Jill, are we good to go?

Okay.

Okay, good evening.

I call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 14th, 2025, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarilla here.

Rosemary O'Brien.

Here.

Kelly Moran, I am here.

Jim Madsen.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Bill Finley?

Here.

Rick Richter is absent.

We knew of her absence.

Kenny Bennell.

And that does it.

Okay.

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

Just like to acknowledge that we have Peter Friedrich's here on behalf of the city solicitor's office to support the HDC.

Commissioners meeting uh minutes have been provided to us for Monday, September fifteenth, two thousand and twenty-five.

Have you found any additions or corrections?

No.

So request a motion to accept the minutes for Monday, September fifteenth, two thousand and twenty-five as presented.

So second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Tuesday, October 14th, 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.

Second.

Aye.

All those opposed to the commission has convened in our standard pre-meeting immediately prior to this evening's uh public meeting.

We have no resequencing this evening.

We do have two late continuations.

Those are the applications and one of 47 Bridge Street and N eight forty-five Bridge Street.

Those will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November tenth, two thousand and twenty-five.

So if anyone is here for those two applications, they will not be heard this evening.

Do we have anyone here for public comment on C nine?

Okay, so with that I'll request a motion to approve the application of thirty-seven Elm Street, plat sixteen, lot one ninety-five, citing Newport Standard 17 tack eight oh tact oh six oh a one four five and seven.

Second.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Next up for summary is the application of N6 for 30 Walnut Street.

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

So request a motion to approve the application of 30 Walnut Street, plat 12, lot 80 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80, TACT 060, a 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

So all those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Next is the application N7 for 21 Clay Street.

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

No, I will request a motion to approve the application of 21 Clay Street, plat 34, lot 54 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17, TACT 80, TACT 060, a 14, 5, and 7.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Similarly, in this evening's pre-meeting, the commission has identified three applications for abbreviated summary approval.

These require just minor clarifications or questions.

So we will begin that this evening.

The first of those is C8 for 29 John Street.

Do we have anyone here this evening representing this application?

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

We'll just ask a few questions and we'll go from there.

I'll ask our vice chair to read the application.

The application of Elizabeth Minifee for local trust of 29 John Street, but 27, lot 91 contributing.

The permission to replace stairs damaged by waste management truck.

Replace front facing steward with a flagstone learning with a set of flagstone stairs on each side.

All stonework will match the foundation, and a railing for safety will be included.

Okay, 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 state your name for the record.

Elizabeth Minifee.

Okay.

Uh welcome.

We just had a couple of commissioners that had a question about the application.

I will open that up.

Um anybody that wanted to jump in, Mr.

Bala.

Um the staff uh recommendation was that you replace your railing with a rod iron railing.

Would you be willing to do that?

Iron railing.

Rod iron railing, similar to what is used on other properties.

Right.

Yep.

Okay.

That was my only suggestion.

Thank you.

I was I I'm proposing to have a removable iron railing.

Reason being moving furniture in and out of the house.

Okay, commission.

Any other questions aside from the railing?

No.

No.

Okay, so with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 29 John Street, plat 27, lot 91, as presented with the condition that a wrought iron railing will be used.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 TACT 060, a 13, 4, 5, and 7.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next application for summary, uh, excuse me, abbreviated summary is N2 46 Corner Street.

Do we have someone here?

Okay, have you come forward?

I'll ask our vice chair to read that application.

This is the application of Kai and Rebecca Kelly for 46 Cornet Street, Plat 28, Lot 10, contributing.

For permission to replace the existing in-swing kitchen doors installed with an outward swinging model on the west secondary elevation.

Install a new window with simulated divided lights on north tertiary tertiary elevation.

Replace deteriorated downspouts with new galvanized metal painted to match existing.

We route and daylight new downspouts to existing plant beds and away from building foundation.

Application materials down.

First of all, I'm just impressed that you got my name right.

I'm impressed.

All right, with that, we will I'll just ask you to get sworn in.

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 for the record.

Aye, Kelly.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Kelly, we also had a few commissioners that had questions on your application this evening.

I'm gonna open that up.

Um, Ms.

Moran, Mr.

Bala, Mr.

Goddard, anybody that had this as an abbreviated summary.

Just don't know.

Um Mr.

Bell.

Uh you have a contributing building, and we would like to see normally uh windows replaced with wood windows.

I would love to do that.

I'll I'll strike the fiberglass and put in all wood.

Amazing.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions or comments?

No, that was mine.

So I'm fine.

The same.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 46 Corney Street, plat 28 lot 10 as presented with the condition that windows will be updated to all wood.

Citing Newport standards 17 tact 80, tag 060 A1 and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

No one says this to you, but I appreciate uh you volunteering and doing this.

You don't do it for the glory, obviously.

I've been on the other side.

I've been in your seat, and it's not easy.

Um, but you make newport special.

So I just want to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay, and our last um application for abbreviated summary this evening is N4, which was 353 Gibbs Av.

Do we have anyone here for this application?

Okay.

Ask our vice chair to read.

This is the application of John Quinn of the Sorry.

Mike.

This is the application of John Quinn of 353 Gibbs Av, plat 23 lot 160, non-contributing for permission to replace siding from wood cladding to Hardy board.

Okay, welcome.

I'm just gonna get you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

Yes.

And if you could state your name for the record.

Matt Rinaldi.

Okay.

Um I think we just had a couple of questions about the Hardy board specifically.

I'll open the commission up to clarification.

Mr.

Bala.

Um could you talk to us about what you plan on using for the Hardy board siding?

Uh so a clapboard style um and a five-inch exposure rather than a seven.

Um trying to mirror mimic more historical um clapboard sidings.

Yeah, horizontally.

Horizontal.

And you have vertical siding on your house, correct?

Right now, there's vertical siding.

Just for the record, too.

I'm representing the quins.

Okay, just to confirm, Ms.

Chen, we have him on record to be a authorized representative.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you for confirming.

Um I would like to suggest that your client um replace siding with vertical siding.

Your the property is not a contributing building.

However, putting something on it that wasn't there really doesn't bode well in the in the historic district.

And I think you'd be conveying a false sense of um appearance to the house if they if they did that.

So uh I would suggest you go to a vertical siding.

Okay.

So the client, like um, in general have thought that going horizontal would kind of mimic more of a historic um look.

So I definitely see where you're coming from, but they thought they were doing right.

Um by the area they're in.

I think um coming back to because this is a non-contributing structure built in 1979, it is within a historic district, but it as itself not necessarily of the same characteristics, which a the commission is commenting on.

Would your client be open to redirecting the direction of the hardy board to be vertical?

Is that something you need to probably would need to talk to them about it, but they were they're pretty set on going horizontal.

That's what I was here at now.

I don't think we've got you guys may have like pre-approved like others if it was uh vertical.

Um, but they're looking for horizontal.

Ms.

Chin, is that something that we should continue and you could do an administrative approval on that?

If you give me the direction to do so, then yes.

Okay, otherwise we wouldn't be able to approve it on the condition that it be vertical.

Or could we?

You could.

Yeah, you could do that.

Okay, even though okay.

Yep.

And then if your client comes back saying that they want it horizontal, then it'll have to come back here.

For approval.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from the commission?

Could I make a quick comment if no one else has questions?

So I just wanted to put it on the record that I will support the hardy board on this particular property, being that it's not contributing and it is a uh I guess more of a contemporary house.

But um even for non-contributing properties moving forward, I personally don't believe that Hardy Board, even in a clapboard formation, is compatible with our historic district.

So I just wouldn't want it to set precedence for other even non-contributing properties.

But otherwise I will be voting in favor of the uh vertical.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I I agree with you on the Hardy board.

I I it's not that not the issue that I would have with simply the I I find that the vertical is a character defining feature of it.

And uh, I mean, my personal opinion is it would just wouldn't look right.

It wouldn't look right if it was horizontal.

So uh anyway, that's that's that's where I stand up.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 353 Gibbs Av plat 23 lot 160 as presented with the condition that the siding be replaced with Hardy Board in a vertical orientation, not horizontal.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, this is the application of Luke Fleury of 8 Beacon Hill Road, Platte 41, lot 274 contributing.

For permission to convert two family residents into single family residence by adding an entrance portico, replacing a window in the west dorma, installing copper half-round gutters, constructing a two-car garage and ADU, and installation of a pool on the south elevation.

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

Um, so we're here this evening.

Um, this is our uh third appearance before you on this project.

And just as you all know, with a little background, um, aside from the uh meetings here in front of the commission.

There's also been two site visits, the most recent a couple weeks ago on October 1st, and also a design review.

So I think there's been a lot of work um, which we appreciate on behalf of the commission to work with us to sort of find our way through this project.

It's uh it's a big property.

There's a lot uh a lot of components to the project itself.

Uh at the last meeting, the commission um approved uh the proposed work on three of the elevations, uh, and reserved any vote uh or decision on the east elevation and also on the garage.

So since the last meeting, again, there's been a site visit where um most of you, I think maybe Mr.

Bala, you still didn't get the opportunity to come out, but I think everyone and Miss O'Brien didn't, but everyone else has been out to the site at least once.

So I think which is helpful to get a sense as to um the orientation of the main residence versus the public right away, Beacon Hill Road, because that speaks to how much uh of the proposed new entry on the east elevation can be seen from the public right away.

It also gives a good uh orientation for everybody in terms of where the proposed garage structure is going to be.

And one thing that's difficult to replicate unless you're there is a sense and by looking at the landscape, the topography and the ledge that is throughout this property, getting a sense as to how that really sort of dictates some of the choices that are being made here.

Um so we had that site visit.

Um since then, the project architect Mark Rep has done a couple things.

One uh on the east elevation, the um the for the proposed uh main entry.

Um the the roof over the the new front door has been reduced further, so it's a little smaller in scale.

Um, so as to you know, sort of be a little more understated in terms of the entry on that east elevation.

Um the other significant change is the garage itself.

Uh, as you recall when we were here last month, concerns were expressed with the original garage design because it had three bays and the footprint of the garage uh was obviously much larger.

Uh as you recall when we were here last month, concerns were expressed with the original garage design because it had three bays and the footprint of the garage uh was obviously much larger, and um the relationship between the main residence and the garage was a concern by for commission members in terms of uh the garage, you know, should truly speak as an accessory structure.

So we've reduced that down to two bays, and it's now a 24 by 30 structure.

Um and then we've also provided some renderings so you can get a sense.

Oh, I'm sorry, and uh not to steal Mark's thunder, but also when they were uh when there was some feedback and comments made at the site visit, uh Mark incorporated those into the exterior materials on the garage, and I'll let him speak to that in a little more detail.

And then lastly, we did provide some renderings so you'd get a sense as to not just what um the site would look like on Beacon Hill Road, but importantly that area to you'd get a perspective as to what the proposed pool in relationship to the house and the driveway and the fencing that's being proposed, how that all um interrelates.

So those are the updated materials we provided.

Um if Mark where is he?

There he is.

Come on up, and if I've missed anything, or uh if you can speak to it, and then certainly you can answer any questions the commission has.

Okay.

Welcome back, Mr.

Rapp.

I'll 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 just state your name for the record, please.

Mark Rapp architect.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, as Mr.

Jackson said, we had a couple of like that's a couple of previous reviews, so I just want to don't want to rehash everything, but I think primarily we can look at the east elevation, or even this view, you could see uh we propose it entries on the east side of the building, which previously had a three sliding glass door that a set of stairs.

And as you can see, what we've done is the upper elevation is the was the existing and the one below is the proposed.

So I reduced the uh roof overhang to be only projected about two and a half feet and just enough wide to get two brackets in and kept the e the ridge of it just below the eave line of the roof.

So that the paired windows and the side light all remain in the plane below the roof eat line, and then three windows up in the face of that slate gable would be only fixed units you can see from the second floor directly out.

So that's those are the changes to the east elevation we're proposing from what was there previously.

If you can see there were multiple levels and sliding glass door.

So those are the changes we made since the last meeting.

And hopefully at the site visit and the renderings, you can get a sense that the entry is not as prominent from the street as it is in this elevation, twisted around.

So uh we want to be as accurate as we could.

Um before we move to the other aspects of the garage, any questions on this east elevation?

May need to discuss other aspects, but I'll just open that up first.

Seems like maybe Mark, the this is this is a section cut previous wall, right?

No, that's actually sort of an end view.

That that the stone wall projects out.

Doesn't it come wrap around this way?

No, it doesn't, it just becomes forward about four or five feet, which sort of blocks when you look at the um north elevation, you'll see how it moves out projecting past the um, yeah, that's the south.

You see the north elevation in the left up top that wall project?

Yeah, it goes out about yeah, it sticks out like that.

It didn't previously go back that way.

No, it was out there, but the deck was on top of it.

Oh, I see.

And we removed the deck, so that wall was there.

We're just keeping that you're seeing the end of it from the no understood.

The wall was there.

I thought I thought that the wall would turn back and then went.

Well, no, it's a no, it's just concrete under the e under the shingles there.

Yes.

Can we go back to the plan real quick?

Um, can I just comment?

But Mr.

Goddard, are you referring to because there is a separate stone wall?

Are you referring to the stone wall?

Or that's both of them.

Okay, because there are two separate.

Yeah, I just want to make sure everybody's clear.

If I can see it in the which we don't see in this east elevation, we don't see that stone wall, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

But that you had confirmed you were going to reroute the driveway cut to maintain that stone wall.

Yes, on the site plan, we noted that to remain the driveway around it.

You can't get the plan off.

Isn't that all right?

Can we get the plan?

Which one?

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

So there you can see that the wall you were questioning the stone wall.

This one stayed.

Yes.

And this is the little just talking about.

Correct.

All right.

So that driveway will abut right up to that stone wall.

Yeah, it will it'll go run in front of it or to the north front of it and wrap around it.

Okay.

Okay, let's move to the garage next.

And then we can come around back to the pool.

So with the garage, we took the um comments from the board and reduced it by one day.

So previously it was 40 feet long, now it's 30 feet long.

It's now just a two-car garage with a stairway and back to a one-bedroom uh apartment above.

And the other change we made to the design was comments from the the board some board members was that if we made it feel a little more like the main house, it would be better.

So we added a stone veneered foundation, a shingle flare just above the grave line there to uh carry the language from the house to the garage.

But we left the dorm, the shed dormer as a vertical side and element to be a little different, as in maybe the garage there at one time and the shed dormer we got later.

So just to give a sense of breaking up the scale and materials.

Okay.

Commissioners, questions and comments on the garage.

I like that a lot better.

Um I do recognize that it has been reduced in size.

Uh I I still, in terms of length, uh but I still have issues myself with the massing of it uh and its presence on the lot with his proximity, which I understand is you know forced by the nature of the lot.

Um, but uh to me the massing is off and I I can't support it like that.

I I could only see it perhaps without the dormers, and I know that makes the space upstairs a lot smaller.

Um, but I don't think it's compatible in that respect.

Um Mr.

Gardner, what if instead of two shed dormers, if there was the shed dormer on the rear, but two smaller, the large elongated that runs the entire width of the garage.

What if there were two smaller dormers on that front?

I I think that's a that would be a solution that I could maybe get behind if I can see it.

Uh I think that uh even if you're talking two smaller dormers in the front.

Um I think I'd have to see what they would look like.

Um but uh I just I just I have concerns of how uh of the of this appearance from the street, although I know you know there has been arguments made that you can't see it from the street, but uh I've been there twice, and uh I live here and I drive around there all the time, and you certainly can.

And so uh I I think the project would you know benefit favorably uh with a garage that was reduced in mass.

Uh so that's why okay.

Do you have a comment, Mr.

Jackson?

Not yet.

Okay, Miss Moran.

I would have to agree with Mr.

Goddard.

I am a little concerned about the mass of it and the scale to the main building because it should be a little more subsidiary uh subsidiary to the main building, and I think the design as far as the materials go is fine, but even just looking at it on the uh the site elevation, the scale.

I mean, that's a it's a very large building, and the garage looks nearly half its size, even just in this in this drawing.

And I am concerned, especially with it kind of sitting up on the hill that it's going to appear even larger.

So the the scale and the massing for me is a bit of a concern.

Perhaps the dormer adjustments that we were discussed could help minimize that slightly.

So there's there's the relative size of the garage for the main building.

I feel that looks quite large next to a very large building already.

And even standing on the site and looking at it from the street, it again sits up a little bit high, which is gonna make it look a bit taller, larger, and it is very visible from the street as well.

So I just feel they sit right next to each other.

You see them in this configuration from the street.

So it's not even like it's really tucked in the back.

They're sort of sitting right next to each other and it and it's really evident the massing of the uh garage.

Well, Mark, why don't you discuss?

I mean, again, this goes back to my comments earlier about the characteristics of the site, the existing ledge, trees.

Why don't you do this?

Obviously, two-dimensional rendering makes it difficult to illustrate the garage in its setting, but I mean there is a significant increase in elevation behind the garage.

And how is how is the garage going to be set into the site?

Yeah, we set we set the garage level, I think about a foot lower than the first floor of the house.

And then we had this couldn't go any further back to the ledge behind it.

So we limited it as this.

We have the um wetlands set back to the north east, delineated, and we set it behind the house a good 25 to 30 feet from the front edge, so it's offset in this manner also.

And we also it's a two-story, it's a two-story boat, but it's barely two-story to 20 feet three inches, you know, to the ridge.

So minimum garage ceilings, the minimum second floor ceiling.

And um tried to break up the scale of the dormers.

I think at a certain point I can't have a second floor.

This mass comes down a two-dimensional drawing, a little deceiving, but we had to show it for scale.

But I think the renderings are a little more accurate to the scale.

So I mean, I guess I could live with a seven-foot ceiling.

People live on the seven-foot ceiling.

You know, I don't even need it anyway.

I mean, you've got a 4,000 square foot house.

Well, there it is.

Right, I'm sorry.

It is an existing two-family.

So the intent is just to preserve both dwelling units.

So if you could clarify our application is described as permission to convert a two-family residence into a single family residence.

That's accurate in relation to the main building.

Okay, so I just want to clarify that.

Okay.

As written, or we are considering this as a garage.

We can consider this as still a second residence.

Okay.

Okay.

Is the unit above the garage and accessory dwelling unit, or is it a no the the existing property as it exists is a two-family already.

And your intent is to keep the keep the status.

Keep the status.

Okay.

That's not within the purview of the HDC.

You guys are just reviewing architecturals.

If you deem that that the garage is too large, and there can't be a second unit that's not okay.

You know, that's kind of where I was going with the we're we're not the golden two.

You we have to, you know, the organ internal organization of the the buildings and the units is not the HEC's purview.

Yeah.

Okay.

I actually quite could I didn't see the garage.

I mean, I saw the image of the garage, but I didn't see it in the verbiage of the application.

We did there was, I think it was in the first meeting we had talked about that because at that point preliminary details had been we had amended the application to include a garage.

Right.

So it doesn't change what I was saying.

I'm just curious what it is.

In the app as I let read it online, it's not there.

Correct.

When they originally submitted it, was not in there.

We did amend the application.

I think in the second meeting to add that in.

So we were very careful in the first meeting.

We did not review the garage because it was not part of the application, but we did go through that process to have it added.

So other commission.

I have another question.

Uh so looking at this uh elevation, it shows an eight-foot difference from the garage roof to the roof peak of the main structure.

What do you say?

That's about right.

Approximately, yes.

And you said you might be able to reduce that by a little.

I could, I mean, I could take that front if the front dormers issue, I could squeeze it to be only over the pair of garage doors and offset a little bit, so the dormant looks massive along the uh the side elevation.

Also, I mean the other dormers on the main building, go back to the south elevation of the carriage house.

You'll see that they have the dormers are shed dormers, but they're ended with pediments on each end.

Much more formal dorm or design, which I didn't want to do on the garage, a little heavy.

So we just kept we kept the shed portion of the dormer.

But I can reduce that dorm because that's a living side and a bedroom side, so I can make that a little smaller.

I planted headroom at the stair.

In the back is like a bathroom and a kitchen.

It's a very modest apartment up there now from what it was.

And it's slightly oriented like on an angle.

Yeah, right.

But it's yeah, it's probably about 30 degrees off the house axis.

So based on the site plan, and yes.

And that's about as much as it can be a degree of, but I can't, yeah.

Okay.

Because I think that might be part of the issue that I'm seeing with the massing is that it it does sort of face forward mostly, and that creates that massing, I would say.

I I would be in favor of seeing it uh reduced a little more with possibly some adjustment to the dormers.

Um and then perhaps I could support it.

But as it stands, it's the massing is still a concern, and particularly the scale to the main building.

And Mark, just one question with the the elevation here would lead you to believe it's actually a couple feet lower than the first floor elevation of the original proper building.

Yeah, I think I have the garage.

Yeah, correct, because it kind of seemed to me like I'm sitting more up on a hill, or maybe you'd escavate some of that out.

Yeah, we're gonna we're gonna go down as far as we can.

We still have to go up to the driveway and then go from the garage up to the house.

We don't want that to be too significant.

Right now, I think it's a foot and a half, 18 inches from the garage to the first floor of the house.

I might be able to do a couple of adjustments, dropping the garage into the ground a little more and taking the roof a little more.

I mean, these are all massaging, they're not significant difference in the work off.

Yes.

I think everything counts.

It is gonna look massive, I'd say.

That's the way it's gonna kind of sit up there.

I think it's just the the dormer configuration is no way around it.

Even if you did shorten it a few feet for your floor, as you say, massage it a little bit here and there.

Overall, it just projects a mass that I don't think is appropriate for it.

That's how I see it.

It's basically a carriage house to begin with.

So you got a garage for a barrage.

Yeah.

Mr.

Finley.

I could support the project, certainly if you know uh the recommendation we're taking to reduce the size of that dormer.

I think that'll help a lot.

Um I live nearby this this um structure, and I go past it maybe once every other day or something like that.

You can't see it.

It's very difficult to see the entire, even the large building.

Matter of fact, at the two site visits that I attended, um, I couldn't find it from the road.

And um I think all of the suggestions that were made previous to the uh you know, the the garage you've addressed.

Uh, and I think all of the suggestions here are well uh well taken.

And I think the uh idea of massaging what we've discussed here today will for me certainly would solve the uh all of the issues, and I would support it.

Mr.

Ballet specific to the garage, because we haven't talked about the pool yet.

I I would agree.

I think you know you've been back and forth here.

Uh you've been responsive to what's been said.

So I would I would agree with what my commissioner has said.

Okay.

Let's move around to the rear of the property and take a look at the pool.

These are renderings that are fairly accurate.

What I could get from the renderer.

Um we tried to show this the stone chimney and the stone buttress remaining, and the pool is simply going to replace the sort of paved parking area back there, and then the pool area will be separated or segregated from the driveway with a six-foot heightboard fence so that the adjacent property owner to the um south who has access and easement can drive by without disturbing the property.

So we create a little courtyard, a private courtyard on the south.

That was the intent of the pool.

And unfortunately, he can't he didn't render the rock outcropping that's in that view because behind the stone wall is a large rock outcropping as the back of the pool.

So those rocks are not, they're much larger, and the trees up in the up in the hill there are not that elegant in a in a meadow.

The background is not that accurate, but the scale of the point is that pool is at grade and just the fence primarily from this tree that you're gonna see.

And just to clarify, so where that large chimney is being shown right now, there's a structure up against that.

Yes, let's go to remote.

So not air.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes.

So there's so that okay, so that there's building there.

Yes.

So this is a little misleading.

Okay.

And if I could, I think one of the again, one of the points that needs to be emphasized is this uh you know repurposing of the existing driveway to be a courtyard with a pool.

Again, it is adjacent to other private property.

It's not visible from the public right of way, and the fencing uh would screen any visibility uh from the public right away into that area.

Um and also provide privacy relative to the other property owner that uses the private driveway.

Because again, as we've indicated brought the throughout these hearings, the intent is to abandon the use of the private driveway uh by this for this property and provide its own curb by commissioners.

Any questions or comments on the pool?

I'm going with the pool.

Okay.

Um so any closing comments.

Um so if I'm reading the room.

Um it sounds like you want us to like that.

I don't doesn't sound like there's a path to make uh these changes to the garage, which could be, I mean, you want to see revised plans for the garage.

It's not something that we can do uh administratively.

Uh I would open that up to the commissioners that had I shared similar sentiments around the scale of those dormers, hence my suggestion of the reduction on that one elevation.

Um but I'll open that up if you would have a comfort for that to be administratively approved, or you prefer to see the garage come back before the commission.

I personally I would like to see it.

Okay.

Yeah, I agree.

I'm fine with the east side, I'm fine with the pool.

That's really my own garage.

All the other issues, yeah.

You've done a good job really of you know through the last three meetings and really listening and coming back with we can we can get our heads around, but the garage I'm still kind of okay.

So then I'd ask if if you can sort of buy for Kate was left.

Yeah, and we'll be back next month uh with revisions to the garage.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so we'll first request a motion um of the commission to further split the application of eight beacon hill road, plat 41, lot 274, um, into part one, the east elevation and the pool and part two of the garage.

Still moved.

Second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

I'll request a motion to approve the first part of the application for eight beacon hill road, plat 41, lot 274, which includes the east elevation and the pool, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80, TAC 060, A1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, aye.

All those opposed.

And I'll request a motion to continue the second part of the application for 8 Beacon Hill Road, Plat 41, lot 274, which includes the garage to the next regularly scheduled HTC meeting on Monday uh November 10th, 2025.

So moved, second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Why is it a Monday?

It is a Monday.

Okay.

There's a haul.

No, there's a holiday on Tuesday.

So okay.

But we're meeting on a Monday.

This is the application of T Mobile LLC of one Bellevue Avenue, plat 25, lot 124, contributing for permission for the removal and installation of six antennas.

Okay, welcome.

I will get you sworn in.

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

So help you God.

Yes.

And if you could state your name for the record.

Okay, and just to confirm with Ms.

Chin, we have him as a okay.

Um okay, if you could give us an overview of the request.

Uh so like we mentioned um T Mobile is planning to replace uh six of the existing antennas on the bike you can tell with six proposed antennas now of similar size and shape.

Uh two will be in the existing stealth uh flagpoles.

Uh those will remain inside the stealth flag poles and not be seen.

Um and then the other two sectors, which are uh shooting down toro and on the back side of the hotel, um, will be uh replaced with antennas uh of similar size and shape that will be painted to match the existing conditions.

Um there will be additional work inside the hotel.

Um we'll be replacing some telecommunication equipment and uh radios inside the attic space that T-Mobile operates out of inside the uh in in the hotel.

Other than that, that is the scope of the project.

Um we are really focused on maintaining a similar aesthetic and it would you know minimal visual impact to what they're right now.

Okay, so I'm just gonna um summarize some of the staff comments that we had.

Um the antenna equipment is currently mounted on the exterior of the balustrade, which is not most compatible, is preferred that the equipment be mounted on the interior to further conceal it from the public right of way and prevent it from obscuring the original balustrad painted equipment does not achieve the seamless look that was likely presented.

Um fixing the equipment to the balustrad and chimney system is inappropriate and does not meet um standards A146 and 7.

Um, so I'm gonna open it up to the commission for questions and comments.

That was the recommendation based on our um preservation planner.

Which I was aligned with those comments.

Um, but I will open it up with further questions or my my assumption is that the practical reasons that you put it at the face of the balustrade.

Yeah, so uh if it was to be behind the balustrade, we would segregate the propagation.

So we are in front to optimize the coverage that it's that we would be achieving from the antennas.

Is there any way you can achieve that same coverage by pulling it back further on the room for making it slightly higher?

Uh the issue it would be possible.

The issue with that would be it would be significantly higher because it would have to clear that ballast that the the railing.

Um 30 inches higher.

Yeah, um with some additional sled mount because the mounting right there is kind of minimally obtrusive to the hotel.

Where if we were to have to mount it behind it, there would need to be some uh ballast weighted sled mounts that would have to go on top of that roof.

And I do not know if there's enough space for those roof because there is other multiplication equipment.

Yeah, so that's my concern because I recognize the practical issues that are at play here, right?

Sort of getting the coverage that you need, but I also feel like the same uh issue could be addressed by pulling it back away from the ballast rate and using uh an alternate way to attach it.

And my I guess my overriding thought is that you know they're using the balustrade cut there, and it's the easiest, fastest, quickest way to do this, and a little paint look like brick and then it'll go away.

And that never really works, right?

So uh I feel like especially in a structure like this, that's so visible that we we should be looking at ways to bring it away from the face of that and and whatever alternatives are available should be explored, I think.

That's my opinion.

But they are an ISO.

Sorry, same matter of it.

I know we all live in we live by them, I get it, man.

You know what I mean?

So but they are an ISO.

So that is part of the issue is that if it were to change, I mean, based on the slope of that of that uh roof in front of it, there's really nowhere to go in front of that that the railing.

And the only way to go behind and the further back you go, the the the less coverage you do out, you know, you do provide.

No, I understood.

Um part of this is to provide coverage to the congestion that is is newport.

I mean, we had a couple meetings on this, uh, mainly specifically after folk fest and jazz fest weekends that the site really does need to be upgraded to to handle the congestion of busy weekends in in Newport.

Um, I mean it it's it's primarily because you guys all covered the high spots, right?

And that's what makes them the most obvious.

Correct.

So uh I think you know the city's done a relatively poor job of trying to deal with these things, and I think this just really kind of piles onto what's already become an issue, right?

And I hate to say that you know we need to start somewhere, but I feel like this would be a good place to start uh, you know, if we could explore that.

That's what I would be in favor of.

I I concur with uh Mr.

Goddard's opinion.

Um I think that we need to take a look at some alternatives.

It's also hard for me to imagine that a few feet moving these antennas in a few feet away from the balustrade really has that much impact on the cover, the cellular coverage.

But if you're raising them up.

Well, it's it's a line of sight thing, I think I believe, right?

Correct.

If it, you know, it's right here.

It can only go straight up.

I see I see.

Okay.

It is a practical issue.

Right.

But I feel like there are solutions to me, the same thing that's here going down getting back here.

You still get the same angle, but you're higher, and it's gonna cost them more to do it.

Yes, it's gonna take ultimate attachment points.

Got it.

I'm still but the idea of this both of the rail.

Understood.

Um I have not really sure there is space for the sleds that I mount mentioned that would support the raising it above the bell grade, because they're there, those take up significant amount of space in order to um you know disperse the weight that is that is needed to hold those those antennas in place.

And I do know that there is uh other equipment on that rooftop, and uh we have not also run that by the the hotel.

Um, I understand.

I I I would only imagine that there's ample space up there to be found somewhere, some big hotel.

Uh I'm sure there's lots of equipment up there, but I mean the ballast rate will take all that weight.

That's what I'm thinking too.

I mean, holding out so I mean anyway, that's my thought.

Way out, yeah.

Yeah, I was gonna, I mean, and coming back to even um our standard A6, avoid damaging treatments.

Um, it is called out by our preservation planner as well.

Um, you know, the risk of damaging that original ballast rate by affixing quite heavy, it appears, um, antennas to them.

So I mean, it is clearly a commercial used building, it's a hotel.

If this was a residential building, we would be following the same standards, and I'm fairly certain no one on the commission would approve for the same reasons that's listed here.

I am of the opinion that we do need to see alternatives to determine that there is no alternate solution as far as where they can be located.

I mean, that is a very defining feature that ballastrade.

And we've I mean, since I've been on the commission, we've approved antennas on this building, it's going under, you know, significant um work at this point.

This is the opportunity to really bring it back up to our historic standards.

So I would not be in favor of this as presented this evening.

A lot of curiosity, can they be placed horizontally?

No.

No, I'm sorry, no.

Could I could I make a practical suggestion?

Because why not?

Um they're not the expert in how the internal mechanisms work, but they do not work horizontally.

Um, the way that the mechanisms inside do not work.

I could get you a better answer on that, a more technical answer, but uh in all of my experience, we've never installed them.

They're not designed to be installed horizontal.

Yeah, I I have a practical suggestion, which partially adjusts uh Mr.

Finley's concern or a question, which really is I I noticed that the application was very tech heavy, right?

There was a lot of information in there that quite frankly, none of us can really digest.

You know what I mean?

And so if it could be distilled into a graphic format that you know, where you could make your argument that you know it has to be vertical, and if we put it back, say 10 feet away from the rail to minimize its visibility, it has to be x number of feet high and show us a diagram that makes it very clear and simple to understand.

Uh I think that would be helpful for you guys to do that, right?

Because at this point, it really just looks like you got these things, we got to put them somewhere.

Hey, look this railing right here, we'll put it here, you know.

So I I think there's a better, more creative solution.

All right.

Could could I ask a question?

Sure, Ms.

Marin.

So six are being removed.

Six new ones are being added.

Where are they being removed from?

Same locations.

They're in those locations currently on the balustrade.

And they're technically all the antennas that we are proposing are smaller by one inch, you know.

It's not relevant, but they are they are smaller, they are not larger.

They look pretty ugly.

Yeah, and I'm sorry, just to answer your question about the weight.

We do it was a structural analysis that was part of the tech heaviness, but uh it was provided to that the the bell grade can support the weight of the new antennas without without um changing it, and we will be using the same mounts, so there are mounts there, and then the antennas just detach from the mounts, the new antennas will attach the same mount.

So there won't be much change to that bell grade other than the actual antennas.

What's the difference between these rectangular antennas and these flagpole style ones?

So the antennas are inside those flags, those slide poles are self um material that are disguising the the antennas that are inside them.

So the same antennas that would be visible are just inside those flagpoles.

Like poles with no flags.

Of course.

Potentially.

There are limitations with this specific side based on this the location of that um roof and the everything else on that roof.

Um the pictures here kind of don't really show the limitations we have.

Uh I'm I'm not I'm not going to say no, but this specific side does have some limitations.

Okay.

Um and then the I guess my question was, is there like an alternative way of mounting these, a different style that's a little more disguised than the little small cell boxes that are affixed there?

And then um can you just quickly speak to the warning signs that are posted on the flagpoles?

Is that like um yeah, those are FCC standard FCC uh required guidelines to not go near the antennas?

Is there a safety concern there?

Only when you are immediately close, which is why like frequency can safety via frequency.

Yep, but standard FCC guidelines require that those those signs be posted um you know at certain distances and based on the height and everything.

So there are there are there are also FCC um signs, I think uh near the access of that of that roof as well.

Not sure I don't know if this is within our preview or not, but are there it I know that this is on the rooftop where there's the public eating and dining and drinking.

Is there a safety issue for those people who are no?

We we run EME uh reports and based on the height of these proposed antennas and the pro and the power, the propagation does not uh require any any mitigation that we would need to do other than the signs, which are only for when you are very close.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So to summarize what I hear from the commission, um, I do believe several of us are aligned with staff comments that we need to explore alternate options um before bringing this to a vote.

Um so our recommendation would be to continue the application, have you come back to present those alternatives?

Um if the commission is aligned with that proposal.

Is that something that you would be open to?

It could, yeah.

I do have just a couple questions.

Um is this specific to the sector which the the two antennas on the on the on the railing?

Because there are there are uh two other sectors, one that is in the the stealth chimneys, and then there is another there's two other antennas in another location.

Um we've we've just mainly talked about the railing, so I want to come back with what yeah, let's make sure that we're clear then for sure the ones that are on the balustrade, so those two.

Um this would be the other two the third sector.

And are these the ones that are referenced as being painted brick?

Yes.

Which we have some of those on the building now.

These are the ones on the with the faux brick that are doing.

Yeah.

Oh yeah, I just all of these these pictures are not renderings, these are all existing conditions.

Do you have any?

I don't remember seeing it in this application, but I think coming back, what would be helpful is an overall photo of the property from the street view, you know, a pedestrian walking or on Bellevue Avenue.

What are we seeing?

Clearly, those ballusters and anything affixed to them is going to be visible.

It's hard to tell from these photos what the that sight line is.

So I don't necessarily think I can weigh in here without really understanding what we're looking at.

These would be visible from corner of Bellevue and K, maybe down Toro.

The the ones on the on the railing would be coming up uh forget the name of that sort of coming up the street on the back end.

And then obviously the black bulb are visible, but yeah, those are clearly visible from Bellview.

Um both both locations?

Yeah.

And then I as we go in as I look into this, they they do need to be visible.

They would have to be either set back and raised, but still visible, or stealth in a similar similar way to those flagpoles.

Is that something that I should be looking into?

Because they they cannot be invisible to the site eye, you know, to the site to the street.

They they would not they would not be you know functional.

I think the preference is that they're pulled back from the facade.

And the more you pull them back, the line of sight they're going to disappear, even if they're taller.

Right.

I think we need to understand what taller means and in facts, but I think you'd have less of an impact if you're off the focal point of building.

Right, like street looking at it from the street view on the balustrade is uh very very obvious, but you know, at least if it were stepped in and you can see it from way down the street or something, but not as you're gazing at the hotel Viking from Bellevue Avenue.

I I personally think that would be at least a slight improvement.

I also have a really crazy question, and this might be more for our staff, but um, and this is kind of just going, I know it we're too late.

Let me preface by saying that, but I I am kind of curious, like if there's a potential safety issue with something like this, and we just approved an application where we're removing all the windows due to a very minor asbestos um threat, you know.

Why sh is this something that we shouldn't be considering at all, but something like this?

Just a question.

Safety perspective.

From a safety perspective.

And again, I know we're too late.

Yeah, not within our purview, um, anything, any mechanical units that go up are inspected by electrical and you know, all those channels within the city.

Yeah, say safe, just like the lead levels and all these things that are supposed to be safe for us.

Again, not within my purview.

But that's the reason we threw out all the windows, so I guess I'm just trying to be logical here.

But that was my question.

Thank you.

So just to guide the applicant, um, I think it's clear the two that are being mount proposed to be mounted on the ballast rod, these two that we're seeing on the top, we need to see alternatives.

The quote unquote stealth option, aka the flag poles.

How does the commission feel about those?

Or we need to see this in totality.

I mean the flagpoles are very obvious on the building anyway.

So I mean, unless they're going away, which doesn't sound like I mean they have less of an issue with those.

Okay.

Other so potentially the four that we're talking about.

Yeah.

Reviewing, re-reviewing.

Okay.

So if I come back with two maybe two options, uh, one with them raised, one with them stealth, because unfortunately if they are to be raised and set back, they're going to be very high.

And I I do not sure if that would be acceptable to the board.

So I would like to bring two proposals.

That's absolutely fine.

Um, so as far as those two that are in the flag poles currently, are you looking to have that approved this evening?

So you'd move ahead with that, or do you want to continue the whole application?

The whole okay.

Okay, sounds good.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of one Bellevue Avenue plat 25 lot 124 to our next regularly scheduled HTC meeting on Monday, November 10th, 2025.

So second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the application of Karen Winley of 37 Sherman Street, plat 21, lot 108, contributing for permission to replace 11 windows on second floor double hung with wood replacement windows.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this application?

Okay, welcome.

I could 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 if you could state your name for the record.

And do we have Mr.

Cremens as a authorized representative?

It's on the application.

Yeah.

And um I might have, yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

Could I just have you spell your last name for the record?

C-R-I-M-M-I-NS.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, all right.

If we could just have you walk us through the changes being proposed.

I'm here because they're away.

And um they were just a little confused because they've had two previous applications to replace windows with these same windows, and I believe both of them were administratively approved.

Um they're just a little reply why they were supposed to be here for this.

Okay, so uh I I really can't make any decisions for them.

I'm just trying to relay information.

Okay.

Uh well else you want or okay.

Um given that you are authorized to represent the applicant.

Um, the staff's findings of fact, um, excuse me, the staff recommendation.

Um what was presented in the application is that there was a window evaluation prepared by a window expert that states all of the windows in the second floor are either original or date to 1880, and all but two could be repaired.

So we have a um guidance 17 tact 80 tag 0608 repair before replacement.

We rely on the expert window evaluation to inform our decision whether to allow for a replacement or a repair.

And based on what was provided with the application, it is our understanding that the majority of these windows, in fact, all but two could be repaired.

So as presented, um the request is to replace them all.

So if we were to poll the commission and based on that, we can open it up for discussion.

That is the recommendation of our preservation planner.

Um is that clarify why there's some confusion?

Yes, their question was you know, why were these other ones approved twice and now there's a whole change of it?

But as presented, the windows before us, those 11 windows, um, nine of them can be repaired instead of being replaced.

Okay.

So it's new application just because windows came before us before on the same property, each window is evaluated on its own merit per the expert window evaluation that was provided to the commission.

Um I would recommend if you're not in a position to make a determination on behalf of the applicant this evening that we would continue if they are there's more questions around what's before us.

We should continue it.

They should continue this.

I think it would be if you are not prepared to agree, then I would recommend.

I'll let them know that.

Okay, but I think this is I just want to make sure.

Do you know that they'll be able to come before the commission in November?

Uh I'd like to think so.

Okay.

Ms.

O'Brien, go ahead.

Um, just to give you a little more guidance on on this.

If they come back with the same application in November, I I think it's probably gonna be the the opinion of this commission that that it will not be approved in November either.

Right.

So maybe they want to re take this time to reconsider submitting a uh uh a different application, one that would request uh re restoration of the existing nine windows that are able to be restored.

Okay, you know what I'm saying?

Because if they come back in November with this same application, I I don't think it's likely to be approved.

Okay.

They certainly can contact Ms.

Chin.

She can provide more guidance around how to navigate that.

We could always amend the existing application or they can submit something new, but I agree with Ms.

O'Brien coming back with exactly what's before us now again will lead to the same conversation.

Yes, Mr.

Bell.

If they come back with the application that they agree with staff findings, can Jill do this administratively?

We don't have to hear it, do we?

Potentially.

Yeah, in kind wouldn't, I mean window repairs and restorations can be approved administratively.

Yeah.

So you have that option.

I mean you can align to the staff recommendations, and if that's true, then Joe can administrative approve it.

You're on your way, you don't have to come back to us.

I'll I'll let the follow that done.

So we could do that.

We'll still do a continuation, and then if that happens, you can just follow up directly with Ms.

Chin.

They can and she'd be able to do that for you.

Okay.

So with that, I'll request a motion to continue the application of 37 Sherman Street Plat 21 lot 108 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Monday, November 10th, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

This is the application of Daniel Petashnik of 61 Second Street, plat 12, lot 216 contributing.

For permission to replace 12 original windows with Anderson 400 series double hung windows made of pine wood with a protective layer and dual-pane glass filled with argon gas.

Bathroom window will be an operating casement.

All windows are inserts.

No plans to affect framing dimensions.

Will uh we'll copy the existing units.

Okay.

Welcome.

Good evening.

And I have you uh be sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

Also, if I may, I'd like to introduce Mark West, who's from Ombi Bo.

I'm a retired ophthalmologist.

I know nothing about sure.

We'll have we'll get him sworn in.

If you could just state your name into the mic for the record.

Daniel Padaschnik.

Okay.

Welcome.

And we'll have you come forward.

Also 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.

Mark West Nich.

What was your last name?

West Nedge, Mark West Nedge.

Could you just spell that for me, please?

Yep.

W E S T N E D G E.

Thank you.

Okay.

So Mr.

Pitashnick, we understand that you are looking to replace um 12 original windows.

Um similarly coming back to, and as you just heard from our prior applicant, um, we do require a complete window evaluation for the commission to make um an informed review and decision about replacing windows.

Um, I don't believe that you had submitted that window evaluation with your application.

Is that correct?

I believe that's correct.

Okay.

Um we do have um a very um robust window guideline that details out an example of a window evaluation.

Um I would recommend because we will require that to be able to really hear the application and make that informed decision to reconnect with Ms.

Chin.

She can give you an outline of what that looks like.

Um to be able to have a fair assessment if the commission agrees.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Um the the reason uh that well, there are a couple things.

The first thing is that uh the windows that we have to place are comparable to a third floor windows uh for an addition that was placed in the house.

I've owned the house now for three years.

These windows are completely comparable to those that were approved, presumably for the third floor edition.

So um the windows are no longer working in the house.

They're they're old and they're rough and they don't open, they don't close.

So you need an evaluation of the functionality of those windows, regardless.

Yes, that's correct.

So it it speaks to functionality, the quality of the materials.

It will go into a detail um breaking down every window if it's original, non-original, which it sounds like you have some non-originals in the mix.

Um, but it details out every single one of those windows that's before us.

So if that's the um 12 windows that you have, which here um it says origin 12 original, which would depending on the um property itself, those are likely original wood windows, which as I stated before, our policy is to repair before replace.

So we would need to understand if the condition of those windows is such that they could not be repaired.

Even though it's matching the the new additional windows that have already been approved, and we brought a sample of the window just to show the comparison.

Yeah.

I just say uh situation's a little bit different too, is the windows have already gotten ordered.

We've gotten 12 of them in-house right now, and it already has them in in our warehouse.

Um, so we were under the stipulations it was gonna be okay because it had already been done at the other level on the top level, and we weren't too was some miscommunication about this even being like historic.

So the the order basically went forward, got ordered, and now Daniel has 12 windows that he paid over 20,000 for, and he has insert windows that ready to be installed to match what we what has already been done on the top floor.

Um, so I I respect everything you're saying, but I also wanted to get jump in here to to sit so you got the full bold story of situation, I guess he's in, so to speak.

I guess he's in, so to speak.

He's not like starting off from scratch in having to give you an evaluation.

It's he's already sitting on 12 windows in warehouse right now, and they're all, as you know, Anderson insert windows.

Um so we're looking to see if there's anything you guys can do to help him out and help us out with being able to get these windows installed.

Uh and they will match what's already there on the second level, too.

It will we would not be replacing any of the exterior trim.

So it would match exactly what's there now.

In it would be matching the entire interior trim as well, because we would not be replacing any of the interior trim.

It would be inserts, so it would be just uh uh just updating the window itself uh with just the one division down the top only and not at the bottom.

Um so we followed the suit, so to speak, of the windows that we follow the suit of what was up top, we'll say, and he just basically wanted to get the rest of them done.

And so we just went ahead and uh and took care of that and then found out later that it's a stork.

So he we're kind of in a different situation than most people, I guess you could say.

So we're not uh I understand.

You understand that.

So I'm I'm hoping maybe we can make an exception on this one.

Be you know, to uh so we can he's able to move forward and get his windows installed.

So I understand we would not be able to, based on the information that we have before us this evening to make that exception.

I don't want to put the cart before the horse since we don't know what the exact details are of these windows, but if you provide that window evaluation to Miss Chin, she you know, much like Mr.

Ballis said previously, there is an opportunity that if she finds that this could be a replacement, she would be able to administratively approve that.

Otherwise, it will need to come back before the commission.

I understand the predicament that you're in.

Um, but before the commission, we do have guidelines that we have to follow, so we would not be able to make that exception this evening.

Okay.

Is home depot.

Oh, just so I understand properly because I got it translated back to my office as well.

So you're basically saying that uh we have to do an evaluation of all the 12 windows, and if if uh they deem it where we can use it, the inserts would pass, so to speak.

Um not necessarily.

So more information.

Also, Ms.

Chin can provide some guidance to Mr.

Petasnik around that window evaluation.

Um that typically is not coming from a product supplier, it is somebody that is a window expert, not to dismiss you, but again, there's a product company coming before us to do an evaluation.

We don't accept as an expert.

Um, but Ms.

Chen can provide that guidance to you.

Um, and then at that point, she would be able to identify if the window that's being proposed is compatible from a material perspective.

So again, we don't know the details of that this evening, but we don't have enough information.

So basically we're gonna move it forward basically.

So we will continue if the applicant agrees, we would continue.

He can certainly follow up with Ms.

Chin to get more details and make sure that we have the information to make an informed decision.

Okay.

Just in the information via email or Ms.

Chen, if you want to connect with her, she'll give you her email phone number.

You can reach out to her.

She's got all that.

Yep.

And in the meantime, there's also you can find it on the website for the city of Newport.

We have our guidelines there.

It includes all those details.

Okay.

Is Home Depot the installer?

Yes.

I heard a voice.

I didn't know.

Sorry.

And the the GoPits.org.

Is that something that Home Depot uses or yes?

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Right.

I know you referred them to our window um guidelines, but should we make note that generally replacement windows are not within the approved?

Yeah, I think until we know, yes.

But but contributing buildings.

For contributing.

For contributing buildings.

Yes, you do have a contributing property.

So again, if you go through that one, that window guideline does distinguish between a contributing and a non-contributing property with the exact details of what would be um subject to approval.

So it outlines everything there very clearly um based on the building that you have.

So considered contributing.

This is a contributing property.

Yeah.

Contributing.

Um again, it it's really based on the condition of these windows.

This is a newer guidance that we have outlined in terms of what windows we would accept.

So that would be the recommendation.

No, completely new uh floor that was added onto the house.

Oh, the third floor edition.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So I think that there's a lot more details around the application.

I do have a little pictures of those as well that I took um that I could, you know, submit as well.

The ones that have already been done and installed to try and match.

Yeah, that can be included in the iPad if you needed to take a peek at those.

That's up to you.

Really, we wouldn't be able in a, you know, with those being submitted, we still need to see the evaluation of the windows in the application.

So the best path, you know, our recommendation is to continue, have a whole picture before the commission or the preservation planner.

Do I need to provide information about the third floor edition?

Is that what was being suggested?

No.

Third floor edition approved by HDC.

Again, not within the, I mean, not within the purview of this application, so they can go through that with Ms.

Chin.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 61 Second Street Plat 12 lot 216 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Monday, November 10th, 2025.

Some second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um it is 754.

Do we want to take a quick 10-minute break?

Or you want to do one more?

We can keep commission going and let's keep going.

Okay, we're on a roll.

Uh this is the application of Michael Strongan and Barbara Granoff of 16 Barney Street, plat 21, lot 45 contributing for permission to construct a carport to accommodate one vehicle, approximately 12 feet wide, 10 feet deep, 8 feet high, with a slight roof for drainage.

Uh designed as a non-permanent structure, no foundation with footings at ground level and can be removed in the future if needed.

Post and beam construction with mahogany framing and asphalt shingles.

Okay, welcome.

Get you sworn in this evening.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

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

Mike Strongan.

Okay, welcome.

Um if you could just give us a summary um understanding.

We just heard the um overall details, but if you could walk us through the intention of the application.

Sure.

If I I think it's on the um application itself, we have a side-by-side driveway behind our house, so it's not visible from the street.

Um it parts for two-car parking on the one car that we want to do it closest to our fence.

That would be where the yellow is and uh opposed to on the other side.

Uh so there'd be a car port there, and then the gate is right next to it.

I'm into the backyard into the house.

Uh and the the reason for the coverage is uh we moved here from California a couple of years ago, and in the winter, this past one particularly was difficult with uh certain physical limitations I have, and my wife has for uh shoveling.

We thought if we can get a car port there, it would make things a lot easier.

It's uh at least 10 feet from either property line on the side and from the back.

Okay, and Ms.

Chen, could we just see the other photographs?

So on this, can you just describe exactly where the so it would be up against the fence to the left to the left?

Okay, come out about 12 feet.

Uh would have four posts.

And that way we could just pull right in on that side.

Okay.

Um, so I'm gonna open it up for questions and comments from the commission.

Um, here just staff recommendation.

The proposed car port is unlikely to impact the overall historic integrity of the contributing structure and surrounding historic area.

Although not popular, a carport in the historic district is clearly discernible as a new feature.

The proposed materials are in keeping with the historic district.

So I'll open it up for questions and comments.

Anyone?

I'll stop Ms.

O'Brien.

Um this is um you have a beautiful historic home, by the way.

I like took a ride by uh your property today.

Um I can I can sympathize with your your perceived need for a structure over your core, but I have some concerns in the sense that a carport is not um it's not characteristic of the historic district.

You know, it's really out of I feel that it's very out of character to the historic district.

Um I also feel as though we don't have enough information about what this structure is gonna look like.

Um, but personally, because of the um the precedent setting nature of your request.

your your perceived need for a structure over your car but I have some concerns in the sense that a carport is not um it's not characteristic of the historic district you know it's really out of I I feel that it's very out of character to the historic district um I also feel as though we don't have enough information about what this structure is going to look like um but personally because of the um the precedent setting nature of your request I I'm real I would be reluctant to support this application because of because I I feel that it's you you're referring to it as a non-permanent structure however it's got footings it's got you know it's it's pretty permanent um it's not like putting up a tent so you remove I I feel as though it's it's a structure it's of substance it is uh of size um and it is uh I just don't feel it's appropriate there are car ports or compatible not a lot very few but there are some historic districts right and and I understand that that Russo court is kind of a mix of commercial and and and non commercial um but it does it does to some degree although we are not bound by precedent it does in fact set a precedent there's a cement bunker just down the street from us that was just like uh for storing cars I I yeah I I do I do understand I do understand the nature of you know the mixed nature of that that particular block but um as I said I I feel as though it it sets a precedent that um will is hard for us to defend going forward okay yeah I I think what would got me in and I you have a very persuasive uh argument um is that it it's not temporary uh it is permanent once you've a fixed you know concrete footings and in it and bolted this thing down it's about as permanent as anything is good removed relatively well anything can be removed right I mean you can come in and remove a house and if you want no foundation let's put it out well you have footings right so that that is a foundation those footings will be level with the No understood I trust me I get it I understand and I understand the practical nature of what you're looking to do.

I just have a problem with with the the the wording of it as temporary is not temporary it's permanent it's not going anywhere.

And and I feel like to address it's almost counterintuitive in a sense right because it is not characteristic of the neighborhood or of the district.

And I feel like if you need it for a pre a purely practical purposes, you know something that is truly temporary would probably be okay like if you wanted to put it up and it's up for the winter and then it comes down for the summer that sort of thing I I can see that and I could support that but something that in fact is in fact it's not even in our purview is it if it's truly temporary or is it if it's something that is because this is you know it's before us because it's not temporary.

Right this is well I'm asking that if we put something in there that could be removed.

Well anything can be removed right no no doesn't have it you know that you attach very simply to the ground and then you take it off in the Yeah right understood.

But I mean like you know based on the nature of the materials and whatnot this is not something that is easily removed right I'm I'm I'm suggesting if I came back with something oh if it were if it were um or you tell me you know you or you're giving me like this rope but then you'd say no that's not well I it's a fine line between what can be taken down and what can't be taken down what's in true what truly is temporary right so um in my view of things you know the materials you chosen are nice materials you've got footings that's being done right for a permanent structure.

It just doesn't read to me as a temporary structure.

And so I feel like that's gonna be something that you know uh other people will look at and for practical reasons we want the same thing right I understand I live here too and the snow and the ice and the weather is it's a real pain I get it.

You know what I mean but that's that's where I land on that one myself personally other start at the end and work down Mr.

Finley.

Uh just out of curiosity you're purchasing this it's a somewhat of a kit or it's not being designed it's being designed custom oh it's custom okay so I was thinking if it were a there are kits out there.

Right.

And most of those kits do say in the literature that they're temporary.

I could could have done one like that but I just thought it custom was I was just wondering if compliance had that sort of information but that's okay.

The kit ones don't have mahogany I mean they're not made as nicely we were trying to do something that would fit into the historic aspect of it.

What's the move on this thing?

Yeah I what is the roof the asphalt that would match the asphalt on the house.

Okay.

Yeah I mean in total the structure probably is going to weigh a couple three thousand pounds right so I mean it well the asphalt alone is going to weigh 300 pounds but um it is counterintuitive but yeah what I am suggesting it's a temporary structure that's something that would meet your practical needs right something that you would be able to take down in an afternoon store it in your garage or store it in your basement or something like that store it store somewhere baseball.

No I get it.

I mean, every single one of us.

So um, but that yeah, that you know, and I recognize what you're trying to do, and I respect that.

I think that the fact that you're trying to meet the commission with uh what you think is a good solution, which ordinarily would be a good solution, right?

Outside of historic district with like materials, something that's better than something that's temporary.

Unfortunately, it's kind of the opposite here.

So that's how yeah.

Okay, before we go to Ms.

Moran, Mr.

Ballon.

No, I think her I think you know, we admire your intent to make this nice.

Uh, and we appreciate it.

Uh, I think what we're saying is less nice is probably more applicable in this case, only because the word permanent versus temporary is what we're facing our decision on.

So let me ask you if I do I need to come, do I have to come back then if I do something temporary that would also come before you with a new application that's something that was uh uh truly temporary in your view, or that's something uh do you need a building permit or temporary structure?

Okay, so I think you would be I think you so should submit it to the planner, and the planner can determine if you need to bring it to us.

I can talk about uh with Jenny.

So yeah, we would continue the application.

You can connect with her and she can provide some guidance.

Okay, because I'm not really sure what temporary would be.

Understood.

Think seasonal.

Excuse me, think seasonal.

Okay, but I it would have to attach this to blow away.

So I'm just over what kind of attachment.

Is that something that planner would be able to give me some guidance on?

What kind of attachment?

Is it more screws in instead of um you know, footings, or is I I'm just trying to get an idea of whether it's worth any or anybody's time for me to come back with temporary.

Yeah, I'll likely um you know consult with the the building official um on you know safety precautions and also what would uh constitute a a building permit with my review versus a full application.

Okay, so I think also if you picture that you if you had approval to put this up and then you could affix some other building material to this and turn it into something else.

That's where the permanent nature starts to imply to us.

Whereas if you cannot affix a board to some other structure, that's temporary.

Because you're worried that we would try to make this a garage though, you would be amazed what comes before us.

Really or the next person that that's not our it might not be you, it might be the next person, right?

You know what I mean?

So just to clarify this for myself, a temporary structure.

If it were a tent, he would need a permit.

No, then what you we're suggesting is a a tent, a temporary structure.

I think that's so he doesn't need a permit then, right?

Well, he has to go through.

Yeah, if he wants something that looks better than a tent.

It all depends on what type of structure, right?

So even me identifying, you know, is this considered a structure?

Is it considered you know, because we have percolus, this could be a good one.

I was gonna say this is very similar to a parking lot.

So it's this is a structure, but if we were talking like a tent, then you know, or something like that, then it wouldn't, I don't believe it would need apartment.

But if it's erected for X amount of months, then that may constitute something in the code.

Okay.

Okay.

Can I make a comment?

Sure.

Um nobody wants to see a tent in your driveway.

I'll be honest.

Okay.

Um however, um, I just want to comment that I'm not in favor of this, whether it be more temporary or not.

Um, from what uh Ms.

O'Brien said in the beginning, I don't believe that a carport is compatible in our historic district.

It's not a historic feature um that you see really, and if there is a property that I'm missing, maybe I'm mistaken.

So I apologize.

But uh, and I do appreciate the materials that you chose.

However, we're putting a roof on it, and therefore it is no longer a pergola or a temporary structure.

So for me, um I personally don't believe that this belongs in a historic district.

I understand that shoveling snow is a problem, but we get like two snowfalls a year that you have to clear.

And I don't think that this is personally the solution because I believe we're gonna start seeing more of them based on the precedent.

So for me, the compatibility compatibility seeing more applications, not more of them because you're not gonna applications, yes.

Yeah, this is a little bit newer territory.

We haven't had too many of these carports, so like this.

Yeah, I agree.

Okay.

So with that, I will request a motion to continue the application of 16 Barney Street, plat 21, lot 45 to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting.

We'll just withdraw.

Okay.

See how I'm gonna I mean there's enough people here that aren't gonna go for a temporary.

Well, you have a full commission, you own you know I understand.

You need it's okay.

You can just withdraw it.

Okay, so procedurally it is as requested to withdraw and grant that request.

Okay.

So I will request a motion to accept the withdrawal of the application of 16 Barney Street, plat 21, lot 45 by the applicant.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's based on the uh one.

Uh we need to cite a standard for a withdrawal.

No, okay.

Okay.

Um, now I'm gonna do another time check.

Quick 10 minute break.

Oh, one more.

Okay.

No, it's up to you guys.

Is there anybody here?

Oh, I don't know.

Okay, so we will go to C6.

This is the application of Jeffrey Nase and Kelly Nase of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25, lot 65, contributing 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, pilasters 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 rotting trim and siding where necessary, remove non-historic fire spare and west side of the house.

Sorry.

Did we skip C seven?

Oh, we didn't.

Is this not C we did?

It's Mary Stewart, but wet more animated.

Oh, sorry.

I I did say I said C6, but what I read C'est.

So we read C7.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

You want to read you wanna go.

We can do seven, okay.

All right, we're gonna re-sequence that.

Resequence.

Okay.

Okay.

I was a little confused.

So sorry.

Sorry.

My my mistake, I thought.

It didn't show.

It didn't show at all.

Sorry, we got interrupted.

We got through the whole thing.

We did.

Okay.

Welcome, council.

Uh Madam Chair, perhaps the commission, Peter Regan representing uh Jeffrey and Kelly Nace.

Uh, here with me tonight is Mark Horn of Horn Building uh Company, who is the contractor for the project.

This was in front of you last month at that time.

There were some questions about the history of the building, primarily the uh front elevation on the uh north side, as well as the uh provenance of the existing uh front portico.

We have submitted a report from the historical society, which we think answers most of those questions, particularly with regard to the front elevation.

Also, we submitted a revised rear elevation uh on the non-original rear bump out that had the bay window.

Um I don't know if anyone I have copies of that one.

I know that one was submitted today, but I thought it might be helpful if I can get out copies there.

I'm sorry, counsel.

So just to confirm that exhibit A was of which elevation?

This is uh the uh south elevation of the European bill.

Okay, so commission will request a motion to accept exhibit A of a south elevation for 19 Catherine Street, plat 25 lot 65.

So move second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

Thank you, sir.

And have him uh walk you through uh the historic report as well as the uh revised plan example.

Okay, 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.

Um Mark Horrin.

Okay, thank you and welcome back.

Thank you.

So a lot of the questions and comments that came up last month started with the context of what was there originally.

So we submitted the Newport Society Historic Report, and should all have that.

Yep.

Um so I'd like to start with just comment.

Start with the front elevation, north elevation as you see it.

Dating back to 1893, I believe, and before there was no porch.

Uh there was the portico as it is.

There was a porch that wrapped around the north and west elevations that appears somewhere around 1907.

And then after that date, at some point it was modified, a good portion of that was removed, and then what remained was the just what you see now.

Um which is about seven feet by seven feet.

So the proposed changes enlarge the portico to 11 feet by seven feet.

Um more in keeping with the mass of the existing house.

Uh HTC planner agreed with that assessment.

In addition, the uh the other issue that came up was the front entry doors.

We're proposing two new double doors at the main entry.

Um the grill patterns on those doors were meant to tie into and and uh relate to the windows that are there, so the two over two.

Um the sides of the vestibule have new windows that also relate to the main structure and are sized uh compatible with the windows to the left and right, yeah.

So this photograph is 1972, which is different, different portal code there.

That is that's old windows and correct siding of the one.

Right, right.

Um those are only three and a half inches in depth, and they're meant to simulate they're against the building, they're not outboard, they're against the structure.

Um they have a band that wraps around a boot as well, and the dental molding that exists on the existing structure also comes out outboard.

Uh so hopefully that answers that that question on the columns, they're not freestanding columns as you would think.

So we're like bilastors and reads as a third or half depth.

Yeah, it's it's a lot less.

Correct.

So this is not an open structure, this is an open porch.

It will as proposed, it would have windows, it would be fully enclosed.

If you take a look at the border plan of the first floor, I had the same question when I first saw that planet that's right here, the uh floor plan.

See that it was closed, like the current and so where are those pilasters on that structure on the front?

So they give the appearance of a column.

But they're flat on the back.

Yeah, which is yeah, it's like decorative that's more of a trim right now.

Yes.

Are these the photos that are in our packet?

Yeah, okay.

Also, Mark, um, could you speak to the dentals?

I don't see the dental detail.

That's right.

Um that there's not that's correct.

It's not one proposed, there is one now.

It's up to we could go either way.

If you want to keep the dental, that's not a problem.

It would match the original.

Same in the back in the south elevation.

There's dental proposed uh so the the lower story structures had dental underneath the eaves.

We go back to that historic photo, please.

Possible to zoom in at all.

So the dentals are existing there.

Okay.

And just to a quick glance, it appears that this may be existing, the existing roof line, and they had just clad over.

Um which particularly so as in like the they've kept has have they retained this platform and roof line and then clad over.

Yes, I believe that.

Okay, so this is you know a massing is a representation.

Yes, yes.

Okay, I feel like what you have now is better than I hope so.

As I understand the original porch wrapped around this way, yes, north and and uh west.

So as in like the they've kept has have they retained this platform and roof line and then clad over yes I believe that okay so this is you know a massing is a representation okay yes I kind of I feel like what you have now is better than I hope so on a plate wait I so as I understand the original porch wrapped around this way yes north and and uh west that's right the whole the whole facade yeah that summarizes the changes on that elevation so could you go back to so the proposal for that front entry there are there windows on the side of it so two doors and then what about on the sides and then in so if you open those doors then the original uh entry door is still in place still there but in this enclosure are there windows on the sides yeah yes yes the proposed yes if you look at the uh east and west elevations as proposed you'll see big double hung windows yeah they're not right there so it's like a vestibular okay that's that are not there now yeah it's right there okay right there okay so that's it that's right exactly mark and the inner doors are French doors as well the inner door is a touch door touch door yeah but it's extra wide right yes yeah pretty cool actually yeah it's in good shape yeah it's beautiful it's gonna remain a whole entryway yeah so before we move to the other aspects I would just comment for myself on that entry um aligned with the updates the windows on the side I do have concerns about some conjecture with adding those pilasters I just feel like a column is a very specific architectural feature that if there's no historical reference that that would have been there well there was a porch there what's there now on one side is is a casement window that's right diminutive to the elevation and the massing uh so it's a significant improvement if you look at the upper photo that shows existing casement window I mean that's det that's a detraction from the original building short it's not a storic so I'm not I'm not I'm not comparing the I'm not talking about the windows I'm fine with the windows as proposed I'm talking specifically about the faux columns right yeah I just don't yes just the columns and now go to the existing photo all you have are cornerboards so the structure that comes out just a plain flat corner board what's being proposed is a more enhanced boner board if you will so it has a band molding a boot and it's uh maybe reflective of what you know the porch at one point but it's certainly different than what's there what's there now is a simple flat corner which doesn't provide any detail so this is a bit more dressed than that the structure's getting bigger so it might make sense to enhance that otherwise it's like a bigger box like a bigger box but I understand where you're coming from because then it could appear as if an existing porch was just enclosed and cloards were thrown between which happens a lot so I I can resonate with that actually I think it's a more appropriate for the new maps it's you know I I recognize that you know some type of trimming is required in that area just to give you that and it's not super detailed I mean it's I I can support it the way it is I personally I recognize what you're doing with it uh and uh although I can see understand the concerns of the people here on the commission I mean I think the dental if you look at the upper brackets it's a suggestion that the lower may it ties in a little bit better than just the crown but I you could argue that both ways since it is a new structure do you want to reflect go back and try to emulate but you can see in that photo the dental looks good in yeah alongside the bigger rack and we're fine either way I think first I think the brackets look better to me that's a minor point mark I think the dentals would look better but doesn't really matter to me it's considered conjecture then just keep it simple.

Okay that's just my perspective on that one architectural feature but yeah right smaller version yeah smaller version correct yeah of the dental of the dental or the small core ball above yeah I think that's fine I think to me it's just those philosophers are one step too far of adding an architectural feature but I don't think I can support the architectural the pilasters only because I can't imagine taking them away you get a lot of blank it it seems to need a decorative element to me.

I mean you can would you fill that in with?

Well, so just a question.

I mean, one of the um character defining features is to um called out by our preservation planner were side lights.

Right.

Entrance consists of a single light one frame glass door and is flanked by two single light windows.

Now we're moving here to a double door, but maybe that space would benefit from a side light.

No, I can see.

Rather than the column.

Yeah, yeah.

Put a side light.

So it I are is there clapboard proposed between the yes.

Sounds okay.

Okay.

But it's just not showing.

Oh, yeah, it just doesn't show it in that.

Um, it is.

Yeah, I got to there was an also a comment about the grill pattern.

Um, it could be that you those could be solid lights, one light each panel.

A bevel of glass, for example, with a single light.

Go to the yeah, panel below, single light above.

Um the attempt here was to match the two over two of the windows above.

Oh, I see.

Yeah.

And you were thinking maybe a side light on one side, Mark.

No, um just the double doors.

Yeah, okay.

Um, and the if you if you if you added you know, with the doors, it'd be quite big.

You added side lights on top of that.

Yeah, it'd be too much.

Yeah, maybe a little big, yeah.

You don't need a railing on this.

I'm sorry, you don't need railings.

It's not uh it's enclosed.

Yeah, I think actually because we looked at the height of the stairs for zoning.

Yeah, within a shred of it, yeah.

I think no more than 24 inches.

Yeah, I don't think it's fine.

Well, the only reason I asked is because in order to make that work, you'd have to make the stairweller and then you'd have to die your railing into your pilaster and sort of change.

Yeah, and the door is actually inset slightly, correct?

A little bit, yes.

It's just tough to imagine, I guess.

All right, let's go other areas of the property with some questions.

South elevation, the back is the next yeah, right.

So we we see here the bay window is removed.

The that application, the drawing that was submitted showed a French doors with a rail.

That's been changed to four folding windows.

The owner wants folding windows, and that's what that's that's what's shown in the elevation.

You still have a meeting rail.

The size of the sash are similar, almost identical to the ones to the left.

You look at the assembly of windows to the left of the door.

So there's this door in the center, those three windows on the plan are dimensions of the actual windows to the left versus and they're shown right on the window.

These the size of the glazing to the right.

So they're it's meant to approximate the size, they're very close.

And those windows hinge, and there is a meeting rail, as it would be if it were double-hung window.

Um I think what has not been mentioned is you're you're making this addition taller and you're reframing the roof.

Uh the size of this this uh bump out is the same size as what's what's there.

I'm not talking footprint, talking height of the plate to the rafters.

Uh if you look at the top eleven, the the plate is about the same as on the shed roof to the side.

And if you look at this elevation, it's higher.

I I presume it's uh ceiling height issue inside.

Um I just think that should be there is a ceiling height issue with the framing where it adjoins to the kitchen.

Yes.

So it's a reframed addition.

Is there is there a reason why you don't re let me use a similar roof profile on the go up?

There's a door, see that little vestibule on the right hand side.

Is that right there to the right?

Yep, right there.

No, to the to the outside.

Yeah.

And there's a header.

And we're limited by that header height.

So you'd have to raise, you know, you'd have to talk about this roof here.

Yeah.

Me too.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

So the we'd have to change that.

Um and we'd be somewhat limited to it to the extent there's a window above it.

So that may start to pinch.

Um but rather than alter that whole side, we opted to keep it the way it is.

So you move the flare.

I I my personal opinion is that the move to the flat roof.

Low slope.

Um detraction from the overall composition, although I know it's not a visual.

I think something like that.

With the flare.

Yeah, with the flare and the formal, but that to me flare down.

I think even on that the flag roof is something that is not original, it's taken on a little bit of character where it's all over the top.

I know I recognize that.

But it reads more of a thoughtful addition to me.

Yeah, it would be just a very little slope roof.

Okay.

And the flare echoes the the flare that exists, echoes the existing main roof.

Right.

Flare.

I think that's I don't think that would be a j objectionable of the owners.

And the dental is meant to all the lower story roofs have dental.

So that's much like the front.

That's the bottom thing.

Yeah.

So we're saying that on that bump out, we're gonna maintain the roof line of the existing.

Just lift it in, but yeah, I think up would be okay.

Maintain the flare.

No, yeah, I think if you lift it a little bit, add the flare.

I think the actual, I think the actual height actually helps us a little bit.

The additional height.

Just simply just because the such a big building.

I I do agree, but I thought it was worth mentioning since it wasn't highlighted.

Yeah, no, I get you.

I saw it though.

Um if we're talking about the roof flaring here, do you would you be open to doing the same thing on the front porch?

Uh uh still not over the front porch.

So I I just think that yeah, I think it makes sense.

I mean, I agree with what Diana was saying is that these pilasters on the front elevation that don't appear on the side elevation sort of kind of are abrupt.

They lead you to infer something else that's not there.

I think if you took this thing back and you treated it with the flare roof, maybe um simplify it based on on what you're trying to do.

I don't think you need to dress it up uh on one elevation.

Uh I think the roof would be more compatible with the flare.

Uh you could do the brackets if you wanted to, and then it just reads what it is.

It's a box with a door and a window on the side, and it's how you get in and out from the front door.

So you're suggesting flare it just like the back, flare the hips, and keep the column.

I would not put the I would not put the pylusters on the front side.

So the only thing about that is I think it leaves a very plain corner board.

Well, it is it is a plain box right there.

Still do that.

Big ones.

I mean, it is it's a plain box.

It's uh it's a box that wasn't there.

Maybe so.

Yeah, but I mean I especially the front.

I compliment you for what you're trying to present, but I think it's leading a false sense of something that's there.

Done.

So the suggestion is the roof, much like the back, similar detail, but get rid of the columns and have that be a squared off cornerboard trim.

Yeah, and and maybe use the space or uh light fixture and you know, just treat it like that.

Okay, certainly present that to them.

I think it would be my sense the acceptable if if you're inclined to approve it that way, that's fine, and I could they decide to change them.

I would come back.

So for me, one that doesn't do the bat.

Right.

Right.

That's what we're talking about.

We've made it you sell it.

You can sell it to me with curved roof in the back.

And leave the pilastics.

I like the pilot at the first.

Let's just put the porch back on.

What's that?

Put the porch back on.

I'm making a jump.

What about the porch?

That's solve all your problems.

The porch is nice.

That should be nice.

Lot coverage, maybe.

Small lot.

But we don't know what it looks like.

And just to um I just want to confirm because we discussed this at the last meeting that you were withdrawing the French doors with the Juliet balcony.

Okay.

So we would reflex that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Shows the hinge window.

Um, so to just summarize, so on the uh rear south elevation, we're on that bump out requesting to maintain the existing roof profile and flare.

And on the front, north elevation, mimic that same flared roof line, no pilasters.

Um I just I want to go back to that um south elevation and just call out the bifold window.

Understanding visually it reads.

Double home oh double hung.

But but for the hardware, correct.

Right.

I but I just this is we don't typically have bifold windows.

Particularly in a contributing structure.

Oh, this one.

So when opened.

Right.

The owner was intent on having this big expanse wide open.

And that was the option they chose.

So I'm just raising that.

I don't want to clear open.

Yeah, I mean, normally I don't think I would be open to that, but really not visible.

Yeah, but it doesn't bother me.

And since we're messing with the fenestration anyway.

No.

Okay, I'm just calling it.

That's my opinion.

It's definitely a very different window.

Is that window?

What's that?

What material is that window?

Is it uh window or the windows wood?

It's all wood, yeah.

Let me double check.

Yeah, it does say mahogany on what you what you provided this evening.

It says custom mahogany.

Right.

Marvin ultimate wood.

And just a point, uh I think on the front, uh there was discussion about not putting the pilasters on.

Yes, I have that for sure.

Okay.

Okay, so those two amendments on the north and south elevation aligned with that.

Yes.

Okay.

Commission, any other questions or comments on anything else we did not touch on?

I will just state because it was in there about remove.

I know we discussed it last meeting, but about taking out that French door and putting the Juliet balcony.

So and I think we said that in place of that it was going to be two, two over two windows.

Is that what we're seeing here?

Right, that's the top.

Okay.

And we're good with the copper gutter.

Yeah, I think um copper gutters.

Everybody's good with that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25, lot 65, um, with the updated details for the north elevation.

Um, that front entry will have a flared roof line as in the south elevation, and we will be removing the um pilaster's columns, and on the south elevation uh that bump out will maintain the existing profile and flare, as well as changing from a pair of French doors with Juliet balcony to two two over two windows.

Citing Newport standards, uh 17 TAC 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Uh aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For the record, Mark, I I like the pilasty.

Yeah.

Well, he can he can buy them and bring them to your house.

Okay.

Except we last one.

Yes.

So apologies, because we did sort of a resequence on the fly there.

Do we have anyone here this evening for the application of C6 One Wetmore Av?

Oh we do.

Okay.

Okay.

Jim or Jim.

Yeah.

Okay.

I apologize.

Our commissioner just left.

So we will we're gonna take a break.

We're gonna take a quick break.

Yeah.

10 minute break, we will be back.

I can't see the time.

Um coming back to application C6 for one wet more of.

Yeah.

My apologies.

Um this is the application of Mary Speed Emerson of one wet more app, but 36, 128, non-permission to place asphalt in the standing scene metal roofs.

Okay, so welcome.

I will get you sworn in this evening.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And if you could state your name for the record, Mary Emerson.

Okay, Ms.

Emerson, welcome back.

Um, just to remind the commission.

So we did hear this application last month.

We did end up splitting it um into two parts.

The first was part one, the chimney to re be replaced in kind, um, which we did approve that part of the application, and then we continued part two, which was the roof replacement specifically, and that's what we're here to discuss this evening.

So, Miss Emerson, if you could provide us an update on that roof replacement.

Well, originally um when I was putting on the solar, they said uh the roof should be replaced or solar went on, and I was just going to do asphalt shingle, but my daughter, who's a landscape architect, insisted that we look at different materials and so a whole lengthy thing ensued.

And um she lives on the west coast, so we had uh I just send her metal examples and anyway, many phone calls and emails later, we decided on a color, which is actually I noticed this morning walking my dog is this virtually the same color that's on the new breakers gatehouse and on the library at Salve and on the new built pavilion that they're building at Salve.

So it's a ver uh verdigary green um color, and uh that's that I can't go ahead with the all the work until this is okay.

Okay, so um if I recall the discussion before the commission um in September, there was some commentary that a standing seam metal roof was not compatible with this building.

Um correct my memory if I'm wrong.

So it's not necessarily the color of the details, it was the actual material in and of itself.

Okay, uh I was not at that meeting, but um my contractor was unclear and didn't explain that to me.

I would say my mom was the amateur designer of building, and she based it on a on a building owned by salve down the street, which is a French, it reminded her of French barns, and it's so I think metal roof and barns go well together myself, but I would abide by your okay.

So, with that, if I understand the proposal before the commission this evening is to maintain that request um of replacing the asphalt with standing seam, that will be in a vertigree color.

Um, so with that, I'll open it up for discussion.

Right, Mr.

Ballow.

Uh would you be willing to use asphalt shingles opposed to metal roofing?

Um well, I obviously have to talk it over with her because we owned the building jointly.

And um, so I don't know.

I was okay with it.

She's against it on environmental reasons as well as aesthetic ones.

Um but so I maybe maybe if we couldn't go forward any other way.

I I think the uh staff comments had made point that uh metal roofing is not commonly used in the historic district, and it's not commonly used what in the historic district, correct?

Well, that's not true because as I just said this morning on my walk two blocks away, there are metal roofs on the new library at Salve, metal roof on the green.

I think we're better at the breakers, metal roof on I think we're talking about residential buildings opposed to commercial buildings.

Goddard I I think originally when we heard it the first time I was in alignment with you know asphalt but you know having thought about it I I think I'm okay with the with the metal roof simply because it it is a unique building onto itself um I don't see I have a problem with asphalt and a it's almost a ver it's almost a wall basically it's almost vertical and that's where I find asphalt uh you know roofs look terrible uh simply because you're looking straight at them you're not catching the shadow lines that they typically would get from a you know a standard pitch on the roof so for me um I could support a metal roof uh the colors uh would be of your choice obviously we don't have any purview of the color my opinion on the color though would be that you would not want to do something green simply because it's gonna stand out um would not want you wouldn't you wouldn't want to do something green because it would stand out too much I think which metal yes green the very degree yes I think it's something more subtle a little more toned down would be helpful to you but so if it were say a brown metal well it can we we have no purview of a color anyway green if you want you you can so I well you I mean you you get it in a color and it lays that color is my end right no and that's one of the beauties of it for you right it's made in three so uh but our purview simply is of the material right and so you could have any color you want I'm just saying my personal opinion would be I'm in support of the metal roof you know uh well the other thing about it is that it lasts longer and they also said that the solar panels can just clip to it so it's it's easier for you all around right for them and um do we have a cut sheet on the metal roof an example of the metal roof picture of it or anything oh gosh my daughter did a uh some of sitting here I think at the back um well I took picture this morning of we have one up here okay that was supplied by in the application oh it looks like that so if I may ask um so understanding you were thinking about putting this metal roof the application before us and it we did not discuss this at the last time was the solar panels in and of themselves so they're not included in this application has already been approved they had been approved yep okay by this commission yeah so the solar panels are going to go on top of the green vertigree roof on the rear elevation on the rear slope okay on the non-street side okay so the only thing I would comment coming back to the color I agree we do not have purview over color however degree gives the indication of copper it's made to look like copper and I would say in this scenario the false pretense that there was a copper roof on this structure does not seem compatible.

So I you know I think uh maybe another color of metal but that particular I mean that's what Verdegree is so that's the neighborhood of copper roof on the part of his house and I have to agree with you it looks odd to me.

But it will become burning I got to that will yes is is this picture uh an example of the metal roofing yeah yeah it's a standing scene but it has a lot of yeah my roof line changes I'm just trying to figure out if this is a okay that's fine well uh the cut sheet or detailed drawing of the actual roof itself or an example or I just think I mean the seams make a difference.

This picture is alluding to it it sounds like um there is some leniency to accepting metal roofs, and I mean I would be fine with you going with a metal roof.

Sorry, I just found a standard sheet.

She did a layup of it or whatever you call the rendering.

Um this is a standing seam.

So I would be okay with Jill approving the final sign, but that's exactly right.

Standing seam, better like that.

Sorry, I can't do it.

That's okay.

That's okay.

We're working through it again.

Should I wait to ask the question?

We are yeah.

So that's the house with the rendering of the green.

The roof that's on it now is original from when the house is built in 79.

Um, okay.

Non-designed based on the house down the street that you didn't already always love.

We used to live at us to live in the gatehouse midcliffe and that house will work.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh can I swim a question?

Sure.

Uh I know that this might not necessarily be something that's proved, but have you explored alternative roofing material like either uh metal that emulates an asphalt roof or shingles rather, or something a little simpler.

I didn't look at wood because it's I guess more even more expensive than the metal.

Now, of course, some of the benefits of doing this solar thing are now no longer gonna be allowed under the current regime in Washington.

So a lot of the financial roof, even more deficit, I guess.

Okay, so just to gauge from the commission as presented.

I fully support a metal roof.

Okay, Mr.

Bell, I know your position, Ms.

O'Brien.

Okay, I I would think that we just could uh have Jill at least see a sample of it before we you know.

I mean, I would approve it with her approval.

Um so would it be possible to provide uh you want a physical sample or a more specific cut sheet in addition to what was presented here?

Yes, to Jill, okay.

Yeah, just give it to Jill.

So a specification sheet of the final, yeah, of the final material from the from the supplier that can be provided to our preservation planner.

So we'll conditionally approve the application as long as you follow up with her and give her that information.

Give her the information about the uh material.

I know we ended up going with the even more expensive one, so hopefully it will I'm sure it'll be great.

There's a bunch more, yeah.

There's a lot to choose from.

Oh, should I say that?

Somewhat expensive, right?

Right.

It's a tough house because it doesn't really have like a an identity to really match it to what should be there.

I also have a lot more landscaping in front of the house than I've done in the last few years.

So it looks picture looks so barren.

Yeah.

What is the unique character of the house is why I changed my mind actually when I thought about only there really isn't a lot of precedent for so it's it's kind of its own entity, so your mother designed one of a kind.

Yeah.

And the one down the street.

Yes, okay.

So okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of one wet more app, plat 36, what lot 128.

The second part of the application we heard this evening to replace the asphalt roof with a standing seam metal roof with the condition that the applicant provide a final cut sheet of the material to our preservation planner.

Citing Newport Standard 17 80 060 B1 and 2.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

This is the application part two of Shelley Mahu, Marie Mahoon, Michael O'Connell of 73 Catherine Street Plat 23, Lot 108 contributing.

For permission to construct wraparound porch on the west and south Elevatory.

Okay, welcome back.

Yeah, you sworn in.

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

So help you God.

I do.

You can state your name for the record, please.

Sean Harris.

Okay, welcome back, Mr.

Harris.

Thanks for having me.

Before we begin, I have to admit an error.

I omitted two sheets from the last submittal.

Um not part of the packet until this evening.

Okay.

Has been so kind to scan them in so that they're at least visible on the screen, but I have physical copies.

Okay.

I'm wondering if I might enter them as exhibits.

Sure.

Um, so we have two.

I guess it's pressing study and then the second floor.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um do them as two.

Okay, so request a motion to accept exhibit A, a precedent study, and exhibit B, second story floor plan for 73.

Catherine Street Plat 23, lot zero nine eight.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Okay, so just to review, this is uh the second part of uh a request that was made about a year ago for a wraparound covered porch um to the existing structure.

In fact, some of the porch has been erected.

I don't know if any of you have seen it, but around the front side that has been erected.

The portion in question, and the reason why we're back in front of you today is that it was evidence of a second floor deck on this building.

There are two doors that exit to what was sort of a ramshackle flat roof.

Um, and we've made a few adjustments over.

Uh, I think, well, I made one round of adjustment because I originally presented an open deck.

Um, the second round was for a covered deck that was smaller, it's eight foot two by uh 12 feet.

Um of the requests we met back in April, I believe.

Primarily I was here to make a modification to the stairs.

I don't know if you remember that.

We talked about the back covered porch a bit.

It was recommended that we look at potentially enclosing or making the the covered porch smaller.

Um speaking with a client, she'd like a covered porch there, not an enclosed structure.

So what I've done is gone back and looked at.

Well, what other examples do we have in the area in this same style around the same time period?

Are there other examples of covered porches?

Um I'm showing you four here.

Two are um by Richard Morris Hunt.

They're they were built right here in Newport around the same time period.

They show some pretty extensive second floor covered porches, and they're just that they're not screened in, they're not enclosed.

Uh the language varies a little bit in that um sometimes it keeps the same as under the existing roof line, and sometimes it creates its own roof line.

All of those examples are on the back of the building, which is exactly what we're trying to do here.

It's on the west side of the building.

We're trying to put something back in that location.

Um, so I just wanted to bring these other examples up and say that what I'm trying to do is along the same lines.

Again, we know that there was an exit here.

There were two doors that existed.

They entered to something.

Um, and without coming to a resolution as to what the second floor is, we can't complete the rest of the covered porch.

Um there's no way for us to sort of finish the the rest of the project.

So this is that area that has the trim that appears to have been a roof line or something.

Okay.

Yep.

That um you can actually see that.

I did a couple of renderings that you can see.

A4.2 has that.

You can kind of see where that is right there.

Yeah.

Um, you can see where that roof shape is.

It's a different pitch than what's above.

And it appears as though it was there prior to the wart.

I don't know what else for lack of better term that exists just to the right of it.

Um, you know, that's that's fully enclosed.

It's it intercepts that that uh gable shape roof line.

And that trim that's there, just so that you folks are all aware, this building was um had been converted at one point to a shingle style building when the shingles came off.

The building told a great deal about what its past was, and the stick style made itself present.

That's what that gable line is.

Uh the owner was very adamant at keeping these cues that existed on the building.

Well the can you explain how the roof is it just a simple shed roof?

Uh no, it's actually a flat roof.

It would be a continuation of the flat roof.

You can see where the bump out is on the right hand side of the west elevation.

It would be a continuation of that same roof line.

Um to be honest, I'd love to figure out a way to get a gable shape back there.

Um, but that wort really kind of creates a problem because it intercepts it a couple of feet in.

It just it there's no way to to bring that shape back that I could figure out.

I tried a hip um thinking that that might resolve some of it, and maybe the roof line could drain onto the flat roof, and it just I couldn't get it to read correctly because of the fact that that addition area is over too far to to try to correct.

Uh one thing I did want to note too, and I think it was brought up the April meeting.

Um there were a couple of, or there was a comment I believe made about the doors themselves that exit onto that space.

For some reason, the client has put storm doors in front of doors that were actually approved back in 2015.

The doors that exist there that open up to this hopeful eventual uh covered porch are similar in shape and proportion to all of those doors that wrap around on the first floor.

They're hidden behind a set of storm doors right now.

Um so their their appearance right now is not all that fantastic.

Are you convincing her to take those off?

Um I think if it's a condition, uh I could certainly now bargaining.

I I there if I remember correctly, there they're a really nice quality door, so I'm not sure why the storm is really needed to be currently honest.

Mr.

Bala.

Um I reviewed your application.

I think you've done a fine job uh marrying the pieces of this building and suggesting this solution is appropriate to it.

I think it ties in the uh the addition to the right.

It weaves itself around the corner and meets the main part of the house.

And I think in the renderings you've done, it proves that it's a successful transformation of the space.

Even though we normally do not like to see second floors.

I think your um presentation of um president um buildings helps to prove that point.

So I would be in favor of your application.

Yeah, I would concur with that.

I I think that it's a complex um problem, and you've got to find solution to it, you know.

I I can support it the way it is.

On a condition you're removed a storm doors.

Yeah.

No, it's kind of that.

I'm good with it.

I support okay.

Anybody else?

All right.

So with that one more before you findings.

Thank you for the comments.

Um our certificate of appropriateness for the first round is about to lapse.

So I think I would need to ask her for an extension of that so that we can complete the work.

I yeah, that'll have to go through the preservation planner.

Yeah, what's the date that it lapses?

I uh is it within the year November?

Okay, so you can just do that.

Um, so just shoot me an email.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

We appreciate the timeliness of that.

It's for it that comes before us.

Okay.

Um, all right.

Anything else?

No.

Okay.

So with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 73 Catherine Street, plat 23 lot 098.

Um, as presented this evening, citing newport standards 17 tact 80 tag 06081, 2 and 4.

So all those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, folks.

Thanks.

Great project.

And three.

This is the application of Gentile properties LLC of two one six brain street, flat one seven, lack and three.

For permission to install new flat glass skylights for third floor, three on west and two on one to be removed from each elevation.

There's a second floor deck removed.

Install new decking and rail system on second floor deck.

Install new entry door on south wall of rear R.

Entry door at east wall of L to be removed and infilled.

Existing wood windows to remain and be restored.

Move to be patched and repaired in kind.

Okay, welcome back, Mr.

Rapp.

We'll just I don't have to reswear you in, just state your name for the record for the application.

Mark Rap Architect.

All right, thank you.

So a lot going on.

Um if you want to summarize those points as outlined, we do have some good feedback from our preservation planner in our staff notes as well.

So you can kind of go through each elevation.

Yeah, we are it is hopefully a minimal uh intrusion.

We're converted from like a three-family to a single family.

So some things we can we have to change or remove primarily that deck and the stair in the back.

Uh we don't need the stair any longer, but they want to keep the deck off that second floor because it's there.

So we're proposing moving the stair and sort of replacing the railing and decking on that stairway in the back.

Uh also on that elevation, you can uh see that we rearranged we have only one kitchen now in the house.

We're closing a new door inside the corner of that L into the kitchen and removing them one of the back where the hood was, and then the new plan layout because that previous door on the right went up to a stairway to a second apartment doesn't exist any longer.

So those are the changes to the openings on the exterior on that side, those two elevations.

Um I was just informed by the owner that the French door, he didn't want to use the French door, he wants to use a half-light door of a panel.

So wood door, that would be more appropriate.

And then um with the change to the building, we've opened up the third floor into one more sort of bedroom space.

So up in the third floor attic space.

We're proposing to add a few more skylights to provide some light and ventilation to that space.

Uh there is one skylight now to the uh back side, but like proposed one more and then three to the um other side.

So those are the rough idea of the changes to the the building.

Okay, so um I'll open it up.

One of the questions that I had was a call out about the skylights.

Um, particularly on the front street facing elevation.

I think that's called out.

Yeah, I don't have I don't think I had an elevation of the front, and it's just no, I think we just we just see it on this view here.

They would be uh flat glass like the one in the back is proposed.

Yes.

So I would not be in favor of a skylight on that front elevation.

Um in the rear, it's as long as it's not visible from the street.

That's different, but that one that we see to the left there.

I can't see what that says, but that would be my call out on the on the skylights, Mr.

Ball.

Yeah, I would concur with the um first staff comments that skylights on the front of the building probably are not appropriate.

Uh if you wanted to replace those same skylights and add four on the back, I think that would be more appropriate.

Um the other comment I had was um there's a French door, I think you alluded to, which is now going to be a wood door.

Yeah, would have that's good.

That was that was my only comment.

And that French door just I'm having a hard time seeing the it's underneath the and that's on the south elevation.

South.

Yes.

Okay.

So that change to implement south elevation French door to be wood.

And that front facing skylight is on the west.

West.

Yes.

West elevation.

And there was two on that.

No, three on that.

Is there one already existing on the front?

Excuse me?

Is there already a skylight existing on the front?

No, just in the back one.

Behind that sort of chimney.

Something's I'm just curious what's visible from this little there's a little something that I can see from the street.

I just don't know.

Maybe it's a vent of some sort on the front.

Do you see?

I don't know.

Sure.

Can we see the street elevation?

There's no drawing of the street elevation.

I didn't do a drawing of the street elevation.

But that's what the skylights are, though.

We posed three on the yeah, on three and two on the back and three on the street side, yes.

Yeah.

But you didn't include.

Yeah, I I couldn't.

I'd have to concur with uh the chair on that.

I just I couldn't support skylights on the street side.

It's it's an unfair view, you really can't see the roof in the street.

So maybe it's the chimney pocon.

Yes.

Yeah, there is nothing.

We don't have anything on that roof lane now.

So I think that if the board does not like the ones on the street side, I can concur.

We can agree to remove those.

Remove the three skylights on the west elevation.

Okay.

Yes.

Originally I was concerned about the skylights on the front, but actually, as you go up Prospect Hill, you get a much better view of the roof since the street grade goes up.

So they do become quite visible on the back.

Is that an asphalt roof?

Yes.

I think you can see one skylight there now, the original flat glass skylight up there.

Are the proposed skylights do they open?

Yes.

Can we take a little ride down prospect and look up?

Could we take a little ride down prospect hill and look up back at the house?

Or down toward Dame Street?

But it was that road right there.

That's prospect hill right there.

Yeah, then turn around and look back at it.

And back away down the street.

There you go.

Yeah.

So that's it right on the corner right there.

Yeah, so you can see it.

Yeah.

Maybe I'm mistaken.

Maybe one skylight is on the front now.

Yeah, you can see it right there.

Yeah.

So it seems on both the west and east slope, those are fairly visible depending on your location on the street.

Also, I can't tell if that's a scaling or something.

Yeah, it's hard to tell if that is a window or a vent.

Very close, but it's really toward the top of the gable though.

It's it almost looks like it's on the peak, whatever it is.

Yes, the squirrel.

So if those I think that's the chimney in the back.

Yeah, I do.

I I agree.

It's the chimney in the center pipe up and up in the back.

So but we do have an existing skylight on the rear.

Yes.

Yeah, that might even be.

I think that is the skylight because it's really high up on the so that's it's slightly raised.

Yeah.

So you can see that tree's blocking it.

Okay, so I think the commission is aligned as far as no addition of skylights on the west elevation and sounds like not a second one on.

Are you proposing two on the east in addition to the one that is there?

No, just the one a second one just.

Okay.

So we have one already in existence and one being proposed, which based on visibility.

But you'd be closing the existing one.

No, the one in the east would remain, be replaced with a new one because it's old.

It's gonna be one big room when we're done up there.

So it just looks like the locations that are on the elevations are very different than where the existing it looks like it's kind of between where the two skylights are there.

Okay.

So that's why I'm just trying to clarify the location of it.

Or of these, and if you're trying to keep the one that's existing, because none of them actually represent where it's located right now.

So saying that's one big room.

Is that living space, attic space?

There's no dormers being proposed.

It's another bedroom.

It's one big bedroom with a bathroom.

So the room is primarily a bedroom.

The door is at the bottom of the stair.

Okay.

Second floor.

So with a pretty big roof pitch inside.

It's only about seven or seven and a half feet.

It's low where the staff lived originally.

So they're in eaves, they're in the attic.

That's a tight little stair going up.

It's not a first floor.

The first floor stairs are nice curved elegance there, and then you got there to the smaller stair.

So we just open it up a little bit, and Skylight should have a little more light.

That's all.

Ventilation.

Okay, so then these elevations to that point aren't accurately reflecting the skylight that exists currently.

Either in existing or in proposed, because it sits much further up on the roof line.

It's it appears to be between those and up at the top of the peak.

Okay.

I could put them both at the same spot.

I can hit the old one where it is and put the one adjacent to it because we're gonna open up the ceiling anyway.

Because there was actually a little loft in the attic.

You know, when you go up, there'd be actually a little another loft.

That's where the skylight was up.

I mean, if I'm reading the commission correctly, I don't think that there's a favorable response to adding another skylight.

Okay, skylights.

Um we just replace the one that's there though.

So I just that's what I'm trying to gauge from the commission.

So the existing skylight on the east elevation to be replaced.

Yes, okay, yeah.

Thank you.

In its location.

Is everybody in favor of that?

Yes.

I guess it's already there, you got old.

So yeah.

Could I just clarify one thing?

There is the chimney is not represented here, the one that's on the front side.

Correct.

You're not proposing to remove that or anything.

All the things are remaining, yes.

Okay, any other, and we already noted that um change of material on the French door.

Any other questions?

Um, that new decking and rail system.

That's what are the materials there?

The on that second floor where you're taking the stairs down, but root you said redoing the deck.

Yes.

What are the materials?

I think it's look, it's all you can't see it's Mahawk and I guess.

Okay, I just want to make sure it's clear.

Okay.

Any other questions and comments on the changes?

No.

Okay, so with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of 216 Spring Street, plat 27, lot 33, as presented with the condition that the French door on the south elevation be updated to a wood material.

We will remove the three um skylights proposed on the west slope, and also rip um remove one skylight on the east slope and replace the one existing skylight on the east slope.

Sighting Newport standards 17 tact 80 060 a four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I get it.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

This is the application of Stephen War of 34 Castle Hill at plat 44, lot 95, one contributing.

Hello.

Okay, welcome back.

If I could just have, I don't have to swear you and just have you state your name for the record.

Mark Horn.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Floor's yours.

Okay.

Um I think the site plan is pretty straightforward.

Demonstrates all the proposed new structures.

Uh pool, spa, outdoor kitchen, pergola, equipment.

Um, and the orientation, if I can help you with that, please let me know.

Or any specific questions.

Tell you uh the gun eye pool, hardscaping is a granite paper.

Pergola is all wood, mahogany, or cedar.

Umrientation is southwest.

So you exit the house where the columns are onto the terrace, you're looking towards the beach towards the water, Castle Hill.

Um the driveway entry in the garage are located off of Castle Hill Av.

And umscaping is pretty extensive plantings and stone walls and fences uh throughout.

So from the streetscape, and a lot of this will be will be screened.

On Castle Hill Lab, you won't, I don't think you'll see much if at all of the proposed structures.

And could you speak to um we do have notes in the staff comments about the construction having already started?

Um it's stated that applicants have started construction of the outdoor kitchen without HDC zoning board of review or building approval.

No, only thing that's been done is underground utility work.

That's it, all below grade.

Girl, that is not true.

That's what I've been I did a site visit with Nick.

Okay, and there was a a pad, um, a concrete pad uh with it looks like something for the outdoor kitchen on the opposite side.

And so it didn't meet zoning either, and so Nick had so Nick, the separate discussion of the zoning.

I know Jeff spoke with him and cleared that up so that the proposal that's here now can is a conforming plan with zoning.

Right.

I'm I'm just I was bringing awareness to the fact that this was you know brought to us.

Started before it became before the commission.

No, and I'll I'll I'm proven wrong, please correct me, but no structures have been built that have been proposed in this plan, and maybe a concrete pad, but there are no none of the structures, pool, pergola, outdoor kitchen have been built.

The pool was previously approved.

The pergola, I I agree.

Like, no, it it had been started some of the work, but it wasn't you know completed.

I think a concrete pad could be built to receive equipment as we would typically do.

Um, but there's a gas feature.

I'm sorry, a gas line.

Yes, there was gas line.

There are some underground utilities, correct?

Okay.

Continue.

You can continue.

Fair enough, and that was our risk, the owner's risk with no connection, no equipment.

All on site.

Okay.

Um, I think, oh, go ahead.

Yeah, just turn it.

Do you have the um height of the pergola?

Do you know the height of that?

There's a submission, there's a profile of it, a digital photograph.

Um, let me see.

I don't believe it's dimension.

Oh, please, yes.

I'm sorry.

Please.

Okay.

We'll have to get you sworn in if you're gonna hit okay.

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.

Gregory Sanford.

Okay.

Yes.

And are you with the project team?

Uh yeah, I'm with TL Studio Landscape Architecture for a moment.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh so as shown here in the renderings, it is 10 foot six tall.

Can we go back to the um rendering that shows the view from the street, please?

Thanks.

So you the the only thing we're gonna see from the street essentially is that pergola is your what you maintain here.

Right here, yes.

That had uh in this corner is seven foot six.

Okay.

And what is the setback of the pool behind that hedge?

Uh it's you can go to the site plan, but I think it's 20 or 25.

So the pool and the spa both need the setback that's labeled there.

Better save plan.

Yeah, this is I mean, it's it's definitely I I drove by there myself as well.

It's within setbacks, but it's still very close to the road.

Um, I think the challenge before the commission is that we don't, you know, you can put plantings there.

The next owner of the house could rip out the plantings, so we can't necessarily use that as a buffer.

So we can't necessarily use that as a buffer.

Yeah, I think that's a good word.

Um there's a lot going on in this parcel at this corner.

Um, Jill, can you pull up that site plan again?

So we had approved previously approved the pool.

So that is not to say that that's before us this evening, but everything else to the right of that, that's the outdoor kitchen that we're looking at.

Which, you know, a pool that's seamless there is, you know, much less visible.

And now we're introducting, you know, introducing another structure.

Does the pergola have to be that tall?

It looks like oversized here, or is it just me?

Uh a little tall.

Yeah, it could probably get reduced a little bit.

There's certainly a profile that we have to maintain, you know, with the the joist.

Um an adequate clearance above somebody, but I think we could reduce that height uh down a bit from the 10 foot six.

I think it'll look a little better actually.

Yeah, it almost looks a little awkward.

More human-sized and that feel better, you'd see a little less.

Yeah, and the and the location of that outdoor shower as shown in this renderings is accurate, tucked up to the house?

Yes.

And what is the grade from the street up to where that pergola is located?

Uh that would depend where uh genet terrace aside is sloping.

Uh so in the corner that that street view we were looking at before, about three and a half feet higher.

Uh yeah, there.

Which I think is not working in the favor of the pergola because it's already up on an escalated slope.

And where the um the challenge here, because potentially construction has started, but where the dining table is located, is there an opportunity to be looking at you know, moving that outdoor kitchen further back on the property?

Yeah, so we would start encroaching on the house, you know, from like an aesthetic point of view, we would have a pergola very close to the house and that porch if we were to slide it over to uh the dining table.

Yeah, no other questions and comments from the commission.

It sounds like we're uh reacting to the height of the pergola.

Uh which I think you could solve by lowering.

Um secondly, I think we're reacting to the location of the outdoor kitchen, which I don't know you as the planner may um have some ability to to modify uh I don't know if the I think an aside kitchen is an accessory structure, not a permanent structure uh in terms of zoning.

So I think you can be within the setbacks, but I'm not a zoning officer.

Um I'm wondering if maybe there's a combination of moving this outdoor kitchen making its attributes part of a screen um that exists on that side that melds into the other landscaping somehow.

Um I think those are the two reactions that the commissioners are having where you may want to take those under consideration and resubmit uh some plan.

Okay, if I can reply to that a little bit if we were to look at the site plan right now, the kitchen is right up against the property line.

The 10 foot accessory use setback.

Okay, and that's a utility easement.

So unfortunately we can't plant or do additional buffer in that 10 foot strip that runs uh along that southern uh area.

That it good.

Thank you.

I ask one question.

Yeah.

The roofing, is there a roof over the pergola?

Open slap.

It's just open.

Yeah.

For me, I think if we could reduce the height of it, I think I would be okay with it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And what's what's the size of it?

Sorry again.

Just the not the height.

The overall.

Oh, you mean the overall footprint?

Uh so are you looking for overall size?

The footprint of the yeah, the size, the dimensions of that pergola.

Yeah, it's about 15 foot uh two by twelve foot four, the total overhang.

Okay.

That's pretty large.

What's the width of that pool?

Uh the pool is I think 13 feet uh inside.

It's a it's a pretty small pool.

So for the commission, as far as reducing the height, I mean, I don't know what the minimum is that it needs to be.

Um, you know, we don't have any control over what I don't know, Jill, if that's is that something that would be covered, the height of that pergola through zoning.

I don't know, Peter.

Height of the pergola, would that be addressed at zoning or access to structure?

But it's it's within the setback, so it doesn't need is it?

An accessory structure height limit in the code.

Yeah.

This is R 48, I think.

Okay.

But we can have a point of it.

It's within our purview.

So okay.

You may just we need to give them some guidance.

It is within our purpose.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So we just need to give some guidance in terms of what an appropriate height would be.

Eight foot.

I think eight feet is is typical.

I mean on six feet tall, I can fit under eight feet tall.

Um it would seem that um that would be an appropriate scale, but that's up to you as the designer.

And for clarity, is eight foot to the top of the pergola or eight foot clear to walk under.

I think I think um you would want to study the height to the building, the size of the pergola.

And I think if you're at eight foot, eight foot six, if you know, as long as you can function underneath this space, and and I don't think we're going to throw a tape measure at you on the site, but I think if you're up above nine feet, then you're probably too tall.

So the accessory structures section is 78.20, and it was created last year, and it separates accessory structures with a maximum height of 12 feet and those that are greater than 12 feet.

Yeah.

Uh so the 12 foot and lower can be within 10 feet of the property line and have to be 20 feet away, isn't it?

So we can give that guideline of AP.

Yeah.

What were you gonna say?

I I think what we're trying to achieve is is just to reduce the visual impact of that structure by bringing it down.

And if if you're gonna put privacy hedge, I mean the typical privacy hedge is what six foot tall.

So you've only got a foot or two, a couple of feet above that, you know.

I think that's acceptable to the commission.

Um, so uh as Mr.

Bowell said, I don't think it's a matter of exactly what size, but as long as it comes down substantially enough so that it's the visual impact is minimized from the street.

Okay.

And this um, so this is a fence at the end of the hedge line here.

Yeah, so that's a removable panel.

Should the utility company need to come in to use that utility access, it goes all the way up the property line to the pole, which exists at the corner of this lot and the next.

Okay.

So we have to keep uh you know relatively clear 10 foot section.

Okay.

And the um, I'm sorry if you stated this, just coming back to the um staff comments.

What is the material of the pergola?

Wood all wood painted, so it'll be painted wood.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, so we have exhausted the pergola fire pit.

Everybody's comfortable with the fire pit location and the outdoor shower.

Yep.

Yes.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 34 Castle Hill Ave plat 44, lot 95.

As presented with the updated condition that we will have an eight-foot um painted wood pergola, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060B1.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nine.

Thank you.

And nine.

Wow.

Uh, this is the application of 41 Washington LLC of one Cherry Street, plat 12, lot 36 contributing for permission to restore historic windows, expand and lower existing window openings to create double hung windows.

Add new box dormers to match existing box dormers in the manside roof.

Remake existing wood barn style slider door in west elevation and preserve existing door on site and replace metal front door with new wood panel door.

Install greenhouse style metal skylight and construct a rear sunroom on the east elevation.

Demolition, demolish mechanical chimney on east elevation and restore brick chimney.

Repair slate roof as needed.

Application that's it.

Sorry.

Okay.

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

It's my pleasure to be closing out the last petition, the second month in a row.

Although at least I didn't arrive here by suffering the indignity of resequencing again.

So I'll take my own.

I'll take my victories when I can get them.

Um so that's a pretty comprehensive description of this uh the project that's taking place here on one Cherry Street, as you noted in your in your pre uh meeting uh uh earlier this evening.

Uh this is um a warehouse uh known as Manual Brothers Warehouse construction constructed approximately in 1921.

It has been I don't want to say it's been vacant.

I know a little bit about the history, but it's been basically a storage facility for decades with no you know significant activity.

This project proposes to convert the commercial use of the property to a residential use, a single family residence.

Um Chris Fagan has come up with the design and some of the changes that I know um you had some follow-up questions on as uh indicated in the pre-meeting.

Um so rather than spend a bunch of time going through this, I think you're familiar with the building.

Uh the historic report was part of the application, and I think uh Chris can come up and walk through some of the proposed changes, including the skylight and the um the sunroom addition on the east elevation.

Okay, sounds good.

Okay, Mr.

Fagan 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 for the record, please.

Chris Fagan.

Okay, Mr.

Fagan, we actually we had a very um positive commentary in our pre-meet around this.

We had a lot of summary.

I'm gonna open it up actually before you go through all of the details to the commissioners that had some questions.

We can start there and then see where it goes.

But I think Ms.

Moran, you had some specific questions about windows.

I did.

I would first ask why you chose to leave the windows on the north elevation, but enlarge the windows on the south elevation.

Sure.

So the windows on the north elevation are rather close to the property line, and there's a homeowner that's right there.

Um they're also facing north, so they don't get a tremendous amount of light.

Uh, this building is very, very dark.

It exists right now.

Um, it's a very deep building, so it just doesn't really get a lot of natural light that like gets very far into it.

So we're trying to lower these windows on the southwest side in order to bring more daylight into the structure and just make it more suitable for residential living.

Uh we also didn't want to disturb that property owner on the north side.

So we thought if we were going to do any type of window intervention, it was best to do it on this southern side.

Um, in terms of the windows that are on the property today, we're gonna save every one of them and restore them.

We're just proposing relocating those to the north elevation.

Okay.

I guess when it comes to the dormers, for example, I'm maybe not so concerned because they're essentially being enlarged, but the all the profiles and everything are gonna be for the most part remain the same.

We're gonna try our best to restore the dormers that are there today.

Okay, so they're not being the windows are not getting bigger on the third floor.

Um maybe I miss understood.

Yeah, I if they are then no, we're looking to keep those dormers as they are today.

Okay, so no change to the dormers, but the whole facade on that south side will change and all the windows would essentially be the same size.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I'm personally struggling with this.

I mean, I don't think it looks bad, but I am trying to be sensitive to more so to the original building, like even the greenhouse in the back, kind of okay with that.

But being that this is on the register of historic places, uh, which we don't have a whole lot of those buildings in Newport, and I feel a little bit uh a little bit more drawn to honor the original penetration of this building, especially for that reason.

And because it's on a corner, I know it's at a more or less a dead end street, but I just feel we're making a lot of changes that are pretty significant.

It no longer looks like the warehouse that it was.

That's the issue I have with it.

I may stand alone there, but do those smaller windows open at all?

No, they don't.

They don't open.

They're fixed, they're fixed.

I think that in the interest of repurposing this uh building, which as far as I know, I don't think it's had any useful life whatsoever in the last 25 years, and it's been not much utilized in the last 40.

So, you know, given the fact that it has to become livable, um, and someone's making that attempt to restore it, at least partially restore it.

Um, I think is admirable, and so I'm willing to go along with the changes that you're proposing in order to see it say saved, essentially.

Gonna ask Mr.

Madsen, you had some you weren't in the summary group from pre-meet.

No, I'm good with it, actually.

Okay, I don't think it's gonna get confused, like you know, was anything but a warehouse right when it started.

So is there any way to leave like two of the original windows on that facade to show that they're I know that that's I mean they're they're just they're kind of unique.

Um they've got the curved curved brick on top and the granite sill.

I mean, I just think that that's kind of a I think those character defining feature would be maintained.

We would keep the curved brick and there'd be new granite sills that go in.

So I think you know that detailing is really gonna be the same.

You know, we're taking the precedent from the larger double hung one that's on that facade and just repurposing it.

Um, you know, this is a adaptive reuse project, and you know, we're really trying to get a residential single family structure in a zone that's really only allowed for residential at this point.

So you know, we're trying to make as you know minimal changes as we can, but you know, this is one thing that we really do need to kind of make this a more suitable residential property for someone to live in.

And so where the you're gonna maintain that arched brick detailing.

Are you the location of that is staying?

So you're bringing the window down from there.

Okay, so that will not change.

That's great.

Okay, yeah, that was not evident.

Oh, okay.

I do see the curves now.

Could we see the south elevation again?

Well, I'm sorry, no the north.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, so I I do agree with Commissioner Moran at some level, but I I think that perhaps the fact that the north elevation has remain sort of intact.

Um you know, what being sensitive to the fact it is an adaptive reuse and it does have to be a functional residential.

Uh you've done a nice job, and I I can support it the way it is.

I I like it.

Yeah, I think it'll be right for me.

The basement windows are being replaced.

Is there anything there right now?

I don't think there's any basement windows that are in place.

If there are any, we will restore and save them.

I'm actually looking at what it looks like boards.

Yeah, the board.

But they almost have their own like decorative way about them, if that makes sense.

There's like uh, I don't even know what you would call it, like a pin in the middle.

Looks like a freight elevator?

Like a person.

There were two elevators like one of them that the previous owner put in is not historic, but the that one is a freight freight elevator, and we are trying to restore it.

Nice.

Having difficult time finding the freight elevator expert.

I got a guy for Mr.

Older.

I got a guy to speak out.

Please reach out.

Hi.

Hi.

On the renderings, it appears that there's like a stone veneer.

Is that just the renderings or just the rendering?

Okay.

So you're still planning on wording clap.

We're going to clap there.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other Mr.

Goddard, you were an abbreviated with it.

Did you get your answer?

Okay.

Any other questions, comments?

Okay.

It's a great way up to that.

It'll be a space that it's basically like a double height space in the master.

It's just open to the yeah.

Just bring in the light.

So yeah, it's all about light.

Yeah.

How how high above the uh roof line does that sit, actually?

I think it's four foot six above the roof line.

It's below the freight elevator.

Is that visible from cherry?

It's not the renders that were done to show that maybe it's set far enough back that it's inside the roof.

Maybe far down Gurney, but I mean, I do think through the lens of this being an adaptive, you know, project, it is a little bit different in that regard.

And I commend the client for taking this on.

It's an awesome project.

So it's gonna be cool.

Yeah, it will be wish I had the money for it.

Um, all right.

So a request a motion to approve the application of one Cherry Street plat 12, lot 36 as presented.

A one, two, four, five, and seven.

So all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Great much.

Thank you.

Very brave.

On a condition, he turned the other house he had it just back into rubber.

What do you mean it's the rumble?

The clubhouse.

The point clubhouse.

Okay, so just a couple guys.

Before we before we wrap up, um, I just wanted to in new business just talk about where we stand with the um project that we're working on in partnership with NRF for the lead mitigation.

So we're getting almost near to the finish line.

We have talked about um we're in final draft stage that I believe um from our partners at NRF has been reviewed by the state and come back.

They're just making some final modifications.

Um, the idea was um Rob Cagnetta, who was the partner on the project, would come and do a presentation before the HDC so everybody would hear all the details of the project, have an opportunity to answer questions.

Um the NRF has actually requested that that presentation be recorded because we would like to leverage it for education in other municipalities.

Um, this is fairly forward in terms of what we have accomplished.

Um, so right now we're looking at scheduling that in advance prior to the November meeting, which I'll just call out there was some confusion this evening.

The November meeting is on a Monday because there's a holiday on Tuesday.

So Jill had called that out last year when we adopted our calendar for the year.

So Jill will firm up those details around Rob's presentation for that day if everybody when we get that note just to confirm everybody is available.

The idea is that we would put that on as a preview on the agenda for November and bring it forward, hopefully for adoption in December and close out the year with that project, which would be fantastic.

So that's where we stand.

Anything else you want to add to that, Jill?

No, that's it.

We're very excited.

Um, I mean, we we've been working on this for a really long time, and the amount of calls that I get from people and people in my office um requesting information on uh lead remediation has increased significantly.

And so um, yeah, I'm very excited to adopt this.

It's great.

They yeah, they took a lot of good feedback.

We've made sort of a uh homeowner friendly version of it, and then what can be you know discussed with contractors and other uh field um and trades relative to it.

So I think it's gonna be very well received.

Um so that's the lay of the land for November.

Um so with that, I will request a motion to adjourn.

Oh, yes, I have new business.

Oh, yes, please.

I would like to commend the city staff, Jill and Timberly for navigating the state regulations and requirements and guiding the commissioners on the materials, the agenda and the staff comments.

Um I know we had a bumpy uh start to this month, but uh I think it's working well from what I heard from my other commissioners, and I'd like to voice my opinion.

Um my appreciation to you guys.

Thank you.

Oh my god, thank you.

I appreciate you guys so much.

Um yeah, love you.

Thank you for for adapting.

I know it's difficult with the change, but we had to do it, and we're in compliance and everything's great.

And you guys are great.

Thank you so much.

Yes, it was supposed to be uh move uh historic home, raise it and put it all back together now.

It's a brand new home.

Well, Jim, that has been in front of us many times, and that's the result that we have.

So it's like screw you, we can do anything we want.

So why no?

It's not that right.

I can't get into the details right now.

This is not the the space to uh to discuss those details, but in that light somebody got paid off in that light, um it's been thrown around before about establishing a fine structure for um people who do not adhere to either building permit or HDC.

Um I brought it up in my um interview process that you know I do not want to be the one to regulate and and give you this up, but I I think we should have some leverage, which we do not have right now, and I think a fine structure would do that, as well as that fine structure could be put into a kiddy that we could offer uh grants to people who are having financial problems replacing slate roofs or doing something, and I don't think the HDC nor staff should be the one to administer uh I'd like to see us um explore that option.

Yeah, so um typically I send things to municipal court and there's a fine structure there, however, it hasn't been uh entirely effective.

Um we have budgeted for next year um a position for a code enforcement officer.

Um so that's gonna help a lot.

So next year hopefully we'll be able to fill that position.

Um and we can talk about additional fines or you know, expectations for the historic district.

No, we still have it.

Traffic stuff.

We still have it for next year.

Well, no, it was in the budget for 2025.

No, I know, but we had me they moved it to next year.

I'm not counsel, don't yell at me.

I'm not yelling.

I'm doing the best I can.

Okay, everybody, we should adjourn.

So, no, the only thing I'll say, but on that note, I think that anybody and Jill knows this as you're prepping for meetings, you're driving around, you're seeing things.

The best thing to do is if you see and have a question, send it to Jill.

I've done that multiple times.

And we've you know, had then applicants that have to come before us, at least at that part of the process, we have the ability to influence.

So I think if nothing else, that makes some discomfort for people to have to come back before the commission, rightly so.

So don't hesitate if you see something and you're not sure.

In some cases, no, we did yeah, we did approve something we might forget, but other scenarios we've seen where nobody had any idea that things were happening.

So I I do the best that I can to enforce and but ultimately it is up to the municipal court in order to you know impose those fines.

So I have tried very hard to impose some significant fines, but um it wasn't well received with the solicitor's office.

So yeah, I'm sure really with all the money that we need to find.

Right.

Okay.

So with that we will um request a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, October 14th, 2025, Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

Don't vote second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.