Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order the City of Kate May's Historic Preservation Commission. It is July 21st at 6:02 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 will please join
us in the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. So Brian, could we have a roll call,
please? Absolutely. Mr. Becker here. Mr. Ta here. Mr. Carol here. Miss Pagno here. Miss Wilson Strick here. Mr. Stevenson here. Mr. Hammer here. Mr. Johnson here.
Mr. Curts here. Thank you. Okay. As most of you know, we have held several, three in fact, HBC alignment workshops this year. And at the very first one, we all aligned around what is
the real purpose of our work at the core of what we're trying to do in our community. And we came up with a a a written purpose statement to express that. So, in order to establish, let's call it, the energy in the room this evening, I'd like to ask Steve if he'd be willing to read us the purpose
statement of why we're here. Sounds great. uh purpose statement for HPC's work to serve as a catalyst for guiding and valuing Cape May's historical, cultural, and natural resources in a way in ways that inspire
and unite our community to steward these resources for the benefits of all so that present and future generations continue to express the unique quality of life in this place that we love. Indeed, we do love it. Yes. Thanks, Steve. Yep.
Okay. Um Karen has sent to all of us the minutes from our meeting, our last meeting held on June 16th. Has everybody had a chance to review those? Any comments before I ask for a motion to approve them? I have
one. Um Brian, regarding Carnese Incorporated at 419 Beach Avenue, um there was a motion to for a uh approval conditional upon spandre brackets to the uh oop never
mind. I didn't think it said first floor, but it does. So, never mind. So, I'd like to entertain a motion for approving the minutes as written. You did mention only one set of minutes. The there two up. Yes, we'll get that. Okay. So I move for the first one.
You move to approve the minutes. Moved by Mr. Carol. Do I hear a second? Seconded by Miss Wilson Strick. Roll call vote, please. Brian. Yes. Sorry. Give me one second here. And I'm sorry. I also stand corrected.
This is for the May 15th, 2025 meeting minutes. So just clarify, are we are we still help your your mind? Nope. I'm right here. Never mind. June 16th. Yep. June 16th. Yep. June 9th and 16. Yeah, June. We agree it's June 9th and June 16th.
Correct. But I I wanted to do one at a time. Oh, okay. So June 16th. Roll call vote, please. Sure. Mr. Carol, yes. Miss Pagno, yes. Miss Wilson Strick, yes. Mr. Stevenson, yes. Mr. Hammering, yes.
Mr. Ta, yes. Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you. And there's also the June 9th meeting minutes from our special meeting. Would like to entertain a motion to approve those minutes, please. I'll move. Moved by Mr. Hammer. Do I hear a second?
I'll second. Okay. Second by Miss Pagno. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Carol, yes. Miss Pagno, yes. Miss Wilson Strick, yes. Mr. Stevenson, yes. Mr. Hamron,
yes. Mr. Ta. Yes. Mr. Becker. Yes. You were also distributed a invoice an invoice from Gillan Schwarz Law LLC for services rendered to our commission. Like to entertain a motion to approve
the payment of that bill. So moved. Second. Moved by Excuse me. The fellow. Moved by Mr. Ta. Seconded by Mr. Carroll. Yes, Mr. Carol. Yes, Miss Pagno. Yes,
Miss Wilson Strick. Yes, Mr. Stevenson. Yes, Mr. Hamron. Yes, Mr. Ta. Yes, Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you. We have four resolutions for ratification. The first is Jaganderson at 918 Columbia Avenue, block 1089, lot
8, resolution 202523. City of Kate May, 8:30 Canning House Lane, block 1061, lot 139, resolution 202524. Avou LLC at 62nd Avenue, Block 1012, lot 15.01, resolution 202525.
And last, 1537 Yacht Avenue LLC, 1537 Yacht Avenue, block 1160, lot 24, resolution 202526. Like to entertain a motion to ratify those resolutions. So move. Moved by Mr. Carol, seconded
sec. Seconded by Mr. Stevenson. Roll call vote, please. Brian. Mr. Carol, yes. Miss Pagno, yes. Miss Wilson Strick, yes. Mr. Stevenson, yes. Mr. Hamron, yes. Mr. Ta, yes. Mr. Becker, yes. Thank you.
Moving on to applications approved or denied in review. I would like to note there is one that is missing from the list that I would like to add into the record and that is Atlantic City Electric at 1045 Beach Avenue to replace the light pole.
Therefore, I'd like to request a motion to approve. Can I make a one? Yes, please, Kevin. If you look at Church of Our Lady of the Sea, 500502 Lafayette Street, it's actually not a rooftop condenser. Remember it was in the backyard in a circus yard.
Thank you for that clarification. Did you get that, Brian? Church of Our Lady of the Sea. The condenser is not a rooftop condenser. So, we just need to strike rooftop. I'll show you. Thank you, Kevin. Okay. Like to entertain a motion to approve or ratify these applications
that have been approved or denied in review. I'll move to approve them. Okay. Second. And I'll second the motion. Moved by Miss Wilson Stritic, seconded by Mr. Ta. Brian. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Carol, yes. Magno,
yes. Miss Wilson Strait, yes. Mr. Stevenson, yes. Mr. Hamron, yes. With one extension. I'm sorry. Um Um I have to defer on this one. It's Zakaria, 1018 Washington Street. I live too close to it.
Okay, Mr. Ta. Yes, Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to applications. We have a representative here, please, from the city of Kate May regarding 210 Beach Avenue.
Good evening, everyone. Please state your name. Paul Dietrich, a city engineer and city manager for Cape May City. Thank you. Uh we're here this evening uh to request a recommendation. Uh we're submitting for a project authorization to uh
construct a renovation to the uh lifeguard headquarters at 210 Beach um Avenue here in the city. And uh and for that we need uh the commission's uh recommendation. Uh this is this property is not within the historic district
though it is obviously within the national historic landmark area within the city and therefore we need your recommendation uh to make an application to uh the state historic preservation office for authorization. Um
we kind of had two design parameters when looking at the um lifeguard headquarters renovation. Uh you you may or may not have seen several years ago. uh some presentation plans came forth and I think lifeguard headquarters was
going to be expanded in many directions and uh that was kind of not thought positively uh by the community. So uh we took some time to relook at it. So one of the key design
parameters of this project was not to expand its vertical footprint or the footprint to the east or the footprint to the west. So obviously when you have those kind of
limitations um you're fairly restricted and oh by the way uh a further restriction after we've been met and consulted with the uh NJ. They don't really want us to increase the footprint
in the other direction onto the beach. So we are very restricted on where we can go and and oh by the way we can't encroach anymore out onto the prominade. So you say well Paul if I can't go to
the north to the south to the east or to the west how am I doing a renovation? I'm glad you asked. That's that's why I'm here this evening. And this is what between myself and uh Robert Connley, our archite the city
architect came up with. and and and really the paramount need for this is over the years our female lifeguard population has has grown to to where probably 20 years if we asked you know
we probably had you know lifeguards on the on one hand as far as female guards now it we're close to 5050 population you know between male and female guards And if you've toured the facilities, the
facilities are woefully inadequate in in having uh adequate facilities for the female guards to they're just too crammed in there and they just don't have enough space in there. So, it's a paramount that we came up with a solution. Um, and I think the architect
architect did a great job at coming up with the solution. If you look at the uh the photo array that I submitted, um I'm going to kind of talk you through with it from the pictures first and then we'll look at it on the plan view. If you look at the second set of pictures,
um where it says C and D, the C is the up front or the street side elevation and D is the east side elevation. So, if you're looking at the east side elevation, if you if you see where the handicap ramp comes up on the east side, we're going to remove that handicap ramp
on that side. And then the area where the handicap ramp would continue along the the the front of the building. We're going to use that space and bump the building out to the where the handicap ramp is. So therefore, we're not encroaching any
further onto the prominade. If you go to the previous photo, if you look at the west side elevation, we will move the um handicap ramp onto that side
elevation. So that is I'll say the one location where to a slight degree are we encroaching to the I'll say the vista if you're if you're standing on the beach avenue and looking towards that are we
increasing its width yes but it's only handicap ramp and it's already blocked for the railing so you know we feel that that's a a minor encroachment to that side also from a impact for the from the D we built what we originally set out to
do. This is a much less impact on the environment. Um, now when you look at the rear elevation that's above it, where the existing deck sits today, there's pile supports underneath of the
outer edge of that deck. So, what we're anticipating going is extending the wall out to that edge of where the the existing deck is and then we're going to can lever out from that a new walkway
deck that would be along that full width. So, so in the in since we are expanding that way, but we're not putting a new penetration on the beach with piling. So, we feel that it will comply with the D rules. So, how does this look in plan? So, if
you look at the first plan sheet, uh, A1, um, and, uh, you know, it kind of gives you the photo arrows. So, you can see we're on the left hand side, we're going to remove that handicap ramp. You can see that strip of lockers that in
the is in the women's locker room that that that will kind of be where the existing handicap ramp is. Um the the remainder of the front of the building will remain the same except you can see as you approach the right side that that's where the ramp will be the
handicap ramp will go around. So anybody that would need handicapped assistance access into the building they will actually enter the building in the rear of the building uh not in the front. uh there is no way with the slopes and everything to be able to get handicap ramp up to those front steps without
having to put the steps out into the prominade which was a design criteria that we couldn't impose upon. So now you look at the back elevation the beach elevation the the steps that you see there are the existing steps. So, we're
not we're going to reconstruct or I mean we may redeck the steps, but the steps where they're shown in that location are the steps where they stand. So, we're not increasing that encroachment of the steps. Uh you can see where the building is bumped out. If you see on the left
hand side, there's a set of lockers and that office on the interior side. That is the existing ex exterior wall of the lifeguard building. So that's, you know, where the the men's locker room will
extend out. That will be a new office. And then on the right hand side of that area, the the existing uh chief's office will be expanded. And then the crew meeting room will be expanded out to the the new line. Uh so that's that's how
the expansion is. If you look at the, you know, the men's and women's facilities, you know, each of them have four showers, each of them have four, uh, restroom facilities, uh, to go in. So, you know, from a square footage, the men's locker room just is slightly
larger just because of the configuration of how the building was laid out, but they're essentially equal in size as far as the number of lockers and facilities that each are going to provide. Um, as far as the exterior, uh, the existing
building has hardy siding, you know, AAC trim, vinyl windows, asphalt shingle roofs, all of that will be replaced to match the existing structure. And I think that in summary is is what
we're looking to do. Um, I think given the unique location, you know, being on the prominade, there are no other structures within several hundred feet of this or probably within three or four blocks to the east or west of this building.
Um, it's outside the historic district and it's an existing I would even say an I don't it's it's really considered a non-rated building because it has not been surveyed to be non-contributing. However, I'm sure if if it was surveyed, it would be attributed as a
non-contributing structure within the the city. Thank you, Paul. Mr. Hammer, have you any comments or questions? No questions. Mr. Sagno, none. Mr. Stevenson, I think you've done the least amount of change possible. So, commend you for
that. I mean, I did I didn't look at the elevation, but if you look at the next two sheets that show the elevation views, it's really you as far as the amount of square footage that we did increase the restrooms, you know, the shower facilities for both of the facilities. It's about as limited of a
profile impact to the building as you could make. I I do have one question. I'm sorry. I noticed that in the woman's locker room there are four lavatories. Are two of them for public use for the beach goers or people who come for No, these are all just like as today the
the uh the neither of them are really open to the public. Thanks. Yep. It looks fine. Thank you. I I think it's it's kind of like a stealth expansion in the sense that you have to look
except for the move in of the handicap ramp which logical and the only thing it's you have to look hard to find out what the changes are. It it isn't the slightest bit intrusive or offensive to the streetscape. So, um it it just it just really preserves things and and expands in a practical way that you had
to do it. on uh page A3, as you've bumped that building out, you are kind of creating a mass that uh uh faces over a pedestrian way. Uh whereas we'd like to have things
look a little bit more friendly. Uh you do need some signage that would things like water temperature, safety, things like that. that could be a good area to actually have some welldesigned postage about use of the beach and
things. Uh it would slow traffic down uh when the the prominade gets its narrowest, but uh I still think that would be a great place to just fill that area in a little with with we can look at doing something there. Even even some things about historic
bathing on our beaches could be of of interest for people. when Newflands used to be lifeguards rather than human beings. There's all kinds of interesting things about life on the beach. Um well well done project long overdue I think
for the for the ladies. Great. Just have one question. The spiral stair is up now to an expanded viewing platform. Yes. I I forgot to mention that. So the as you would the there's a small I'll probably say 8 by8 platform that's up at
on in the middle. Um they'll now the viewing platform will essentially be that area and the deck that we've expanded out that'll have a flat roof on top. So that will then have the entire stretch of the building as a viewing deck uh up
there and but we'll be using the same spiral staircase to access that location. additional safety measure. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Great. So, like to entertain a motion. So, we need to make a motion for a favorable advisory report on this project. So, I'll make that motion. Only
question I have about it is do you want to incorporate any of your suggestions in the advisory report the these these are issued as a written report and we make sometimes suggestions in it. So, I don't think we need to include them. Okay. But I would be happy to make suggestions as this project, you know,
even some things like uh this is these were the rules in 1890, you know, the women's bathing hours, the men's bathing hours, you know, no skin can be seen. You know, I I think people would really find it kind of fascinating. I I I like that idea and that and and I I agree that that is kind of a I'll say
a blank area on that facade that's kind of not broken up right now. So, I think we can leave it to the city to decide to use on the facade what it'd like to put on, but I'll make a motion for the issuance by this commission of a favorable advisory report to the city on the project as presented.
As presented. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. So, moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Miss Pagno. Roll call, please. Brian. Mr. Carol. Yes. Miss Pagno. Yes. Miss Wilson Stritic.
Yes. Mr. Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Hamron? Yes, Mr. Ta. Yes, Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Have a good evening. Thank you. Okay, moving on to our next application.
Do we have representatives here from 925 Corgi Terraski? Welcome back. Welcome back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to recuse myself. Thank you very much, Mr. Curts. So do I.
Mr. Johnson, thank you. We still have more than a quorum. So, if you could please introduce yourselves by stating your name and your address, please. My name is Donald. And you are owner of the property. Yes. Great. Gentlemen, sorry to interrupt, but if you could just hit the button on your
mics just and make sure they're turned on. Bring them nice and close. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Sorry. Do do it again or not. Okay. So gentlemen, the floor is yours. Well, we were here in May of uh 2025.
We presented our plans. We had recommendation from the board, the committee, and we I think we answered all of those recommendations. Matt met met with the uh commission in
uh June of 16th, I think. No, no, June 10th. June 10th. and and uh presented the plans and it was favorably recommended to the board and we're here now with the same plans. Uh so revised.
Yeah. Do you want us to run through the notes? I don't think you need to unless anybody needs clarification. You were very very clear and comprehensive in your submission listing all of the conditions we had asked about and you addressed all of them from my perspective. So um rather than going around the room, does anybody have any questions or comments
about this application? I have one. Okay. So, when you look at the Oh, Kevin, did you have one? Okay. So, when you look at the um elevation of that has the triangular pediment in it. Right now, it's it's just shown as a blank
triangle. All I would ask is just a revised elevation that shows how that's actually going to be constructed because it doesn't indicate a material or the trim that's going to be necessary to receive the roofing material. Gotcha. That's it. Yep. Yep. So, we can approve this or
entertain a motion to approve it um with the condition you just submit that additional drawing to us. And the reason for that is because our field inspector will want to be make sure that in the field he's verifying what it is exactly that we approved. Okay.
Okay. It's a clarification. Got it. All right. Matt. All right. All right. Him. Thanks so much. Thank you. Okay. Just one other question. Oh, please. Uh, the new addition of the porch in the back, you're not proposing a railing system in that.
So, there is a rule about how high a porch can be. Are you within that boundary line? I think limit is 32 in. We're 26 in. Yes. Okay. Fine. Wonderful. Good. That's excellent. I I think the
the code requires a 30 inch maximum before you have a railing required. you're drawing say 36. So you just might want to correct that too. Okay. Yeah, it was 26. I was going to say if there is a problem, some people uh overcome that by just making a little bit of a flower bed
below it, bringing that up a little bit uh to not need that railing system particularly when the railing systems that required are now block your view of everything. So yeah, thank you. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve this
project? Motion moved by Mr. Stevenson. Second. You're gonna have to make it conditional right upon submission of the correct. So, so your motion is conditional upon submitting that elevation. Correct. What Jim said. No, what you said. I think we're all in alignment.
Yes. Okay. So, do I hear a second? Great. So, moved by Mr. Stevenson, seconded by Mr. Hamron. Roll call vote, please. Brian. Mr. Carol. Yes. Magno. Yes. Miss Wilson Stritic. Yes. Mr. Stevenson. Yes. Mr. Hamron.
Yes. Mr. Ta. Yes. Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. And it was it was nice working with you, Matt, as we chatted a little bit. Oh, I'm sorry. How did I screw that up? Thank you, guys.
John John having a rough night up here. I'll tell you, it's not going to get better. No. All right. So, moving on to our next application. Mortimer at 448 West Perry Street.
Good evening. Good evening. So, if you could please state your name and your address and your role on the project, please. Sure. And just press the little button so you have a green light on your microphone. My name is Pamela Fine. I am the project architect. My address is 179 County Road
in Kate May Courthouse, New Jersey. Uh, my name is Michael Mortimer. I am the son of the parents on the that are on the deed. My primary address is 1288 Bridal Estates Drive in Yardley, PA. Okay. And um, Ann Marie Burningham, the daughter of the estate.
So, you you two are are representing the owners, correct? Got it. And my address is 1183 Stonegates Turn, Garnet Valley, PA. Well, thank you very much. I'm sorry, ma'am. Could I get your name again? An Marie. Ann Marie. B R I T I N G H A M.
Well, welcome. Thank you. The floor is yours. Great. Okay, so I'll start. Um I want to give a quick little history about the property um and when I got involved because I have some limited knowledge
about what existed prior. So um I'm going to touch on uh what has been done. Um, so there was a existing front stair and landing um that you can see in the historic property report. Uh, it's kind
of covered. It's on the left side of the house um off of West Perry Street. Uh there was what looks like a set of stairs uh off to the left that landed um on a small landing at the corner of the house with another set of stairs that
then go back to another landing at the top um where there was a door. Um that stair and landing is gone. Uh there was from what I'm told extensive rot. Um it was falling down. It needed a repair.
Um, so that was removed and a new landing and stair was in the process of being built. I am then called because there are no permits. Um, so there they need a variance and they need HPC
approval. So the reason why I say that is I I don't really know what was there. I don't know the size of the landings, the proportions, things like that. The best of my knowledge is on this photograph. Um, so what I did was I measured what's there. Um, and you'll
see that in my packet later on. Um, on the P I believe it's P5. Yes. So P5 is what the house looks like now. Um, and that's what I where I began. Um, so
the front landing you see is uh rough framed. We have a couple of posts. Um, it's a larger deck area, I'll call it. Um, and it and it extends beyond the front wall of the house about roughly 2 feet plus or minus. Um, there was going
to be a set of stairs that go back uh towards the back of the property off of that deck. Um, you'll see that drawn in my floor plan. So, if you bounce back to P two
where I have the proposed floor plans, you'll see that deck shown as it was rough framed um with the stair that was intended to be built shown. Um that stair is an L-shaped stair. Um we have a
small landing. Um, so it's basically a the same general idea, but the the new deck is considerably larger than the couple of landings that were previously there on the home. Um, also tonight we're here to ask for uh approval to
build a new rear deck. Um, you'll see it's a larger rear deck with a new set of scissor stairs. Um, everything will be made out of wood and we are also proposing replacing a window with a slider door. You'll see that on the
proposed first floor plan. Uh, and if you go back down to the ground floor plan, which is right next to it, you'll see we're also proposing changing out the uh overhead door with a pair of hinge doors, which are also made of wood. Uh the slider, if we bounce back
to that, that would be a gelwin. All wood, non-clad, pre- primed. Um like I said, pressuret treated wood decking on all of the surfaces. Wood railing. I have a um a detail later on in the packet. Uh we have some privacy screens
underneath a portion of the front deck and also the rear landing that would also be made of wood. Let's see if I missed anything. I think that that about covers it. Okay. Thank you very much. So, um, thank
you for the clarification of the sort of inconsistencies between what the property report shows and the deck that's floating there. Now, um, and you will be going before zoning because the existing setback to that deck is in is
non-conforming. Correct. Yes. So, if this is approved tonight as it's drawn, we'd be asking for a front yard setback. So, you're here for a conceptual review, then you'll go to zoning and come back to us for final. Is that correct? Exactly. Yes. Okay. So, moving around the room, Steve,
please, if you could start us off. So, what we're just to summarize what we're talking about tonight is we've got the the deck that is in transition or being rebuilt, I guess, right? And then the existing back deck is going to be removed and rebuilt.
Yes. And just help me understand, I think you said this, but how much bigger is the new deck going to be in the back compared to what's there? Um, let me see. I should have measurements in my file. While you're looking, Miss Fine, just to
confirm the the back portion, you're not looking or anticipating any zoning relief for that part of it, right? just the front, right? That's correct. So, everything that we're proposing in the rear of the property is allowed. Um, setbacks, coverages, they all comply. So, it's
really just for that front deck area. So, the existing deck right now is about 10t uh front to back by 7'4 left to right. And we are proposing uh 17 by 12. 17 by 12. Yes.
Okay. And uh to clarify, it's tough to talk to see on the elevation. There isn't plans to have parking or anything under the deck, is there? No parking under the deck. No. Any other questions, Steve? Me. Mr. Curts,
I'm kind of looking at P6. I I like the streetscape with the new front deck on it compared to what it looks like now. I mean, you look down the street, looks porch, porch, porch. Somebody's back of the house. I think the front porch is a great idea as well as the rear. It's a conservative.
Thank you. I'm just going I'm looking at um sheet P2 and I think Steve had asked a question as far as you're not going to be able to um pull a car through. But it does say existing garage area under
proposed ground floor plan. Is that just going to be storage? U if I may. No, it's not meant to be storage. Um, it's just an area where you come in the door and it's just because the living area is on the second floor, right? It's an area to come in. It's not meant
to be storage, per se. You just come in the house and it was never going to be a garage because there's no driveway up to it. Okay. Just making it look nicer. Instead of having a garage door, I'll have the I can change the wording just so it says I just I just wanted to make sure that just to clarify that right a little bit.
garage or storage because you you can ex uh enter from from the back side of that to the looking at the back to the left there's a door. Yeah. Okay. And is that how you enter the property currently through the the only way right now? Okay.
To the side. Okay. Yeah. Just to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. I'm looking at P2. Uh, as much as we love to see porches in the front of the house, they're usually freestanding in front of the house. The one you're
proposing is looks like an extension of the front of the house, but it comes out a little bit further. Could that be even with the front of the house and just take that little bit off there and make it look sort of a little bit more like a
front side porch and not jutting out any further? I think we'd be open to that. That was an idea that we kind of tossed around early on. Um I believe the from what the photograph showed, the old photograph, it looked like the landing was proud of
the wall originally. So that was what we were going with. But pulling that new construction back will help with the variance process. So I think we'd be open to that. Yeah. Because the leading edge of that deck is already in place stand. Yes. Okay. Got it. Well, I guess that's where I begin with
my question. How did that deck leading edge get to be X stamped? It just got built without permits, without application to HBC. Is that what happened? Yeah, that that was a mistake on my part. The deck was rotting as talked about. Yeah.
And so I had it pulled off and I just figured well I was staying within where the other deck I started having it done thinking I Let me let me start with the positive. Um, I I I think the materials here are are fine. Uh, Pam has specified
everything that would go into what we would require for the house. I think all the rest of it, um, the back, for example, I don't have a problem with. What I do have a problem with is that this is a contributing structure and we're now to we're about to add something. And you know, here's the
difficulty. I like what I see in terms of its creativity. I don't like the fact that it's on the front of a contributing structure and it's of substantial size to be considered, I guess, a porch, maybe a small addition. That's my
problem. Um, it changes the front of the structure and that gives me a lot of pause and concern. I I know it's useful. It looks it looks fine as one would see it from an objective standpoint, but I believe that that causes some detriment
to the contributing status of the property even though you've improved it in my personal judgment. So, those are my comments. Thank you, Janice. I really don't know what to say about this building. I walk by it all the
time. It has a nice character. It's kind of an attractive building. And when I looked at the pictures, I could see a door had been taken and a window had been replaced. And these are all things that we need to review. So that's a, you
know, an issue. Um, I I don't really have any ideas or changes. Um, I just it's it's kind of an enigma structure
for me. So, I'm just going to put that out there. Um, I tend to agree what some of the other members have said about it really does change the symmetry from the streetscape of this contributing building. And uh I mean my opinion would
be like kind of bring it back to the dimensions of the previous stairway. Um because there is a very large deck on the back and you know is this really necessary on the front that changes the look of a contributing building. I too love this building. It's been
there. It's just very very unusual different. Uh, I would agree with everyone else that we have to stay more in line with what is required of a contributing building, but I have to say I very much like the uh proposed left
side. I think it looks nice, but it could be not as wide. I I tore these out so it could match the previous and existing. I want to go I I share the same concerns
as as Mr. Ta. I want to go through the kind of the arrangements here. So, in the in the property report, since it's a contributing contributing building, that entry or porch or what have you on the on the left side of the building, how did that work? There's a set of stairs
that's in the picture. So, it went up straight to the deck. Is that It looks like an L-shaped where it had a set of stairs that hit an intermediate landing, turned towards the rear, had another set of stairs, and then landed on another small landing. These were
probably only like three or four foot wide landings, I'm thinking. Okay. And then how wide was the the deck? Probably the same. Yeah. There might be some like phantom, you know, shadows left from where it was
attached that I might be able to measure to. Okay. So then in the existing floor plan that's SU2, it's now a deck, but you don't show a stair going up, right? There's nothing constructed. Yeah. You access it essentially from the sun.
It's a it's a framed uh incomplete deck right now. Then then I I think And is that intended then to become the entrance to the house? Yes. Okay. Then I think I would agree with you. I think I would try to restore the house to as close to what it originally
looked like um with the you know the steps going up directionally the smaller deck um to try to not complicate compromise the contributing status of the house. I mean that's our primary objective is protecting the contributing
statuses of the houses. So I I think as close as you can get back to that original the better off. Okay. Puts it on you. I'm sorry. I said it puts it on you now. Oh, yeah. It's you. Okay. So, from what I can tell here,
based upon the property report, it appears that the leading edge towards the street of that deck is in alignment with what have been what would have been the leading edge towards the street of the prior stair before that was removed because it was rotted and the new deck.
Yes. Platform installed. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. So, what's really fascinating to me is that from the property port, which was done in 2011, um it states that it appears as if that whole front mass was
an enclosed porch. But it's odd because it also says that from the historic maps, there's no identification of that as a porch, even though it has that look. I'm talking about the the main mass on the front of the house. So, I don't think we can really comment on that. But what's also fascinating is it
literally says a wood entrance stair with a plain wood ballastrade and top landing is located at the northeast corner of the building and it's still qualified as being contributing. So what that tells me is that there would be in we would be in no jeopardy of losing the contributing status based
upon this statement in the prior property report if it what was there was replicated. However, with that said, I don't think that's your only option. So I'll go back to a comment. So I think that's clearly an option. So you've
already I think brought forth that you would be willing to at least remove that leading edge back to no further projecting towards the street than the front facade of the house. Correct. Yes. I think that would probably help you in two ways. One is with regard to this
property report and second would be of obviously with regard to zoning. So the other option that that would be really kind of fun to talk about, maybe we can chat about it on a Tuesday morning is what Tom was proposing in that is there any way Well, let me ask you this. How
do you plan on using that deck? Just not that that has an implication on our decision, but it would help me think about maybe a suggestion that might help you accomplish what it is you're trying to do. I mean, it's not meant to be like a porch where people hang out. maybe maybe have a chair if you want to sit there in
the morning, but it's really meant to just give it wider access to make it more functional to get furniture in the house and just different things which is problematic at the moment. Okay. So, it appears from what we can tell from the property report photograph, although it's it's unclear because it's just one very limited
parallax angle, that the existing stairway that was removed was just a stairway or was there a small pause deck there at that landing? You remember? I don't know if I would call it a deck. It was just a couple steps that went up to a landing. Y and then to the towards the house, then hug the
house steps going up to another landing that was the size of this table and then into the house. So, there wasn't really a deck there. It was purely vertical circulation access. And that's what it appears to say in this property report. So, replicating that likely wouldn't be an issue for us. However, if it is
something that functionally you would like to improve to be able to put a piece of furniture out there and have access to the street in the morning, cup of coffee, whatever, I wonder whether or not you would consider putting a roof on this in in which in a way that would make it appear as if it actually were a
porch addition that would not have been that unusual to occur over a period of time. Just asking. So, how how would the roof look? Well, it's complicated out. that. No, no, no. So, that's why I was saying we could maybe chat this through on a
Tuesday if So, I'm only asking that or suggesting that if it's important to you to have a space that you can occupy on a deck on the front of the house because a deck on the front of the house is not the same thing as a porch on the front of a house, right?
Can I ask a question? Does it be a hard roof or can it be like an awning style? I'm not clearly not an awning. Not an awning pergola, maybe. So I the roof form here is really challenging. So but you're a very skilled architect. I mean you can figure
out ways to resolve that, right? Yeah. So I would just offer from my perspective and I'm only one person up here. I think you have two options. One is to explore if you think it's important to you to have a deck that you would like to be able to occupy as opposed to just a piece of vertical
circulation aka a stair or just go back to the stair as Kevin was proposing. And you don't have you don't really have to answer that. We can I mean we can do this by I mean if if we're going to wind up passing on this for conceptual approval, you can do
the conceptual approval and give you the ability to work on that one element. Um and and obviously I've come back for final right so there could be time for you to work on that. I'd make one observation and that is since the other observation since the survey was was was
taken and since the streetscape photo was um shown to us there's been significant growth of foliage and and one of the things that although John doesn't want me to talk about about foliage as cover being permanent but one
of the things it does is it does in fact reduce the view um of what's going on back there about the holly bush well that thing grown since since the first picture to the second streetscape picture. And and I in my judgment it it it gives you a little more flexibility
to do something on that side. That's I was actually going to point out that it it looks like a tree now. It does. And so remove you actually have to go to the shade tree commission. So that be careful with what you're doing here. So by by the way Kevin says is quite
accurate by the way. If you're going to remove any tree, it is and it's right now in our application that if you're planning on removing a tree, this will require shade tree commission approval as well. Tree stand. Got it. We decorate. Fair enough. As you know, it's the parade route. We decorate that tree and it's a big hit.
You think it's people stop and make comments? I just wanted to also make a suggestion if you do follow the roof idea that you do it like with a similar slope as to the main structure and also with the exposed rafter tails. Yep. so that it would blend in like it
would make it look older rather than a right cortica which is kind of yeah I have didn't that I'm sorry I got I have to point out one thing and that's you know the the pro the old property report would be certainly be a document that anybody would examine if they
construct a new and updated one um I have to be honest I I would I would be opposed to the roof design and my reasoning for that is simply that it it isn't clear what that porch deck looks like it's not clear but there is it is clear there's a step there's a set
of steps so I think any almost anything you do that replicates that would probably be okay and I think it would you know certainly protect the contributing status once you start introducing other elements you start raising the question of wait a minute is that something different and new and you
know is that consistent with the the house so I I would just have to say you know we always go we're all one vote and you know I am only Well, you you see it you see it as one option. You see it as one option. I see it as one option, not too. But also to go back to my statement about it
being an enigma. There may be some documentation, some photographs. It seems like the house has changed since it was originally built and that's why it's a little bit confusing now. So, um, that's an option, too, because
if you can document what you're trying to do, then we're thrilled. And you don't have to restore a house to its original look. If there's a a time period where it was in use and it had a porch and
there's a picture of that, then you're basically taking it to that period, right? and and that's likely to be fine, right? Yeah. And Janice is using, I think, an appropriate word here. It is an enigma because the house doesn't really have a front entrance,
right? It just doesn't, right? So the idea of of of giving it some sort of structure that returns a front entrance to it, I think would not in any way um impede its ability to remain as a contributing
structure so long as it was compatible with that existing structure and in compliance with our standards. Agree. So um turning it back to you, how would you like to proceed? Are we pulling it into a line? Is that a
We'll definitely can pull it into line. We're going to pull it into a line. Pull it into a line. The question is, is the roof the roof or the options? Right. We did the roof option. Are we leaving the current platform as it sits today? Not completed the same dimension. No. No.
So, you have to just simply bring it back to something that approximates the appearance of Kevin. Thank you. I always forget this. Yeah. you you know essentially no you you can change the kind of the depth or width or you know a
bit I mean not usually so but certainly bring it back to something that looks like it functionally worked the same as what what we see in the property report because that's the document that shows the oldest photo that we know of and has
the best description of the property. So essentially, we're trying to get back to that, if you will, or something beyond it. As as Janice mentioned, if you find a photograph of this thing from, let's say, the 30s or 20s, great. I mean, that's even better to try to to look to that.
So, I would suggest you have three options at this point. Yeah. And that might not be all of them, but there are at least three. One is we could table this right now and not make any sort of motion about it. And that would just simply ask of you to
give a 45day extension to the current timeline that was ticked when you provided the application. That's option one. Option two is we could entertain a motion this evening to approve conceptually putting a stair back or we could approve
conceptually putting a deck back. And in both cases, it would be conditional upon representing a revised scheme and then of course the option is open to you regardless of our motion to come and chat on Tuesday morning and we can figure it out. What what do you guys what would be
preferable to you? just make a comment on that and that is that um if they leave this board with conceptual approval but for the options we've talked about that really means the rest of the project has received a conceptual approval and that could be helpful in your presentation um in terms of the
further action you have to have made when you go for your variance. No, it's a good point because what I mean you'll carry a written a written statement from us saying the project was conceptually approved and whoever is looking at it will know that you've done that because the project's not limited to just that front deck. There's also the
back deck and the door and the window. Right. I mean I would suggest for you that the conceptual approval is the better way to go tonight. We're not going to table the issue. Right. It'll expedite the process forward until we have conceptual for sure. Can I John? Sorry Chris, please. Um just
trying to streamline things maybe a little bit for the applicant to make a decision here. You could leave with the conceptual you know that it's and I'm looking at a Google Maps photo of 2022 of a side profile of what's there and you you know
from your memory but there's a reference point here. We know like I'm looking at it right now what it is and the board would give you conceptual tonight. It sounds like they would have to take a vote first, but just to bump that, make sure that stair replicates what was there before, what I'm looking
at right now, probably. And then is flush with the front of the building as it exists now. That's probably going to help you with the zoning board as a practical matter. And it gives everybody some finality as to what's going to go on in this site. That's going to help you with the board, too, rather than, you know, well, we talked about this
concept, but we haven't flushed it out. So you could leave with that probably tonight if they want to take a vote. The other thing is if you wanted to table it to explore these other concepts, we would just ask that you table it indefinitely until you want to get you
tell us which way you're going to go. That process doesn't take a whole lot of time. We act pretty fast in comparison to the zoning. The zoning board, you have to do the 200 foot notice. You have to do the publication here. You meet with these guys on a Tuesday morning. You may get a better sense of it and you say, "You know what? Next
month I want to be throwing on we've decided a course. So we're a little bit quicker than the other board. So you could take a month and explore these and you may come up with the same thing. But I just wanted to point that out procedurally. It's a lot easier to get to this board if you want to kind of test run some ideas.
You don't get the conditional tonight. Yeah. Like if you just wanted to say, you know what, I want to think about it. This is really interesting to me, but I want to take the next month talk to Miss Fine about it and then maybe come to a Tuesday meeting. You could plan as a internal target to get to the next state chief's HPC meeting for a for August.
You know what I mean? Like it's and you could say, "Hey, you know what? We tabled it. We thought about it. We're going to come back with our final idea in August." And then you could get a conceptual there. We're not going to slow you down in front of the zoning board is what I'm saying. Have you submitted yet? No, we're waiting to kind of Yeah, this is the first step. So, even if you submitted today, you're
probably not going to be heard until August or September anyway. So, as a practical matter. So, I just wanted to point that out to you. You're not going to lose a lot of time. So, I can look online. I have a pretty good website that has documented uh eras, I'll call it, decades through a
building's life. We can go back to 1930s, 20s even. Um, I can see if anything different was there. I mean, my father didn't buy till 1919. So, we've been, but we've been next door since 1970. So, yeah.
Yeah. Maybe we'll get lucky and find something different because it does look I can't imagine that looking that way when it was first constructed. Right. So, we might get lucky and find something that we can replicate. We can go back and then see if we can Yeah. And then if not, then we can talk about
what option what option you want to go for. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Yeah. Okay. So, we'll table it. Um we're going to do some digging and see what we can find and I'll uh we just resubmit basically. Well, just to be clear, you
what we would ask is if you want to explore these options, you just wave the timing requirements indefinitely and then what that does is it keeps you in queue and you can let us know when you're ready. Okay? But we're not under some shot clock to make a decision on your application at this point. You let us know when you're ready and you can be put back on. The feedback was great. Like so now we
have a sense of what we So we invite you to come any Tuesday morning. The only stipulation is please call our secretary in the HPC office and make an appointment. Okay. Okay. And we're available anytime from uh 9 to 11, I believe. Right, Kevin?
Yeah. Okay. All right. So, this application needs a motion to table. Correct. All right. So, make a motion to table the application subject to the applicant waving the 45day rule. I'll second. Moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr. Carroll. I have a roll call vote,
please. Brian. Mr. Carol. Yes. Miss Pagno, yes. Miss Wilson Strait, yes. Mr. Stevenson, yes. Mr. Hamron, yes. Mr. Ta, yes. Mr. Becker, yes. Thank you. So, just as Yeah, one last comment. I I
think that what you're seeing is some some support for the project. Hopefully, this is helping you find a way to be more precise about what you want to submit, which will also hopefully help you with zoning because then you'll know. Okay. You're very welcome.
I'll look forward to it. Okay, next application. Cement Ship Incorporated, 1613 Beach Avenue. Do we have representatives from the project? Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, as this project was presented previously and I recused myself, I'm going to continue to recuse
through this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Ta. Good evening. If you could please state your name and your role in the project and then the floor will be yours. Okay. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Anthony Monzo from Monzo Dales
representing the applicant which is Cement Ship Inc. It's corporation that owns property at 1613 Beach Avenue. Um with me are are Dave Schultz who's the project architect. I also have uh Hunter and Margaret Cochran who are the owners
of Cement Cement Ship Inc. Uh I just want to go through Welcome. Thank you. Um just want to go through uh a little bit of history of this and and I'm going to have Mr. Cochran and Mr. Schultz give more detail to that. Um,
first it's a key it's a key contributing building located on Beach Avenue uh in the east part of town. And uh the applicant appeared before um the commission last year twice twice last year. First first in in I
believe it was July it was tabled. Uh it was August actually. That's okay. Okay. I think it was a review committee in in July. The application was Excuse me, Mr. Monso. Could you speak more into your microphone? Okay. Thank you. Presented in August. It was tabled. Um
some changes were made. Another meeting um occurred for a continuation of that in October and the application was not approved conceptually and the applicant went back to the drawing board made some changes
um to to the plan u met again with the review committee just recently made additional changes and all all the changes as well as the original application materials are in the packet and specifically If the changes dealt
with a a rear east side addition that was visible from Beach Avenue and that seemed to be the the main issue that the commission had and the changes that were made is from the previous submission is that east edition was moved in two feet
um to reduce the size of it. It's still set off the back of the building. So, it's not attached to the back, but there's a little bit of separation, but there is an attached attachment to that, but it can be removed without having any impact on the integrity of the main structure. Uh the other change that was
made um as recommended in committee was um some terrace area in the front along with some landscaping that seems according to the standards to be a mitigating factor when you have visibility from Beach Avenue. And that's
um located in in um page I think it's page 54 of the standards where it says in the first paragraph additions should um be ideally located
in the rear of a building to minimize the impact and and reduce visibility from the public rightway. additions to the side of a building should be located near the rear. And this one is is actually at the rear uh and set back a significant distance from the front
facade, which this case that does do that. Then it says landscaping can soften the appearance of a side addition. So I view that as something that maybe is not the most ideal thing, but it can be mitigated with landscaping, which in this case it was.
Um so with that background, uh Mr. Chairman, I just want to have Mr. Cochran explain um his thought process process and also explain the changes that were made from the last hearing that was presented to the commission. Hunter Cochran 1429 New Jersey Avenue.
Um, in your packet, I highlighted the specific areas in literally with a highlighter or by hand to show what the changes that were made from the last presentation and based on the comments from the architect meeting with informally with the committee and based
on their comments. Um, you so you'll see that in the in the site plan. I highlighted that. You'll see it in HPC 601B which is the south elevation
again on the east elevation. In addition, the the window in top below the gable roof has been changed. It was a half moon shape and it's now back to a more consistent look which the which you all had comments about and we agreed
with. Uh, and then if you go to the sorry to the west elevation, there's that similar window that was on that side that's highlighted here because we changed that from that half moon shape. Sorry, that's 604B proposed west elevation.
I highlighted that window because we changed it to one that was consistent with the style of the home. Thank you. You're welcome. So I I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the one concern that that the um commission did
articulate at that last hearing as I go through the standards for additions, I believe most of them, in fact, I think all of them are addressed in in this project. I mean, we have um
specifically the addition is differentiated from the principal structure. Specifically, the proposed rear one-story addition um that protruded into the um east side was was moved away from the back of the building to allow for a um separation if it
needed to be uh removed at any point. Uh it's not located on a facade that has significant architectural features. It's a separate addition that's not connected to the east facade of the building. Uh it's subordinate to and does not complete and does not compete visibly
with the original building. Um the features complement but do not necessarily duplicate those of the existing building. Uh it's a distinct existing structure which maintains the identity of the main building. The roof and exterior cladding have similar
material. um it preserves the architectural features of the primary building. The one change that was made was actually I believe um favorable to the commission and that was the bay window on the east side um which was a bump out only on the
first floor. It was extended to the second floor. The bay window was removed and the original window um type of window was was inserted along at the first floor as well as the second floor. And the only issue again is is you know
that it's visible from the street or the side yard. And and that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. Even in the guidelines or in the standards on page um on page 55, there's a photo of a side edition that
is subordinate to the original building with that side addition at right at the very front of the house, which is much more visible from a streetscape and and and street standpoint than something that's way in the back of the building, which is more consistent, I believe, with the with the standards with respect
to additions that protrude into the sideyard. So Mr. Schultz is here and he had you know he had presented this application previously and he went through I know this is a new application so it's a new record so what was testified to
previously is not part of this he can go through it again and but it's all in the plans all the materials are there the the plans are very detailed and specific so he's here to answer any questions or explain anything that's not clear and I don't have anything further to add at
this point do you want One little Dave Schultz, partner in DAS Architects. Um, I don't know if you noticed, but we when we met, we had talked about raising the grade and creating a burm. Yeah. Which we've done, but it but we created a little retaining wall that provides a
seating terrace and that effectively we think did the same thing as creating a burm. It does, I believe. Okay. Thank you. So, um, I'm sorry. All right, I don't want to interrupt your presentation. Are you guys finished? Yes, we're finished, Mr. Chairman. Okay, so I have um first of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Schultz, for um I
think we've met maybe three times on Tuesday mornings to talk through some projects. Yeah, on this project. Yeah, you're correct. On this project, we've met informally three different times. I believe that is correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's been a it's been a
collaborative effort is the way I would put it. So, thank you for being a part of that. Quick question. Your original submission back in October and I was not present because I was recovering from surgery. That conceptual
application was denied but it was conceptual. But tonight you have indicated that you're going for final approval. Is that accurate? That's accurate. There's no variances with this project. There's no need to go to any of the board to the zoning or planning board. What would be the zoning board for a variance? So I think this
has been presented three times now. So I got it. So we are final. Okay, that was really my question. You you have no need to request a variance or anything of non-current non-compliance. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hamron, please initiate our
discussion. Okay. So, um I think the last session on Tuesday was productive because um it it did point out some additional uh elements of compromise and I think that you know given those I would I would say
um you know it's it's much more close to what I envision as protecting again that that key contributing status in this case. Um, so let me just point out that on page 12, that's where the terms about
visibility and the use of of vegetation really I think comes in and applies. This is kind of the general term for everything. It says not visible, not able to be seen by a person standing in any public thoroughfare. Vegetation, seasonal foliage, and fencing are not
considered as they may be removed over time. So that that was where some of the original objections came to you know as we were talking about this. Um the second is on page 55 of the standards. Uh there is clearly a um you know a
section there where it says what's an appropriate side addition should account for uh should account for impact on the streetscape. And I I remember in the original discussion, you know, that it was it it looked like a pretty big addition because it was intended to be a
morning room where, you know, there's a full table and every everybody could have breakfast and enjoy the, you know, the view of the beach. It does, I acknowledge and I agree, it does sit back towards the back of the house. So, I think that that does probably make
compliance with there. says, "Preserve significant architectural features of the primary building as well as site features, including mature trees." Well, that doesn't apply, but it the way the the drawing shows of the of the
structure to be added onto the side of the building, I think in fact complements the the the architect architecture of the building. So, and on this basis, I voted against this in the original um you know, review with the
Burm creating kind of a rise in front of it upon which there is some landscaping planned with moving it in by two feet which actually is pretty sizable in this case. Um, you know, I think that I I would agree I
can agree with the the addition. I think it doesn't um it's not it's unlikely to to complicate the the key contributing status of the house. It's a porch on the second floor. I would make very clear that I think if you were trying to do a two-story edition, this would probably
not suffice, but as a porch, I think that's fine. So, I I think given the you know, it does seem to be adhering to the standards with the revisions that they put in, I I'm okay with this one. Thank you, Pete.
Well, believe this or not, I have not been here for your other two meetings. I must have missed those. However, so I don't feel as qualified. I must have spent an hour, an hour and a half. Talk about an enigma. I didn't have any
background information. Uh, but from what I could find out and listening to all the accommodations that have been made, I I really think it looks terrific. I just have one question. What is the square footage that is being
added? Anybody know? I look I know the I know the house is 4208 something like that as far as square feet, but Oh, you don't have to go to this. I was just thought you might know it off here. It is um and we'll get
the exact square footage but the calculation was made because it is below the required floor area ratio. Um this is an over 25 ft of right but I it's looks gorgeous and I'm glad that you made the modifications.
Thank you. Although I have a personal uh concern regarding the massing of this on a key contributing structure, I feel that the beautiful design of this um satisfies the requirements of it being subordinate and complimentary.
Thank you. Yeah, I I have a similar feeling about it. Um it's beautiful. It's a lovely and really good solution for many of the things that we talked about. And I'm sure it'll look gorgeous when it's done.
And also, it's a huge lot and it's it's not surrounded by other, you know, talk about streetscape, which is one of the things that we're concerned about. This property is surrounded by buildings that are
non-contributing that have garages in the front that are much larger. So in that context, there's no reason not to make a nice big addition. I don't know if that will actually lose
the contributing status. It does seem like a large addition to a key contributing. We generally try to keep things uh down, but you have a huge lot. Um, given the position on the street, it's
it's one of those we're we're working on updating our historic district map now and bringing in the missing teeth, but this is a tooth that's way down outside of of the the crowded little part where most of our historic
buildings are. So, um, it's a survi surviving island at that end of town. It's a beautiful location and I I don't I can't object to it. I think it's permissible. The the the
increase in size approximately 2500 square feet. I'm sorry. Approximately 2500 square feet is what been We went through this in some detail back in August of last year as I recall and then again because there was there were the original plan was to knock out the L and build something entirely new and then
you came back and said we're going to keep that. So that was a whole issue I think we've resolved. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Can I can I interrupt? 2500 is the entire addition, right? Not just the small the smaller. That is correct. Correct. Entire. Because the rest of it I think we did
not really have too much problems with at the last meeting. It was it was that that bumpout on the side that was visible from the street. So I just wanted to make sure. How much how much square footage is that morning room? Do you do you recall? 16 by 14.
16 by 14 or now 14 by 14. 14. Yeah. Okay. Two feet less. Yeah, that matters. Mr. Carol, thank you. Um, from the very beginning, I I've liked what you're trying to do, although it comes very
very close to going against our standards for backyard additions. However, I recognize that it's on a very large lot. You can see it from many different angles to it. The front of the house itself, although it's a key
building, doesn't have any really unique features of the shingle style construction era as some of the others do up there. A beautiful house, very u very welllaid out and perfect uh uh
symmetric proportions. Um, I think the back that you proposed has some adaptions from that period of time that are kind of bringing that whole feeling into it. And I and I really like the like that it's hidden behind it as much
as you can. Uh, the uh little sculptured garden in the front will certainly help. And we are getting rid of that leanto shed to the garage which I think is probably the ugliest thing on the property right now. So that alone is in
in your in your favor. So I I am very much inclined to vote for final approval. Thank you. Okay. Um I'm in agreement with pretty much what everybody said here. Uh the design of this is beautiful. Um
the the one thing because it's and there's been a lot of compromise it sounds like as you were going through it. I was not part of the Tuesday meetings. Um but the one thing that I'm lacking in this because of the changes um in in the actual structure uh the
floor plans are have has the Tuesday meetings have you seen the floor plans um to match them up with elevations? No, I I elected to not submit floor plans because in my understanding of what this committee's uh jurisdiction is
has nothing to do with what we do on the interior. It has to do with what the exterior looks like. Correct. But I'm the only reason I'm saying floor plans is it sometimes when you're looking at windows and doors and how that operates with the elevation. Um that's I think the reason why we're
looking for floor plans. Um Lorraine that I don't believe anything changed from the floor plans that were submitted. And again I was not part of that so I'm you know I'm unsure of that. But the only thing that changed is the cook is no longer as happy in her refuge as
she would have been. But um but you know outside of that I think um you know the the the addition of the landscaping uh all of that I I really think you did a nice job
designing this and compromising. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Curts, just a side note, I was not here for the first readings or the second readings, but what I've seen since I've been here
is to me Kate May. The lot's big enough where it it's you're not overcrowding it. Uh, and it just gives that nice warm feeling of of what we represent in this town. Thank you all of you. Nice job. Nothing from me,
Steve. Nothing for me, John. I think uh everyone has expressed their intent in very kind of consistent and way. So, I think we're good. Okay. So, before I offer my comments, are there any comments from attendees in the audience? I see there's some people
still here that I'm wondering if you're here for this purpose. Got it. Okay. So, um I only have one comment really and again thank you for the collaborative work. Um the one thing that since I
wasn't here in October and I didn't see it before, but are you proposing round columns for the front porch? It looks like that's what's being rendered, but it's I can't quite tell because the the label just says wood columns. Um yeah, they are we are
proposing round columns because there's round columns on the side porch existing round columns on the where it's a it's a summer porch. So I assume that was the correct approach. The the porches, you know, the
porch will be completely new. Yeah. Um we're if you think they should be square, we're open to that. Um, but we thought round be to match the columns on the west side of the house. If in fact those west
now enclosed porch, right? Um, because the historic report says that they're square. And that's why I'm confused because they're round, but the historic report says they're square. And I'm I'm baffled by that. They're round. Well, bear in mind that the the front all the front columns were replaced when
the 62 storm wiped out the front porch. Correct. If you look at the western exposure, sorry. Um, what's the drawing number? Give me a second. I'll find it for you. I think it's about the west elevation. 604. Yes,
604A would be exact. That but it shows square on there, right? So that's why I'm questioning this because it yeah I I it it appears square in the drawing but I don't believe that that is what is there.
It's it well it's hard to elevation you can't tell if it's round but we have pictures ah that we could share. Okay because that the whole that whole porch has been entirely rebuilt. Yeah. So and and do you have documentation of what was there beforehand? That would be really helpful mainly
because the report doesn't say that and we have hundreds and hundreds of pictures. Okay, great. So, I have no no concern at all if you have some documentation that they were round. It'd be easy to change them to square, but I wouldn't if you have documentation that they were round. Yeah, they're Let me Let me see if I can
find a decent picture. If you look really closely, you'll see where shadow is. Yes, it's in conflict with what their property report says about that west porch. Really odd. Okay, so I can withdraw that that comment. Um I really only have one issue
with this at all. Actually, I think it's really well done. I'm struggling with how we could possibly approve a final submission tonight because this is a brand new application and it's incomplete because
we don't have a full set of floor plans. We don't have uh all of the cut sheets that would be required for something like this, which would include um railings and ballusters, the columns themselves, the windows, particularly the um the Lancet arch light windows,
doors, roofing materials. Now, you do have one sheet at the end, but this does not indicate the specific manufacturer, which we're going to need in order to allow for our field inspector to verify that what we've approved is actually what's being installed. So unfortunately
that list is too long for us to give conditional final approval. So I'm going to ask my fellow commissioners what they think about this issue. I think you're right. We we just don't want to get in trouble with our our
inspectors that are going out saying you didn't really specify that and it's coming out a little bit different here. What did you mean? Uh, and we've learned the hard way to make sure that we have that. I feel sure that it's going to get approved, but I just think that would
help and that would give us a good final approval. Can I probably know the answer to this, but I was wondering if final can be approved in committee. No, that can't be done by by ordinance. We're not permitted to do that. But I would like to ask our solicitor to speak
on this issue. It's This is really the board's call. Um, if you feel that you have enough to render a decision with conditions or if you need that additional information. Um, I
would just indicate though if if we're not prepared to act, I think we should give the applicant some direction as to what you all need to determine this is complete and you can make a decision. The good the good news if there is one
is we saw all that. Sorry Kevin. The good news if there is one is that we saw all that in previous review at this meeting. But but I think you're the point is is relevant. I mean you know it it is a new application. You typically want a full
application with all the materials in it so that we pass that on to to Bruce for his his field inspections. And technically, I guess if we give this an approval without those, theoretically any of those could change, even though I would hope the applicant would not inter.
Correct. That's my concern. Not that I suspect that it will, but that possibility is opened up if there I guess what I would say is I think probably what we should do is just I think indicate tonight conceptual approval. I think that's that's as far as we can go. ask them to come back with
all the cut sheets and everything else that we had and then we'll render final at that point presuming nothing has changed and we don't happen to stumble over something we missed. Thank you. Janice, you have a comment. Well, I mean, yeah, it's in News to come back, but that would be first on the
agenda. It's fresh in our minds. We all have seen it this time. This is an error on my part. Uh I made the submission instead of Dave making the submission as he had all the prior submissions. I didn't realize that we're doing a brand new application and therefore the prior submissions no
longer applied. Yeah. So that that is that's an error on my part. Yeah. Unfortunately, when when a submission is denied, it is it's done and it's a new submission. It's why this is considered a new submission. Yeah. We're okay with conceptual approval.
Yeah. So we can resubmit because they're already the information is available can be submitted later. Right. So if you're amendable to that, we don't have I don't think any and any contention up here. Um I I I haven't heard a motion yet, but I suspect that this will be pretty easy. Right. Our
next meeting of course is um on uh August 18th and we can put you first on the agenda. That we would appreciate being on the agenda for the 18th of August. That'd be ask the question please. What what do we need to Okay, for final.
So, I made a list um when I was reviewing this yesterday that we need obviously floor plans. So, Mr. Cochran, the reason for floor plans is in elevations there aren't horizontal dimensions. You can use a scale, but there aren't any dimensions on there
that we can right. So, there's it's it's has an implication on what we're looking at because in an elevation, it also doesn't show you depth. So, that's why floor plans are really important so we can get the entire picture. I understand. Listen, the the part of the issue here is if you knew what I had
spent already architecturally to get to this point, you would commiserate with my issue in that I've spent a great deal of money on architectural plans and I'm still don't have conceptual approval. Oh, conceptual approval.
I I specifically told him, do not put floor plans in. Got it. I didn't want the meter running at the architectural firm, right? Well, I have done that previously and here lo and behold, here we are. All the my submitts from before aren't even are useless in because we are a new
application. Well, not not really because you do have the drawings already. You obviously have them. All you really need to do is submit them. I I I understand and agree. I was just giving you the the circumstances behind why you have what you have as opposed to what you would like.
Got it. No, it's it's it's it's entirely understandable. What we'd also look for is if you look at our our materials checklist, the second paragraph on the top describes exactly what we need with regard to um manufacturers cut sheets. And I would say specifically this would be for
railings and ballisters, columns, windows, particularly given the entirely unique character and configuration of the Lancet Archite windows. somebody. You're saying that you're you're putting a couple more in. Those are going to be
obviously custom made. So, we would like to see some documentation of that, right? Um cut sheets or details. Who if it's a manufactured off-the-shelf product, it would be a cut sheet. If if it's a Lancet window, it's not going to be manufactured off the shelf.
That's correct. So, that's why I'm answering his question. He asked if it's a detail, and a detail would suffice. So, he asked me a specific question. Are you talking about details or cut sheets? In this case, it's both depending upon the product that you're trying to seek approval for which you're trying to seek approval. Right. Okay. And then of
course the doors and the windows and shutters. And shutters. Yes. Because the shutters were apparently those are added as part of the new proposal, right? Yes. Yep. And and the roofing because I know that you're you're saying that you're going to use uh red cedar shingles,
right? Well, there are all kinds of red cedar shingles. So, we just like to see the manufacturer that you're proposing. And that's that's all I have on my list. Exterior lighting. Are you in Yeah, of course you're including additional exterior lighting.
Correct. So, exterior lighting fixtures. Thank you. Well, actually, no. That's part of the final submission. Okay. Right. Is that why everybody's house is overlit all over town? Well, uh hopefully I'm
not concerned with the lighting itself as the fixtures. It's with the appearance of the fixtures. Yeah. And of course the lamping that are in in those so that we're sure that it's uh uh lower than 3,000 degrees Kelvin so that they're warm as opposed to cold. That's
right in our standards. Mr. Ta, you have a comment. Can a member of the public be recognized here? I just point out that our conceptual approvals are in writing and they contain details. So, they'll have a complete list. Correct. And we would not let a cold light bulb
go past our door. Good for you. I'm happy to hear that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, is there anything else that folks feel they would be that you would need to see to properly assess a complete submission? The renderings and the uh floor plans
have to show the adjustments. Oh, the ones that they submitted before. Yeah. Yeah. the the they had the whole package last time as I recall. So pretty easy to assemble it, but you're gonna have to make some couple of adjustments to significant additional collection of drawings that and I I leave that to your
discretion. But the the rendering that you showed us in the Tuesday review meetings would be really helpful in this packet because it would it would essentially it would obiate any questions anybody has about the visibility issue and that's really been the one contentious point.
Understood. Right. And I I think I know the list. I think you do, too. And I know that he'd like ballister details on the Yes, he does. Yeah, we call him Mr. Railing. Yeah. Okay. Have to pass me.
So, with all that said, folks, I would like to entertain a motion for this application. I would like to make a motion that we get conceptual approval uh with final approval based on all the additional addition uh u information that we need for final approval.
And can we just say a complete submission? Complete sub. Correct. Second, John. Yep. Okay. Moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Mr. Curts. Brian, may we have a roll call vote, please? Mr. Carol, yes.
Magno, yes. Miss Wilson Strick. Yes. Mr. Stevenson. Yes. Mr. Hamron. Yes. Mr. Johnson. Is that me? Yes. Oh, Mr. Johnson. Sorry. Mr. Becker. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you for such a a a great project and for the collaborative work that we've done together. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. You're very welcome. Thank you. Okay. Um, do we have any comments at all
from folks from the public before moving on to the end of our agenda here? Okay. Hearing none, the only thing I'd like to bring up for the record is the results of our third
alignment workshop. And I'm just looking for my notes here. Okay. So, I sent out to everybody today an email that contained the the discussion notes from our workshop number three, which
was last Thursday. And I'm sure you haven't had time to review them yet, but that's fine. But what I would like to do is just for the record state regarding that workshop number three the seven primary salient points that we all aligned around because a couple of them
were motions. The first is that we're working on more research about the etmology of the local historic district in order to further inform the amendment proposal and that we will redis at the August meeting. Second, we created by
motion a standing awards committee to begin design awards or HBC design awards for 2026 in conjunction with the 50-y year anniversary of the National Historic Landmark District status. Three, we also created by motion a
standing community outreach committee. Fourth, we agreed to set up a replicable annual process to update the property reports because that's been kind of hit or miss in the past. Fifth, we are taking into consideration the creation
of a preservation plan and we've begun to initiate that effort. Sixth, some modifications and standards to or some modifications to our standards and applications, several of which were raised, but the one that was done by motion that we would like to bring
before the planning board is changing the period of significance from 1730 to 1948. So backing up the front end and adding eight years to the current period of sign significance and you everyone can read the notes
to get a handle on the the supporting reasons for that. And then lastly, we agreed to recommend a code amendment so that at the closing of real estate purchases, there is a notice notification on a certificate indicating
that that property is within the local historic district. and our our fine solicitor is working on creating that document meeting which we will what I'm sorry I should have something next meeting oh great so we we'll be able to review that at our August meeting just a clarification on the other item
the period of significance y my recollection and just correct me if I'm wrong but we wanted to bring that up or introduce that as part of the map amendment discussion exactly two things together thank you for that clarification that's a good one right so that we're not
bringing forth are two amendments to the local historic district um separate from the period of significance because they're deeply intertwined. Right. Okay. So, I have no nothing further to discuss. Anybody else have an issue you'd like to bring forth?
Yes, John. In regards to the uh community outreach committee, um I'm you know, I don't want to just try to appoint people because we have a lot of very busy people on this commission. So, I mean, what I'd like to do is ask
hopefully for at least, you know, two members who would be willing to volunteer, ideally with long-term um like a commitment to the community, access to civic groups, and a business community so we could really make these
events very well attended and get the word out there. Great. So, the only I guess the only stipulation is it can't be more than three HPC commission. So, so you and two others, right? Two. Anybody has volunteered to be on that? That was really fast.
And Yogi has Well, look at that. There you go. Is there anybody else? Wait, before we say that, we want to make sure that there's not competition here. Does anybody else want to do it? That thing from I didn't get it. Somebody came this afternoon. Yeah, you came, but I I can't open the
All right. Any other comments or concerns from fellow commissioners? Tom? Yes. Some plastic machines are starting to appear on our Washington Mall. Oh, I see it. And those of you who remember when we had all these different things floating
around the mall selling newspapers and giveaway stuff, uh, we did something to make them outlawed and they all had to go away. They were on the prominade in the mall and this stuff is just giving giving away stuff that is kind of trash.
It ends up lying around on benches. I think we should just tell the city to, you know, please to keep our our area clean and beautiful, you just don't throw something out there for your own publicity. They have to go.
And if it came from our commission, I think it would carry a little bit more weight. Who complains? Are you proposing that we What's the action you're seeking we take? I would make a motion that we encourage the city to uh make sure that these uh unapproved
additions to the city property on the mall be outlawed. I just a quick thing I'm on the bid as well uh the business improvement district. Um, and I cross over to that there there have been some uh from from the city
going to the bid there have been there have been A-frames out there. They've had them remove them. I think we can just do this by just talking to our manager. I think that that would be so appropriate and what's that? It's in a public right away. It it is and I can I can I'll call um
our manager tomorrow and I'll talk to him. So that would obiate the need to create a motion or anything formalized unless the behavior continues at which point I think so. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Great. Yep. Any other comments or concerns from folks this evening? Well, I just wanted to bring up I I was
appointed to be on that committee, but I'm thrilled to hear you say other people. No, no. I don't want to be on too many committities and I want you to go for it and do it fast and have as much
and I will help but I I'm happy not to be on the committee. As far as the awards committee goes, it's Jake, Judy, and myself as the commissioners. Yeah, that one you're not you're not getting out of. What's that? And that one you're not I'm not getting out of that one. Um, and
we are looking for some people under 50 and we have some leads and we will Lorraine and I will do a an update at the next meeting. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments, questions or concerns? Thank you.
Hearing none, do I hear a motion for adjournment? So moved. So moved. Meeting adjourned at 7:41. Thank you. Yeah.