Hey, how are you?

Well, so are you well by yourself?

Hi guys.

Do a lot of trialing on that folks up.

Yeah, Ray is likely not coming.

It's not coming at all.

Okay.

I'm back.

Sure.

Okay, go.

Okay.

So we have the zoning officer here, Nick, who you're all familiar with, who is going to kind of go into the zoning piece of it.

And then I will go into the HDC piece and design, you know, after we we learn what an ADU is and what the HCC's role is in reviewing these applications, because we are going to see and we have seen an uptick in applications for accessory dwelling units.

So Nick, if you want to take it away.

Good evening.

Yeah, will you please introduce yourself?

Just for the record, Nick Armor zoning officer would say.

All right.

So ADUs are a thing that's been around in other states for a long time.

And in Rhode Island, they were uh introduced originally as accessory family dwelling units, which had to be associated to a disabled or elderly family member.

Um that was changed uh about a year ago, a little bit more than a year ago, uh, to eliminate the family relationship requirement.

Uh there is still a path for uh a little bit different ADUs for truly disabled family members.

Um not worth totally getting into right now, but essentially they get to go uh around some of the zoning regulations if it's truly for a disabled individual.

Um so we introduced uh a new chapter 17.79 of the zoning code uh to the city council last year, and it was adopted a couple months after the state uh adopted it.

And I will go through all uh pieces here.

So um ADUs are only allowed through new construction on a property that is at least 20,000 square feet in size.

If you have a residential lot that is less than 20,000 square feet, it must be done through the conversion of an existing structure that can be either an accessory structure or a portion of your home.

Uh ADUs are only allowed on a residentially zoned lot with a residential use.

So you can't put an ADU in the general business area if you have a property that's already commercially designated for whatever reason it cannot have an ADU.

It has to be a strictly residential property.

Um so on any lot in a residential zoning district where the ADU is located entirely within the existing footprint of the primary or accessory structure.

Um ADU is allowed per lot regardless of how many units are on the property.

You could have a multifamily property, but it is only allowed to have one ADU.

Um ADUs are prohibited from being used as short-term rentals.

That is both per state law and through the city ordinance that we passed.

ADU well, short-term rentals are also not permitted in residential zones anymore, so it kind of is triply effective here where these these units cannot be used for short-term rentals.

Um they can be used for month to month rentals if they're registered with the city, but it has to be 30 days or greater.

Um, as far as we understand the state law and how we pass it in our code, an ADU on a property has to be on a property that all the structures on the lot are under one single joint or common ownership.

So we believe that means that they cannot be on condo properties because those are not under a single ownership.

Yes, the uh square footage of the lot, 20,000 square feet, not a lot of lots in our city.

Correct.

Or of that size.

So is that an automatic knockout that says no ADU?

Uh no.

So we'll get into the the way that we have been seeing a majority of these right now are through a conversion of an existing structure.

Yeah.

Um, and we'll get to some of the there's a couple loopholes there on how they can do that.

But a brand new construction, which means either building a new accessory structure as an ADU or in addition to a home that's a new construction on that addition.

Uh, we have not been permitting ADUs in that way.

They have to be like they could potentially add the addition to their house as just an addition and then convert a portion of it to an ADU.

So we have only seen, I believe, one or two that have been true allowed on 20,000 square foot properties.

Um, but it seems like the larger residential lots, the individuals are not looking to build ADUs right now.

So this is something I could see hypothetically the state changing uh from my experience in California where I dealt with ADUs for 10 years.

They quickly realized the restrictions they put on them were preventing ADUs from being constructed, and they eventually wound them back.

So there is a size limitation on ADUs.

They're allowed as one bedroom studios or two bedrooms.

The size limit is based on the number of bedrooms, effectively.

So studio and one bedroom units are allowed up to 900 square feet or 60% of the floor area of the principal structure, or two bedrooms are allowed up to 1200 square feet or 60% of the size of the primary structure.

It's whatever is less.

So if the main house is small, your ADU has to be effectively proportionally sized on the lot for that.

So it's total square feet of the house, not footprint.

Correct.

Correct.

Total floor area.

The state allowed us to set that number.

It couldn't exceed one per bedroom.

We could have required zero.

This, and that was actually our proposal originally.

The city council decided on one per ADU, regardless of the bedroom count in it.

The ADU has to have its own independent ingress and egress, meaning way to enter the building.

You cannot have to go through the main structure to enter or exit the ADU.

They can be connected, but they have to have their own access to it.

And upon our staff recommendation, the city council did put in our code to allow a 100 square foot or up to 100 square foot expansion of the footprint just for the purpose of creating an ingress or egress.

So while the state originally anticipated no expansion of a footprint of an accessory structure, we're allowing up to 100 square feet effectively.

The uh example is a new second story for an ADU needing a staircase to get up to it so they don't have to take up interior space of that unit.

Um they did accept that.

So we're allowing a hundred square foot expansion.

Nick, can I just ask a quick question going back to parking?

So, and it's there's no jurisdiction on if that's a spot exterior or interior.

It can be a garage spark parking or it can be correct.

It just has to be on the property.

And because um depending on the overall use of the property, there will be a parking requirement either allowing uh tandem stacked parking or not.

One in two family properties are allowed to tandem park.

And so we're allowing ADUs on those properties to also be tandem parked.

Um, if you have a three-family of multifamily um is three or more, they have other parking requirements which require a drive aisle with independently accessible parking spaces.

That would have to also be maintained or continued for the ADU space.

But on one in two families, which is where we're seeing the majority of our ADUs, they're allowed to tandem park their spaces.

We give people a heads up that it's you know sometimes awkward to have to deal with a tandem parking arrangement, especially on a two-family that has a bunch of stacked parking, but they're allowed technically to tandem park on that.

That's okay.

And if it's unclear, I'm just trying to think about applications.

So we've seen a lot of secondary structures that are a garage with living space upstairs.

It's unclear when it comes to us if the space, the garage is intended for the primary versus they do not have to tell us as long as they like let's say it's a single family, which requires two spaces.

Yeah, if they add an ADU, they need to add a third space.

They don't have to designate which space is for the ADU and which spaces for the primary dwelling.

Uh, they just need to demonstrate they have legal nine by 18 foot spaces on their property.

Okay.

So some common ADU questions we've been getting.

Uh, can I demolish and reconstruct an accessory structure as an ADU?

Um, yes, on a property greater than 20,000 square feet.

But if you're on a property less than 20,000, that it's considered a demolition and then a new construction and new construction is not allowed on a 20,000 or less than 20,000 square foot property.

Uh so really the only way to do it is through the conversion of that existing space.

And I'll get to a loophole later.

Um can I construct a second floor on an existing accessory structure?

So yes, it has to be within the footprint.

They did not say it has to be within the existing walls and roof of an accessory structure.

So you're allowed to propose to go up, but then typically zoning regulations kick in where that structure may be already non-conforming to a setback, and that second floor expansion is going to need a variance and special use permit approved by the zoning board to actually expand up.

Um we did recently set uh different uh setback requirements for accessory structures under the zoning code.

Uh we set them based on the height of the structure.

So if a structure is less than 12 feet in height, they're allowed to be a little bit closer to a property line than they used to be.

If you have an over 12-foot height structure, it needs to be greater.

Typically, it's a five-foot setback for sides, and then 10 if you're up above 12 feet.

So sometimes you might have a conforming single-story structure, but once you propose to go up another level, that setback increases, and therefore that second story needs a variance in order to build it.

Um so they will end up a lot of them in front of the zoning board in order to do that.

Um can I build an ADU, move into it, and rent the main house?

Yes.

Um, it this under the state code, it does not have a requirement for the owner uh actually to live in either of the wellings.

So they could rent both.

Um if they have three units, they could rent all of them.

Um again, short-term rentals are not permitted, so they have to be 30 days or greater, you know, up to 12 months of time.

Um this flood zone code apply to ADUs, it does.

So the ADU must comply with the FEMA regulations.

Garages are allowed to be within flood zones, but living square footage has to be above the base flood elevation.

Uh, you've seen some of these where the buildings have had to be raised in order for the first floor to get out of flood zone.

So if the ADU is proposed to be within the ground level of uh the structure, and that's in a flood zone, that living area has to be lifted in order to do that.

Um so the first floor would have to go up.

Most of the most of the time we're seeing people just add a second story and occupy the second story while the first story be uh remains a garage.

So question on that.

Yeah, so we we approved, I don't know if you did on zoning, uh, a new structure to be built at the corner of third and bridge in the back there.

And it's right in the middle of the flood zone.

Actually, that does flood considerably.

Uh and it wasn't raised or an HS grade.

There was no structure there previously.

Uh so and I can't recall, was there a garage underneath that car garage underneath that level?

I don't think there was.

There was.

I believe I remember the one you're talking about.

Um it was a new construction.

Yeah, it was it was right around, it was actually before the ADU law went into place.

So they had to propose it as not an ADU.

It was proposed as a essentially a guest house that did not have a kitchen in it.

Um, actually, in that case, they were uh looking to put their parents in there, their elderly parents, um, but they were not allowed to put a kitchen.

I believe since that was approved by zoning, um, the ADU law kicked in and they were going to propose it to truly be an ADU.

Once it's constructed, they can essentially convert it into an ADU.

Right.

But then we realized when it got to the building permits that it was in the flood zone and the whole structure needed to be lifted.

Right.

And so I believe it was going to have to come back in front of you.

Maybe it already did or not.

But uh, okay.

We just saw it what, two months ago.

Not maybe we're thinking of two different ones, but I believe it sounds like the same one.

Um sorry, Nick, can I then ask a follow-up to that?

So, in in that similar scenario where if they don't present it to us originally as an ADU, and we so let me make sure I'm asking this the right way.

So to avoid the situation that you just said, where they put the structure there, it doesn't come before us as an ADU, but then it ends up having to come back to be elevated.

Like, I guess my question is most of what we've seen come through, they don't explicitly say it's an ADU.

Yeah.

So that where is that coming to play?

So um, well, two answers to that.

First thing is that that one needed uh zoning relief, but up until about six months ago, there was a disconnect between essentially the zoning, HCC and the zoning process and the building code requirements.

Um we were we did not have a process in place for essentially the flood elevation to be determined and figured out before it went in front of the zoning board.

We had a couple projects like this that they got to the building permit stage, and then the building official was like, you are in the flood zone, you have to elevate this, and we had to go back in front of zoning or back in front of HDC because the structure changed.

Okay.

We have um been able to fix that through our now that we're online for zoning applications and HTC is going online tomorrow.

Um, we have the ability to add a workflow step into our review process.

So actually, right after an application is received, if it is in the flood zone, the building official immediately has to review it and has to say, is this meeting flood zone requirements?

Um, because why are we wasting our time going through the process only to realize it has to change later?

So uh Brad Ward is now reviewing these applications to say it's compliant.

It really doesn't matter whether it's an ADU or an accessory structure with living square footage, that living area has to be above the flood level.

So these are being reviewed now.

If we need to, we can add that step within the HDC review as well.

Um my general answer as far as whether they tell you it is an ADU or not, it kind of doesn't matter because the interior use of the space is really a zoning issue, not a historic issue.

What you guys absolutely have purview over is the sighting, the scale, the massing, the design, the materials, anything that you would look at for a regular accessory structure on a property, apply those standards, whether it's an ADU or a pool house or you know, whatever that use is inside, that piece doesn't matter.

If the structure is appropriate for the property, go ahead and approve it.

If the structure is not appropriate, deny it and you know, state the reasons why.

Um, but that design is all up to you guys.

And so again, if you're on a historic property that's presented to you as a two-story garage with living area above the garage, but whether or not they call it an ADU, if that structure is not appropriate, appropriate for the property, it is fully up to you to say that and say it.

This is denied because it's not appropriate.

Okay.

But it's safe to say that you zoning and building department have our back on uh yes on the flood, the VFE stuff and all that.

That's yeah, it's state law, they have to abide by the flood level.

Um, it was just a disconnect that we were not having these projects kind of preliminarily reviewed by the building officials.

So they get their HDC and zoning, they'd go to a building permit, we'd go, hold on, we have to this whole project needs to go back in front of both boards potentially, um, depending on if the height was exceeded or setbacks or the the design obviously changes when the structure is elevated.

So you guys need to look at that.

So one quick thing, I was mentioning this loophole.

Um, the state again established that no new construction unless you had 20,000 square feet, but it just says then otherwise you can convert an existing structure.

It did not say in the state law how long that structure had to have existed for.

So, based on that interpretation, as long as they get approved to build this structure and they construct it and they close out the building permit effectively for that the existing two-story garage, the next day they can turn around and put a building permit in to convert that second level into the ADU.

Um I don't know if that was intended by the state legislature when they passed this, or whether it was an oversight on their part.

They didn't set, you know, the structure had to have existed for two years before you can convert it or anything like that.

To be honest, um, our the planning department is generally in favor of ADUs, and so we're not stopping it if this happens that way.

We just say you have to follow this process.

It is a little bit weird that you have to present this as essentially finished area that doesn't have a kitchen in it and then turn around to get another building permit to put a kitchen in the structure.

Um, but sometimes they put, you know, a full bathroom can be an accessory structure without it counting as an ADU.

Uh, but the kitchen is really typically the trigger that makes it a dwelling versus not.

Um so we have seen several of these that have been presented to the zoning board, they've gotten their lot coverage approval, let's say, uh, or their height, and then uh they turn around and they turn it into an ADU the next day.

Um as far as we're concerned, if someone wants to build a garage, right?

And they come to us first, or they go through zoning, then I don't know how to do it.

It always goes to you first if it comes down to the appropriateness.

So um so they come to us, we approve this garage for what it we think it's a garage.

Then they decide, okay, we're gonna do an ADU and it's gonna need probably some modifications, even if it was a two-story garage, right?

They're still gonna need a door or something.

So theoretically, it'll still come back to us.

If the exterior design changes, it would need to come back to you.

Um, it may be something that is administratively approvable as a minor plan modification.

But most of the ones I've seen so far have presented them with you know a pedestrian door through the side of the garage and an interior staircase or something like that to get up there.

And so the exterior is not changing and they're leaving the garage door on the front, let's say, then the design didn't really change on that.

But if they remove the garage door, that would need to come in front of you.

Um, if they have to add a pedestrian door to it, that would need to come to you.

Um, so any exterior change is going to follow the normal HTC regulations.

Yeah.

Uh two questions, Nick.

Um demolition of an existing garage.

Uh if we're going to add a second floor, possibly a third floor, uh, to these garages.

Um how is the line of uh modifying the base level to support upper levels?

So in our code, we define a demolition to be the removal of up to 50% or sorry, greater than 50% of the exterior walls and roof.

I believe it actually says wall planes, so we could take a calculation of the interior walls that are removed as well.

We typically look at it as the exterior walls and the the roof.

So obviously the roof's gonna have to go, but does 50% of the walls also get removed?

We consider that a full demolition, and at that point they need to meet all zoning regulations.

So even if that that structure's grandfathered in with a one-foot setback, if they are demolishing more than 50%, we consider it a full demolition and new construction of that structure.

Um so they will have to meet zoning regulations, they'll have to obviously come in front of you.

A lot of people come in thinking they can just, oh, I'm gonna present it as a second story, but really, as you said, the structure cannot actually retain that and they're going to need to demolish it.

And if that's the case, we consider it full demolition, full compliance is required at that point.

Um quick clarification.

We effectively no longer allow three-story accessory structures.

We recently set a new limit at the through the city council that 26 feet is the height limit for accessory structures up until the higher districts.

I think the R120 and R160, when the when the height changes from 30 to 35 feet allowance for the main building, we then did change it to 28 feet allowed for the accessory structure, but it effectively limits it to two stories.

Um and we were finding people applying for 30 foot tall accessory structures and to us that didn't meet the intent behind an accessory structure to be larger than the main building.

Um the second part of the question is we have some people converting a garage into an accessible unit, first floor.

Uh how much of that I mean, shall I think the 50% of modification is is kind of close in these circumstances.

You know, where do we so if they're removing, let's say the garage door and just closing that up, that's not going to exceed 50%.

But if um what especially we see this when they get to the building permit, they have to present a plan for the demolition and they'll show you know shaded areas on the walls for removal of those walls.

If we can determine that that's more than 50%, I would pause the project and essentially say this is a demolition at this point.

You need to go back in front of the boards.

Um if they do the interior conversion, straight interior conversion, they're losing a parking space, typically if that's a garage.

And what the way that we established it is that you have to put back another parking space.

You can't lose parking.

Um, so they would have to demonstrate that not only can they provide the ADU parking, but they also need to provide the parking they just lost.

So you still have to end up with essentially a net positive of one on the property for the ADU.

Um, but we would look at it at the typically at the building permit stage, we'd figure out whether they're demolishing more than 50%.

Great, thank you.

But by right, they could take down that garage or whatever's building, you know, flower shack, whatever is in the backyard.

And by right, they can build on that exact same footprint.

No, no, because we consider that to be a demolition, which you lose your grandfather rights because that structure has now been removed.

Right.

And then the new construction, if you want it in the same location, would need a variance to the zoning board, or if it's in the setbacks, let's say you need to go back in front of the zoning board to get a variance.

So there may be a um a justification and uh argument that the zoning board might buy that you know, that's the historic location of this structure.

You know, they I feel like um the zoning board does um appreciate when they see that the HTC has approved a particular location that might not meet zoning, that they say, well, the HDC thought it was appropriate to locate in that spot so we can see our way to approving a variance, maybe greater than they normally would.

Um, the if if you remove it down to the foundation, we have told people you do not get grandfathered rights to that location if that's where you want to build it.

You'd have to present it as a variance.

Okay.

I'm just thinking about the one my next door neighbor.

Right.

That was yeah, that shed um he got uh he got zoning approval to expand that forward, right?

Not as an ADU, but just as an as an accessory structure expansion, um, based on the proportionality.

So this is a different uh whole case, but all substandard properties are now treated differently because of what's called substandard lot proportionality that we have to reduce setbacks and increase lot coverage proportional to how substandard your lot is.

We actually determined he was only in one of the setbacks when he wanted to expand that structure.

And so he had to get a variance to that setback effectively.

Right.

So that's fine.

So for this commission, if that if it does not come before us as an ADU and it's a garage structure that they're converting into whatever, and it's on a very tight lot, because we've had some of those.

As long it's not on this board to consider that whole parking thing, because we don't know that it's an ADU.

So we would approve it for compatibility, it would end up going to you guys.

And then if there was an issue with the parking, it would come back.

Uh if it's an issue from parking, it's a it's a variance to the parking requirement.

So then it would go in front of the zoning board.

So the zoning board would have to essentially say we aren't going to require you to have that extra parking space.

That's the issue.

Um we hypothetically could have people present an ADU that does not have that extra parking space, and they have to go in front of the zoning board and plead their case and their hardship requirements to meet the variance findings to get that approved.

Okay.

Um, but it really isn't for you to say, you know, we don't see the extra parking on your plan.

They should be really talking to me before they even present anything to you.

Um, and we were we've been trying to get that across to people like come to us first.

Let's talk between me and Jill to figure out whether this ADU is going to kind of meet HDC standards and zoning requirements, because if it goes through you and then I see it in my building permit to you, they didn't talk to me and it has an issue.

I'm gonna immediately put a pause on it and say you've got to submit a variance application and go in front of the zoning board.

Okay.

All right, let's see what else I got here.

Um so the the state had allowed the city to um this kind of repeat, but essentially we could set some certain limitations when the state passed it, they gave the cities three areas where we could put our own discretion in.

We had to put it in our code.

Um this first one is not one of those.

They was established no more than one ADU per lot.

So that's in our code.

Uh the second was about the size.

They're technically under the state law was not a size limitation, but a city could establish a size limitation that was no smaller than the 900 square feet for a studio one bedroom and 1200 square feet for a two-bedroom or 60% of the floor area.

I have had to do some of these calculations because I've received a 1200 square foot ADU, and I have to confirm that that is actually proportionally 60% and not greater than that.

Um, so a couple of them have had to be reduced in small ways.

Um, you know, it especially if it's in an accessory structure, they could partition off part of the building to be used as storage for the main house or something, but not part of the unit itself.

And we can see our way to approving that.

Um, but they are supposed to stick with this 900 or 1200 square foot limit that we established.

Um again, it has to have a separate ingress and egress, and we've allowed that 100 square foot expansion.

Uh, we've seen a couple of them really.

The main way is just a staircase going up to a second level to access that ADU so they don't have to put a staircase inside, let's say the garage and effectively eliminate a parking space because of an interior staircase.

Um again, ADUs are subject to all accessory setbacks, um, which we have established.

That code has actually changed the code section.

Uh, they need one parking space and they can't just eliminate parking, they have to provide at least three spaces.

Um accessory units are not subject to density limits.

So if under the zoning code, uh a property has a limit of the number of units per square foot of a property, the ADU does not count against that.

So actually, someone can propose a brand new development, let's say on a 20,000 square foot property for a two-family plus an ADU, even if that property would only technically allow a two-family.

The ADU does not count as a third unit for density purposes.

Um, and again, ownership has to be under common ownership or undivided ownership, and um they have to be maintained as long-term right now.

That's what I got for you.

Yeah, good question.

Um so if I understand correctly.

This this the ordinate, our our ordinance, our standards apply when somebody if somebody walks in here tonight and says, I'm gonna build an ADU on my property.

It's not up to us to decide whether he's got a 20,000, whether he's got the required 20,000 square feet because that's your job.

Correct.

It's not up to us to determine whether or not he's got a parking space because that's your job.

Correct.

So all we're doing is applying the same standards that we would apply to any other project, whether it's whether it's a new construction or whether it's some kind of altering.

We apply all the standards just as if we normally is there anything else that we as a commission have to take into consideration if the moment they say the words, I'm building an ADU.

I would say no, you apply your standards as though this was an ADU or an accessory structure or an addition to an accessory structure or an addition to a house that might be later converted to an ADU.

If that expansion, new bill, whatever it is is appropriate for that property in the district that it's in, um, then it's appropriate.

You should approve it.

If it is not, you should state the reasons why and you should deny it.

Nick, what about decks?

Is a is if somebody builds an ADU and they put a second floor deck on.

Oh does that fall under the new deck requirements?

Yes, it would.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We have had someone try to propose that.

We um for those who aren't aware, we did uh just pass through the city council a regulation on upper level decks on properties, and we have reduced essentially set limits on the size of decks that's allowed because we had no limitation on decks.

Really, lot coverage was the only thing.

Lot cover can setbacks.

We had a couple projects go through uh the zoning board for 400 or 500 square foot roof decks.

Um that met the height limit, met the setback requirements and everything, and the zoning board had no real way to deny them.

So we've now established a 100 square foot limit if your deck is what we're calling second story, which is anywhere between five and 15 feet above grade.

A 30 square foot limit if you are between 15 and 25 square feet, uh or 20 feet, 25 feet above grade, and then no decks above 25 feet.

That is the surface level of the deck, not the railing.

But um it we've had one application on Ocean Drive that got approved for a variance to that.

It really came down to the condition of that property, not next to any neighbors facing the you know, the water, and they approved it uh on that property.

So we will get occasional variance requests on that.

But we had a zoning application in front of us.

Uh, it's still pending that wanted to do a two-story expansion to an eight to an accessory structure, was requesting a big deck, uh height variance to an accessory structure, setback variances, and I effectively telegraphed to them that I was going to recommend denial of this project, and they are highly scaling it back.

So Jill and I now are presenting recommendations, both of our boards, and um we're trying to get across to people that you should really listen to us because the board will listen to us, and if we're recommending denial, it's likely going to lead to a denial at the hearing.

Okay.

I mean, I think the point you just the question you raised and the point you made is the safest thing for this commission, essentially it's there is nothing but an like there is no ADU for us.

It's just all the same.

Yeah, is that structure appropriate for the historic contributor for that property if it's a non-contributing or contributing property?

So what I'm more concerned about is long-term a yeah, but windows, Mr.

Deck, Mrs.

Windows.

No, that window plate.

I'll say that for later.

Um long-term effect on historic district ADUs.

As far as I've looked, which is very, very briefly, there are like no studies on how ADUs are gonna impact historic districts by how they're inherently going to affect density and streetscape and all these things.

And like I think we're maybe not so concerned here because we don't have a lot of 20,000 square foot plus lots in our historic districts where we're gonna have all these things popping up.

But I think how we saw garages pop up is now going to be these two-story garages that are going to be all around town.

And I just wonder what is it going to start to look like when all of these little one-car garages that we've deter determined are like okay and acceptable and have fit in over time to these new like little, I don't know, like I think of them as these little towers, like the things over on um the length that the landings have over.

That's what I think of when I think of these ADUs and long term in our historic districts.

We're gonna have all these little like pop-up things that we're gonna do.

Not if you don't approve them, because the size, the scale, the massing, the siding doesn't meet your standards, our standards, the ones we apply to every other construction project in this town.

If it doesn't meet the standard, then they're not gonna have it.

So we can, I mean, essentially what you're suggesting is that if we just say, okay, ADUs are desirable things in general, go ahead, build what you want.

That's not the right attitude.

Well, no, that's not what we are here for.

No.

So I don't see us, I don't see us allowing that to happen in let's say the point, for instance.

I mean, even though we did just approve.

It's just precedent.

It's pressing, right?

So we started the snowball and it's going to continue.

And it it they're gonna look all very different, I'm sure.

But the sheds and garages and all sorts of things are gonna start to become very it's gonna be ever evolving over time.

And these are grandfathered in for forever, right?

I mean, ADUs are not temporary, they're they're there.

Yeah.

So no, but they're only there to the extent that they comply with the existing if they're appropriate for that side.

So they first of all, they have to be appropriate, whether they're ADUs or they're two-story garages, or they're a guest house on top of a garage, or you know, whatever they are, they got to apply with parts feander.

Totally.

They'll be as appropriate as we see them because we again with garages, front-facing garages are not appropriate.

Well, we have I almost cursed lots of them, like all over town.

And we've kind of adopted the um, you know, the approval of them, and I just fear that that's going to over time, we're gonna be more lean uh lenient on these things.

So I'm just curious.

Well, a couple couple points on that.

Um, under zoning regulations, you can't have an accessory structure within a front setback.

So almost all of these are going to happen in the rear of a property.

Um secondarily, on the large properties, there actually is historic precedent for carriage houses on a lot of these sites that actually in those cases oftentimes are at the front of the property, which we no longer really allow.

Um, so on the large properties, the you know, the historic manors oftentimes did have another air taker unit or something on it.

Um, so that's not totally out of character with those properties, but obviously those are big properties that are you know under that 20,000 square foot rule that they can build new construction.

Um, but yes, the you know, I remember from my time here and just my time on the doing zoning that two-story accessory garages have been sometimes weird, they are oftentimes right up next to a neighbor.

And if that is appropriate or not, is really up to you and the zoning board if it needs variances.

Also, uh lot coverage counts against these two.

So if they're doing a footprint expansion, like they're demoing a structure building a new two-car garage or three-car garage instead of a one, they're likely going to go way over their lot coverage in the zoning board, may deny it on that basis alone that that's not appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood based on zoning regulation.

I think the point though about the carriage house is interesting because we have had some scenarios where that's come up.

Now, again, they've not disclosed that it's an ADU, it's just an accessory building on the on the property.

But just because a neighborhood has had carriage houses doesn't mean that you know your Joe Schmoe small house deserves a carriage house, but that's what they bring in front of us as far as like, well, all these other carriage houses some of that.

So that is a good it's a way for them to finagle scale and all these other things.

So and it may be hypothetically compatible with the district, but not compatible with the site itself.

And again, the sighting on the property and whether it should have an accessory structure at all, or a two-story accessory structure, uh is truly up to you guys to say it's appropriate.

Just be very clear about citing that that finding of why it's not appropriate if that's the case.

I just wanted to weigh in with one comment that I think it's important to remember what the policy is behind these laws.

Um, and regarding studies, there's been extensive studies in California, which has been at the forefront of ADU.

Um it's basically to uh increase housing supply in states and cities that are land starved, right?

So I have a sort of different reaction.

I have a very positive reaction to ADUs coming before us.

I think it's progress in the city.

So I say, you know, bring them to us and one essentially one at a time.

And it be it's not like again, a property is only going to be allowed to have one ADU, so it's not like adding two or three more units onto one property, it's adding a single smaller unit, because again, it has to be proportionally sized.

And I know that again for my time out in California and here that people are worried that every property is going to have an ADU.

They are are slow to be developed.

They, you know, you might get one on a block a year, maybe that.

And so slowly they may add, and not everyone wants them.

Some people want them, some people want to downsize and move into that and rent their bigger house.

Um, but it does gradually add some units to the to the housing stock.

Um, it's you know, it's not the um the silver bullet to fix our housing issues, but it is one small step to get some amount of smaller units.

Right.

I think we're on a deal start.

Thank you.

Thanks, Nick.

Thanks.

Okay.

So Nick got into, you know, now you have a good, does everyone feel good about what they just heard?

You feel clear.

Okay, great.

Okay.

So as we know, we've got different types, as Nick had just explained.

Um, a lot of what we see is detached, um, garage conversions, and we see some above garages or existing carriage houses, at least in the historic district.

We don't see a lot of lower level, again, that's not really our purview, and especially because of the the flood zone.

So we do have something in our design guidelines for garages and accessory structures.

Again, these guidelines are these are the ones that are from 2016, and so we're going to have to update them.

But we do have some kind of guidance as to what accessory structures and what carriage houses and garages should look like.

Um, so again, as as Nick said, we have these are existing standards for contributing, non-contributing, and new construction.

And so I really want you all to just focus on that lens.

I know that we there's been some discussion, like, well, we're being forced to, you know, to approve these ADUs, but really it's whether it's appropriate for the site, whether you know the site can accommodate it, whether there is historic precedence for something like this, um, how it affects the streetscape, does it detract from the surrounding historic area?

All of these things that we're used to seeing still go into play.

Um so we do have some.

I don't know if you've I sent this over to you guys before.

Um, obviously, we want to some of the standards that we can hone in on conjecture.

So that's A3.

We don't want to create a false, you know, historic sense that there everybody had a carriage house or everyone had a gatehouse, um, because that's obviously not the case, but we we're just gonna look at it through the same lens.

So A3 for a contributing property, if they find that that existing structure is contributing, we're probably gonna see more non-contributing.

So it's gonna be really B1.

So it's gonna be compatibility within size, massing scale, sighting, etc.

Um so we do have some some kind of things in place for historic uh district design guidelines, but we don't have a ton.

Um, but okay, so we're gonna go into the benefits of ADUs because we're really trying to sell them to everybody.

So obviously, uh increased housing affordability for homeowners and tenants.

Um as we all know, we have a housing problem.

I feel it, everyone feels it really.

Um the prices of housing is just going up, and so providing more housing again, this is just one little piece.

Um, we have had folks come in and say that they would like to age in place.

I know that we've had some applications where there's been additions or you know, conversions that allow folks to age in place, which as we know historically, many houses are passed down through family lineage.

So again, it just goes kind of into the development of the lot.

Um, and we do want to use the existing housing fabric um in our established neighborhoods because Newport is is built out.

We don't have a lot of free and open land like they do elsewhere in the state.

And so we Nick and I often take state code, and then we have to kind of figure out how it works for Newport because we are so different.

We are such a dense, you know, colonial community.

The streets are smaller, you know, we're incredibly dense, and also we are incredibly desirable because we are a summer town.

So we're trying to get some, and obviously, you know, we've addressed the short-term rental piece, which I know a lot of people are concerned about, but with there's definitely benefits of of ADUs, and we should be, you know, forward thinking.

Okay, so again, you're not required to approve ADA proposals brought before you.

Um, I would also, I know that we tend to look at the if we're provided an interior plan, we do look at that and we're like, well, that has a bed in the pool house.

Like that's a little strange, which yes, it is a little strange, but we have to, you know, remove ourselves from the interior programming and just focus on the exterior programming.

Um again, ADU proposals are on a case-by-case basis, just as any everything else we do.

So I know we talk a lot about precedent, and I think that is totally valid in terms of materials or the way in which folks um you know, uh windows, you know, like these things that can be replicated, like death by a thousand cuts.

But for ADUs, we know that they are there's only a certain amount of lots that can have them, and they have to meet those zoning standards.

It's interesting because you know, people go to HDC before they go to zoning, and so we may see something that will develop over time, but we're just looking at it through the HTC lens per usual.

Um, and we also may choose to create additional guidance on design size scale as it results as it relates to the construction of the ADU or adaptive reuse.

So in some of these cases, we see adaptive reuse from a carriage house, an existing carriage house or shed or something that has historic integrity that is planning on being an ADU.

So if you would like, just like we have all of our other guidelines, our other guidance documents, if you would like, you could create one on ADUs or garage conversions if it gets there.

So that is something that if you guys feel more comfortable with to be able to point to something and say, hey, like this is what we have done in the past, and this is what our vision is.

Yes, Ro?

Are we even really allowed to ask them if it's an ADU?

If they don't offer that, I mean, I mean somebody comes in here, we're not supposed to ask, you know, who's sleeping in that bed.

Right.

I mean you can you can ask all sorts of things, they may not be required to answer.

Right.

Oh, really?

Oh, okay.

I mean, you can I mean I think that's the chair's job to keep the commission the meeting on topic, but if you ask something slightly off topic and the applicant or the person on the podium volunteers the information, there's nothing wrong with that.

And one other thing I would say if you create guidance, I would say create guidance on accessory structures, accessory structures on ADUs, because I think the state could see that as us targeting them and trying to do that.

I'm just gonna say, is that a safe place?

Or you know, modifications to accessory structures.

If somebody comes in here and doesn't say it's you know and they're just gonna build a structure, I mean if it meets all the guidelines and you have it, then it can be rented out on a short-term basis because it's not an ADU.

Well, not short-term basis, most likely the zoning code's gonna say it cannot be short-term rented, but it could be 30-day or longer rented or yearly.

So again, not our problem.

Not our problem.

No, the uses really comes to me.

And just to clarify my earlier statement, um just be really careful that way word information isn't clouding your judgment when you're looking at standards approval and you're not being prejudiced on an application.

What would be clouding our judgment?

Like if you ask if they live out of state and they said yes, and then you said I'm not gonna approve a project from someone who lives out of state.

That would be a problem.

I wouldn't have no, I know I'm saying I'm giving an example.

I'm giving an example.

The zoning board for years used to ask, are you how long have you lived and owned this parcel?

And I'm like, that is irrelevant to whatever project has happened.

Yeah, yeah.

See, that's my point.

We we can't use the fact that it is an ADU and you're either love or disdain for ADUs and density um as a standard of approval or denial.

So this only way that we can approve or deny things are through our standards that are codified.

So A1 through seven, B1 through two, C1 through three.

Exactly, etc.

etc.

Yeah.

So in other words, yeah, okay.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So some examples that you guys have seen recently and approved.

So we've got one of five champlains.

So this was an existing non-contributing garage, and they are adding a unit above there.

So on that one, real quick, right?

So they could build that second floor on that existing footprint by right.

Is that correct?

Correct.

They slipped this one in the day before the city council changed the rules on height and setbacks for accessory structures.

So they got essentially grand or vested under the old code that allowed them to continue to go directly up as opposed to having to let's say step it into the property.

Um, but yeah, because they were directly above the footprint, the state law says they're allowed to expand it up.

Yep.

But this didn't this didn't come as an ADU.

No, that's my point.

No, it didn't come as an ADU.

But they don't have to.

So they don't have to.

I just want to so for context though.

So the examples that you don't.

So the examples you put in here aren't necessarily ADU app like things.

Okay.

There's there's some that are, and then there's some that have potential.

Okay.

Okay.

I just want to make it.

But this, I I believe you believe this is going to be they're gonna convert this.

Any of them can be in this.

Yes, any of them can be.

So all the examples that I'm showing that I'm going to show you are examples of what could perhaps happen.

So again, this is one that I was a little concerned about in terms of the proximity to the main house.

You guys approved it because you thought it was compatible, and so it met all the standards, and so it was approved.

This next one, um, just some examples in Kathrin's.

This one's above an existing garage, you know, that little piece.

So this is an example of an attached one.

Um, obviously not the best in terms of you know historic compatibility, but there was precedence there.

It's pretty bad.

Um, and then the one next to it is a carriage house that could be or former stable or barn that could be converted into an ADU.

And again, it's set back on the lot.

You can't really see it, it's obscured.

Um, so the sighting of that would be nice.

Um, so this one, so these are are within uh projects that we've seen within the the point neighborhood.

So we did approve an ADU garage conversion.

This was on the non-contributing property.

This was built in 2010.

So that's the one on the left that we're seeing.

Um so they just altered the existing north elevation to remove that garage, which was street facing, um, and you know, infill the cladding, and they were just adding a little piece back there in a dormer.

So this one was approved, and it doesn't really change the scale.

It doesn't really change, you know, much on the lot.

It's just we're enclosing this and we're gonna change it into an ADU.

So this one was approved.

Um, we also saw the same thing at um on Bridge Street, I believe it's 70 Bridge Street.

Um that's the one I was referencing earlier.

That's the new construction, but yeah.

So there are more challenges with this one that you know, don't take it for like, okay, the prop, this is what's gonna be the final thing is gonna be, but um, because they ran into some problems with the flood zone.

But this is an example of like a grainy flat.

This is something that could be built on a lot that would be appropriate.

Um, we reviewed it a year or two years ago and found it that it was appropriate.

It was sited on the lot, so only the narrow elevation would be facing the street.

It was set back slightly, um, and it had features that were compatible with the lot itself, and the lot could accommodate it.

So and then obviously ocean drive and belle view.

We have more instances of carriage houses, we have more incisive gate houses, um, studios, that kind of thing.

So um, these are two examples from Ocean Drive and Bellevue.

Obviously, this was they're both historic.

Um, I wouldn't necessarily love a new construction that is conjectural in this exact um style, but we have had some instances of like a caretaker's cottage.

If you guys remember, I believe it's on like Harrison or Brenton, I think it was on Harrison, the stone building that's right up against that we deemed was compatible because the materials are really good.

It's not really um out of the question for an accessory structure to be cited there.

So that was approved as well.

But again, you guys all used your judgment on what you thought was appropriate, and that's it.

So I I really want to hone in on the fact that we are just using our existing standards and trying to tailor them to you know, looking at it through a lens of does this meet the standards?

If not, bye-bye.

All of the standards for contributing, non-contributing, and new construction all have sighting compatibility, they have massing, they have everything that we that applies to an ADU.

Um, obviously we have control over design, and that's all we're gonna focus on.

So I hope that you thought this was helpful.

Do you want to get one quick quick go back to that one?

Uh the first one, the first picture.

Yeah, yeah, that right.

So you made the comment that you're surprised that we surprised we approved it because it was so close.

The original structure, however, because it's in the same footprint and going straight up.

Yeah.

Did we even have from a size field mass?

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Well, it's a right, they can go up.

Saying that uh my concern was that they were going up so much, and it was creating kind of an imbalance on the lot and creating a really narrow corridor that wouldn't have historically existed.

So that was my perspective from it.

Although there was one that we did um over in this neighborhood that it was on that really tight parcel, and they wanted to there was a two-car garage that was in the back, and they wanted to build that two-story thing, and ultimately we ended up saying, and they were trying to do a lot of loopholes because they didn't want to go to zoning because they didn't want to have variances, and essentially we came back and said, You want to have all this space, then you might need to lose the garage and come down to one story.

Right, and that's totally fair as well.

So we could have done the same thing here, yes.

Even though by right they have the right, but if we deem that it's not compatible.

This yes, this is a compatibility in terms of size, in terms of scale, and in terms of massing that we have control over.

So if they really wanted an ADU, they could nix the garage.

You know, so keep those.

It's allowed by right under the state law for an ADU to go up on the footprint, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't have to comply with the with the historic regulation.

Okay, or also a couple other or one other point about this property.

It was how many units, Jill?

How many what?

How many units are in the main house a few years ago?

Well, there were five units in the main house.

And how many units are will be in there next year?

It's a single family dwelling now.

So they were adding one extra unit through an ADU effect.

They they could have you know changed the interior layout of the main building and put in an ADU and would have never come before the HTC.

What came before the HDC was the exterior alterations to the property, which included adding this living space above the garage.

Yeah, the cash garage.

It's not up to us.

It's not up to us to figure out, you know, how many people or it's really up to the homeowner.

Do you want a garage or do you want an ADU?

In a case, maybe like this or similar to this.

Not everyone has to have everything, which is really difficult to tell people sometimes.

Like you can't have everything, but you can, you know, if something is important to you, then you will make sacrifices on the lot.

So not every lot is going to be able to accommodate an ADU or an accessory structure, just as not every lot is going to be able to accommodate a garage.

And so once we see these coming in, if we see some garages coming in, we need to, you know, it may be okay as a garage, but if they want to go up later, well, then if we find that they can't, then they can't.

And they'll have to make a determination if they want to keep the garage a garage or if they want to convert that one floor to an ADU.

But again, that's outside of our purview.

We are just looking at it in terms of density and historical development patterns.

I think that's something that I really want to hone in on is does this like similar to what you were saying, Kelly.

I want obviously historic districts, don't have to be.

We always say preserved in amber.

They're not preserved in Amber.

We are we are adapting, right?

And so we just want to make sure that the change is thoughtful and follows historic development patterns.

When you think about the reason behind ADU is more affordable housing, and this place is going from five family down to right.

And that's that's a larger problem.

It is a larger problem.

I know that's that's a larger problem that we're trying to address in the planning office, but it's it's an it's always an HCC issue.

Yeah, not an H we are trying to address it number.

We're trying to address it, but HTC, we are just what's on the outside.

Yes.

However, in the case of this and the arguments we were making about you could have gone down and we would prefer you know, use the space.

If that is if this is allowable in zoning, and we turn an application down based on preference, they can go to zone, they can go to zoning and say we want it that way.

No, so they they would be appealing the HTC denial, but they have to prove that it like their case essentially that they feel the HDC erred in denying it based on the HDC findings.

Doesn't matter whether the zoning approval or zoning is allowed by right, or maybe that's also what's going to need a variance.

If it's denied based on HDC findings, they have to prove to the zoning board that the HDC made some procedural error or clear error in denying that application.

Um so it's not that the structure itself would be permissible through the state ADU law, it's that it has to be appropriate for the property based on HDC.

Just because it's okay for zoning does not mean that it has to be okay for HDC.

Right.

So if they find, you know, even if it meets all the zoning, they're like, okay, it's gonna be an easy zoning approval.

HDC is still historic district, is the zoning code.

And so they have to meet the historic district standards.

And so if you are leaning towards a denial, then we you know you have to clearly state your standards as to what standard this does not meet and why.

Um I think we have a track record of doing that.

And we also have cases that have been overturned regardless of we have, and that's that's just the nature of how zoning goes.

If someone doesn't like something, they're gonna appeal it.

They're gonna hire attorneys, they're going to you know try to to get this project across.

What we really need to button up on, and that's why I change the staff reports is at an explanation as to does this meet every standard and why it meets the standard.

Because I think sometimes we do a blanket, this is approved based on like A1 through seven, but we don't state why, or if we deny something, we don't all state why.

And I think that every single one of you needs to get, and it can't be well, I prefer particularly when the vote is not unanimous, it's very important.

We typically do we get in the record why each member is voting one way or the other.

We do I think we've been doing that.

I I mean I'm just reacting to I've been very surprised when something comes back and says we have to do that.

So I uh if we're not doing it correctly, or we need to do it.

The cleanest way is in the roll call when you say yay, say yay because nay because for each member, and it can be more efficient than that, but that's the cleanest yes way to do it.

And site citing the standards explicitly, don't just say, you know, because I you know, I like it.

Do not say I like it or I don't like it.

It has to be I am voting nay because of this does not meet standards, a three, a five, et cetera.

I think why again, again, the reason why I think we do that already.

I guess this is not for this.

Yeah, this is not for this discussion, but I I would personally, as one commissioner, like a little bit of clarity on because we are a volunteer, we're sitting here, we're putting in our time, and then when something comes back and slaps us in the face, I understand.

It does have the tendency of saying somebody else can add this chair.

I understand that.

And that's not how I want you guys to feel there are zoning decisions that get overturned.

There are many different decisions.

I'm not pointing fingers at zoning.

I'm just saying this is a harmonious thing that we're talking about, but it goes awry when some legal entity walks in the room, boisters an opinion, and we're not even represented at that point.

Right.

I I understand that.

And I think the best thing that we can do is just make sure that we have done, you know, the cleanest job possible, and that there's really no room for for error or for someone to overturn.

Obviously, that's really difficult when you have you know attorneys and etc.

This is you know, not nobody, not everyone on this board is a legal professional.

And so this is you guys are comprised of of citizens.

And so I want to, you know, commend you for your job, which thank you.

Um, but this is it's it's part of the process.

You know, HCC decisions get get overturned.

Zoning decisions get overturned.

I mean, even at the federal level, you're seeing things get overturned.

So it's not a target at HTC, it's just part of the process.

If someone really wants something, they're going to find some way to get it right.

So I just want to make sure that we're as clean as possible and that we're setting all the standards.

So I hope you appreciate it in my staff report the some of the edits that I've made because I feel like in the staff comments.

Okay.

So if you want to related to that.

So when I sent you that last week about city council being having oversight over voting in HDC, what's all that about?

I don't know if we can get into that right now.

They're having a workshop on last week about what's it.

I don't know the context.

So I'm I I know the context, but I wouldn't worry about because we are regulatory boards, we are a quasi-judicial board.

I think that is targeted more towards the boards that do not that aren't quasi judicial.

So like three in open space or you know, stuff like that, right?

Cliff Lock, that kind of thing.

Um, I have spoken to our director, and we everybody keeps their side of the aisle clean.

Zoning, HTC, planning.

All the three major regulatory boards are good.

It says boards and commission oversight committee.

Yes.

So that's not us.

We have like over 20 different boards and commissions in the city, but there's only HDC zoning and planning board that are quasi-judicial that have legal ramifications behind the decisions that they make and a legal process.

So I I do believe it's more geared towards the other boards that there were a couple boards trying to make opinions on projects going in front of planning board that were saying we don't think this should be approved, and there was that's kind of a big no-no to do that between boards.

If not, I was gonna be with Frank.

Yeah, no, it's it's okay.

Um, yes, but I appreciate you all.

You all deserve a pony, you all are amazing and beautiful, and I will fight for your rights and I will protect you as much as I can.

Thanks, Mom.

Love.

Can I just say one thing on that just a couple to wrap that up in terms of the good housekeeping stuff?

Having watched last meeting, um, just a reminder for everybody when you come and sit down to turn off your mics, because everything is recorded, everything is recorded, hot mics.

We don't want to everything when you sit down when you come out from pre-meeting.

So staring at me.

So um one other thing.

Just giving everybody uh just giving everybody a heads up.

Um, one other small thing related to the recommendations and in our new staff report.

So we implemented these at zoning a few months ago, and now Jill has done it here.

Is um, you know, we're putting our staff our best staff effort into kind of making those findings for you, essentially.

Of our our opinion is it meets it because of X, Y, and Z, especially on the summary and abbreviated summary projects.

You can essentially say we're approving it based, like we're adopting staff's recommendation and their findings of approval in why we're approving it.

So you don't have to go into as much depth as a full hearing where you're gonna hear both sides and then you know, make all of your individual pieces.

We were finding actually this is an issue with zoning board was that they were just making summary approvals, just saying we approve it.

And we were like, but if any of these get appealed, there's no record of why you approved it.

Now we have staff recommendation that says this is why staff finds it is appropriate, and they're just adopting that as their recommendation and their approval.

So just make sure to kind of cite that you agree with staff on that, and that's kind of the basis of your approval decision.

And just one thing to be careful is the lapse between in time between when the staff report is written and when you've reached the end of a presentation on a matter with the public comment and the staff report may have not had all of the information that the commission has.

You can always ask for an updated analysis from your um your planner.

It doesn't have to be at that meeting continues a matter to get that information, but just be careful that um the information that's in the staff report may not have all of the um facts that the committee the commission has at the end of a hearing.

It's essentially based on the materials as presented up to the point of the staff report being prepared.

So um we're not trying to say we know what they're going to present as evidence at a meeting, so absolutely that could change our opinion if we hear something else.

And a few of my staff recommendations even, you know, stated what things I believe like could be discussed further, because uh in HTC, you know, during the course of a hearing, things, projects can evolve.

And so I didn't want to recommend outright denial when something could evolve, but there are steps that could be taken and standards that weren't necessarily met, but could be met.

So I tried to keep that in mind because it's a little different than zoning.

Zoning's kind of like cut and dry, this is a fax.

Boom, but we're a little different.

I I have already had several of my recommendations effectively overturned by the zoning port, so they don't always listen to me.

Right, and you guys don't really listen to me.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that said if we have if you have any other additional questions, feel free to ask me.

You can email me or Nick, and we will, you know, do our best.

Um we do have like seven minutes until the pre-meeting, so I want to make sure if you guys need a break, then just you know, do what you need to do, and I'll meet you in the second floor comments room.

Okay.

Thank you, guys.

Good job.

It's it's funny, Rough.

I know, I was the same way.

I was like, I guess I should eat lunch.

I just I just ate the whole bit.

Yeah.

Yes, we just cracked some.

Yeah, usually it's the last one.

I don't know.

Yeah, so when you have things in the server, yeah.

And I'm going to scroll into the whole one.

Okay.

So I just already know that browser.

Small second by the time it's right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And the sport.

Yeah.

In the should better.

That's like every five.

So it's like some of these out.

So we can't five other things.

Okay.

Yeah, actually.

Well, I think that's a good thing.

Yeah, that's it.

Yes, I don't know if it's like exactly smaller.

That's because I want to make it.

Yeah, I think I can change it.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, I'll see how this one's called.

Yeah, we have that settlement.

Yeah, that's just fine.

Yeah.

I just agree.

So I think it's like the RT.

Um turn.

So long.

Yeah.

Actually, I'm saying that's a thing.

That's a little bit extended.

Spoiler.

So we hit a battery.

So it's a splash.

So yeah, yeah.

Oh yeah.

Yes.

Good evening, everyone.

I call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, August twelfth, two thousand and twenty five, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarello here.

Rosemary O'Brien.

Here.

Kelly Moran, I'm here.

Jim Madsen.

Frank Bala here.

Ray Goddard is currently absent.

Yes.

Bill Finley.

Absent.

Also absent.

We knew of his absence.

Brooke Richter.

Here.

Kenny Bennell.

Also absent and we knew of his absence.

Thank you.

I confirm that we have a quorum for this evening's meeting.

I, Deanna Amarello, affirm for the record that I reviewed all of the materials for the continued applications and watched the Tuesday, July 8th, 2025 HDC meeting.

I am prepared to vote on those applications this evening.

I was absent from that last meeting.

Everyone else that's here this evening was present.

I will acknowledge that we have Council Peter Friedrich's here attending this evening's meeting to support the commission.

We'll begin with approval of the minutes for Tuesday, July 8, 2025.

Commission that's been provided to us for review.

Are there any additions or corrections?

No.

Nope.

So request a motion to accept the minutes for Tuesday, July 8th, 2025 as presented.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

We do not have any new correspondence or communications that came in since the agenda was published.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Tuesday, August 12th, 2025, are valid for one year from the date of approval.

All of the applications in this meeting have a published staff report, which indicates the confirmed location of each property within a Newport Historic District.

Record is a contributing or non-contributing building, construction date of the property, and character defining features.

As we begin the meeting, I request a motion to accept all staff's findings of fact as our findings of fact.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

The commission convened in our standard pre-meeting immediately prior to this evening's meeting.

Based on review of the agenda, we will be making slight adjustments, including re-sequencing.

That involves the resequence of application N48 Beacon Hill to the end of the meeting, followed by the application C2 of One Bellevue Avenue, which will be heard after N4.

We had no withdrawals this evening from the agenda.

We did, however, have two continuations.

These were requested for continuation by the applicant after the agenda was published.

These are the applications of N311 Chartier Circle and N7 65 Williams Street, which will be rescheduled to the next regular HDC meeting on Tuesday, September 9th, 2025.

And this evening's pre-meeting, the commission has identified applications to be considered for summary approval.

These are viewed by our members as complete with no questions and an acceptance of the findings and recommendations of our staff for approval.

So the first of those this evening is N5 for 89 Harrison Av.

Uh Plat 41 lot 288.

Do we have anyone here for public comment on this application?

Public comment or that just the applicants?

Applicants.

Okay, good to go.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 89 Harrison Av, plat 41 lot 288, citing Newport standards.

Uh a one, two, three, four, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

The next application for summary is N9, 118 Prospect Hill Street, Plat 28 Lot 15.

Do we have public comment here this evening for this application?

No.

Okay, with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 118 Prospect Hill Street, plat 28 lot 15, citing Newport standards.

Um A1, 2, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, next up for summary is um the application N2 for 93 Second Street, plat 09 lot 320.

Do we have anyone here for public comment on this application?

No.

With that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 93 Second Street.

Um plat 09 lot 320, citing Newport Standard 17 tact um 80 tech 060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

And lastly, is the application an 8 for 8 C View Avenue, Plat 31 Lot 62.

Anyone here?

Public comment.

No.

All right.

So I will request a motion to approve the application of 8 C View Avenue, Plat 31, Lot 62, citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80 Tag 060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All right.

Any of the applicants that were here for those four summaries, you're welcome to stay.

You're welcome to enjoy the evening.

Okay.

And with that, I think we're ready to move into our full agenda.

I'll ask the vice chair to read our first action item.

Uh this is the application of uh Igar and Lily Sokal of 232 Ocean Avenue, plat 41, lot 101, contributing for permission to extend a previously approved plan to install a roof mounted solar array of 60 modules on the flat roof of the gatehouse.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this action item?

Okay.

Um I'll just ask you to come forward.

Did the commission have any questions for this applicant?

Or we're good for the for this extension.

Jim this was not the one you were questioning.

It was the other one.

A three.

Yes.

Yep, yeah.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Um, I so I think we're we're good to go here.

Um so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the um request for an extension of 232 Ocean Avenue, plat 41 lot 101.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Uh this is the application of Salvay Regina College of 35 Shepherd Avenue, plat 36, lot 096, contributing for permission to extend a previously approved plan to remove 1960s brick edition and 1980s one-story east edition, remove eastern extension of the 1980s stair tower, and add an architectural detail to make it more compatible.

Okay, um commission had no questions on this uh request for an extension.

Um, so with that, I will request a motion to approve the request um for a certificate of appropriateness for 35 Shepherd Up, plat 36 lot 096.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye, all those opposed.

This is the application of Margaret and Sean Maloney of 275 Harrison Avenue, plot plat 44, lot 121, non-contributing for permission to extend a previously approved plan to construct a ground-mounted solar array located approximately 162 feet from the main house.

Okay, welcome.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission, Dan Procini, attorney on behalf of applicants Sean and Margaret Maloney.

Okay, we did have a question.

Um, Mr.

Madsen wanted to ask about the status of the project.

Right.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, my question, it looks as though it's been three years since we first gave an extension on this, so it's probably four years since the design's been done.

Has there been any uh I guess one what's what what's the cause for the delay?

And two, has there been any changes in the solar panel technology?

Is it going to be exactly like we looked at four years ago, or is it something different?

To answer your second question first, my understanding is the proposal is still exactly the same.

There hasn't been any substantive change um technology or to the proposal that was previously approved.

The reason why there has been a delay in this project is that Mr.

and Ms.

Maloney had been um engaging in a number of different projects on the property, and we're hoping to do that in a phased approach.

One of those was actually the construction of a carriage house that this commission approved some time ago, um, and which was challenged by neighbors, including Newport Country Club.

Although my clients were successful in that challenge, it has been on appeal in the superior court where it remains.

Um and uh they had been hoping to get that done first before proceeding.

That was the reason for the delay, uh, but they do request a further extension so that they can hopefully complete it within the next period.

Okay.

Welcome.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that, uh request a motion to approve the extension for 275 Harrison Ab, plat 44, lot 121.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

No, someone's continued.

No, no.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry.

Applicate this is the application of Beatrice Witsgall up 364 Bellevue Avenue, Unit D 102, flat 34 lot 102 contributing for permission to replace one bathroom window at back of property.

This application has been continued.

Okay.

Late continuation.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Good morning.

This is the application of Christopher Piumara of 53 John Street, plat 28, lot 67-4, contributing for permission to construct a detached single-story garage.

Remove skylight at front visible at front visible roof and install two skylights on the non-visible rear roof.

Install two new entry doors, install one new window on the west side.

Remove the east facing cantilever deck and exterior door.

Remove rear egress stair, construct small four foot by seven foot rear addition at southeast corner.

Welcome.

This morning.

So help you, God.

Yes, I do.

And just state your name for the record, please.

Daniel Herkenrouther from Hercworks Architecture.

Okay, welcome back.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

Quick overview.

Yes, that'd be great.

So most of the renovations to this house are going to be on the back side.

That's where they've have this exterior staircase, and they have this like storage space below the staircase.

And they also have this kind of cantilever deck off the side.

But if you start at the rear elevation, it probably makes sense to start there.

And we're looking to get this back to a single family house.

So we don't need this separate egress stair.

So I think we can all agree the back elevation is a pretty good improvement over what's there.

And on the side elevation that faces the driver, there's a cantilever deck and a door up there.

The decks being removed, the doors being removed, and it's just going to be the roof as it used to be.

So that kind of takes care of the side elevation.

Regarding the front of the house, the uh front door, after seeing the staff report, we can work with the front door in the location it is now.

Um so I think that should make things easier.

The only thing we want to do is that there's two doors now, and there's like an eight-inch solid piece between the two doors because it was two separate entrances and now it's a single family.

We just want to have the two doors together.

So it's just getting rid of that thick style in the middle.

That's the only important element with the door that we would ask for for the front elevation.

But it'll be the same door, yeah.

Uh, I don't know that we'd like to have like a mahogany door, so it could be it would be the same style door, but just a wood finished door.

So we can see what type of wood the door is if it could be restored to that.

Um, but I know that the client wants a wood looking mahogany door as opposed to the paint grade ones are there.

But the the design and profile of the door would be exactly as the original.

Yeah, we'd match what's there, just wood instead of painted okay, and getting rid of that center style, but we'd use the trim facing style the door would be the same.

Um that should there's there's a couple, there's a skylighting removed, there's two skylights being added, but you can't see them from the right of way.

So I don't think we need to talk about that.

There's one window we're adding that lines up on the uh east side, I believe.

That's gonna line up with the windows.

Is that a new window or repurposed or it would be a new window?

Yeah, it's not the least, sorry.

It's um if you go to west elevation.

There'd be one new window added to match.

So if you go to the next sheet, there's a new window that shows up there.

Um, just because it lines up with what's above.

Uh but that would summarize all of the work to the house.

And then there's the um garage that we've shown.

Um, it's a 14-foot wide garage, 15 feet tall, single story, and there's just a little connection of the roof that connects the garage itself.

Um, and the hope is that this garage is 36 feet back from the property line, which is going to be about 40 some feet from the street.

So the hope was that this guy is in this view, it looks like it's right there, but it's gonna be way back.

And there's a lot of vegetation on the left side of this house.

So you probably won't see this garage unless you're standing right in front of it.

Uh, our hope is that the garage is set back in and it's only 15 feet tall.

It really is not that noticeable to the streetscape.

Can you speak to the length of the garage?

Uh it's 34.

So that was to fit a uh a garage bay in there, and then uh just a small space behind it.

Um, but I don't think you'll ever see the depth of this garage.

It's on the property line.

There's vegetation all along the side of it.

So from an aerial view, yes, you can see how deep it is, but I think from John Street, you really can't gauge that you can see how heavily vegetated the house is even seeing the existing house, you can't see it because of the trees in front.

So my drawings don't show the mutation because I want to show you what's happening, but in reality, I think that's a great view.

Um you really can even see what's going on back there.

You know, I think there's a there's a vehicle parked in the back, but because of the shading and the trees, um, my our hope is that it's not really that noticeable on the streets.

Is it visible then from uh memorial?

It's visible for memorial, but there's gonna be we're redoing the fence there.

So at 15 feet, you might see the very top piece of the roof, but I think you're down much lower on memorial, so your perspective coming up with an eight-foot fence.

I don't think you're gonna see anything.

That was my concern as well.

Um, I did go and walk down memorial.

I mean, essentially the back of where that van is parked.

Granted, you're gonna put up a fence there.

We don't have we don't know if that fence will be there in X amount of years.

Um it is very close to memorial.

Um, that's also why I was asking about the length of the garage from a scale perspective.

My concern from the back is that it could look as though it was connected to the main property because from that sight line, you know, you don't necessarily see that there's space in between that there's just this overhang.

So it makes it feel like it's one structure with the main building.

Um that was my primary concern relative to the garage.

Yeah, I mean, I think um I could I don't this there's no perspective use now, but I think it would be helpful to look at a perspective since you are down, it's it's down a lot of elevation, you're down I don't know, 12 feet or something because there's a huge wall there.

Um it might be helpful to follow up with a couple views, just because I think I think the view up looking at there's really gonna push the scale of the garage down.

Um I guess if you stood on the other side memorial, but then at that point you're gonna be 60 feet away from it.

I don't think it's gonna be very noticeable there at that point.

Um, so then my other follow-up question on that would be is it in your view required that the two buildings be connected by that overhang?

Yeah.

Um that's a good question.

I would check now.

That's a no.

That's uh they were just so close we didn't know if they should be connected, but if that's a big deal, it's not it's just the roof that's connected to for just some rain protection.

Okay.

Uh maybe we'll since we're on the garage, we'll stay on the garage for a minute and ask if any other commissioners have questions or comments, and then we can move back to the main.

That was that was my question as well about the connector between the garage and the house.

I I prefer to see it them separated.

Okay, that's that's easy to do.

I think it it's um more historically accurate to keep them independent of one another.

Is there a living space or any storage space on the upper portion of the garage?

There's not.

Is there um yeah, basically is 15 foot to the peak a requirement?

Uh it's not, it's just to get enough height on the side walls.

So we wanted to be eight or nine feet of a wall height before the pitch started.

Um we did match the lower slope of the main roof of the house.

Um it looks like oh, yeah.

15-foot number is was just to get okay head height and a and a little window above the garage door, but that's not an important number.

So if there's like shaving some off of that would help.

There's there's no second floor space that we need here, so we're not losing anything on the second okay.

I'm sorry, Kelly, was that an a condition you want to change?

Oh, not necessarily.

I'm trying to get a feel for the height of the garage and the scale of it compared to the house because it is really dense over there.

Any other questions on the garage?

Mr.

Bow.

Nope.

No, okay.

Um, okay.

So coming back to the main structure.

Um just gonna go through details of the application.

So removing uh the skylights and installing the new skylights on the rear, the um non-visible rear roof.

Any questions or comments there?

I'm good.

Um the installation of one new window on the west side.

So good there.

Um removal of all of the cantilever decks and doors.

Question the uh the deck that's gonna remain coming off of the third floor that was initially there to come out for the staircase.

Staircase is gone.

What's the need for to have a I guess third floor deck?

Yeah, it's just um we're we're reducing the size of the deck because there's not going to be the landing of the stairs going down, but there's still a third floor space up there, and it's nice to have the doors.

We're taking a door off on the on the east side, so it's nice to keep the light coming in that space.

It has pretty low ceiling heights up there.

Um, and the size of the deck, it's really couldn't fit more than like a chair and a small table.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and then lastly, I think we um discussed the well, any other, let me say any other questions or comments about that same third floor space we were just discussing.

Good with that.

Okay, and then lastly, I think we um spoke to at the beginning.

Um the applicant is willing to keep the location of the original um uh double doors in the west bay, um, with a new door specified in design, but it would be a solid wood door.

Everybody's good with that condition.

Yeah, but I have a question on the window slider in the back.

Oh, sure, we can go back, but so everybody good otherwise on the front, on the front?

Okay, so let's go back to the back.

Can we touch on that a little bit?

Sure.

Um so you're planning on putting a new door that's different than the ones that are there, because they have a like a picture window in the doors now.

Yeah, it would still have a picture window in it.

It's just instead of being a painted door, it's gonna be a mahogany wood stained door.

But no way you can strip and reuse the existing doors.

I don't know, it depends what kind of wood species it is.

Um we could look into that.

I just don't we could get more information later.

I don't know much about the doors this point, other than there's they're painted.

Sure, sure.

Uh I mean, I would guess that they're original to the house, so that would be my concern is maybe it can are they able to be reused.

Number one.

Number two is the door uh surround.

Like, are there any plans to change that, or can you just simply build in so that the doors we would keep the surround trim and then we'd be four inches of space on each side?

Sure.

Um we tried, I looked at I went to historical and new port historical to try to find old photographs because I would think there was a single door when this house was originally constructed.

So I think I doubt these are original because this was when it was converted to a two-family.

So I didn't see the concern about these doors unless you think the two-family house has preserving character that we want to keep.

Um if that's not the case, I think these doors would, you know, obviously there was an original single door in this spot.

If you were to make a double door, they would meet in the center, correct?

Like you'd be modifying it anyway, it wouldn't look like a two-family anymore, right?

Correct, yes.

We don't that's why we want to get rid of the it doesn't want to be two separate doors because it's now a single family.

Yeah.

So it's not like we're preserving what is really there.

Indicate that it was a two-family, yeah.

So it wasn't built as a multi-family, then obviously.

So it wouldn't have had doors like that.

Yes.

I just want to ask though, for clarification, because in the um findings of fact, it does say that the entrance is in the east bay and consists of two single light wood panel doors.

However, it says in our staff comments, they're moving the doors from the west bay to the east bay.

So does exist.

You're looking at the house, it's on the west side.

That's what I mean.

So it sounds from the maybe potentially from the nominating papers that the original location was actually on the east.

Um for this district, the there's no descriptions.

Um it's you know, Kimberly and I writing the uh the character defining features, so it may have just been an error in you know the penetration and the base.

Um so yeah, you know, based on the age of the building and the age of the doors, I would I would date the existing doors probably around like the 1920s-ish.

And so I don't believe that they're original to the house.

Um, but it's up to you to determine if they have acquired historical significance in their own right.

Okay.

And I think that's what Ms.

Moran was getting to, which I would agree with.

So would we um be open to trying to um restore the wood doors if possible if they can be restricted, stripped down and refinished, otherwise with a replacement of the similar style?

I'd I feel like I'd like to see more information on what the actual final product would look like if they're not going to be reused.

We can submit a photograph because um the client has these doors installed in another house.

And so we can send in a photograph of what they would be.

Um I can follow up on with Jillian on that.

That'd be helpful.

Ms.

O'Brien.

I feel as though the if these doors are indeed from the 20s, and that that seems consistent with the style of the doors.

They have uh they're a hundred years old.

They've achieved some character defining quality uh by virtue of their age, and by virtue of the fact that they've been installed in this house for probably that long.

I I prefer to know that whether or not these doors can be restored and retained, because our our standards very clearly call for um repair before the place.

Correct.

Yeah, I think the most important thing is that we can at least get rid of the center divider.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with getting the center to the door.

Then we can I I I'd hate to see those doors be lost if in fact they're as old as they're maybe we just say tonight that we restore the doors and we'll get back, keep that as the rulings so we can get a vote and we'll come back with more information as to what we find if we can't restore the doors.

Great.

Great.

Okay, so then let's go back to just the the door in the back.

Dan is that a slider would a French door work there?

Yeah, on the rear elevation, yeah.

Yes, yeah, it's shown as a slider.

Um we have we have some room in the back of the house.

If you'd rather see them be French doors, typically we would go with the French door, yeah.

Yeah, if we can make that change, that'd be happened.

Then I'm good with any other questions or comments.

Okay, just to summarize then where we've landed.

Um, so the application as presented, um, with a few modifications.

So the um original location of the double doors and the west bay to remain and the original doors to be restored.

Uh also removing the connection between the garage and the main structure, and on the south elevation, the doors to be updated to French doors instead of sliding doors.

Is that your understanding as well for those modifications?

Okay.

That sounds moran.

Sorry, I'm still processing things.

Okay.

Uh not to bring things back to the garage, but I'm looking a little closer at the sighting of it.

And can you confirm exactly how close it is to the property line, which is more or less the sidewalk on the memorial.

Uh yeah, there's there's a the property line, and then there's this like two or three feet.

The site plan shows there's about two or three feet of more property.

Then there's the retaining wall, and there's a sidewalk.

I only have the dimension that goes to the property line, which is about five feet.

But if you look at that, it's about five more feet to the sidewalk based on the thickness of the retaining wall and the piece of land between the retaining wall and the property line.

So we are five feet from the property line and about ten feet from the front base of that retaining wall.

Um, but we are up ten feet higher too.

So that does add the perspective.

Uh it's also in addition to the fence, there's gonna be landscaping back there because they want to have some privacy to the backyard.

So with eight foot high arborvitae, I don't think you're gonna see anything of the garage.

I am just noticing how close the house sits to memorial.

I mean, and it the garage is gonna be set back another five to ten feet, it looks like and looking up memorial.

I don't see that there's too much sitting right on the street, with the exception of the house on the corner of John and what is that one right there?

So I'm I'm kind of trying to compare to the house that is on the corner.

What is that street there?

Of Thomas, because that the back of that house does look like it sits about maybe where it like would that be about do you have the Google map, Jill by chance?

See that Google map for what are you looking for?

Memorial?

Just looking where the the back of the garage is actually gonna sit on the property.

And um far away is it from the stone wall itself.

Right.

Well, so what Dan was saying is like about 10 foot, you think from the face of the stone wall to the back of the garage.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

I mean, I same when I went down memorial, what you're looking at.

I mean, I was surprised at how close the main house feels relative to the street.

Um, and then the fact that it sits back, granted.

Now the property next door has a fence.

If this is still accurate, you see that height, but it is very much, you know, and we always talk about it's not just on the primary.

This is a scenario where it is very visible from that back view.

So I had the same reaction to what you're looking at now.

Yeah, I just think you can see the house to the left that has a fence and landscaping, how different it's gonna be once this has a fence of landscaping across.

It's hard to see though, the house next door.

I don't know the height of it from this view.

This house is very tall that we're talking about.

So I I know the house next door is much higher than 15 feet.

If you keep going up the road, Jill, a little more.

You're gonna see the house on the corner there.

See that kind of wall that sits right above the stone.

It's that's kind of what I'm envisioning for behind the garage, right?

It's just clapboard, there's no window or anything like that.

Uh on the back of the garage, there is something.

Uh it's about near elevation.

Oh, yeah, there is there are a couple little windows.

So it's not gonna be above the wall.

And I think if you go back to the arrow view, that house that sits to the east is gonna be closer than the garage is looked like it's like right on the corner.

But like you see how it sticks out.

That's actually touching the property line.

We're gonna be five feet back from that piece.

And it's only um 14 feet wide, is this garage?

So I it's gonna, I think it looks more like a shed than a garage.

And that would be typical to have the shed on the back corner of the site.

Is there any way of shortening it slightly?

I know it's a uh when you say slightly, like six inches anything counts.

Yeah, I don't know.

I mean I I don't think we want to do anything that would really chop it down, but um, I just I didn't think it was that much of a concern based on a 14-foot wide 15-fold uh high structure.

Because we're looking in it now with all the leaves on the trees, and I know you're talking about putting some arbor bodies and things like that, but I think a lot of memorial is lined with trees that are air in the winter.

I think these would be evergreens, but I also think the elevation views are misleading because you're looking on it straight on, not looking at it from a perspective view.

So it will never look as large as it looks in elevation view.

Right.

Did any other commissioners have any concerns about the size and siding of the garage?

That's one nation.

Could you come back, Dan?

Kind of like your street view rendering renderings you've done before.

You know, that would show it from where we actually would be standing with the fence itself and then the ground here.

Yeah, I could it'd be nice to get approval at least on the main house.

Yeah, so getting on construction.

Um the the garage, you know, as far as where the rear wall's gonna be.

Um I don't know if that's something to do it go through Jillian, or if we get to come back and do a whole minor hearing for that.

Um we couldn't talk about we would probably split the application.

Um, I do think depending on feedback from the commission, if that's something that we do think the garage needs to come back before us.

Um how do other based on the discussion that we've had this evening, does that feel more appropriate to split the application and request that?

Probably would that be something?

Yeah, I don't know.

It's up to the speech.

Yeah, I mean I think I would just have to show you a photographs or renderings that would show what you would see.

But um, it just it would be nice to get the as this can prove now, but understand that we can't do that.

I mean, I think just to address your applicant, um, I mean, we understand fencing, we understand landscaping, we don't have purview over that.

It's you know, fence may not be permanent in 20 years, the structure will be.

So this is a very visible.

This is a scenario where this street has streetscapes essentially from both John Street and Memorial.

That's why we're you know, just asking these questions.

Um other commissioners.

Um, and it's it's a it's tough because the one side of memorial is the back of John Street.

The opposite, the other side of memorial is is obviously zone business, and you know, it's it's kind of a complicated street.

And you know, I don't find this this roof line is kind of diminutive.

It it it it fits into the neighborhood in general.

I you know, if I were to view that peak from memorial, I don't think I find that disturbing um of my appreciation for the zone the historic district beyond it.

I you know, I I don't have a problem with it.

Okay, Mr.

Bala.

Um I'm fine with it.

I think it's uh diminutive structure.

I think you're going to be viewing it from memorial at much lower that you probably miss much of this building.

So okay.

Miss Richter, I'm fine with the plans as submitted, um, provided the breezeway is removed.

The other conditions, okay, Mr.

Madsen.

Um relative to the garage and the other changes I can build it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Miss Marin.

Just polling to get a sense of where we can take this for you.

Okay.

Yeah, uh, I definitely agree on the on the covered breeze way.

Um would I like to see the garage shortened moved or something?

Yeah, but we are playing with that back and back and forth.

You know, you're either getting closer to John Street or you're getting closer to memorial.

I mean, if we can take a little off of it, I feel like anything helps.

But then what does it mean?

I mean, I would keep in mind how much the client is improving the rest of the house here.

So like I hope you could take that in the consideration that what he's doing in the rest of the house is gonna be.

That thing's the worst looking piece of the whole house.

So if you think about how much nice that's gonna be okay, they give you some credit for a little 15-foot shed in the corner.

We do appreciate the change.

Let's pull it.

Okay, I I do think in um polling the commission.

I think that we have an opportunity to move this forward for this evening.

Yes, of course.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application at 53 John Street, plat 28, lot 67-4, as presented, um, with the condition that the original location of the double doors in the West Bay remains.

The applicant will uh restore the original double doors.

Um, we will update the um south elevation instead of sliding doors, they will be French doors, and then removing the connector between the garage and the main structure on the southeast corner.

Citing Newport standard 17 TAC 80 060 A1, 2 and 5 for the main structure, and 17 tact 80 tact 060 A1 and 7 for the garage.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ann.

Okay.

And six.

This is the application of 10 Franklin Street, plat 27, lot 49, non-contributing for permission to replace all windows and doors using wood doors and windows, which will be alum oh, and windows which will be aluminum clad exterior and wood interior.

Plan to replicate facade with matching double pane windows.

The grill pattern will be the same and will not be using insert windows for replacement windows.

Just gonna get you sworn in if I could have you raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

And if you could just state your name into the mic, please.

Yes, it's Susan to Silva.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Silva.

You can adjust that microphone to get it.

Yeah, you can tilt it down.

Thank you.

There you go.

That's okay.

Okay, welcome this evening.

Thank you.

Um, so if you could just give us an overview of what it is, the changes that you're looking to make.

Yeah.

Um, so the property um was built in 2000.

Uh we my husband and I purchased it in 2024.

Um, the windows are single pane, all of them, including the balcony doors.

And uh there is um evidence of significant water intrusion damage, uh dry rot.

And um we would like to replace all the windows and balcony doors with double pane um windows.

Okay.

We plan to keep the facade.

We love the appearance of the house.

We don't want to change the facade uh same growth pattern.

Uh just want the double pane for efficiency for um to address the water damage that we've noted.

Okay.

And do you have um or I don't recall if it was in the package of materials, the window specification that you're looking to use?

Uh yes, and um can speak to that.

We we actually had started the process and and obtained uh estimates.

Um and um this is the final estimate that we're we'd like.

Okay, so okay.

Thank you.

Um have additional photos of the damage of the windows if you'd like to be.

Okay, so I'm gonna um request a motion to accept exhibit A, which are cut sheets for the windows and doors for 10 Franklin Street.

So move second.

All those in favor?

Aye, all those opposed.

All right, we're just gonna have a minute.

We're gonna just pass these down, okay?

Thank you.

And are you from Marvin?

Oh, okay.

All right.

All right, I'm just gonna get to get you sworn in if you're gonna um do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you, God.

And if you could just state your name into the microphone for us.

John Ventura for Ventura Construction.

Okay, just repeat your last name for John Ventura.

Okay, thank you.

And so it looks like these are a Marvin.

Um, do you have the it's hard to actually tell with the spec ultimate?

They're aluminum clad.

Aluminum clad, okay.

And per our um staff comments.

Um, I believe the understanding was that um specs and okay.

So these are more the window cut sheets.

So we can accept these with the same with the other exhibit.

Thank you.

Yep.

Um, okay, so I think we're looking here to determine exactly which windows we want to use.

Um, there has been some question about inserts versus full replacement.

Um, is that something that you're amenable to updating?

No, we're not planning to use insert windows.

So the original estimates we received included that in the estimate, but that wasn't something that we were considering.

Okay.

So full replacements.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

I'm going to open it up for questions and comments from the commission after they review.

Mr.

Bell is ready.

No, I'm fine on this since it's uh not an insert.

So uh you currently have wood windows in the house?

Yeah.

And and you're um proposing to replace the wood windows with aluminum clad windows.

The exterior.

Yeah, right.

The exterior.

Um while your house is not historic, we typically would like to see wood windows in the historic district.

Um is that something that you would consider?

Yeah.

Uh and request that we do that windows.

We do allow right.

Do allow them.

Uh non-contributing buildings, which is it's it would just be a preference to see wood in the um district for compatibility's sake.

I mean, it is a pretty historic street.

Um but that's just my preference um to maintain the look of the of the streetscape.

I don't know what I don't speak for the commission.

That's just my my vote.

So and we do have, we say that that is on a non-contributing building.

Um, our guidelines are that it would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

So in some scenarios, that is something that we do review.

Um, other commissioners.

I just had a question on the door.

So that all the doors are being replaced as well.

Yes.

We plan to replace the doors.

Um there were there is some uh evidence of water intrusion, unfortunately.

We love the win the doors, but um there's if I have photos.

Uh I don't know that we can salvage some of the doors, to be honest with you.

Okay, and uh the new doors are gonna be mahogany, is that right?

Is what I'm saying.

Oh, they're gonna be a tape.

Do we need to accept it?

Yeah, I'm gonna request a motion to accept exhibit B site photos of the doors for 10 Franklin Street.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

I also appreciate old school printed photos, which is nice.

Um so Mr.

Madson, any other follow-up questions on that relative to the doors?

Well, when you see the photos.

That's a solid wood door, right?

You replace the front door as well.

Okay.

All right, I'm good.

I'm actually good with I'm sorry, so then that front door is a solid wood door that'll be replaced in kind.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

Um, just a broader follow-up question, understanding um the objective of your application.

Um, it seems that with the amount of water damage with the idea that is there a scenario here that is requiring other construction that's causing the water damage in which we need to be.

I mean, we can go forward and put through replacement.

I just want to have the context around that.

Seems like maybe there's an issue.

This is not really an this is not an old house, and it's just concerning.

Okay, so then we should make that note on because I don't think that is called out in the application, Jill, as far as the trim.

They're looking to replace all the trim as well.

Let me see if that was included in the application material.

Like if the other same madam chair.

No.

The applicant has some more photos of the status of the trim, I think.

Oh, okay.

Sure.

But the trim's not in the application.

Yeah, so not in the application.

So do we need to amend the application, Jill, to include if they're going to be replacing trim in kind as well?

As long as it's minor and it's in kind, then that can be done if it's considered a repair using the same materials.

It's considered a repair.

Um, so that doesn't require a certificate of appropriateness application.

Um, so I think anything minor around the the windows and doors will be fine as long as it's in kind materials and the the look of the building hasn't changed.

Okay.

Oh my god.

Um I will Jill, would you like me to add that as another exhibit or can I lump that in with exhibit B.

I don't recall what you said stated when you um the exhibit B originally was um photos of the doors.

Now we've added additional photos of the trim around the doors and windows.

Okay.

So with that, I'll request a motion to accept exhibit C.

Um, additional site photos of trim and exterior detailing for 10 Franklin Street.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Anything else we should be accepting or considering?

Not that I don't know what they are.

No, okay.

Okay.

Um, but some pretty considerable issues there.

Yeah, no, it's just solved, but may I ask what materials you're planning to use for the future trim here.

Something that will hopefully last a little longer than what is already rotted away.

Okay.

So if staff agrees, I think um we have consensus that we would be able to move forward with the application as presented as you're going through the project.

It seems if other things are coming up that would need to go through and um potentially put forward a new application.

Um, if that's if you're in a group goes beyond repair if they're planning on changing anything, anything material-wise or look-wise, and it'd have to come back to HDC or my review, but anything that's just a minor repair would be fall under exceptions.

Okay.

Thank you.

You know, once we start getting into it, would we come back to an apparent meeting?

Yeah, that would have to go ahead, Jill.

Demo and stuff like that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And it depends how much of the siding you would be planning on removing.

I typically handle those things over building permits, so I don't require a certificate of appropriateness for every piece of you know, everything that's removed as long as it's done in kind and I have documentation of the existing conditions, then um you should be okay.

But yeah, just contact me or put it through the building permitting phase and I will review it there.

Okay, so I think coming back to the point Ms.

O'Brien made, the rest of the commission, I think is aligned with as um presented this evening.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 10 Franklin Street, plat 27, lot 49, um, as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80060 B1 and 2 for non-contributing structures.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Good to go.

Um, these exhibits we do need to pass these to our preservation planner.

That's okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

So is it in point next?

Or see?

Are we done?

We didn't.

Yeah, we're gonna do more first.

Okay.

This is the application of Luke Fleury of 8 Beacon Hill, plat 41, lot 274 contributing for permission to convert two family residents into single family residence by adding an entrance portico and reconfiguring fenestration on the east elevation, replacing a window in the west dormer, alter fenestration in the south elevation sod, adding a Juliet balcony to the hayloft, installing copper half brown gutters, removing the field stone chimneys and replacing them with bow chimneys, and demolishing a buttress.

Okay, welcome, counsel.

Good evening, Madam Chair, J.

Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Overton Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

I have Mark Rapp with me who's the project architect to walk through the list of proposed changes to the uh exterior that were just uh cited as part of the description of the project.

Mr.

Rappelgate.

Sorry.

Oh, yeah.

I just I I just need to preface the the application.

Um so as of this morning, there has been a stop work order on this property um due to uh lack of doing work, exterior demolition um and work without building permits and without certificate of appropriateness.

Um I just want to provide you guys with some photos and context um and just let you know that the building as presented has changed, and so you need to make a determination if it has changed so materially that you would need a continuance and updated application materials, or if you're fine moving forward.

Um I will pull up those photos if it lets me.

Okay, cool.

Okay, so this is to the south elevation.

Um clearly there's been some work done here to that bay.

And then this is to the which elevation is this that's the south one, that's the east elevation.

Um there was the deck was originally there, and uh the proposed, you know, there were sliding doors or French doors there.

Um there currently.

So the if you look at that east elevation, the subcontractor that I don't know if it was the same subcontract that did the interior demolition, but obviously one of the subcontractors got ahead of themselves in terms of the work.

We acknowledge that as soon as the owner found out what was going on, told them to stop.

So that condition's been like that for a little bit.

Um the east elevation is if you compare it to the photograph that's in the application itself, you'll see that it's uh comprised of three three like patio sliders and a big wood deck was on the east elevation, and the contractor removed yeah, the the deck, uh the sliders, and then where the center sort of slider was, you see, he started a rough in the opening for what's before you this evening in terms of the proposed new entrance to the building uh on the east elevation that's going to be the proposed new front door.

So, you know, the work that unfortunately got started is work that's all in contemplation of uh what's before you this evening.

Seems to be a common practice of this particular owner.

Yeah, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna get into what the history is or isn't of this particular owner.

I'm here on the merits of this application.

And uh one of the subcontractors got ahead of himself.

Um so understood.

Um, Ms.

Chen also wanted to clarify in some of the materials that were presented, um, but were not part of the application.

There was a proposal for a second structure as a garage and a pool.

Um, given there's no other context, there's only a hand drawing in here.

The commission is not considering that work as part of this application, correct?

That's correct.

I mean, that's not the intention for this evening.

Okay.

That it's intended that a separate application will be filed for that.

Which, if we think about this as a holistic project, and applicants are able to do that and come back.

There is consideration to decisions we might make on the primary structure relative to siting of either the garage or what's happening on that um east elevation to the pool and changes that are being made.

So I just want to make sure that that's clear that anything that we would be reviewing, should this come back as a subsequent follow-up application on those materials.

It's very difficult to compare the two, and there are you know, we're not looking at them in tandem together at the same time.

But I just want to make sure everybody on the commission is clear that what's before us here should not be considered this evening relative to what was in the application.

Okay.

Okay, so before we um get started then, or if we will get started based on the information that's been presented by um Ms.

Chen this evening, what is the view of the commission relative to the work that's been done as far as having enough information this evening to proceed, or is a continuation of benefit.

Madam Chair, I I guess the way I would look at it is the pictures that we're looking at today as it is currently is not what's in the application, right?

Therefore, what we'd be approving is what's in the application, but that's not what's true today.

So I think it has to be resubmitted as to what is the current state of this particular building, what's been done, what's where it's been done uh erroneously, but we need to know exactly what the intent is of this property and where it's gonna go, you know, long term, inclusive of the other parts of the structure that are on that one piece of paper that we're not supposed to see.

So I think it's gotta be you know consolidated as to what's real, and this is what you're submitted, it's not what's real today.

So I think it needs to be resubmitted, it's my view.

Okay.

The photographs you're looking at would show that the work got started when it shouldn't have is not different than what's contemplated in this application.

So if we're talking about continuing this application for some type of additional materials relative to the main house, there I don't know what else we could provide because the plans are consistent with what got started, unfortunately, on the east side of the of the project.

So I don't know what other materials should be looking for, which would inform you better to evaluate this application in relation to the main house.

I think um looking at this facade in particular, well, I guess either one of them, it's unclear to the commission before us this evening if the original um materials that were used, including not only the side, the walls, the doors, the sliding doors.

If the commission were to make the um or have the opinion that those materials needed to be retained, we have no idea if that's even available.

Can speak to that to a degree, especially on the east side.

I mean, the deck you saw the photographs that were submitted with the application.

I mean respectfully, it kind of speaks for itself.

It's something that was added probably in the 80s, patio sliders and uh a pressure treated deck.

I don't think it's anything that adds to the historic character of the property or calls out for any type of uh retention in the new project.

Madam Chair, I just would like to make a point.

Yes.

Um so the property owner did not have permission to change the property as it was six months ago.

Um, and should this commission deny any application to the site, the property owner would be required to restore the property to the condition that it was um previously.

So I think that plans that were submitted that showed existing conditions are are pertinent to the commission.

That's what the commission should be evaluating this project against.

Um, but I I do understand concern about uh potential loss of materials.

Um, and I think that um is best understood uh from the applicant's representative in terms of as those issues arise, um, are there materials that may be missing and how might uh that that should be there and how might those materials return to the site in some fashion?

Okay.

Um, just any other questions then or comments about um uh in a different view from what council has advised or Mr.

Madsen about moving forward to hear the application this evening.

I don't know.

I mean, I guess we should hear it.

Okay.

Apparently there is no other information forthcoming.

Okay.

So with that, shall I get Mr.

Rapp sworn in?

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Rapp, if you will raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you God.

I do.

And just state your name for the record.

Uh Mark Rapp architect.

Okay, thank you.

Um, all right.

I think um best way to go through this um based on the um complexity of the application is to go through elevation by elevation, east-west and around the property.

Okay.

Um so let's start with the east elevation.

Yes, this uh this elevation, um the three sliding doors you see in the deck are not original to the house.

We don't know what was there originally.

We have no photographs or drawings of the house.

We can't survive what we're prepared.

It's obvious those three elements were not there at that time.

And well, based on the reconfiguration of the site, we're gonna give up the driveway access and shared by the neighbor, and the access is going to be directly from Beacon Hill Road.

So it's gonna necessitate an entrance to the house, which it doesn't have right now because it's a carriage house.

Two large doors in the south were the entry to the carriage.

Now it's gonna be a home.

So we're proposing using this east elevation as the entry to the house.

And with that, we propose uh a small pedimented portico, small porch at grade, and then an entry door in line with the existing turret, it's gonna be remain and restored up top, and then flanking by a pair of new windows, which will mimic or match the windows on the uh north facade of the building.

So that how the building, which is still shingled wall, sidewall, then slate roof would remain slate roofed and shingle sidewall.

So that was the proposal on the east elevation.

And so just to summarize then what is currently a secondary facade.

The proposal is to turn it into a primary facade.

Okay.

And you can see if that hard to see if that elevation, but a triangular portion with the new the new triple window above is a double entry height hall where that wall will just have windows fixed above, but then that small hip roof flip uh pitches towards you, and then the gable roof comes forward, so you have a little protection coming in.

And we tried to use the scale of the windows from the existing building for these windows.

They match either window B on the schedule.

Questions, Ms.

O'Brien.

So the existing east elevation, those three doors that we see there, those are all sliding sliding glass doors.

Yes, they were sliding patio doors for probably the 80s or 90s.

Got it.

Yes.

The photographs of inside you'll see the condition of the doors.

And I'm sorry, did we have um historical photos of the house?

Or the there's nothing.

Did you do a search with the historical society?

Historical society, I contacted Mr.

Grossventor, whose family had built the original house, the main house, and then the carriage house.

Check the architect's archive, the architecture record.

No evidence of the drawing or photos of the building.

Okay.

Nor from the report for the historical society.

Wish I had something.

All right, so any other questions or comments so far on the east elevation.

Let's move to the west elevation.

And this elevation uh it's gonna remain relatively intact.

We can see that four-paneled door with its transom light.

Is it actually a double-hung window to its left?

And no double home window will remain their original and they're gonna remain.

The small double hung window in the dormer, the second floor dormer was closed, replacing with a new double-hung window.

Because that window is up there, it's not original, later iteration from the 70s or 80s.

And then that that portion of the stone chimney we're proposing removed and rebuild as a as a faux chimney because that served a large boiler room building or the mechanical room in the thing.

So inside it's brick inside the building right now.

And then they added a stone veneer above it.

So we'd like to pick it apart, rebuild it, put it back so we can have this uh gain the space inside.

Slate roof gets restored, sidewall shingles remain, and the stone base remain.

The photographs don't do it just it's covered by plantings right now.

It's very difficult to see.

And so similarly here, um, what was the principal facade is being proposed to become a secondary facade.

This this you think the east, it could have been the entry, but it entered in it might have been a side door from the driveway, but there was other doors from the south, you'll see.

So we couldn't really determine if there was a principal entry.

I mean, aside from the carriage doors, which would have been a horse entry on the other side.

Exactly.

This would have been a okay.

Probably wasn't probably was a person entry, yes.

That's gonna remain.

But clearly becomes secondary to the proposed new primary facade that we're showing here on the east.

Which I could explain on the site plan, you'll see why it'll become secondary.

If you want to go to the site plan, I can explain why the sort of the orientation though, the building got flipped.

As you can see, the top of the sheet is the north and the bottom is the south, but along the red line at the top of Beacon Hill Road.

And to your left there, is it act is an easement driveway for a house up the hill that we're gonna remain just for the house up the hill.

We're not gonna access the building vehicularly from that road.

So we're gonna create a new driveway from Beacon Hill Road that leads you around and up the grade, and then we'll propose a three-car garage tucked into the ledge, and then the south side of the building, which will be tucked between the ledge out properly, and then the building will become a private uh outdoor pool area.

So that building is reoriented from the west side to primary to the east side, and the north elevation will be relatively intact from the street.

But just to clarify with council, this is not before us as material this evening, correct?

This I mean, the context of the repositioning of facades relative to the changes that are being shown here are not part of the application.

I I would look closely at the standards of review.

Uh in terms of what's under the jurisdiction of the HDC.

There's no pool or garage before you this evening, and the plantings and the driveway are not subject to HDC review.

Any historic walls, uh wells or anything like that on the property, no wells on the property.

No, not that we could find a lot of wetlands.

There's a well.

Yeah.

There's a stone well.

Apparently not.

Okay.

Um, point out this stone well location.

I was on the property today, and the stone well is probably located similar to where the um like in this area.

Okay.

So we don't have all of that information.

I don't know if you can see it on an aerial.

Huh?

Survey.

There you are.

I can't zoom in anymore, but I think perhaps this is it.

But did you recall seeing a stonewall with a little cap on it?

Oh, yeah.

But that I mean, if if you're presenting any other alterations, like if you're, you know, when the pool comes back, when the garage comes back, I think that should be included in there as well.

No, I it's on certain.

Oh, okay, perfect.

Okay.

Or is it on the survey?

Um right up along the brush line.

Oops.

You go up the page.

Right where the brush line goes to the left at the top, there's a circle and says stone well.

Oh, I see it, right?

Yeah.

Here, point point Frank on here.

Yeah.

Right.

Right, which is actually we can't touch that anyway.

It's in the wetlands.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think my question coming back to um the repositioning of primary entrances.

Um, and I agree with our staff report, um, standard A point two avoid conjecture, um, creating a false sense.

The proposed entrance portico on the east elevation may be considered conjectural as it adds a distinctive feature.

We should discuss if that porticle is easily distinguishable as a new feature.

Um, it's a dramatic change to what was clearly a uh secondary penetration.

So and based on you know, potentially resiting re-um the driveway, it could become very conjectural and people believe believing that that was the primary entrance to the building.

So that is a concern of mine relative to the updates being proposed for that east elevation.

So all right, so let's keep going around.

So we talked about that.

Um the west elevation, that door, the dormer replacing that window we had in the west dormer on that other drawing.

Um let's go to the south elevation.

And actually, Jill, before we get to the south, maybe if you could pull up the picture, if we move from the east to the south, there's a good photo of the southeast corner here, and then we can progress around.

So as we're making our way behind um to the back of the structure, which clearly shows uh the chimney and the buttress.

And so uh then if we go to the other photos, so next moving around, and then Mr.

Rapp, if you want to talk about the proposed changes on the south.

Yeah, uh on this, to go back to the previous photo, please.

You can see uh the primary chimney is intended to remain the windows, the two double hung windows flanking the chimney were they're not original.

And that door behind that storm door is not original either.

So those we proposed replacing the new double-hung windows and a new entry door, the back.

Also the two left carriage house doors to the left remain in place in between the pair of carriage house doors, there was a contemporary man door we want to remove, and then uh on the second floor, all of those window, all those double hung windows, the second floor, two, four, six windows are not original to the house, but the pair of doors at the hayloft entry is original.

We're gonna keep that.

And the mistake on the drawing I had was that that balcony is existing.

We're not proposing the balcony, it's existing now.

So I made a mistake.

I forgot to put it on the existing condition drawing.

It's on the proposed drawing.

So that metal balcony is going to remain in place.

It is there, and then the turret above the windows of the turret would be restored.

So that's the this proposed scope of work on the south elevation.

Skylights would also remain to the roof.

They're not a ri they're not original, but they're gonna remain.

And what is the reasoning to remove the chimney and the or to rebuild the chimney and to remove the buttress?

Well, the no, the chimney on this elevation south of that chimney is going to remain.

The buttress has a clear, a clear joint line between the buttress and the chimney.

So they added it at a later date.

I don't know what the purpose is because it's not inside, it's not holding anything.

There's nothing behind it of weight.

So we don't know what it did.

So I propose moving it to make a space in the back, that's all.

And if I could just ask staff in the findings of fact, character defining features, are these from the nominating papers?

So it's clearly stated that a field stone exterior and chimney and buttress is defined as a character characteristic of this property.

I understand.

Okay.

Yes, correct.

Yes.

And what was the reason again on the other chimney?

Just going back to that, that you had to take that down and put up a photo.

We'd like to, it's still there, but it it inside it went to a large boiler, like mechanical room or served to warm up the carriage house.

And it's just brick inside.

So we need what we'd like to have that space back for the uh two floors.

And so we'd like to remove the stone, stockpile it, cut it thin, and put it back on a full box again.

Remain intact, it would remain the same size and stone that's there now.

It's not functional right now.

It's not going to be functional.

Yeah, I've seen it done with brick, but I haven't seen it done with stone.

I mean, it's a little trickier, it's a little thicker.

We have to cut it, but here we have the stone, it's already a veneer on a brick chimney.

I mean it's a brick chimney and it's veneered round itself.

Do we as far as materiality?

Do we think that that field stone is a veneer, or that's original field stone?

I mean, it's hard to make the determination without photos in front of me.

Um I think if you believe that the stone is a you know character defining to the structure, um, then that should be retained, but without evidence, I can't say one way or the other.

Okay.

Ms.

O'Brien.

Are the windows in that upper level?

I mean, they they look like they're old.

And you and it appears that you're remote you're removing them all.

They're they're well, the relative term, they're they have spring balances weights and they're insulated in the wood frame, insulated windows with spring weights and balances.

So they're not original to the building.

So I have um some broader questions about windows overall and the um window evaluation, the date of the windows, uh, you know, speculative of whether they're original or not.

Um, we do have very specific guidance around a window inventory.

What is the information that we're looking for?

Each window to be cataloged with more detail than what we've been provided in these photos.

Um, I would not be in a position this evening to weigh in on windows without having more information.

That would be something that I would need to see more detailed um information from you know a true window inventory.

Okay.

I think that we can have our preservation planner, or you can go online and look at our window guidance.

We have very explicit um examples of a proper window inventory that states um the intended year of the window, um, more details around the condition if they can be restored, if they need to be replaced.

Um of the details that you have in here, but it's not conclusive of all of the details that we need to be able to make a proper evaluation.

And that may not be coming from yourself, it might need to come from another um window expert that we have seen reports come from before.

Um, understanding you're an architect, but it may not be that you're the one to provide that window inventory.

Understand.

Um I think in addition to that, it appears that you are moving windows with new windows, uh, particularly on the north elevation.

Um so I think we need some type of no.

If you can pull up the door, I don't think the left elevation, they're all the place they were.

Uh the window on the north east corner, dining room.

Um near your entrance, new entrance.

Yes.

Um the existing window seems to be in a different location than the window is that you've drawn.

We look at the elevation, please.

Yeah.

This window here.

Yes.

And this window here.

Yes.

This distance here and this distance here seems to be different.

Okay.

Needs me to presume that the windows move.

Um so I guess we would need to see some type of indication of that happening.

We were done like we could put it back in that location.

It also seems to be a different size.

The one that changed it to match the other windows on the north elevation.

The window in there right now is not original.

So the window on the left is not original.

Doesn't match the other window elevation.

Yeah, same thing here.

Correct.

This window and that window, right?

Two different locations.

It's those type of things that you know.

Well, that windows are casement pair casements up there on the corner in the gable.

So that's not original either.

That's pretty obvious.

So I propose to prove fixing the elevation and trying to improve that, but you can always go back to the old windows.

Well, not old windows, but the 60s and 70s windows.

I guess the concern is that without an inventory of the windows, we don't know if there is an old window of significance, particularly in the um turret.

They're going to remain.

One of the turrets would remain.

But they're two or a galaxy windows right now.

So they're not original either.

But it's just that expression of they're not original doesn't mean that a window inventory isn't appropriate.

I understand.

We have one person come to us with they want to replace one window when we require that information.

So we can't really say to you, well, it's enough for you to say they're not original.

Yeah.

In addition, it looks like you're proposing aluminum clad windows for the replacement.

There were the pillow reserve or the putty.

Ones we've used in other parts of the city.

Our guidance on contributing buildings strongly recommends wood windows.

I understand that.

I would say I could not make a decision tonight on based on this application.

Without more details.

In addition to the window survey, what else would you like to see?

If you're moving windows, I'd like to see why and where I'd like to see your proposal for the final windows.

Opposed to just a text saying it's aluminum clad.

I would add, um, although the photos that we are seeing in the application show whether, and again, it's speculative whether things are original or not, but from photos that we've been provided this evening, some things have been taken out of the building.

Are those still remaining?

Have they been cataloged?

What is available if it needs to be put back?

It's really as we step through each one of these, and that's why I went through each one.

There's a lot of questions in addition to just the overall windows.

Um I agree with Mr.

Bala that it would be very difficult to with the information before us this evening for myself to make um judgment on any or you know, come to a vote on any of the aspects of the application as presented.

Unfortunately, the contractor went too far with the demolition to reveal that under the slate roof is a cedar shingle roof on the entire building.

I mean, this, and it's not to say, I mean, we see historic properties before us all this evening.

This is from 1890.

Um, we've had other scenarios where some demolition has already started on properties that we've had to come back and we've had to go through step by step before any further fabric was lost.

Clearly, there's a building stop order before us.

Um, but an evaluation such as that, okay.

Maybe there was a cedar roof there originally and it wasn't slate, those would be things that would be able to be documented so we could make that determination.

Right now, you're saying you want it to be slate.

Is it gonna be slate or is it going to be cedar shape?

I I couldn't take the roof off to find it.

So it was allowed to remove the roof until we get approval.

Right.

I understand that.

But it sounds like now I know from some work that's been done now.

So we just keep peeling back the layers of the onion.

Um that's my opinion.

I agree with Mr.

Bala that there isn't enough information this evening before us, or if it was asked to, we'd have to make a determination one way or the other with the information we do have.

And you're just if I could for some additional guidance.

Uh some of your inquiry was focused on you know, the transition from what I suppose may have been considered a main entrance on the west side versus the east side.

So I I'm trying to I'd like to have a better understanding.

Or are your concerns the design as presented, or you're concerned that there's going to be a change in the function of the east side of this building.

Yeah, I think for myself, other commissioners might have a view.

It really changes the narrative of the use of the building and where that primary entrance would have been.

Um understanding the so-called proposal to move the you know, the location of the driveway.

I understand that, but that as we have received in our staff report, which I agree with, that also creates some conjecture around what was the primary entrance of the building.

So definitely.

All right, so your concern is not conjecture relative to the design or the materials.

I would say it's it's conjecture of the location.

I also think it's dramatically changing that facade, regardless of whether it was not necessarily being um put forward as an entrance, the amount of work that's being proposed to the east, that's the east side.

Um, whether there was a door there or not to the level, even if you took out the portico and you changed all those other windows, there likely wasn't all of those windows on the original property.

So entrance aside, that's part of it in terms of the conjecture aspect, but if you took the door and the um portico off there, it's still very different than what it is that we see above.

I mean, we're completely changing many of the facades on this and taking historical structures off.

I mean, the buttress alone, which is in the you know, nominating papers is a defining feature understood.

So aside from the buttress, and and I don't think there's is there a problem with that remaining?

I'm focused on the east side, and um essentially the other three sides are fundamentally remaining intact, including the west side, which I suppose we're looking at as the main entrance prior to the renovations that are proposed here, and so I'm I'm trying to get a better feel as to redesign the east side and it will work, or is there a census that you don't want the the main entrance on the east side because that may be a significant you know, sort of redesign or or revisit on this project?

So it's one thing to to come up with a better plan for the east side, but if you're saying commission doesn't want the entrance on the east side, that's that's a whole different ballgame for us.

So I'll only speak for myself.

I think that the rearrangement from what was most likely a secondary fenestration to a primary changes the narrative of the building.

So I am not in favor of moving that to be the primary entrance to the building.

I'm in agreement with that.

I agree with that as well.

What's that?

Yeah.

Well, I mean, functionally, the primary entrance has been on the south side.

You know, since it's been, I would suspect, since it's been actually a dwelling, as opposed to simply being stable.

And just to comment here, I mean, although you know carriage doors are remaining and you're not touching the dorm up above, but there's significant window updates that are being made on the first floor of this elevation.

I would consider those in a historic structure significant.

Probably the facade that's changing the least is the west.

Um there's window changes going on to the north.

Okay, Mark had just asked me.

So what would again, just in the entrance of in the interest of coming back here next month and being productive, what would are you suggesting that the main entrance remain from what you perceive to be the main entrance on the west, or or we should be we should we be working from the south?

I think I'd we'll open it up for other commissioners.

I've shared my view, so in my view, Mark.

Uh the the entrance just when I went around the building, it did appear to be the south side, right?

So you know, if it's too too family today, there's only one door on the on the on the west side, so that was probably a secondary door of some sort.

You know, I would expect to see the doors from this side would have been my original expectation.

You know, had I not looked at the the floor plan, you know, I wouldn't know what's going on on the east side, but I would always assume that it was just gonna be a solid wall, you know, where it was cannibalized over the years to put in the sliders, etc.

Uh, but it was never if it was obvious to me that was never a primary entrance side, right?

So to avoid any conjecture that it was, then yeah, I would think the most logical would be to me anyway, is this south elevation.

So okay.

But we saw the driveway from Beacon Hill Road because they're giving up the easement for the other driveway, believe.

Would they have to come in for Beacon Hill Road with a vehicle?

It's not the being submitted to me yet.

So not our purview.

Yeah, I'm supposed to see that.

Other commissioners.

My sense of the project overall is that it's it's it's a very heavy lift.

Um meaning that the building is being substantially changed.

And the one the one facade that really has several of the character defining features remaining is that south side.

So I agree with Mr.

Madsen.

To me, I I would think that this would want to be your area of emphasis.

I mean it's the it's it's the it's the side of the building that that remains the most original.

Um I I don't I I agree with our chair that the portico changing the portico to that east elevation is part of the heavy lift.

I mean, you know, it's just kind of like very random and it doesn't strike me as being all that well thought out.

Um I I'd like to, I don't know.

I'd like to see the building oriented towards this this south elevation simply because I think it's the most um significant one.

I'm just one vote also.

So um, but I I do feel that we absolutely couldn't make any decisions without seeing the window inventory.

Um a little more detail on on replacement of that chimney that you intend to resurface.

Um I'm not in favor of losing the stone buttress, which is a character defining feature, clearly.

Um I just think there's too much we don't know about the project overall, and I I think that the um the switching the swapping of all the facades is is um is just not doing service to this building.

So any other um would you like more feedback?

I think I've got enough.

Okay.

Yeah.

So uh yeah, we'd be happy if you can continue this and we'll go back to the drawing board a little bit on this.

Okay, and certainly I mean that one window evaluation is critical.

It needs to have all the information.

As I said, we have excellent guidance that outlines the details that need to be included.

Um that we would be looking for to make any assessment on the windows moving forward.

So with that, I will also want to know where the pieces that have been removed are yes, documented in that any of the material that has been removed from the structure per the photos that we've seen, that should also be cataloged in that inventory.

Also, if I may just interject, I think it may be helpful to, you know, if you are proposing a pool and and garage, it would be helpful to, you know, clearly the the south elevation is now proposed to be the you know the rear elevation rather than the primary, um, based on the setting of the pool and a proposed maybe outdoor kitchen, although this is not in front of us today, having the full picture to kind of see what the uses of the spaces and how that you know interacts with the um the proposed changes could be helpful.

So if you do have time in the next month to to get that together, you know, Russ and Mark, we can have discussions um on that ongoing.

So that would be one of my recommendations.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

So I'll request a motion to continue the application of eight Beacon Hill Road, Plat 41 lot 274 to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, September 9th, 2025.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, fast.

Um we only have one left.

Do you guys want to just power through?

You want to break?

Anyone need a quick reset?

I think we can keep going.

Power through.

Okay.

All right.

Um this is the application of KHP Capital Partners of One Bellevue Avenue, plat 25, lot 124, contributing for permission to replace all windows and exterior doors in the main historic block.

Hello.

Okay, welcome back.

We'll get you sworn in.

Sure.

Just raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God.

I do.

And just state your name for the record, please.

You're Jeff Monas.

Okay, Mr.

Monas, welcome back.

Nice to see you again.

Um, so I guess I'll just sort of pick up where we left off.

I'll summarize a little bit where we kind of left it the last time.

Um, so as I mentioned in the last meeting, it started as a restoration project um through the due diligence of environmental testing of the building.

Uh asbestos was discovered in the windows.

Uh so this turned into a replace project.

Um we are proposing to replace it basically an in-kind replacement.

There's no new openings proposed.

Uh the existing trim is all salvageable and restorable.

So all the existing exterior trim and the sills of the windows will remain.

It will just be a one out and one in.

So essentially the surround of the window stays intact, and we are just replacing a new new window in place of the asbestos old windows.

I know there were questions at the last meeting about the uh testing and how the determination was made.

So I do have Jeff Diarrigo from Sage here.

He can answer some questions based on that.

We also had a third-party uh asbestos group.

Um it was MDA, uh, Monty Degnan associates.

Uh he went to the property a couple times.

He wrote a determination that was submitted in the file uh with you as well.

Uh so he's a third-party asbestos person.

He reviewed Jeff's results and findings and uh basically confirmed them for us that he would review this in the same way and require that the windows are removed and disposed of uh appropriately.

Um since the last meeting I said we had submitted an abatement plan through the Department of Health.

Uh so that's been received and approved.

Uh so the Department of Health is aware of the situation here.

Um, so we are sort of working with those bodies as well as uh being construction who will be doing the replacement themselves.

Uh so we're here to basically talk about how we got here with the window asbestos determination.

Um, the window spec itself is the pellet reserve.

Um we talked last time about wood exterior versus uh clad exterior.

Um I would like to sort of talk about that again, but I did want to bring Jeff up first to uh answer any questions you have about the determination of the asbestos if you have some okay.

All right, I think we will have come forward and get you sworn in.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So help you God.

And just state your name for the record, please.

Jeffrey D Irigo.

Okay.

Uh D apostrophe A R R I G O.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay, if you could um just walk the commission through understanding the details that were provided in the first meeting.

Um, I also did watch that meeting and understood a lot of the questions that the commission was asking.

I think the summary and commissioners correct me if I've misunderstood, um, because it's taken from a um a selection of windows, then there's an assumption that it applies to everything.

So I think the commission really wanted to understand is it in fact that all windows are um or have been found to have um the asbestos, or is it only that selection?

So if you could walk us through that process so everyone here is clear um what the findings represent.

Sure.

Um so basically the way we do asbestos inspections is we come into a property and we look at the various building materials.

And the regulations um have you group those building materials based on color, application, texture, time frame.

Um in this case, we're looking at the window systems.

So typically we're looking at glazing and caulking around the frame and also on the window uh glass is typically where we're going to find asbestos.

Um, unlike a product like a floor tile, you know, which is a very distinct in color and um configuration.

You can look at a floor tile and say that's the same as that floor tile as that floor tile.

Um when it comes to windows, it's a little more difficult.

Um all the windows will essentially typically be painted the same color, will look the same.

Um, so what we do is we grab little pieces of what's available uh on the building material and that gets submitted to the lab.

Um asbestos is a microscopic fiber, uh, so you cannot see it with the naked eye.

So it does go to the laboratory and they put it under the microscope uh to identify if any asbestos fibers are present.

Um an asbestos containing materials is any material that contains asbestos greater than one percent.

Um in this case, and we looked at the various windows, particularly just the wooden double-hung ones and uh ones that appear to be original.

Uh, there are some other windows that we were aware of, uh like a vinyl uh replacement window.

A lot of those uh components on those windows are like rubber and like plastic, things like that.

We wouldn't typically sample that for asbestos.

So what we're interested in is the glazing putties and the caulking.

Um, and in these cases, they're applied typically, you know, they will the from our understanding of how a window is constructed, uh, they would put the glazing putty in the group and then kind of fit the glass in there originally.

Then over time, as you know that deteriorates, falls apart, and people you know patch it, but then they paint it uniformly usually.

So it's very common for us to have uh varied results on these types of systems.

A lot of times we'll have several negatives and one positive.

So the assumption is when you find that positive sample, no matter how many samples you take across these windows, um, you can't eliminate that positive.

You have to assume that it's present in some capacity throughout the similar building system.

So in this case, because we have positive results on some of the samples that we took, we have to assume that if we were to continue sampling, we would find similar results in some capacity on those same windows.

Um, because again, we're taking a very small piece and sending it to the lab, and usually with window blazing, if you get too if you press too hard, you know, with your utility blade or a flathead screwdriver or some other type of instrument, you can you can break the glass pretty easily.

Um active hotel, and you know, us as samplers, we got to take the samples very cautiously and try not to cause damage to the system.

Um, so in this case, a lot of the samples are coming from accessible windows that we can reach and get access to, and then also um material that is becoming loose or dislodged or easily obtainable uh without causing damage.

Um, so based on those considerations, when we do have positive uh samples that come back as asbestos containing material, the regulations recommend that you treat all those materials that are similar based on those uh criteria as asbestos, and this is typical in all of our inspections.

We would we would handle windows like that.

And is it um correct to assume then that the sample size is relative to the size of the building and the amount of windows, or is it okay?

Yep.

So you have to, it's considered a miscellaneous material.

They characterize asbestos by various um uh categories as surfacing materials, which would be sprayed on, trawled on, like a fireproofing, a spray on fireproofing, a plaster system with a skim coat.

Um, then there's uh miscellaneous materials, which are random materials like um uh floor tiles, code base, window glazing, things like that.

Um, surfacing material has very specific criteria for based on square footage and linear feet for minimum samples.

Miscellaneous is the the uh regulations just specify one sample or more.

So it's we interpret that as a minimum of two samples.

So in this system, technically, by the regulations, you could collect just two samples and base your determination on that.

A good inspector looks at a building and says, you know, we have 150 windows.

We can't just take two samples, we want to get a fair representation.

So in this case, we started off the survey with let's get the the ground level, any vacant rooms we can maybe get the window open and get some material.

Let's let's approach it like that.

Um, and then if we get all negatives, maybe we got to keep going because we don't have a full understanding of this.

But once you get a positive, you have to assume that you know, if someone was to grind this sand this or start to manipulate this, there's a chance they could be disturbing the asbestos fibers, and that's why the regulations are designed like that.

Okay.

So I think where we got hung up, um, and thank you, that was really helpful.

I think where we could we got uh a little bit hung up the last time was about this homogenous group.

So we understood your report to say that seven percent of um two homogenous groups had the asbestos.

So then we've said, well, what about the six other homogenous groups?

Because we're talking about such a big scale, right?

I think it's 144 windows, and I think you understand that we're very pick particular about um restoration of windows to the extent they can be restored.

So um what, if anything, can you tell us about those six other homogenous groups?

So essentially when we take the chip or the piece of material off, we're looking at the color of it.

Um, so we'll group them based on the color, the location um and what we can find.

So in this case, the inspector that did the inspection uh from our office, he saw various colors, so he was grouping them as he saw them.

That way, if something comes back positive in that group, we know it's potentially present on all these windows based on looking at the window and seeing it as the same configuration.

So if the window is different, um, say it was a steel frame window or something like that, we could potentially go back to that window and say, okay, the steel frame window glazing is clearly different from the wood frame window glazing.

And the only justification we would have to even make that claim in a lot of sense is just because it's constructed.

But the materials, a lot of times when you look at glazing party, it could be multicolored, it could have a little tan in it, a little gray, a little white.

Um so you do your best to look at it and log it in the field of how you see it.

But in essence, if you have it identified on a piece of material, like a building component, um, and you can't visibly discern it.

Um, no contractor would be able to visibly discern it either.

Um, so we have to then conservatively assume that it's present on the same types of systems.

So that's how we came up with, you know, even though there were negative homogenous material groups likely present on these same same windows, there was at least one that was positive and could potentially be present in the layers and and deeper in the glazing systems.

Does that make sense?

I know it's a little bit more.

So just so I I'm clear.

Has the have you made the conclusion based on the regulations that based on what you found all groups have to be considered to have asbestos in them?

All the window types, yes.

Yes in the locations.

Okay.

That that's helpful to know.

Sorry, can I ask one more question kind of on the same vein?

When we're talking about groups, right?

So we're we're we're looking at a window, right?

So we've got a gray glazing group, a white, and a tan.

Now, are there also groups branched off from there where I don't know, the window, this this one has wavy glass and this one does not, or this this paint is different.

This is a grayer paint than this black one.

So now are all these groups considered to be the same, or are they separated in another that's exactly how we would be able to separate like a window system?

We would look at the difference in glass, the difference in shape, the difference in size, um, you know, if it's a fixed window versus if it's an operable window, um, because they're typically painted all the same color on a we that would be the way that we would try and look at those separately.

So would that that mean there are three groups because we have three glazing colors, or does that mean we have six groups because we have three glazing colors and these other varying factors?

That's I guess that's what I'm trying to understand about these testing groups is like how exactly they've been split up and is there a way to actually narrow down to say, okay, this one has black paint, it's not in that group.

This one has the white glazing, that one's not, and then we are able to narrow down to which windows exactly are the problematic ones.

Is that possible?

I do get what you're saying.

Um it would be possible if the windows exhibited some difference in characteristics.

So the reasoning that there's multiple groups, um, there were no difference in windows.

So we were looking physically at the material itself and trying to group those different putties so that we weren't just grouping them all into one group and potentially missing things.

So we wanted to try and collect aggressively as many samples and many different colors that we were observing, but they were all in the same window style.

So they were in the same building component.

So we wouldn't split those out in our interpretation once we got the results.

And then because they're all the same style of window, if this one group has it, they all have it, and that's where we're exactly where we're at right now.

Unless we had you know documentation, like the building owner said, well, those two windows on either side of that door in front, they look exactly the same, but I replaced those two years ago.

That would be anecdotal information that we may be able to justify splitting those two windows out, you know, and say, well, okay, well, let's take a closer look at that glazing and take more samples, and maybe we can make an argument that that should be separated out from the rest.

Okay.

Is there testing on the outside and the inside of the windows?

Uh sometimes for sampling.

Sometimes.

So if the frame or the window system has suspect material on the inside, we test that as well.

Um it depends on how the window is installed.

Sometimes I see there's no glazing on the outside, it's only on the inside.

Um, sometimes there's no caulking at all, it's just like a pin system with like mortar route.

Um, and it doesn't have caulking.

Um so we do look at that, the interior and exterior.

Typically, we'll consider like plastering and things on the sides that may be incidentally disturbed as well.

We'll sample that.

Um we did so I I know I mentioned it last meeting, but I mean there's only one window that opens right now.

It's a little interesting top.

Yeah, so there's exterior sampling done or reshape on the base, and you know, get around like on different decks and pieces of the roof.

And occasionally you get some I I guess you can call it over spray, but like the losing of the putty comes through the glass on the inside.

So occasionally you could find like a small little tiny heat or something that you can get a little bit of that.

Some of it done there, it's like sure if we went up with the fourth floor and really dug into the exterior getting higher percentages.

Oh, you get a lot more positive results for sure.

Sorry, what was that last part?

About more positive results.

If you took more samples, I would buy the hedge my bets, you would get more positive results.

So if we if we assume that all the windows have this condition existing.

Um is there a way to mitigate that?

In terms of uh Can you paint them?

Can you coat them with something?

Can you know?

Um purely from the lens of the asbestos.

Um any disturbance to the asbestos material is considered abatement.

So then it has to be done by specially trained um individuals, uh, like a licensed abatement contractor.

So you can't be absolutely it can't be it's contained to window fee.

It's it's just like you know, like lead can be sort of painted over and sealed, but they still do the dust sets to make sure that there's no bed so asbestos still a liability because it exists there.

It still can be and there's no method of encapsulating asbestos.

Windows windows are challenging because they're they're operable, they're touched with your hand, right?

If it's an exterior building piece that can be encased, then no one's actually physically engaging with that element.

That's one thing with this not because you said they're not operable.

Well, if we left them inoperable.

I mean it's still when people still put their hands on it.

People still go to the room when they don't know their windows not operable when they just went up.

So go ahead.

Yes, please.

Further regulation, you can leave the asbestos in place, but you can't have disturbing so the repair becomes an issue, you know, because they have to try and manipulate the glazing putty, get it to a surface that they can paint patch repair.

So you know, it becomes problematic, and this comes up on a lot of projects.

It's it's usually the question for me is how can I reduce how many windows I'm removing?

And we always end up at the same spot.

We just gotta pull them.

Um, because no one wants you know an abatement contractor trying to remove the the glazing or do a painter's job.

Um, and it just becomes very difficult to do that because of the damage you end up causing to the unit.

Either the wood gets damaged or the glass gets damaged.

Um, you know, they can't be sent out like just to a place to refinish them in a shop.

It would all be done on the building with a bathing contractors.

Um enclosure and encapsulation are methods that you can utilize on some materials, like a flooring.

You could roll a new flooring on top of that old flooring and effectively and close it.

Um but with the windows, you know, you're in a little bit of a uh a problem because there's not a real good way to enclose it.

Um we've seen frames getting like uh the trim getting closed on window on buildings before uh whether cover them or encase them with like a vinyl or an aluminum.

Um but in terms of like the actual window, you'd be kind of sealing them and you know, you wouldn't be able to really manipulate them attach them.

Thank you.

A question, uh and it's fine if you could say you don't know, but do you have a sense of the the vintage, the years in which uh putties and caulking uh contained asbestos above this one percent threshold?

Um asbestos was never fully banned, so we actually have an obligation to test all vintages of buildings, even right up to if you built the building yesterday and wanted to demolish it tomorrow.

I would still have to sample all the building materials.

Um it's been used throughout the years.

It's highest use was probably in the the 50s to the 70s, was most prevalent, but it was used prior to that as well.

It's been used actually back to like in the Egyptian days.

Um naturally occurring, it's a rock fiber, it's fantastic properties.

Um it's acid resistant, it's uh fire resistant, it has really good strength.

Um so they added it to everything.

I've found it in stuff that would you wouldn't never imagine one of them.

And they used it as for repairs as well.

So it's uh initial asbestos that could be part of it.

What's the patching that's usually more of a concern that has a guaranteed the handymans what just patching stuff and probably getting exposed, you know, as well in the process, um, unknowingly, you know, getting exposed to the asbestos, but it was very common for them to be patching, you know, doing things that they probably shouldn't have been doing.

Thank you.

One comment that I made last time um that um I think um deserves repeating is that you know when we're looking at a small number of of windows, it's very easy to address.

But in the context of a big building like this, my own view is it that the big picture should be looked at, which is 144 operable windows at an iconic building.

Um, so um I am still in support of this application, you know, for that very practical reason of uh the location and my view that operable windows is um an important feature.

Okay.

So you said asbestos has never been fully banned.

It's in a lot of things, right?

I mean, I know I have it in my house in my basement, it's probably in this building, it's in school buildings.

We find them all the time, right?

And um, I was trying to dig into this a little bit, but it seems like the Department of Health, like they require that there's some disclosure of its existence and that there's some kind of a plan in place for right, like for a school, right?

We don't take the kids out of the school.

They keep going to the school, whether there's asbestos or not, or you know, we there just has to be disclosure in a plan.

So I'm just wondering, you know, uh, is the is the right thing to do to just scrap all these windows?

I know that it's not an easy correction here.

Maybe there is a two-step process where there's remediation and then restoration of the windows.

I don't even know how that can be done.

It's a lot of I I get where you guys are at, but I just I'm still trying to understand how a little extra beat a conk on the inside of a window is is really putting all of these children at risk when they're in this hotel room for one night or two.

I I it I'm just yeah, I don't see this as justification to remove all of these windows from the building.

So from uh an asbestos point of view, it's it's more the disturbance you would cause from any type of repair or paint or or anything like that.

So we shouldn't touch them at all, we should just leave them.

That's uh sort of like some of it's they call it fire, right?

Some of it's not tribal right now, but it can become fridable over time.

So there's this sort of continuation of digging scanned out to be scan.

But your point by the letter of law, you can maintain it in good shape.

However, the act of doing that becomes problematic.

Understand there's no easy answer to any of this.

Because as a homeowner, you can make that determination yourself, right?

With a public building, nobody's gonna ask the builder, building owners to make that determination on behalf of the thousands of users that are coming that building figure.

Just assuming that these people are all fine that they're just necessarily.

Well, and and I just want to go back to the the children, you know, how do how do the children who are putting their or the parents who are putting their children in these schools?

How does it happen in that sense?

You know, how are they different?

Is what I'm trying to how are they different?

Why does this property which doesn't actually house school children all the all day long?

Many like uh how that gets encapsulated.

I mean, I know when we did Cranston Calegar, the plaster has to pop for asbestos.

We had to remove an abate every square inch of plaster in that building at the get tag bag sent away, like it was all hot.

And there was no there was absolutely no possibility that they were being anything but that approval stuff.

I don't know how it works to be.

I can't imagine that if there's fireable asbestos in here schools.

I think the problem thing with schools is a lot of this is in pipe wraps and mechanical rooms, old water.

Or we just don't know yet.

Because it hasn't been tested, right?

You only know because it's been tested here.

Oh, yeah.

No, I mean the schools have are mandated to have an initial inspection done, which is basically it's a it's a cataloged room by room with the existing finishes.

Um essentially in what condition they're in.

So that establishes the basis for the operation and maintenance plan.

The hero regulations for school are predicated on assuming everything is positive.

It actually doesn't require bulk sampling of anything because it's not meant for construction or disturbance or anything like that.

It's a visual surveillance program.

Um because when they discovered asbestos as an issue, uh they thought we have thousands of schools across America.

There's no way we can reasonably go into these schools and remove all this material.

It just could never happen.

So they produced uh essentially an inheritation, uh, the asbestos hazard uh emergency response act, and um it was an act of Congress, and they said essentially go into all these schools and get a full catalog of this existing materials, and they require you to do periodic surveillance on those, it's very rigorous.

Uh, every three years you have to do a full reinspection um on the condition of it, and then there's six months' periodic inspections at it done.

Um, and then the LEA or the person that is also in charge or did put in charge by the school to do this monitoring and see like the routine monitoring of those materials.

Um, so it's extremely rigorous, and and that's how they do it.

Um, but if there's any damage or any proposed renovation or any repair required, it is fully regulated, it has to be tested, characterized, abatement, walls, polywalls, the whole nine yards.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, I am sorry, guys.

No, no.

This is all very good.

Tough one.

It's all good questions.

I think we all sympathize your position and hopefully you sympathize with ours.

Um I'm trying to understand this.

So the the asbestos is in the putty in the exterior of the window.

In that glazing buddy.

Glazing putty.

It is it does it, did it exist in the interior of the window?

Where so the the butty gets put in the glazing chance to where it's it's in stuck in there?

So you'd really have to do some chewing to get to it uh from the inside.

But uh, I mean real high on that's gonna essentially have to break the last on hand of these windows.

And we're going to tear these suckers out of there, which is going to undoubtedly release some of the krakens on on this building.

Um just I can't get my head around this at all.

I I can't get where we're ripping out and putting in new.

I definitely have not seeing what you're proposing as new.

Uh I sympathize with the issue.

I really um I agree with what uh Kelly is saying about you know this this exists everywhere we are.

I sympathize with being a hotel owner and what potentially may be risky about it, but I don't know what's happening, it's not really my purview, but how in the world is this hotel gonna undergo this construction?

I mean there's a full abatement plan.

There's identified stairwell setting the phone down, there's quarantine areas that go section by section.

They have to run constants from a expensive cleaning, they get tagged and bagged in the room, down the dedicated stairwell, it's not open to the public.

They go out a backdoor, into a truck, you know.

It's a it's a very that's why this is not like a cost savings exercise.

All right, let's keep it out there.

We'll keep okay, Miss O'Brien.

Has anybody entertained the notion of like an interior storm window in the rooms so that there's no access to the window whatsoever?

But you have the light coming through.

I mean, I remember in like maybe it was the 90s, people were putting interior storm windows, they were just essentially a sheet of plexiglass that was adhered to the frame of the window.

I don't see that as violent.

But they've all got climate control in the rooms anyway, don't they?

No one opens them in.

At some point, that window has to be held again.

You're just sort of kicking in the room.

Right.

At some point that window is going to rock from the exterior and have to be dealt with and be abated.

So it's either you're doing the abatement now or doing it 15 years and the window literally brought us.

If it hasn't rotted in 150 years, it's probably not gonna rot in that point.

100 years.

We just saw a 2000 building with rotted wooden windows, and this building has a hundred-year-old windows, and it will make it probably a hundred more.

They're in fantastic shape.

I mean, even just from your photos, but again, you're just taking the candy windows containing at least it's a different commission.

Okay.

Or maybe or maybe there's a better way to remediate it at that time, or you know.

I just don't know that throwing it out is the solution.

All right, I will share my comments.

Um, and I understand the perspective of my fellow commissioners.

I also appreciate the detailed you know explanation.

This is very scientific.

It's a standard laboratory protect, you know, practice.

You test depending on the outcome, you continue to test until you make an assumption.

So I respect all of that.

Um, so one of the questions was asbestos aside, of the windows that we have, is there an evaluation of leaded, you know, wavy glass versus non-wavy glass.

Do we know what the we haven't seen any differentiation in glass?

And are they all wavy glass?

Um I would be comfortable moving forward with the application if we agreed on a 100% all wood window.

I am assuming these are true divided lights.

Yeah, um, these are true divided lights.

So an all wood true divided light, really replace in kind to truly what is there.

Same button patterns again.

I would not be in favor of a um Pella aluminum clad in this um building.

We do have standards that speak to contributing buildings and all wood window.

Um, I'm one view of the commission, but given what has been you know scientifically and factually presented before this commission, I would be in favor of a full replacement with a very specific all wood window.

And I think that we would be on board with that.

I would like to have uh uh spacer bar simulated divided light, other than because we want to use the same pellow reserve wood spec window outside of a true divided light, and again, from the exterior, like a lot of these are four stories up in warmers, like you're not going to see the difference between if we do the spacer bar following the guidelines that you guys have, you're not going to see the difference that divided light.

They will get the energy requirement that looking for from that double glazed window with a true with a spacer bar, I mean to be I mean Pella does provide a true divided light window, so and I think that's a compromise that I would be willing to make if we were to move forward with a replacement here that it is you know, it's interior and exterior.

Um, and that would be the closest replacement in kind to the windows that are there.

So that would be my conditional approval as we would move ahead.

But again, I'm one of the commission.

So to ride along on that, I'm really not in favor of replacing these whatsoever, but if there were no other path forward, I could potentially support the uh replacement of the sashes having been rebuilt, true divided light, six panes or whatever there, like the the true con um construction of the window as they stand today.

That's potentially how I could support this, but with no replacements, just new sashes.

If the putty is the issue, why can't the sash come out and you put new sashes in?

There's no guarantee that there's not ceiling in the frame.

Well, I mean, that's I think the guidelines.

I I thought once the window has it, take the whole window out.

Like there's no way that because there's no way that you can hand that over to a contractor and guarantee that it's clean.

Did you find any asbestos containing material in the cocking of the window?

Uh yes, there was some uh between the brick and uh frame as well.

Thank you.

I think Mr.

Manson, I don't know if we've heard from you.

I would be uh in favor of the application as presented.

And would prefer the the all wood window as you describe.

Okay.

So the condition not because as presented, it was a pillar reserve.

So but not aluminum clad and all wood.

Right.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Okay.

And I believe that modification was made the last month to the wood.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, we wanted to stick with the same the same window line.

Right.

Just think that there's I don't know if we're on the same page with the window reconstruction.

Because we're still talking about a double pane window, a simulated divided light window is not the same as these traditionally constructed true divided light windows.

So I just want to make sure we're like on the same page with what we're actually talking about here.

Um and maybe I'll get on my soapbox for a hot second.

The reason that one of the reasons I'm so crazy about these windows, especially on a big building like this, the way that the glass panes are set into the wood, they all ever so slightly face a different direction.

When you drive past the hotel Viking or a large building with original windows like this at the right time of day, or whenever you will never duplicate the the effect of the sun on these old windows that we get from this, you just can't do it with a new window.

It's two panes of glass smashed together with true divided lights in between.

All of those are disappearing from this town.

And a building like this, it's so much more than just the window.

It is the effect that you get from those windows being in that building and the whole thing all together.

So I just don't see even a window that has all the simulated divided lights and everything.

I think we are eliminating something that does so much more than just provide a window and and hold heat inside.

It is the traditional construction offers so much more than that that we will never ever ever duplicate, and that's why I'm so particular about this.

I had to do that, sorry.

No, and I I would say I mean I agree, and I understand given the building and you know the amount of windows that we're looking at, and you know, I think we are usually aligned in that in other buildings that we're talking about.

The facts presented before us this evening from a scientific perspective of what is in the windows, and there isn't a clear path to be able to encapsulate or do something is what is making me view that we replacement is the right path here.

Um and maybe it's not Pella.

Maybe we need to talk about something that's more specific and more custom to maybe more accurately represent what is there.

I'm also open to that.

Um, but I'm trying to balance for myself what you know preserving the character of the building and the windows and the scientific evidence that there is the likelihood that asbestos is present in the majority of these windows.

So that's where my view is that replacement is an option, but I'm open to you know, whatever we can get to that is the closest representation of them.

And that may not be PELO, that might be a custom wood window.

So um the issue is the impact rating too.

So we talked to the building inspector.

We talked to the building inspector since the last time because of the size of the double-hung windows, we can't get a full impact rating on those windows, right?

We're required to like if this was a non-historic commission project in the a commercial property in Newport, it has to have a full impact rating, right?

We apply for waivers from that full impact rating with these historic windows where he accepts basically it has to have impact laminated glass in the window to meet the building code, but he doesn't make us get a full impact rating.

So for these large wood double-hung windows, we can't get the full rating, but we use the impact blazing.

So there has to be that laminated glass component to this project.

Period.

Otherwise, I mean, there's no it's a non-starter that's built for any commercial building right now.

So we can get a waiver on the sash in the frame being rated.

We cannot get a waiver on the glass being rated.

But doesn't that present other construction issues?

Yes, I just texted Pella to see if we could do a true divided light window with impact rated glass.

I don't know that we can.

Oh no, I'm talking about securing the window into the building.

If you if you've got an impact rated window, you can't pop it into an opening because uh Hero Cane can still suck that out.

You have to secure it to framing in the building.

Not masonry.

I'm talking about timber.

You have to one piece of thing.

You can take this up with the building inspector, but I I think there's a little bit more.

I know because I went through the waiver with the state over here, and it was like we have to do the glass, right?

They will let us pass on that.

We went through drawing up all of what transit coward would look like as a full impact rating.

And we were gonna have to put transends on all the windows.

Windows are all gonna have to get nine inches less wide.

So that's how we justify the wave because we can't maintain the historic character of the building and an impact rating.

The meat in the middle from the building code is has to be impactful, not an impact free.

So I have a question.

If the building code is determining what these windows have to be, which is which is beyond to do with the building code here.

Pardon?

Nothing to do with the building code here.

So you're making your own determination.

But the building code's telling him he has to be that's that's eliminated.

Then he can get a variance from the building code, or he could come back here and tell us that the variance was denied.

But we cannot get a permanent on it typically as well as the insulat would kick you back.

As well as the insulating value you were talking about, correct?

If these are outstanding requirements that do not align with our guidance.

Because we're not going we're not going to reach a decision.

We are saying we want this.

The building inspector and other components are saying it has to be this.

So if you're speaking specifically about this project, if you're looking for a path forward that so I'm saying that the his HDC would like to see true divided wood windows or something of that.

We are being told that the building department has to have laminated glass.

We and there's an insulating value to the glass that's required that is not going to meet those guidances.

So you would kind of have a diversion path where you would ask the applicant to make a good faith effort to secure a variance on those requirements.

I'm I'm just saying that the HDC cannot make a determination on the window if it's going to be determined by somebody else.

What if we work with with Jill and the building inspector?

We will try the first option of true divided light with impact blazing as part of it, right?

If that becomes an impossibility to find, then we will go back to a simulated divided light with impact blazing, but not an impact braiding the full window.

Still a wood extent.

So it sounds like the commission is going to give us applicant some runway.

The question is how much runway you give the applicant, how much you require them to work with your planning staff, and at what point you might require them to come back to you with an update on their efforts for further deliberation by this commission.

I mean, I think also just polling the commission.

I'm not sure if that we have consensus, but there's six of us this evening.

Um I mean, we can go back down the line and kind of gauge where we are, but I think that would also be important because I want to get you a path forward if we end up tied, then obviously that's not gonna be a good idea.

Yeah, we're trying to take these in before the end of the year and you're so um and just here renovation planned as part of this, so the hotel will be closing.

So with that closure, the abatement comes, the interior, it's all kind of happening at the same time.

So this is all done, finished, and reopened or next up.

Understood.

It's a lot of windows to make custom as well.

It's a lot of windows to make custom.

I've never gotten a custom window with so all right.

So I think let's just do a panel of the commission so that we get a sense of where if we make a decision that we're gonna take this to a vote, we understand where with the applicant might fall.

Start with you, Mr.

Bell.

Um based on what's been presented.

I don't think we're in alignment to what uh the HEC is requesting.

So I would ask you to work with the planner and the window manufacturer, and if you cannot come back to what we're asking for, let us know why.

I I think that um I think that new uh meeting with the I'm thank you.

Meeting with the uh planner to discuss what what's possible, uh, and then coming back around.

I I mean I I still can't let go completely of the notion of encapsulating them with an indoor um storm.

It's just me.

But I I'd like to consider some other possibility.

I'd like to consider what the possibilities are, and I'm sure that our our planner um would is would give all that due consideration.

Okay.

So for myself, I would be in favor of um proceeding with the application on the condition that the window specified be an all wood window determine if you need special glass to be able to be rated.

Um true divided light, double hung, replicating.

You know, I think they're all double hung, but there may not be, there might be a few that are not.

So in kind to whatever the profile is, but to replace all the windows to the original profile of each window.

And that may not be a pillow window, it might be something else if you need to, but an all wood window, true divided light.

I'm in favor of kicking the can down the road.

Um I know, I know.

I I'm I'm struggling with this.

I'm also the type of person who when the when the contractor says can't be done, I say, no, no, no, no, it can be done.

There's always a way.

There's always a way.

Um this is just a really tough building, then.

Um if if it really came down to replacing but with custom um sashes, if we can be done to the point that you can guys can um get the approval, I reluctantly I think I would be in favor, but um otherwise I I can't stand behind this.

There are at least three standards that I feel like are being violated here, and I feel like we have to find another way around it somehow.

Mr.

Madsen?

Uh yeah, I'll be in agreement with uh you, madam chair, relative to replacing the windows with something that's appropriate and selected with the applicant as well as the preservation planner to be acceptable.

Okay.

Uh same what you have said and what Ms.

Madsen has said as well.

Okay, and just to clarify, um, Ms.

Moran, I'm very clear on your position, Mr.

Bella and Ms.

O'Brien, it sounds as you hear um the discussion with Ms.

Maria and there's aspects of that that you're aligned with, but I'm not clear if that's your position or with conditions.

Well, my position is that you know, we understand the nature of the problem, I think, much better thanks to your presentation team.

Um it's it's a serious issue.

We understand that.

I think what we what we uh what Ms.

Moran or Mr.

Ball and I share is a desire to to try to be as authentic as we possibly can do in preserving um all ass all the historic character defining issues of this building.

And if that includes replacing the windows with a you know, uh an all wood um window that is approved by our planner or is recommended by our planner, then I think we can all we'll have to live with that.

I think if there are other options that maybe you could explore along the law, like the indoor store.

I we'd love that.

We'd like to kick this can down the road, but uh I do feel that there are several of our uh standards that are that are not aligned with the project as it's proposed, but I don't understand what between the rock and hard folks.

I guess that's where I'm trying to clarify because I don't want to influence and in that if you feel that there's standards that are not aligned.

I just want to be clear.

Okay.

Fairness.

I mean, we've we've approved uh handicapped access to historic buildings that we didn't love, but you have to have access according to the ADA.

So um sometimes you have to bend.

Okay, and just to um confirm then with our city staff, are you of the view if we were to take this to a motion and approve it on the condition that further exploration be provided between yourself and the applicant?

And then if there was any speculation, it would come back before the commission.

I would be prepared to make a determination with the proper officials, you know, the building official with the applicant with you know any other experts um in the field.

And if I deem it appropriate or if they're able to, you know, if there's any changes, I I'll write up uh uh an updated report and provide findings to you guys.

Um but it sounds like it you do have a split kind of you're in a pickle right now.

And so um if we are seeking more clarity or different options and I think the specific window is is an issue.

Um and so I'd be willing to explore that with with the applicant.

Commission, are you prepared to take it to a motion?

And is that the motion that you're gonna be putting forth?

Is that we are what making a recommendation for a the wood window with whatever impact reading needs to be accommodated and Jill takes it from there unless there's question.

And it sounds like with that condition, there's perhaps a vote to the positive.

It doesn't mean that you necessarily need to have that same vote, but it gets our applicant to move forward.

So which is totally possible as an outcome also.

Okay.

Everybody good with that.

Okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of one Bellevue Avenue, plat 25, lot 124, with the condition that um windows be replaced with an all-wood true divided light window that's um confirmed and reviewed in partnership with our city staff and preservation planner.

Any conditions that they find to be differing will come back before the HDC.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 A1, 4, 5, and 7.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Aye.

I'll just ask Ms.

Moran to state um the standards, not in uh alignment.

A one retain uh historic character, a four preserve character and a five repair before replace.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

Appreciate your patience with us.

No, it's free.

It's freezing in here.

Thank you guys.

It's very helpful.

Thank you, Jeff.

It will feel like short shorts, Jen.

Um, okay.

So that's kind of just here.

I think that um I think that concludes all the applications.

So um just quickly on new business, Jill, could you touch on um digital online applications quickly for the commission and status?

Yes.

So um as of the October cycle, we are going online with applications, which you guys probably don't know, but uh, you see a lot of like hand-written applications, all of it is scanned.

Um, so by state law now requires that all applications can be done online.

So we've moved it onto our online portal in October.

You're gonna be seeing uh a different look of the application.

It'll have all the same information, but it's gonna take some like getting used to.

Um, there's a lot on my end and Kimberly's end that is going to be changing regarding how we review applications and how we you know take them in.

But this is state law.

So we are complying with state law zoning's already gone online, planning has as well, and now HCC has two.

So next month you're gonna see the same handwritten scanned applications, but the month after that, October, you'll see something a little different.

And you know, my staff reports will remain the same, and I'll do my best to kind of highlight different pieces that are that are important to you guys.

Okay.

That's good.

Okay, good.

I would like to ask on some at the end, your very last summary statement, just include the the call outs of which ones are yeah, yep.

That's still helpful because otherwise I'm searching.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Make sure I've got to do that.

I can absolutely do that.

Yes.

Yep.

Um I think that we've already seen some positive like things coming from the recommendations because yeah, you know, some continuances, some, you know, wanting to to work with us more.

So I think that's helpful for the applicants as well as you know, having a complete good application come to you all.

So um, and then the last um new business I wanted to share, um, just the status of our partnership with the NRF on our window updated um project for window guidance on lead.

And that project is more or less wrapped up.

Um, they are continuing to work um through some of the details.

It needs to be um what we say, reformatted to be homeowner and applicant friendly.

That's very technical in terms of the work that was done um through the research and findings, all very helpful.

Um, but they are working through sort of a user guide to make it a little bit simpler and more direct so that everybody that goes through the process understands clearly what the objectives are.

You know, our intention if everything goes according to plan is to bring that in um as an amendment to our existing um guidance on windows and doors that we just adopted not that long ago.

So that would be um similar to what we did with elevating um buildings.

So that's all moving pretty close to the um finish line.

Um with that, I'll just open the floor.

Any other public comment or business.

I would build a contract on I don't know if I've never done frankly.

So you're here for a show.

I thought it was file on Tuesday and come on with on the third Tuesday.

I messed up two things.

Oh okay.

Anyway, I just I had um Lady Brooks meetings of stairs falling off a building, and they're literally falling off the building.

It's like storing building.

I just I wanted to replace them pretty much actually not in kind because what's there, but it's replaced and it's falling off.

But I wanted to keep everything and just try to restore it.

And I didn't know if I need to you guys or yeah.

So contact my office.

That's that's kind of where I would what I interpreted.

Yep, yes, yeah.

And then we can talk about it, and then you may be here presenting, or it may be just something that I can approve on my own.

Yeah, I don't I'm not really I don't I'm trying to keep it everything that I possibly can.

Yeah, place in kind is kind of better than one of these, so I figured I probably figured out it.

Thank you.

Hey, you got a nice week.

Okay.

Yep, yeah, you can make an appointment with me.

All right, cool.

Thank you.

All right.

So with yeah, um bring your friends next time.

We save good seats for people that we like.

So all right.

Um, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, August 12th um Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

Sounds like all those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Oh cute.