is getting >> at six o'clock. >> I'm looking for Chris. >> Oh, it is 66. Straight up. >> Where's Kristoff? >> He needs to be in the room. Who? >> I don't think so. for you to call it to order. >> It's true.
>> Unless you think there'll be a legal question between might be we might be questioning the roll call. >> I'm going to do it. Ready? >> Yeah. Good. >> Okay. >> Like to call to order the city of Kate May's Historic Preservation Commission
meeting on Tuesday, I'm sorry, Monday, December 15, 2025. 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, could all join us in the pledge of allegiance, please? >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God.
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Lauren, can we have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Becker, >> here. >> Mr. Ta, >> here. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> here. >> Miss Wilson Strick.
Mr. Stevenson, >> present. >> Miss Decker, >> here. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> here. >> Mr. Curts, >> here. >> Did she call me? I didn't hear her. >> I'm here. I didn't hear you.
>> Okay. So, we were all you were all had time to review the minutes from our meeting on November 24th, the revised version, the second version that Lauren emailed to everybody. If so, like >> I I make a motion that we accept the minutes. I did want to point out that I
offered one minor additional correction. It was it was simply arithmetic on one of the totals. So, it was a just a let's call it a typo. >> Oh, just a typo. >> A typo. >> Okay. >> And I would like to add that Judy Decker was there uh and wasn't listed as
attending. >> Okay. >> Even though she got sworn in after you took the road call. That would be a technical. >> So, given the arithmetic correction and Judy's presence, do we have a motion to approve the minutes with those? >> I was trying to make that motion. So, I
I'll make the motion >> and I'll such and so moved. Okay. Moved. >> Second. >> Great. Moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr. Carroll. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carroll, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> abstain. >> Miss Decker,
>> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> abstain. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. So, you also received in an email a bill from our solicitor dated December 10th.
like to entertain a motion to approve payment of that bill, please. >> I will move. Second. >> Moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Excuse me. >> Mr. Stevenson. Roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Carroll, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Miss Bilson. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker.
>> Yes. We also received via email the following resolutions for ratification. The city of Kate May, Virginia Avenue, Reading Avenue, Harbor Lane, and Howard Street. Resolution 202546. Ryan at 824 Kierney Street. Resolution 202547.
Her at 1215 Washington Street. Resolution 202548. City of Cape May Cape May Tennis Center at 1020 Washington Street. Resolution 202549. Carney Incorporated at 411 and 429 Beach Avenue. Resolution 202550.
Fiser at 1013 Stockton Avenue. Resolution 202551. Cape Rock Condominium Association at 1520 New Jersey Avenue. Resolution 202552. A Noacowski-276 Windsor Revocable Trust at 276 Windsor
Avenue. Resolution 202553. Like to entertain a motion to ratify these resolutions. Move we approve. >> I'll second. >> Move by Mr. Hamron, seconded by Miss Decker. >> Mr. Carol, >> I recuse myself on the Cape Tennis Club,
but all the others, I'm in favor. >> Miss Vagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> abstain. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> abstain. >> Mr. Tesa, >> I vote yes on all except for City of
Kate May Tennis Center and Cape Rock Condominium Association from which I abstain. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes, except for the Kate May Tennis Center. Being a member there, I must recuse myself. >> Okay. Applications that were approved
and denied and review. We all have the list. Like to entertain a motion to approve those. >> I will make that motion. >> A second. >> Moved by Mr. Carroll. Seconded by Mr. Curts. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> So, you may recall that at the beginning of this year in February,
>> we at the the HPC conducted a series of alignment workshops. And at the very first one, we spent pretty much the entire day unpacking and aligning around what the true purpose of our work is. And in order to set the tone and establish the energy in the room tonight, I'd like to ask Mr. Kurtz if
he'd be willing to read the purpose statement that we aligned around. Certainly, it's 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 we share in this place we love. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. So, if we could open up applications. The first application on
our agenda is 1246 Lafayette Street LLC. This is for a solar panel installation. If you could please just have a seat up here and turn on your microphones by pressing the button so they're green and
state your name, your address, and the role you have in the project, please. >> Okay. Hi. Uh, Lisa Rona with Tesla Energy. I'm representing on behalf of the homeowner and um just getting the application for the historical approval so we can move on to the permitting
process if it's approved. >> Can I get the spelling of your last name? >> Yep. R O N C A first name Lisa. >> Thank good evening. Uh, my name is Nick Markley. M A R K L E Y. Uh, I'm the installation supervisor and the general
manager of the company on behalf, excuse me, I'm losing my voice. Uh, on behalf of the homeowner at 1246 Lafayette Street. >> And does the the owner authorize you to represent their interests here this evening? >> That is correct. >> That confirmation provided in writing.
>> Thank you. So, I think I can cut to the chase here. So our standards state specifically that photovoltaic systems on roofs cannot be visible from any public ride ofway by a pedestrian who's on the public right ofway. So as usual I went and I took a
look at the property and unfortunately quite visible from Washington Street where the proposed it looks like 11 panels are are intended to be installed. >> 16 >> 16 >> 16 oh I miscounted. Sorry about that. Um unfortunately that entire roof is
visible from Washington Street. So, as much as we'd like to encourage the installation of renewable energy systems, that location will not comply with our standards. However, I think you may have an option. Let me just throw this out. There's a sizable shed further
west. Well, depending on whether you want west or south, the compass gets a little like 45 degrees there. It appears that you may be able to fit a majority of those panels on that larger shed, which has just recently been expanded. as well as maybe the smaller shed that's
there. Now, I realize that they wouldn't be contiguous, therefore. However, there's also a slate porch area between the house and the shed that if your owner would entertain some sort of structure there upon which these
photovoltaic panels could be put with maybe a very small parapit so that the 5- in height of the rack would not be visible. I think you may be able to find a solution that would be acceptable. Unfortunately, however, where they're currently being proposed in your drawings would not be appropriate and we could not approve it. >> Not a problem. I appreciate you looking
into that. I will look to the structural engineer sides and we'll we'll get calculations on the sheds, see if that's something that's feasible. Question I do have is if the homeowner were to reject themselves from having the solar panels installed, uh is there a historic uh issue for the equipment that's could
potentially be mounted on the side of the house for energy storage? >> What would that equipment? You mean the battery called wall energy wall? >> Correct. The power walls. Um >> they were on the back of the house and and the the location of it was not visible from the street. That would be fine. And it appears that the
orientation of where that smaller shed is would give you ample opportunity to do that without it being visible. >> Understood. Now, is that including disconnects? That would have to be near the utility meter. That's a requirement. >> Near the building meter. Um >> it's on the northwest corner of the building right right to the left of the
driveway. >> Um >> it's minimal. Well, I think that the the disconnect would not be a problem. That would Where would the where where would the inverters go? >> The power walls and the inverters would also be on the same wall that's proposed here on print. Um that's on the northwest the correct the northeast. I'm
sorry. >> That would be acceptable. >> So, but that by code, but we need to at least have the disconnect and and for grouping and disconnects, we have gateway there. In your new proposal, if you would just simply indicate the location of those pieces of equipment and their sizes on your drawings, then
we would be able to review them. >> Not a problem. >> Okay. So, um, do you anticipate resubmitting this proposal with the new location? Because if so, we would invite you to potentially table this. >> Yeah, we we we definitely would be. So
what what we could do is if you want to request to adjourn this indefinitely uh and wave the time for decision for the board to make a decision prematurely before you have this fully flushed out that would give you the time to go back to the client address this relocation
come back with a revised concept and then when you're ready you could reach out to the board secretary and say we're ready to resubmit it essentially keeps you in quue to take some of these comments back and then resubmit at a later time. >> Perfect. That would be great. >> Right. And rather than having a a motion
tonight that we would vote down, it would prohibit you from having to submit another application with a new application fee. >> Absolutely. That would be perfect. >> I mean, since since you probably will be thinking about doing other installations, you have to remember that it's not just one street that counts,
right? So, so you have to look at all all places where they may be visible. >> Visible. >> Understood. If it were blocked by another building on the back, that's a different story. >> Yes, sir. >> So, I I'll move to table the application
um with the applicant 45day period. Um and and I'll just guess that it's not me that's making the crackling on the PA system. Anyway, that's the motion table. Secretary T. >> Okay. Moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Hammer. Roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Mr. De Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ha, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a great holiday time.
>> Mr. Chairman, could I just add a word about uh uh the solar power systems? Uh I was reading in the Washington Post just recently. Um Tesla is actually one of the companies that's coming up with a solar system that can blend almost
perfectly with uh slate or slate shingles as shingles on your roof. And uh uh right now it looks terribly expensive, but it certainly seems that things are moving in that direction. So hopefully if people have a little
patience, there's going to be some systems out there that can look just like a roof, but also have the power for uh sun collection. >> Yeah. Tesla had a system not long ago that was very close to being building integrated photovoltaics that looked
very much like roof shingles. There's a big installation over on New England. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's very close. So >> that's real close. As soon as that technology gets to that point, I think we may be able to rethink what our standards say. >> Yeah, we tabled that concept. We kind of
pushed off New Jersey. It's still an option other states right now. >> Bring it on, guys. >> Yeah, we would strongly encourage it. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Carol. Next applicant, please, for Perry Street Associates,
LLC, 29 Perry Street. If you could please state your name, your role in the project, and your address, please. Uh, >> Robert Shapansky, Sh Pski, project manager for Perry in Perry Street Associates. >> The floor is yours, Mr. Shapansky.
>> So, I returned from the last meeting with a revised and simplified porch enclosure here uh for review. We did also obtain a zoning compliance um for the for the enclosure.
Um as you can see, they're not divided light. They're just um you know, clear acrylic panels uh with wood frames. I cannot attest to the fastening yet because I haven't really figured all
that out. But what I can say at this meeting is that all hardware, including the panels, will be removed seasonally. Um, we're proposing uh seasonal enclosure from a fortnite of October
15th until around May 15th of each year. So you're proposing that they would be removed from May 15th to October 15th. >> Correct. Yes. >> So would like to state that these folks
are back to us after having been here on meeting in October on October 20th and in the intervening period came and spoke with us about feasibility of this at our review committee meeting. So I think in this case we might want to go around the table because we reviewed this Kevin,
how about if you start? >> Sure. I think the uh the question on the table when he came to review was um the removability one was was that could it could it be easily you know cleanly not leaving any visible evidence behind um
the whole objective to that is to uh to preserve the historical integrity of the house and the and the streetscape appearance. Um he met that in my mind. Um I don't think there's a particular um issue with this. Um you know I think the
one thing we always ask ourselves is you know they the claim is they'll remove it. You know will they really remove it or will it you know just wind up staying in place and I think the important part on our end is is it removable? That's what you know protects the historic uh
legacy and the contributing status of the house. uh we have to to take take them at the word and then and then deal with enfor that as a matter of enforcement not approval. So I I'm prepared to approve the project tonight. >> I think it's much more streamlined and I
don't have any problems with it at all. >> Judy, >> um I have an issue with enclosing porches even seasonally. Um, our standards on page 32 stating enclosing an existing porch is not appropriate on
contributing properties. Doesn't say anything about it being seasonal or not. I have the same uh concerns. >> Can I ask you to just speak up a little bit? >> Yeah, I have the same concerns as Mr. Hammer. Um, also page 34, full enclosure of a porch with glazing
is not appropriate. So, um, I am not comfortable approving the enclosure of this porch. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Okay. My recollection was that some of the remnants of the mounting hardware would still be there during the summer. And I think you've just
expressed and through the meetings on Tuesdays that that would no longer be the case. It would be clean. So, that was my objection. >> I guess I'm next. Um, I I uh understand the reason. First of all, the panels are wellcraftrafted. Um I understand the reason given the seasonality you're
talking about um putting them in. However, um I I defer also to the explanation from Miss Decker about enclosing porches. The thing that troubles me is the property report with respect to this this structure being contributing
and and what it says is every effort should be made to continue to retain original elements on the house such as the open porch and to me this encloses a porch and I think it substantially changes the character of
the porch when it's closed. I appreciate the fact that it'll be open during um high season and you're probably doing this for energy saving and and something of that of that sort, but I I just don't find enclosing a porch um on a contributing structure uh particularly
one where it's been noted as important to be keep to be kept open as as a as an as a as an acceptable thing to do. Um, in keeping with other porches that we've allowed to be enclosed in such a fashion, this does protect the elements
of the porch, the columns, the railings, kind of like what we permitted on the mad batter, uh, which has been up now for a couple years. That's a very good example to follow. However, uh, I think the mad batter also said it was going to be seasonal and it certainly hasn't been. So, that is certainly a problem
with us. I will say that uh uh projects done by Curtis Bashaw and Congress Hall have always been exceptional and everybody likes to watch what's going on and that poor guy gets turned in on any
anything that's going wrong at least from a free a past mayor that was certainly one of the cases. I have a feeling that this would be carried out very very well and I've been on that porch the wind factors and things like
that the closest to the traffic I can understand why this this would be desirable for him so I will vote yes for it >> I agree with Mr. Carol. Uh, it's a nice project and I think by the seasonable seasonal opening of that porch, it keeps
the integrity of that street which is a lot of open porches. Um, in the winter time it's it's a it's a hotel, so to speak. Uh, this way I think the people can still enjoy the porch but not freeze
their behinds off. Uh, so I I I think it's a great project and I approve it. So >> if I can just comment for a quick second. >> Yeah. To address your discomfort, you know, I think the language described
here for a porch enclosure would be someone asking to make their porch part of their home where they put up siding over the w railings and they add windows and they cover the porch and it becomes an interior portion of the house. This is is not the case there. We're putting
panels behind the railings, behind the columns, leaving everything intact, and we're simply keeping the weather out for a few months during the winter. So, you know, I don't think that it it it's an enclosure of the Porsche. It's certainly not permanent. And I just, you know,
that's what I want to say. You know, Bob, my only concern is that it says there's two different words. It will be or it can be. I think it it has to be stated in bold letters that it will be >> removed and put back. Unfortunately, we don't Yeah, we don't enforce those things and you have to keep people at
their promises. I just think the word enclosure doesn't mean >> as extensively closed off as you've as you've uh purported to to to say. Um I I do think that I and I'm I'm I'm more persuaded by the report which talks
about maintaining the open porch. I don't think enclosing a porch even seasonally is an open porch. And and I I'm not unsympathetic to the reasons you're doing it. And I think the quality of what you've done is is good design. It just simply isn't something that I
can approve of. >> I mean, that's that's as far as it goes. >> So, our standards are written in a way that allows for some ambiguity given certain conditions. given that this same
owner has done a similar seasonal enclosure of a porch at the Virginia quite successfully. In fact, we point to it for others who have come to us as an example of how to do it. I'm in support of this particularly given that you've maintained all of the critical
elements of the railings and the columns and it's all behind it. However, um there is one question that I have for you and that is as we noted in October, the details currently shown on the drawings do not appear to allow for it to be easily removed and and it appears
as those have not changed yet. Is that accurate? >> Right. Uh you know, it's a pretty complicated fastening system drawn here with angle iron and bolts and whatnot. You know, it doesn't need to be that complicated. It just needs to be completely removable and that's what it will be.
>> Correct. So, for example, the if you look at these details where it's bolted into the top rail, there's actually a piece of fascia that's placed over it, which would be really difficult to remove. So, I would I would suggest, in fact, I'll make a motion that we approve this with two conditions. The first
condition is that the owner has agreed to remove it from May 15th till October 15th. The second is that you bring back to the review committee details indicating that it is easily removable. >> Okay, sure. That would be my motion.
>> I'll second that motion. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> no. >> Mr. Becker,
>> yes. So, um, note that we need to have you resubmit those drawings for the review committee to take a look at and verify the details that we're requesting before you can proceed with the work. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Next agenda item is localal Stockton LLC five Stockton Place. Hi, if you could please state your name, your address, and your role in the project, please. >> Uh, my name is Chad Ludman. My address is 560 Shunpike Road, Kate May
Courthouse, New Jersey. Uh, and I'm one of the owners of the property. >> Is this the one? >> Is this the Crackler? I think it is. Okay. >> There's another one. You got to press it till it goes green. >> Oh, that's You got the crackly one. >> I got the crackly. >> You got the crackly. >> I did. Okay. Is this better? Hopefully.
>> That is >> okay. My name is Kyle Toth. I'm an architectural historian at PSNS Architects and Engineers and we are at three Mountain View Road in Warren, New Jersey. >> Okay. Um, these folks came to us in the review committee on October 30th and spoke with us, both Chad and Kyle.
>> Kyle. Yes. >> Yep. So, the floor is yours, gentlemen. >> Uh, yeah. I mean, I'm sure as you guys are aware, we've been here uh a number of times. Um we were encouraged to come back uh
recently and present now that you guys have some new guidelines with um what we propose to um change to the building that's been around for since about 2018. Um so that's what we're here to do tonight. Um there was a previous meeting
that we were unaware of that we did not attend. We were not at we didn't get notice of before or after. I think that um if we had been at that meeting that this is probably something similar to what we would have probably proposed had we known that the HBC was not happy with
the direction that we were going. So >> not sure I understand that remark but okay. Uh, so I'll take over from here for Chad to to provide some new information on the project. I prepared some slides that it seems like it's going to be more complicated to try to coordinate than
show, but I have visual material for reference if you'd like to see and hopefully you've also seen. It's the same material that's in the report that we provided to you. Um, so the building is was assessed as a contributing property in the 2009 update to the survey by McCabe Associates and by no
fault of their own, just a a matter of available resources at the time. They dated the building to the 1930s based on the information in the Sandborn maps. Now, we came across new information in the Dalan aerial photographs and for your reference, especially in Cape May, this is a great resource. It's through
uh the Haggley Museum, which is a museum down in Delaware. They have a digital archive that has all of this material available um that we rely a lot on for these coastal towns and it shows that the building was bu actually built uh by 1926 built and occupied and in full use.
So it's about a decade earlier than previously thought. Um and shifts the narrative a little bit in terms of how this building was interpreted. Uh so just for your own reference that we we do we can now uh pretty confidently date the building to around 1925 1926 when we
know it was occupied and and in use. And it was a a pretty simple u building. It had two front porches on the front that were actually they were two stories and they were only accessed from the interior. There was one center entrance into the building from the front and then it was a multi-unit property from
its construction. So there were two side entrances as well that that provided access to the the rear units of the building. Um that configuration of the porch and everything was changed sometime actually several times in the 20th century. At one point there was a full width front porch put on the top.
Then they started using the upper porch as well and then they expanded that to the more recent iteration that you see in the 2009 survey which is the full two-story porch. So that porch is a a later fabrication to the building as it was. But that is the porch that was used
in in designing the updates as we see now. Um the main issue as per the meeting that we previously had was regarding the full width stair on the current front porch and so you have the plan in front of us and we are in front of you there and uh the revised proposed
plan is to significantly decrease the width of that to the single single central bay. uh bring those side railings in to that and then put up a matching rail along that whole first floor of the porch there to make it much more consistent with the neighboring properties and the the general porch
configuration for the city of Cape May. Uh so that's to address the porch itself. Now, the other question that came up in this previous meeting was about the breeze block wall around the pool and the parking area and whether or not that's consider well we knowing that
it's it's been suggested that it's not considered appropriate um for the building in the period. But we did a little more looking into breeze block and the contextualization of that which as these things happen. >> When was the breeze block installed? >> So that was installed as part of this uh
what year was that 2018 renovation campaign. uh the same as the the front stair. So the breeze block historically and this turned out and again I'm an architectural historian so it's interesting to me but hopefully to you as well was much more interesting than I anticipated. Um concrete block as you
know was a very popular building material 1890s on when they started mass-producing it and you see that a lot around Cape May especially over in East Cape May where you see a lot of concrete block foundations with the rusticated bases or the form stone or what have you. But it's a it was obviously prevalent in Kate May and we see that too here in the 1920s they used a very
simple concrete block foundation on the building itself. Now also around the same time of the construction of this building there were some pretty major designers Frank Lloyd Wright being a leader but uh it was happening globally started to use concrete block in a decorative sense and they would
perforate it. They would come up with these very elaborate patterns for it. Because what they were trying to do was come up with screening systems that were as concrete famously was fireproof or considered fireproof that similarly were fireproof but could create these same effects of wood screens or more
decorative screens. And they were casting it similar to what you might see in terracotta decorations. Um things that were much more elaborate but out of concrete. And they were really exploring the viability of this material. And so we have a lot of examples in the US of Franklidd Wright using this in particular. But then there are also
examples across the globe of this concrete block um and even simple forms we see in in France in the 20s there's a much more you would think it was built in the 60s but it's actually from 1923. So it was a it was actually a a a increasingly popular building material around the world in the 1920s. Now we
associate it now historically because in the 50s Edward Derell Stone really made this an infin infamous biblical material in his many many projects the Kennedy center um his projects over in India that he did but that's really when the the boom that we now associate with concrete block took off and then you see
the 60s in Cape May you see over at the Lafayette hotel where they're using it as screens um but the precedent for that and the the origins of the uses of that actually is from around the time that the original five Stockton place was built So, in terms of appropriate uh building material, it was being used in
the 20s. Not it wasn't necessarily used at that site as we know because it was a very simple apartment building at the time when it was constructed, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that they were using concrete block in these perforated and decorative uses as a screen. Um, I'll also add as as Chad can
back me up here that the plan is and and as I've seen in my most recent visit is to plant alongside of it so that it's virtually screened by uh vegetation. Correct. And I mean that is why we originally expect the concrete block because it was it was created and it
started to get popular around the point that we that the historic record that's on file with Kate May told us that the original building was constructed and also because the breeze block was used a lot in um coastal areas >> which is true. It it it's popular in
coastal areas obviously because it allows for flood and passage of air, sand, water, etc. We also knew we weren't going we weren't using was a fence or anything on the front property line anything that was going to be you know seen from the um from the
streetscape much after the landscape matured as it is now. Okay. So to be clear this application is specifically requesting only two things correct. One is the reconstruction of the stair at the center bay to be made of wood with
railings that match the existing. And the second is to put new paving material where the parking is currently in crush shells. Is that accurate? >> Yes. So the parking material is I don't believe an HBC issue. I don't think the HBC ever had an issue with the
clamshells, but the planning department >> um has does not like it and has voted against us to have that. So we're really just >> changing it back to pavers for them. But we obviously want to show the pavers and the detail to you. >> Yeah. HPC's purview around the pavers is
simply we do need to approve the material that you're using. >> We don't require that you pave it with pavers. But if you are going to do that, we need to approve the material and you have submitted a cut sheet of what you're proposing. >> So again, to be clear, this this application is simply for those two issues. Is that accurate?
>> I would say the stair and then adding railings >> to the front, which is necessary by code once we bring the stair in. >> Right. >> Stair is one issue. the railings maybe is a second issue depending on how you look at it. >> Okay. >> And because the breeze block there's no alteration being proposed. I don't I
wouldn't imagine that that would be require a specific >> the breeze block has already been installed. >> Right. >> So I think what we should do here is go around the room and see how everybody feels about these two issues only and then reassess. >> I could just say one last thing. Sure.
Um the original guidelines when we um designed the building, when we looked up the period that we thought our building was built in in the historic um guidelines that were previous there,
it mentioned full width stair in our, you know, our period of building or whatever. So that's literally where the design came from. Um I don't think we would have thought of a full width stair on our own. I think now we realize that, you know, after this time and and
looking at the I I almost feel like that was uh I don't want to say a typo, but like written in a way that maybe we misunderstood it. Um so I I think if we knew that the HBC or the city in in general anyways didn't like the full width stair, we would have
happily been come back to what we're proposing now. I don't I think there was a um a uh I forgot what the term was of the other stair um a uh bridge stair was proposed >> bridge stair
>> um but that is you know because of the location of our building uh that bridge stair would have been right on the property and right on the sidewalk literally created like a wall there. It was never there in the past. So, um, we think this is a lot more fitting to both the current design
standards and, you know, a lot of the other buildings that you >> Yeah, that bridge stair was the product of they actually moved that stair forward to put an access ramp behind. >> Right. That was clear in the photographs you submitted. Yeah. So, that history, thank you for all that. It was well documented. >> So, there there are some significant
complications in the history of this project. So, in in the interest of moving forward with this application, I'd like to have everybody comment on these two issues and then we'll come back and talk about a little bit more about some of the other complexities that weave through this. How's that
sound to you guys? Okay, Yogi. >> Um, I like the rendering. The rendering is so more such more suitable for that street than what we have there now. That's kind of stadium looking to me. Uh
the clamshells clamshells are clamshells. I I think the pavers are much nicer. I I'd like the project to say the truth. >> Yeah. And so you're saying that the pavers that are being submitted, the cut sheets you would find acceptable. >> Yes, I would. Tom,
>> uh the central staircase is on the uh report that we had that circulated a little bit later that showed it as a center staircase and that would have been exactly how it would have been built in that period of time. Uh, I remember the commotion uh about having
the clamshells and the planning board specifically said when cars backed out, they're kicking these clamshells up on the sidewalk and it's a sidewalk leading to the beach and half the people are barefoot. Uh, and it was not a good idea. So, we were certainly in agreement
with that ruling, although the material there was not as big of an issue for us. Um when there there was a battle over the CO to be given to this building, uh there were some other things that were brought up. One was the fence in the
backyard was designed so the uh finish side faced the property and the structural side was aimed at the neighbors which is definitely not in our >> So Tom, could I ask you to just be discussing these two issues? We'll come back to that other stuff. Okay. But I I
would just like to make sure that other things are taken care of, too. >> Great. I >> I can make this really brief. Pavers are fine. And I think the central location of a stairway is an improvement.
Otherwise, it looks like the um I think as Yogi mentioned, entrance to a stadium, it that's that's an improvement. So, fine. Jake. Yeah, I know the big concern last time around regarding the steps was that it was more appropriate for like a
Colorado town in the Rockies, but I think you've done a great change here bringing it really in compliance with our look here. >> Additionally, regarding the um the stones, is your intent to make it look sort of like cobblestones >> because we don't really like a modern
look, >> right? The paver is kind of a random cobblestone. Um I mean obviously it's a modern material, but it's the they're kind of a a flattened version of a cobblestone I guess for ease of walking on and driving
on. >> Yeah, we just don't really go for the you know the octagonal ones, the new designs popular now, but I think this design does fit in better. >> Yeah, it's a rand kind of a random pattern. >> Great, Judy. Um,
thank you very much for coming back and and improving your design. I know this has been a a long-term project for you. I think it looks substantially better um and more appropriate for Kate May in this design. Um, are you really attached
to that? We don't regulate color, but I would just suggest that I think part of maybe the problem when this first appeared to us was the color black as well. And I noticed that it's it's a stain, the black. Is that correct? >> Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. You do like the black.
>> Most people could tell me it's painted black and it upsets me because I painstakingly >> It is. It's myself. >> Okay. I mean, it's just a suggestion. I I think it it might be more appropriate if it was a a gray, a dark gray, a little bit um softer look, but
otherwise, I mean, I I think this is a substantial improvement, and we do we definitely appreciate you coming back. So, thanks. >> Thank you. And just to clarify slightly on the stain, we diluted the stain so that it would weather a little bit faster. So you notice now it has kind of a weather
look. Looks like it's been there a little bit longer than it has. >> Yeah. I don't have a problem with the wall. So >> yeah, black pine tart. That wasn't an easy application. >> It's Yeah, I brush it on by hand. >> Oh yeah, >> I also burned all the cedar as well. >> Well, I was never a fan of the stairs.
So I feel that this is much more aesthetically pleasing than the stairs. And I was glad to see that. And I like I like the papavers. I'd like them, as Judy would say, to be more on the soft side, maybe gray as opposed to black. But yeah,
>> thank you. >> Um, so first off, I I don't have any problem with the pavers either. I think those are appropriate. I'd be okay with those. Um, actually, I I was the one who called in and asked for a copy of the property report, and the reason was I remembered that stair. And you know, I
think a a good piece of the information you submitted to us is really um at some point kind of challenging the contributing status and whether that's actually been lost or what have you with all the iter iterative renovations made to this building. I don't think it has.
Um and the reason I don't is that while the building was built earlier than was described by the by the report, um you know, it still is built within the within the period of significance and the renovations occurred within the period of significance. So it still u
retains that and the individual who did the actual you know decided it was contributing you know worked from that that photograph and so in some respects everything that you're doing I think is in many ways restoring it to that to that look and I think that's a great
thing. So I think going back to that stair is actually bringing it back to something that is is much more close to the contributing status of the of the building when the contributing status was determined. So I I applaud that actually and it it is a great piece of
history that you gave us. I think that's really helpful. Um you can see the building has been through the war. I mean, it was, you know, there was a lot of of sort of damage done to the building. And to your credit, I think you've restored a lot of that. Um, and, you know, to some degree, this is not
what the original very original building looked like with the two double, you know, uh, porches, but you're getting closer and closer back to that. And this certainly, you know, the the double porches as you show as shown in the property report is what's there. And so, I think this is a good project to
approve. you you would um understand that uh that we still have to treat this as a contributing structure. >> That's right. >> Regardless of the uh of the essays and we'll have to see how it comes out next time, but we treat it as contributing because that's what the report says.
>> And those reports are under the purview of the state historic preservation office. So, um I concur with my colleagues. >> That's the very heart of what we're here for is to preserve the contributing status buildings um because that's what in turn leads to our national designation. Awesome. >> So, I concur with my colleagues. I think
that you've done a fine job here in terms of both the porch steps reconfiguration and the pavers. However, there are some other associated issues such as the breeze block and the fence that Tom talked about. So, I'd like to turn it over to our solicitor just to
make sure we're all being perfectly clear about what's getting approved here. >> Um, so I I think it's great that you guys came in and Mr. to it was a really nice comprehensive submitt. We do have to kind of address the elephant in the
room. Um I was actually in Trenton arguing this appeal last Thursday. So let's just get it out and and I'll reiterate what I said to your council last week, which is if you want to come in and make another application, you're free to do that. Um, and it might be an
opportunity to look at these items and maybe come up with a comprehensive solution. But the H you can submit for three items, but that doesn't require the HPC to put on blinders to the rest of the building. So, what I would suggest is we talk about those items and
see if we can come up with something since you're here. I didn't realize that was going to be this week, a week later, but you're here. So, um, I'm going to go over those items for the board's edification, and I would invite you to comment, and I will reiterate that the
fact that we're in litigation is unfortunate. Um, but I would just strictly limit our review and discussion to whether these are appropriate or not and not think about the litigation context. And how the board comes out on that is up to the board. But we need to put all the pieces on the table so that
the board can evaluate the the building in its totality with what you're proposing. So, uh, the reference point is the foundation was approved to be brick. No brick is present currently out there. The roofing was approved to be standing seam metal roof. The roof is
now asphalt fiberglass shingles. That's two. Number three, the applicant agreed to redesign the railing in Chip and Dale style. Uh, this was not done the way that's it's out there. And Mr. Toth, again, I invite you to comment on each one of these tricks, >> of course.
>> Um, the applicant, number four, the applicant agreed to retain the original front stair bridge design. You did address that. Um, number five, the wood fencing was approved to follow HPC design standards. The fencing should be vertical. It was installed horizontally
on the site as you know. Number six, the block ball uh the breeze block wall. You did provide some comment on that. Number seven, the parking area was approved for pavers. did make a proposal for that tonight. Um, and number eight, the HPC design standards require HVAC equipment
to be covered with wooden lattice screen. I think you've already addressed that on the site. Um, >> yeah, we had our HVAC needed to replace one of the exterior units and he did an HPC application and screened it. >> So, the lattice is up there now presently. >> Correct.
>> So, that number eight's been addressed. Those are the eight items. >> Sure. So, and I'll walk through the others. Please remind me if I'm missing one. Um the first you mentioned was the the brick on the uh foundation which as you see in the and I sorry I do have a
closeup of it but we do have documentation as even as per the 2009 survey that it was constructed with a concrete block foundation that was always exposed. So an application of a brick veneer to this would be inappropriate even per your standards and the secretary of the interior standards because it would be applying a
historic material to an area where it never was and it would create a false sense of history for the building um which is contrary to your standards and the national standards. So that's number one is that the foundation was always a very simple concrete foundation. >> So it's currently parched, right? >> It's currently parched.
>> Yep. Got Um, so it's not exposed block, but it is it's much it's still just a essentially a concrete face rather than a a brick face that it never had. The standing seam metal similarly would be inappropriate for this building. Historically, it was flat roofed. Um, it
was again it was a historic building material and and especially with the the requested uh finer seams, but it was not ever used on this building. And again, it could fall into that category of creating a false sense of history or or indicating that there's a historic roof form a historic material that was never
there historically. And standard guidance is to use a modern material. Use the most common material which you'd see asphalt all through this neighborhood on the adjacent buildings. Um, so again, it it could fall into that trap of the false sense of history just for the sake of historicizing and making
it look more historic than it ever actually was. Um, the third, please remind me what the third >> the third item was the Chip andale railing. >> Again, it's a lot of these are in the same category. This building never had Chip andale. Um, I think the
historically those those first two bays were enclosed porches. They didn't have any rail at all. They had a knee wall and then they had windows above it. um that of course would have opened in the summer, but it was they were enclosed porches with knee walls. And then as you see in the photographs, the they were it was a very simple porch as per the 2009
iteration of the two-story porch. And so the Chip Andale rail, it's part of a a revival really for Cape May. It would be part of a revival style that's completely inappropriate for this building, which was in the 20s was a very simple apartment block um with with
little to no decorative elements whatsoever. and and decor the the Chip andale rail is highly decorative by comparison. So the simpler the rail and and per the the national standards and I'm assuming yours somewhere in there. The simpler the the more appropriate and and differentiated the
better in this well while still being compatible obviously and that is what my client has done here. >> It's exactly like what was we just rebuilt the existing rail >> and you see those common square plan ballisters all over Cape May. Um,
>> four was the brid the bridge stair, >> right? The bridge stair. Yeah, the bridge stair was the product of adding a an access ramp and they have a a convenient lift on the side to make that lamp ramp unnecessary, but the bridge stair was not historic. Um,
>> five was the horizontal fencing. >> That one I'm going to defer to you. I'm not sure where the conversation has landed. I mean, historically, there's no one way or another from my perspective on that, but >> yeah, I think we just missed that one.
>> Okay. Well, so it's where is it on site? Is it more towards the front or more towards the rear? Uh >> what's the orientation of that horizontal fence? >> Uh it's not on the front at all. It's on
three uh side the side property lines and the rear property line. the if you're looking at the site to the left, it's kind of completely covered by both our vegetation and the neighbor put up a solid fence right behind ours. Um then there's a hotel to the right of
ours. They did we did present the design to them. They signed off on it, said they liked it. Um same with the the neighbors in the back, but it's it's most exposed in the rear. You can see it from the other street, whatever the next street
is, because it's just a big parking lot there. So Mr. Toth is your presentation that that element is somewhat less visible on the site and you're proposing to keep it as is as part of this application. >> Yes. Yeah. I think the primary views of the building being the the main issue
would be the breeze block that fronts that fence in the first place. >> Okay. >> Um >> which is point which is the next point point number six. So you're proposing that that that be retained >> that be retained in place as is. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And we which that contextualizing it with the information that we provided
you that it actually was a a building material at the time that the building was built and was obviously a popular use not necessarily right here on that property but a popular use for coastal because of its as it still is because of its advantages. >> Okay. And then seven is the pavers which
you're proposing to address with the cut sheet and eight has already been addressed out in the field which is the HVAC lattice. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we have all that on the record and that that's if the I think what we're hearing is that the applicant is
proposing basically that the building be permitted to be in its current condition with these proposed modifications. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> We're happy to discuss. >> So, I have a question for you. So, I'm
prepared to make a motion to approve all eight of those. See where the vote goes. Does that require these folks to submit a revised application to indicate all eight of these just to make sure that we're dotting our eyes and crossing our tees? >> Um, I accept the representation on the
record that we went through each of those and that you're proposing to incorporate all that into your request, right? Isn't that the spirit of why you're here? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because ultimately if you do if you are given approval and you do do these things that is ultimately a
pathway to a CO >> right >> okay >> sir what is the status of litigation now argued you say >> it's pending >> I mean we assume there will be some discussion between the attorneys after this meeting obviously >> I I would like to see that
I I if if this is approved I would like to see it go away because the city prevailed in that and you're appealing it But that's a discussion you can have with your attorney. As it pertains to this, all of those things are on the table for this approval. Um, but I, as I indicated at the start of this
conversation, I wouldn't pres prevent you from coming in here making a proposal. So, if this is acceptable to the board, I I as you can see, our attorney is not here. We're here in peace trying to rectify this mess.
>> I I have a a question. attorneys needed >> about the fence. So, the fence is p I mean this is a fantastic rendering. I I applaud you. I we hardly ever see a rendering this great. It looks like it's already existing. >> Um this was this fence part of the
original um reconstruction of the front of the property. Was it installed at the same time >> or was it done later? It was. >> Yes. >> Because generally we don't approve horizontal fences. They weren't
>> right. The landscaping was never presented to the HBC originally. >> So, >> so it's a wooden fence. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And um is it also stained black? >> Yes, >> it is. I would just like to suggest that when
this fence is exhausted, perhaps we could make it a condition that the fence be reviewed at that time. if you if if you know wooden fence will probably deteriorate in I don't know maybe five or six more years the way the weather is down here and at that time I
think it would be appropriate for the HBC to approve a new fence design. >> I'm I have to say I'm I'm really uncomfortable um dealing with a an additional group of matters where it really hasn't been specified exactly what's going to happen. I don't see an
application in front of us that has those things in it. So um I have a lot of difficulty dealing with it conceptually without having all the things I mean application that we have in front of us um has as as our ability to judge it. I think the rest of these
things are ought to be in an application so that so that we can fairly evaluate the details in front of us and and not on the basis of a of a discussion of six or seven points. I just find that too vague >> agree >> for me to handle >> and I don't could be a limited capacity
of my brain but uh and I I think it's nice to go in that direction but I'd like to see a specific application >> I guess we weren't sure how to >> put the application forward with items that weren't going to change you proposing >> well you can always you submitted an application here with respect to two items that we approved
>> we we did in our initial consultation have a similar conversation over which items specifically we needed to address in this meeting and it was we were directed towards uh focusing on the outstanding items which were the front stair and the breeze block wall >> and you and you did that and we have that
>> in but the the obvious objective of that initial consultation and as was mentioned here why we're here today is hopefully to be able to resolve all of these issues because the because ultimately the end goal is to retain the other pieces >> and there may be a pathway to that.
Okay. Um, but I think what some of the board members are indicating is that conversation was kind of thrust upon us tonight and and not >> fine. >> No, not not by not by anyone's >> like let's I like I like it as an introduction. I I like it as a as as a way to lead into talking about these
topics further, but I'd really appreciate if you put an application and specifically talked about that in the application in front of us, show showed us those things and let us talk about the merits of some of them >> um that um that some of some of us might find them easier to approve that way and
and others might not. >> And in fairness to you, Mr. Toth, I I put you on the hot seat to kind of come up with responses to that on the fly. and you did a you did a pretty good job, but it's also like giving you the opportunity to make your pitch to the
board about those the the entirety of the record here, >> right? No, no, and I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Um, does that then in terms of tonight and moving forward, does that mean we put this one on hold or do we
>> So, I have through and reapply for the other >> It's a good question. I have a proposal to make and that is of those eight things, six of them are already in place. The only two that are not are what we what's in this application for
tonight. So it it would in order for you guys to avoid having to submit a whole new application, if you would be willing to table this and resubmit the application with all of those eight things in it. I think what
you're hearing generally speaking is that there's not much here that would not be found appropriate. >> There's some question about the fence. You made a brilliant I think thank you argument for the breezeway the breeze
wall got me convinced. Um in any case I if we did that and you put together just another application that in included all of those eight things we just itemized and I can reread them if you like me to um and submitted that as a revised
application for next month. >> I'm I'm going to make another suggestion too. uh if if you're proposing finality on the building, I would suggest to you that you consider proposing some sort of finality with this pending litigation because the city has been successful in
that and it's taken a long time and a lot of effort. Um and I I would suggest to you that as part of that you make a proposal to resolve that in connection with this. You I'm not asking for a response. I'm just indicating that and I would I would uh indicate to you that's
probably gonna make that discussion a lot easier next time around and I I think there's an opportunity to do that. I really do. >> I mean that's the goal. I just didn't I don't think my place to speak to that. It's >> it's fine and I'm not that's why I'm not asking for a response. I'm I'm suggesting that to you.
>> Yeah. And we appreciate the suggestion. >> I think we're all seeking reconciliation here. >> I Yeah. I think that's very clear to to everyone we've been asking for for years. >> Yeah. So, how should we proceed? >> Well, I I I think that it they have to make a decision, but they've made an
application. We've we've reviewed those two points. They have the ability to come back for the balance or they have the ability to table. I mean, you have to choose which which you would like to choose. Uh you could potentially just table uh wave
the time for decision. You could uh provide a revised submitt and uh Mr. Ludman, you could talk to your attorney and have him reach out to me in advance of the next meeting. >> That sounds reasonable. >> Great. Which >> make any other comments on the other?
>> So, I think what we're doing here is um Does anybody have any other any comments about the other six issues? Judy, >> we didn't receive a property report with this application. So, I just it's a it's a important piece of information that we require as part of this packet. So, if
we're going to have a packet come back, >> is that the 2009 survey or >> Yes. >> We also need det uh drawings of the details like you're showing us a railing uh design, but how high the the thickness of the the elements uh should
be on that. >> Yeah. So, it's it's the one piece that I wanted to comment about this application. The only thing that's missing I think that we would need is just detail a detailed drawing of the railings. That's all. >> Okay. So I think what we're saying is >> if I can comment real quick. I'm sorry. Um I just want to point out that in the
property report it says this is a plane twotory apartment building but is it has the distinction of being one of only a few buildings constructed during the era of the Great Depression a time when construction virtually came to a halt. So there's the the history that is
important to the to the surveyor. Um, and I think, you know, as you look at it, it talks about um, you know, there are plain squared posts, there's a a uh, roof that is of asphalt shingles. Um, it's it's all about simplicity in this
thing. So, I think to the extent that, you know, we're talking about not cladding the uh, the foundation in a brick material, retaining the squared posts rather than going to a chip andale kind of a style, I mean, those are all consistent with the property report. And so I think you know in general I I agree
we we're likely to look pretty favorably. I also have the same concern about the fence. Fences in Kate May are not generally horizontal. They are vertical. So you know I mean I would tell you you know that's one you really got to consider to >> I mean you you really have to understand
though that if you do come back and things aren't decided tonight I mean you can get an approval which could be conditional on not exactly what you've asked for. Right. Right. Understand that. So, right, >> I'll propose a vert a new vertical fence on the rear property line. Probably not
on the side properties because I think they're hidden, but um so we'll show that detail. >> Okay, >> great. So, I think I think you're making the choice to table this application. >> Uh sounds like it. >> Okay. So, so just to just so we what we're hearing then is >> to make the choice
>> the eight issues that we're going to get back from you >> exhausted from this uh process >> in a revised application would be retaining the current parched concrete block foundation retaining the current asphalt roof shingles um you not putting in the chip andale railings but using
the railings that are currently there with the st square in plan ballasters and posts and spindles the current horizontal fencing except Except for in the back where you would propose vertical fencing, keeping the current breeze block wall, new pavers as you've
proposed tonight, HVAC lattice screen which is already in place, and the new stair configuration as proposed this evening. >> Correct. >> So I would make a motion to table this pending your resubmission. >> Okay, I will second it.
>> Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote. One question before we step away uh for the next iteration because you commented on the details for the rail. Yeah. Now I don't have the drawing right in front of me but u rail height obviously if it's not on there we can add when it comes to the
the rail itself that may come down to what's available for the contractor. So is that something that we can provide you? >> So what I would So what we would want to see is a is an elevation detail of the railing which bottom rail top rail spindles and posts. >> Okay. particularly the size of the
spindles and the spacing between them. >> Okay. Okay. >> Sure. >> So you could also use your material sheet >> and you list it >> and then you reference to a cut sheet. >> Sure. >> Or as close as you can come to a cut sheet. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. >> All cedar that you can get.
>> Yeah. And and please um as Judy mentioned, please also include the property report with your next subision. And >> that was my fault, Judy. Sorry. I had it. I was giving it. It's not in there then. and and complete the materials checklist for all of these eight items. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just all that that's just a verbal
description of what they are. >> Sure. >> And any photographic documentation you have since it's already in place. We're not going to be looking at cut sheets because it's already there would be helpful. >> Okay. >> But just to save you some aggravation too regarding the fence uh railings, I I know that Mr. Carroll always brings up
that the ballisters should be what is it? One inch wide. Uh the opening between them should not be any more than three and a half inches. And the bowsters themselves should at least be an inch and a half. >> Okay. All right. >> Railings back then 2 in with a 3 in
open. So yeah. Opening as close to it to keep it they they had a a heaviness to the railings. If you look at that north end of town, all those railing systems have much heavier look than what you're showing in your drawing there. >> Sure. Okay. Right. And specifically in
addition to the top rail should be beefy. >> Right. >> So we have a motion on the table and that is >> by Mr. Becker to table this application. Seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote please. >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Miss Pagno. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson. >> Yes.
>> Miss Decker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hamaran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curts. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tessa. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. So, thank you for your time and I really want to compliment you on the on the historical report that you gave us.
Quite compelling. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Interesting. >> Interesting reading. >> Very good. >> Okay. Next application, please, is if I'm pronouncing that accurately. I apologize if I'm not. That's at 81st
Avenue. Hi, how are you? >> Good. >> Welcome. If you could please state your name and your address and your role in the project, please. I might turn on here. >> Uh I'm Dina Soal and my husband and I
are the property owners. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Paul Kiss, uh the architect for the project, um 9616, um Second Avenue, Stone Harbor. >> Welcome back, Mr. Kiss. The table or I'm sorry, the floor is yours. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um Dina,
if you would just uh introduce yourself and um um your um why you bought the property and and what you hope to do here. Oh, sure. Um, my husband and I have been coming down to Kate May since I guess me the early 90s. He was coming
in the 80s. Uh, we started coming down with our children in the 2000s. And in 2016, we bought a condominium in Seabard Walk. And so, we've been there for nine years. And since CO, we were looking to
get a single family, you know, somewhere. And ever since CO, it's it's been not a lot available. So, we've been eyeing the property, uh, the Beach Avenue property for a couple years and finally decided to try to build our, you
know, our family's generational home. >> All right. So, um, I'll walk you through the the presentation. Um, >> am I in the way? Can you guys see? >> We we also have copies. >> Okay. So the property is part of a two lot
subdivision that was created a few years ago. Um subject property is the corner of 1 Avenue and Beach. Um it's corner lot. So um the sighting of the building um is dictated primarily by the
subdivision regulations which require two front yards. Um so it pushes the building off the corner a little bit. Um, we inquired about averaging the front yard along 1 Avenue and we're told no, it's specifically in the
subdivision. It has to be a 20ft front yard. Um, so the building is placed where it is up towards the street. We are we're approaching the building from the corner. Um the subdivision also says it should be in the entrance on Beach
Avenue, but um we uh talked to the engineer of the subdivision who's going to approve this and um he indicated this is acceptable as u condition of the subdivision. We located the garage, the detached
garage as far back to the corner of the property as we could to keep it away from Beach Avenue and to keep it away as far from First Avenue as we can. and and the driveways along the back. Um, just so you know, we asked about um also
putting the driveway off of Beach Avenue and parking down behind the building. Um, and that is also specifically prohibited by the subdivision. Um, we have to put it where we put it. Um, in between the house and the garage is a
pool and we're taking advantage of that 20 foot front yard to create um a lawn area and screening the pool with um with landscape hedge row so that hopefully you're not really seeing the pool from
from the street um for privacy and also because nobody likes to see the pool from the street. um utilities. The there's outside shower, a trash enclosure is is in the sideyard.
Um and we don't have any outside air conditioning units because they've elected to do geothermal heating and cooling. Uh the house is designed with um the main living space on the top floor. Um the first floor being uh bedrooms,
utilities, and facing the backyard is an outdoor uh cabana type space. What I've done to to make that look more a part of the house is to create a solid wall with with window-like openings um with Bahama shutters, which you'll see
on the elevations um and also shields that that activity from the street. Uh second floor is bedrooms, bedrooms and bathrooms. And as I said, the third floor is the
main main living space with a covered porch at the corner on the street. Another covered porch um along First Avenue um and kitchen, dining, living, small office.
Um the elevation sheet is showing our proposed elevation. Um and the what you see next to it is the house that um was proposed and approved um in August. Um I don't know what their
plans are in terms of building, but I thought this was good to show relative context and and scale. Um and this is to scale to match uh our building. Uh materials are all you've seen the
materials if you went through the um the booklet. Red cedar roof um cedar siding, copper on the um on the octagon and on a couple of the accents. Um authentic shutters, brick base. Um little bit of
articulation of of shingled columns on the first floor and then partial railing on the second and full railing on the third. Um on the side uh side elevation we we have a
brick chimney um basically just windows, doors, eyebrow window. All the materials are shown and facing the pool, it's the open first level and then the porch extending out.
And the garage building, what you see from the street is um kind of reminiscent of the little um cottage buildings that you'd see behind carriage houses with swinging uh carriage style doors, the window above
and everything matching the house. And final sheet we submitted was the neighborhood streetscape, uh the vacant lots. Uh we have two lots to the left is a more modern Victorian
style building. Then behind us is a vacant lot and then um historically significant building. And then the rest of the street is a mixture of I would say historic homes and uh more modern homes. >> Okay,
let's go around the room on this one. Kevin, can we start with you, please? Well, I appreciate uh the explanation on that adjacent property. I was trying to figure out what that what face to the building that was and it wasn't any of them. Um so that that helped. I I that
was one of my questions. Um if you could just in terms of the streetscape drawing that you had, can can you give us an idea of how many other three-story buildings are in that First Avenue street? The only thing I want to deal with is
just um whether the the height of the building is out of proportion with the surrounding structures. >> So, let's see. >> And and just where they're at on that little map. I I saw that. I just I think
I have them placed, but I'm not sure. So the order of the pictures um generally try to follow as you as you go down go down the street. So here's here's our corner property. Um then number 18 is is this one. >> Okay.
>> And then going down in order these it's really hard to see because of the trees. Um, maybe I should go back now and take pictures, but um, most of these houses are two stories with a third level that's within the roof lines. If you go
all the way down to, um, 26, that's five houses down. Um, you see a a ter This is a more modern building. Looks like three stories. um directly across the street. It's pretty much vacant and there's just a very small um
little bungalow and then it's parking area and and vacant land. And then going down here we have um across the street at 15 diagonally across the street
um is this it's an elevated porch twotory and then the third level. Where >> where is that on the map again? >> That's that's here. 15 >> 15 >> I don't see it on my map. >> Yeah, I know, but I don't see it on the map.
>> On the map, they're all numbered. Numbers >> correspond. >> It almost looks like a five, but it's a 23 and seven. I don't I just >> Yeah, I know. This is so small. >> It's It's It's this one. >> Oh, that's a 15. Okay, I thought it was
five. Okay. >> Okay, Mr. >> That's good. >> Okay. Um, would you maintain that really the only addition in height to what we approved in August was the Koopa and the chimney height? >> Yes. >> So, it's really not that it's anything really blocking like a wall. It's just
these two appenages sticking up. >> That's right. The main the main ridge of the roof is exactly the same as the adjacent house. >> I don't have any other comments really. The only other thing is a positive and that's that uh the landscaping plan
speaks to a lot of native species species which I think is just a good thing in general. >> So I don't have any other comments about the the building and it looks like the height of the building is compatible with the surrounding you know structures around it. So
>> be >> pretty much the same thing. It seemed massive and I I was just trying to fit it in but a lot of questions have been answered. Okay. >> Um, I wasn't here in August. I was appointed at the last meeting. I I don't
understand what happened with the Was this your design, Mr. Kiss? It was not. So, you changed architects. >> Oh, no. That that's the neighbors property. >> Oh, that's the neighboring house. So I I guess my problem is um the reason we ask
for this page is because we want to we want you to place the building in a scaled streetscape. All these individ as you can see it's very confusing. If you could just show us the whole block with your building in it scaled that's what
we're looking for and we have gotten them before. I don't know how difficult it is to do but I know many architectural firms can do this now. Mhm. >> They can place it the building in the streetscapes. >> We've seen We've seen that. >> We have seen it and that's that's what
we're as asking for. This is great. And I mean it's a beautiful location. I think it looks like a nice house. I also think it's it's large. Um but I think it's a nice design. >> So the and I've done the streetscapes, too. It seemed to me in this case that
the adjacent buildings are so far away it's not really a streetscape. And the one that is relative to this building is the one that is right is going to be right next door that was approved for right next door. >> Okay. I didn't I didn't understand. >> I think I think what you did there going around and pointing out where those are
was helpful and it it got close to the same thing as the streetscape. I think the reason we pay as much attention to that as we do is we've seen requests to put in three plus story buildings and next to it is a one-story cottage and the one next to that is a one and a half story bungalow. And now you really have
to ask the question, is this house out so out of scale with the surrounding? You know, that it's not appropriate. I think I think you've got a nice mix of the buildings around you and some of them are in fact threetory, which certainly helps the case that this is not sort of grossly out of proportion to
anything around you. >> At the same time, there are a lot of bungalows on First Avenue. So, we have to be very careful about that, >> Jake. Okay. Um, you know, I take notice that along Beach Avenue traditionally and existing, there are a lot of big commercial properties there, motel, and
you know, it it's kind of different than a side street. Um, and I love the design that was presented in August. I think this is even an improvement on that, which is saying something particularly with the red roof retund up top and a coupler. It just really adds a lot to
the streetscape. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh I think the um presentation here has shown that uh first of all I want to compliment you on the choice of the materials there. They really appear to be very high quality and uh and and and
top rate. Uh the design to me is is is really very nice and it it it it isn't really out of proportion with the neighboring structures. There's always a hope that when you have a street looking down on Beach Avenue that people will get a view down the street um that you
won't be blocking too much and it's a large structure but it really nicely fills the the space. Um and you know it's new construction so you have a freer hand in terms of design and I think the design is really is really first rate. Uh I I think it's um it's
it's a really good project well presented. uh there may be some uh some some issues with respect to the placement of things. Um you you did mention that you had um landscaping that you were using to shield a pool. >> Mhm.
>> And that landscaping is on first. Right. >> Along along first >> first and along and but you do have a fence of some sort. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. You know what? I didn't speak to the fence. >> Yeah. You should should help us out with how the pool is being shielded.
So, I'll start um on the left front corner of the house. And the fence style is a is a cedar picket fence. Um the fence uh going down the left property line and back to the garage
building. The intention is to do a six foot high fence, somewhat of a privacy fence. Um then coming forward from the garage, we switched to a 4ft high fence. Um because that continues into the front yard and
down First Avenue and we can't be more than four feet high in the front yard. Um and then returning back to the house >> to create this um recreation yard for lack of a better word. Um uh the arborvite or laurels will be planted
behind the fence to to provide that screening. >> Um then the fence goes to a 3-ft high fence coming around a double gate and then coming around the front yard and back to the house. All the same style just varying in height.
>> Okay. Thank thank you for clarifying that. And um I guess it's it's just a question of how much of the pool gets seen and we usually have some discussion about vegetation and how well it's shielded and I've saved that for further further comments. I >> have several comments about that.
>> Good. I knew you would. >> Mr. Carol, >> I'm I'm really very pleased with it. It's it is big. I agree with those remarks. It is kind of off to itself. A lot of people are seeing it from the proomenade uh and with its setback and
the side. Um it's somewhat eclectic with a lot of different elements which uh kind of goes along with our Victorian houses in town that look like the whole world of architectural design is appearing on one house. Uh and this this
is kind of fun the way they all come together on this as well. Um I agree with the other remarks. Uh the fence that you're showing looks incredibly lightweight compared to the massiveness of the house. Uh and I know that that's a wonderful fence company you're looking
at, but if you look at some of those other designs, the little curly tops on this one and the very thin pieces don't really go along with the feeling of that house. So, I would really urge you to look for something a little more massive
and probably put it in with with the u uh 4x4s rather than anything too lightweight. >> I I would I would just if I could for a second. Were you proposing 4x4s for the for the fence? >> I I assumed that actually I did. >> Let me just make a suggestion. House is
really significantly massive. You would you might consider six by sixes. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Yeah. I mean because because those 4x4s are going to look pretty spindly. >> Okay. >> Along with whatever the rest of the choice is. Yeah. And 6x6, as you know, isn't really >> quite 6x6, right? Okay.
>> Maybe a little more than five. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> I'm done. >> Uh boy, it's hard to top what everyone else has said here. It's a beautiful home. Uh fine. It's a fine architectural design. It's really fits well in the neighborhood.
>> He did a great job. >> Oh, he certainly did. Uh, I like the way the pool's hidden. Uh, and I I think it's it's the new Kate May. I mean, this is what it's supposed to look like. Uh, this is a 100 years later, that's all. It's
it's it's nice. It's a very nice home. >> I just want to comment one more thing, too. You're really really putting real glass fixtures on the building. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. That's >> so I would like to echo what my colleagues have said. Very nice job. Beautiful design. Um,
however, there is one significant issue that I think is solvable, so bear with me. On page 45 of our standards, and we've run into this a number of times, therefore, I, as chair, am seeking consistency in how we review visibility
of pools. >> And on page 45, it says that site elements such as decks, patios, and a bunch of things, but pools is on the list should be located in a rear or sideyard. and not be visible from the public right ofway. Well, you've got a challenge here because you've got two
front yards. So, unfortunately, when you look back on page 12 of our standards, the definition of not visible is not able to be seen by a person standing in any public thoroughare. Vegetation,
seasonal foliage, and fencing are not considered as they may be removed over time. So that raises an issue that we've had on a couple of projects recently. But with that said, I have a a suggestion
how you might be able to pull this off. It would require relocating both the pool and the garage. So I just did a quick little sketch here. If you turn that garage 90 degrees and put it right up against your 20 foot
setback and when I put my scale on this because you need 10 feet between the garage and the house and 10 feet between any structure in the pool, I think it'll just barely fit. Actually, that would potentially even give you more parking area and you could it makes it actually easier to get in out of the garage
because you could do a three-point turn to get in and out. Therefore, the pool would rotate 90 degrees and set in 10 ft from the garage. The garage would completely screen the pool. You wouldn't be able to see it from the street. >> Well,
>> in terms of flow and use of space and sun and the use of the yard, it eliminates everything. It just creates, >> but it also may give the owner more privacy for your pool. Now, all I'm suggesting is I'm not the architect. I'm
not the designer, but if I'm going to ask for you and be adamant that you comply with our standards, the pool cannot be visible from First Avenue. How you configure that is up to you as the designer. I feel it incumbent upon me if
I'm making a requirement to at least offer one suggestion of how you may proceed. Not mandating it, but the pool can't be visible from First Avenue. Well, as as as the chair knows, I have a few a few issues with respect to the absolute
non-visibility issue here. Um I I think that um that that our our standards in in some ways overstep reality. Um which is to say that um you know, it's true the foliage and and offense may be
removed. U they they rarely are. and uh and and a significant fence is something that um only gets replaced and never really removed to expose the the view of the pool. Uh I I think that we have had occasions u and those occasions have um
been rare, but we've had occasions where we have approved um the um the situation where a pool has been technically visible from the street provided it has been adequately screened with substantial vegetation and substantial
barriers. uh and that the homeowner has covenanted to maintain those barriers perpetually over time so they're never removed. uh there there may be a situation where we get around to discussing how those design standards
should should be interpreted, but I think we have allowed that to happen in the in the uh in the past and I I personally would be willing to to to to look favorably uh on a on a substantial shield for the pool. I've said this
before and I think it's it's it's something that benefits the design. And on the other hand, it's been a suggestion of rotating all these things. And you're >> well, if I may, that the um it's a very similar concept to my project at 15 Broadway, which pools in the sideyard,
screened with vegetation and fence set back, but it by your definition, it's clearly visible from the street, but it is screened. >> Yeah. As I recall on that project, however, there was also a a vacant lot next door which would likely end up having a structure put on it. So that
was a mitigating circumstance if I recall that correctly. >> No, they >> they own the lot. >> The pool is in that lot. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So there's another, you know, other options would be so we've had this come up where um a landscaping burm with maybe a a retaining wall or a wall that
is up to eye height would also work. It's not a fence, it's a wall. So there there are other options. So, I'm just raising this because this has become a point of contention on other projects and I think that we it's it's incumbent upon us to be consistent
in how we're reading our own standards. >> Chairman, would would it be advisable to raise the that fence on First Avenue to six foot? >> Not permitted. >> It's it's a front yard. >> You got a front yard situation. >> I I understand it. Would you would that
require a variance? That would >> it would. >> Okay. I mean that would wouldn't that resolve a lot of the problems? >> No. >> No. Not by our definition of visibility. You can't do that. I have a suggestion. I It looks like your your yard is 20 20 ft deep. Is that correct? >> That's required.
>> Has to be, Judy. >> Right. Okay. I mean, is it possible to put another line of of screening right here? >> Yeah, we could we could >> vegetation. >> Yes, vegetation. like another hedge. >> So now you're going to I mean arborvites
are I don't know if that's what you're going to put in well a wall of of of vegetation here on the other side of the yard and it still leaves you enough yard there I think. >> Problem is that doesn't meet our definition of visibility as our own standards say. >> No
>> when you say wall what what what are you envisioning wall? >> So I I you have I'm I'm trying to remember what you have as the foundation here. I mean >> it's brick brick. Yeah. >> It's not breeze block. Yeah. >> You mean here? >> Got a brick wall >> here. >> Put a brick wall right there. That would do it,
>> right? And the brick wall would that could be six feet tall. >> A brick wall with a limestone and pots on the top with flowers. >> We can talk about that. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> So that that would not require reconfiguring the garage as I was saying because I I understand exactly what you
were saying and it's not preferable. But you're so constrained here because you've got the 20 foot setback on on two sides of your lot. You've only got so much buildable area. So just look at what that would look like. >> Then your your shrubbery doesn't have to be so tall that then you know
>> this is a really >> just another thought about that if you're going to put a wall in. >> So you could actually even slope landscaping up to the wall so it didn't feel so high if you're worried about a six foot high wall >> and you can use the back side of it actually for a pool fountain or something like that. >> That's what I just said. I mean we too
obviously want privacy in our pool as well. that would give you that privacy also. So there's so it's it's so it's actually to your benefit in some ways that this is one of our requirements >> because >> it's not just the I would say the visibility of the pool, it's also the
activity around a pool that in the historic district we're wanting not to be visible from the public rightway. So, if it's not visible at eye height with a wall, that's very different because that also reduces the noise and a bunch of
other act activation issues. So, >> and is it just the pool itself or it's w you need a something wider than the pool? >> No, you're saying pool activity. >> If for example you just just for real kicks, if you were to extend a wall from the end of the house to the driveway,
that would do it. So, >> right along here. >> So, I'm thinking if we >> There you go. >> doing this on the fly. >> Yep. >> You know, if we um if we had a wall, this isn't the scale. Um that extended
as you said, and then maybe maybe built a couple of openings with gates, solid gates. >> Be really nice. >> Yeah. It'd be really pretty. >> It' be very >> It could be a feature on the other side and it would shield the pool. Mhm. >> So it would it would satisfy >> requirements >> and also give you more privacy.
>> Absolutely. >> So just just to be clear from the streetscape if you were on First Avenue, first thing you'd see from the sidewalk is a fence then arborvitees and then if you were able to see through the arborites, you'd see a brick wall, not a pool. >> Right.
>> A very attractive brick wall. >> Beautiful brick wall. >> Right. that I mean you you you know >> in that case you might not even need the fence. >> The brick wall is providing you safety and it's providing you the privacy and it's providing you
>> blockage to make invisible. >> Now you're talking about putting it right behind the the uh automatic pool cover. >> No, no, just it would it would extend house, >> you know, north up. So it would extend north from the back of the house to the driveway right on the >> in line with the current back. Well,
where it says line of automatic pool cover, but that then we would just flip to the other side of the pool. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I also want to compliment you on a very comprehensive submission. You gave us everything we're looking for. So, uh
I would ask my fellow commissioners if um we would want to entertain a motion if it were final because he's he's you're requesting final yes approval. If the only exception is the visibility of the pool, I would suggest we could
approve final conditional upon you coming back with a revised drawing depicting the screening via however you choose to do that >> for the review committee to look at. >> Mhm. >> And 6x6 posts >> and 6x6 >> a more substantial fence with 6x6.
>> I don't know what that means. >> I don't I figured you did. >> You know what 6x6 post mean? >> It's a matter. a matter of getting your approval subject to a condition and the condition is what we've just discussed. >> So I understand I just didn't know what a 6x6
>> 6 in by 6 in. >> Oh for the the the new house the actual dimensions are five and a half instead of three and a half. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> I like that. I like more substantial. >> Okay. Well it's pretty substantial house. >> Yeah. Which is why which is why that fence is going to look better without spindly spin spindly post.
>> So if that's the case I'll move to grant final approval with the following two conditions. 6x6 fence posts and uh some means by which to have the pool be not visible by definition from first avenue
pending review by the review committee. >> Could Could we just amend that to say that that that a brick wall be >> Well, I'm not sure that they want to do that. >> I I don't want to put you on the spot for that. I I think that's what we want to do. But if if it >> you can design something else that's
>> Yeah. >> better to leave it open in case think about it else, right? Yeah. I don't want to lock you in. >> I I only I only have a concern because that means that when it comes back to the review committee, the review committee has to decide whether or not there's visibility. Whereas we know with
a brick wall or solid wall that it satisfies the definition. It's a lot of discretion you committee. >> It could it could be a Um, >> could we say a solid barrier? >> A solid barrier such as a brick wall or other comparable like that's an example
of if you do that you'll be able to meet the test. But if you find some >> if the mover will accept that as an amendment to his motion >> I will >> then then I think I've served the purpose. >> So the the I think the revised
motion is final approval with two conditions. One is 6x6 posts. The second is some depiction and inclusion of a solid barrier such as a brick wall or similar.
>> Having made that motion, I will second the motion. >> John, I I wasn't just suggesting that the post be bigger on the fence. I was suggesting that the pickets also uh have a the weight to it that goes along with the house. >> Yeah, we definitely agree with that. >> Yep.
>> We agree. So revised fence with 6x6 posts and and larger members. >> Yes. >> Y >> did you >> more substantial fence >> designate a height for the wall? >> Six feet. >> It it would have to be above eye height. That's all.
>> Okay. You might want to put that into >> Yes. >> above eye height. So thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Y >> Well, six feet is more. >> How tall he variances of height? >> Yeah. >> Well, typically Yeah. Six foot >> if it's it doesn't have to be say it could be five
>> five is per 54 >> also have a line of sight >> masonry dimension 54 right yeah >> yeah okay >> was there also one other provision that it would extend from the rear of the house to the driveway >> yes >> which is the only way it's the only way
you're going to shield the pool yeah >> okay so I'm going to reread this okay so two conditions is a more substantial fence for example example, 6x6 posts and other members. The second is a solid barrier such as a brick wall
or something similar above eye height extending from the rear of the house to the driveway. >> That sounds fine. Yeah. >> All right. So, having made that, I will second a motion with that language. >> Follow all that.
>> Thanks, Lauren. Okay. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hamaran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curts. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tessa. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes.
>> Thank you for the the great dialogue. >> Beautiful home. Good luck. >> Thank you. Yes. It's great. >> And welcome to Kate May. >> Yeah. >> They're already here. >> Well, right. But now in a >> in a more prominent place, >> in a new location.
>> What union you would uh Okay. >> Okay. Next applicant, please. >> Porhan at 1017 Lafayette Street. >> If you could please state your name and your address and your role in the project, please.
>> Is this the good one? Hopefully. when this green is correctly. Yeah. >> Uh Adam Crossand, the project uh designer with AJS Design. My address is 565 Shumppike Road in Kate May Courthouse. >> And do you have the owner's authority to
speak on their behalf this? >> Yes, she did. They did send that to Lauren. >> We do have that. >> Great. Thank you. The floor is yours, Adam. >> Okay. Um I did print out um when we had met at the subcommittee last week you had asked me to provide as many details on
materials as possible. So I do have 13 copies here with the updated materials list. >> Okay. >> There you thank you. >> Thank you. But it's the same.
>> May I have two, please? Thank you. Okay, Adam, it's all yours. >> Okay, so uh this is a property. It's 10:17 Lafayette Street. It's on the corner of Lafayette and Clay Street. Um
we actually are not proposing too much to the project. I guess first things first, we can go through the drawings, which would be the 11 by7s. The streetscape obviously is up on the top. Um the portion of the house that is in
the photograph representing the existing dwelling um is not really changing. Um what we are proposing to do is you see there's a bow window with a brick facade on the left side of the house.
We're proposing to remove that and put a second floor um up above that portion of the house, which if you go to sheet sheet HPC2, which is the second sheet on the list, you'll see we've compared existing up
top with proposed down below. So, we're proposing to um on the first floor, there's just going to be a laundry room and a bathroom addition at the rear of the property. That's all that really is proposed to be changing on the first level.
On the second level, it's a little little more substantial. If you go to sheet HPC3, right now, the wing on the left side of the house is just a single story. We're proposing to put a second floor up above that that would house a bedroom and a bathroom.
the laundry room and bathroom edition would just which goes out beyond that into the backyard would just be a singlestory edition. Um, and you can see as you go on to the next sheet HPC4
the existing and proposed elevation. So again, going over the the front elevation, you'll see we're going to be removing um that modern quad window with the stone wall, replacing it with more historically
accurate double hung windows, and adding a second floor above that area. Um there is a a small proposed dormer addition to the rear of the property on the third floor. You'll notice on um the right side elevation when you
compare existing and proposed the real elevation. You'll see on the the left side there's really no change. On the right side we're adding um that second floor addition. All done. >> Um, yes, I can go down the materials
with you. >> You can. So, if you look at the updated materials list that I provided, um, the first sheet is kind of um just an idea of the materials they're going to
be using. Um, which as far as roofing goes, we're going to be replacing the existing uh cedar shingle roof with a new cedar shingle roof. Um, the siding uh that exists as a cedar clapboard, we're going to be replacing that with the same. I
actually brought samples here. These are the siding samples. This windsor board here would be all the trim and these are the roofing samples. Yeah, Ray Hawthorne's going to be building this and I think he's used these on
similar approved projects throughout town. I'm sure you're you're familiar with them. Um, next in the materials list, I supplied details of the new Colby wood windows that we're going to be providing. I think it's the heritage series. I supplied um a photo of the brick that
we're proposing for the foundation and I gave a sample of the lighting that we're going to be proposing which would be Cape Cod uh Cape Cod Lighting Company. >> Okay, Yogi, can we start with you? >> Yeah, I just have one question. Is there
a chimney that's being moved or or >> Um the chimney will be remaining. And there will be no change to that chimney. >> No ch. Okay. >> There is a chimney. You can see it. I apologize. It's not shown on the rendering, but there will be no change to that chimney. >> Okay. I saw it on I saw it on the front. I didn't see it on the side. I have no
other questions. >> You have uh lots of shutters on lots of windows. Uh don't forget our rule that a shutter should be able to or at least designed to close over the window. when
there's a one shutter on one side, it should be a double shutter. >> Double shutter, >> but you want you have uh multiple windows on one place there that I'm not sure how you're going to do that, but that might be one place you don't want to try to have shutters, but in all
those others, they they should uh if they're only on one side, they should look like they're going to fold out over the window. >> Do you do you understand what he's saying? I understand exactly what I think they'll actually a double shutter would fit on the the side edition that
that sits in the back. So I have no problem with providing >> Uhhuh. >> a double shutter on those. Um they could also >> by double you mean you mean by fold >> correct? But they Exactly. >> Uhhuh. >> Yep. >> And they will be um raised on a lot of these on the houses we've done together
recently. So they'll be full functioning shutters like you guys like to see. That could definitely be a condition of approval. We'll make sure we provide that. >> And are the windows uh that you suggested uh only for the new addition? >> Pretty much for the new addition, if any
of the windows are in too bad a shape, they would be replaced with again the Colby wood wood windows. >> Okay. >> They'd be historically same sash design and everything. >> Exactly. >> Okay. I'm okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Tom.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm okay with it, too. So I I think the materials are are uh adequate and appropriate. I think the addition um is is well designed to be both proportional setback and and uh uh
distinct but yet complimentary to the uh to the structure. So um and I'm not going to make any shutter speech because you've already made the shutter speech about >> it was good >> portionate and and functional and and I know you'll do that. So, uh, no, I have
no I have no further questions. >> Okay. Just two questions. Uh, I'd like to see perhaps a catalog cut for the windows. >> So, I did provide those. >> Okay. >> They're in the updated sheet I gave you tonight. >> I know. I see stuff that has like technical aspects to it.
>> You mean the drawings >> like this? >> Correct. But I mean it. >> Oh, I'm happy to provide that as a as a >> So, um I think Len, who's the sales rep for Colby, I think he's been before you guys before, so you should be pretty familiar with the Colby windows. >> Yeah,
>> we are. But but what what I think you're saying is a cut sheet showing the heritage series as a window, the exterior mutton simulated divided light. Just a little more clarification there. happy to provide that as a condition and come meet on the
>> morning. And then one other question on HPC4 >> um on your proposed front elevation. It's difficult to tell is the uh ridge line on the addition subordinate to the main building. >> It is it you can really see that when
you go to HPC 5, right? >> Um on the proposed left side elevation. So it's it it's about six inches lower than the main peak, but it sits so far back that it's going to look very much
subordinate to the main peak. >> Well, that satisfies it. >> And I >> Yes, >> I was over there in the dark looking around. >> But the addition I knew the original owners, not the original, but the owners very well.
>> Me, too. But that went up and that's far farther back than I remembered until I got there tonight and looked at it. But is the addition coming up more forward than that? >> It's staying right in line with where that current stone wall is. Okay. >> And I'm sure you noticed when you were there,
>> there's a big tree there. Um, yes. >> Which obviously I know that tree could disappear at some point, but the clients are are >> hoping to protect and save that tree, which really hides that additional more. >> Like you can see my streetscape picture. It's hard to even see because you see all the of the tree.
>> I trespassed. >> Judy, >> um, a couple comments. >> Are the existing shutters on the second floor louvered or paneled? >> They are panled shutters currently. >> All of them.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Um, uh, frequently second floor shutters are louvered. That's why I asked, but I see that they're I think it looks like an improvement from the from the street. Um I was also a little concerned about the
ridge line because on HPC1 you it looks like the ridge line drops on the second floor of the addition. Um it also HPC 4 and the proposed front elevation, it looks like the roof line
drops. But then on HBC 5 and three, the rear elevation, I'm a little confused about that one. That's >> I'm not sure where the chimney is there. It >> Yeah, I apologize that the chimney disappeared from the proposed front
elevation, but the chimney is is staying and that can be on the record that the chim chimney is not going anywhere. Um >> Okay, so the roof line in the addition is definitely going to drop. It's It's going to drop about six inches lower and it sits back significantly from the main >> original building.
>> And that's uh Are you going to are is the front door remaining? >> Um the screen door will be removed and the front door will be restored. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Just a quick question. In the property report, it says that the shutters are
wall wall applied three panel wood shutters. So are you going to We're going to replace them with functioning shutters. All >> question actually, you know, the the addition stepping back, it seems to me to comply with everything that's on page
56. does. >> So, thank you, Adam, for coming and and seeing us at the review committee um and responding accordingly and for the way you've presented this with existing and
proposed floor plans and existing and proposed elevations right next to each other so we can see them. >> My pleasure. I want to make it as easy as possible for you guys. >> Well done. So, I have nothing to add. Um, it sounds like we can entertain a motion to approve this final project
with the following conditions. That the chimney be depicted on the front elevation as staying. That you provide cut sheets for the windows, ensuring that they are exterior wood primed and simulated divided lights. A cut sheet
for the new wood door. There's one new wood door, right? >> Correct. In the back of the house. >> And lastly, full width functioning shutters. Those could be simulated or or full. >> They could be simulated or full, >> but since the heritage series >> is basically simulated,
>> they're basically simulated. >> Yeah. So, the problem with any of these window companies is they have multiple versions of of a series of windows. So, we can't tell unless we have a cut sheet whether it's a a heritage clad or it's a heritage woodp primed exterior.
>> Understood. We just need >> directly with the rep who knows what Kate may accept. >> All you need to do is give us a cut sheet with that specifically stated because we always look for that. >> I'll make sure you get that. Great. >> It's not a problem. >> So, would anybody like to make that motion? >> I'll move to approve. >> So, >> second.
>> All right. Moved by Mr. Hammer, second by Miss Pagno with those four conditions. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. Mr. Ta.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> One more question very quickly. The landscaping plan for the new addition. Are you just going to carry what's in front around? What's the what's the game plan? Um a big tree going to stay?
>> There's no major changes to the landscaping proposed at this point. The clients are well aware that if they do propose any changes for that in the future down the line too, they're probably going to want to put an accessory building out by the pool. They'll come with a separate application
for that accessory building and the landscaping. >> Great. So, looks like you're Looks like you're up next. >> Correct. >> So, next application is for I'm assuming it's Hya or Ha. Okay, great. Ha at 1149
Lafayette Street. >> All right. I did the same thing as well. I'm going to hand out these updated materials. Don't worry. >> I work in a high school. >> If you could please introduce yourself, sir, and your name, your address, and your role in the project. >> Anan Hija, owner, 1600 Art Street,
Philadelphia. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Sorry, I mispronounced your name. >> Oh, no. That's okay. Everybody butcher it. You did it. >> We get it right the second time. >> Okay, good. >> You again, please. >> Thank you.
Okay, gentlemen. >> Floor is yours. >> Okay. Adam Crossland, project designer with AJS Design, um 565 Shumppike Road. Um similar to the last application. I did give everybody an updated materials
list just to give you as much information as possible. Um, first thing we can do is go through the design drawings. What we are proposing to do here is um take this building um if you look at the
site drawings the existing and the proposed we are the foundation is in very bad shape. So, we are looking to slightly relocate the building on the lot, which would allow for a nicer ease of flow in in and out of the driveway on the back, but it's very slight. We're
just sliding the house over a couple of feet to make more room to get in and out of it. Um, we are removing the existing um added and enclosed front porch on the dwelling. Um, we are also going to be,
and we kind of talked about this in the subcommittee meetings, um, aligning the five windows across the the front of the second floor and now going to be on the you're actually going to see them on the first floor. Um, because this house, if you read the property report, it was
three windows wide at one point with no front porch. They added another wing to it um, and then enclosed the porch at that time. Um, we're actually, if you look at sheet HPC2, um, we're
actually removing a first floor addition that's in the back of the house. So, we're actually making the h the building a little smaller than it exists today. Um, again, when you compare the existing first floor with the proposed second floor, um, we are adding a small, um,
additional bedroom. however, on the second floor. Um, and we are taking there's no major change uh to the third floor. Um, although we are going to remove the ceiling and expose it, but it wouldn't won't affect the exterior at all. Now, we can go on to the elevations. Um,
I think this is a huge improvement from what's there. Um, if you look at the proposed uh front elevation and compare it to existing, again, we're uh rearranging all the windows in the front to make them be much more symmetrical. Um, we
are going to be restoring the the beautiful front entry door. We're removing the funky roof above the porch and removing the the porch enclosure all together. Um, the two dormer windows are going to be restored and stay in the same location as they are. Um on the
proposed side elevation, you'll see we are adding a small um second floor above the first floor section, but then we're removing the the wing at the back of the house that's currently a one-story addition. You go to sheet HPC4. Um again, you'll
see the proposed and existing rear elevation. Um and then of course the existing and proposed left side elevation. So on both this one and the last one, are there any zoning issues? >> There's no zoning issues. Nope.
Everything will comply. >> Kevin, first of all, this is reference couple of things. >> No, it is not as we went through this in the review committee. Yeah. Yeah. Right.
So removing window is also And just to cover, we're not proposing any fence at this time. If we would ever propose a fence in the future, we'd obviously come back and get that approved, but there's no proposed fence
at this point. >> Is okay. It looks a little >> the original building. >> It needs some help. So, we're giving it We're giving it the help it needs. >> Okay. >> Looks a little spooky in that. >> Yeah, it does.
>> Judy, >> um I believe that the changes you're proposing will alter this structure enough to make it contributing and I'll expl It appears that you're attempting to
create a colonial colonial revival building out of out of a structure historic structure that's contributing that has accretions over time. Um, and they have gained value. Every accretion over time has has a
historic value. It's the story of the house. So, I'm going to refer to page 13 of our our book, which is the secret Interior standards. Number two says the historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided such as the alteration of the penistration on the house. It destroys a character defining
feature of this particular house. Also number four, changes to a that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. And that brings me to the porch. So the porch was added a long time ago.
This is not a new porch. Was probably added in the Victorian era. Uh as you know, many houses in Cape May acquired porches. Colonial houses acquired porches. >> Page 32 says
removing report is not appropriate on contributing properties. Period. Page 34. >> Judy, can you turn on your mic, please? >> Oh, sorry. >> One reason why we don't hear you well.
So page 34 also, you know, the porch probably if you want to open the porch up, I I think that would be a great idea, but I can't support the change in the fenestration of the building or the removal of the porch.
Um it's it's the I I think as a preservationist who used to review buildings for the state, this would not be a contributing building with these changes. So I could not vote in favor of the project as presented. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um I don't you know I think the historic history report really doesn't spell out as to when that porch was put on the building. Yeah, we're all looking. >> But from, you know, looking at it, I mean, to me, it looks like it's something
maybe in the 40s or ju just by the type of windows. And um, additionally, you've also testified that this house originally was three windows across. So, there was it was doubled. >> It's been changed many times. >> So, in that regards, it was probably
added sometime after the house itself was expanded and doubled. Um, I mean, when when I look at this currently, it looks kind of like a hodgepodge lodge. Uh, and in my opinion, I think it's been cleaned up and it's
uh, you know, whether or not we're describing the true history of the building, it is a very clean project and I think it fits in very nicely with the streetscape. >> What is our goal? >> Kim, I mean, I have to go next.
>> Yep. Okay. Um, first question. Um, what happened to the shutters >> from from A to B? I mean, what is there a reason why you didn't include shutters in the redesign? >> Um, we just didn't want to be locked in
because we hadn't picked the this the type of shutter or decided if we the owner's here with me. He hasn't decided what he wants to do as far as shutters, no shutters. So, I didn't want to have to be coming back and forth here to you. So I'm like if we can get it approved without shutters, if he decides in the
future to add shutters and we have the exact style shutter we want to add, we would certainly come back and present shutters at the time. >> Sure. But there may be some of us who think that that going without shutters is not a good idea. Uh and and that it might make a difference in the way
people view the project. Uh I I would suggest that you seriously consider retaining shutters and and if you and if you want to pick a particular design and and a particular shutter, one can do that later. But but I mean I would I
would support an application here that that retains shutters. But to address some of the more significant things that were said before, you know, there are there are additions and things that happen even during the period of significance which are I think mistaken
and and and I think the porch is probably one of those things. I we don't know when it was added on. It wasn't original to the building. and and you know, even if it's added on and and it's and it's bad, I don't think it's our duty to preserve things that
may be significantly bad as opposed to just significant. So, I I'm not troubled by the removal of a porch, even though there's language that says that, you know, porches should be preserved. Some porches should not be preserved, and in my view, this porch is one of them. So,
so I don't have a I don't have an issue with with the the the porch situation. And frankly, if you consider how the house was built and added on to the fact that it resulted in windows that don't
line up symmetrically, again, that to me, that's another bad thing. Uh, I don't think it I don't think a structure loses its historic um, >> our goal here is to correct some of the wrongs that like somebody wasn't thinking they just need more space, they put an addition on the building.
>> And I'm not sure who measured what when, but it seems to me that that the eye is um the eye thinks of those fenestration areas as as just badly done. And and and so I think I think making them symmetrical is an improvement to uh to
to this. Uh so so I I'm I'm generally in support of of the project as you've designed. I don't have a problem with the you know with the changes in back and uh that sort of I think you've you've you've improved the facade of this and you've corrected a historical accident. >> Thank you. And if you look at the the
two side elevations, I think we've kind of done the same thing. They actually removed quite a few of the original windows um from the exterior and we're we're bringing them back. So I think the proposed looks much more historically accurate than the existing where they just >> I mean it will be up to the next
evaluator to decide you know whether excuse me to decide whether or not this structure loses its contributo um its contributing status but I don't think what's being done as a result of this project is dilitterious to that. So >> I do have a question for you about the shutters.
>> Where did you see that there were already shutters? >> I'm sorry. I thought I saw the original >> No, there aren't. >> And I'm mistaken. >> Yeah. No, the this was without shutters. >> Okay. >> Well, on the second floor existing there's shutters >> on the front elevation front. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I saw them somewhere, John. >> Somewhere. Okay. Got it.
>> But they're not on the house now. Exist. >> Yeah. Sometimes sometimes I just hallucinate. But there are shutters in the existing front elevation of his house. >> So that's what's so odd. It shows in the elevation but not in the photograph of the house.
>> So are there shutters there now or not? So the house was renovated in 20 right before you bought it. And they added shutters. >> So but those are those are just paste on shutters, right? >> Yeah. The client actually purchased it uh Mr. Mullock owned the house, I believe, and they purchased it from him
at one point. They added >> they added shutters. >> Swing that around to me, John. >> But yeah, >> the shutters the shutters are just stuck on. >> Correct. So >> they vinyl or they would >> Well, it doesn't matter. They're not here in the property. >> That's right. They're not here in the property. So, so Adam, I I apologize
because I was looking at at your drawing as opposed to the picture that >> Well, and if you look at >> Yeah. If you look at the streetscape, there are actually shutters on the building. They were added since that. >> And and I and I will and I will stick with the idea that I think shutters
improve this building and don't destroy its contributing nature, but I don't find that relevant to approving this application. >> They'll definitely be highly considered. We just hadn't made our mind up. >> I got it. What do you got? Great. >> Yep. >> Tom, >> this is actually a very nice federal
period house and we don't have many in town. So, you know, some of the things were pushing like shutters really weren't as common in the federal area, right? But the balance in this is and federal houses didn't generally have
porches. Uh, and with the proximity of this house on Lafayette Street and the condition of the porch and the roof p of the porch convinces me that that was put on and I've been inside that in that porch and it's a dump.
>> It was an antique store years ago. When I was little, I used to run around. >> It was It was It was actually the residence of the proprietors of the antique store that was located at Ocean and Hughes, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. But it >> but but there were antiques inside in in the porch too.
>> So uh I I am for the plan. Uh the front door now are these side lightss and transom that are framed around the door. >> Correct. That all exists and it's going to be restored. >> And the then the door is is all wood. It's not glass.
>> No, it's a solid wood door. Correct. >> Solid wood door. That's that's very typical. Uh and and and the the panels and transom are are wood, too. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. That's that's that's all very proper. So, yes. Uh I do not have
problems with the porch for a lot of reasons. And I think it's a pretty darn good plan. >> Thank you so much. >> I agree with Mr. Carol. I I think this was a federal house that was bastardized into being what it is now. I mean this that's when you look at it if if that's
I owned the federal house. It was very very old. This is so typical. The windows, the the fireplaces, the chimneys, the dormers. Uh this is a great project without that porch. It's it's nice. It's really nice. >> Uh you did a great job.
>> Thank you. Mhm. >> So I have one question and that is the front door as depicted on the rendering on HPC1 is different than that was depicted on proposed front elevation on HPC3. So which is it?
>> Um we're going to follow the drawing. The rendering is is just that. It's kind of like an idea of what the building is going to look like. The drawing will be followed. >> Okay. So, just to reiterate what Tom asked, what's depicted on the front elevation drawing number three on HPC3 includes a transom and side lights,
correct? Solid wood panel door. Correct. >> Um, so no, actually, did I misunderstand you then? Maybe. >> So, it's it's columns around the door. That's not sidelights. >> They're columns. >> Oh, they're columns. It's a portico with columns. >> Correct. There's a there is a transom
window, but that's all columns around the door. And that's >> Okay. So that that's actually existing, >> correct? That's hidden behind that porch. We're going to be re restoring it. >> Just restoring it. Okay. And is it a new front door? >> No, we'll restore the door that's there. >> It's a solid wood panel door. Correct.
Okay, great. So, I agree that um a federal house like this would never have had a porch like this, particularly with a hipped roof like this. Just >> it's it seems completely inconsistent with the original house. So, no problem. >> How tall are the ceilings in the house? Are they
>> They're nine foot on the first floor, which is pretty generous for a house of this style usually. >> Yeah. >> And the the second floor are low. That's why we're removing the the attic to to make it feel more spacious up there. But again, that's not affecting the exterior.
>> So, what's really interesting is the original house was a three bay house. Now, it's a five bay house, right? And that that's what what's even more odd is the three bay house would have had a a a single dormer right essentially in the middle with with the door on the left. So it's very odd. So I
think what you're doing with this is restoring it quote unquote not by the definition of restoration but restoring it in the abstract sense to what it really wants to be. >> How the addition should have looked back when they did it however many years ago.
>> Agreed. So, I'm I'm I'm fully supportive of it. And I think what we're hearing is that perhaps somebody would entertain a motion for approval with the following conditions, though. We still need the same things we needed on the last project. >> No problem.
>> Is we need cut sheets of the of the um >> windows >> depicting that they are exterior primed wood. And um Are there any new doors in this one? >> There is. There's one in the back. There are, but I if you look in the new the
updated packet I gave you, there's actually a drawing of those doors. >> Yes, but it doesn't tell us what the materials are. >> Oh, they'll be they'll be wood. >> But I can get you the >> need a manufactur I think it's REM window company. >> Fair enough. But what we need is
>> manufacturers product data aka cut sheets of depicting what the door is and what it's made of. Okay. >> Yep. Already had this conversation with the the general contractor, so he'll provide that. I believe it's Rem Allwood Window Company, but I'll get you the spec sheet. >> Other than that, I think that's the only
those are the only conditions. Cut sheets for the windows and doors because I think that Jim has retracted his request for shutters. >> Let's not that I've retracted it. I just will support it without the shutters. Great. >> I still think it look bad with shutters. I'll make the motion. >> I'd like to add one more provision, too,
and that because we we're basically approving the existing front door site and scene and that it's enclosed in the porch. I think we should have a photograph of that to see if it's more appropriate for the period or it was a later on addition. >> Very good. So would you make the motion then please?
>> Can I can I add one too since we since we don't since we are um removing the agreeing to remove the porch. Um you really need a landscaping plan for that. The whole front of the house is going to change. So there should >> So are you proposing then that we consider approving this for conceptual
because we're now up to at least four things that we need. I'd be okay if the plan came to the review committee. I don't that doesn't shouldn't >> Everybody else okay with that? >> I'm fine with >> I mean the front door is really just like a cut sheet except we have to do with a photo. >> This is the door that's being restored. >> Okay. So >> just like to know if it is not something
from the 1960s. >> Okay. So I think the conditions are cut sheets of the windows >> and doors. >> Um photograph depicting the existing conditions of the front door. and we'll certainly provide a landscape plan.
That's not a problem. We're going to do the front up very nicely, so we have no problem sharing that with you. >> Great. >> Is that the motion you're making? >> Yes, it is. I'll second that. >> I have a quick question about that, though. The landscaping plan, is that something I can come back during the
construction process to present to you because we might not make a mind up with that before we submit for >> No, we need that before we can. >> That's why I'm asking. So, I'll make sure we get it together ASAP. Okay. >> Many, many colonial. >> Okay. So, we have a motion on the table. Do I hear a second? >> Second.
>> Moved by Mr. Stevenson, second by Mr. Curts. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagnum, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Mr. Decker, Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes.
>> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Nice job, Al. Okay, next on our agenda is Anderco at 8:15 Columbia. Did I pronounce your name correctly?
>> Welcome. >> No, I said the reason is because it's up higher. >> If you could please um state your name, your address, and your role on the project. >> Ted Andero, 815 Columbia Avenue. I'm the owner of the property. >> Okay,
the floor is yours, sir. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for hearing me tonight. Uh, I was here several years back and got conceptual approval. >> Hey, guys. Guys, could we please hold conversations? >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, I was here several years
back, got conceptual approval. Uh, had to go to zoning, got that relief. COVID and re other family related issues kept me from building. I went back, got, uh, zoning approval again a couple months back.
And so now I'm here tonight to see if I can get a final approval. With the original submission, the streetscape, etc. was all good, but Mr. Carol caught me on the windows. So, uh, it's so I've
cleaned up the prints, taken off Azac and the Anderson windows. That's all gone. Uh, so now what I have is a project that is all wood windows and cedar siding,
uh wood trim around the windows, and cedar roofing. Uh the only thing that is at all not wood would be the gutters, and those are half round gutters as are on the house right now.
>> Okay, >> I'll take questions. Yes. >> Well, that was short and sweet. >> Hopefully, it's that short and sweet. >> So, let's start on the other side here. Yogi, could you >> Yeah. Um the the only thing that comes to my eye right away is reuse the tulip
railings. >> I don't know. Uh >> the house uh has tulip railings since 1961, I believe. >> I Yeah. >> And it was known as the tulip house. >> Yeah. I just myself I just don't think
they're appropriate for that lovely house. And uh every time we're sitting on the porch and hear the tour bus go by, they talk about the only place where tools bloom all year long. >> Okay, >> dear. >> All right. Um
I'm going to reserve some comments. So I listen to the rest of my colleagues, but that's my that's what jumps out at me first. John, >> Mr. Carol, >> um actually the design of the tools really doesn't bother me. It's a solid
ornamentation and every carpenter tried to make sure that he never copied anybody else which makes every house different. And a lots of times, particularly when you have barge boards climbing up into the peak of a house, you know, there it's done to make it
look like a vine climbing up into it. So flower motifs were certainly very common in wood trim. Uh I haven't seen that particular design. uh in many places and I and I do a lot of snooping around
other Victorian towns, but um I I think it it's a it's a nice addition. I I have no problems with the the plan. >> I I guess that makes me next. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so uh I would point out uh to my colleagues that uh and and and and I
think I personally think the tulips are unique if not unique very rare and I think they add to the house rather because as you said people notice it people approve of it people praise it and I would also point out that they
actually are in the property report >> when it was prepared. So, so this building is found to be contributing and and and and and the evaluator had those tulips right in front of them when they when they did it. So, so the the you know the the continuation of of that is
is no problem at all. >> Jake, >> I meant meant to say also praise praise for your I know I thought I was finished but I'm not. Um also it just occurred to me just to praise you on the the thoroughess of your materials >> thank you sheet. It's really very
explanatory in full. Thank you. >> You had three years to think about it >> and and they're they're beautifully done. Sorry, Jake. >> Okay. >> I don't know whether I didn't receive a complete packet or not, but I I kind of now what is the scale of your addition? How many square feet is that?
>> Oh, uh I don't know precisely, but about 900 square feet, I believe. >> Okay. Because on page A1 and A2, all I have is existing, no, excuse me, just proposed elevations. And there's no existing whereby you can look at it and
see how it fits in. >> Yeah. All that's shown here is proposed in A1 and A2 and similar elevations that would show >> I thought I saw >> you are right in this section that's in this section.
>> Oh what the >> Oh, here it is. Here it is. >> Is this call it revised? Is that what that It's >> guess I'm not done. >> This is part and this is the other part. >> But generally, you know, there'll be
like maybe like dotted lines or it's that area shaded >> that >> I'm sorry. You show me the same thing that you just showed, Jake. >> Do you have these? Jake, do you have this? >> Here, I'll give you a pen. >> Because it's called revised. I want to see exact
>> revised um elevations or floor plans. >> No, >> floor plan. >> There's revised. >> There's no side by side is what you're saying. >> No, no, there's guys. >> Oh, that area existing elevations. >> No, if I'm mistaken. I thought I thought they were all existing here. They're all
proposed without existing. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I understand that way. Let me ask a different question. Is this >> okay? >> Well, we're going to probably need to go back and revisit this again. >> Okay, >> Mr. Ando, here's here's the issue. It's
unlikely that we're going to be able to um assess this this evening because one of the things we need is the ability to see existing elevations and new elevations. Unfortunately, it appears from these drawings as if much of this
is existing and most of the mass of this is new, >> particularly with the left side elevation. The only way I can tell that is from the from the floor plans. So, the only way we can really assess whether it's appropriate or not is to be able to see what's existing and then
what you're proposing and compare those side by side. Okay, give me a second here because these drawings were part of the uh original uh submission. >> Some some of us including myself
unfortunately mistook what I saw as as the existing and they are proposed. I I see that. Yeah. Yeah. Um it one of the things that for those of us who don't read these professionally find very helpful is to have two sets of the elevations and in fact we require that a
before and an after. >> Mr. Mr. Anico this is a perfect example of what the board's looking for >> revised. >> Yeah. you can see an existing and then what they're proposing to do on the other side or the same side so that the
board can look at okay that's what here is that's what here is here now and that's what will change so that that immediate side byside comparison is what the board is looking for submission that satisfy
that was submitted. >> This shows existing >> the stairs and kitchens there. >> Yeah. So, here's this was part of the 2019. >> Yeah. But I don't think we have that in it.
But >> no, I know. But I don't need it. I can see right now this this just bulges right over around the top and then back. >> Let's try to work with it. >> It's all hidden in the back. >> Look at the facade.
>> Look at that. >> Please. >> Yeah. Well, of course, but >> yeah. And what I'm what I'm trying to state here, guys, is I don't think we can assess this this evening >> because we can't see what's existing
versus what's new. And Mr. Mr. Ando. Um I think what the problem with that and I think what we're hearing from the commissioners is there's some concern that the addition is massive compared to the size of the existing house. And our our our standards are pretty clear on
that that it has to be subordinate to and differentiated from whatever is existing because you have a contributing house. >> So it's why one of the questions that was asked was how many square feet is the existing house? How many square feet are you adding?
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Mr. Ano, can you just use the microphone? I'm sorry. >> And and I'm sorry, the the I don't want to confuse you, but the conceptual review and you said you received conceptual approval in 1999. >> 2019.
>> 2019. >> Yeah, that's a little better. But yeah, so it's the reason why we don't have any of those drawings because that was six years ago and and those approvals expire in two years. >> I understand that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, what I'd like to
propose is that you consider we can either continue having this conversation and and I think it's going to be a challenge for us or we consider asking you to table this and resubmit it with a full set of documents that include
existing and proposed. Knowing that I think we still ought to have some comments from folks who can as much as they can comment on the size and differentiation of the addition relative to what's existing. So does that sound reasonable to everybody?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So Jake, you were asking questions and we'll come back to you guys because Yep. Please continue. >> Um that was basically I just needed a full set of elevations existing and proposed because from particularly just from the streetscape we have to see what
it's really going to look like. >> Well, he has them. Here's the existing right here. >> Now, now we do have them. >> Now we have them. Yeah. >> And I mean, if if now that was from 2019, if nothing has changed, >> nothing's changed. >> I mean, I'd be willing to accept that. But then again, you we haven't had time to really,
>> you know, give it a look. >> And the other the other issue would be really helpful is if they were at the same scale because this is half the scale of these. >> So, it's hard to be able to look at the drawing and say, "All right, well, that's that big and that's that big." This is what >> so I can say that the I think the
concern that you're going to hear I don't want to speak for everybody so I won't never mind Judy >> I'm also confused maybe >> standards um one thing I would point out is is your roof line really
should not match the existing it needs to come down a little on your addition and you'll see that in the standards the add I think this is the addition this the addition >> yes >> okay we the roof line is required to drop on
your addition and also as was previously reported it has to be smaller than the existing house that's the only com and it's a it's a really charming house it is >> I'm Not sure you could do anything with
that roof line without Kraton. >> Well, the the standards say you must be able to differentiate your addition from the original structure. So, it would be hard to do that if we were looking at this. >> Actually, that it wouldn't be that hard. Um, you could simply drop that ridge
just a little bit. >> Um, and it would and that that's all you would need to do >> on that on the addition part. But that's only one issue unfortunately because if I if I'm I'm now looking at these and imagining that they're at the same scale,
>> this right side elevation, there's more mass to the addition than there is to what's existing. >> Exactly. >> Right. Could you show me what you're looking at there? Just hold that. >> Well, I can't because they're not at the same scale. And um
>> John, would a Tuesday morning meeting help? >> A Tuesday morning meeting would really help. did it once, but I can do that. >> So, do we have any openings tomorrow? >> I can't do it tomorrow. >> You can't do well. Unfortunately, the only trying to get you in tomorrow is because we're not having a meeting next Tuesday before Christmas.
>> All right. I can't I could come tomorrow because I'll just change what I have. We'll move it back. What time could I would it be tomorrow? >> Do we have any openings tomorrow? >> Uh yeah, I'd have to check um in the office, but we do have availability tomorrow.
>> Okay. So, we don't know what time slots though, right? >> No, I don't know at the moment. >> So, would what we could do, >> can I show you this? This is the existing dormer roof line >> and you here's here's what I'm going to
suggest is you can, but um >> tomorrow >> if you came tomorrow, we could probably work this out with you. >> Okay. Okay. So, what I'd like to ask you to do for tomorrow, if you have the capability to do this, if not, we'll figure out another thing we could do, is either blow this up to twice its scale,
so that the drawings of what's existing and newer at the same scale, or reduce this to half the scale >> so that it's the same, we need them at the same scale. >> I'll figure that out. And we can chat through this tomorrow and we can probably give you some um I would say uh
some helpful direction about how you may be able to be compliant with our standards and still do most of what you want to do. Would that be a reasonable way to proceed? >> I' Yes. I'd like to continue with some of the stuff. >> Absolutely. Will >> that's a big thing that we need
discussed. >> Okay. So, tomorrow um what would be a safe time, Kevin, would you say? Because if we have somebody coming at 9 and 9:30, >> well, would 10 o'clock work for you tomorrow morning? >> Yeah. >> So, can we slot him in at 10:00 and if
there's somebody else here, we can move folks around if we need to? >> Yeah, because then I could push back the meeting I have two hours from here and probably get that all done, too. >> Oh, well, we could do another thing. We could meet at 8:30 if that would be better for you. >> That's up to you if you guys would like.
That's I don't want to trouble you and have you. >> I can do 8:30. I can do 10. >> 10 would be better. >> 10 it is. >> It might take a little longer. Yeah. Okay. So, let's continue our discussion here with comments from folks, but um let's plan on meeting tomorrow at 10.
>> And I think that what we're asking if you would be willing to table this application >> indefinitely and wave the time for decision. So the board doesn't have to make a call on a truncated timeline and that'll give you the opportunity to have those conversations come back with a
revised submittal and then we can come back for a final. >> What is the timeline that you have to make decision? >> 45 days. >> 45. So >> yeah. So we're going to miss it. So then January would uh be the next meeting. >> Yes. And I would be on that agenda
>> potentially. potentially as long as you get your application in. >> If you if you really important part important the important part is getting the changes right. >> Yeah. So missing a meeting is not as important as getting something that will improve.
>> This keeps you in quue to a >> I understand it. I I'm a developer builder so I know exactly what that's why I asked how many days. >> I'm good with that. >> Great. >> Uh okay. So let's let's still go around the room and hear comments of what what you can comment on based upon what you
understand currently >> because that'll give us some direction tomorrow morning to speak with him as well. So if you have any comments >> let's just continue Judy >> she's comment >> you did already right >> I'm I'm very glad that you're doing I had said right before Judy said to Kevin
let's do it Tuesday morning because I think I don't want it to come back not clarified as it is now. Right. And that could happen because he may not the architect not may may not be as familiar with our standard. So I think that if you come tomorrow morning that would be
really the best choice. >> He's familiar. He's done other stuff. >> Oh, okay. >> Kev's less active these days because he's semi-retired, but go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Um, so I I I just have a couple of one thing on the positive side. Actually,
the project seems to bring um Well, actually, no. I'm sorry. I'm off one. >> You turn your microphone. >> Kevin, could you turn your microphone on, please? >> Yeah. I I think I think it really just comes down to I I have as big as life here, too. Um you know, you need that
you need the proposed um elevations because it's hard to see the one from the other. I think what this is really going to come down to is is the elevation of the addition such that it's it's overshadowing the front portion of the house and that's the piece we're
going to have to try to tear apart tomorrow in the >> So the character you you don't have a problem with? >> No, I don't. In fact, actually some of the some of the parts of the project seem to be bringing it into better compliance with the property report. So I think there's some some positives on this. Um, and I think you asked a
question of is is either either or on the lighting plan. And to me, both of those looked pretty good. I didn't see a problem with either one of those. >> Yeah, just after the meeting I the Tuesday meeting, I was like, well, >> we can take a look at them, too, but they looked pretty good. Both of them
looked actually pretty good to me. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I do want to say something more. Uh, and it doesn't involve tulips. it uh the the the word the words I would use are um um massivity
uh and complexity. And I I think and from my standpoint when I when I look at um what you're seeking to do in in additions to make the property useful and to give you more living space, improve living space, all fine. But when I look at a property and its front
facade and I see that being massively altered, that really gives me a big problem. I'm I'm less concerned with sides u than I am with the front uh the immediate streetscape, but I am concerned with the overall size of of of
a of an addition um relative to the original structure. So he's not really changing the front facade, >> but the addition is is back >> but big >> bigger than the from recess. >> Yeah, but it but seeing it >> is my problem.
>> Correct. >> Yeah, >> we can talk about this tomorrow. >> Right. So you'll you'll hear more of it from a specific >> I'll get square footages, too. It's it's not that massive. >> Really helpful. >> What looks massive right now is the roof that she she's >> Yeah. And but also that way we can also
tell in elevation what you're demolishing and what you're keeping. It's hard to discern that right now because all we're seeing is proposed elevation. We see it in the plan, but it doesn't show us what that looks like in elevation currently. So, we can talk about that tomorrow.
>> Okay. I'm in line with everything that's been said. >> Okay. You have any other comments? >> No, I'm I'm I'm good. >> Okay. Some Some of us like some of us like tulips and some of us like tulips. I'll make the motion that we table this. >> Can Can we go further first? >> Yep. >> Uh
the the windows, they're gelwin sighteline allwood windows. >> Yep. >> I looked at the spec sheets over I mean I was like, don't you have more? This is 84 lumber. And as I said, I'm a builder. There is nothing on a spec sheet that says no vinyl. It's the marketing
materials I turned in that says all wood. And that's I from what I was hearing earlier tonight, that's really >> Yeah. Here's the thing with contributing houses and there are at least four window manufacturers that produce the appropriate type of window. Um, Geldwin
happens to be one of them and they the requirement is that they be all wood and not clad with either vinyl or aluminum. >> And the exterior material is simply a >> wood. >> It's wood that's that's just primed. >> It's what the stuff I turned in says fair. All >> okay. Great. As I looked at this the cut
sheets, I'm like there is nothing here that says all wood, no vinyl, whatever. >> Be careful with the uh simulated or full divided. >> Yeah, that's the other thing I was going to say. I'm looking at 78 to an inch. >> So, so let me just point this out. >> Okay,
>> Jeldwin's sighteline wood windows. Some of them are clad. >> Yes, they are >> correct. >> But it's the second page or whatever. It's >> It says real wood windows. >> All wood. Yep. >> Yep. Yep. >> I understand. I also understand that if I try to put that aluminum clad in, you'll catch it during construction.
Then there's a big problem. >> Then you got to don't do don't do that. >> Then you want to take a little credit for talking too much in 2019 when I said I want to use Anderson 200s and Carol was like, "No, you have to use 400 be
because they're all wood." And I'm like, "No, they're not using." >> Not anymore. >> Not anymore. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, >> you don't forgive and forget, do you? Motion has been made and then it's the May all allwood. >> Yes. Fine.
>> All the other stuff is good. >> Well, yes. Um >> that's what I'd like to at least before I leave. >> It's hard to it's hard >> and we'll table it, but >> yeah, it's hard to assess that when you say all else is good because it the primary issue is is the scale of what
you're proposing and we can talk that through tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Okay. But I think I think we can come up with a solution together collectively based upon some recommendations that will give you what you need and also satisfy our
or comply with our standards. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Let's hope so. Right. >> Okay. So, I have a motion on the table to or a motion to table this seconded by Mr. Hammer. We have a roll call vote. Please >> Mr. Carol. >> Mr. Carol.
>> Oh, yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm >> sorry. >> Miss Pagno. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Miss Decker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hammer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curts. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta. >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Ando. We'll see you in the morning. >> Yes. >> Stay warm. >> Turn the heat down. >> And set your alarm. >> Got to turn it back up. >> Yeah. Uh, >> all right. Thank you for your time tonight.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I get it for Okay. Um, our next application is Waxman at 931 Corgi. >> Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself. I am the neighbor. >> Mr. Waxman, welcome back.
>> It's always a pleasure to be last. >> So, let me um let me just apprise everybody. you know, >> no, I I'm okay with it because this is sort of my Cape May speed anyway. With the rest of my life around the Philadelphia region,
>> uh it's a different pace and a different demand. So, it's very educational. >> So, let me just surprise everybody of Mr. Waxman's um I would say diligent attendance twice since our last meeting at our Tuesday morning meetings coming
back and and gaining more and more clarity and providing more and more clarity. So with that said, Mr. Waxman, if you could please tell us your name, your address, and your role in the project, we can proceed. >> Still Gary Waxman, owner of 931 Corgi Street. >> Great. Floor is yours, sir.
>> Okay. Uh this is an application for final approval of a woodshed construction, outdoor wooden shower enclosure construction and installation of wooden fencing.
Um, behind the page behind the application itself, I've provided a little bit of a memo and a timeline of the history, uh, which really goes back to the summer of
2024. Um, Mr. Becker, would you like me to walk through this or >> So, I think I don't really think that's necessary. You did a very nice job, I think, in that document mapping out the long process that you've
been through >> and where we currently are. Essentially, what we're looking at right now is limited to the new woodshed on the footprint of the old demolish shed, the wooden shower enclosure, and a new fence. That's it. >> That's it.
>> Okay. So, Kevin, have any comments? That's not itself. Yecteneral General. So I would like to point out that sheet number 14 specifically states that he'll be installing prime spruce beveled
collaborative style siding of cedar on the shed which is perfectly >> matches the house. >> Great. Great B. >> No questions. Thank you for your perseverance. >> No comments, ditto.
>> Looks good. I'm ready to approve it as submitted. >> I'm ready to >> Well, so am I. So, let's have a uh you make a motion, please. >> I'll move that the application uh before us uh for final approval um be approved by us as submitted.
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Miss Decker that final approval as submitted. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> point out it does pay to come to the Tuesday session. >> Yep. >> Mr. Ta >> serving. >> Yes, >> Mr. Becker.
>> Yes. Mr. Waxman, you're done with us. I would say I'm going to miss everyone, but I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure I'm going to see some of you again. >> You know, I I understand if you sign up for the Tuesday courses, they give a discount for multiple attendance.
>> Those and I the defense of driving courses they're going to require. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you very much. So, um open it up for public comment. I see nobody in the audience um from the public unless Mr. Raxin would like to make a comment.
>> Okay. So this will close the uh the public portion of the meeting with regard to applications. Couple things to discuss. We had a brief presentation today. It was about 25 minutes of presentation and half an hour of uh asking questions from the Columbia
Capstone folks. Tom was present. Um as was Lorraine, as was um uh Janice. Tom, do you have any comments about what you saw today? Um I think that the the program that they have presented is really what the
city engineers and the employer uh you know design designer should be looking at. Um it it really didn't come right down to them going and looking at other communities like ours with similar
problems and seeing what they've done. I I I had a feeling that that that might have really helped us. I mentioned to them, you know, like Newport. I should also should have mentioned um Wildwood Crest, uh uh Annapolis,
uh Key West. I mean, there's so many towns out there that have the similar flooding problem. And I think there there probably is somebody that could be putting together what has worked where. Uh and we didn't really get anything
like that. That's they're not reaching out like that. they're they're going back to the textbooks and seeing what the what the pros say in general to do without getting right down to what we what our problems are. >> So with that said, I have a a somewhat
different take on what I saw today and that is that they're primarily proposing a much more comprehensive process rather than giving us solutions. The first is to get some data and to really have data
so that we can make informed decisions that are you know not fact-free decisions by doing things like flood modeling which seems to be a primary necessity in order to begin making some decisions in three ways. One is
largecale infrastructure. The second is natural ways of of increasing resilience and third is small scale at the individual homeowners level. So they're the first thing that they're proposing which I think is spoton is an
interdisciplinary agency or committee I don't know what the right term is specifically focused on climate resiliency for the entire town likely being populated by members of all the land use development groups such as us
and zoning and uh uh public works and environmental commission in order to then procure the professional services of a consultant to do things like flood modeling, which is the only way you can really determine
what kind of things need to happen. They did make some suggestions without oversp specificity. For example, um one thing that has worked in other locations are pumping stations. The idea of how big they are, how many they are, and where they are, we can't determine that until we do some flood modeling. Um, other
than that, I thought that given the time frame they had, I mean, they really only had two months to do this. >> And what they produced, I think, is hard to judge right now because we didn't see the report. The report will be coming, I believe, later this week.
>> Two uh didn't they say about a month? >> Oh, maybe it is a month. >> So, it would be a good idea to see the full >> We need to see the report. So, what we saw was an overview of a of a presentation today, >> executive summary. we got kind of an executive summary of an executive
summary, right? But they did have um some significant work done by folks who are tops in their field on this stuff. So on the one hand, Tom is correct. They didn't >> look for other precedents, but on the other hand, in many ways, there aren't
any. um because this is an entirely unique place and an entirely unique time with totally different conditions that again require that modeling. So I was really pleased with what I saw today as was Zach as was um uh Paul Dietrich, but
I can't assess it without seeing the report. So as soon as we see the report, we'll make sure everybody gets it. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question about it? >> Yeah. >> Just in general terms. So, you know, I I was at the um >> Kevin, you want to hit your mic? >> Sorry. Guess I was off record here. Um
so, you know, I was at the KMA science center when when they came and met with all of us and that was like one of those brainstorming sessions. It was just like, you know, you threw up a pile of different ideas. is that then somewhere along the line I got the impression that they realized they had gotten in over their head, you know, that it was too
broad of a topic and they needed to narrow it down somewhat and, you know, focus more on the resiliency aspect. And and so I guess I'm just wondering if all those other ideas were sort of lost in this. And and I'll use an example, one that happens to really matter to me. Um
Lorraine brought up the idea, you know, we should be burying our electric lines and things like that, our power lines and so forth. Um and you know that of course takes a lot of money, but it's it is a worthy project and certainly those can be done well and safely today's
technologies. And and the reason I think of it as important is that plus just a general point that this is one of the few really beautiful towns that I know that has a hodgepodge of lighting, >> street lighting, half of which doesn't
even work and leaves big black, you know, bare spots that are just not you can't you can trip over the sidewalk. And in our in our case, we allow cobble, you know, those those um slate sidewalks. So, we're setting up our own tripping hazards even for it, you know. And I just I guess I just would I would
love to see us at some point in the future come up with our historic lampost, whatever that is, the the ones that I think are nice, populate the historic district at least, and then maybe in the newer sections, you don't have to worry about that. But that was
all part of just electric resiliency. That that was how that came into play in the discussion. Not it wasn't about the, you know, the appearance of the light. It was about you know preserving the the electric. >> The definitive thing that's coming out is flood resiliency. >> It's it's climate resilience how it
intersects with historic preservation. But it's broader than that because historic preservation is only one aspect of it. That was the portal into which they began this work. And it they did have to compress a little bit the scope.
That's why it came out that there's actually there's four components. it's finances, large-scale infrastructure, natural mitigation, and smallcale infrastructure or individual homeowners. And one of the things they did do is they built a pretty interesting uh kind of
plug-and-play costbenefit analysis tool which can evaluate the CBA on any of the strategies that emerge out of the studies that now have to be engaged. They by no means had and in two months you couldn't even put a dent in the kind of flooding studies that need to be done
to properly model this. But they've given us I think a scaffold and an arc a trajectory of how to proceed which I find based on what they presented today pretty powerful. We'll see what the report says. But I would like to ask you all of us
because I'm hoping that we can begin the next year with a couple of other alignment workshops is to really put together a list of the things you think are priorities for us to be looking at next year and get them to me. I I I don't want to go further than that because as soon as the new year starts
then we can get diligent about this and I'll solicit that from all of you so that we can plan maybe another alignment workshop in February or March to kick the year off. February would be best if possible. You guys all right with that? >> It has to be late February because I won't be here in early February. Yeah.
Neither will you, right? Okay. So, um, with that said, there's two other things I'd like to talk about real quickly before I ask for your input. Um, one is Zach approached us about creating a city
signage ordinance primarily for consistency. And this would be consistency not only of materials but of font and language, even the text, because there's six different ways to say
America's first resort, which is probably inaccurate anyway, right? Um, in any case, this would just be for city the city of Kate May's signage, not for the signage that's in the zoning ordinance. now. Um, and Chris
in his kindness kind of has has offered to draft a first pass at that and he and Lorraine and I will be working on developing that into something that we can present to all of you. Um, and anybody else who'd like to
work on that, let me know. >> And then eventually >> you say this is this is with respect to city control. >> City control. >> City control. Yeah, city control. private control. You got >> Oh, yeah. No, no, we don't want to do that. Right. And so part of this part of this is also what are the different
signage categories like street signs uh uh public building signs uh uh uh tourist uh what do you want? >> Wayfinding uh public engagement, all that kind of stuff. So it's we don't
have anything like that. >> And John, I know we had I talked to you >> Yeah. over at Janice's house where when you go to a national park, all the signage is uniform. Yep. >> And it's really nice because you know right away it's an official sign. It's something that you gravitate towards and
>> it's such part of the visual environment that it's consistency is really the name of the game here. That's that's the word Zach kept saying. I want to see consistency. So >> lighting is >> Yeah, lighting is in there, too. >> Interesting. The Coast Guard base has
beat us to it. All their signage now are on really nice standards, black, the signs, the lettering for the streets and thing. Now, they don't have as many signs as we do, but it really it ties together very very nicely.
>> That's 400 million, right? That's what they're spending it on. >> Okay. And lastly, um before I open it up to anybody who has any other topics, um unfortunately Janice was unable to be with her be with us tonight, but huge progress has been made on the historic preservations awards. I spent pretty
much all weekend on it, putting together the PDF files into packets. Still needs a little more work, but Judy, have you any updates you would like to give us? just we had a very nice meeting and we had a little fun and social event which
I think is a great thing for HBC. >> I I also agree. I think we've made a lot of progress at a nice event and we're right on on schedule. >> The cookies were great >> because you missed the city appreciation. >> Well, I did because
I missed the cookie. >> I know. I really wanted to be at that. Okay. Any other subjects? anyone would like to bring up for discussion >> real quick my monthly uh outreach committee report. >> Yes, thank you. >> And that complete dead end with with Cape May Tech regarding the um
restoration hardware curriculum. >> So I was just found out now that Lower Cape May Regional has a woodworking program. So I'm going to reach out to them which is probably even going to be better and more at home. Additionally, David Cassidy is not involved with WCFA
anymore and Annie Walsh has taken over. I spoke with Annie. Annie tells me that our PSAs are on a rotation three times a day currently. >> Wow. Really? >> So, yeah, >> I've been listening. I haven't heard them yet. >> So, did you hear what Jake did on these?
They're really well done. >> No. >> Tell them why you did. >> Tell us tell us more, as they say. Well, I mean in a nutshell, we we just it was just outreach where we're like um with a little fact, you know, are you aware that you know the entire city of Cape May is a national historic landmark? One
of the few cities that has that and um that you know if you have any you're buying a place in town, come into our Tuesday morning meetings. Um that and then we make it like kind of mushy like you know we're neighbors helping
neighbors. We're all in this together. >> So you're you're saying these are these are these are on the air. >> They're on the air on WC. >> So this is PSAs on the low power in the local station. Yeah. It's cool. >> And I mean I doubt we could get them on other stations but at least they're being done locally and that's who we're trying to reach. >> Yeah. What are they? They're like 30
seconds, right? >> 30 seconds. Exactly. Yeah. >> The difficulty has of course always been >> it's an LP station. >> Yeah. It's it's a it's a little bullet. >> Yeah. >> In a in a large >> Yeah. Reaches up to about Stone Harbor. >> I'm surprised. >> Yeah. Some depends on weather.
>> Thank you, J. >> That's it. >> Thank you. Any uh any other items for discussion tonight, folks? >> Hearing none, I move to adjourn. >> Second. >> So >> Sojourn. in a journal by