Madam Chair, we're on the record whenever you're ready.

Okay.

Thank you, everyone.

This is a very large agenda, so our pre-meeting took a little bit longer than usual.

So with that, I will call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Monday, September 15th, 2025, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Diana Amarello here.

Rose Mary O'Brien.

Here.

Kelly Moran, I am here.

Jim Madsen.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Bill Finley.

Here.

Brooke Richter.

And Kenny Bennell.

Fabulous.

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

We had three commissioners who were absent at our prior meeting in August.

I'm going to ask Commissioners Ray Goddard, Bill Finley, and Kenny Bennell to affirm for the record that you have reviewed all materials for continued applications, have watched the uh Tuesday, August 12, 2025 meeting, and are prepared to be a voting commissioner on these applications as needed this evening.

Ray.

Yes.

Yes.

Bill and Kenny.

Thank you.

I will acknowledge that we have Peter Friedrich from our city solicitor's office here attending this evening.

And also Nick Armour is filling in for Gillian Chin.

To the Commission, uh the meeting minutes for Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 have been provided.

Are there any additions or corrections?

No.

Okay.

I'll request a motion to accept the minutes for Tuesday, August 12th, 2025, as presented.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Monday, September 15th, 2025, are valid for one year from the date of approval.

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

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

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

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

So as stated, we had our standard pre-meeting immediately prior to this evening's meeting.

We have a lot of adjustments and uh details to go through, so we're going to go through those in order.

Um, the first is resequencing.

So based on the review of tonight's agenda, we'll be making one adjustment that includes the resequence resequencing of C38 Beacon Hill to the end of the agenda after all new applications have been heard.

We have multiple continuations.

So those are continuations that the commission was made aware of after the agenda was published.

These are the applications of N21 Bellevue Avenue, N4, 61 2nd Street, and 10 16 Barney Court, N18 29 John Street, and N2137 Elm Street.

So if we have anyone here this evening from the public looking for those applications, those will all be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 14th, 2025.

Similarly, we were made aware of withdrawals from the agenda this evening.

We have two of those applications.

The first is N5 for 40 Sherman Street and N17 for 562 Bellevue Avenue.

So if we have anyone here for the public for those applications, they also will not be heard and have been withdrawn completely.

Okay, so in 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 staff findings and recommendations for approval.

So we have several of those this evening.

The first is C2 for 11 Chartier Circle.

Do we have anyone here for public comment on C2?

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 11 Chartier Circle, Platte 44 Lot 94, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060 B1 for compatibility.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

See the next application is N6.

Um that is 718 Bellevue Avenue Apartment 4.

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

No, with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 1778 Bellevue Avenue, Apartment 4, Plat 38, Lot 29.

Citing Newport Standard 17, TACT 80, TACT 060, A15, and 7.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Next is application N11.

37 William Street.

Anyone here for public comment?

Okay.

Um I will request a motion to approve the application of 37 William Street, plat 28, lot 154-2.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 A1 2 and 7.

I think that's moved.

You wanted to be heard.

She's the applicant.

She's there.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

You're all set.

Can you just give me those um standards when we're done?

127?

12 and 7.

Next is the application of N11 34 Ocean Avenue.

Anyone here for public comment on this application?

Chair.

N13.

Sorry, N13.

34 Ocean AV.

Okay, uh, we do have one recusal on this application.

That is uh Mr.

Goddard.

Um, we do have a quorum without um needing to used to him being on my right.

Um, so with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 34 Ocean Av, plat 38, lot 60-18, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80, TACT 060, B1 through 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed.

And our last summary this evening is N20, 160 Webster Street.

Uh, Mr.

Goddard is also recusing himself from this application.

Anyone here for public comment this evening?

Request a motion to approve the application 160 um N20, 160 Webster Street, Plat 36, Lot 3, citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80, TACT 060, B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Next we have a handful of applications for abbreviated summary.

These applications have minor questions from the commission.

Um the first chair.

Quickly, um, A1 and A2.

We had um A1 was listed for a potential summary and A2 for uh dismissal without practice.

I was gonna do the actions after this, but we can Yeah, let's get those out of the way.

Okay.

Okay, so the first um action item this evening um also reviewed in the pre-meeting for um an approval.

That is action item A14.

Here, 8 Barney Street, plat 21, lot 027.

Um, the commission was comfortable with extending um the certificate of appropriateness.

I'll request a motion to continue that for 8 Barney Street, plat 21, lot 027.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, so A1, 8 Barney Street, that certificate of appropriateness has been extended, approved.

And then action item A2, which was 11 Harrison Ave, plat 41 lot 008-10A.

Um, we did receive notice that this will not be heard, and I will request a motion to dismiss without prejudice.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye.

All those opposed.

Good to move to the abbreviated now.

Okay.

All right.

Do we have anyone here this evening?

I'm just going to ask you to come forward.

First, I will have our vice chair read the application.

This is the application of Ed McGrath and Crosswinds Newport LLC of 71 Prospect Hill, Platte 27, lot 58, non-contributing.

For permission to replace damaged 1940s garage door on a non-contributing structure.

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

If you could 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 microphone for us.

I think there was some questions about the material of the door.

Anyone on the commission?

No.

I will ask myself.

So I had a question about moving to an all wood door.

I believe as presented, it was a composite or a mix.

Right.

The door panel itself is wood, the applied trim is.

Can you bring up that cut sheet, Nick, so we can just take a look at what's so can you clarify for us on the so you have circled here, that's the style of the door.

Style of the door, and then the trim around each panel.

The flat panel is created by putting flat trim around each opening.

Right.

I don't understand.

So what part of the door actually is wood?

The whole the panels themselves.

The whole door is wood.

The applied trim perform the panels.

TVs.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so for myself and um in agreement with the staff recommendation.

Are you open to considering an all wood door?

We typically do not approve.

Okay.

Much important.

Okay.

Other commissioners, anyone else questions or comments on that for a conditional approval.

I'm in support of an all-wood door.

I don't think PVC would be appropriate.

Um, unfortunately, for a very visible drawer like this one.

Well, really, any, but okay.

Others.

Yeah, I would be in agreement with a wood door with a wood trim.

I understand what you're doing with the trim pieces, but if they could be uh made out of wood material, which is typically acceptable in a historic district, that would be a better way to go from my perspective.

I'm willing to accept that condition.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 71 Prospect Hill, plat 27, lot 58 as presented with the condition that the door material um be updated to all wood, citing Newport standard 17 TACT 80 060 B1.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

And the process for me at this point is present that to staff or you can um provide a follow-up for a cut sheet for an all-wood door, and they'll issue your certificate of appropriateness.

Okay.

Okay.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Okay, so our next um abbreviated is N8.

This is the application of Gerald Harris Jr.

and Leah Comart Harris of 413rd Street, plat 12, lot 88.

Contributing for permission to install in ground pool and renovate existing non-historic accessory building with new windows, entrance door, and red cedar shingle siding and roofing.

No proposed changes to contribute to the contributing 1758 hall.

Okay, welcome counsel.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission, J.

Russell Jackson, Miller Scott, Holbrook and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Um just a couple points to go through.

I know there was concern about the original application indicating it would be that the proposal was to have vinyl clad windows.

Um as I indicated in the pre-meeting, the applicant is fine to um replace the windows in the existing accessory structure with all wood windows.

Um I have with me the general contractor, James Nozo, who um just informed me that the windows uh because we're transitioning to all wood will be Marvin's instead of um Anderson's.

And so if it's uh the pleasure of the commission, I would just ask that you know maybe we provide those cut sheets to the preservation planner for final approval.

And then one other aspect which um I just learned of as well.

The the proposed there was a proposed change to the front door of the accessory structure to open it wider and make it a French door.

Um and I've been informed that the owners actually just want to keep the opening as is, and they're gonna replace the wood door.

So I would just ask if we can have the same process.

We'll submit a cut sheet for a replacement wood door to the preservation planner.

Okay.

Um commissioners that had noted this for an abbreviated summary.

Does that additional content answer questions that you had?

Um I'm comfortable with that.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Also, okay.

Um so with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 413rd Street, Plot 12, lot 88, um, as presented with two updated conditions on the accessory building.

Um, the wood replace uh, excuse me, the window replacement will be updated to an all wood uh Marvin window presented to the preservation planner, and similarly the door on that accessory building will also be updated to all wood with the cut sheet also to go to the preservation planner.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80060, um A7 for the pool and B1 and 2 for the non-contributing structure.

So move second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next um abbreviated summary is N12.

This is the application of Cheryl Carpionato of 599 Ocean Avenue, but plat 44 lot 71, non-contributing for permission to construct a new wooden stairs and new raised wood deck to no longer have staff.

Replace two second story deck railings to match previously approved table railings.

So the whole home is consist.

New pillow windows and two additional windows from previously approved plan.

New garage doors, new roof on existing elevator with with new PVC cladding and brackets.

New PVC trellis screen to match existing rear pergola trellis.

Okay, and just on this application, um, to note Mr.

Goddard will be recusing himself.

Um so I will welcome get you sworn in other hand.

Yep, there you go.

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.

I think we just had a couple of quick questions.

So we don't necessarily need to go through the whole application.

Mr.

Bala.

Um the only thing I noted was uh if you would be willing to upgrade your trim material from PVC to wood.

Um the quick answer is I think uh how exposed this building is to the ocean and where it is and the time, uh the era of this home that I don't see how it would benefit the project whence it's painted.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions or concerns.

Is it currently all PVC?

Trim packages PVC currently what we're doing new to the project.

Um there's a little hood covering and if we paint it, it's gonna be uh a maintenance issue almost immediately in that location.

And that would be the only location that would be painted.

Is that the idea?

We're gonna paint the PVC.

Oh, you are gonna paint the paper.

We are yeah.

So dimensionally it'll look the same.

Underneath the paint, it'll be PVC.

Okay.

Is it currently wood?

Or is it currently the trim that you're talking about?

Is it currently um it's a mix right now?

Uh as things have been replaced and moved.

There are some trim pieces, most of those were fine and have kind of rotted out.

Most of those were fine and have kind of rotted out.

So we're trying to switch as much as we can to the PVC so it looks good for a longer just for the commission just to go back through our staff recommendations and the staff report so it is being recommended approval with condition.

A few details related to the actual updates across the building which the preservation planner is in support of however the materials proposed should be appropriate for use in the historic district PVC should not be used for any architectural features.

So coming back to our standards B1 and two B1 for compatibility as noted the proposed PVC trellis null posts, trusses paneling and brackets are not appropriate as PVC is not an acceptable material in the local historic district.

The removal of the spiral staircase is appropriate and needs in the compatibility and form of the building in relation to the surrounding buildings and goes on to speak to the actual alterations which she isn't support of but the material in and of itself related to compatibility.

So I just ask everyone to consider that in their assessment so coming back to context around still proposing to move forward with PVC.

I I think it's the appropriate uh material in this situation given the age of the home the details that we're proposing and its location.

Okay.

And um I think it'll last longer and look identical to another material underneath the paint it's all painted um it seems like the right thing to do on this house I understand different houses it's not as appropriate.

Okay.

Commission just to get a sense of where everyone is falling um I would not be in favor of the using PVC.

Okay.

I second that okay Ms.

O'Brien um I don't like the idea of introducing these kinds of materials in the historic district but given the nature of that particular neighborhood given the age of the house given it's distant it's view distance um I could probably support it.

I could support it.

Okay.

Ms Moran I'm really not a fan of the PVC.

It it isn't appropriate in the historic districts um it's pretty clear in our standards I think this is a really visible property as well how far back would you say the house sits from the road um yeah my head my guess is like 30 yards 40 yards you know visibly from the street sometimes can look at a house like that and even recognize the PVC.

And if you've got a a fair amount of wood still on the building I think we should probably my my opinion would be to keep to our standards and remain wood whenever possible.

Though most of the trim is PVC on the house there's wood shingles which were remaining um but it would be going it would be the minority the new work would then be wood majority wood.

Where does the wood exist now what's that where does the wood trim exist now?

On a few windows but that whole bank that we're looking at right there is all uh not wood.

That's all PVC I'm not sure it's PVC it could be a vinyl product um I didn't cut it open or rip it off so I I'm not exactly sure but I know that it you know has a yeah it's not showing it's wood at all um I would say the ability for someone even someone like me who these things carefully uh there would be no difference to anyone coming by of what it was they would know it was wood if it was peeling paint I guess which is what's going to happen within a year and a half in this situation.

So we're just setting up donor for sections of a building that just got approved that need paint every couple and the rest of it facing the water is going to be fine because it's not so I agree that there are circum certain circumstances when it's not appropriate this seems like a great case for when it is appropriate given the style age and the location for the fetch to the water which is right on the other side of the I don't disagree with you but we are talking about historic district here and precedence and every neighbor down the line who has a new house who says well my neighbor has a new house so do I I was able he was able to put PVC why can't I and that's my concern um I'll defer to some of my colleagues before I okay Mr.

I don't disagree with you, but we are talking about historic district here and precedence and every neighbor down the line who has a new house who says, well, my neighbor has a new house, so do I.

I was able, he was able to put PVC.

Why can't I?

And that's my concern.

Um I'll defer to some of my colleagues before I Mr.

Manson.

Yeah, I would agree that I think we're going down a you know a slippery slope air spent.

I mean, for the reasons that you give makes sense, but that's why BBC was invented.

We have a tremendous number of homes equally as close to the ocean as this one.

Uh, you know, if you look at the entire you know, point check section of the town, it it's equally as close.

Uh and on the non-contributing structures there, we've also you know required wood.

Uh so I I think for all of those reasons, it's almost to say, well, you can put wood any or put PVC anywhere in lieu of of wood.

So I think it's a slippery slope, and I think we need to stick with the wood.

So Ms.

Richter.

I agree with what has been said by everybody.

I support the application in its entirety except the PVC.

Okay.

Um and I also concur with that.

I mean, we we will we will switch.

We want to get this we're underway.

We have workers there and need to keep moving.

So in the essence of time, we will switch to wood.

Okay.

Um probably be mahogany.

Uh I don't know if that matters, but uh it won't be pine, which is on the building and falling off.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 599 Ocean F, plat 44, lot 71 as presented with the conditional update that all trim will be um changed to a painted wood, citing Newport Standard 17 Tact 80060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and our last abbreviated um summary is N14.

Yeah, sorry.

This is the application of Eric Picard of 32 Green Street, 527 lot 006-4 contributing for permission to replace all windows on second story and one on first floor with Palo Reserved traditional double-hung windows.

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

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

So help you God.

I do.

And state your name, please for the record.

Eric Picard.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Picard.

Um, so we actually had quite a few commissioners um that I put this forward for a summary approval.

Ms.

O'Brien, you I believe had a question.

Um just uh um I was um in reviewing the application.

I would be favorable towards it if if what as you replace these um these windows, you are able to um to replace them with the identical mountain patterns profiles and glazing as suggested in our staff uh advisory.

Our goal was to have them look identical.

So the I'm not sure if that answers the question, but yeah, the the the layout of each window was designed to look exactly the same.

Okay.

And you're willing to to duplicate that pro that proud profile of the cane.

The the proud the the the mountains have a profile if you were to look at them um as a as a cross section.

They're deep.

They they have depth to them, so you're willing to replicate that.

Uh I I honestly don't under know the difference between the windows that were submitted versus the windows that are there.

If uh the Pella windows uh were selected because they were very, very close.

I don't know exactly.

Let's see.

Do we have a cut sheet for those pellar reserves?

Yes, we do.

Okay.

We can just take a look and see if we can tell.

I know some of our commissioners are familiar with these pellet reserve windows, Mr.

Ballet.

So uh I think the point that we're making is you have uh single-pane wood windows of varying generations in your building.

Personally, I also see your building as a very historic uh example of architecture in Newport.

I think it's very beautiful and unique, as you must feel also and congratulations.

However, when it comes to replacing the windows, you one you're a contributing building.

So um we hold the those parameters a little higher than a non-contributing building.

Um I'm afraid the Pella windows or any manufactured window at this point is not going to be sympathetic to the windows that you find in your existing house.

Um I would like to see you go back to the drawing board and look for a authentic wood window that duplicates the um requests that we make in our guidelines for replacing windows, which is replacing methods as my um colleague mentioned in size scale and and components of the window.

So the windows look the same in the building as they would have.

Um you're not going to get that with a manufactured window, be it Pella or anybody else, because the manufacturing process is different.

The grill placement is different, the whole standards are different.

Okay.

So uh just so I'm 100% clear.

Um the windows that we proposed would not be approved.

I personally would not let uh be uh in favor of approving these windows.

I would like you to um work with the historic planner to find an alternative window that is more sympathetic to those in our guidelines and in the existing okay.

That's my No, I I understand.

Uh you know, we were we are leaving all of the windows on the first floor and restoring those.

Uh partially because they're fixed windows, um, but also because they're in much, much better shape, probably because they they fit.

The ones that are there were done in the 70s and they don't they never fit properly, so they leaked.

Um real uh I know that I I'm very uh aesthetically oriented.

So I'm very uh I'm a designer as well, uh as uh uh having restored many houses.

The biggest problem that I have right now is that um the these windows currently are so air uh air compromised and water compromised.

I have panes falling out every time there's a windstorm and my heating bill was unbelievably astronomical this past year.

I mean when I say astronomical, I think my my February bill was $1,900.

Um and if I don't get these windows ordered tomorrow, I am likely going through another winter without windows.

Um so I'm I'm a little concerned about that.

I and I I when I looked at all of the guidelines, I thought these windows actually did conform.

That's why we picked them.

So I'm a little that's why I was a little surprised.

Um so Mr.

Picard, we can do a poll of the commission, Mr.

Ball is one perspective, but we'll I understand just as presented, we can see where everybody else is falling here.

So Mr.

Finlay.

I'm gonna support this.

Okay.

Ms.

O'Brien.

Um yeah, I'm looking at the cut sheet.

It does it does specify that these are wood.

Um they are wood, full wood window.

And I I thought the depth and the the um the um glazing profile was supposed to be historic.

Uh it was my understanding.

It also does specify the glazing.

Um it's a little confusing, actually.

I'm looking at it, it's a little confusing.

It's cutchy.

It's touchy.

Confusing.

Yes.

Do you find it confusing?

No, I don't find I don't I well, I didn't think I did.

No.

I mean, okay, I'll let you finish.

I um so I my inclination is to um support this with my my inclination is to support it.

They seem appropriate to me.

Um I would defer to my colleague who has more exp my colleagues who have more experience in um window fabrication than I do.

Can we just clarify?

Do we is it simulated divided light or true divided light?

That's what I can't find.

Based on the cut sheet, it's indicating ILT, which is individual light technology, which is not simulated divided lights.

They are true.

True divided light.

They have a profile on both sides.

Okay.

Okay.

That's what I was using about.

So wait, wait a minute.

These are single pane windows?

They are double.

They're doubles to the clear.

Well, that would have to be simulated divided light.

Based on, I mean, I'm looking at Ella's description of their what they call integrated light technology, which is individual grills with so there's so do we have do we have any they do the detail of that at all?

They do come true divided light.

So you will have muttons on both interior and exterior.

Do we don't have a detail of that though?

Um if it's usually it is listed in those details.

This is this is insulated glass.

So it's two panes of glass with a space of bar.

With a grille on each side.

Commissioners, uh the internet search says that the integral light technology grills are permanently bonded to the inside and outside of your window glass.

So it's a true divided light.

Well, it's one or one pane of glass.

Portion is one pane, and then they apply the rails to it.

So each piece of glazing is it individually no the whole window is only two panes.

Right.

But you have muttons on both the inside and the outside.

It's basically simulated divided light.

I don't know what's different.

They just gave it a fancy name.

Yeah.

Simulated divided light.

But I mean, uh, but I don't if we don't have a uh a section, how do I know?

Right.

I think that's where we're all kind of confused.

Is what what is this what is the um manton look like?

Is it going to match what you have?

I mean, we're seeing the cut sheet of the window, but we don't actually know what the profiles look like.

Yeah, I apologize.

I thought that we had everything you needed.

It's is there any way we can get that up on the screen?

I mean, with a quick I mean if we could just see a uh I'm not sure we have it.

Right there.

There we go.

I have it pulled up here.

Can we zoom in on that?

Is oh, but that's not on the um application, right?

So this is the Pellar Reserve traditional.

So the what one of the questions being asked is really just you know what if you look at these, this section of reshore here, you'll notice that the profiles are all slightly different.

I guess the question is what profile have you chosen?

Because these are all simulated by with the space of SHL, yeah.

And so the idea is you know which one is most closely aligned with what you actually have in the map.

So I could have I my carpenter selected the windows, and he's he and I spoke about picking windows that were as close as possible to what was there.

Yeah, no, it's been yeah.

So I don't know which specific I don't know the difference, to be honest.

Uh it's it's a subtle but important difference, right?

I mean um I mean I'm inclined to accept it.

I just don't know what I'm accepting, you know, in terms of what that profile would be.

So this is maybe something that you could sort of shift over to Jill.

Yeah, that would be something if the commission um commission was in favor of the window itself.

We could have you just confirm with our preservation planner the exact profile for the mutton.

Yes.

So would we um based on the cut sheet?

It's listed as a seven-eighths inch party glaze, which is the one I have up right now.

Yeah, it's the this one here.

The one in the yellow square.

Yeah, which is the bigger one to the left.

Oh, over to the left.

And this is wood inside and out, not clad?

Right.

It does say so, yes.

Yeah, um I just don't know how close that aligned with the original, but I mean it.

I have a question.

Are the lower level windows original to the building, to your knowledge?

It's really hard to tell in this building what's original and what isn't.

But the uh they look original to me.

And uh that was why we chose to keep them.

I believe that building had a fire or something, so we it might be tough to know what's definitely did with when we were doing some of the work we've come across scorched wood.

I believe I actually this that's what I learned is that's why it doesn't have a Gambrel roof anymore.

Used to have a gambrael roof, but um, so I guess it is tough on the windows to know, but my my question is are you planning on matching your mutton profiles to the lower level windows or to the replacements that you actually have there?

So I believe they're very similar.

I I'm not an expert, but they look to the same to me.

So I believe that they because we're trying to match the upper windows, they should match.

Why was that the uh couldn't zoom?

Is it possible to zoom in on like this section?

Like right here.

Like yeah, right like here.

Further down.

So yeah, I mean it's not a one for the one.

I I would support that.

I mean, I think this this one may actually be even closer to it, but this is the one you said it was chosen.

Okay.

Jim, are you in favor of I'm good with as submitted?

Okay.

Um and I as well, um, the all wood pillow based on confirming a mutton profile.

So I do think based on the commission's feedback that you'd get an approval this evening if we took that forward.

Um, if the commission has any questions about that detail of the profile, we could still put in a conditional for it just to be reviewed and signed off on by Jill when you actually select the exact mutton design, if that would make the commission more confident.

Yeah.

Okay.

So with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 32 Green Street plat 27 lot 006-4.

Um, as presented with the condition that the detail um window profile and muttons be reviewed and approved by the preservation planner, citing Newport standard 17 tact 80 tact 060, a one three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Aye, Mr.

Ballad, just cite your standards.

Okay.

Four or five and seven.

Okay.

So you are all set, Mr.

Picard.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, so hard to believe.

We're just at the beginning of our agenda.

Um with that, we will move forward to our full hearings this evening.

Um just bear with us as we do a little bit of housekeeping.

We're good.

Starting with C4.

Um, C1, we do need to stay in action.

Right open placements.

Yeah.

Okay, so C one.

Uh this is the application of Beatrice Whitzgall of 364 Bellevue Avenue, unit D 102, Plat 34, lot 102, contributing for permission to replace one bathroom window at back of property.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this application?

No, okay.

Um, I will just in due process.

I'm gonna re should I resequence it?

Are we we can we know that they're not gonna be here?

Okay, okay.

So I will request a motion to dismiss um without prejudice the application of 364 Bellevue Avenue, unit D 102, Plat 34, lot 102.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor, I all those opposed.

Right.

That was really correct.

This is the application of Tracy Dubrava and Lolly Macintosh of 65 William Street, plat 28 lot 101 contributing for permission to repair replace rotted exterior wooden cladding as needed and match historic profiles and exposures, repair and or replace trim as needed, and paint and paint and paint sealer repair all windows as needed, roof to be replaced in kind with asphalt shambles, leave point foundation as needed, construct new box dormer on west elevation, chimney to be reconstructed above the ribs line.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Hogan.

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

So help you God.

I do, yes.

And just state your name.

Okay.

Okay, if you could walk us through the application.

Perfect.

Um we actually submitted some additional materials to the city, but they didn't make it to you in time.

So I'm gonna basically create a um a document to submit now.

Okay, which I'll hand out to the board.

Okay, so new new plans and elevations.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so commission, I'm going to request a motion to accept exhibit a new plans and elevations for 65 William Street, plat 28 lot 101.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Exhibit A.

Okay.

Okay, so we're gonna dramatically simplify as application and we're gonna remove both of the dormers from the project.

So we're gonna do the restoration of the building.

Um that's in the scope of work, but we're gonna take those two proposed dormers out of the project.

The only additional change would be to add one skylight in a location where the dormers were.

Okay.

Um, so with that amendment, let's just give the commission a minute to check through the documents.

So all other details of the project as cited in the application are correct, except the box dormer on the west elevation, and we're adding a new skylight onto the west elevation in its place.

Correct, yeah.

I hope this dramatically simplifies things.

Commissioners questions, comments for the applicant.

So essentially making very little changes to the outside at this point.

I'll say replacement kind of noted as restoring.

Windows be restored.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's um sixty-five Williams or one king.

I think there's two apartments there.

So they're it's a two-family property progress.

It's got a door on each side.

It's a funky house.

Multifamily.

Good.

Yep.

Questions, Mr.

Finley?

Good to move ahead.

I want to give it to the people to say first.

Okay.

No question.

No questions, Ms.

O'Brien.

Any questions, comments?

No.

I guess I okay, Ms.

O'Brien.

So the window that's in the little existing, that dormer that's shown on the on the renderings, I assume is existing.

The window that's in that does not provide egress, I take it, or simple egress to that flat roof, does it?

No, it does not.

Oh.

Mr.

Finley, did you have comments you wanted to share?

No.

Okay.

So with that, I will request a motion.

Do I need to resite the application since he's modified that?

Yeah, I would restate the project description without the dormer description and um inserting the uh new skylight as some description.

And I can do that as part of the approval, or we should have that on the record first.

Uh we should have it as part of the record.

Uh okay.

Yeah.

Um, okay.

So for the application um C4 65 William Street, plat 28 lot 101 project description um amended with exhibit A submitted this evening.

So permission to repair, replace rotted exterior wooden cladding as needed and match historic profiles and exposures.

Repair and replace trim as needed and paint cedar, repair all windows as needed, roof to be replaced in kind with asphalt shingles, repoint foundation as needed, um, add a new skylight to the west elevation and chimney to be reconstructed above the ridge line.

And I will request a motion to approve the application of 65 Williams Street, plat 28 lot 101 as presented with those amendments.

Citing Newport standard 17 TAC 80060, a one, two, three, four, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the application of Wesley property and holdings LLC of 38 Pelham Street, Clint 24, lot 259 contributing for permission to restore all historic wood windows.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission, Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott, Holbrook, and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Um, just to give a little procedural history here.

This this application's been in front of you.

Um two different meetings and June and July, where there were approvals granted.

Um, I think there was a little bit of confusion after the July meeting as to what was approved in terms of the windows, because um coming out of that meeting, there was some uncertainty as to the age of the windows.

So Chris Fagan, uh, who's the uh designer on this project?

Um got the got the window survey completed or updated, I should say, from Heritage, so that there was more concise dating of the existing windows.

Um and that was submitted back in August, but I noticed heading into the meeting just a couple hours ago, for whatever reason, the updated window survey with the dates wasn't attached to the agenda.

Um just in in fairness, this this is still dated May 2nd, so it may have looked like original the same.

So I will pass this out if I can as an exhibit.

Okay, um, and that's in relation to the windows and then other elements of the project that were already approved.

Um Chris has prepared some updated an updated plan set.

There's some minor modifications.

Um that Chris has requested specific to um the elevator, the addition in the rear, which accommodates staircase or elevator shaft.

I don't remember both.

Okay.

All right, so let me if I could, I'll pass out the window survey, and then I think Chris has printouts of the plan set.

Okay, so with that, um commission, I'm gonna request a motion to accept exhibit A, an updated window survey for 38 Pelham Street, plat 24 lot 259.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

Thank you, Chris.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So this was the building that was structurally compromised, if I remember correctly.

Is that correct, Council?

Structurally, it was definitely okay.

Yeah, uh, I will um I'll sort of turn it over to Chris now.

Chris, maybe if we could go through the window first and then we can go through the um the updated elevations with a couple changes that you requested.

Um and just to confirm, yeah, this this building is essentially structurally compromised, correct?

Extremely uh so we were here two months ago.

Since then we were able to go forward with the structural shoring of the building.

So we've been able to kind of get in, do all basically start all the structural work to sort of reinforce the building from the inside out.

It's been it was extremely unsafe beginning this project, but we're moving forward.

It is like definitely like a much easier place to work in and be get people in to evaluate the conditions.

Uh so as a result of it, there was a our rear stair tower was previously approved.

Um being able to be on site a little bit more.

We'd like to make a request to extend that stair tower just by two feet taller.

The elevator and stair, yeah.

Additionally, in the rear of the building, I've given you a photo of a fireplace.

We'd like to take that fireplace down and reconstruct it above the ridgeline with the original bricks, but it's very compromised on the inside.

So it was we were hoping to be able to save it, but it's not good shape at the moment.

So we need to take it down on the building.

This photo here.

Okay.

Those are the new changes.

Okay, and so we need to accept these as new exhibits as well, correct?

Or these were in the materials that we had.

I have to accept those.

Okay, I just want to do that as well.

Exhibit A is the window.

Is there window survey?

Okay.

Okay, so commission will request a motion to um accept exhibit B.

Um updated um drawings and a photo for 38 Pelham Street Plat 24, lot 259.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Can you tell me again what I'm looking at on this photo?

It's an existing chimney, which is structurally compromised.

We'd like to take it down and then rebuild it above the ridgeline with the existing bricks.

This is somewhere way in the back, right?

I just don't recognize that.

In the back of the property, it's too difficult to see.

Okay.

And it's this specific chimney.

It's that specific chimney, yeah.

Which you can or cannot see from cannot see from anywhere else except the backyard.

The two other more prominent chimneys were already repaired at a previous time before this house got into this round of work.

They're in good shape.

Nick, could you just pull up a 212?

Just so everybody's clear, it's the chimney all the way to the back there.

Okay.

So that's the photo that we're looking at.

Okay, so everybody's good on that.

Would it be okay to work through these two two items first?

The extension of the stair and elevator tower and the chimney, and then move to the windows.

Sure.

Sure.

So, commissioners, any questions or comments on that extension by two feet of the rear.

That's fine.

And what is the need, just so that we're all clear to extend it two feet taller?

Just to accommodate both a stair tower and an elevator.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other on this side?

Any questions on that?

No.

Does the increased height of the stair tower uh obstruct the windows?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

And everyone's good with the chimney being reconstructed using the original material.

Okay.

Um so we'll move on to the windows.

Okay.

We were here two months ago and we presented the windows.

Um at that meeting, we requested to go back to heritage restoration and have them date the windows.

So they went back out on site and they updated this report.

So what we are reposing tonight is to replace the windows that are dated from 2000 and restore all the other windows on the house for the window replacement.

We were looking at a wood wood window, the Pella Architect series.

And the architectural series is clad on the outside, or it would be a wood wood window.

Okay.

With exterior, wood interior.

All wood trim.

Do we have the cut sheet for that?

I just want to make sure.

And that's a true divided light window, or am I reading that wrong on here?

Oh, these are maybe the originals.

The double oh no, they say new.

Yeah.

So they're a true divided light.

Yeah.

I mean, I think since you have a mixture there, it's extra important for them all to be matching.

So this this is again, this is a single pane, Chris.

Double pane.

Want a true divided light?

I think so, yeah.

Do we have a we have a second one?

I'd be happy to work with the preservation planner in terms of selecting the appropriate.

So these say reserve, but somewhere somebody said architectural series.

They would be the architectural series.

Okay, so I want to so these cut shades cut sheets that we have up are not the same.

Okay.

A number of documents we've submitted haven't made you on this.

I mean I'm happy to we can we go to a uh maybe scroll down a little bit.

I just want to clarify that the what we have up on the screen is not what he's saying is going to be used, Ray.

What we have up here on the screen is not what he's saying is going to be used.

This is a reserve, and he's saying architectural series.

So we don't have a section through that?

Correct.

So that's I think you're proposing to go through that with Jill.

Okay.

I'll follow that.

Yeah.

I think that's so to summarize from the window survey, any of the windows from 2000 would be replaced with Pella windows that we can confirm the correct style with the preservation planner, all others would be restored.

Correct.

Okay.

Commissioners, how do you is everyone comfortable with that?

Okay.

Um, so that's the totality of it.

That's it.

Okay.

Yeah, Miss Marion.

This was just a very quick search, but because we don't have the cut sheet, the Pella architect on here says it's aluminum clad exterior.

Yeah, that's what I thought as well.

So that it would be a wood wood product.

So I think rather than stating a series, I think it would be better to state a Pella and the styling and construction can be reviewed with Jill.

Perfect.

Do they show that window in all wood?

I think the reserve series is the one that's all wood.

Their architectural series is not.

Correct.

Yeah, if we're having to use the window that was used previously.

That's what the confusion is.

So I think we can have that.

We can go through just so that we're not in that position, but the preservation planner can go through that to confirm.

Okay.

So just an old wood window would be the condition.

Yeah, a wood window.

Yeah.

Um, okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of 38 Poem Street, plat 24, lot 259.

Um that includes the amendment of extending the stair tower by two feet.

Um, all wood windows from 2000 to be replaced with a pella window detailing of that to be confirmed and approved by the preservation planner.

All other wood windows to be restored.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 A1, 4, and 5.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And there.

This is the application of John Murphy of 39 School Street, plat 24, lot 127-4.

Contributing.

For permission to remove existing slate roof on the upper portion of the group, an installation of slate shingles.

Copper ridge cap will be included at the peak to provide protection.

The placement of existing wooden gutters with six-inch copper K-style gutters.

Do we have anyone here this evening?

Okay, welcome.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record.

Jack Mark.

Jack Murphy.

Um Mr.

Murphy, I have a quick question before we dive in.

I noticed um the way that the project description is written that it's to replace with slate shingles, but the materials that we received indicated cedar.

Is that correct?

The uh original application was cedar, and then we were told by Jill that it would not pass.

So slate slate.

Okay.

And is that um a ready slate or slate slate?

It's called it's slate, but it's just slate line.

So it's slate in uh like four in a row, but it's slate.

Okay.

Do we have a visual of that?

Do you happen to have the materials for that in the application or with you this evening?

I do not know.

Um it is a slate roof, though.

Okay.

I know we've seen the slate line before, but if we can at least maybe pull it up and take a look at it again, because it is a uh sort of a manufactured product.

Okay.

Sean Apolitano's using it on church street.

We've definitely approved it before.

It sounds like ready slate.

I think okay.

We're familiar with ready slate.

That's good to go.

Okay.

It's slate, but it's literally pieces of slate that's four piece as opposed to all the individual pieces.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we're just gonna make a note of that.

Um, okay.

Um, so opening it up, um, questions and comments.

We had some notes from our preservation planner, particularly around the gutters.

Um, and actually, Mr.

Murphy, if you have um any details you want to provide, we know that you have original wood gutters on the building.

Um, you were proposing copper.

Could you um give us some additional details about the condition of those wood gutters?

Sure.

Yeah, the the gutters are beyond repair.

Um, so that's why Sean was recommending that we go with copper.

Okay.

Um, and I noted that uh Jill had said replace with fiberglass.

I would I would much rather put copper than fiberglass.

I don't want to put fiberglass on the house.

I don't think it's appropriate historic district to use fiberglass.

You know the rules better than I do.

I have copper downspouts um everywhere.

Okay, I'll open it up for questions from the commission about the gutters.

No.

Trying to get a better picture.

I miss O'Brien.

I suspect that our our historic planner uh didn't recommend the copper because I think it's probably not consistent with the actual age of the house.

So I think what she's suggesting is that in order to really um restore the look of the original, fiberglass would be appropriate.

I mean, obviously, wood is a tough thing to you don't want to replace it with wood gutters.

Right.

Um, so I think she I think the feeling is probably that the fiberglass will more closely replicate what was originally.

I understand.

Um when you if you visit school street, um half the street, we're all relatively around the same age, and we've got copper everywhere, including aluminum.

I mean there's it's a it's a popery of different things, but um yeah.

Um unfortunately we can't take into consideration you know what's been done to other buildings at other times.

So uh understand.

But thank you.

Thank you for that.

Mr.

Goddard, do you have I I would be in alignment with uh the planner's suggestion of going with fiberglass.

Okay, and maintaining that same profile.

So the profile according to my contractor is the same copper or uh wood or uh fiberglass.

Do we have an example of the existing profile?

I don't have it with me, but um I can provide it to the planner.

I think we can get a sense from the copper of the profile.

Well, I mean, I I know that the the profile talk about the existing home profile.

The only way I'm able to see it really well is on the Google map image, the street view, because uh it's hard to tell in the photos.

They're all sort of from above.

Well, I mean, like I love copper.

I think it's beautiful.

And I but I think I think Jill is correct.

I think that in the particular case that you would be best going with a fiberglass product that more in alignment with what was there originally question for the is there an issue painting fiberglass?

No, no, not at all.

Okay, it's easy to paint.

Yeah, essentially what the preservation planner is saying that that when painted will have the look of wood that would have been original to the house, whereas copper would look in like copper, wouldn't have been on that original building.

So that's this is a scenario where we do um use alternate materials to replace wood, and if it was seen that there was an original wood gutter here, we wouldn't make that approval for fiberglass.

Um, I think you know, other commissioners probably echo that same.

I would be aligned with that myself.

Copper would change the appearance.

Yeah, Miss Marin.

So you have trim that appears to if you can see it with the corner on the Google Google image there, how it sort of um meets in the corner.

It's tough to see in this photo, but there's an uh on if you'll walk down the street a little and look at the other corner.

Um there it it it meets and it's your trim and your gutter.

That's what I can see anyway.

And your trim is the same profile as your gutter, which is why she suggested the fiberglass.

Yeah, can you zoom in in that tippy top corner up uh up up on the right?

Yeah, right there over that window.

So that's why she suggested the uh fiberglass gutter, I believe.

You don't have a traditional gutter there, it actually matches the profile of your trim all the way around the house.

So that's why she made that suggestion, and I would I would be in favor of that as well.

The copper down spouts look lovely.

I think you should keep them, but uh as in terms of the copper um or the gutters at the top of your top of your house, bottom of the roof line there, you can see why she wanted them to kind of remain, otherwise you'd have an end to your corner that wouldn't really match up to anything, you know.

You want to go with fiberglass, I'm fine.

Fiberglass, I just thought everything's supposed to be wood or copper.

Well, wood is always preferred, but we're giving you the option for fiberglass because it's not quite as expensive, but we're looking to duplicate this profile.

That's the most important thing.

Understood.

Other commissioners, everybody aligned with that.

Okay, so just to confirm you are um open to the condition that we would update that material to fiberglass.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application for 39 School Street, plat 24, lot 127-4, as presented with the clarification that the roof will be replaced with ready slate and the wood gutters will be replaced and painted fiberglass, citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80, tact 060, a one two and four.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

This is the application of Karen Windley of 37 Sherman Street, plat 21, lot 108, contributing for permission to replace 11 windows on the second floor.

Double hung with wood replacement windows.

Do we have anyone here this evening or 37 Sherman Street?

No, okay.

We'll resequence that to the end in case someone shows up.

And nine.

This is the application of 63rd Street LLC of 63rd Street.

Uh plant 12, lot 156 is the contributing structure for permission to change a previously approved slate room to 58 inch taper sawn red cedar roof due to the lack of material remaining from original house to complete the job.

Could not find any evidence that original roof was slate.

Wood roof is compatible with original style and is conforming to that of other homes in the neighborhood.

Okay.

Hello?

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

So help you God.

Yes, I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Okay, welcome.

Okay, thank you.

The uh as you all know, this was approved a few months ago.

We removed the original slate.

Munson slate's a good product, it's a hundred years old.

Stored it, set it aside.

The part of the application also involved the addition over the flat what ex what was a flat membrane roof?

We went with a new dormer, and that also was to be slate.

We don't have enough to do both.

Further, even what we have this total of 15 squares.

We think we have about 10.

With the cuts, there's six new dormers.

We're gonna lose some of those in the cuts.

I don't want to do is proceed with the existing slate, but come short and then try to match it.

I'm not gonna get an exact match.

I know that.

I might get close.

The approval was for the original slate or ready slate.

So I'd like to try to use the existing slate.

That's option one.

But I the the delicacy here is I go down the road and I find that I'm short, now I'm stuck.

Now I've got to try to match something and I'm in between, which is why I suggested the wood.

This is another house on the point in the same street, but a lot of similar characteristics.

Story and a half, similar slope roof, byput knee wall, dormers, these are decorative more Victorian than what we have, but very comparable in terms of scale and massing.

Um I guess what I'm asking for is a little bit of latitude to use wood as a backup.

I'm gonna try to use the slate, but if I get down, if I determine that we can't do it all, I don't want to have a quilt.

I want to have ideally one surface that it all looks the same.

So you wouldn't have enough slate bar do the original route because of the addition of the it's called yes, that's correct.

We we have enough, we think to do the main original structure.

Right.

Towards the front.

Yes, well, you look the addition in the back is where we're gonna come short a little bit.

Um the breakout is 10 and 5.

10 square in the main roof, five in the back.

So if I can do I have enough, as long as I have the permission to do match it as best I can, and I the way I read the approval, that's basically what it says.

I can't fabricate a hundred-year-old slate.

And it's Munson slate, it's a good quality slate.

It seems to be enough where to try it.

So that's my dilemma.

And I'm here to get some direction so that I'm not stuck midpoint in now.

What do I do?

If I could just ask, so this view that we're looking at in that rear, that is a fairly flat roof.

Not anymore.

That's that's where it changed and went to a slope.

Okay.

Yeah, new roof is where it doesn't have enough slate.

Tucks under so the gable, the new gable tucks under the eaves of the existing larger roof.

So it drops down.

All right.

So I don't know if we want to pull up.

I did go back to the original approval from May, and I actually had noted that it was to replace the roof with ready slate.

I didn't see anything about using the original slate.

I believe we can check.

I believe it said either or.

Okay.

Do you remember what month that was?

Maybe I'll try to May.

Yeah.

But you wouldn't want to do the original slate on the original section and a ready slate on the new section because it wouldn't match.

That's the best alternative.

That's that's it right now.

If we go root of keeping the slate, that's our only option.

Either or use the old slate or use the old slate contrasting roof on the new part.

Or use real slate on the new section to match as best we can.

One way or the other, we're gonna find product that will match.

You know, it's it it's your project, and but to me, um that addition on the rear of the house is is clearly not part of the original house.

So to me, if the roof were were differentiated, it just further says to someone looking at it, this is the original part of the house with the slate roof intact, and this is the new part of the house where there's a different kind of a roof.

Um so to me, I if it were my to uh if I were the only voice here, I'd say use the slate on the original part of the house, the existing slate, which I think would be fantastic to keep that, and then you know, to me, uh a wood roof on the on the rear dormer or uh or uh ready slate on the rear dormer.

I I could go either way on that.

Okay, but I would say the north elevation if you need the roof is continuous with the new roof and the old roof were now continued.

They're not they drop down, so the the new addition drops down, right?

Well trucks underneath the rake.

Yes.

So that does the roof.

This is not if it goes over.

It's not drawn off.

Yes, it is.

There's a preparation.

So then, yeah, well, then in that case, I'm okay.

Yeah, so we all know that.

Our note from that meeting says to retain or restore the slate roof, ready slate okay.

Oh, okay.

That's in your meeting.

That's in my meeting.

I went in the understanding too.

Retain the keep it, use it.

Okay.

So I'm fine with having a little as long as I have a little latitude.

I can use the original slates or ready slate as necessary.

So I think we need to distinguish.

So the original structure we're saying to reuse the original slate and differentiate on the rear, the new addition.

And that I just want to have consensus from the commission.

Is that to be ready slate or cedar?

I think we should say with slate, ready slate.

I would prefer slate to match.

Okay, so it'll be a hundred percent slate, original structure, original slate, ready slate on the new edition.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah, the wood was suggested as an alternative.

Okay.

Well, you'll have ready slate in abundance, so you won't need an alternative.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna um request a motion to approve the application of 63rd Street plat 12 lot 156.

Um, with the condition that the original structure will use original slate roofing material, and the new addition on the rear will be um ready slate roofing, citing newport standard 17 tacked 80 tact 060, a one, two, four, five, and seven.

Second.

All those in favor.

I think all those opposed.

Thanks, Mary.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, it's eight o'clock.

I would suggest maybe we should.

Yeah, I was just gonna we'll take a 10-minute recess.

Okay, come back at 8 10.

We're back on the record.

Mr.

Madsen.

Go ahead.

You can decide that.

We need Nick more often.

Okay, just call back to order.

Gonna come back to um N15.

This is the application of Mary Stewart Emerson of one wet more.

Flat 36, lot 128.

Now I'm contributing for permission to replace chimney with new brick chimney and replace asphalt roof with standing seam metal.

Okay, welcome ladies.

I'm gonna get you both sworn in.

So what we'll do one at a time.

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

So help you, God.

And just state your name into the microphone.

Sorry, Anna Abbott.

And similarly, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

And if you could state your name into the microphone.

Allie Olsen.

Okay.

And uh hang on one second.

Just want to confirm, Nick.

Do we have them as they're not they're not the applicant?

Do we have them as authorized representatives?

Where rooftop tower?

The um 275 lesson they gave, that's our company.

You're on.

And are you from a roofing company?

Yes, roofing and solar.

You were here back in May for the solar and it was a regular shingle, and then during that meeting, you were hoping to get the metal approved.

Oh, I remember this.

Yeah, and then so they were approved for solar.

We're both project a few months back solar and roofing size.

And they did not list changing the roof in the application.

So they were instructed that they needed to apply separately for the roof change.

So this is that same property.

So this property has the approved solar, and now the request is to change the roof material.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, and are we confirmed from a authorization perspective?

Typically, we don't permit representatives from uh you're not representatives from the roofing company, right?

Your project managers for the client, or can you well we've been working with her?

I'm from the roofing side, she's on the solar side, so our teens have all been working with her.

They're not representing the material to be installed for what it's worth.

And the owner was here at that last meeting.

Okay, I just want to Jill.

Just want to confirm.

Yeah, I think we're okay to move forward.

Okay.

Okay, so if you could give us an overview um of the project, what you're being what you're asking.

Um, on the application, we have standing steams uh metal, and we put the color selection from the customer as well.

And then we were hoping to also change and demo and replace the chimney because it's cracking and the bottom, you can see where it's like deteriorating.

If you're the solar person, what do you know?

I don't understand how you're involved in the move.

Well, she's more of the roof part.

Yeah, we went side by side in it.

We're like you all of it.

Okay.

Um have you read the details of the staff report that came with the agenda, just the the notes from our preservation planner about the roofing material.

We didn't get a copy.

We said uh Jill said that she would email over the agenda, but I'm assuming she sent it to Mary, and then we checked the agenda uh last week to double check if this project would be on for today, and we wanted to come instead of accidentally just missing it.

Okay.

Oh, well, that's good.

We're glad you're here.

Um so just to go through um as stated at the beginning of the meeting, the commission receives a staff report.

It goes through the published agenda that was um on our website.

Um, and her feedback about the materials being proposed in terms of the standing seam metal.

Um, the proposed material is incompatible with the style of the existing building and surrounding historic area.

Standing seam metal is not common as the primary roofing material in Newport.

There are no metal roofs in the surrounding historic area that suggest that metal is an appropriate material.

It is the opinion of staff that the roof be replaced in kind with asphalt shingles in order to remain compatible with the surrounding historic district and preserve the character defining roof.

So before the commission this evening, as it relates to the roofing material, um, and we can certainly panel you know the commission, but as presented this evening in that material, it is strongly recommended that it is not compatible with the building.

So put that out there first.

Um we can talk about the chimney as well.

So here you're looking to replace this in its entirety, and that will be with brick.

Yes.

Or we can do it the same way.

That part isn't really as important to the homeowner as the metal part of the roof.

Okay.

So commission, let's start with the chimney.

Mr.

Bella.

Um it's a functioning chimney.

It does have some flu in it or something.

During the reroupe, if we uh re did it, it would have to get demoed because of the you can explain that.

Yeah, the flashing at the bottom of it and the cracks in there, if they when they re-roof it, they need to go around it, it's gonna crumble.

So they have to rebuild it in that sense.

Got it.

Um I'm uh personally uh glad you're rebuilding the chimney.

I don't have a preference for it being brick or stucco like it is um regarding the chimney.

So any other questions or comments on the chimney.

Replacing stucco brick.

I'll put for brick.

Brick.

Well, do we know what's underneath?

Is it brick pared with stucco, or is it just like cement blocks?

Do we have any idea?

Looks like brick.

No, that that uh wooden chimney with stucco on it.

Okay.

Stucco.

Okay.

So later.

I thought it was a part of this.

I mean, brick would be an improvement, but if it can't support the brick, then it has to be stucco.

So I don't know if we bother.

So can we leave that up to her to decide either when it's okay or that works?

Yeah, I mean it's being replaced in kind, technically, right?

So we can't do the same.

And the cat is going to be re replaced.

Yes, or when we do it, we replace the whole thing.

Okay, so the cat will look just like that.

Yes, unless you want her to pick a different color.

They had they make black ones white, silver, like color doesn't really matter.

Just want to clarify.

So stylistically it would be replaced exactly as is the chimney cap.

Yes, they'll rebuild it the same way, same height, same structure.

Okay, so coming back to the roof material.

Um I'll kick us off by stating um understanding the comments from our preservation planner, of which I am aligned that a structure, um, even though this is a non-contributing building, we don't have um compatibility with a standing seam metal roof.

So I agree with the preservation planner's recommendation that this would need to be asphalt.

Um the uh city of newport.com where it's the roofing repair and replacement, it states that roofs characters uh featured historic buildings.

It includes slate, standing steam metals, and wood.

So I'm just a little confused if it's the structure of the house itself or it's the metal part that you're saying isn't historic.

So the the building in the nominating papers that we have is listed as non-contributing.

And what our preservation planner is saying is that in a building like this, standing seam metal would not be compatible with the structure.

So the replacement in kind means that it should be replaced like for like to asphalt.

Our roofing manager is not here, but would we be able to have in contact her for further?

Because I just wouldn't imagine us quoting something if we couldn't have it compatible for any odds.

So I would recommend given the nature, uh, that would be a pretty significant shift to a different material um that you continue the application.

You can discuss that with the applicant and then come back with another proposal.

Okay commissioners make sense.

Yep.

Okay.

Um we can split the application.

You could get an approval on the chimney if that benefits the project moving forward, and you can come back for just the roof, or we can continue the in um application in its entirety.

I think the chimney was approved in the last meeting because it was a shingle re-roof with the solar back in May.

So I think continuing it for the metal separate, uh, the metal just as a whole would be fine right now.

I don't know that we have on the record that it was it was kind of tricky.

So I spoke to Zach because it was in the application description, but it wasn't included into the memo.

So I have an email from him directly saying that the shingle and every the re-roof as is with the shingle details were approved, but just not the metal itself.

That's why we had to come back.

We just get that.

I would vote on the chimney this evening.

Okay, so we'll split that split the application.

You're at the roof material moving forward.

So we'll do summary approved in my notes.

So we may not have even heard it.

Okay, so we'll do a split of the application, and then we can um so with that.

I'm going to request a motion to split the application of one wet more AV, plat 36 lot 128 into part A, permission to replace the chimney.

Um, and part two to replace the asphalt roof with standing seam metal roof.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

And I'll begin to request a motion to approve part one of the application for one wet more av plat 36 lot 128, which is replacing the chimney with the condition that that be replaced in either stucco or brick, um, and a matching chimney cap as the original, citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 060 B1 and 2.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

And then I will request a motion to continue part two of the application of one wet more av plat 36 lot 128 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, October Courte, I believe.

14th, 2025.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

This is the application.

And Kelly Nase of 19 Catherine Street, flat 25, lot 65.

This is a contributing structure for permission to remove existing non-historic vestibule and reconstruct with a more scale-appropriate front entry, new entry doors, windows, as well as decorative columns, palesters with trim siding and crown to match existing.

Replace non-historic deck with a reduced size egress porch closer to grade and add a door from inside stair to new egress porch to expose more of existing historic fabric.

Remove bay window on non-historic rear bump out and replace with a pair of French doors with Juliet balcony.

Replace rotting gutters with copper gutters, replace rotten trim and siding where necessary.

Remove non-historic fire stair on west side of house.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commission members.

Michael Monty of Sarah Unit there on behalf of the applicant and owners.

I'm standing in this evening for Peter Regin, uh, who is advising the middle town town council tonight.

I'm joined by Mark Warren, uh, who is the general contractor for the project.

You need to swear Mark in.

Um, no, I'm just gonna have him.

Um we've already sworn him in this evening, but I'm just gonna have you state your name for the record.

Mark Horrin.

Thank you.

So uh very high level is uh renovation project on a property that's right on the corner of um Catherine Street and Cottage Street, uh fairly prominent structure.

Uh there are going to be modest changes to all four facades.

Um principally uh if not universally, actually, to non-historic features um of each facade.

So I think what would be helpful would be if we we start on the north facade and I'll have more uh walk through each of the proposed changes uh that that were hoping are approved tonight.

Um so Mark, do you want to start with the north facade?

Sure.

So the north north facade as you can see is the front entry porticle that changes the design on the top existing elevation to below gets a little bit wider.

Um there are columns introduced.

And I think it's a better representation of you know, with the size and scale and massing of the house.

And I believe the uh stack before um was aligned with that conclusion as well.

Yeah, there was a comment about the column detail.

There is a detail of those columns with a chambered edge on each side.

Uh we think that's an appropriate detail for the vintage of this house.

Uh in this entryway, that's not original structure.

No.

So this is an alteration to uh a non-original component before we go to the next facade.

Wait one second.

Do we know when that was done?

Because it looked the old meeting.

I I do not know.

Could be it could have historic significance on its own.

Right?

There was a comment in some areas that Jill made about retaining some of the original molding dental molding.

Right.

Correct.

They will be, they will remain.

Either remain intact or be replaced if they're rotted.

And also um, I just want to also read the specific to what we're talking about.

So she said here the proposal to widen the portico provides balance on the facade.

However, the commission should discuss in pillows if pilasters are appropriate for the structure.

Double entry doors are a common feature in vernacular Italianite second empire architecture.

However, the doors do not typically have a four-light mutton pattern.

I don't necessarily agree with that comment.

I think you'll see throughout the house there are two basic two window patterns.

There's three over two and two over two.

So having that particular light design would be compatible, I believe, with the windows.

Um that two over two.

This simulates that in scale.

Um other parts of the house, there are three over two on the longer windows.

I think there's lots of examples of that mutton, that detail being utilized for Second Empire Victorian.

We've done several.

Okay, just stating what she's got on the on our report here.

Okay.

Um before we go to the next elevation, are there any uh particular questions about this one?

The north elevation.

Well, I'm still kind of stuck on that front entry, you know, porticle.

If it wasn't original, what was right?

So was there a portico there before the existing portico, or was it not one at all?

It's pretty remarkable, right?

With the I mean it must be five inches thing.

Right, it's a big arch group.

The original front of the house, or was there always a some kind of a I don't know that you would be speculating?

Yeah.

Do we have a historical society record here of the property?

There's no report that that it was generated.

No.

Okay, is that something that we could obtain?

Yes, you get that.

Okay.

I think that would answer a lot of Mr.

Madsen's questions.

I mean, the house does it's 1873, so typically there's good documentation from the historical society.

Were you able to see the interior door just from the street?

Well, then by the oh, well, that's nice.

The door was wide open.

I was just looking.

It's really cool.

So I think coming back to that, I mean, then there might be other questions or comments on this elevation, but specific to that door in the entryway, a historical photo or other documentation, I think would help the commission understand if what's being proposed is compatible.

I think we're all in agreement.

This is not original, but has it taken on historical significance and importance to the property, or if we had confirmation of what was there?

It's a much could we work that out with the with the planner?

Provide information if we provided adequate information that demonstrated what it was.

I think we should go through the remainder of the proposal.

Okay, so let's go to the uh the next elevation.

Um you walk us through the proposed changes here.

Yeah, this is the back um south elevation.

The bay window is removed that you can see in its place below.

We have a double there's a double door shown with a railing.

The railing is was intended for as a safety rail.

Um, it was interpreted by the planner as a as a balcony.

Uh, we're agreeing to eliminate that, change the doors to windows.

Uh I that addresses I think the questions that were that were brought up in the in the staff report.

Yeah.

No need for that railing with with just administration.

Oh, okay.

So you're gonna cut the Juliet balcony?

There's no balcony, it's just a rail.

I know, so it's not a balcony.

It's not doesn't extend out beyond the base of the building.

It's simply a I don't know why it was the owner had put it there, but it's not it's not uh necessary.

If those are windows, it's not necessary.

Even Romeo couldn't stand under it.

No, no, but you are on plus there's a door, as you can see, there's a door being added to the left of that.

It's gone.

Okay.

So that's that brings us to the next point.

So underneath that window with the half round top, below that is a newly added door to provide access.

You'll see above in the existing elevation, there's already a deck there that's being reduced in scale to just a platform and steps.

Is there a door there now somewhere in the back?

It's you can't see it.

It's on the side.

Yeah, added on right in the roof on that little structure.

So there will so the new, yes, there is some work on the roof.

See this is dental holdings that are added.

It's a new structure.

Yeah.

That is it on that elevation.

And I'm sorry, just to clarify.

So I understood that the Juliet balcony, you said you're taking that off.

Are the fringe doors remaining, or you're changing?

They're being changed to windows.

To windows, okay.

So replace with um what's on the left?

Same as the ones on the left, right?

So it's a bit longer because the if you look at the bay window, that center one.

And how many windows?

Two?

So instead of two panels of doors, there'd be two windows.

So two larger than the ones to the left.

Okay, so two, two over twos.

Correct.

Okay.

We can submit a detail to the planner if you'd like that window.

Mark, is that where is that dental molding idea come from?

It's at the front facade, the north side, you'll see it's it exists, yeah.

There's there are places on the start existing structure where it does exist.

Okay.

And my other question about this facade is it looks like you changed the roof line on that little bump out where the two windows are being added.

Um, because above, if you look, it's got like a little bit of flare to it.

That's right.

Are you are you flattening?

Are you indeed flattening that out?

Because the flares kind of nice, and it you know, kind of echoes the flare to the roof.

I mean, that's kind of a problem with that.

We can we can I think I mean include the flare.

Yeah, I think it'd just be a nice detail.

Yeah.

And what is the roof of material then, Mark?

Um, that particular is because the pitch is membrane with a copper termination.

So the this one here would be a membrane.

Correct.

And what is it we could do now?

Now it is I'd have to honestly have to check.

I mean, if the pitch were at least a four or five pitch, we would we could go with match the existing main roof.

That's fine.

Not opposed to that.

I mean, I think coming back to the comment about the dental detailing.

I mean dental detailing and then membrane roof don't seem to be compatible in my view.

But and I have concerns about conjecture on adding that level of architectural detail.

Well, if you go back to the original existing drawing.

I mean, what that bay window is not original in that.

Oh no, no.

Look above that's what we're playing.

And I think we have some actual photographs that we don't see in uh a separate yeah, it might be helpful, but maybe quite look at those.

But this is a non-original extension on the house.

Yes.

So adding dental architectural detail does not lend to compatibility.

There wouldn't have been that on the structure, and certainly not in combination with a membrane roof.

No, but I would I would also point out I think that the new replacement addition more closely or matches the historic house.

So you could say why not in detail provide compatibility, the original structure as it is on the front.

I think that comes back to our standard A2 to avoid conjecture.

We're not looking to give the impression that that rear addition, which was not original, is a you know connected architecturally.

We want it to be compatible, but it should not read.

So deal is the detail, the dental detail is the background.

That's in my view.

So Mark, are you on this extension?

Are you rebuilding this extension?

Is it getting bigger or it is being yes, it is being rebuilt rebuilt in terms of size or is it changing size?

It's it's changing, not not width.

You look at the top and the bottom, it's about the same.

But it's going out.

And we rebuild end up rebuilding the wall almost entirely because of the change the bay window goes away, so it's it re-shapes it in the space.

Is it different?

So the the where the roof is now, the new roof is on your second drawing is higher.

Looks like the ceiling is higher in the space.

Is that is the it is a new wall and it's a new roof, that's good.

I mean, we would be able to tell on one of the other elevations.

We can see if it's getting larger.

Yeah.

Well, before we do that, can we go back to the photograph you had of roof elevation?

No, no, they had the whole so something doesn't look right.

I mean, I don't.

There's two windows on that elevation there.

Well, the roof, the existing roof.

And if we go back to the drawing.

Well, maybe that's an old photograph.

But there's two windows of that one.

The proposed rendering does show the two windows, but it's just maybe missing.

But I can't read the text that's associated with that over there.

Okay, that's just a fine point.

I just no, I mean I'm curious actually now to know what that says.

Do you guys?

I think you just I think you just dropped a window.

Yeah, I think it in the existing drawing above, it's missing the window.

Yeah, well, it says Marvin.

Right, right.

It does say Marvin Ultimate Cloud Exterior.

So is that supposed to be changed?

Or is that what's existing?

I think that's a new window.

Two different photographs from two different conditions.

Well, no, because it in the photo you can see.

Can we go back to that photograph again real quick?

I think it's the tree.

No, the photograph with that back elevation.

Can you see hard to see what the trees are?

Yeah, I think I think you're getting confused with the branches of the tree.

No, it's you can see the um you could.

Oh no, right there.

Okay.

So actually, so look, this one's wrong.

All right, never mind.

Oh yeah.

That's an old that's a 14-year-old picture.

I think we want to rely on the so you're putting a window back.

Yeah.

You're a preservationist.

All right.

Anything else on that elevation?

So that door that's you're saying was currently tucked in.

Will that door remain?

No.

Okay, so that's coming out.

Okay.

So any other questions?

Uh it's clear to the right, and I think we talked about the architectural detail, but the door that is being added with the low grade steps up.

Anyone concerned about that?

Mahogany.

Okay.

No.

No.

Okay.

Because that deck wasn't reading.

Okay.

All right.

So let's go to what elevation is this one.

East.

East.

Okay.

So if you look to the right of the screen of the existing elevation, this two casement old non-historic, non-contributing windows that will be replaced with one larger new window.

And it's the detail is shown on the margin as well.

So I'm not sure if it's my eyes, but in this, it actually looks like that bump out is getting smaller.

Right?

The one up above that has the casements, and then where you're putting the new single window.

So we were asking about if it was getting larger than the last elevation.

Is that correct?

Let me check.

Yeah.

On this one, it looks a little more evenly sized, but that other it could just be a it could just be deceiving.

I can't tell.

There's also some dental molding going on here.

No, there's dental here.

It looks like yeah, looks like it.

Looks like it's like for this elevation.

Do you is there a photograph of this elevation?

I'm gonna show you both.

I have existing floor plan and then uh there's oh and maybe this was in our materials and it should be in the application.

Should have this isn't proposed, but you want to put the uh floor plans up on the screen.

I know that they are um it's a little further up.

Okay, might be helpful.

Yeah, that now we can to answer those questions about the size of that bump out.

Okay.

So it's the line with A right now.

Yeah, you're not going to be able to it's not dimension, so you wouldn't know without knowing the dimensions.

Okay.

I mean it's relative, yeah.

Yeah.

If you follow the one, so look at the the starting at the back line of the house where the bay window is, and we follow that line from both existing to proposed, you'll see that it's with a bay window pause.

That's straightening that line out, continuing on, and then it continues to the little basement entry extension.

But that all stays intact.

It it literally just gets straightened out.

Okay, you want to go back to the east.

Nick, we'll go back to the east elevation.

Nick and Kimberly, can we go back?

Okay, there we go.

Can we go to the east?

There we go.

Okay.

So as we discussed that rear where the two casement windows were, that's going to become a one stationary fixed window.

Six light.

When we were looking at the uh street view of this side uh the existing, there's a doorway there, not a casement.

I'm I'm just worried that these plans aren't entirely accurate.

We go back to um oh that's right, because that's what I just called out.

That there was a uh on the porticle on the front.

That's where that location I think part of the challenge, we don't know how updated what we're looking at right now.

This Google view.

It seems like the drawing is missing a window, but seems to be a window here.

So that's the back.

That's the back of the that's the back.

But that's to Nick's point in the drawings that we were just looking at of that elevation.

That's a casement window.

No, we're looking at two different sides.

Right now, the back is on the left, and yeah, now it's switched.

Can't see it.

No, I don't mean the fade.

They're two different views.

Seems like we need some more information to me.

Is the question where the existing door is on the side of the building that leads to that deck?

Is that the question?

I think that's what's getting confused.

It's on the side, so it's shown.

It's shown on the on existing one on one on the floor plan.

That's the no, not that.

Existing first floor plan.

Existing 101.

There you go.

Okay.

So it's blocked from the view.

Uh we can't see it.

You would not see it on the elevation.

But yet the elevation prevent presented this evening.

I mean, that bump out is clearly visible.

If we go back to that east, I mean that whole not this one, the next one.

I mean, what is it that we're looking at there then in the back where the stairs are?

It seems like this doesn't match the that's it.

There's like a what is that?

Open doorway there, right?

In the back on the east side.

According to the drawing that you the floor plan that you just brought up.

That there's a door here, but when we look at that elevation, there's a whole structure out here.

Right.

It's on the I think it's on the right there.

That's that open doorway.

Keep going right.

Or right there that.

Yeah.

Yes.

No.

That's your basement doghouse thing.

I think it's the I think this is the structure.

That deck you mean?

Are you looking for that deck?

That's all we're doing.

That is the screen.

That's the front.

That's the front.

That's the best of the front.

The casement windows are only in the front.

Right?

Front portico.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think we're mixing up the um elevations.

The casement would that's correct.

That's that is the side of the front portico.

And we're replacing it with the window as shown below with a longer window.

That's the front.

Okay.

Yep.

Oh my god.

Not the side of the building, but the side of the portico.

Yep.

And then on the other side.

So same thing.

Go to propose.

So it's west.

Now we just can't see the door on the other side.

West and east.

That changes.

Yeah.

Oh I uh like the roof systems look different here too, though.

Like your proposed roof system is your existing roof system, and your existing roof system is your proposed roof system.

Like this.

This right here.

Yeah, that does look like the no, they've got dental in the front existing and if you go the original as keeper pitch.

The proposed as a shell.

But I think it's the same thing.

I was thinking about that's the front.

That's the front week.

Oh, that is changing also.

You'll be increasing the pitch on the front.

The pitch changes on the front.

We say by the it's increasing.

Yeah, no, he's got a correct what he's actually increasing the roof on the proposed plan, removing the dental molding.

The one up top has that more flat roof, which actually looks like a rubber membrane roof right now.

Yeah.

Hold on.

So this is existing.

Top, yep.

And this is proposed.

So can we go back to the elevation looking this way?

From the west.

So this right here, they don't match.

This is the back.

The one we were looking at.

It's the back.

This is proposed.

Right.

Yeah.

Shell.

Go back down to the other point.

But now we're on the back side of the building.

We keep going back and forth from the front to the back.

I think that's from different angles.

There's a bump out on the front and a bump out on the back.

Yeah, the door on the front and it's uh kind of a bump out on the back.

That's right.

But they're both existing already.

So that's maybe why it's confusing.

Are we ready for comments and questions, or are we still going through that application?

Anything that you haven't covered in the just check.

No, I think we covered everything on each each elevation.

Okay.

So opening questions and comments from the commission.

Okay.

I'll start by saying that I think we do need to or hopefully can find some old photos of the building.

That portico to make changes to it.

I think is at least my primary concern on this particular property.

Um I think the dental molding was added at some point to give it some flair, but it's probably not an original feature unless you've found it on other parts of the building.

Um I think that historic photo would be helpful because you do have a bay window uh looking at the house on the left side, and it does have similar dental molding.

So I mean, I could support the dental if it if you could prove that it was on the house previously.

Um the other thing is the front door.

I know that you have an existing enclosure already.

I guess I don't feel that the replacement enclosure with like the detailed columns that are not really columns is really appropriate.

I guess my question is how much purview do we have if they're making a change to this to the front door that is still inside or potentially the original door to the house.

Is there a door on the inside if you pass into the portico?

Is that that's the potential original wood door?

But is um we're talking about modifying a non-contributing feature, right?

Right.

Right.

Isn't the standard a little different than if it were modified storage?

But I guess since you're modifying it, wait, why don't we remove it and just return to original is kind of the question.

So I think finding out the origin what it was is important.

I agree with that.

Yes, and that can guide that detail.

Um I wouldn't I think that's gonna drive my decision at least what was there and what therefore you decide to put there.

The French door is not I'm not necessarily opposed to, but if you're gonna be taking it all off and basically rebuilding something new, I don't know that this enclosure is really what's appropriate for the building.

These columns with the inlaid uh clapboard is kind of like kind of like you're re-enclosing a porch that maybe wasn't there to begin with.

It looks almost like it wasn't meant to be, but um maybe it's just the way that I'm looking at these renderings.

Um it might be more appropriate open and not enclosed, so you can see the front doors.

That's kind of just where my brain is going.

Is what did this look like originally?

And if you're gonna take it off, does it really make sense to put something back that is also not the right?

This particular um portico has I I suppose um acquired some historical significance in itself.

But if we're gonna tear it off, I think we really need to re-think the entire plan.

That's my opinion.

The back, I don't really have any issues with.

Um I think I'm more concerned with what's going on with this front door.

So I think I would ask to separate the application by elevation.

We I don't we can find out what the detail issue was on the front portico, but the other sides in the back seem pretty straightforward.

Yeah, we're improving non-contributing details that would allow us to complete those tasks.

If it for the concern of time, could we once we have that information from Newport Historic Society or other actual parts?

Can we work that detail out with the planner?

I I think that that's I'd like to see that's important for the commission to you've got multiple areas, right?

So we've got this dental molding on the front and the back.

It's also on the bay window on the side, right?

So if you don't have any historical evidence of there being dental molding, I mean I probably would be opposed to putting it on the front and on the back.

Can I make a comment?

As you look at the the photograph of the front of the house.

As you look at the the photograph of the front of the house, what we keep calling what your rendering should you're you're you've been calling it dental molding.

I think what's existing on the bay on that on that left side bay.

If you look at the front of the house, that bay on the left, and all this dental molding.

I think those are little mini core bulbs that are imitating the ones.

The ones on top up top.

They very well may be, yeah.

And and if that's the case, then I would imagine that what you're gonna really want to do is not dental molding, you're gonna want to have those little mini core balls to match it.

That is what we do.

So that that would be my comment on that.

And then I agree with Ms.

Marion completely about I I'd like to see a historic photo of this house so that we knew what the front entrance originally looked like.

Because as she has said, um taking the portico off to build another conjectural, but another kind of portico to me seems like can a lot of conjecture.

You know, we're kind of imagining what maybe it could have, would have, should have looked like, or maybe it looks this way now, it doesn't look that way, which doesn't necessarily reflect any uh doesn't have any relationship to the original building.

I so I'm in favor of holding off on I I'm I'm fine with the the sides of the building, the back of the building, but I think on this front facade we need to see some historical precedent.

That's fine.

That's one part.

Um Mark, what are the gutters on the house now what was that question, Frank?

Can you I just didn't hear it?

Oh the gutters on that you're talking about putting you're talking about putting copper gutters on.

I'm not sure copper is the right choice given what we've heard on previous application here.

Um we're not proposing to change any of those details.

So we didn't examine or study that.

So yeah, maybe show a picture for us, you know.

Or Jill, what they are and yeah, I mean, and I would say, I mean, as the project has described, replace rotting gutters with copper gutters.

But if you're not even clear what's on the property right now.

I don't know, that just seems difficult to wrap my head around to approve when we don't know what's actually there.

We talk about it.

And honestly, these and honestly, these photos that we're looking at, we don't even know if these are current photos.

I I was gonna suggest getting updated photos just kind of surrounding the house so you could bring those back so we know exactly what's there today.

And then once you have the historic imagery area.

That's I'm fine with that.

Um, just to be clear though, we're we're talking about the front of the house, the portico.

Historic photos of that, but rather than the whole oh yeah, I I think I was suggesting probably getting photos of the whole house yourself and then historic photos of whatever they have.

Because they may because it's at a corner, they probably have photos from the two different the main kind of entry angle or entry and then the side angle.

Um, whatever the historic society can find for you, I think would be helpful.

But I think new photos of what's there today will also help everyone understand what we're looking at because the the 2D imagery is a little bit hard to follow on the elevation.

I also recommend that maybe you do some investigation on this front vestibule.

Very likely it could have been the original porch that was enclosed.

If that's the case, do some digging, maybe we'll find something.

And I understand your desire to move forward on certain aspects of it, but I believe based on the information as presented, we don't know that we we don't have historical photos, we don't have updated actual photos of the house.

I'm not comfortable even making an approval on other elevations without having more context of what's this is a very large, important house on a corner.

And I feel like we're piecemealing together approvals based on what we are subject uh, you know, subjectively saying that oh, this is the current status of the property.

Google says this is a 2025 photo.

Um no two and one of the toilet.

No, it says this image right here is 2017.

We were looking at the one before it was from 2012.

Yeah, so you can see it right here, uh Row if you look.

It's the image captured there.

Yeah, once you get to the corner and changes to 2012.

I mean, we can also say as much as I understand I understand they need to want to unify the scope and have consistency and design.

The fact is we look at each elevation, there are many details that are compromised.

They're not original contributing fabric.

So I think what we're asking in the back, I don't know what information would be.

Yeah, I understand.

But we know but's there now is a window that doesn't belong there in the back of the house.

And so I don't think we have any arguments there.

Right.

Well, that's a big size.

Yeah.

And I think I'm fine with the back.

On the east and west elevations where the where the double casement windows are.

I think we all agree that's not historic detail.

Changing that to a longer window to match the rest makes good sense.

Right.

Um so in that case window on the portion.

It was on the front, though.

I think I think it makes sense for the front portico to find some context there.

Yeah, the other areas, I don't know that you know what how that's going to change the other areas.

They are what they are.

They were done fairly recently.

They're not there in fraction from the main house, there's no question about them.

I was, I mean.

Are you saying that you might if you had pictures of the self-elevation in the back, you might change your view on the well, the original photos?

We don't know those are maybe 2017.

Are they do we feel that the historical photos are going to dictate what we decide on this roof line in the back?

Here's the loop with potentially we have a non-contributing detail, which we know that they went up.

We go back and we find a photo that shows that as a different treatment.

Isn't that conjecture to go back to what was what done historically?

It's the same argument with the dental of the uh the corbels.

Where's a conjecture?

Where is it respecting the past?

What's the right decision, right?

I think these are awful details.

Changing them to what we're proposed is much big improvement.

But if we peel it back all the way back to 1880s, we're gonna say, okay, now what?

Do we abandon this entirely and go back to the way it was?

So that's conjecture by definition.

I mean, I think and the vice chair and I were just discussing there could be potential value in a site visit.

There's a lot of open questions here.

I don't think that anyone in in totality is comfortable weighing in on all of these.

I certainly with the materials as presented this evening, would not be comfortable moving this forward to a vote myself, but others you know might feel differently.

Even in splitting, even in splitting the application.

That's all good.

I think we're gonna come back to the same dilemma, which is with that information now.

What do we do with it?

I think that that's the value of the site visit or having other photos to come back and make an informed decision based on what is being presented in the drawings.

I think we have enough information for an informed position on what exists, but we don't know if we see these changes.

And if that information guides us in a one direction, fine.

But what I'm hearing is it may not.

It may confuse the matter.

I think that's up to the commission to make that determination.

So I mean, my my feeling is that we need some historical context for the front facade.

I I'm I mean, I don't think anybody in the commission is suggesting that we would want to remove some of these, you know, appendages that have been added.

And and I think the changes that you're recommending to all three of the other facades are are wonderful improvements.

So in I I mean, I could support um those, but I I do think we need more information about what the original facade of the house looked like.

Yeah, just the point of elevation is the only one I'm concerned about.

That's to your point on five years for it.

Yeah.

Well, but I think that we're hearing from some others that there may be some I from my opinion on the back, not so concerned.

However, we're talking now about you're adding the molt the corbels in the back.

You're changing the roof line in the back.

Well, if we see that that back portion was there in 1910, maybe that would change our minds and say maybe we should leave that roof line alone because it's been there and it's uh it's it's acquired its own historical significance.

So I guess while I even myself, I'm overall okay with the back.

I understand where some of my fellow commissioners stand to say, well, what are we gonna approve that and then get photos and they're gonna show that this back portion had something that we should have considered?

So I get it.

I don't know if we're gonna be more informed decision.

Yeah, absolutely right.

It would only help.

It would only help.

I know it's gonna hold you guys up a little bit, but it'd be a more informed yeah, Mr.

Goddard.

Uh I am in agreement.

I I think it would be a more informed decision if we had more information, you know.

Especially historic photos to me.

And I and I and I do uh concur.

I do I do believe the back elevation is far less important to me than the front, and I think the front really needs more information.

So I'll talk to the owners.

We're representing them in this back to them and let them know.

Okay, so then we'll continue the application.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so request a motion to continue the application of 19 Catherine Street, Platte 25 lot 65 to the next regularly scheduled HTC meeting on Tuesday, October 14th, 2025.

No move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the application of Monica C.

Barrett of 33 Williams Street, flat 27, lot 146.

This is a non-contributing structure for permission to install new wood railing at the existing third floor port.

Add two new wood windows and four new transom windows at the third floor porch.

Replaced in kind five matching dormer windows with new wood pella reserve windows to match existing.

And just um for the record, um, Commissioner Goddard is recusing himself, and Ms.

Richter will be sitting in.

Okay, welcome back.

If I could just have you state your name again for the record.

Spencer McComb architect.

Thank you.

So I want to kind of introduce this project a little bit.

I I just read Jill's uh staff notes, and um just want to make sure uh we're all clear.

This building was built in 1988.

It um from scratch, it wasn't here, so kind of a um well, just so you realize it's 1988, not being built in.

Um I've I've seen this building as you drive down Spring Street, it's it's quite far back, but it's one of the taller first buildings facing spring from William Street.

Uh it has a peculiar railing on this uh porch, third floor porch, which obviously is existing.

You can see this is a great picture of it.

Um essentially they built the railing at the pitch of the root.

Uh I've been doing this for a long time.

I have not seen that.

I kind of like it.

So what happens is that um as the rain kind of falls on it, it just kind of rots out.

So they put a little stick there to hold the thing up.

And it just like I don't I don't really know what to do with it.

I don't think that just building it back the way it is makes sense.

Um I you know, I read the staff report, I understand the thoughts there, but in reality, I think we should we should go with what uh we propose, and I think there's some changes that I'd like to just propose to you.

One that it's not a uh composite railing, it's a it's a wood railing.

Um that the railing is continuous, so it's as small and it's sort of simple as possible.

Uh it doesn't go up and down as we have shown.

And um and that it does sit plum with um with the edge of where the decking ends.

So nowhere in this uh application are we trying to expand the deck.

The deck is the size that it is today.

It does tuck underneath a bit of roof line on each side, and we'd like to open that up just slightly.

Um I'll tell you when I first met these clients, they wanted to create that condition over the entire side of the whole building.

Um and I kind of talked them back doing that and said, let's just let's keep what there, let's try to expand your uh opening just slightly and keep basically the the existing condition as it is.

And so that's the application that's in front of you.

It's not to expand the deck in any any bit at all.

It is to open up the wing walls, which are just enclosing it slightly.

Um you can see in the drawing uh that it's uh slightly bigger on the on the right side there and the plant, but that the railing stays uh just goes plum, and uh it would be uh a wood railing, and it would be even across the entire stretch of the railing system there.

And uh the other ask is for the two dormers which are existing, which I think are awkward in shape and size, but do match the other ones.

Um we're just replacing those windows which have failed.

I don't really know why those have failed before the ones on the other side of the building, but maybe it's their exposure to the south uh side.

But they're they're 19 late 1980s version windows and they're wood, and we're gonna replace them with wood pillow uh windows.

And if you look at the existing condition, there's two sliders that are next to each other with a large sort of forehead above them, which just seems peculiar to me.

There's a lot of things on this building that look peculiar to me, but that one uh just seems like well, that would be a nice to be a glass um a glass enclosure all through there.

Um and I think it would be appropriate for the situation we have here.

So really the ask is um to put the railing plum.

Uh and I'm changing the application to say that it's gonna be a wood railing, which has an even railing height throughout the entire one.

So um I think that would be address some of the concerns that were brought up in the staff report, and uh the windows that surround the two glass windows or two glass sliders that are there would remain the same as what's shown here in this application.

Um I hope that maybe clears up what the application is.

The deck is not getting any bigger.

Uh it's the same size it was.

We're not even replacing the decking boards, which are actually in pretty decent shape.

Uh it's really just to get this rotted pitched railing to be something that we could build and won't rot out again.

Um so that's that's the application.

Um could you just clarify?

So it says replace in kind five matching dormer windows.

So we have dormers on another.

So it's these two that we see here.

Oh, it's okay.

So sorry.

We were discussing that, but yeah, the other there's three on the far side.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

And those will all be that same Pella.

Same again, yeah.

Identical dormers, and uh I think they were just now match.

Okay.

All right.

Mr.

Bell.

Um have you gotten zoning approval for this?

We have not.

So by changing the railing, you're actually changing the footprint of the usable deck, also.

It's getting wider.

Um I mean, if you can't walk here, I can then walk here.

I would, yeah, maybe it's six inches of usable space.

It looked substantially more on your plan.

The second question is by um taking that area where the deck now tucks underneath the gable end return roof.

You're taking that off your you're actually physically making the dormer look bigger from what it appears right now.

The opening, right?

Not the dormer, it's really a dormer, it's a porch.

Yep.

We are making it look uh slightly bigger because both of those wing walls are gonna be expanding out slightly.

Thank you.

Okay.

I I don't I don't think that we need to go to zoning.

I know that's your opinion there, uh, but I I haven't even mentioned it to my client because I when we were gonna expand it, I was telling them we gotta go to zoning, but uh I don't think pitching the railing straight ahead, and I can get opinions from well, by luck we have Mr.

Armor here.

I am here.

Um I have to agree with Mr.

Bala.

I think that this is um expanding the usable footprint of the balcony that's out there, including when you look at um this section right there.

There's no way, even especially the part the part that currently tucks into this area, like given how the roof pitches, you probably can't use more than about right here.

Um I I'm not gonna evaluate right now what that square footage increase is, but it does look like the floor of this gets larger or the usable portion of that.

Um a third floor balcony is now limited.

Well, actually, I I don't even know the height off the ground, so I it's hard for me to exactly opine on what the zoning requirement would be.

Okay, but I would say it's more than likely this is going to require a variance.

Okay.

Well, I'll I'll pass that on.

It didn't occur to me given what they originally wanted to do and what we ended up with.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying Nick.

Well, it's not physically expanding, but the useful space is expanded.

Essentially, yeah.

Um again, it's hard hard to exactly see it on this.

Obviously, this is 2D, but I just I never know if it's on.

I don't mean to be cutting it out.

I was gonna just ask if you could remember off the top of your head the date the ordinance changed for upper story deck.

So it was earlier this year, right?

Yeah.

That's a relatively recent change.

Yeah.

Okay.

And and Nick is technically third story, depending on where it is.

Yeah, it's anything to 25 feet above grade is considered uh and what's the square footage of the lower 30 square feet as for a deck or balcony at that level.

Um, and any expansion beyond that would require a variance.

Okay.

Well, I'll let my client know that the railing change would have a zoning uh component to it.

Okay, so as presented, understanding that needs to still be clarified.

Um any other questions or comments.

No.

No.

No question.

Um, we're planning on voting on this right now.

Yeah, unless anybody has further comments.

Yeah, okay.

No.

Okay.

I will request a motion to approve the application of 33 William Street, plat 27, lot 146, with the note that the project description is updated.

Permission to install a new all wood even height wood railing at the existing third floor porch.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060 B1.

So second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

I uh I would say B2.

Um I would say B1.

And I would say um B one.

Okay.

So I think we have four to four to three.

Yeah.

Right?

I believe so.

So you're approved.

Okay.

I know we should probably should be elaborating on that a little bit.

Um I don't feel that the opening of a deck is compatible with uh historic district neighborhood, especially on a third floor.

You guys want to add I um would also agree that the deck um that altering this deck does uh is incompatible with the historic district.

Increasing its visible and increasing the upper story deck um the visibility of it.

I agree.

Okay, thank you.

Um we have one we have to the three and three and two.

Has anyone arrived for application N3, 37 Sherman Street?

Continue.

No continue.

What is a typical standard of you guys uh we typically dismiss?

Yeah, we two all right.

No, they get two, right?

If nobody's here to represent, we don't typically continue.

But but we did for what was the Belleview application, I think.

That was based on continuations multiple that exceeded our somewhere.

Is it in the ordinance or is it in the commission's rules that you guys typically gave one an excused absence continuance?

Sounds good.

All right.

So before we jump to our last applications, I'm going to request a motion to continue the application of 37 Sherman Street Platte 21 lot 108 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, October 14th, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

So now the floor is officially yours for the evening.

Great.

Do we need to read this back into the record?

Which one we're talking about right now.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

No, sorry.

We have to um ask the vice chair to read the application of C3.

Great.

Okay.

Give us one moment.

One second.

Thanks.

This is the application of Luke Pleury of 8 Beacon Hill, plat 41, lot 274, this contributing structure for permission to convert two family residents into single family residents 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, which is the facade, adding a Juliet back balcony to the hayloft, installing copper half-round gutters, removing the field stone chimneys, and replacing them with faux chimneys and demolishing a buttress.

Okay, so just before handing it over to council, um, just to state for the record that we have had a site visit for this application as well as a design review committee.

Um with that thank you, madam chair, members of the commission, Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott, Holbrook, and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Happy to be here for the resequenced portion of the program this evening.

Um I have with me the architect, the project architect Mark Repp, as the chairwoman indicated.

Since last meeting, you know, we at least had that initial presentation.

You had the opportunity to give us feedback at last month's HTC meeting.

We had a site visit uh where a number of you were able to come and see the uh the contributing structure, see the grounds, so you had a sense as to some of the challenges associated with the site, why we've chosen in terms of the site plan to request to have uh the layout as proposed.

Um I think just as important we had the design review committee meeting the end of last week.

Uh and I think we um you know we went through in great detail um issues surrounding the windows, what's being proposed to be replaced, what is uh going to stay and be restored.

Um and we had discussion at that meeting as well regarding uh the issue of converting the main entrance of the building uh to the east elevation.

Uh Mark has updated plans that obviously were done after that meeting, which were post-circulation of uh agenda.

So we have uh he has sets for you to take a look at.

And what we've done is we've reduced um some of the elements of the proposed um uh entrance on the east elevation.

Um, and we're still advocating for that, but in the interest of sort of keeping things moving, if there's a sense from the commission that that still is not satisfactory, there is an alternate proposal to put the and main entrance uh on the south side.

So that's part of the plan set.

Um and I do understand, and I and I and this was discussed as well at the design review committee.

There still may not be enough information.

This is a big project, and there's there's still some sort of pieces we're pulling together, but there may not be enough information for all of you to make any type of final decision this evening on uh the accessory structure, where it's located, the proposed pool, and and if that's the case, um I would just respectfully request that we move forward with whatever portion of this project we can tonight, um, so that we can hopefully start to make some progress in terms of the work here.

So with that, I'll sort of turn it over to Mark.

I'll ask Mark if he could actually start the discussion.

I can hand things out and just double check.

Oh, and one last thing.

Again, this this again, not we don't we have this, not because we're asking you necessarily to make a decision on this, but I think Mark did have did get it today, an updated site plan.

That's it, okay.

And this relates to the fact that there is a proposed, a new proposed driveway directly from Beacon Hill Road.

For those of you who came to the site, you realize the challenge with because the access to this property right now is through a common driveway shared with another uh property on uh just up the hill, and it's very narrow.

Um, it's very difficult for two vehicles to come and go at the same time.

Uh, and that's why this property uh we're proposing that it gets its own curb cut.

We are proposing to construct garage uh with living quarters above.

Um that being said, part of where the previous driveway was proposed to be located encroached into an existing stone wall on site.

So um that was sort of highlighted to us uh as something we needed to give consideration to at the site visit, which we have, and so today we got uh an updated site plan which uh shows that there is room to accommodate that stone wall by sort of redirecting the driveway a little bit, changing the shape of a rain garden.

So um, so we have that updated site plan, which I'm gonna pass out now in the updated plan set, and I'll let Mark get started while I pass these out.

And if I could have this identified as applicants, exhibit one, please.

Um okay, so commission accessory building.

That wasn't the original.

Yeah, and I just want I want to touch on that also after um so a couple things.

So we'll go through.

So first, um, to the commission, I want to request a motion to accept exhibit A for eight Beacon Hill Road, plat 41 lot 274, which includes new architect a new architectural drawing set and site plan.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed and council, just to clarify.

So as um the application has written, does not include that accessory structure, the garage and the pool.

Are we amending the application at this point to include those officially now?

Please, yes.

Again, with the understanding that there may be more information required.

Yeah, we can should we do that now?

Sure.

And ascribe that in the end of the project description.

Um, so I'll request a motion to update the project description for eight Beacon Hill Road, flat 41 lot 274, permission to convert a two-family residence into a single family residence by adding an entrance portico and reconfiguring fenestration on the east elevation, replacing a window in the west dormer, altering the fenestration in the south elevation facade, adding a Juliet balcony to the hayloft, installing copper half-round gutters, removing the field stone chimneys, and replacing them with foam chimneys and demolishing a buttress, as well as the addition of a secondary um structure for a garage and a pool.

Um second, all those in favor of the amendment.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

And I'll get you sworn in, Mr.

Rapp.

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

So help you, God.

Yes, I do.

And state your name for the record.

Uh Mark Rapp.

Mark and thank you.

Uh, I don't know how you want me to explain where we are, but I'll try to be concise.

Uh, like we uh we had a site visit with most of you, which was great.

See a site, and then we had a design review meeting, and we tried to address your concerns with those issues.

Uh, what I'll do is I'll talk about the site plan, which you see uh before you.

The one up on the screen was the site plan as of last week.

After our D9 review meeting, we addressed the concern primarily with keeping the historic stone wall on the uh north east corner.

So the site plan in your hand has been revised to show that where the driveway works around the historic stone wall, and we've tweaked the garage orientation a little bit to work with a revised driveway load.

So the updated site plan you have in your hand is most current as of this afternoon at four o'clock when the engineer got it finished.

So this site plan by the engineering company, Principal Associates um is accurate and correct, meets its own requirements and meets the requirements for the new on-site wastewater treatment system, which doesn't have one right now.

So these are the things we're addressing with the property, along with the proposed driveway from Beacon Hill Road, so that we can allow the neighbor to have easier access up the uh shared driveway and a private area of the back.

So that's the site plan issue.

Okay, and so just to confirm on that note, that historic stone wall that is um on the I don't remember the elevation that it's in front of the on the northeast corner.

So that stone existing stone wall will remain.

There will be no moving of that, everything stays intact.

Okay.

Okay, commission.

Any questions or comments on that?

Just out of the point of sort of explanation to mark um again.

I know the site's only sort of looking at it now and spending some time with it, but just wanted to point out for those of you who were there, you realize that this site has some unique challenges in terms of what we're thinking can be placed.

So if you can just describe what you're dealing with in terms of ledge on the south side of the property, uh, and that sort of performs where it's been a choice bar here to replacing most accessory structure and also yeah, the um the south part of the site, which is uphill, which is uh sort of counterintuitive looking at it, is significant amount of ledge and ledge, primarily from the southeast corner of the house.

That's all led going uphill, and there's a small actual walkway between sort of the ledge, the building, and you go around the buttress, which inhibits sort of movement from the original driveway across the rest of the site.

So that's why we elected to create a little private alcove on the south side of the building between the ledge, a tight board fence along the driveway that could be quiet area for the homeowners, and then provide a more formal driveway from Beacon Hill Road that would serve both the carriage house building, which is now becoming a single family residence, and then also uh the three-car garage, which is gonna serve everybody.

So the other limitation we have besides the ledge to the south is the wetlands to the northeast.

You'll see that over 50% of the site is designated wetland, and with a setback that can stay beyond that.

So we're sort of squeezing all this work within that area.

It'll look still look the same, but we can't go in there and disturb that.

So that's the site.

Okay, and so in sort of explaining some of the challenges that exist for the site itself, that has informed uh the owner um as the layout, and also most importantly, as to the proposal to move the main entrance to the east elevation.

Is that correct?

Yeah, uh part of the reasons we there is a one entry to the northwest, the sort of the west wall.

There is a person entrance that lets to one apartment.

There was another entrance, the east that went to the south that went to the second apartment.

And we're flipping the building orientation around, we're using the all the space, we're not parking inside, and what we're trying to do is provide accessibility to the building.

So we've lowered the wood floor down to the park, the concrete level, and that's accessible from the east side, whereas on the west, you have to go up four steps to get up to that level.

So that's why we sort of flip the orientation of the building.

Primary entrance to the east.

That's what um we tried to maintain the character of the building along the north and the west, which face Beacon Hill Road and are visible from the street right there.

Um so uh along those lines, why don't I just walk through the chain you make the elevation in terms of uh still having the proposed main entrance on the east elevation, but walk in the chain that we made to the designs this last if you want to go look at sheet eight to two, it'll be the east elevation, which is um has the all there.

You go.

Thank you.

The uh you see in this this elevation, uh the sheet, the upper two drawings are the existing conditions, and the lower two drawings are the proposed changes.

The east elevation is the one on the left, and on that elevation, there was there were three sliding patio doors and an 80s deck on that side.

Uh what we're proposing to do is provide an entrance and a pair of windows at the ground level, and then three windows up in the flat slate cable for light into the stairway.

Um, we think what we did is we've cut back the porch.

The porch previously was wider, it had columns.

We cut it back to a smaller pediment with some square brackets at an angle coming out to support the roof.

Uh the windows on the right served uh dining area, the windows left serve family room area, and that's the primary entrance.

So you wouldn't see this from the street, but you would see it from the sort of courtyard recruiting between the garage and the house.

And then if you look at the west elevation, which is adjacent the other end, you can see where the existing person door was with the stairs going up to it.

That's going to remain intact with the exception of the window in the dormer.

That's one of the windows proposed to replace.

So it's not an original window, which I will go back to.

We actually had a window survey done.

I didn't know that.

We presented the window survey, so we'll explain the windows later.

So that's how we got these.

And Jeremy, if you want to sort of discuss this east elevation before we move on to anything, or do you want Mark just to go through all the elevations now?

Um I'll open it up to the commission.

Would you prefer to walk through all of the elevations first and then come back?

Or do you want to go through to see how it all works together?

And you want to go through it.

Okay, so let's do that.

All right.

So if you go back to the sheet previously, sheet A21, which is the uh north elevation, that's the one that primarily faces the um street.

And what you'll notice is that um with the window survey, it reinforced what we knew was that on the first floor, which actually looks like the half a story up above the stone, all but one of those windows are original for the building.

We intend to keep those original windows and restore them, the wood windows.

They're primarily six over one and eight over two sashes, double-hung units.

The one window to the left on the ground floor is not an original window.

We propose to present replace that with a new pellow reserve wood window with putty glazed muttons on the exterior to match most closely the original windows on the second floor.

There are three windows you'll notice they're completely different.

It's a one over one double hung, gate of rate double hung and a casement.

We propose replacing those three with a series of double-hung windows, as we show with a mutton, so that with the advice from the design of the new committee.

Maybe the second floor looks a little bit different than the first floor.

Not trying to mimic the first floor, but something which is more compatible, but not again.

And then also the other thing we've uh agreed to do is that on the right hand side, you'll see the stone chimney at the at the gable end sticking up.

We proposed originally removing it, rebuilding it, but at this point, we agree with the design review.

We'll keep the chimney, we'll go inside, structurally resupport that chimney because we have enough space to do that inside.

I can inside brick, but for a boiler room, so I can take that apart and hold it up above the room.

So we're which one are you talking about, Mark?

The one on the left.

Upper right hand corner.

Oh, the right, okay.

Yeah, that's the that's the chimney we were talking about uh rebuilding.

Yeah, okay.

All the other chimneys the building remain intact.

Um, so just for the commission to give a little context from the design review.

So that chimney in particular, we were concerned about field stone being taken down, cut into making that a veneer.

We thought that that was too a little scary.

Um, so appreciate that.

And then just coming back to that context around the second floor windows.

Um, I had just called out in the design review committee that some of the findings, in fact, spoke to um fenestration is irregular, irregularly spaced and consists of wood windows of various mutton arrangements.

So that change as presented by the applicant on the second floor helps to differentiate window muttons to the first floor.

So just that was the feedback that had been provided.

And while we're on these two elevations, I'll also point out two other items.

The windows and the turret, which is the octagon up there, they're gonna read their existing and they're gonna remain.

They may not be original, but at the time of the window survey you can get up there, see what you assume.

But we're not gonna change them, they're gonna remain as they are up in the turret.

We're not touching those windows.

Secondly, you'll see uh right in the middle of the roof, there's a skylight.

It's dashed in on the upper elevation.

You'll see we're proposing just to remove that flat glass skylight came in the slate roof across there because with the new configuration that's up in an attic space, it doesn't provide any light depth space.

So the chimney on the left, that one was kind of parched or something.

It's gonna remain as it is, not gonna touch it.

I'm afraid to touch it because there's any functionality to it.

No, no, good, but it'll remain in place.

Also, you pointed out, sir, at the walkthrough that that bay that projects out with the hip roof has a curved wood gutter, which would keep that curved wood gutter on there.

Right, okay.

The rest of the building has aluminum gutters right now, so we're gonna replace those with copper.

So would remain place the aluminum with copper downstops and gutters.

So if you want to go to the south elevation sheet A23, you'll see the changes we're proposing there.

Um, this is a little more work, but it's in the back, there'd be an exposed courtyard area.

The things we've done is we're gonna keep the dome buttresses from both the large chimney on the right and small um sort of carry block on the left are going to remain.

The so-called Juliet balcony would never intend to be removed.

It's a mistake in the uh application.

It's just the wood, it's the metal railing.

Keep people from falling out of the doors.

Um again, the second floor windows were proposed replacing those for the new double-hung um pellow reserve windows.

The doors in the old hayloft entry remain down in the first doors where we're proposing the greatest number of changes.

As we said before, the two large carriage house house stores remain intact.

We'll restore them and clean them and paint them, but they're not gonna be operable, they're gonna remain.

The person door between the two carriage or doors that disappear was 1980s, six-panel door, and we're proposing three windows that match the windows in the opposite side, which is part of one living room.

So the new windows match the space on the other side.

To the right, sort of a surrounding that uh large stone chimney with the three main.

There was a two windows and a door with a side light, as you can see.

We're proposing replacing the door with a side light with simple door, and then the two windows, the two double hung units, which are not original.

We're proposing to replace with two new double hung windows, which are more compatible and align with the uh skylights above, which are gonna remain.

You'll see the window on the right got moved a little bit to align with the skylight.

So when you're in the space, it won't feel as discuss disjointed as it does now.

And also in that elevation to the right side bottom, you can see sort of a little bit of the projecting porch roof we're proposing for the entry.

It only comes out about three feet from the face of the buildings see how much it does not impact them.

These are the changes we made subsequent to the site walkthrough and the design review meeting last Thursday.

Yes, I pushed the beam up there and I showed it's gonna remain.

Okay, yes.

Um, and just again to clarify we talk about the east elevation, but the the angle of the house versus the angle of the public right of way is such that at that east elevation, really not that visible in the road side correct.

It's it's somewhat that it's it's hard to see, yes.

So when you go by and hill road, the prominent part of this contributing structure that's visible to the public way is what we described as the north side, right?

Yes, correct the north side.

But it may open up more of that east side once the driveways and uh any vegetation trees, etc.

remove and you put a driveway in, it's gonna be more visible to the east side of suspect.

I I think they've missed most of the significant trees and all the wetlands we can't touch for the northeast.

So when you're driving from that side of Beacon Hill Road, I would assume that it doesn't really I don't know.

I agree there will be some clearing, yes.

I don't want to say there's none, but you will see it, but it's not as prominent.

So Mark, and looking at the south elevation.

I mean, I I get the driveway concern, but but why doesn't the south elevation work for a primary entrance?

I don't see many carriage houses that in their original state, it had the entrances on the long ends.

They always are in the middle because that's how carry houses function.

So why doesn't that function for you today?

Right.

Well, the the drive.

Okay, the the person door that's on the original carriage house is on the west, short elevation.

The one person door that went into the boiler room, which led up to the second floor hayloft and in the boiler room.

The man door we have on the person door on the south elevation was added later at some point.

There may have been a carriage house there house door there at one point or not, we don't know.

There's a large void in that wall, there's a large garage area.

Um, and the door to the right is from the 80s.

We don't know what was in the that door into what was really there.

So we've assumed the the entry door was west on that short elevation because that's where the driveway went, you walk in there, and then the carriage would probably come up.

But as we are trying to provide more access to the house with more cars, it makes a bottleneck right there.

That ledge right there comes down towards the buttress where stone buttons are going to keep, so we're gonna have to weave our way between the house and the ledge to make that work.

So we prefer the entrance of the keys, so it's easier to get from the garage and the house, the new house.

But prior to those four sliders being put on that east side, we don't have any idea what that side looked like.

No, we we have no photos, Doric has no photos, but I I tried the archives from the architects, they didn't have anything of the carriage house, and um the inside you could see during demo where there were some openings in the wall, but we don't know what they were.

They weren't those carriage, they weren't those slides.

Doors up because we don't know what they were.

The floor level, and they they had one, two, three, four different levels of the first floor for some reason.

Brought everything down about Mr.

Manson.

I had expressed the same question and comments in the design review about that east elevation as you know, and seeing it in the site visit.

Obviously, without having historic photos, we don't know what would have been there before those French doors were there.

But given the nature and typical use of a carriage house, it probably would have been a very simple wall similar to the opposing on the west elevation.

Um so it is a very significant alteration to that elevation, which is why we discussed an alternate entry to the property.

Um which it sounds like the applicant has put together as another option.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments?

Specifically to this or the um other elements that were brought up in the design review around the garage.

Yeah, I don't I'd say let's stick to the main structure first.

You want to do this versus okay.

Well, I I I would say that um I'm not in favor of uh the entry being on each side at all.

I I quite I find that that is very conjectural.

I think in some ways it detracts a lot from the simplistic nature of that elevation.

And uh I couldn't support that.

So Brian.

Um in the stables and carriage houses that I've been in that are actually you know more intact and and function and have been functioning as such, the one namely the ones in Portsmouth, like Glen Farm and Sandy Point Farm.

Um you know, you have to remember that they didn't have the people who lived in these houses were grooms.

I mean, these buildings, the the only people who lived there might have been, and and not always, in fact, but were were grooms.

So the person entrances were not important, they were not the emphasis.

These were working structures.

So I I mean I I'm not bothered by the lesser end or the less featured end of the building being the entrance for people, because typically the entrances for people were very underwhelming.

Um in these kinds of structures.

So I I actually think that that this is appropriate.

What's appropriate?

That the that the main entrance be at the at the east end, the the more narrow end of the building.

I mean, that it's just you know, as I say, they it wasn't an important entrance would not have been an important feature of this building every year.

But it would be that the ladder either, I wouldn't have to do that.

Well, you might be right.

I mean west side.

Right.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

But I don't I don't think it necessarily belongs on on the um east side.

Sorry, the um south, the uh south east.

No, oh yeah.

I I wouldn't say that really what bothers me about it is the uh the overhang, right?

And uh the elaborate nature of that entrance there, which I think adds too much carrier that doesn't belong in that area.

I also feel like that's being driven by I know we don't we want to separate the garage and the driveway from this discussion, but I don't see how you can because in a way I feel like that entrance is being forced into that space because it's closest to the garage, right?

And uh that's a practical decision.

I understand it, but I think go back to my original statement.

I don't still think that's the proper I mean if you were gonna do it then if you remove the overhang and simplify the entry a little bit more, perhaps I'll just comment on Ms.

O'Brien's last comment um and carry that further than the notion that it wasn't a prominent people entrance, but yet now we're making a more important people entrance, person entrance on that east elevation.

Right.

Um so I think you know, we're trying to bring a you know clearly a carriage house up to modern livable standards, but yet that dramatically changes the narrative of the building, in my opinion.

So fair enough.

Um Mr.

Ballard, did you have a comment?

Um I'm listening to all of this.

I I was not at the site visit.

Um I given what's presented with uh solving of the site and the understanding of a ledge.

I'm I'm not I'm not disturbed by the entrance on the east elevation.

However, I do think that in your alternate entry um of the east elevation.

I'm sorry, the alternate entry showing on the south elevation proposed.

There's a small three foot door with the four light and a smaller pediment.

Maybe that's lesser important to be left on the east elevation instead of the door with the side light and the bigger pediment.

Um I I understand conjecture and and the comments on hearing.

I'm thinking maybe it needs to just get simpler to work there.

So I'm I'm not opposed to the entrance being on the east.

Maybe just make it simpler.

Madam Chair, do you like just to walk to the south with plan B and the South?

The alternate, I think that'd be helpful at this point.

And then okay.

Yeah, his his comments are are correct.

If you want to look at the next set of drawings, follow, which is A22, uh the alternate elevation, alternate entry.

Um you have them on the screen?

No.

We don't have this entry.

They have that in front of them.

If you if you can all look at that 82 alternate elevation, what you'll see there is um for the east, I just simply took the door off and put the window in there.

But if you go to the next sheet, A23, the south, and the vows was referencing.

I simply kept those openings and put a small roof over the door extra for the weather.

And uh the roof form is always been driven by the other dorma roof forms in the building.

They're sort of pedimd, um the real pediment on the roof.

So that's what I copied for that entry.

The scale of it is much better here than it is on the other side because the previous uh design has side lights at the front door, which may or may not be necessary, but um I do prefer spatially, it works great on the east to come in that way and then keep the door in the back for the pool.

We'd like to do that, but uh we we're willing to come down and scale down that roof that's on the east from make it smaller, right?

I didn't want to come up with a shed or another roof form that we didn't have on the building, sort of my the web up.

I also think that if you were to put that door on the south that you're showing on the south on the east where the window is, it doesn't interrupt the existing eave line of the building like the larger pediment does.

Yes.

And and so it's less uh disturbance to the I'd I'd be willing to do that.

It's it's a it's a reasonable request, it's not an uh unreasonable and just trying to get the board and then trying to find a solution to I don't have an answer.

What about Mark where you're adding that replacing that window on the button drawing on on A 2.3?

Yes.

You're putting a uh window in on the southeast corner.

Why don't you put a door there?

And that rather than in does that work?

You could you could probably put a door in place that I mean there is a door to the left, and this goes back to how much like you wanted to take that door out initially, didn't you?

So the one on the south and left remain, but we have the door there.

Okay.

That's the thing.

Uh try not to create too many openings.

Um the openings I'm creating are primarily on the east, right?

Where we had those sliding doors.

So that's trying to stay within some of the framework.

So I I do understand what you're asking.

Okay.

Yes.

But then it's hard to put a roof on that too.

Yeah.

Next to the chimney.

So it's true.

Uh maybe the commission at this point we should look at the sighting and plan for the garage as it relates to because we're really at the intersection of that back corner of the building now.

If that's too much.

The garage drawings of the last sheet, 811, garage.

Little ones.

The the clients was requesting three car three-car garage because he wanted two cars for the main house and one for the apartment above.

And then I designed it.

We're gonna shove it into the hill as much as possible.

As you can see, that the front elevation facing the street is 20 feet four inches total overall ridge height.

But in the back, the ground slopes up like five or six feet we buried into the hill, the ledge, which keeps going uphill behind it.

So what you can't see, and I don't have a uh 3D rendering net is the garage that tucks in and goes for the hill goes up behind it.

Uh and then I kept it as I kept it as an accessory structure.

My opinion is that this building carriage house was the accessory structure to the main house.

Now the carriage house becomes a main house and the lower garage becomes an accessory structure stepping down scale up site.

So we intended this to be a three-car garage with one stairway going at the ground level utility room, and the second floor has two small bedrooms, an open kitchen, and a bathroom.

Pretty modest uh apartment.

And we like the garage that size because there's no basement to the carriage house.

There's no storage at all.

Carriage house is just that's it.

So anything they have, I want to start the garage.

So that's that's the how we came up with that.

But um, we're willing to entertain feedback.

The garage.

You have so before we go to that.

Um, just to give a quick context again, we talked a lot about the garage and the design review.

Um, as presented, I don't think there's any changes from what you showed us in that design review.

Um, and Mr.

Finley and I were there.

We did share feedback that we thought the overall size scale and massing of the garage was very large.

And when you look at the site plan, the footprint it is um so it's 24 feet deep, but it's 40 feet wide, and the footprint of it is almost half the size of the carriage house.

So we did provide that feedback that overall, you know, to scale that back, potentially to go down to two cars.

Um, you know, we discussed tightening the the overall doors so that we could be decreased from the 40 feet.

Um we expressed concerns about the visibility of it from Beacon Hill Road, even though it does recess into that ledge, it is where the um curb cut and that driveway comes up, it will be very visible from the main street.

So Mr.

Finleaf.

Yeah, I agreed with at the uh you know, at the design review.

I also thought it was um large for the project.

Um I wasn't real sure about how much of uh you'd see of it though.

You you see quite a bit of it, right?

From the road up the driveway.

We don't know yet.

I have a 3D renderer's working on the whole site.

He wasn't done yet, so I'd be fair.

I want him to finish it, then he can present it and see everything.

We don't have that, so I don't want to speculate.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think a 2D drawing is unfair.

We look at things, it looks like they're too big or too small.

Right.

And we talked about possibly moving that door somewhere else so you could actually shrink that garage, but that was not a possibility.

It it's I guess I gotta talk to the uh owner and see what they're willing to do, to be honest.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So I'll open it up, Mr.

Goddard.

I think you were gonna have some comments.

Basically say what you just said.

But I you know, my I it's hard to tell without being in the the garage drawn in contact with the house.

But you know, by looking at plan only, this thing looks enormous and completely out of scale for the site.

Um I I do appreciate the challenge, but I I just think that I mean, because you are being sort of jammed in by all the constraints that the site gives you, right?

You have wetlands and setbacks and all that so forth.

I get it.

Um but um that's where I would start with it.

I think just scale-wise that's just too large.

Can I mean uh with relation?

I mean, I'm looking at top of slab and saying 525, right?

Yes.

For the garage.

And then it's saying top of top of first floor is 543.

Or the main house.

Yeah, the original first floor was up a 543, and then they had the garage slab as 534.

Because again, there were many levels of the first floor.

No, no, I understand.

Yeah.

So what I'm just trying to do the garage piece together with the elevational relationship of the garage to the footprint of the intensity, the intention is that the ground level of the garage is like a foot or so lower than the carriage house first floor.

So the slab of the garage is a foot lower.

About lower than the but the first floor of the carriage house is high, how high above the elevation?

Well, on the east elevation, you'll see it the first front door of the grade.

So what happens is the grade would come down towards the garage a little bit, then slow back towards the wetlands.

You can see there's a contour of 52, which wraps us okay.

So an east elevation on 2.2.

Yeah, there's the ground floor.

You can see the grade is is within a eight to 12 inches of the first one.

So what you're basically what you're telling me then is that the slab of the garage is roughly that level.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah.

Give or take.

Yep, yep.

Understood.

Thank you.

Well, I mean, yeah, I I just think even a simple illustration showing the garage, you know, in contact with the main house would be very helpful.

I mean, because it's difficult to just make a determination when I just look at the garage sort of pulled out and separated.

We tried since Thursday to get that we click it.

No, no, I understand.

Yeah, I get it.

I I get the whole deadline thing.

I think the renderings are gonna help.

Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

I I just think the renderings are gonna help.

I wasn't able to make it to the design review or the site visit for that matter.

So trying to see this and imagine from all angles is kind of difficult.

But the garage with the grade does seem to um, I think the scale is already a little bit large compared to the main building, but to raise it up on the grade of the of the hill concerns me that it's going to start to look even larger than it really is.

Um then my question also about the dormers on the garage.

What is what are those vertical uh ship laps?

Yeah, okay.

Are there any architectural elements that you felt you would I know that it's a fairly simple building, at least from what I can see in the photos, but you wanted to keep the garage very, very simple.

Is that the idea?

Yeah, the the main carriage house is primarily the big stone foundation flare shingle wall, but the rest of the carriage house has slate roof and slate walls.

It's like all slate.

So we want to simplify it a little bit.

We just have the seater shingle walls that dip the dormant and a vertical side, it'd be a little different.

That's all just to take it down.

Okay, but otherwise it'll be a cedar shingle, slate roof.

Yeah, so sort of we didn't well we didn't talk about the roof yet, but okay.

Yeah.

Okay, um, yeah, I'm yeah, just trying to see how it's going to blend into the environment, because this one very does quite a bit.

Yeah, I I don't know about the roof.

I can't answer that, but I I do know we talked about on site.

They found out there's a there's a cedar roof under the slate roof on the main carriage house.

It was covered over.

Oh, really?

We can't see.

We did see that in process.

So we may go to the cedar single roof on the car on the garage, so that would be a good one.

But you would have a hard time putting that on the dormer, right?

Because of the shallow pitch of the moment, right?

So we'll we can come back with the materials for the garage.

I guess I fear it looks a little modern with no elements to it, but I'm looking at it on a flat piece of paper, so that's where I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

But uh, I guess that the size and scale compared to the house is a little bit of a concern.

Um maybe the orientation could help to make it not look so large, but but it's a very long building.

It's actually the size of like your typical ranch here in the island with a second level.

So, madam chair, I think we understand that we're gonna need to do some more work is in relation to the garage.

I think fundamentally though, that the general layout um again, as indicated previously, is you know, sort of dictated to an extent by the unique characteristics of this site.

So even though the what's proposed right now in terms of the accessory structure, the garage with the parking above that you see now is not satisfactory, the general location of that is really where it needs to be.

Um we discussed, you know, there was a question is why can't we come in from the existing driveway?

Uh where we're proposing that small pool.

Reality is you can't get a vehicle from that driveway across the south side of the property because of the ledge.

So the general layout, I think, is what it needs to be.

And that brings us back to the request to have the entrance on the east side of the building of the carriage house.

So with that in mind, I'm I'm curious if if madam chair, you could could we if we were to agree to reduce the size of the entry to match what was proposed on you know the alternate south side entry.

There was some discussion about maybe if you reduced you know the um the entry on the east to a smaller scale, like what's represented on the south side, there seemed to be at least some type of favorable inclination by certain commission members that that might be acceptable.

I would just like to get a sense as to whether or not we can move this evening on um the elements relating to the carriage house that that we've arrived at as a result of the site visit and the and the design review, along with the with the entry on the east if possible.

Understood.

Um so before we go to that entry on the east or south elevation um for the commission, the other changes that were made since the last meeting and from the design review committee as you know, associated with the windows on the second story, the chimney that we're obviously gonna maintain, um, any of the other architectural details that we talked about, maintaining the wood gutter, maintaining that stone wall that's outside of that south elevation.

Does anyone have any concerns on those elements, excluding the entrance location on those other two sides?

I'm not quite fine.

I'm sorry.

So we're not talking about the east side, are we up or right now?

We're just talking about correct.

Yes, I'm talking about the remainder of the carriage house, all the other changes, second story windows, that chimney that they're gonna maintain.

Any concerns about any of those details before we go to the east elevation and the potential location of the entry there or on the south?

Um the north elevation, the added windows, second floor there, find the north elevate north and west elevations.

Okay.

The west elevation I was fine with as well.

South okay.

Um specific to the south elevation, the second floor dormer and those windows that they're updating they designed that um so on that south elevation, the second story dormer where they updated the windows.

I'm trying to isolate details.

The second floor, absolutely.

Okay.

Any other Mr.

Bala, Mr.

Finley?

Okay.

All good with that, Mr.

Goddard.

Yeah, I'm fine with everything except the uh the east elevation location of the location of the main entrance and the scale of the garage.

Okay.

I think the overall location of the garage.

I mean, I agree with the attorney that that you know we're pretty much forced into that location, but you don't have to have a garage either.

Right.

They're not by right, they don't have to have a garage.

Your house is a garage.

Especially not a three-car garage.

No, I think well, I you know, and I'll say to that point, because we did talk about it's a design review committee.

We haven't touched on the pool at all, but I said the same thing.

There could be a parking courtyard in the back.

There'd be a lot of things.

So and I guess what I would ask the commission next.

So understanding we have general consensus on those other points, I just outlined the south elevation relative to the garage, the pool, and the entrance, those things seem to all be connected from the feedback that the commission is provided commentary on for several of us.

So are we are we okay with the proposed driveway change?

Because to me, the entire east elevation rides on that driveway.

Rides on that driveway.

And I think we correct me if I'm wrong, Nick.

We talked about that at the design review because I wasn't sure that we have purview over discussing that driveway.

We did discuss that.

So for instance, let's say that the garage wasn't being proposed and it was just going to be a parking courtyard.

My position is that the applicant could um do that without any, you know, sort of review of the HDC.

Um so again, this this is a unique property in that that shared driveway doesn't even the curb cut doesn't even start on this lot.

So right now, this lot itself has no curb cut to a public right of way.

And so um, I think the installation of the driveway is something that the property owner should be able to do by right.

Submitting an application to the engineering department, but I don't think we need zoning relief for it.

And again, what triggers your review is the connection to the garage as opposed to just the driveway itself.

Yeah.

And I was most concerned about the driveway.

I mean the garage aside, but maintaining that historic stone wall.

So like I said, I mean I'm not disturbed with putting a door on the East Elmovision.

I just think it needs to be scaled down.

Um I think it makes the property function.

So you get around that piece of ledge that's in the corner.

Um, I think the evolution of where this is where it started and where it is now has been something that's been a push and pull and a give and take.

So I think it's uh it's it's not a horrible thing right now.

The uh entrance on the east elevation isn't is or is not visible from Beacon Hill.

It is it partly is.

I mean it is it well, the house.

The angle of the road and the house.

Right.

When you can't see it, you can't see it.

No, I'm not saying you can't see it, but it's not it's not a prominent front door.

She asked if she could see it.

Yeah.

At some point when you drive by, you can see it.

No, and I'm not trying to be cute.

I mean, because there's a lot of vegetation along the wetlands.

And it's all gonna come out once the driveway's in.

No, that driveway doesn't encroach into the wetlands.

Well, I mean, listen, you can see it depends which way you're driving around ocean avenue, right?

I mean, if you're coming, if you're going west, you're gonna see it.

I think if you put a driveway in, you're gonna draw your eye up that driveway too, right?

So you basically framing that entrance, right?

Yeah, you're creating and a garage, and you know, so you it's not gonna be invisible by any match.

It's got actually gonna be highlighted, I believe, when you when you're going west on Ocean Avenue.

You're gonna see that more so than the other side, the west side right now.

Because the west side is the one that you're really looking at.

Well, I think like this is the it is the west side was not very visible.

Wasn't it?

Is that the east side?

That's the north.

That's the north side.

That's the north side to the end.

Oh, that's the north side, right?

Right, okay.

And over to the left around would be east side.

Got it.

It's harder to see than the west.

Yeah, that part correct.

No one construction as I do on the angle that it is, you could driveway around that wall you saw there in that photograph.

Yeah.

I'd really like to see the renderings.

Yes.

I think the scale and the massing, and just even just to get get another perspective as we're looking at this would be really helpful.

I personally don't have any other issues with the other elements that we've discussed.

Um I think Ray, you mentioned the location of the front door in the garage.

Other than that, I mean maybe we can split things.

Yeah, I was trying to find a good place to split.

Yeah.

Was where I was going with this.

Um, so that's why I was trying to say if all those other elements excluding the east elevation and then the location of the entry to there and the south elevation, the garage, the pool, all of that feels connected based on all the feedback that we've gotten.

Is that I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but is that I don't see a need to hide a front door to a house in a cell.

Visibility.

Why are we trying to hide the front door to a house?