> Yeah. No, what I'm saying is is now that we've worked our way through and we're probably going to give you approval for
this, let's formulate how you should do the next step, >> correct? >> And the next step should include the shingle situ assuming that's your scope in in your scope of work. >> The shingles will be Yeah. >> Okay. So, and and then the lattice can
also be part of that. And it might even be so simple that when you submit that application, it can be approved in review. >> We did submit it. Sorry. So it's already in but but >> and that that includes the stair up to the raised >> that was already approved. Sorry I >> No, no, no. So was the picture that you
just saw that you just showed us right there? >> Yes. >> That's where the stairwell is going to go right there. So that's going to essentially block which we showed in the original submission for that stairwell. >> Okay. So what I'm trying to get at is I think that what you're hearing is no problem with what you've submitted
tonight. However, because of what you have submitted tonight, >> it has left some undesirable conditions on the site that we want to make sure get rectified. >> Yes. So I think that we can approve this with the condition that subsequent work
will rectify what has been revealed by the removal of the screening below that first floor in the back and the removal of the of the shake shingle siding where the deck used to be. So, so John, if I'm understanding you, what
you're saying is we can approve this as final with conditions that can be satisfied and it won't necessitate another application. Am I getting that right? So, so >> I'm going to ask my our solicitor that. It seems like that would make sense as a
as a supplemental >> something. It sounds like they may have already submitted it. So, maybe >> on July 10th, we did. So, so maybe what we could do tonight is it sounds like this this work is in the direction of it sounds like it's fine. We can include a
condition that the screening below the exposed screening below and the exposed shingle areas that will be resolved by separate application as a condition. Um, but it sounds like that's in process right now. So, you might >> there's more to it than just that. >> Well, be added more.
>> I actually So, so we do need another application. I would prefer that that we close out this application and approve this and have but but >> if we approve this, it would be conditional upon a separate application that would address the screening
>> below. >> Yeah. >> Right. The the the removed shingles and the stair up to the elevated door. >> Okay. as a minimum. There may be additional things you want to put in that application, but those would be the three things that I think need to be addressed in that application as a
condition of approving this. >> The stair was already approved. >> I would and I understand where you're coming from as well. In additional, we also put that in July 10th. >> I I I you should put all that in one. It's this this we're up to like four or five submissions for one simple project,
>> right? So, let's let's have one more submission that has everything you want to do unless something comes up after that. But >> he did say after this he's taking a break. So, >> I'm sure we're glad to hear that. All right.
>> End of for a while. >> And we it's really what's in front of us tonight are these >> Yes. >> three things that the applicants brought forth. So, we need to decide as a board what are the things we need them to
address in addition to those things to for those things to pass. And it sounds like we need to hear about the screening below uh that was exposed by that first floor removal, the shingle shake uh siding that's been exposed, and
then the stair to that elevated door that's shown in these photos. We need to see those items resolved in connection with any approval of what's on the table tonight. And addressing those conditions can be, hey, we got it before, here's the approval.
>> Or it's here's the cut sheet and you know, >> how if they've been addressed previously, reference it. If if it's new information, submit it. And then that that is in the nature of it sounds like minor work. So it doesn't necessarily need to come back to the board. It could
go to the review committee. those items. Now, if the applicant decides that he's not done with the HPC and wants to come up with something new, they can do that, but it just then it's then it's a new separate >> Yeah, we want to close all this out. Especially because now he has a door
with no stairs. And he was like, "Well, can we build the stairs because we have approval for it?" And I said, "Not until we get through this." So, the plan is to get the stairs done, but um the only thing I think I'll have to is the July 10th submission that I did. I don't
think it has anything for minor repair for the cedar shingles to be added in that area. >> Can I suggest that maybe you amend that so so that you can that last application put the rest of the kitchen sink? >> Yes. >> In.
>> Okay. So, I would then like to make a motion. There is one more to this too that they mentioned and that's the roof replacement. >> So that's totally separate. >> I don't even want to bring that up. That's totally separate. I was just using that to look at that photograph. So I think what I'd like to do is make a motion
>> for final approval of this as submitted. However, that approval is conditional upon a separate application that will address three things. the screening of the area exposed below >> the enclosed porch, the exposed siding,
and the stair to the elevated door. >> So, I'll just reference the stair that we already have approval. I'll amend it to add the cedar and then um the screening's in the one that I'll be amending anyway. >> Great. With a few more >> roof is >> Well, the roof the roof I don't even want to bring up the roof. That's a
whole other application. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Yep. >> Yep. So in other words, what we do have from the the roof submission which we've tabled for now. >> Okay. >> Would you like to just resend that or what do we want to do with that? >> Not your project. >> It's not your project. Nothing.
>> Yeah. He hired his Yeah, he hired the roofer. We did give a price for a roof, but then he hired his own. >> So that's that's going to go on a separate track. It's not part of your totally. It's not on us. >> It's a whole other application. >> Probably thankful for that. >> I can add something to here. Not to
complicate this more, but your your separate application, >> although it has to reference, you know, the stair and the exposed siding and the screening below. Y >> as like an attachment to this,
>> if you have something else that >> is is an end tag item, you can include it in that other >> Oh, it's in there. >> Just just to bookend this whole thing for you guys. >> We would like this to be your kitchen sink. Yeah. >> So consider that supplemental application >> to address these as your kinship sick
opportunity. Like just bundle in one and get it get it. >> I think there's four items in the one from July 10th. I'll amend it. So there's five items in it. And then >> so I think what what >> and I'll reference the approval for the >> perfect. So what I think Chris just clarified is that supplemental application separate application will
have at least those three things upon which this is conditional. You can add anything else to it you want. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So >> Mr. Chair, >> yes sir. >> One more reminder. Lattice is a privacy lattice which means you have for every
inch opening you have 75% wood around it and it would be in wood. >> Correct. >> Yep. You already purchased it actually. >> Um >> you purch but we do have the pictures and everything like that there. >> That's in that other application. >> Okay. That's >> Did you make that motion?
>> So I'll repeat the motion. The motion I'm making is for final approval as submitted tonight. However, that is conditional upon a separate application being submitted to address at least three issues. The screening below the
what is now revealed from below the porch. Second, exposed siding. And third, the stair to the elevated door. >> Yep. >> That's my motion. >> And just adding cedars out back where deck was demoed. >> That's the That's the exposed sighting where the cedar sighting was exposed. Please, please include photos of or
drawings of the stairs in the landing so we can look. >> It's already done it. Yeah, that's approved and done. I'll just reference it in the email and I'll attach it. >> I I won't say that >> attach the rendering of the stairs that were approved. We just like to see them. >> That's in a separate application, >> right? >> Yeah, it's in Yeah, it's in the packet.
The whole stair detail and everything, the drawing and the drafting. >> I won't say that. I feel privileged, but I will second your motion so we can get this rolling along. >> So moved by Mr. Becker. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Ta. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Well, congratulations. >> We'll see you on another random. >> We'll see you maybe on a Tuesday morning. Thank you very very much. >> Have a good one. >> You too.
>> Next application, Newman at 641 Hughes. I believe that we have at least one person that needs to recuse themselves from >> That is correct. this review >> and myself. I'm a neighbor. >> So, recusals for from these deliberations are Mr. Hammer and Mr.
Carol. So, if you could please state your name, your address, and your role in the project. >> My name's Jim Matthews, 109 Shunpike, Kate May. I'm Mrs. Newman's contractor. >> Rosemary Newman, 641 Street, homeowner.
>> Great. The floor is yours. Okay. Our application is to build a roof over an existing deck in the sidey yard of Mrs. Newman's house. Uh
it will be a shed type roof. The screens will be a U out of Cyprus. The structure will be wood. As the elevation show, there will be uh
clapboard siding on it. We will reinstall the lattice panels that exist uh right now. And the roof shingles would be uh dimensional shingles to match what is on
the existing house. Okay. So, why don't we start over here with Miss Baldwin, if you could, please. Sure. Um, looking at the existing uh deck and then trying to figure out how the roof is
going to tie in. I'm just and and then looking at that section, I'm just curious to see how is it going to uh be the same pitch going straight up. Is it going to tie into the existing roof? >> It will be approximately 7 and 1/2 ft on
the outside and go up over the existing windows with a shed type roof with approximately a 2 in pitch. The existing roof I think has about a four four and a half inch pitch on. I have to cut back
approximately a foot or so so that I get bearing on that. So it will come up and then go into the a roof. >> Okay. So it's going it's going to be a little bit like a shed roof here and then it's going to Okay. >> Okay. Um that was the only question I
had. >> Well that that was a question I had from looking at the pitch of the roof. Um but I did want to comment that this is of course a contributing structure. Um, and uh the I think that uh given where the overlaying roof is going to be and
whether it's going to be enclosed or not, it's only minimally visible from the street and and to me that means that it does not significantly impair the view of the house as you as you see it in the streetscape. So, uh, it's to me a
really minor, um, intrusion, uh, because of the setback and it's barely visible. So, I I don't see it as a threat at all to the visibility of the facade. So, I'm I I have no I have no difficulty with it. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> I have nothing. >> No comments. I'm good. I was questioning I would have liked to have seen a little bit more of an in-depth rendering of the porch and the roof, but
in the back that shows on the original application, >> right? >> That's what the roof will look like on the screen for Okay. >> But we don't know where it's going to go. Is it going to go under the gutter? Over the gutter? >> Under the gutter.
>> The gutters will come off and be installed on the outside of this new roof. >> So, you know, here's your old roof. You're going to >> There will be the roof will this would be the screen porch. >> The roof coming down will be there. >> Okay.
>> There'll be a transition here >> from approximately a 2-in pitch to about a 4 inch pitch. Probably the best depiction of it is the page right before the survey in the back.
It says left side and then front. I think it's one more back from that Judy. >> You can see like it's a simple uh it's a simple design >> type roof. >> Yeah. And you're showing the what would you say the pitch of the roof was?
>> The shed will be approximately 2 in the main or the back a roof is approximately a four or four and 1/2 inch pitch and the like I said the gutter on the back of the house comes off and be installed on
the outside. And so to try and visualize this, I mean, if you flip back from the page before, the left side is if you're standing in the back looking at the new side of it. The where it says front is
actually if you're standing in the sideyard looking at the side of the house. And then if you flip to the page before, it shows the street side entrance point. Right. I'm just flipping on this. >> Okay. uh >> drawings just to give the board a sense
of what you're envisioning for this. >> Yes, this I have this picture here. Uh this is a better picture. Now
the existing a roof in the back, this is the side that it will come off of. In the back of the house, the lefthand side is a longer pitch. >> But >> where's the existing deck?
>> Oh, I Oh, here. There's the deck. >> This is I see here. >> And then the shed roof will come up into there, >> right? It'll just cover the existing deck. >> A better picture. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's >> program. >> Beautiful yard.
Thank you. Thank you. So I only have are are you >> so I only have two questions. What actually is the slope of the roof? >> Pardon me. >> What is the slope of the roof? How many inches in 12? So standard slopes are
>> roof. >> Yes. >> Try for a 2in pitch. >> So what do you mean two and 12 >> about? Yes. >> So 2in pitch across the full 15t 6 in or 2 in for every 12 ft. It's the way roofs are typically described as >> uh
>> two and 12 >> 15 and a half feet. >> Um that will not be permitted by code because shingled roofs you cannot install a shingled roof at less than a 2 and 12 pitch and going up only 2 in
across 15t 6 in is less than a 2 and 12 pitch. You will lose the warranty and that the water will penetrate it immediately. It won't be allowed by code. Say it again. Not if I use weather watch on the entire roof, which I plan on. >> I aside from that, you just have to
confirm with whatever the pitch requirements are. >> Yeah, we I >> doesn't matter what barrier you put under it, Jim. >> It doesn't. So, a 2 and 12 pitch with with asphalt shingles will not work. So, we can't approve that. >> So, would you consider a different
roofing material? >> For example, metal roof would work. >> What pitch do I need for it to be approved? So, you would need to do your own research about the code, but as as understanding what manufacturers
warranties are and codes for residential roofs, an asphalt shingle roof is not permitted for anything less than a 2 and 12 pitch, >> it will leak. >> Okay? if >> and actually even if with two and 12 you want to do a double underllayment
because water will get blown right underneath those shingles at that minimal slope. >> So I'm trying to do is is I'm trying to save you from some headaches because if you try and do this you'll be >> if I put a weather watch on this entire roof uh
weather watch is totally waterproof and that roof will be waterproof once I put the weather watch on it. If you would like a 2 and 1/2 in pitch I'll give you a 2 and 1/2 in pitch on that roof. Well, so the the weather watch is fine, but once you put shingles on, you're putting nail holes in it, which means that that
it'll be penetrated. >> The weather watch seals around the nail holes. >> Okay, >> I used it. So, >> but isn't the real issue here, John? What is the required pitch? >> What is the required pitch? >> Not the underllayment. >> Correct. The required pitch is 2 and 12 for asphalt shingles. So, would there be
another material you would consider? >> No. Uh, what I can do, I can come back higher into the existing roof to change. >> Now, there's an answer. That'll work. >> Yep. >> So, you just need to revise.
>> Still putting weather watch on the entire roof. >> That's fine. >> And you should because it's good material. >> That's fine. We would just need to see that a revised drawing showing that there's at least a 2 and 12 pitch if you're installing asphalt shingles. So, we just need to see revised drawing
indicating that. >> So, >> this doesn't show that. It's unclear what that is. In fact, there's no dimensions on here showing us what the roof pitch is >> that I can see. >> I I I think we're probably good except for the pitch. >> Well, one there's only one other issue
that I have, and that is on your materials checklist, you're stating that the siding is mineral fiber to match the house. >> Yes. But we said that we would, as I told uh you and Mr. hammering in review. There is clapboard underneath of it and
we will put we plan on putting clapboard on the porch. >> Okay. So, we would need to have >> the porch. >> That's great. >> That shows on the elevations. >> Okay. So, but it still says on the materials checklist mineral fiber to match existing. So, we need to cross that off and put that we're installing
new clabbered siding with an exposure of I think there's elsewhere that it says four to six inch exposure. All I'm suggesting is that we need to make sure that your submission is consistent because what you're showing in the drawings is not what's stated in your materials checklist. So, we need to make sure that's consistent.
>> Okay. Uh my question to the board, if I alter these, can I come to the review tomorrow and show you that? >> I don't. >> That's a question. I I I would I would have given I'm
sorry. I would have given you the ability to table this tonight and reformulate your application so that we could see it. Um because you haven't chosen a pitch yet and and you haven't you know you haven't because you still and you might do something different and right I don't know to me it seems like
it's a little pre >> I agreed with making the pitch higher >> but we we don't know what it is. So are you saying so here here's the question what is it that you would need to see in order for you to feel comfortable that a
2 and 12 pitch I mean I think we need that as documentation we haven't seen the documentation >> we haven't seen the documentation the question is would you accept that we could approve this with that as a condition >> yes yes I would >> okay >> that's why I asked the question I could
tell I I had this problem and actually I had lower my decking because my brother tucked my roof under my gutter, which was a good solution actually, but I stepped down and you can't do that. You already have an existing deck.
>> So, my my concern was he hadn't chosen to pitch. >> But I also have a metal roof, which I like, but you know, >> he doesn't want to do that. >> He has to tie this in >> to the existing roof. >> Um, so it's a little it's a little different construction. It is >> I think than what you're talking about
because he really has to rip something. >> It won't it won't tuck underneath the existing gutter. It has to go over on top >> on top and I see that it was you weren't going to have enough pitch there. But now you're >> But if he gets it higher and up into there roof inside your porch now
>> it can be finished off. I think >> yeah. >> No, there's not going to be any exposed roof inside the >> It'll be finished off >> wherever I bring this roof up onto the existing roof. The existing overhang will be cut off
and create basically a gable end. >> Right? >> So it will go straight up from the windows on the porch. >> Just a tough scene a good roofer. >> I have no problem, Mr. Chair, if
>> if they can meet those conditions. >> Okay. So, I would like to entertain a a motion to approve this with those two conditions, the collaborate siding and the uh 2 and 12 minimum pitch for the asphalt shingles with documentation submitted to the review committee
accordingly. >> All right, I'll second that. >> So, moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. Mr. Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Miss Decker. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Testo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> There you have it. So, all you need to do is submit to us documentation showing new elevations with the minimum 2 and 12 pitch. How that new roof is going to meet the old roof, verifying that is a 2
and 12 pitch. And I would put that right on your back list. >> Can we do that with the review committee? Yes, >> absolutely. And that could even be tomorrow. >> You're welcome. It could even be tomorrow. >> It could even be tomorrow. Your committee meets on Tuesdays.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> You're welcome. >> I got ahead of myself. I got that checked off already. >> Okay. Next application. Scott Peter, Jersey Development Group, 928 Washington Street. If you could please state your name and
your address and your role on the project. Uh, >> good evening, board chairman. Scott Peter, applicant here tonight for 928 Washington Street, block 1093, lot 6.03. Here tonight for a new single family
home, non-contributing The floor is yours, sir. Hello. Uh, the home is a traditional single family. I designed the goal was complementing Kate May's historic architecture, character, and fitting in with many of the adjacent homes on Washington Street.
The proposed home uh here tonight follows many of the architectural elements commonly found along Washington Street. Some of the uh the features I chose to include when looking at the front elevation. A full width covered front porch encourages of course streetscape and
interaction very similar to a lot of the homes along Washington. A simple traditional proportioned gable roof. So we did kind of a reverse gable with a gable jetting off that towards the front. Very symmetrical window placement arrangements.
Decorative porch brackets with oversized columns holding up both the covered porch and the deck below. Smooth horizontal siding all four sides. Traditional
trim details around all the wind doors. I feel together these features create a home that reflects the historic character of Kate May but also ties in many of the homes along Washington Street. The exterior materials I've selected for this to give the historical
appearance plank smooth siding oversized window and door trim casings pretty much around all the doors with or all the windows with a headpiece. architectural asphalt shingles, dimensional shingles on both the covered
porch and main roofs and traditional wood style guard rails and ballast doors. Uh close picketing. Moving on to the site plan, we chose to do a brick pa driveway
or rather brick pa strip. So, not having a driveway, of course, extensive landscaping around the foundation and across in the back. We did a wood lattice underneath the decks in the void. The house is going to be approximately 3 ft from grade
rear deck and porch. All the parking is going to be on the east side. Everything hidden from street view, everything to the back. That covers a very small overview of some of the items and the layout. Happy
to answer any questions and would love to hear feedback from the board. >> Well, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, generally speaking, folks, I I reserve my comments for last, but if you would indulge me, I'd like to go first on this one.
>> Okay. >> May I? >> You're the chair. Okay, >> you have the prerogative. >> So, um the question I have is a couple things. Um looking at the widths of the houses along Washington Street with the exception of the multif family house
directly across the street, the average width that I based upon my I didn't take a slide or I'm sorry a tape measure out, but um I was able to scale them from a an overall site plan ranges it looks like from about 22 to 26
feet and you're proposing 24. Correct. Correct. >> Okay. So, um if we look at the the next four houses facing Well, let me back up. This is the first house that will occur
to the if you're looking at Washington Street side of what has been what was the bank site, you're dividing that >> on. No, if you're looking at it from Washington Street, you're dividing that into three lots. Correct. Washington
Street. >> So, what's going to happen is there's going to be two lots that are fronting Washington Street. Got it. We're talking about the first one close to the existing house that remains. There'll be the corner house, which kind of fronts Washington, but will maybe go a little bit down Madison, and there'll be one more over on Madison, but I'm only here
tonight, of course, for the first. >> Great. So, you were proposing a total of three single family detached houses on what used to be the bank site. Correct. This is the first one, which would be furthest away from Madison. Got >> Okay. That's what I was hoping you'd say and it clarifies it quite a bit. So,
looking on Washington Street, the rhythm and texture and context of those houses very consistently is a very simple gable front form. In one case, it's a just a full gable, the full 24, actually 26
feet width. The next one, it's a little different because it has a a more gothic um I would say steeper pitch in the middle. So, it's not the full roof. And then the next one is the full roof. And the same thing across the street. So, I'm wondering if we could simplify this
in a way that would match more the character, I would say, the iconic character of Washington Street. Washington Street is probably one of the most iconic streets in Kate May, particularly since it's where people enter and exit and get introduced to the
context and historical character. >> Just a simple A-frame. Well, I I made a little sketch. >> I'll take it. >> Oh, wow. Oh, yeah. >> Pretty simple, right? It's just a three bay. In other words, not dividing up. >> Get that now. >> Yeah.
>> You here to wave that around to the rest of the commission. >> Pretty amazing. >> It's just a really simple straightforward. >> If I can just add something >> who needs chat GBT if we got Mr. Becker. >> Yeah. I feel that this is a very incomplete application even for conceptual. We don't have any photos of
the streetscapes which are required. John is talking about neighboring houses, houses across the street. Um, this isn't the whole property, right? >> No, it's they've been subdivided. So, that is the whole property for that specific >> to see what part of that property this
is. You explained it, but when I got my packet, I had no idea where this was. So he's really only submitting for one of the three >> subdivided but I still feel >> right but but I mean your narration John was with a familiarity of Washington Street and you picked up the theme and we usually require a streetscape
submission so we're able to all see the pictures I can do that >> of what of what you know you're you're you're purporting to do >> what's around the whole neighborhood. >> So >> yeah I'm happy to do that if it's if it's everybody's comfortable maybe give me some feedback. Uh it is so one of the things that I think would be helpful. So
all I've done here is is make a very simple threebay single pitched roof home where with the equal spacing of the three columns on the front porch. It's it's the prototype really for the houses along Washington
Street in that block and the adjacent two blocks. Right. And I'm wondering if that same sort of simplicity, even if we start looking at the side elevations, we can begin to just like all those other houses where the windows align on the side elevations as well. Of course,
there needs to be a couple modifications to the floor plans to do that, which I actually made a little sketch of that, too. >> I I can work that out. >> Pretty easy to accomplish. So, where this bathroom is on the second floor, you could put We can talk about this. I guess what I'm suggesting is would it
make sense to you? Would you be open to given that this is an incomplete conceptual submission coming before us on a Tuesday because this is the first time we've seen this coming before us on a Tuesday morning maybe even tomorrow morning. >> Sure.
>> And we could walk through this in a way that I think you would find yourself having a much more successful time of it with the revised application and thereby inviting you to consider tableabling this this evening. I completely support that and I appreciate that and I'll be happy to come tomorrow morning if
there's availability. >> This this is an application as it started for conceptual approval. What what other city approvals will you be needing to do your construction? >> None. None. This is a fully you know there's no relief requested for what I'm proposing as far as zoning or planning. >> So you just wanted to try out the design
rather than ask for a final. >> Correct. Correct. >> Just so the commission knows this is what Mr. Peters came. It is. This is what Mr. Peters uh requested when he went to the um planning commission. Um you know, we the last thing we had seen
I think at the review commission was a row of town homes and and he uh he came to planning commission and at that point uh made a suggestion that he was going to go forward with three single family homes and this this appears to be consistent with that.
>> So two on Washington and one on Okay. >> And I just want a clarification. Uh, is this design going to be used for all three of them? >> No, no, no, no, no, no. >> Because, you know, it's a very high visibility corner. >> Correct. We had talked about in some of the meetings about doing the first one to be more simplistic and then possibly
doing something a little more creative on the corner and then something completely different on Madison, which I'll take the offer of possibly coming in and chatting with you guys, you know, before that. So, um I think what you're proposing is an acceptance of
tableabling this this evening so that we can have a discussion on Tuesday morning, one of these Tuesday mornings, and then come back to us at our next meeting with a more complete conceptual application that might be a little bit simpler in its configuration for this
lot. >> I I completely agree with that. Yes. >> Yeah. or or if you're daring enough since you don't need any other permissions even a final application. >> Well, >> I'll see how we go. Yeah, >> because he needs he needs zoning approval. >> He just said not. >> Oh, I missed that.
>> Did you say that you needed additional approvals? >> No, I don't. I only put conceptual for this application because I've never often made it through the first time. So, I just >> test for concept and design. But if you have not I mean >> there there's no other approvals for this as far as >> this is going to take whatever course it takes. But all I'm saying is that if you
do meet and the concepts flow and you >> I can come in for a final for that >> come in with a final I think even if we table the conceptual >> you could >> but it would need to be it would need to be a full >> application with all the cut sheets of all you know all everything that's required on our on our application
checklist right so I do have one question with that in that regard though um has the subdivision of the current lot been approved by planning and zoning >> yes the subdivision has been perfected Okay. So, the three subdivisions. >> Yeah. >> Great. So, we could we could entertain a final.
>> Yeah. >> Yes. And but one of the things I was going to suggest to Judy's point is >> you're you're sort of having to fit this into existing streetscape, but you're also creating streetscape with this new subdivision on the corner. So, what
might be helpful to the board is to see, and you're halfway there. you have the plot plan with the 50 by 100 lot that you created, but seeing I know that you're not probably ready with the other two designs, but just to see this in place in the context of your
subdivision, too, would be helpful, I think, to the board to visualize where it's going to be. >> Yeah, I can I can bring some site plans. I just don't have anything even close, as you know, it's a a bit of an up heavy lift to get each site completed. >> Sure. And what all I'm suggesting is
take that that um however you've chopped it up >> and then just show us what >> I can do that. I can bring you the whole subdivision plan. You'll see how the houses will land on each lot. >> Yeah. We don't even need to see footprints of the other houses on those other two lots. Just the one that you're >> You have building envelopes on there. I do. Oh, you do?
>> Yeah. And that's that's what he has because he doesn't he wants to get he got through the subdivision so that he can do building uh buildings that strictly conform with zoning within those building envelopes which is what >> correct >> he the process that he's in now. But still the board being able to see those
building envelopes and where this fits into that subdivision I think is just going to help >> visualize it. >> That would be really >> Yeah, I can do that. That's easy to do. >> Great. Okay. >> See you tomorrow. So I think what we're what we're entertaining a motion for do you need need to ask him if he's the
45day thing. >> Yeah. >> U Mr. Peter just just to confirm uh what we could do. Sounds like some more information would be helpful to the board to getting to a vote on this. So if you would agree to wave the time for
decision, that will keep your application in queue, allow you to transmit some of this additional information, have the discussions with the review committee, and then when you're ready, you can submit a revised proposal application, and then we can put you back on an agenda. But in order to keep you in queue, we would need you
to >> Yep. I accept I will wave the 45day. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um, we have a motion to table this application. Do I hear a second? I'll second. >> So moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> I am thinking I'm close to the um the the line of the 100 yards and I probably have to recuse myself here.
>> You're further than 200 feet, Kevin. >> Think so. >> It's whatever you're comfortable with. >> Well, but it's up to you to be on the safe side. You can recuse. That's okay. I mean, we we could get out there with a tape measure, but you're you're >> Yeah, I think I I think I should recuse. Okay. Kind of take a look at that spacing a little more.
>> Fair enough, >> Mr. Tessa. >> So, I'm next. Yes, >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, if if you want to make an appointment for tomorrow, do we have any Do you know what the schedule looks like tomorrow? >> Um, I have full availability tomorrow. So, I have 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
>> 9:30. Okay. >> Damn. >> Yeah, I can do 9:30. >> Perfect. >> So, we're completely open tomorrow. 9:30. >> Yeah, >> we'll see you at 9:30. Thank you. >> Good night. Thank you. >> Okay, next on our agenda is Crown Castle Fiber LLC. This is the right of way in
front of 6 Perry Street. These folks will be making three presentations. The second one will be for in front of 104 North Street and the third will be the right of way in front of 2011 Beach Avenue. If you please could state your name, your address, your role in the project. >> Sure.
>> Uh, good afternoon. My name is Jordan Fry. I'm a partner at the law firm of Snyder and Snyder attorneys for the applicant 94 White Plains Road, Terrytown, New York. >> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Lisa Mosy, manager of permitting and utilities for Crown Castle Fiber.
>> Okay, folks, the floor is yours. >> Welcome back, by the way. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to return and continue the conversation regarding our small cell facilities. Uh when we appeared before the commission in April,
uh we talked about the need for these sites and at the time there were five sites that we were proposing and we talked about the need for additional coverage and capacity uh in the area. Um not unimportantly for public safety and
then also for the residents, businesses and your visitors experience uh within Kate May. Uh at that time we heard your concerns regarding the uh the visual impact of these proposed structures and
uh committed at that point to take a look at and see if there were alternative designs that we could propose for those. Um earlier this month uh my counterpart the manager of construction and I came on a Tuesday
morning met with um Mr. Commissioner, Chairman Becker and member Hamaran just to uh show some photo sims of uh other design alternatives that we could propose that would work in the locations. Uh at that meeting we we
talked through and looked at those and two of the five sites at that time we committed to go back and redesign as the full metal stealth decorative poles and that was the site at Washington and Ocean and then the site in front of the
convention center. Those two did allow for that concept. So we will be redesigning those. The three that were coming to you tonight for approval. However, um site constraints and available sidewalk space within the rightway did
not allow for those types of deployment there. So, we looked at okay, what else could we offer um as an alternative and did show some photo sims and I do have uh some photo sims I can hand out so you have an idea of what we discussed if
you'd like. um took a look at ground furniture options, which is to have the antenna on the pole as we normally would, but then rather than have the equipment cabinet on the
pole, it would show on the ground. And we can have a copy. I'll just pass these. Can pass them out. I have photos, some examples for two of
the three sites tonight. Um, and Mr. Becker and Hammer, you'll recognize these because we looked at these. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> So while the original design on these were not initially preferred, the
evaluation process confirmed that the alternatives introduced impacts of their own. Uh the the larger stealth pole design requires significantly more space and cannot be accommodated at these three locations as we discussed. But similarly, ground furniture equipment
cabinets introduce new streetscape elements at the pedestrian level uh resulting in a greater visual presence than the original polemounted configuration. So after evaluation, I believe uh the
consensus was that the proposal before you tonight represents the best balance between preserving the streetscape and providing the wireless infrastructure necessary to serve the residents, businesses, and visitors. Um so tonight
we're asking for approval for these three locations using the original design presented in April. So, a couple comments. Um, we spent quite a bit of time speaking with these folks on a Tuesday morning and discovered some things that I think
might be useful to understand. The the locations that they've selected for these are fairly precise with regard to the capabilities of this type of small cell wireless communication to occur. Um, and it was a very detailed study
that they've gone through and one of the biggest challenges they face is none of this equipment can be mounted on poles that already have primary electricity on them for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is electrical interference, right? Um, but also
putting the antenna on top. So, in other words, what it means is the of the three they're proposing tonight, only one of them is there an existing pole. They would need to install a new pole on Perry and a new pole around the corner from Beach Drive down near Second
Avenue, I think it is, right? >> Second. >> Um, we're at Beach. >> It was around the corner. >> Yeah, right around the corner. >> So, what they're proposing, however, for this one, which is right next to Uncle Bill's, is an option, I believe that's how you're presenting it, an option for
the street furniture to have the cabinet with the Kate May logo on it, or it could be polemounted like all the other ones. Is that what you're proposing? >> That's correct. That location did accommodate the ground furniture. >> Okay. So, the first one we're looking at then is this one where she just handed
out um Six Perry Street, which shows the option of having either the polemounted equipment or the ground mounted equipment. >> That's correct. Okay. Yeah. So, it does show that original design. And >> that's just for this first one.
>> Yes. >> Got it. For the other two, neither the stealth metal pole, you know, or the ground furniture are an option because of the very small amount of spacing that we have within the sidewalk in the public rightway. It does
not allow for either of those. >> Yeah. The one on Beach and the one on um on North Street, there's not adequate space to put the groundmounted transformer piece. Therefore, both of those would require the equipment to be on the pole. And both of those are new
poles. So, the one on North and the one around the corner of Beach would be new poles. This one is an existing pole, this first one. So, just to make sure, we're looking at three different ones. Let's start this one. >> That's correct. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. So, can I ask a question? Yeah.
>> Um, this is >> not really a streetscape question, but can you explain this diagram to me? I think you're looking at the MP report >> permission permissible exposure, right? >> That's correct. Yes. >> So, and this would apply to the node
that you're attaching to the top of this poll. >> That's correct. Any small cell wireless facility goes through the regulatory process. One of those is to uh produce an MPE report or an admissions report. That is an FCC requirement. So, that's
part of what you're looking at there. I can tell you that from an MPE perspective, these sites and the equipment on them are at running at 2% of the FCC limitations. So for general
population, >> you have you have very little power. >> It's they're low power. Yes. So 2% is where we're falling in the FCC limitations. >> So is this not your equipment then or is it something else? It's a study showing
the radio uh the the the >> emissions >> the radio emissions showing that we're in compliance. That is not how it's going to look. It's scientific study showing the radio waves. They're not visible. That is does that >> and and that's at height, right?
>> Well, I I know it's not visible. I I guess I'm just trying to understand what this is communicating. >> It's just showing to the really it was part of the submission to the to the planning board that the facilities So, we went for a conditional use permit. It's in compliance with federal regulations regarding emissions, which
actually is not um something that local municipalities can make a decision on, but as part of the application, we just show that we're >> I'm not suggesting that a question as to what this is. >> It that is >> that's the emissions report. >> Yeah, because it's showing a pretty hot area up here and I'm just wondering what
that means. >> That's propagation. That's not >> okay. >> Hot in terms of any type of >> No, I and I don't mean hot in terms of temperature either. I'm just trying to understand >> that's a propagation map. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean it's it's a profile correct
>> of the emissions sect at I think at height, right? It's not correct seat at height. So it's like 30 ft >> in the air. >> Yes. >> So I have a quick question. If we're looking at something like that and we're looking at what you're calling furniture or the casing, if we don't put it at
that height, what sort of emissions are you looking at? >> It doesn't change the emissions at all. The um emissions come from the antenna which will always be on top of the pole. >> So it's for the antenna, not the box. Okay. >> The equipment holds the radios. They're not emitting.
>> Yes. So it doesn't make it that this doesn't relate to where the box goes. In other words, >> correct. That's exactly right. >> That's sort of why I'm asking these questions. Figure out where this is going. Appreciate. >> Y >> I'm going to have a nice time come and see.
>> Okay. Can I comment to um >> please Kevin? >> You know just just a couple of things. I I um I think it was actually your application that caused me to go ahead and pull some other material, do some internet research. I looked at Princeton and New Brunswick um trying to figure
out if there were other standards that were, you know, kind of more helpful to me because I am not in any way, shape or form a physicist or a, you know, even an electrical engineer. >> Yeah. Electrical engineer. You know, you're way out of my league with this kind of stuff. Um, you know, I I will
say right for the record right off the off the bat, I don't like the boxes. They're not small. They're almost six feet tall. Um, five and a half, I think, is about right, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, you got the the two-foot structure on the top of the pole. Um, you know, I
think they're unsightly. Um, and oftentimes it seems like they get placed right in front of a contributing property where, you know, it it's right in the view of the of the property and so forth. Um what I generally found was a couple of things. One is when an applicant is is asking for the
installation of new poles, the first question that should be asked is do you have any other poles in the community that are not in use and not functioning that can be removed. So that's the first thing in a sense is there a trade you know at least that you know goes part of
this. The second was um you know have you explored other options like putting them on rooftops of surrounding buildings you know Congress Hall or something like that or the Marquita Lafayette and you know generally speaking the you know the uh companies don't really like to do that they you
know they just don't you know they it it incurs some I guess some liability and some other things and so it's just not something that typically they all they'll offer but it becomes a question of does the city want to put together in its in its regulations something that you know requires that if it's possible
to negotiate with the surrounding property or something like that. So we've got some work to do on the st on the regulation and the standards I think is what what that just to you know told me. Um I I listen to the proposal. I mean I I can't find a better solution. If there's any way to camouflage the box
in some way I would suggest you know we we look at that. Um, uh, there are, you know, other things that people have done to try to make them look like almost something else on the poll, but I they don't they look kind of cheesy to me to be honest. So, I I guess I would just
say this is sort of the best of what I would consider to be bad options. Um, >> and can I add >> my two comments >> just to your to your comments? I just would like to add um as to the the size
of the the cabinet um the FCC does allow for 28 cubic feet of volume we have chosen an equipment that is 14.9 cubic feet. So we did reduce the size to what was needed at this location. Um,
>> it doesn't >> as far as I do want to I do want to say that though that that was taken into consideration to reduce the size. >> More polls and more polls that are unsightly are are not great to look at. On the other hand, looking at this particular application and this
particular location, um, if I'm correct, what I see is a big traffic control box for the street for the street traffic control next to it. So at that ground level, in my eye, a a box of that size
with a Kate May logo doesn't make things any more offensive. >> I agree. >> So >> yeah, that was one of the thoughts was that you could put, you know, a control box on the on the ground and you could use it for some other purpose like a wayfinding, you know, item or something like that. In this case, it didn't seem
to really, you know, improve the situation materially. Um, you know, I I I guess I just I can't find a better answer or solution without >> I believe I I believe I asked at your first presentation um when you were here
last if you had done uh research for possible location in alternate places that would give you the satisfactory satisfactory signals. If I'm correcting if I'm recollecting correctly, you said you had done that research. >> That's right. >> Yeah. and and we spoke about that uh
when we did meet um during the open hours and that is um a very small move on one of these small cell sites can create a large impact. Uh so they're very carefully chosen looking at from an RF and engineering analysis looking at
the gaps in coverage where capacities needed pedestrian vehicle traffic looking at signal propagation looking at distance from neighboring facilities not to interfere with towers. So when you move these it makes a big impact and and I guess
that's what I want to convey. um these smaller ground we call them they're closer to the ground than obviously a tower would be but um their serving radius measures in hundreds of feet rather than miles which is so different
which is why any shift is impactful so I can say that these are chosen for where they're needed >> I have a question >> yeah have you ever colllocated these on buildings existing buildings in the United States >> Judy I'm Sorry, I didn't hear you.
>> Have you ever colllocated these on buildings? I mean, I just came from Amsterdam and Belgium and they're look, they're coll-located on buildings there. They're not on polls. >> So, that would be a I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Testimony was that this was the result of the required survey that required PL.
I mean, it would be nice if there were a building there, but I'm understanding that to achieve the result, the coverage that you need, you've looked to see if there were alternative places where they could be placed. And you you've come to the conclusion in your testimony is that
there aren't. >> Yeah. So, so two things I'll say about that. Yes. The very specific uh locations have been chosen where they're needed. Um the deployment that you're speaking of we would call a venue or a macro deployment to have a rooftop is
different type of equipment. Um in some cases the rooftop deployments can interfere with towers which is why the small cell pole uh mounted equipment is preferable. Um and then uh also we are a public utility working in the public
right of way. So we are looking for a path forward in public rightway. So I'll say those those things are all factor into the decision for application for small cell wireless. >> The answer is no. You've never collocated these buildings.
>> Not small cell. No, small cell is for utility poles. >> Yeah, we we had this discussion also at our Tuesday review meeting. There's there's some significant um contractual issues when you start thinking about putting them on private property as opposed to in public rights
of way that make it pretty much um not possible for these guys to be able to do what they want to do over the long term because you would have to Well, you can explain that. >> Yeah, please. I mean, we asked the same questions on Tuesday morning.
>> No, but to mount them on buildings is a whole other thing. So go ahead. >> Yeah. And that would be a lease agreement with a private property. Um which for the towers that is warranted. Um for a venue we're on private property. If we go into a stadium and we
put equipment in there to enhance capacity that is you know different type of equipment, different um deployment. So for this we are we're looking for the we believe from an RF and engineering analysis that the small wireless is
going to be the best path forward. >> It's a shame that there's a flag right there. Well, that's an existing poll. >> I mean, if it was a platform
I understand >> just to give you the example. I mean, again, this is showing my own my own inadequacy in this. So, Marquita Lafayette is right right there. Right. So, you know, my in my immediate reasoning, my my thought was, well, why not put it either on the face of it or
up up on the top of it or someplace? And in fact getting it higher, you would think you would have broader coverage. It doesn't work that way. >> It doesn't produce the signal profile that they think that they testified is needed. That's the issue. >> So I do have a question though. Um they
by the way, thank you for offering the alternative of the box, the ground mounted box. Um I I think we need to have a discussion about what we all think of the groundmounted box versus the polemounted box. Um but before that just to clarify I'm I'm trying to assess
the degree to which the rendering matches or not drawing four of 10 which actually are the elevations of the um pole with the antenna and the box on and the I'm asking a very specific question
and that is items M and G which are the cables and the meters. I don't really see them here. Or is that just simply because they're they tend to disappear on the other side of the pole? >> I believe so. They should be under the shroud. Okay. Um, >> so there's there's so basically it's the
antenna, the shroud, the cables, and the meter. >> Yes. Yes. as it's shown on the plans will be how it's constructed. >> The the only thing that I that disturbs me a little bit about the elevations um looking at them now more closely on page
four of 10 is those exposed cables between the structure below the shroud and the meter. Is there I mean they they they kind of look like they're just dangling there. Is there a way that those those can be mounted in a way that they appear more permanent and fixed and
uh I'll say um ordered? Yes, they will have a and I'm trying to think of the word the um protection over them. They will >> as in conduit. >> So it'll be a conduit cover. >> Like a Yes, there'll be a cover over it. >> Okay. And the conduit cover will be made of what?
>> Well, that's a good question. >> The same material as the shroud box, I guess, is what I'm asking. Or or the or the or the meter box. >> It should be metal. Yes. >> Okay. So, it's either going to ma match the shroud box or the meter box, and it'll be some sort of metal conduit cover. Yes, correct. That's correct. That's correct.
>> So, I guess then that satisfies my concern about the I would say um lack of visual um desiraability of those exposed cables. So, then I would like to open up a discussion with everybody about the preference or not for the ground mounted
box for only this first application that's not being proposed for the other two. >> Do we have the size of that box? I'm sorry I didn't hear you. >> Size of the box. >> Yes, that's on the plans. Um, hold on. >> For the ground, >> it's
>> Oh, for the ground for that's the ground. >> So, it's really the same box that we use on the pole, but we're able to put that on a a plinth. Basically, >> it's almost it's 5 and 12. >> It's the same dimensions. Yes, that's correct. >> But I think it was like 18 in.
>> It's the very same 18 inches. That's the only reason I'm saying that that this this looks I mean if it's 5 and 1/2 high it's probably four wide is the is the way that this looks. It's not dimensioned here. So >> no that can't be five and a half high.
It's it's a completely different configuration. >> I think it is. >> Yeah. >> I think she was just referring to the cubic capacity of the box. >> Correct. Well, not so much that, but looking at this >> in the proposed um photograph, it looks
like it's more uh more of a square. >> Right. >> The elevated piece looks looks tall and skinny and the box on the ground looks Yes. >> lower and fatter. >> Well, whether it's wall mounted or polemounted or ground mounted and it may
just be the photo, Sim, but in >> and so it Yeah, I'm sorry that >> No, that's all right. Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Um, it may just be the way the photo sim was done, but >> So, so the actual size of this is going to be the same. >> Well, we're here tonight to ask for, you
know, approval for the existing design, not ground furniture. But if you want to open up the discussion for ground furniture, that's fine. You know, >> the only reason I'm asking that is because I wanted to hear other people's opinions. Mine is that um I actually the
ground mounted box I think may represent a safety issue. I'm thinking about little kids crossing the street there with their bicycles and tricycles and being hidden by that. So that's something that even though I think it's potentially aesthetically acceptable. I have some safety concerns
about it. I was going to say if you could tell me that you could put that box over like close by the flag pole, you know, in some sort of a gardening area, you know, whatever, and you know, put it in there that it looks like a I don't know what you call it, maybe a monument or something like that. That
would be better than having it where it's shown on the drawing because of John's concern. I think that's very real. Kid riding a bicycle comes out from behind that and, you know, goes right into traffic. Um, but the second part of that equation is still that you
need the pole for the the piece on the the transponder or whatever it is on the top. So, you know, I think the objective really should be to get rid of the pole all together as well as the the airmounted box and, you know, create something on the ground that works. That
isn't really in the way the technology works though. >> No. And this is an existing ACE pole, so that's going to be there regardless. Um, but in a couple things I just want to comment based on your your thoughts. If we would go back to the flag pole, I
believe that's private property. So that's that's taking us out of the public right of way. >> Do you do you know the distance between the pole and the uncle Bill's flag pole? >> I don't know the distance off. What I'm concerned about or what I'm asking you, the reason I'm asking you is is it
possible for you to build a flag pole with the ray dome on top, the box below away from the corner so it doesn't interfere. I mean, personally, as the aesthetics, I like your ground box better than I like your box in the air, but I'm concerned about the safety features. I'm also concerned about, have
you considered the elevations of where this is on Beach Avenue and the base flood elevation at that site? I mean, our preference would have be to have the equipment on mounted on the pole. Certainly. >> Yeah. Uh so, so but I'm wondering why why couldn't you do a radome or antenna
on top of a flag pole and make it look like a flag pole with equipment down below >> or is that just too farfetched? I think from a structural capacity, um, you would need a wider pole, a wider metal
pole than what would be viewed as a flag pole, >> 35 ft pole. So, how wide do you need? >> In this instance, we're we're replacing an existing pole >> around the So, and then there's a flag pole right behind it. So, I'm not
following that's private property. We can't we can't require the private property owner to remove it. Okay. That's the private property issue. That's the That's the issue. Sorry. >> There's an existing pole. There is the point. >> No, I I strayed I strayed from private property for this first one. Yes. >> Mhm. >> I didn't want you to build a flag.
>> Hypothetically, >> if there was a location that was in the rightway. Have you ever done anything that replicates a flag pole? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Okay. I only asked that question just because it appears in the picture. I wasn't asking if it's possible. I think
it's important to make a couple comments here. Um, all of the I'm I'm really glad we all had this discussion because it's almost the same discussion we had Tuesday morning about a month ago. Um, and they have agreed that they will revise
the design to accommodate a more historical context in two of the five locations. Those two locations are directly across from the Washington Street Mall entrance at Ocean and the other is actually it was going
to be right in front of the old Beach Theater. They agreed to move it across the street. Paul was there. We had that whole conversation where Paul would be able to work with them in order to make sure that the equipment is outside of
the flood plane on the other side of Beach Drive. and in both of those locations using a modified version that looks more like a lamp post with a large base. The problem with the large base is in order to fit all the equipment in it, the diameter of that base is about 36
in. There's no way that'll fit in any of these other three locations and still allow for pedestrian access. Nor would it fit in front of beach on Beach Drive in front of Beach Theater except except on the other side because the sidewalk is too
narrow and you wouldn't have ADA access past it because of the diameter of it in order to make it look more like a a street lamp which they're willing to do. >> But you did see those. >> We did see those >> and you like them. >> I think they acceptable. I can't speak for you guys, but that's why they
decided to come for these three and have the other two modified ones at a future date so they can move forward with these three. Thank you. I I didn't that's edifying for me. Thanks. >> And once we finalize the design on the other two, not to go off topic, but
we'll come back to you on a Tuesday and show you the photo sims when those specs are complete. >> So, just to just to conclude where we are or at least a synopsis of where we are, you may recall that the reason this is back before us is because the
planning commission asked us to look at this. There were five locations and they said, "Hey, wait a minute." Based upon the ordinance that our solicitor had written uh last year, I believe two years ago, >> 2020. >> 2020. Wow. Five years ago, is to really
take a look at these and um I'm really elated that we've had this discussion. I would like to move that we approve this application. >> Which choice of >> first one? um with not the ground mounted box.
>> I grudgingly second it. >> So we have a a motion by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Hamron. Roll. Any further discussion? >> Just I would just like to say that, you know, considering the scope of our purview, we're only concerned with streetscape, pedestrian experience, you
know, the historic fabric of the town. And I think that having strictly the polemounted one as opposed to that box provides a better pedestrian experience. >> Okay. >> Um before motion uh I I know there's
discussions that I have missed but why do we actually have to have these? What great study wasn't done by people who are going to make money for out of it are telling us that it's a necessity.
I mean, we all walk around town and get good reception and uh you know, I don't see any poll going up at the Coast Guard base and I get perfectly reception over there. >> Mr. Carol, I would lay this 100% at the feet of the federal government because
they've enacted regulations to promote the deployment of these and municipalities have had to react by doing the type of thing that the city did and many other municipalities have. Some have no system whatsoever. They come in and they apply for a construction permit and they cite FCC
regulations that say you're under a shot clock. >> We have a specific ordinance that recognizes the federal regulations, >> but also the counterweight to that is well, it's not as if regulations get thrown out the door locally and we have a historic preservation commission. So
>> I I think it's it's because the federal government has enacted regulations called the supremacy clause, >> right? And it's a federal >> are they designed to replace cell towers? >> No, these these are just >> these work to enhance cell towers. So
when when there's too much traffic, too much capacity in the summertime, they'll offload traffic to maintain coverage. >> We need them, Tom. There is a need here. That's why the carriers want these. They they know that there is a whole
>> the use was also uh approved by the planning board as well. So the use of it itself is >> as as a conditional use which is the process the city set up so that there would be this type of review and there would be this struggling with where the box goes and how's this going to look and can we do a flag pole and said this
is exactly what city council wanted the boards to do to try and find the least worst option with this stuff because we don't we want to reduce visual clutter. Not trying to throw the applicants or their council under the bus with this
monologue here, but what I was going to say is there was five applications. >> It probably would have been ideal if we saw the lamp post option first before we got to these three. But what I'm what the applicants representing tonight is these three on the table tonight. It's a
node with a box and a bunch of equipment. They're going to cover it as best they can. Maybe the lamp post or the hanging equipment is better than the box on the ground. They provided that option just for discussion purposes, but it sounds like we're going to hear in
the future, near future two additional uh two of the other five that's not before us tonight, but that's going to sound sounds like it's going to be a little bit more of a creative solution to what we're looking for where the the area is going to accommodate that. Is
that >> Yeah, you're absolutely correct. And I'd also like to offer, I know you mentioned about um the equipment that we are certainly more than happy to wrap the box on the pole with any design you
might like, any color that you would like to see it in. If there if you would like, as we showed on the ground furniture, any type of a signage, we're happy to do that to to camouflage. So, you just need to let us know what you'd
like to second. >> Are we talking? >> I know. >> Yes. Okay. So, maybe >> unfortunately there's no wireless facility that's invisible, but >> right right now it's painted to to match the the pole. >> Generally, we do. It's called National Park Brown. It's the same color as the pole. And I when I tell I go to, you
know, many jurisdictions, these things hide in plain sight. They really do. You don't really notice them, you know, as you're driving down the road. But, um, we're certainly happy to make them any color you'd like. These are great. Thank you very much for
this um handout. This is these exhibits help me uh to really visualize it. >> So So we're we have a motion on the floor in a second. >> Can I make one more comment? The only thing I could come up with and I'm sorry I'm going to add this kind of in the 11th hour was you know since it is a
what a five and a half foot box roughly that's sitting on there. The only thing I could think of was if you put some kind of a pendant like material on each side of it. So now it looks like it's a hanging pendant with the box between, you know, the two the two pendants. That's that's the only kind of a
camouflage that I could think of because, you know, I've seen poles that that, you know, are used almost they look like almost like a a bird nest on top of it or something like that. And there's they're not. And there's ones that look like a tree on top of it and that looks stupid, you know, and you
know, on and on and on. So, you know, it really has to be something that either works. This is a rock. This is a rock and a hard place and and we are never going to get this to the point where we think it is aesthetically pleasing. >> Right. >> As I said, the only way >> I would like to say before we vote that
I think that aesthetically I liked the ground thing with the logo on it, but I I weigh the safety concerns you all have mentioned about blocking views at that. And I also am concerned about the fact that we have this little
thing called flooding. Yes, we are as well, >> which means that your ground box is in substantial jeopardy, no matter how much we improve the flood protection on Beach Avenue. So, I'd rather have you not get flooded with your antenna. Um, so I I I'm going to support the motion uh
that's been made to the >> So, one more question before I finalized the motion. I know I already made a motion, but um you said something that I didn't realize, which made a little thing go off in my head. You're saying that the shroud components and the conduit
and meter covers can be painted any color we want. >> Not the entirety of the equipment, but that shroud the box >> shroud. >> If you'd like that to be wrapped >> like vinyl, >> it's a vinyl wrap that can have any
design you'd like on there. >> So, boy, I'm not sure it's a >> So, now I'm going to come back to that question. If you put on that on the side of the box something that says K may you know 150th anniversary or something like that whatever.
>> No. >> Are you back on the ground? >> I'm actually very concerned about the vinyl wrap. I've seen those deteriorate over time and they start to look really ratty over time. I I don't think that's a great idea. Guys, >> it's not going to camouflage it. It's not >> might draw attention to it, which is why
we go national park brown >> is that it usually backfires. It looks like you're trying to camouflage it, right? >> I I made the motion. It's got it's got uh the motion is for the gra for the elevated uh box on on the pole.
>> It is. Um, but I just want to clarify this last question, and that is you said you could wrap it with vinyl, but is is the color of the shroud itself a variable that we can have choices for? >> Yes. Oh, yes. Well, that I would like to
revise my motion to say I would I'd like to move that we approve this application for this location with the polemounted equipment um pending only a choice of color for the shroud.
>> Okay. Sure. >> That you can bring before us at the review committee. >> Is there a color that you have in mind? >> I don't. Well, since since this commission really doesn't often busy itself with color choices, so
>> it would be so I >> remember >> Let me ask you this. Are there a limited number of options that you could bring before us and show us what the options are or is it like an infinite number of options? >> It's really any swatch of paint, you know, that you >> So, it's a paint color.
>> So, blend the paint. >> So, but but is it is it a powder coated paint? I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Yes, I believe so. So, >> so I do have um I I can show options of what we've done in the
past. >> I I I don't I'd also offer just one other caution and we were talking about the both the box and the conduit being made of metal. Uh and now we're talking about colors. Uh, but you I don't know how many installations you've made on
the coast, but you do realize we have an a high saline and salt intrusion and corrosion issue. And if you're talking steel, >> then you're going to have a corrosion issue sooner rather than later. >> Just bear that in mind.
>> I I would have thought you'd been using something like PVC, but again, your choice of the materials. So my my my personal sense is that a lighter color would be more preferable than the darker color to match the pole because I think it would tend to more tend to disappear
in the lighter color of the sky. But I it would be really fun to see what options we have. >> You know, I I I'd be willing to delegate uh the choice of that color to our review committee or any other committee you'd like as long as we move ahead with the motion. >> Blue green color blind. >> Are you
>> Kevin's color blind? I I I'm only saying that that it seems to me we're into this like >> Eddie of color. >> All right. So, I don't want to get just to be Yes, please. >> Just one more thing just piggybacking on what you just said as far as the the actual construction of this. Um I don't
want to see rust kind of >> running down on it. So, I I'm wondering, you know, do we >> do we discuss um >> I mean, we're really famous for both zinc and galvanized disappearing in a very short period of time. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, we this company has definitely
installed small cells in shore towns. So, what I what I would say is is let's continue with the motion if possible. The but the cover for the cabling it might be PVC. We'll have to double check it or that might be a better alternative. >> That might be a better alternative. >> Color can be determined
>> with I'll tell you about a real expensive alter 316 stainless. >> Okay. So, let let's make one last revision to the motion. The motion is to approve this application for this location with the polemounted equipment as presented with
the condition that the material and color of the shroud be approved by the review committee >> and the cable >> and the the cable be covered with some sort of conduit cover. Yep. >> Second.
>> Are you still seconding that Mr. Hammer? >> If the motion needs a second, >> it has been seconded. So, so moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Hammer. Uh, roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol. >> Well, with a gun at my head, I will vote
yes. But I'm I really hope we can table the other two and experiment with this one and uh see how see what kind of reaction and what we can do to improve it. So, I I am down as a yes.
>> Miss Pagno. >> Yes. Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammerand, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Motion carries. Moving on to the second location, which is 104 North
Street. I would like to pass this around to everybody to look at. Um, because one of the things I was concerned about is the exact location of this. They have precisely located this. It is within a foot of where the the concrete sidewalk
on North Street between these two properties changes from that to blue stone. Very precisely located. And I would like to point out that both of the structures in front of this are non-contributing, particularly one of them being a multifamily structure of condominiums with garage doors right on
the street. So I just want you guys to see the context in within which this poll is being proposed. Okay. So essentially this is the same issue all the same issues except there's no alternative for a a ground mounted box.
And the second is this is will require a new pole. Correct. >> That's correct. >> But the same issues are are at play with regard to the material and color of the shroud box and the conduit covers. Yes. >> Yes. >> Is there anything else you'd like to say about this second application?
I don't believe so. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Questions, comments about the second application. >> So, we >> appears we have one for the next upcoming one for the 2011, but you don't have this color rendition for >> I don't because I had no alternatives to
offer when we met. >> Okay. >> So, I there was no comparison, you know, photo, >> but it would it's going to be the exact same type of deployment that you see at the beach in Patterson. So it would look just like that.
>> That's shown right on their plan. >> Just to confirm, um, the And it looks like it's on the plan, but the pole is going to be in the unpaved portion, right? It's not going to be >> correct. >> That's correct. It'll be in the grass strip. >> A bunch of those poles
that are just a nuisance to the city. the poles that are in the middle of the sidewalk. >> Thank you. >> Oh, no. This would be grass. >> Thank you for confirming that. >> Yeah. In fact, it's >> showing it. >> Okay.
>> One foot from the joint there. >> Going north now. >> It's not it. >> This is There it is. >> The outside of the curb. >> Correct. Y >> but there's another one that actually shows where the curb changes from concrete to
>> blue stone. It's within a foot of that. It's like right there, which is what that photograph I brought is so you guys can see the stand. >> All right. So, any questions or comments about this application? I'd like to
comment that with the proximity of these three polls pretty close together that it would at least take 15 to 20 polls to do the whole city to give the kind of coverage if that if we need that many in this particular area for the rest of the
town the coast guard base west Cape May you're going to need polls all over these >> five are the only being the only ones being proposed right now that have been in been identified as coverage gaps by our carriers right now. That's not to say in the future there could be a
change, but we we only have plans for five. >> Why? But why are these three just so tightly together in one area of the town? >> I think because of the density in the high season for coverage and capacity.
Um I'm not privy to >> the, you know, ins and outs of the RF engineers reports, but I will say this, we had a long conversation about this a month ago on a Tuesday morning. Tom, I was asking all the same questions and
the the the science of it is science that I'm not a physicist. I don't understand. But what I do understand is that they had they did a pretty careful survey of where these could go, what the density needs to be, where there's inter
interference with other frequencies, where it will not be able to be because of primary electric cabling distribution and these five locations were the five locations within pretty close proximity like we could move the one across the street from
Beach Drive. >> Um is that fairly accurately described what you guys presented to us? I mean we had about an hourong conversation as I recall. >> It is. >> Yeah. I'll ask this a little more directly. Right now you're not aware of any impending additional applications
based on shortfalls um in reception are you? That is correct. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Correct. Is there other companies that do this? >> That's correct. One of the things about Crown Castle um that is beneficial to jurisdictions is when we build one of
these sites, these are built with the intention and the ability to colllocate over multiple carriers. So, we may build this site for T-Mobile, but once we're here within this existing shroud,
Verizon can come and add their equipment without any additional impact. Um, so >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish, please. >> No, no. So, it works for multiple carriers rather than propagation of these all over.
>> Right. But I'm I'm I'm speaking. This is the shroud. You can actually have T-Mobile, AT&T, all detected within one. I understand that. But you're not the only company that actually installs this and does these surveys within the city of Kate May. There might be additional
companies similar to Crown that would that would do something like this. Am I correct? >> I'm not aware of any others other than the carriers themselves that will try to propagate, you know, try to uh self-perform, we call it, if they would come to you. It's it's also
more cost effective for the carriers to share one location than to build three >> separate ones which is >> which is you know significant >> right but I I think what what some of the some of the questions were like you
have three in a pretty close proximity okay and you're saying that okay that was what your company realized that they they needed the coverage for >> it's more the carrier so in a in a higher more dense location. The the carriers
are going to determine that they need more capacity for their service. So in this dense location, that's where these three poles are are um proposed. >> I just I >> Are you the primary are you the primary carrier primary construction
installation outfit for these carriers for carriers in general with respect to these kinds of install? >> I believe so. Other than the carriers self-performing doing it themselves, yes, I I'm not sure I'm not sure Lorraine was done. I >> I I'm just again
>> knowing the density of the area that you're looking at. To me, it's more of a residential area. North Street's more residential. The only large hotel that you really have is Congress Hall on Perry. >> Um you go down to second there. It's all
residential condos. Um I don't I don't know. It to me it just doesn't make sense. You're saying that this is the most dense area to me >> only in that that's a contributing factor but there the existing coverage coming from the towers may be sufficient
in those other areas. These are the areas where they're finding a shortfall. >> So we have okay so we have on um on our water tower then maybe that okay this is I'm piggybacking on what you're saying then on our water towers that might cover that area where we think it's a
little bit more dense. Um yeah, so it's not just density. The towers may be able to handle, but um whenever you have >> if you have towers next to each other, there's always small gaps in between, >> right? >> So there could be gaps in coverage. Okay? And then you could also have
coverage, but just you have so many people trying to use their phones at the same time, trying to access bandwidth at the same time that it weighs down and they need these small cells to offload some of that traffic >> just to keep everybody moving.
>> We just don't want to see these like I mean now they're going to be on every two blocks. >> I don't think that's I don't think that's the intention here. >> That's not the intention and most likely not inaccurate statement. Well, I think Lorine to your point actually there was in that research they did what what
Princeton noted was they had they had people wanting to put up literally a pole within 5T of another pole and the question was well why do we need to do this? Wait a minute. Well, it's two different carriers and one of them doesn't have a colllocation agreement and won't colllocate. And now the other
one is more than willing to colllocate but since they can't get on the other poll they're having to put up their own poll. And you say it's, you know, it's cheaper to put up, you know, to to colllocate than to put up a poll. That's only true if that's the the philosophy and the and the uh intent of the
company. So, you know, that's where the regulation and the standards come into play, you know, with the city rags, which is you don't come here if you're not willing to collate colllocate or something like that, you know. So, it's not necessarily these guys that are the problem. It could be somebody else, one of the individual carriers who just
says, "We like having our own boxes. We don't want to fool with interference. We don't want to have other people, you know, in the box maybe messing around with our equipment. So, we won't colllocate. Well, that that can't happen. I mean, that's >> Well, we have we have the ability to the next time somebody wants to come in and
do that to say no. >> We have that ability to say no, you're not going to install another box. I think you guys explained you can accommodate four different carriers in your shroud. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. I think the shroud that we're proposing right now um can accommodate three.
>> Three. Okay. And it depends. It depends on the equipment, radios, the size radios. There's a lot of different uh flavors that a carrier can put in. >> So, one of the answers, Kevin, to the point you raised and Lorraine is that if
there begins to be more applications that looked like a forest of poles coming up, that is going to that is going to be detrimental to the streetscape and they're not going to get approved. >> Correct. That's that's I think where I'm where I go. >> Correct. But but the answer the company
may come back with is well you know here's all the reasons why we don't colllocate and they're all they all sound logical and reasonable you know and they can you know that that that's the piece we have to be I think >> they're not not going to get my vote. >> Yeah I I you know again I'm not not an engineer I don't know maybe there is
technical reasons why they shouldn't colllocate. I don't really know >> but I think that's the risk we're running is that we have this >> but these guys wouldn't be in business without colllocation. That's your whole business model. Yeah. And Crown serves all three major carriers of a
relationship, >> right? >> When I I worked for 18 years for a large municipality and a rural municipality in Bucks County. Um, and we had this problem with the towers because people didn't want to locate.
This is before these came in and actually we put up our own tower and rented we made quite a bit of profit on that cell tower behind our building. But that it's true that the companies do not like to colllocate. They always want
to build their own facilities. And right at the end of my >> just um >> we were dealing with these in 2018 there >> and it wasn't Crown Castle, it was someone else. >> The the I've been doing this since 2007 and while they're competitors in the
industry, they share they share the the um the towers and small cells often. It's it's that's what they do because they all save money and by doing so. So from a competitive standpoint versus a
um like a the foundation of their network that they're often colloccating on the same structures and often municipalities require that as this municipality does >> these structures >> both said you can only accommodate three in these.
>> There's only three major carriers. currently. >> Who knows? They may put four into your into your system. It's not it's not technically impossible. >> We we have with larger boxes. I'm talking about this 14 cubic foot of volume. With 28 cubic foot of volume,
you can get five carriers in there. That's not what we're proposing. Just to be clear too, one of one of the reasons we enacted this ordinance that we're referencing is that it does contain standards for erection of new poles and small wireless facilities. And just to
reference the basics of those standards, no pole shall be erected in a rightway unless it is a replacing an existing pole or 200 linear feet from any other existing pole, proposed pole along the same side of the street. they wouldn't be here unless they made that
presentation to the planning board to comply with that condition because it was a conditional use application. So my point in bringing that up is some towns just they don't have anything. It's just it's a free-for-all. You come in for a construction permit and some town, you know, you put up whatever you want, but
you know, if if there is a competitor that comes in and wants to do something, they can ask Crown Castle how easy it was to get a permit here. I mean, it's it's it's a process. um and one set up to kind of flush out some of this
path of lease resistance type of applications. And that's nothing against this applicant. I'm I'm just saying that these things are driven by money and if you can cut a corner, you'll cut a corner. But if you set up a process to corral some of this stuff, it it should
help provide the brakes on what would otherwise be the gas. So >> the other thing, anything any contractor carrier who who for what reason discontinues use of a pole, maybe doesn't need it anymore, doesn't have a, you know, the they put up another one
that there there has to be a I guess what I'll say a a call for them to remove that pole and a lot of carriers apparently don't. They just leave them in place, you know, walk away from it. So, I'd say, you know, again, it was one of the lessons learned, I believe, at Princeton that said, you know, we we had
we found that we had quite a few poles that were no longer in use and the carriers had just, you know, abandoned it, you know, basically. So, if there are if there are unused poles, there's got to there should be a vehicle for getting getting rid of them. So, if I may summarize um
this application for a poll in front of 104 North Street, difference is that this is for a new poll and given that we are struggling with how do we provide adequate cell phone
service to our community with how do we also maintain the historical context of our community? um we're in a place where we'd rather say no, we don't want any of these polls, but then we'd be doing our community a disservice by not providing adequate cell phone service. So, it
seems to me that um these folks have done a pretty diligent job in responding to our concerns and I would like to move that um we approve this application. >> I'll do the same thing and second it.
>> So, moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Hammer. Roll call vote, please. Oh, I'm sorry. More discussion. >> No, no, no. Exactly. What was your motion? >> So, the motion is that we approve >> Okay. >> this location with the new pole, but with the same conditions that the shroud
color and conduit covers be approved by the review committee. >> Okay. But otherwise, as presented. >> So, roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. Miss Decker,
>> yes. Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Okay. The last one that these folks are presenting is for 2011 Beach Avenue. Now, this is another one. I went online,
got a photograph that's actually that's a good that's a pretty good photo. I just got one looking the other direction just so you could see it. So, I want to pass this around. >> So, notice this is not on Beach Avenue. It's actually turning the corner and up the street a bit.
>> That's a uh >> that's Patterson, isn't it? Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's a uh that that looks like a um junction box or whatever you call it. electrical panel transformer. That's sort of sorry I can >> I'm sorry that's P. Yeah.
>> But notice again folks this is in a location where it's not adjacent to a contributing >> right >> but that also raises that question of if you have a transformer on the top can you put >> below it will be rid of a pole.
>> No. So a transformer is a disqualifier, >> right? >> It's part of primary electrical service. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's exactly what makes this so distaste. >> So really guys, the only distinction about this one is its location. So any
questions or comments folks have about >> this third location? >> I I I find it does no more damage to the streetscape than the other. So, it's again one of those unpleasant choices. That's lovely. >> Lovely.
>> So, are you are you making a motion? >> Uh motion to approve the application as submitted >> with the same conditions that the shroud color and conduit covers reviewed by the review committee. >> Do I hear a second? >> So moved by Mr. Pres, seconded by Mr. Hamron. Roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Stevenson, >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. And one last comment, and I I would like to acknowledge the work done by our
solicitor in writing that ordinance 5 years ago anticipating this and rightfully so because you guys had to go before planning and get this approved so that this wasn't within 200 feet of an existing poll as written in that ordinance. So there are some
substantial, I would say, mitigating measures that we put in place here, guys, to try and make sure that on several levels, we're not getting inundated by utility poles. >> Yeah. And and and I'm I'm sure that you're interrogated by everybody you
visit. Um, one of those jurisdictions has been mentioned tonight. Uh, so so you're you're you know, you've been through this before. Uh I I just think that you now have an understanding that here in our unique historic context that
we're pretty sensitive to to these issues. I mean not not to browbeat you or put you over the calls, but >> Kate May is a special place. >> You you understand that and that's why we're here to do this. >> Yes, we understand. Uh, and I also want to thank both of you and your colleague for um providing us with an immense
amount of information as we had requested and working with us on these other two which were actually quite concerned about. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. Be back with paint swatches. >> Great. See you later. >> See you. We'll see you on a Tuesday morning. Yeah. >> Thank you very much.
>> Have a good night. >> A lot of time and and you know knowledge. It was very helpful. Thank you. >> Appreciate your time. Next on our agenda is Mission 70 Real Estate Holdings LLC for 316 Jefferson Street. >> So this is a
final an application for final approval. >> Yes. And if you could please um introduce yourselves with your name, your address, and your role on the project. >> Hi everyone. Thanks for having me here tonight. My name is David White together with my wife Amy. I am the owner of 316
Jefferson Street. Uh very quickly, I was last in this building 9 years one year ago today to submit my application to marry my wife Amy. We got engaged in Kate May. We got married in Kate May. My wife grew up in South Jersey. Uh we have always dreamed of one day owning a home in Kate May because love this community.
so much and we're excited to start the process um tonight. >> Well, congratulations and welcome aboard, Mr. White. >> And >> my name is uh Paul Kiss. I'm the project architect. Um 9616 Second Avenue, Stone Harbor.
>> The floor is yours, gentlemen. >> All right. Um >> wait a minute. Nine years ago. >> Yes. >> And one day? Nine years ago in one day was our our marriage application was submitted. We were married in Kate May in October of 2017.
>> I was about to wish you happy anniversary but this was never >> happy permit ann. >> We did take a photo and send it to her mom that day and pretend to pretend we got married without her. >> The joke didn't go over well. >> Yeah.
>> If you were deputy mayor, you could >> Well, could have. All right. All yours, Mr. Kiss. So, um just walk you through the uh the project quickly. Um starting with the the site plan. Um
we're essentially not proposing anything on the site plan. Everything you see is existing. Uh the brick walkway, the brick driveway, the uh grass backyard, there's a concrete patio. Um, the only thing you see here is a proposed fence,
which would uh be to um just define the backyard a little bit and um maybe cover up uh the vinyl fence on the one side and just uh make it a little bit prettier back there. Uh the next page is um streetscape. Um
along the top is the the subject house at 316. Some aerial shots um and then all the adjacent properties um with the key map showing showing where they are in relation So Paul, just to be clear, you're at 316, right?
>> 316. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Which is um this one here and then >> got it >> in the middle on this bottom left showing the adjacent houses and then down the street. >> Great. Thank you. good on that. Okay. Um
so the next page is just showing the existing floor plan and um what the whites are um wanting to do is renovate the house. Um it has been kind of neglected as a rental property for a
long time. um wiring issues, HVAC issues, you name it. Um it it kind of looks okay on the outside, but it's not really. Um so to that end, the proposal is to do some rearranging
of living space on the interior, which will require um a little bit of movement of some windows, which I can walk you through on when we look at the exterior. uh the addition in the back of the house of a screen porch and grill area. And um
there's an existing little entryway that looks like it may have been added around 1985. Um that we're going to um put the air handler in there because right now it's in the basement below flood elevation. So we want to get all the mechanical equipment up above flood
elevation. Uh the second floor essentially isn't changing other than some again some internal rearranging. Um but what we're doing what we're proposing is an addition on the back. So
right now there's an existing roof deck on top of the first floor. So it's just pressuretreated decking with a railing. Um so that's where we're proposing to put uh their bathroom. Um, and then right now the um outside air
conditioning unit is on a rickety little platform in the backyard. We want to add um another system so there's more effective heating and air conditioning and put those on a on a little balcony hidden in the back of the house uh with a railing around it.
Uh the other thing, um which probably isn't really clear on on this drawing, there's an outside shower that sticks out the side of the house in the driveway right now. We want to rebuild that in the backyard, so it's out of sight.
Questions on any of that? Mr. Where's the There's an existing outdoor shower and you're redoing that. >> It's on the side in the driveway and we're putting it around in the back. Um it's it's it's not drawn well on here.
>> Think you can see it, >> but it's it's on the site plan >> and >> right. It's a clear on the site plan. It's just very light on the floor plan. >> Thank you. So going to the elevations,
uh the idea would be uh the existing um front elevation is at the bottom of the sheet. The proposed is at the top of the sheet. Uh not really any change here except um
we'd like to add windows in the gable. Um, and looking around, if you go on Benton Avenue, there's a number of houses that are almost the same as this house that have exactly what we'd like to do. If um,
>> just around the corner. >> Yeah. I don't know if you do you want to you guys want to look at that up close? >> I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. >> It's on your streetscape. >> Excuse me, Mr. Kiss. Yes. >> The third floor is not living space. >> No, it's atted to be living space. >> Not proposed to be living space. We are
proposing a stair to go up there for storage, but it's not tall enough. It's it's not not even seven feet at the peak. So, it it would not be usable, but they would like to access it for storage. Right now, the access is
there's a closet here with a little hatch and that's the only way to get to the attic. >> So, yeah, standing in the middle of that crucifform and looking at those four windows could be a really special experience. But it's really not. It's, you know, I mean, at the peak, it's like this and it
slopes down. >> So, the windows are just for additional light, >> light up there and aesthetics on the outside. >> On the >> Tell us a little bit about the chimney. >> Yes. On the right side. So the existing chimney is a is a is a tiny little
square that is no longer used and it just goes up into the bottom of the roof eve. Um we are proposing a fireplace on the inside. So we'd like to construct a little better proportion chimney that actually goes up like a chimney would.
Uh the windows in the attic and then uh the difference again the existing on the bottom proposed on the top. Um on the first floor there's a pair of um Anderson casement windows here in the back and a small window here. We want to
make these windows the same size and proportion. Uh and these are windows that are uh moving due to the interior that we would um slightly relocate. Um so I should talk about the windows. So we do want to propose new windows. I
would say 3/4 of the windows are vinyl. Um, there are some windows that are insulated glass, but they're wood, but are the seals have failed. We have a home inspector report that went through and identified all these windows that um there's just not much left. I think
there might be two or three windows that were original. Um, and so I I would propose that we would replace all of them with with Colbywood windows. um one over one just like what's there now >> painted wood.
Uh on the right elevation on the proposed you can see the side of the screen porch uh the addition um which is on the other side of the house and uh the the roof over the screen porch would be a standing seam roof.
Is that any kind of a balcony right over that to the right there or is it just ornamental? >> This here uh that's just to hide the air conditioning units. >> Thank you. >> Is the window that is on the first floor just to the right of the chimney on the
existing. Is that like stained glass or anything like that or is there >> It's an Anderson casement window put in maybe in the 80s when they did the kitchen. >> Okay. And so the rear elevation
uh existing on the bottom proposed on the top which shows um maybe do this in conjunction with the with the left side elevation. So, what I've done is uh continued the roof line out >> over the addition and created a gable
with the same pitch as the existing gable. Um windows that match the other windows uh in the bedroom bathroom and um you can see that the the the side gable uh goes out extends further than
this. So from the street it's trying to minimize even knowing that there is that addition there on the left side existing. Um there are a couple of high windows here. They're not stained glass. They're
just regular regular windows. And then the triple window in the dining room. So we do want to maintain that look here. Um then we're adding a window in the laundry room here. And of course the the attic windows. Um these are same as
what's there uh on the second floor. Yep. And on the back the existing you can see more Anderson casement windows. um a a steel door that's coming out onto
this roof deck with a regular aluminum screen door. >> Okay. >> Pretty nasty 1980s stuff. >> So, I do have one question. The lattice that you're proposing, um is it like your fence? It's perpendicular lattice as opposed to diagonal lattice.
>> Yeah, we want to remove the diagonal lattice and put on the appropriate lattice. >> Okay, questions, comments. Start over with you, Lorraine. >> I have nothing at this point. >> Thank you. >> I'm very pleased with it.
>> That moves it to me really quickly. Um, this is your this is your This is your usual thorough materials checklist, but I wonder if you could enlighten me at what thermally modified wood is. So, um, that is wood. It's a cedar or another
similar wood that is superheated and that changes the chemical properties so that it's guaranteed for 20 years not to rot. Um, and it's painted just like any other wood. It's wood. >> Um, it's similar to another product called Aoya. >> Yeah. Aoya, of course, is dipped in
practically vinegar, >> chemically treated. But but so so this you bake this. Yeah. >> And that changes it enough to resist moisture intrusion. >> Yes. >> Well, that's a new one on me. >> So it increases the density by removing the moisture from the wood, >> which which of course you would have
done if you dried wood, but today it's also wet. Anyway, um okay. So that and um I I have to say uh I'll I'll make it really brief. I I think the additions that you've done here do no injustice to
the status of this structure. Um you've logically explained what you've done. Uh and to me it it appeals to my eye both with respect to the facade, the back and the sides. So >> thank you. >> Nice job. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I feel that the addition is
modest. It's subordinate. It's in the rear which fits all our criteria. And I also like the changes you have made some of the window fenestrations. They're very pleasing. >> Thank you. >> Well, as usual, a a lovely presentation.
Um I love this house. Um I'm concerned about the triplicate windows and all the gables on the third floor. You you're it appears that the side the two smaller windows on the side are going to be casements. Is that what they're going to be? Is that the plan?
It looks like the center window is a one over one and the the ones on the side are single pane at least in your >> Do you have that picture? >> Yeah. Can we have that picture back? >> Yeah, those are one over ones. >> Yeah. The Well, the idea is to to do
exactly what's on this house. >> Those are one over ones on the side. >> Yeah. So, I would make those one over ones. >> Okay. Because you are taking casements out. >> Yes. on A3. It looks like you're taking a lot out on the first floor. I I think it's a lovely house. It's a pleasing
design. I would be happier, frankly, if these were single windows in the gables instead of the triplicates. I think it makes the it just it makes the house look busy where, you know, the it's just this beautiful wedge shape and just
aesthetically in my in my eye, I think it busies up the the facades of the house. But if you really want triple windows in an attic that isn't living space, that's up to you. I don't object enough to to say no. >> It also should be borne in mind that the
streetscape view shows houses with multiple windows >> at the peaks. >> So there's a rational comparison. I think >> the foundation, what material will that be? Will it just be >> it will be uh restocked?
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, I I'm okay with the windows partly because of the streetscape and the other houses that have similar patterns. Um, I don't see anything problematic on the sides where you you might be enlarging or moving a window. I don't think that
is significant enough to trigger any concerns. And I was looking at the property report says it's contributing based on its historic massing, historic dormers which you know are being preserved, historic fenistration patterns, historic door and historic porch and porch post. So if those are
the things that the you know the reviewer was when they gave it its contributing status um all those seem to be preserved fine. So I'm I'm okay with the project. Um, I wanted to introduce one other um one other thing and I'm not sure if
you've seen this um yet and it's the um vacuum glass. Um, so rather than um standard insulated glass >> this is a a glass. It's two panes of glass, but they're
microns apart. Um up to double the U value of of the best insulated glass. And it looks like a single pane. It's hard to tell. It's not a single pane. >> So, >> yeah, you don't need the spacer bar between the panes of glass anymore. It looks like full.
>> Wow. >> It looks like a thick piece of glass. >> So, why the vast improvement? >> Oh, that's gorgeous. >> Just the way I don't know the technology. I just know that test reports say it's it's way more energy efficient. Um, it comes with this the same 20-year glass warranty. The glass
is the same cardinal glass as any any window. >> Um, and has low coatings. So, so it's low, >> but it gives you that really nice deep >> like that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's literally a piece of sand that you can see if you look really closely.
>> Yeah. >> So, we'd like to price this along with the standard insulated glass. And I wanted to introduce it to you. Just I mean, I just think for a historic building to have something that looks like single pane glass. >> KBY Heritage.
>> Yeah. Mhm. Is this a different >> It's No, it's the Colby Heritage series with a different glass. >> And so I have >> I've got these >> I'm not a salesman, but >> yeah.
>> Pass these around. Thank you. >> And you've introduced me to some things, so I thought I'd try to introduce >> Cool. >> Okay. So to reiterate what I'm hearing from the rest of the commissioners, I think this is a very sensitively done addition.
>> Meets all of our criteria um and a very comprehensive presentation. So much appreciated. >> I've heard only two Oh, I only have one question. You showed us the size of the spindles as an inch and 3/4. What's the spacing
between the spindles on your railings? >> That I didn't see. >> 3 in. three inches. That's a That's a good answer. Okay. So, that means then I think there's I've only heard two conditions. Um Um So, one is that one over one for
the windows on the third floor and the 3-in space in between the railing ballisters. Um anything else that folks have identified? Well, would somebody like to make a motion? >> I'll make the motion we approve it >> with those two conditions. >> Uhhuh. >> I'll second it.
>> Okay. So approved or I'm sorry mo moved by Mr. Carol seconded by Mr. Becker. Roll call vote please. >> Mr. Carol >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Miss Decker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammeran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker.
>> Yes. And thanks again for a wonderful presentation. Very nicely done. >> Appreciate it. >> And welcome to KM May. >> Yes. Next on our agenda is Duca at 1515 Beach Avenue. For those watching our um
progression through the agenda, Madonna at 1211 New Jersey Avenue has been removed from tonight's agenda and will not be presenting. So hence we're moving on to Duca. >> And uh Mr. Chairman, on the basis of uh nearness, I'm going to recuse myself from this application.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. For >> neighbor. And John, real quick, um, I was listening the application on Hugh Street, you were talking about the roof pitch. I've learned this the hard way. I just don't want to waste these people's time tomorrow. I'm almost certain the
code requires a minimum of a 412 roof pitch. >> So, >> I didn't want to like interrupt his whole, but I've learned this the hard way. When I submit applications with less than a 412, Bruce denies them. Well, so so the international residential code will
allow two and 12, but I don't think they may will. >> Zoning will >> correct. >> Yep. >> So maybe have them check that tomorrow before all this time. >> Thank you for that. >> Find out it gets denied. >> What was it? 412. >> Yeah.
>> They're supposed to be changing that. >> Yeah, I thought that I thought that they had changed that already. >> I literally just didn't that get changed. We we didn't need to be addressed. >> Oh, it still needs to be addressed. Okay. >> No, because we dealt with that.
>> It's It's something that can come out of this board and we can do a code amendment, but I know we discussed it. It just hasn't >> been addressed. >> I just when I was listening, I felt bad. I'm like, "Oh, these people are going to change their plans, submit it here, and then go to zoning and get denied and
then have to come back again." >> Oh, that'll make them very, very happy. Yeah. Oh, man. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Adam. No problem. >> So, the um please state your name, your address, your role in the project. A >> Adam Crossand with AJS Design, the
project manager and project designer. >> Um this is for a garage uh in the shadow behind the house of a contributing building. um as shown on the plans here. This is unique because the property is
accessed by an alley um that goes behind the the uh all the adjacent lots that front onto uh Beach Avenue, which is why we're able to put a garage in the backyard. Um on HP PC1, you'll see the proposed garage in the back of the building that
we're going to be putting on an existing um crush cell driveway. The plans and elevations are as shown on uh sheet HPC2 um and HPC3.
Um all the materials will be historically accurate to match the main house. I can go down the materials list with you. The roof will be cedar to match existing meaning the existing house. All the fasces will be uh cedar. Siding will be
uh cedar shake to match the existing house. All windows will be co Colby heritage series um true wood windows. Window trim will be cedar to match existing. Garage doors will be wood doors. Um we haven't chosen them exact.
I could certainly bring them back to the review committee to get approval for the exact doors that they plan to uh pick. Foundation will be brick um to match the existing house. Um I don't know why I put HVAC enclosure. I think that was a u
sometimes when you repeat these these plans on your computer, it picks up stuff from other ones. We're actually not prepared. Uh there's not a HVAC enclosure included on this project. Um there's also not an outside shower included on this project. Um, so please
cross those two off. Uh, I already explained that the cross shell driveway is going to remain. All lighting will be um from Cape Cod lighting uh which I brought of uh some pictures of what that lighting looks like. We can also bring
that back to the approval committee um when we pick out the exact lighting we're going to be use to be using. Okay. >> And I I should add too that 80 to 90% of this building is in the shadow of the main structure that fronts on um Beach
Drive, so you're not really going to see much of it. However, it's all going to be historically accurate materials. And I think we did a really good job to make sure it complements the house. >> And you're certainly not going to see it much from the street behind you. Correct. >> With the Cape Rock. >> And he was one of the reasons he wants
to do this actually is to block the the brick mountain behind him. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, Adam, this is a a final application, correct? >> Correct. >> And are there any issues regarding lot coverage with regard to adding this
garage with zoning? >> There is not. It's a very large lot that most of which is heavily landscaped. Um, and we're putting it on top of what already exists as a crush shell driveway, which counts at 50% already because it's crush shell and we're just
putting a garage on top of it. >> Okay. Okay. So, since this is a final, um there will be one condition once we deliberate here, and that would be uh cut sheets for all of the materials that you're proposing on the material
checklist, which would include roof, siding, windows, um brick for the foundation, the the driveway material, and the lighting. >> That's not a problem. I did bring samples, but I'm happy to provide you cut sheets with everything to the review committee. that it these that's a requirement of a complete application so
that they're on file so that our field administrator has a reference to establish what was approved when he goes on site to ensure that what was approved is being installed that's why we need them as part of your application >> understood and I wasn't sure because this isn't really it's an accessory
building but in the future I'll make sure they're all here for every application >> okay so Mr. Mr. Hammer, >> I don't have any comments, >> M. Pagnner. >> Sorry. No, everything's great. Thank you, >> Miss Decker.
>> Well, as you pointed out, incomplete. We don't have all the materials. Um, I would have liked to have seen maybe a color rendition of this. I mean, it looks nice. It looks nice. I The site plan's really small. Well, I don't see the alley, but um it looks like a an
appropriate garage for this property, so I don't have any major problems with it. >> I I drove up the alley today. Now, at the end of the driveway when you go up behind the hotel there, there's um it looks like an old dilapidated garage there with surfboards in front of it. And >> so, that's actually the neighbor's
garage. It's a really cool building. Hopefully, they we kind of tried to model this over. >> Okay. So, you're right behind that in the >> correct. >> Okay. Well, then how will you access the garage if is doesn't that kind of >> the the alley dead ends at my client's property and it goes back to the Cape Rock. Okay.
>> So, all the other properties have the alley. >> Yeah. I didn't really go behind that other garage there. And again, my other comment would be um you know, bring the cut sheets on your application because it doesn't tie you up or the review committee. >> You know, just we'll get it done all at once.
>> It would have been great to have photographs of that of the site of the site. >> Understood. I have access to all that stuff. So, I'll make sure I bring that in the future. That's all I have. >> I assume the attic is for storage and there's no plumbing going in into that. >> Correct. As per K. Um,
>> 100%. It's going to be used for storage up there. >> Okay. >> Um, a quick question about the alley. Is there an easement for that or I'm I'm not quite sure how how the access is because there's really not much showing
on the um on the plot plan. Um, >> I have a survey here which I can certainly give you a copy of and see exactly >> I just >> Kate May has very few alleys and >> so it says it's an it's a 10 foot wide
driveway easement for ingress and egress to Brooklyn Avenue. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> 10 feet >> I guess. Okay. Um if our solicitor can just you know clarify verify >> not to beach. >> No toll.
>> To Yeah. >> And then I'm going to continue just um with the second floor the it doesn't seem to have access to that second floor. There'll be a pull down stair which I think is also um what the Kate made coat only allows a pull down from
here. >> Okay. It's just Yeah, I didn't see it on the floor plan. And then my last question is the shingle pattern on the um on the garage. Is that matching the shingle pattern on It just looks like it's barricaded. Like is it going to match? >> That could be the hatch on our computer.
Okay. >> Um but it we're going to match the the main house exactly. >> Okay. match the >> and that can certainly be a condition of approval that we we match the the siding pattern for the main structure. >> That's all. Thank you. >> So I have no further comments other than
of course the necessity of having cut sheets for all materials. So I would like to entertain a motion from somebody to approve this application. >> Motion second. >> So moved by Mr. Stevenson, seconded by Mr. Hammer. Roll call vote, please for final approval.
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. Motion carries. Adam, it looks like you can stay right where you are. >> Exactly. Good
>> for the next submission, which is the Hulse family revoc revocable trust at 409 Jefferson Street. The table is or the floor is yours. >> Great. Okay. again Adam Crossland with AJS Design project uh manager project
designer for this project. Um this is a non-contributing building that is currently uh has uh cedar >> I'm sorry. Can I interrupt you for just one sec? So um going back the 1211 New Jersey has been removed from tonight's
agenda. Is it intended that this will be presented at some point in the future? The only reason I'm asking is whether or not we want to >> gather these applications and and keep them for next month. >> It would change, but um my my clients ended up finding another house that they want to buy. >> Okay.
>> However, the new owners may want to move forward with some of that application. So, if we could recycle that $500 fee to come back, I would say table it, wave the 45 days. If we can't do that, that's not a problem. >> No, >> we can't because it's a new application. >> That's fine.
>> Thank you. So, so there we can we can discard these then. Yes, >> correct. Great. We can toss them. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> All right. So, so back to 40 409 Jefferson. Um this is a non-contributing building. Um
it is currently an asphalt roof and it has vinyl cedar impression siding. We are proposing to put um a small addition at the rear of the property, a small twotory addition um as shown. And if you look at the
comparison on HPC1, um you'll see the existing site plan and then you'll see the proposed there's basically an L-shaped addition between uh the back of the house and the garage. Uh HPC2 also shows that in floor plan. On the left side of the page is the
existing conditions. On the right side of the page is the proposed. So you'll see it's basically a storage room on the first floor, a bedroom up on the second floor. HPC3 and HPC 4 are the proposed and existing elevations. So you can see the
the difference. Um I know from coming and speaking with the review committee on Tuesdays. Um part of your uh rules and regulations. Um so I did bring extra seats if somebody wants some tonight is just comparison what the size of the
addition is. Um, and I added that to the sheet to make it real easy to prove to you what the existing. >> So, the question would be what's the existing square footage and what's the addition square footage? >> Correct. And I have that on here. I just
need to find it. So, the addition is less than 20% of um the existing. >> Fair enough. Thank you. >> You're welcome. go down the materials list with you. As I already mentioned, the house uh fortunately or unfortunately is already
um vinyl siding, so we're going to be consistent and just keep the addition to match uh what's already there. And since it's non-contributing, I believe that's acceptable to the commission. Um roof will be asphalt to match existing. Um fascia will be composite to match
existing. Sophets will be composite to match existing. Siding will be the vinyl shake cedar impressions to match existing. The existing windows in the house are Anderson. So we would be putting Anderson windows in the addition to match all the other existing windows.
Window trim will be composite. Um there's one door proposed that will be an Anderson door. Foundation will be stucco to match existing. I'm still having this problem with the outside shower. The U Oh no, I'm sorry. It is does say composite. The outside shower
will be will be built out of composite materials and the lighting will be uh Cape Cod lighting again and I will certainly provide all of the cut sheets for all the materials we choose to use and I'll get them into the review committee. >> Yes, that will be a requirement same as last project. Yes,
>> no problem. Make sure they have them for any future application. >> Mr. Hamron, would you like to start please? >> I have no comments. >> Mr. Sagno, no >> no comment. Okay, Miss Decker. >> Well,
I just think it says very >> Oh, Judy, could you? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Um, it appears that the roof on this little bedroom you're adding is higher than the existing rose. Is that right? >> Yes. And I can speak to why that is. Um,
this is a very unique house. It's had numerous additions put on over the years and I've actually been working with these clients for a very long time. We put the front porch on this house back in 2016. Um we had a better design coming in where the roof was consistent. However, um
when the zoning officer reviewed this along with Paul Dietrich for flood, he informed us that no matter what we did to this house, we h the addition had to be at elevation 11. So the only way to make the addition work would be to pop the roof off. Otherwise, we would have run out of headroom. So, it it is a
little funky in the back of the house. However, it's completely hidden from the streetscape. And I think we did the kind of the best job we could to tie to tie it into a a rather unique uh structure. >> Are these casement windows you're proposing?
>> They're awning windows. So, >> windows. I It's double hungs and awnings. The high windows would be awnings. All the other windows would be double hung. >> I just think some kind of more gracious design might have been. Did you come in
on Tuesday morning? >> We did. >> You did. Not not every Tuesday morning results in a miracle. >> And unfortunately, we have to work around the the codes as well. So, I I I would have much preferred to have the house be lower. Um but then it wouldn't
have met the flood wouldn't have met the flood code. >> Okay. I kind of agree with Commissioner Decker. The U roof line is, you know, is kind of high, but then again, it's a funky roof line anyway. It's already >> so it kind of all blends in together that way. And the only stipulation again
is cut sheets because technically it's an incomplete application. >> Uh the um I say I say very little. It's it's not a particularly attractive design, but I find it so inoffensive relative to the
streetscape. It's in back. It's hidden. It's non-contributo. it it passes the smell test for for for an addition. I I do want to make a point about cut sheets. I think that it creates extra
work for the committee, the review committee, when the cut sheets don't appear in the initial application. I don't consider these applications really complete unless you follow the material sheet and you put the cut sheets of your choice at that time. So I mean I think
we've we've allowed people to come and satisfy this but that's not the way the process should work. There should be material sheets and there should be cut sheets showing your choice. Okay. Please do that in the future. >> Um >> where you can make a choice otherwise you're going to wind up with a condition
that somebody else is going to have to >> police. Well noted. Um, a lot of times it's repeat, but I'll make sure I have a library because it's a lot of these materials, not so much on this because this is a non-contributing house with a lot of composite and vinyl sighting, but all the other it's it's the same stuff
like KBY 400. So, I'll make sure they're all >> in. I mean, when we read these things, we go from the material check sheet and we try to find the the the cross referenced or the cut sheets that go to them. and and and I don't think it's right that that should be put on the
review committee when it approves this with conditions as it probably will. Okay. But I' I've said enough. >> No problem. Like I said, next time I'll make sure that doesn't happen. >> So, I'll go one step further and say that we will deem applications incomplete in the future if there are
not the required cut sheets submitted with the materials. So, you're getting a break tonight. >> Fair. >> Okay. >> Y Carol. >> Okay. Uh, looking at the front of this house, I would have assumed it was a contributing house, but it's not in the period. Uh,
>> we added the porch in 2016. >> It really is a very nice little uh kind of Dutch colonial look to it. >> Side gate. >> I I go along with the others that the addition is certainly nothing of beauty uh but with a non-contributing and uh
hidden from the street. Uh I will people will vote Thank you. >> So, Adam, I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the um the height of the second floor. I understand the need to get the floor elevation out of the flood
plane, but that doesn't preclude you from altering the roof form so that the ridge is not any higher than the existing roof form ridge. I I I I have a problem being able to approve this when our standards say
specifically that you can't do that. >> So, is there an alternative roof form that you could >> Unfortunately, there's not. And here's why. Because the roof of the We're not going any higher than the main roof on the house. >> Yes, you are. Well,
>> look at the elevation four on ZP-4. >> It it like six inches. So I >> that's to scale it's significantly higher. Looks like at least two feet unless this is drawn incorrectly, which it might be. So look at um here I just
drew this. If you look at 4 on ZP-4, do you see the dash line I drew? And then I circled the addition. You can see the dash line looks like that's of the existing roof height. That ridge line looks at least two feet lower than what you're proposing for the new ridge line. >> So, so as a condition of approval, I can
lower that down to be no higher than the ridge line of the existing house. >> That would be terrific. >> Okay, no problem making that alteration. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So I think what we have are two conditions that have emerged. One is that the roof of the addition
um the roof ridge of addition shall be no higher than the existing ridge line. >> Exactly. >> And the same stipulation as the prior project that all materials cut sheets
will be submitted for review committee review. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Anybody want to make that motion? >> I'll make it. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> So moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Mr. Stevenson. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol,
>> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Okay, Adam, looks like you're still in
the hot seat. Moving on to Hija. Mr. Hija, did I pronounce that properly? >> Yes, I did. >> Thank you very much. I'm glad I got it right finally. Um, this is 1149 Lafayette Street. >> Okay. >> It is a uh a contributing structure and
I believe this is an amendment to a prior submission. Is that correct? >> And I will explain that to everybody. >> Okay. Could you please introduce yourself >> and your name, your address, and your role in the project, please? Anan Hija 1149 Lafayette owner.
>> Okay, floor is yours, gentlemen. >> I'm going to hand out um I wanted to make this really clear for everybody. So, I did update these drawings. Um hand one of these out. >> This is the before. >> I'll walk you through this. Okay. Okay.
>> I just I want to clarify what's So it must replace what we have. It looks like it's >> this. >> So yes, it replaces these or no? >> Yes, we'll replace. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's just clarification.
>> I'll share. Adam, >> can you explain to the board what what is the difference between what you just handed out and what was submitted? >> Absolutely. >> So, what I tried to do with I'll bring you one, Lauren. What I tried to do with
what I just handed out to you is give a better timeline. Um the the front portion of of this building was approved back in December of 25. So, and I know what um the request of the board plus the
uh review committee that we met how they like to to see it. They like to see existing proposed um next to each other. So, I reorganized all the plans to make it simple for me to walk you through everything tonight. >> So, the plan this is the same concept
just presented in a the way that you were >> for a way to make everybody understand how we purposes. Exactly. Okay. So, Adam, just to make sure, it looks like the drawings are have the same date on them,
>> although one has been revised for 717. I got it. Revision date. Okay. So, we should be looking at the drawings that have in the lower right hand corner a revision date of 71726. HPC submetal. Correct. >> Correct. So, we don't even need to look
at the ones you had submitted with your application. >> No, we can look at these new ones as long as everybody has. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And then I'm going to explain how we we organized this. >> This is >> so the first handed us >> on HPC1. The first section of the plan
um was how the house looked before we got our initial approval. >> I'm sorry, one other interruption. Um but the remaining part of the application remains applicable. Correct. It's only the drawings that have changed. Thank you. >> Correct. Okay. So, back I'll walk you through through these plans. Um, on HPC1, the
first uh site plan was the site plan that we came to you with with the existing conditions of the house uh back in December of 2025. The middle plans is what was approved back in December of 25. The third site plan is showing the
rear portion which would be the porco share and the garage which is what we are seeking approval for tonight. So I want to explain everything the streetscape section of the building. Everything that fronts on Lafayette Street was already approved in December of 25. We are here tonight for the back
portion of the building as shown on the third site plan where all the hatch is located. That's what we're seeking approval for this evening. HPC2 just basically shows what was approved in the December of 2025 uh
meeting. Same with HPC3. That's what was approved in the December of 2025 meeting. The sheets that we really need to be reviewing tonight are the next two which show the garage and rear portion of the
building that we're seeking approval for tonight. Um, number one on HPC4 shows the port co-share area plus the proposed garage. Um, number two on HPC4 shows the addition that will connect
from the historic portion of the building to the garage. Um, which is this breezeway area which would house a bar, a media room, a small office, and then stairs down to either the garage or to the parking area.
HPC3 just basically shows the roof profile of the proposed garage building. HPC5 is the elevations of what this will look like from the exterior. Um Adam
question about this the you you have final checked here. Have you done Fous calculations? >> We've had all this reviewed by Bruce. Um we've kind of been working diligently the past few weeks. We've been to two uh Tuesday committee Tuesday review
meetings. Um and we have run all this by um Mr. Britain and he's basically given us the green light that this meets zoning approval. I did bring two photographs. Um the house is currently being lifted and relocated on the lot. Just you can kind
of see the um profile from the street showing that this proposed garage building won't really be seen from Lafayette Street and shouldn't really affect the streetscape. Feel free to pass those around.
>> Thank you. So the ratio the garage is not included in that. >> The garage is not because it's not habitable here. >> I know this goes all the way back to the >> room.
Here you go, madam. >> Just over the property. >> And it should be noted that >> the the original plans that we submitted had all the zoning information on there. Um I just created a a special set for the HPC to kind of put it in your
language of what you like to see. Um but the proposed F is >> What drawing are you looking at currently? ZP1 on the the original that I included with your packet, >> which I know we said we but I just have
the zoning information on there. >> So the the proposed F is actually 21% where 40% is allowed. >> But that's F based on habitable area, right? >> Yeah, I mean I'm not surprised. Um, and
our lock coverage is um 37.6 where 40% is allowed. So, we still have some wiggle room on lock coverage. >> Okay. Um, are you ready for our comments? >> Absolutely. >> So, how about if we start over there
with you, Miss Baldwin? >> I'm going to defer at this point. >> Okay, Mr. Carol. Well, I did u uh manage to come in on your uh last review and I thought our suggestions then were to cut
back quite a bit on that long long long extension and I don't feel like I'm seeing really any cut back in that at all. I personally feel this is uh maybe it's not highly visible but we are
dealing with a a classic little old house and now it's becoming a monster on the property. Uh only because the owner of it likes cars. Uh I like cars too but there are other other places to keep
cars other than a massive massive attachment to a building like this. So, can I speak to the changes that we made based on the review committee's comments? Um, so we did come in and redesign the garage. We stepped it.
At one point it was one large garage. We broke it into two separate bays, lowered the roof um a little bit on the the larger of the two bays that would have two garage doors. We lowered it again and we brought the garage in for the the
the third bay. And originally we had um a threetory uh decks on the back. We brought that down to a two basically a I guess it's a twotory, but it's basically it's a patio at grade and then a one-story deck. So
we did redesign this based on um all the comments that we received at our two review committee meetings. I think it's the most awkward looking thing I think I've ever looked at with that bridge across to this back opening.
>> So I I can explain that a little bit too. >> You can call it a port share, but >> we the zoning in Kate May has changed recently. Um they used to allow uh like a a breezeway connection between a main
building and a garage. I actually like that a lot better. That was actually design the design we originally had for this. Um and zoning basically informed us that we would because of some recent changes in the interpretation for garages. Um they would not allow us to
do a breezeway connection. It actually had to be habitable area. I also went with an application for zoning that just showed like a 4ft wide covered hallway that would connect the two buildings. That was shot down too. Um he said it actually has to be a connection of rooms
between the main building and the garage. So this does meet zoning. Zoning played a big part in kind of how we had to redesign this. I kind of agree with you. But this kind of is the best of both worlds. I'm I'm hoping it'll uh you know make the HPC happy because like I
said we did go make the changes most of the changes that were recommended in the review committee. Um but we also needed to make sure we would get zoning approval for it. I would have liked something much simpler to between the the garage building and the main building, but this is what we kind of had to do based on our uh
>> I don't think those zoning changes were actually done to create an appearance like this. It was done to try to keep people from not overextending their houses into other areas. Uh it just goes
on forever. two lots beside it are exactly the same dimensions with two full it should be noted that the lot um to the south of this is a flag lot so there's actually two houses in the same area um Dr. Hija has a very
large, deep lot, which is great. Um, but like I said, the house to the south, there's literally two fulls size um single family homes on basically the same size lot as his. >> Separate homes. >> Separate homes. Separate. It's a It's a flag. One's a flag lot to go back
further off. >> One sees the street, the other sees the sees the waterway. Uh >> yeah. And he I mean he could have tried to subdivide it and that's not what he wanted to do. So, >> so Adam, you just you just raised I'm sorry to interrupt, but you just raised something that
>> didn't come up in the um Tuesday morning reviews with regard to this breezeway connection. Um because if those functions aren't really necessary, that stair wouldn't be necessary either. If the garage can be a separate
structure from the house, which would be completely a different thing you'd be presenting and probably far more palatable based upon the comments I'm hearing. So the question I have is, do you even need that breezeway and tall stairwell? And if you just eliminated that, there would be a garage separate and a house separate. Is there an issue?
Was there a reason why they're connected? >> Um, he he did want an the areas that are in the Porco share area. He did want an office that was going to be between the house and the garage. Um, and he wanted them to be connected so that he's not
walking in the elements between his house and his garage. So, he doesn't want a separate detached garage. He did want it to be connected to the main dwelling. >> And I think he didn't want the hallway. It had to be a living like it had to be >> I I explained that that He they wouldn't
just allow us to do like a five or six foot wide hall connection. It literally had to be habitable living space between the the buildings because of their concern that you would use it as like an accessory dwelling unit. I >> I'll reserve other comments. >> May May I Yeah. Um >> well, Tom, are you done?
>> Yes. >> I think he he he did for the time being. >> Yeah. Um and and I'll have to more or less echo Tom's view of of what this looks like. it is a contributing structure and I'm I'm actually getting a little weary of
having additions hidden in the back of lots uh that um that that because you can't just see from the screen. I'm pleased with what we did when we went through the the front of this and then it began to grow like topsy and and I
appreciate that sessions with the review committee probably toned it down to to to to be as you've described but to me it it is it is a elongated overly large and unacceptable
in size relative to the main building that we have here as as a structure. Um, again, your materials are great. You've hidden it from you've hidden it a bit a lot from the street, but when I look at this just from a side view, it's it's
just simply too large. I think that if someone didn't take my view of looking things just straight ahead, they might think that this removed the contributing struct the contributing um characterization of this on the next survey. And I'm and I'm
loathed to support something that has that potential. And I think the potential is high enough for me not to agree to um approve this. >> I think because the way we designed the the port share and the fact that it's only on the second floor um the the way
your guidelines show the historic portion of the building is going to be retained kind of perfectly. um especially on the first floor and there's just a breezeway connection that we deliberately brought in to separate >> if you consider the the elevation over
the port cashier and the garage in the size relative to the original structure they are enormous. >> Mhm. >> I mean they really are. They're just I'm just I'm just my eyeball says it's 2/3 of of the total mass which to me is
because I don't I don't count the fact that there's a air underneath the breezeway. To me, it still looks like a a mass that's extending beyond the the the original structure. So I the but this side, the top picture on HPC5, this
is looking north. So, if you look at the driveway and the long trees and really the the tapered third bay, we can be creative here with a double Dutch door or something to make it look a little cottagey, but this is really
largely going to be invisible. I mean, unless you really >> Well, it's invisible from the street perhaps, but overall, and I have no idea. Well, that's why I took those pictures, too, to show you how >> and I appreciate appreciate your efforts, but I do not know what the next survey is going to bring to this
evaluation. It could well jeopardize the contributing status. I I I think it has a substantial possibility of doing that. So, I'm sorry. I just I just can't support it as it is. >> All right.
>> Yes. I I just think that um you know according to our standards and it's it a contributing property and one of the things besides design is massing >> and uh like right here from our standards that um size scale proportion and
massing to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. And if uh you know this is not subordinate at all um you know it's the the historic building is just dwarfed by this >> and I mean again I think if the review
committee did suggest trying to cut it back I mean it it's just not appropriate with a contributing property. Additionally underneath of the um of the hyphen or whatever you want to call it the >> that living area up there there's also additional parking under there.
>> Correct. So, I mean, would you know, would like from the if you're heading out of town on Lafayette Street, would you see those cars parked there as well? >> You would not, and that's why I took pictures to to show you. >> Yeah, there's five windows wide. Like, you look at the house, it's the land is
very narrow. It's 66 >> and the house is five windows wide. when you look at other structures >> and remember there's on the lot to the south there's there's the main building that fronts onto Lafayette Street and then there's a flag lot behind it with another building so you're really not
going to see that far back it's a it's a rather congested with structures there pretty wide house and it's >> but but again when I'm looking at at the elevations I don't see any screening at all just looks like it's a big open breezeway and the cars are sitting right there like there's no
>> fencing more wide and the longest card is probably 15 ft. So, it's completely going to be hidden. >> We're going to heavily landscape as well. I know you say he might heavily landscape, but what happens 20 years from now, but the the property is going to be um very well landscaped.
>> Yeah. And again, I mean, another thing that you know, in a scale of disproportion, I think we would need a landscape plan as well, but that is something that's going to help. >> Absolutely. Would we could provide that as a condition? Not a problem at all. We plan we
>> Oh, and I do appreciate you bringing us revised uh site plans in because you just could not read the dimensions before. >> I mean, I had my reading glasses and it was just like >> we've been working diligently for tonight's meeting. That's kind of why I >> This is more legible now. >> I wanted to make sure I, you know,
explained in detail kind of how we got here and what we're actually seeking approval for tonight based on what we already had approval for. Well, again, we have an incomplete application. No materials. You you gave us a whole new set of plans
at the meeting, which is really not >> all the materials commissioner the same for what we received in December of of 20. >> I understand, Mr. Crosslin. So, what is the square footage of the original structure?
>> Good question. That is a good question. >> You can repeat that for the record. The square footage of the original structure is approximately 2300 square ft. >> And what is the square footage of your proposed addition?
>> 2,800 square f feet. So it's about an additional of of 600 square f feet. So I just wonder if you re if you've really really studied our standards because clearly with a big exclamation point on page 533 as as everyone has pointed out
subordinate additions new addition should be smaller than the historic building. It should be subordinate in both size and design. So this is huge whether it's in the back or not. It's simply not appropriate for
this building, colonial building. And in fact, another building on that same street did in fact lose its contributing status with a similar addition. So I I have to agree with Commissioner
Carol that this would definitely take this into a non-contributing status. I just think you need to work on this a little more. If it was a separate garage, it it would be different. It wouldn't affect the structure as much if
you need all that storage in the back. I just do not think this isn't appropriate at all. >> We have revised this design about four times to bring it more into into compliance and Dr. Hayes is putting a
huge investment into the front building that has been neglected for years. um which is should be bringing back to be way more historic because the building was kind of dilapidated. >> That sounds nice and everything >> except if you re read the standards,
it's so clear that this is exactly what we're discouraging. I know you you've spent money, you've been through different plans, but you've ever really tried to meet the standards and and and the review committee and I I don't think
anybody has ever come along and said, "Sure, Bill." I you you know, build a big garage in the back. Just because the zoning ordinance doesn't limit garages to uh two cars or something like that. It never meant that
a garage should be 10 times bigger than a house. It's just not appropriate. Not an appropriate addition. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. I I I could never vote yes for this. >> The French have an expression dro. It
means too much. And I hate to say this, it just is too much. And um it seems to me that the emphasis is on the garage cars with a port cocher. Uh
what what are we emphasizing here? It certainly is not the history of the house. So that is and again it is against the standards. It is not the adequate size. >> Well, you know as I said this uh came to
the review committee. I think it got a reception that we said to you is this is going to be a tough sell. It's a it's a very big addition. It's it's visually large actually from the standard standpoint of standards and square footage and all the other things it
actually does comply. Um it's it's not that it's you know when you take into account whether the space is livable and garages don't count and all the other kinds of things. And that's why the review committee took a look at it and and you know and said, you know, I we think you're not going to get a really
great reception to this, but you know, at least what we can tell you is you seem to be in compliance with most of the requirements that we would have for an addition. Um, you know, we're not we're not capable of making a decision on on a project like this and and we
said you you know, we don't know that you're going to be successful. So, I'll leave it at that. And I wanted to just add one more thing, Dr. and Adam, that you know, we're not doing this just arbitrarily. I mean, we're stewards of the historic district and the only city in the country that's a a national
historic landmark. And as Commissioner Decker already indicated, one property along Lafayette has already just lost their contributing status and it's very fragile. And if we start beginning to lose a lot of these contributing buildings, our national landmark status
is in jeopardy. So it it's we're looking at this through the big picture and you know for everyone in town. So we're not just like picking on you. It's just >> which Well, Commissioner Decker was >> the black house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean that's just that's really
just one example >> similar garage edition, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think it was your >> Yeah. window property. >> Yeah. We don't like to mention names or addresses but I think I know
>> the story already mentioned it's >> beautifully restored. Yeah. >> But the historic house itself for for that property is three windows wide and the garage is actually deeper than the house >> but it lost it's lost its contributing status. That's our point.
>> But but I mean I think one of the things >> I I agree doctor we're concerned about you know loss of contributing status. Now one of the things you should realize I because the standards make this true and that is when you have a contributing property key contributing contributing
property there are going to be limitations to the sizes of additions you can make and and that's just a so when you proceed >> to take the size of a contributing property and design an addition you face those limitations inherent in the
standards. it doesn't let you do what you what you want to do with full freedom. So So what should have resulted here is a an application with a much smaller addition, twocar garage, detached garage, but but something that does not
jeopardize the status that we've all been talking about. >> So we were very concerned that you would receive the response you're receiving this evening as we mentioned. Um, I do believe, however, there might be a solution to this.
>> We're all ears for that. >> Um, so this would be a proposed just one way to propose a reconciliation of what you're trying to activate and what you're hearing is being heavily restrained. In other words, if we were to vote on this tonight, it's very clear
that you would not be approved. So there would be two things that you would need to consider giving up. Nothing functionally with what I'm about to show you. But if you thought of the
garage as a totally detached structure, it means that you would have to put a coat on in the wintertime to go outside to get to the garage. If you would be willing to do that and be willing to put over the third garage that balcony deck to look out over the
meadow, which I certainly would want to have that as well, was one of the things we talked about in the review committee that you chose not to do, by the way. But I just did a little So, it's hard to see, but I'm trying to show you what would happen if if you got rid of
that. In other words, the house ended up being exactly what's already approved. >> And the garage is an additional is a garage addition that's built exactly as you have, but that way you don't even need this the twotory stair tower, which is a a huge amount of square. Hold on. Which is a huge amount of square
footage. And the area that you had in the breezeway for the media room, the office, and the bar could actually be in the footprint of what was the stair tower, which means that this would be a totally separate structure. Again though, I wouldn't make it a three three
bay garage that full height because that would be again bigger than the house itself, which our standards specifically do not allow. So, I'm just wondering if this is something that you might consider that would still provide you with all the functional area you're
looking for, just reconfigured as a separate structure. John, including this media room and bar in the garage. >> So the office basically he he said he wanted an office near his garage. >> Okay. But they can't have plumbing in the garage.
>> That would that we actually had >> can have an office as long as there's not plumbing. >> Can have electric. >> Oh, that's not permitted though. >> Not anymore. That's we actually we actually that was our original concept. Um, like I said, the interpretation of how
zoning looks at it changed because we've been working on this project for almost three years. And what we did two years ago, Bruce reviewed and would have gave us a preliminary review, but basically told us he would have approved it two years ago. In that time, when we
went to resubmit it, he said the interpretation has changed on how zoning looks at accessory buildings and how >> it's an office, it can be a bedroom. That's the way that zoning and the If there's no plumbing. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> That's the current interpretation. >> So, let me ask you this.
>> Exactly what we went through. >> Could All right. So, >> that's why they've that's why they forgive the expression Frankenstein this thing to get the use out of it and to connect the ground. >> I get it, >> which is fine. I honestly don't want the bridge or the connection. >> All right. Well, >> was insisting it has to be.
>> So, but let me ask No, I get that. So, let me ask you this. So, all right. So, watch what happens. If we take the functions of the media room, bar and office and make them a small addition to the house, just means that all this goes away and it makes a smaller addition to
the house. And it actually makes the mass of the of the garage function. It's literally a threecar garage that's a separate structure. There's no other function in it other than the balcony to sit and look out over the meadow, which is something you'd like to do, which means that it would be a much smaller
addition to the existing house. It would actually be completely subordinate because it wouldn't need to be two stories. It would also be small enough such that the addition to the house would be smaller than the existing house and it's essentially two separate buildings.
>> And we investigated doing exactly that. >> Yeah. >> The only problem with that is when you have an accessory building. Yep. >> Um as opposed to a garage that's attached, you then have accessory setbacks. your the the height is limited
to 18 feet. Um and you can only be a maximum of 30 by 30 for a detached garage in Kate May unless we go to the the zoning board and seek a variance for it. But >> well, maybe that's what you have to do. The what what I'm saying is I think what
you're hearing from this board is that and it's really interesting. You said you didn't really want the breezeway anyway, but you're being forced to it be you're being forced to it, right? You're being forced to do it because of a zoning constraint, right? >> Trying to find that balance. >> We just wanted to do a >> live none of that.
>> That's all I'm trying to explore with you guys is >> we just wanted a and they told us that nope, you can't do that anymore because you can't you can't go from habitable a breezeway back to habitable. All the habitable area has to be together and
access accessory can all be together. It would be acceptable to have all the habitable area as an addition to the house and have the threecar garage be a separate structure notwithstanding the limitations of the size of what an accessory building can be. We'll come back to that. Is that acceptable functionally
>> or a and add to that maybe there's a scenario that split breaks this up that still complies with zoning so that you maybe you don't have to seek relief. I don't know what the constraints are, but maybe there's a way >> you're that's that's what this package is meant to do. You're trying to fit all
this so that you don't have to go to the board for relief, but maybe there's a scenario that potentially makes the HPC happy that avoids a trip to the zoning board, too. >> Right. We're we're more than open to that. >> That's what I'm seeking >> actually. >> Adam, and like you know, you were
concerned about limited to 18 ft, but there is no second floor over the garage, right? It's just open like it's a >> correct >> like correct >> an open ceiling. So, does it really matter if it has to come down a little bit? >> A garage. >> Just as a garage. >> 18 ft is is really not the issue. It's more the the 30 by 30.
>> Um because it's just not that it's only 900 square f feet. >> Um that that was more the problem than the height not so much. Um but it was more the limited to 900 square feet. >> What's interesting? If it's the 30 by 30 is the twocar
garage without the stair. >> Can you do two accessory buildings >> and have >> I don't believe they allow you to do two garages. We could do an accessory building and a shed. Um but you can't I'm sorry. You could do a garage and a shed as I've done that before on other
properties, but you cannot have I don't believe you can have two detached garages. You can have an attached garage and a detached garage, but you can't build two garages. >> Would it if the third bay had a much lower ceiling and looked a little more cottagey and we put Dutch doors or
something? >> I mean, would that appeal to each? >> Well, so I think that's what I was proposing is that that third bay would actually be a flat roof that you would have your deck on top to look out over the meadow. >> Would that look pretty though?
>> So, we close. Oh, I think it would be actually quite nice because what it would also do is it would scale it down from the house to the garage to the lower part of the garage just like you were trying to do across the longer length. But what it would mean I mean think you'd have to give up. >> I'm not I'm not opposed to this, but I
don't know that the connection will be removing the >> So, we actually tal we talked about doing that, but on the the patio back here, you were going to put like your outdoor kitchen. the outdoor kitchen would have to go here and then this >> deck could move on top of the third bay of the garage. That's one of the things we talked about.
>> So really the the biggest thing you're giving up is being able to move from your house to garage without going outside. >> If you could live with that, it sounds like the only thing that's limiting you >> is the zoning square footage of how big
a garage can be. And I I don't know what zoning would say about this, but you have a a very oversized lot. Maybe they would consider a variance given this particular situation. >> Some sometimes though that's based on the smallness of the lot in terms of it
being a hardship. But one thing I could add and and that is and I'm sorry but I really think we spent an awful lot of time redesigning here and suggesting but I do think that if you come away from this board with something that even
results in a conceptual approval and you have to go and talk to another board like zoning. The fact that the HBC has given you a conceptual approval is a feather in your cap toward obtaining your variance. So that may be one potential route, but I don't want to
spend the night here. >> We appreciate everybody's time and we can definitely come back to a Tuesday morning meeting when it's more appropriate. >> Is that we table this >> and >> excellent suggestion. >> Can I can I make a couple comments on HPC2? You've got existing first floor
plan and proposed first floor plan. So that's two and five. So the existing is is the way the house is now without any additions on it. >> Correct. >> And on the bottom is the proposed first floor plan.
>> So what you're looking at on HPC C2 >> Yeah. >> Um is kind of what was already approved in the December 2020. So I would almost to re we don't necessarily need to revisit it. That's as approved already. I mean, you could consider, you know, amending your your plan. Oh.
>> To include your media room in your office. You could and come back for another resolution if you want if if you choose if you need those spaces and you really want them. I mean, there's a way to make it make your addition. Um,
>> that's what's been that's what they what John suggested. I mean this this needs a a lot of rethink >> and and tableabling it now is the way I think we come off tonight and letting the rethinking take place. >> So I think the direction that you're
hearing that for you to consider is first of all what was being proposed which is what we kind of suspected would not be approved by at least four members who were voting up here tonight. Second
is the ha the occupiable space that is accommodated currently in the breezeway could be an amendment as an addition to the house itself. Third that the garage
just for talking purposes is a totally separate structure. How it how you deal with zoning about that is not our purview. >> Right. But what is our point is that that would probably be acceptable to us which would get you the functions you're
looking for and likely as Mr. Tusa said position you with zoning as something that at least HBC would find acceptable if you could present to us a scheme that would do that >> 100%. >> I was going to say zoning usually thinks in terms of does HBC have have they
granted conceptual approval? Correct. I think if we're talking about a three a three bay um carriage house, let's call it that in the back separate from the house, you're I would say you have a >> to be totally honest with everybody um it's really just a timing issue because
we're trying to get this project to be able to be complete and that ties us up for for >> Well, I think that's what Judy is suggesting that if you want to get those additional functions in your addition that's under construction right now that you think of the garage as a separate project, right? And you could at least get those functions in your addition by
amending your current plan, right? Which we could probably approve pretty quickly. >> Okay. And I would also point out there are three car garages in Cape May. There's one I can think of right on Madison. There's another one just like think the first house off. >> Maybe there's a way to fit that those
additional spaces that he's looking for without having to get relief from the board. Like I I just don't know what the need at all. the whole house garage or not. I need >> But do you need a bar in a media room? >> No, I don't. I really don't. >> So all those functions
>> I need a bar. >> You can remove the whole >> I don't need anything. >> The only problem is the size of the garage. That's our only >> You added those three functions just to put something habitable in the breezeway. >> You had to, right? And two stairs. >> In order to get the blessing of zoning, we had to do it that way.
>> All right. So the basically the fundamental shift of thinking strategy is the garage is a separate structure. That's that's what you would have to come to grips with. >> It's limited to 900 square ft or we go to the board and ask for an oversized garage which hopefully we'd go with the
blessing of the HPC saying the the the approval come back. >> Okay. So what I'd like to move is that we table this project. >> But we need a an an acceptance from you. need the applicant to acknowledge waiver of the time for decision. So that
>> I think we kind of have to. So >> I second your motion. >> Okay. So motion on the table is to table the project. Um moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. We appreciate everybody's time and comments. Thank you for taking so much time with us. >> Well, no, I think um >> Thank you. >> Thank you for
considering alternative approaches. >> We'll be back to see you on Tuesday morning. >> Sure you will. >> Okay. Um any other public comment from anybody else in the auditorium, which there's nobody here? >> Okay.
>> So guys, a couple of things for um um discussion purposes. Number one, and I think we can do this fairly quickly, I had sent out an email to everybody on July 6th that had an update about what Judy and I discussed with Paul Dietrich
about getting the property surveys done and hiring a an architectural historian to do that in the name of Steven Smolen. That discussion resulted in a suggestion from Paul that we simply ask for a proposal from Steven to become a
consultant to us on an asneeded basis. Hence he provided us a proposal which is dated July 6 which I forwarded to all of you to review. Did you get a chance to review that? >> Question is do you think this is a viable and worthwhile approach that we
can recommend to Paul to recommend to city councils? That's what we're asking for this evening. Just just before you do before you do. >> Um and that proposal results in a relationship that's terminable at will >> not a fixed term, right? It's a
>> professional services agreement that's just on a year-to-year basis. >> So it does have a term. >> Yes. It's an annual the services are as needed. Yeah. So >> right. And and I'm not I I really don't want to suggest that Steven produce
things that we didn't like. I just wanted to figure out what our rights were visav terminating if we had to. >> Yes, it would be. >> I guess you just would if you weren't satisfied with the services, you just wouldn't ask for any more of them. >> Correct. Okay.
>> And and just for the the record here. Um this is already on council's agenda for tomorrow for adoption. So after >> I guess it might be to work on it tonight. The idea was that he would discuss tonight and we can report
tomorrow that it was you know consulted within us or not. >> Not necessarily tomorrow. >> We can it would be good to have the HBC's endorsement of that. Okay. So I would like to propose a motion to approve
>> Steven Smullen's proposal for professional services through 2026. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes.
>> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Okay. We have an alignment workshop scheduled for 10 to 2 here in this very room on uh July 30th. What I handed out to all of you at the beginning of our
meeting was a detailed um first page of an agenda. This is just simply in our standard format of a what's the purpose of this workshop? What are the products we're trying to achieve functionally being state and will creation? I will
now take and write an agenda with time slots for the four hours to address all of these bullet points which were the ones that emerged out of the documents that I asked all of you to give me that I've been collecting for a year about what do we need to do with our standards that we've learned to make modifications
as we move forward. And guess what? We can ask Stephen to write the language for it because right um this works out pretty well. So I just wanted everybody to take a look at this. I don't need an answer right now, but if you would please take a look at it. If you have any other comments or bullet points
you'd like to add, let me know by the end of this week so I can get it in the agenda for next week. Does that make sense? I also want to point out that that's not going to be the agenda that we make officially because this is way too detailed. I would like you to review that and see if that looks like a
reasonable agenda to have us publish. And when does that need to be published? >> At least 48 hours before. And it's electronic notice now, so it's a lot easier. >> Want me to forward this to you?
>> Yeah. No, this if this is the the skeleton of what we're talking about, this is fine. >> So, you have a week. >> I'll forward it to you. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Next. Um, signage task force update. This is pretty cool. Um, as you know, we have a
a uniform city signage task force composed of four of us from this table, including Lorraine as our liaison with city council, Paul Dietrich, um, Curtis Bashaw, um, and Eric from DPW. Did I get
everybody? We've had, I believe, five meetings since the beginning of the year. What we are creating is what I'll call an appendix to our historic design standards specifically for city produced signage.
There was a resolution that was approved by city council for us to do that. We've written a second resolution to bring before city council which outlines the content of that appendix which essentially identifies four primary
signage types or categories with a bunch of signage types under each of those and then six characteristics for each of those signage types like font, size, configuration, location, illumination, all that sort of stuff that we have written about 50% of to date by the end
of August. No. >> Yes. By the end of August, we should have a 100% draft of it for everybody here to review. >> August. >> Say it again. >> End of the end of July is quite close. >> August. >> Yeah. >> It was August. August.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> We were supposed to get the first draft back. >> Correct. >> Right. Right. So you saw what I So we have 50% even without your bit. Um so the idea here guys is what our
subcommittee which is the four of us is working on is creating this draft um that we would like to present to all of you after the 30th of August to get your nod that we can then present to the city uniform task force for their nod that we
could then take to city council as the content of this appendix with the resolution for what the content should be to get approved by city council. Does that all make sense? >> It's a lot of nodding, but it makes sense. >> Any comments, thoughts, requests,
complaints? >> Did my link work? >> Okay, if you want, we can we can sit down over it. >> So, I sent you a I sent you a word. >> So, the latest version is all in word. I sent that to you.
>> Okay. So >> I did mine. >> Thank you again. >> It it's a word file. >> Okay. So here's the thing. If you did if you can't open that word file, send me an email. I'll send you a word file and you can do all your work in track changes format.
>> I've done everything in word also. So if you have it in track changes format, just send me that. >> You can you can do compares. You can do >> and I can merge the two documents. Cool. That's great. All right. And then, um, lastly, Marine and I spent a lovely
afternoon together a couple weeks ago. Well, I guess it was last week when it was super hot. >> Super hot. Here's what we were looking at. You may recall that we had talked about creating a National Historic Landmark District plaque of some sort
upon entering Kate May from Skeleer Landing, right? And then we realized that wait a minute that should have limited language on it because you're driving. It should basically say welcome to Kate May National Historical Landmark District 1976. Done. Right.
>> Hence two plaques, one at each end of the mall. And the more we looked at that, um, what we're probably going to propose in the uniform standards is in that triangle of planted area coming
across the bridge would be a stone monument with a bronze plaque applied to it. That would be more horizontal than vertical, not something on a pole. That would actually be able to have landscaping in front of it and be illuminated with the lighting hidden in
the landscaping. So that's what we think it'd be like a beautiful permanent solid monument, right? >> Well, if you're in charge of the >> in charge of the casting line, then what would be significant? and and then doing the same thing at the
mall, but slightly different in that the existing sign that's at the Congress Hall end of the mall now remove that, put it somewhere else or do something different with it, but use that planter that they built for that to put a similar stone monument with a bronze plaque that had the the additional
language that was originally intended for the main plaque that was given to us, never actually given to us, but proposed to be given to us by the Secretary of Interior folks, Department of Interior, and to do exactly the same thing at the Ocean Street entrance to
the Washington Street Mall by building a new planter behind the flag pole. There's a flag pole on either end. So, that's what we're proposing. I just wanted to float that out for folks to think about and we'll have a proposal to show you at some point in the future.
Yeah, most >> most historic districts say, you know, welcome to the, you know, Brunswick historic entering the Brunswick historic district, but here we have, you know, a national historic landmark district. >> So, I think that sounds lovely with the lighting. >> In all cases, it'll have the seal of the
city of Kate May on it. I mean, it'll be nice. >> Um, that's all I have. Any other comments, questions, or things you'd like to raise for discussion? >> I move we adjourn. So moved.