Yeah, that should be that's what it's under.

Okay.

Okay, guys, thank you and welcome to the lead paint adaptation and remediation strategies for historic windows presentation.

Today we are joined by our partners in preservation, the Newport Restoration Foundation and Heritage Restoration, our lovely expert in windows.

So without further ado, take it away.

Thank you, Jill.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Margaret Back.

I'm the preservation projects manager at the Newport Restoration Foundation.

And I'm here tonight with our project name, Rob from Heritage Restoration, to present our findings to you all for over a year of work that our team's been working on this project for our lead paint adaptation remediation strategies for historic wood windows.

So thank you all, first of all, for coming in an hour and a half early for what I'm sure is already gonna be a long night of applications.

But we really appreciate getting your feedback tonight on these documents.

We're just gonna go through a quick agenda this evening.

I'm really mostly gonna turn it over to Rob to speak about the findings and the manual that he and his team put together.

But uh we really hope that these documents uh are gonna be useful resources, not only to homeowners and to um property owners as well, but to you all as commissioners.

That's really the goal of these documents.

So we'd love to hear your feedback at the end of this and really have more of a discussion about how these documents are going to serve you and be helpful to you when you're receiving and go talking through applications uh about window replacement and any lead hazards that an applicant is concerned about.

Uh so I just want to start by thanking our project team and our project funders.

So, of course, we have the lovely looking right at me, Jill, the lovely Jill Chin, our preservation planner.

Um, we've also had really great input from from Kelly Moran and Deanna Amarello, um, some early drafts of the project from NRF, it's myself and our director of preservation, um, Alyssa Lozipon is here tonight.

And then, of course, our our fearless contractor and consultant, uh Rob Cagnetta from Heritage Restoration, and quite a few members of Rob's team, including Jackie Salvas and Marguerite Keys.

Um, and of course, we want to thank our our project funders as well.

So, um, as a certified local government, uh, the city of Newport is able to apply for this really excellent grant funding every year, um, which is a really great way to um really forward different preservation priorities in the city.

Um, so we're really thankful to the Rhode Island SHIPO for um sponsor you know, funding this project, uh reviewing this project with us, offering really helpful feedback as well.

Um, and we hope to continue to do these types of really great collaborations between the city of Newport and you know our uh nonprofit preservation player NRF to work and collaborate to really advance these types of preservation opportunities in the city.

And of course, thanks to the National Trust of Historic Preservation for additionally funding this project.

Uh just to let you know sort of where we are in the whole process, as I mentioned, um, we've been over a year that we've been putting these documents together, so we're really thrilled to present them to you tonight.

Um, as many of you know, this this project really came out of the 2023 expansion of the Red Rhode Island Lead Hazard Remediation Act and the uh subsequent enforcement policies that were going into place last year.

Um so we really jumped as a team from the city perspective and from NRF's perspective to have a response to the confusion and the concern from a lot of different homeowners reaching out to all of us about what to do with lead hazard wood windows and how to pass a Rhode Island lead inspection with a historic property.

Um so we've been really spending the majority of this year putting it together.

Rob quickly jumped on board presenting to you tonight, and we hope to have this uh these documents adopted by you all at your next meeting in December.

As many of you know, the background of this project again uh really dates back to a law that's over 20 years old here in Rhode Island, the Lead Hazard Mitigation Act, which really takes into account that buildings built before 1978 are likely to have the presence of lead paint in them, a hazards when ingested, um, and that the since 2002 um homeowners' parental properties need to have a certificate of lead conformance, a CLC from a licensed lead inspector for their properties.

Um and the important thing to know about a CLC is it's not lead-free.

It's really an understanding between the homeowner and the inspector that there is lead paint present at their property, but that it's properly encapsulated or mitigated in such a way that it doesn't uh pose any harm to anyone living in the property.

And that's why these certificates are updated every two years to understand that there's a level of maintenance going on and the homeowner is taking care of their property and any lead hazards.

And where we've all really come into this again is in the last two years with the expansion of these laws, the introduction of a rental registry.

So now all homeowners who rent their properties or landlords who rent their properties have to have their properties uh listed if they have a CLC or not, and of course, there are fines that are associated with this if they don't have a CLC in hand.

So very quickly we began to get feedback from Jill from people calling NRF as well, with just confusion over these laws, a lot of it misinformation as well about the lead inspection process, what the timeline for that looks like, where are there lead hazards in my home?

And then there's this extra layer of well, I live in a historic district and I have this extra application uh review that I need to go through.

So what are some steps that I can take as a as a landlord?

Um we've also been receiving a lot of feedback about inspectors that are more reluctant to even test wood windows if they are painted in pre-1978, sometimes this assumption that there may be lead paint on those windows.

Um overall, I think we've been sensing that the confusion and really uncertainty about these laws has led to really an uptick of people just being frustrated by the process and probably just wanting to replace their windows and not even deal with having to go through the lead inspection process.

Um that's really where we came together and put together uh these resources today.

Um we have we decided to break them up into two different documents.

One is quite shorter, it's a user guide, which is meant to be much more friendly to homeowners and to landlords to really understand what are the Rhode Island lead laws, how they affect you as a property owner, um, and as a as someone who rents your property, um, understanding where lead hazards might exist in your home, and then what are the different options to safely remediate lead hazards from your uh wood windows, and then also to understand the lead inspection process generally and also the contractor selection process, which as a homeowner, you do have a certain role to play in.

And then the second document that is really going to take up um the crux of Rob's comments tonight is the manual, which is a much longer document.

And this is really meant to be a more technical how-to guide that you would hand off to your contractor who's actually doing the lead remediation work on those windows.

Um, and this again covers about 10 different types of windows and how you can safely mitigate and targeted remediation to each of those different lead hazard windows and how that work can be done.

So I'm gonna hand it off to Rob now to go into the specifics of that and some of his findings from the study.

Thank you, Margaret.

Um, and thank you to everybody here.

Uh, I serve on a board in my community uh zoning board, so I understand what the burden of uh of being on a board such as this and uh all the time it takes.

So thank you, everybody.

And I know you guys have so much to do, you're doing two nights, right?

This week.

Is that this week?

That you don't, yeah.

Doubleheaded, yeah, good for you.

Uh God bless you.

So and and you know, I think that the hardest thing about this job, about this particular project, was being able to sort of justify the end, right?

Was our biggest concern.

And um, because we knew that there was a lot of things that were sort of against us in this, uh, and over the years of my 30 years doing this, uh, not only dealing with energy efficiency and uh and other um complaints that people might have and saying, oh, I just want to tear out my windows.

This was just another level that really kind of put the put the, you know, it was a death sort of blow to to what was happening with windows.

So I really saw this as something that not only did we have to sort of prove kind of what we already knew, um, but but we had to show the data to back it up.

So the most important thing for me in this project was to identify the people that are uh enforcing the laws, um, and also the people that are looking at the buildings who are interpreting the needs of the building or identifying where the hazards are.

Um, so really most importantly uh for us, it was a matter of talking to lead inspectors and talking to the state um health department.

Um of that, uh, we were able to get actually very close uh to both the folks that work for the Department of Health and really identified uh what things they wanted out of this project, right?

Because I said, well, what do you need?

If I'm gonna prove this, what is it that you're looking for that's gonna help you enforce it or help you understand that that uh these techniques um, if followed are actually um achievable.

So that was something early on that that we worked with Judah, and he was fantastic at the Department of Health that really enabled us um uh to sort of just identify where we were going to end up on this.

Um the goals and objectives really uh we wanted to help homeowners and contractors understand what their options were, right?

Um, because again, there was a lot of people walking into old buildings that were just saying, you know what, can't do it, it's impossible.

Um, so we wanted to create something that can be utilized by homeowners uh to at least present to a contractor or a contractor vice versa come uh present to a homeowner.

Um we wanted to make it so it's actually realistic to what's out there.

One of my first problems, uh not problems, but one of my first concerns about you know uh understanding sort of what what the goals were and the and the request for the proposal, um, I was like, well, how am I gonna create five examples to represent probably over two dozen types of windows in their operation?

And then 300 years of evolution, where Rhode Island has, you know, we had sort of the greatest economy out of you know early American uh economy from the revolution.

We had tons of craftspeople making uh these buildings and the parts of buildings, and then through the industrial revolution, we had another boom.

So, you know, I envy my friends out west who are like, oh yeah, you know, I've you know, all my windows are the same profile, so I can stock this profile.

Um that doesn't happen.

I mean, uh it's pretty rare.

I can wing it a few times, but pretty much we're dealing with different uh profiles, different uh evolutions of operation, um, and we're dealing with layers of of renovations, retrofits, uh modifications, all these things that that people have done over the years without really care to the window, uh that that really sort of makes it sort of functionally inoperable, uh, but also makes it the hazard that it is, right?

So, how is I gonna be able to sort of really represent uh all these types of windows that happen over the the history of Rhode Island, um, and then say, oh, okay, well, you're gonna do this for every window.

Um so, and and honestly, when we were doing our data, collecting our data, we ended up realizing still that there is many, many ways that we can have a hazard, right?

So, how do we address that and how do we approach it?

Um so the guy, so when when we got through with developing all the data and and compiling it and then figuring out ways to sort of present it, um we really wanted to make sure that we were giving people good guidance, right?

We wanted to make sure that that whatever they did in intervening on the window um not only was was safe work, um, but it's compliant and and it really meets what we would expect uh for maintaining an old window.

Um, and I don't even mean just restoration, you know.

I am definitely in the world of a preservation snob uh where I only like to do certain types of preservation work, um, but there are many ways to intervene on a building that maintains it, right?

So we weren't trying to just say, oh, well, the only way is metal interlocking weather stripping on all the windows.

And honestly, that's how my conversation started with these guys who said, well, there's only one way I know, and that's to put men alignmental liners in everything.

Um, so we really wanted to sort of just break away from from those preconceptions of what it means to restore, right?

And and trying to say, okay, well, fundamentally, if you're just breaking down a window and its parts, how do you actually achieve lead safe, right?

Um, so uh so that's what we did.

And and I think you know, we some of the other interesting ways that that we learned in in terms of understanding how windows function in a building, um, is in fact how they function or don't function.

Um, so that's kind of one thing we really didn't deal with uh in terms of um uh what it means for a window to not be operable, right?

Um so and and I'm only mentioning that because it says the guide addresses how to make things uh windows operate lead safe.

Um, but really there are times where it not operating is the best thing that can happen to it.

So there's a lot of times uh where we're dealing with bay windows, that uh Oreol windows, other jetties out of a building where the building just moves so much that someone said in you know a hundred years ago, oh, we're just gonna seal this shut.

Um and when I talked to the Department of Health about that, they're like, oh yeah, well, those buildings are sealed shut, those windows, they're impossible to open um and make operable again, so we just assume that they're non-functional.

And that's when I said to them, I was like, well, Judah, no offense, but I can get any window operating in about an hour.

So to say that just because it's painted in cock shut means it's anoperable isn't necessarily accurate.

But if you're saying that we can make certain windows inoperable, or if they are already inoperable, and it the building meets code in terms of which windows have egress, does that mean we can really interpret sort of what is an operational window in every house, right?

So if I have five windows in a bedroom, do I really need all of them to work?

So it's sort of things like that that are sort of helping us sort of create options for people so when they're looking at these windows, especially decorative windows that once worked, um, is it really essential for them to function again, right?

And we found that both by code as well as uh the the you know, building code as well as the um Department of Health, um, that isn't always necessary, right?

So it sort of enables us uh uh again to sort of look at windows uh much differently, right?

Um didn't change.

So when I talked about uh windows and their evolution over time, we were really trying to do our best and saying, okay, well, what is really the operations that I've seen over the years?

And um there's some of them even in this list that really don't exist.

There's a couple funky ones.

There's this round windows where there the top would spin and the bottom would spin.

I don't have that in there.

So there's there's definitely some funky operation ones uh that will have similar um uh things that we have to address uh in in terms of how we're understanding it.

So I um, you know, I I relabeled some of them.

I was like, oh, well, the the plank frame window, we're we're talking 1620, right?

Which isn't necessarily true.

So we we just picked the data 1700.

Uh, but really what we're talking about is how these windows can operate.

So we're looking at a plank frame window, which for me is a single-hung window where the top doesn't operate, but the bottom does.

Uh we have um my glasses stink.

So we have a um a stud frame single hung, which is different than a plank frame.

We have the double hung, the triple hung, which again operate in the same way.

There were all three of them are expected to function originally.

Um we had some sliding ones, and I say 17th century because it might have been that early.

Uh, but mainly we're looking at mainly uh the the Anderson windows of the the 20s, 50s and things, they had some sliders.

Um, and then the fixed window, which is everything from uh a decorative window to a window that doesn't function anymore, um, to these uh other casements, pivots and awnings and hoppers.

So we did our best to try to represent sort of the different types of hazards that can exist on the operation of windows, right?

So um this typical window diagram, what I'm trying to illustrate here is where you're gonna have your hazards.

So this is assuming the window operates, right?

If the window doesn't operate, there's really the only hazard is the same as a baseboard, the same as a wall, the same as you know, objects that don't have any friction or impact.

So we're talking about the windows that that are functioning.

Um the set, I'm sorry, the sash that are functioning.

So when we're talking about like a single-hung window where the top one is fixed, then that top windows uh condition only has to be sound, right?

It's not a question of it uh having an issue of impact or ness or potentially uh abrasion or friction.

Um but where we were trying to identify here is the parts that then we're gonna later reference on all the breakdowns of all the different types of windows of where a potential hazard can be.

Um so uh this this, like I said, is just a major components.

I'm not talking about the components that are fixed or the components that that don't have um any operational issues.

So these are just the fixed ones.

Um so identifying it.

Um this was something that the Department of Health recognized, he I said to him, Well, what is it that I can give you that will help you guys end up mitigating windows?

And he said, Well, it'll be great to have a form.

I said, okay.

I was like, so let me think about how we can create a form.

So identifying lead hazard, and then I also had to create all this stuff without lapping over existing terminologies that might get us in trouble, right?

Um so uh for instance, uh, you don't want to call yourself, I think it's like a lead hasn't made lead hazard mitigator.

That's an actual term for for a professional in different states that can go in and identify where hazards are and you have to be certified and all that fun stuff.

So I was doing my best to make sure that I'm calling out terminologies that don't necessarily exist um in the Rhode Island law.

And Rhode Island Law does not have an identification of someone who identifies hazards per se, right?

So you um because it does get confusing if you were to hire someone to do your, you know, to help me figure it out, it doesn't really exist yet.

So right now the inspectors are saying, well, if I come in and I end up start testing things, then I'm gonna have to report that I tested something on your house, which means that now you are in the system of it being a hazard and you not mitigating it.

So right now there's a bit of a hole in the market where there isn't really a place for someone to come in and say this is where your hazards are without reporting you, right?

So this is something I mean, when we talk about things to work on, that's one of them.

Yeah.

So anyway, so identifying the lead hazards, it can what we tried to do is to make it that the form would reflect that window diagram that I had.

So what you're trying to do is to identify a windows hazards as the part is identified.

So things like a window sill where the window can come down and hit it, that's on impact, right?

Or the gem or the track, right?

That's that is abrasion.

Um the sash can be impact and abrasion, the stop, you know, so and so forth.

So we end up talking about all the individual parts of a window which haven't changed in the 350 years that we've been here.

Uh those are all the same terminologies, and they're also the same terminologies that the lead inspectors use.

Um, so we're, you know, I might have had different terminologies for things, but we stuck with that uh with what's out there.

So um, so the idea is to is to identify a part, and if it has lead paint, and then the hazard that exists on that part.

And the form, which you'll see later on, uh, is exactly that.

So it identifies the window, and then it walks through every part, and then you talk about okay, this has lead, this doesn't have lead.

So in one building that we worked on, uh, the building was extensively renovated or rest restored back in the 70s.

So like half a window was bad with lead, the other half was fine.

So it ended up, we ended up having to go around the building and identify each window and say, okay, this is hot, this is not.

Um, and then how are we going to mitigate it once we've identified its hazard?

So the ways now that Rhode Island um and and to identify it, you could just say, I think it's lead, right?

An inspector can say, I think it's lead.

Um, but you can use an XRF machine.

And so you know the XRF machine, XRF machines don't aren't final verification methods.

They're only to identify that it's lead.

You can't say, oh, you passed your lead clearance because I ran an XRF on it.

So even if something still contains lead in the wood, which people have talked about to me, oh well, you stripped it, but there's lead in there still.

I'm like, yeah, but there's no way for that lead to get out.

So the XRF is not an um uh a tool that can be used according to the the Department of Health.

Um, but you could also do dust swipe sampling, uh lab analysis uh with chips and so forth, or you could just assume it, right?

90% of the time, I'm just assuming it.

It's pretty clear when something, I mean, you can almost tell just by the the thickness of like the mill thickness of the wood, you can sometimes tell by the sheen, you can sometimes tell by the by the failure.

Um, but you know, it's pretty rare when we're confused by if it's the you know 60s or the 90s, you know, it's sometime most of the time it's pretty clear.

So an assumption um is fine for that.

Uh so this is the lead identification sheet, and this is um, and and I I will back up.

Uh before we started, we actually sent out a survey to anyone that was registered as a lead inspector in the state of Rhode Island.

Uh and this survey, we were trying to really figure out what they were thinking.

And half of the respondents said there's no way to make an old window lead safe.

Um, and the other half said, well, you can, but with conditions.

Um, so it was really interesting.

We knew that that was a real hill.

We had a we had a you know, climb and and sort of help them understand that yes, there is a way to do it.

Um so this lead identification sheet is at least the first step in identifying the location of the hazard.

Um, and uh so this is something that it's it's you know, it's not gonna say the Rhode Island Department of Health on the bottom.

Uh, but I know that um once we we um I did send this when we had the rough draft uh to them and he loved it, and and the Department of Health really thought that this was a helpful form to have.

Um, and then what we do is we get into actually how we mitigated it.

But this is the first step in in identifying the hazard.

Um, you know, what it's kind of small, you can't see it on there.

So what we're talking when we're talking about the hazard, we're talking about is it just the condition of the paint?

Is it just is it friction?

Is it impact or there isn't a hazard?

Right.

So those are the four ways you're identifying if you have something that has lead.

And then how did you verify that you had lead?

Um, and then what do you suggest to mitigate it?

Right?

Are you are you suggesting removal encapsulation?

Uh where you're kind of covering it, or you're kind of uh uh uh you're encapsulating it, so it's it's something you can just paint over it because there's no friction or impact.

Um are you enclosing it, meaning you're wrapping it with something, or are you taking out and replacing it?

Um then um, and then notes.

So uh in order to like once we figured out okay, how do we identify where the hazards are in a window?

We said, okay, now how are we gonna prove that doing these mitigations actually works?

And so um, again, the initial study or the proposal uh that we were responding to said, Oh, well, do five windows, and I'm like, yeah, but those five windows, again, I don't know what was replaced or at one time.

I said, So let's just go out there and do as many swipes as we can.

So we ended up doing over 80 swipes on various buildings.

Uh one of them was perfect because it it was fixed up in the 80s, and then no one had touched it since the 80s, and actually actually someone restored the windows in the 80s, and I was like, oh my god, this is gonna be great.

I'm gonna see how the how the building is responding over over the years to see how things uh uh how high the lead level is.

Um when I finally went to the building to actually do the the uh samples, they gutted it.

So it's a good way to learn uh how hard it is to clean a building after it's gutted.

Um that building, it was off the charts as to the lead levels.

Um, you know, they they gutted it the way that you're supposed to, you know, they controlled all the dust and everything, but it was all over the window frame and all over the jam.

Uh and it literally we tried um to clean that building the best we could.

We even painted over stuff, um, you know, and I don't even know if they ended up saving the windows or not, but uh we really did our best.

And there was, I think that out of all of those, there was one window that we actually did, and it was and it worked.

Um, but we knew that the the just the challenge on that building would have been very high and very difficult.

Um, which again is a is a good understanding of like, okay, when you gut a building, you just created a uh a bar, a level of of how you have to clean.

That's just almost impossible unless you're tearing out everything.

Um then we did uh two other build or three other buildings.

Um one of them was a current project that we were working on with the goal of making the windows lead safe.

Um another one uh was a building we did a year previous.

Um, and that building was in Providence and the other two were in Newport.

Um, and I don't think you know, no, we did we did some others around our shop that just out of curiosity of things, but and and so what we found um that unrestored windows that just have a typical failing paint, uh, you know, and and with a lot of caked paint.

We ended up finding out the all the paint on the window wasn't lead, but the paint on the jam and the sill were all lead.

It was just again 2700, and it's supposed to be what is it, less than I don't even know at this point.

But anyway, uh it's supposed to be around 60 or something like that.

And it and that we just knew even if we tried to encapsulate the paint and paint it, it just wouldn't have worked.

Um that uh partial restorations, when I talk about partial restorations, it's basically making sure everything is intact, making sure that there's no uh abrasion.

When I talk about abrasion, it's different than friction.

Friction happens even when things are restored.

I'm talking about when there's a resistance from the the sash moving.

It and then it has to rub off the finish in order for it to operate.

Um, and there that's why I was very specific in this to talk about friction and talk about abrasion is two different things.

What we're trying to do is to eliminate abrasion, um, because incidental friction isn't necessarily something that makes it fail.

So we found that that if we can get the paint, if the paint is thin enough and tight enough for us not to have to restore it or or strip it all down the bare wood, we can get that window to operate um without it creating too much dust, right?

Because we just tuned it up.

Um the challenge with that is making sure everything is in a safe state, and so that's where the convincing of of the lead inspector and coordination, what your lead inspector is really vital to make sure that this window, like if I were to leave this, would you pass it?

So, you know, I was we again, we were trying to think of it as like okay, if we're not doing a full restoration, because again, being the snobbish people we are, we we only really prefer to restore it.

We don't like to do partials.

We don't like to just sort of do, you know, just scrape the faces of the sash and leave the profiles and leave the glaze in a bad state.

But technically we found that you could do that.

You can just take off the faces of things, not take off the profile.

If all those things are tight and you're getting a uh a nice clean operation out of the unit, then you can be lead safe.

But it like I said, it's a matter of verifying with the lead inspector himself.

Um we also found that window operation and and cleaning after the job is critical.

Like there were there were jobs where we stripped everything, repainted everything, people kept working for a couple weeks around the house, doing some roof work, doing some other things, um, and and literally that incidental work happening around the building was enough to create dust on the sill.

So it's we found that that you have to be like really close to the point of where you're doing your inspection, and you have to clean it like you've never cleaned before.

Um it usually takes three good cleanings in order to really make sure that something is as has all the dust removed.

Because again, if you're doing work in the house, there's just dust kind of floating around, and the levels that they're using for us to get to um are really a challenge in an old building to get down to.

I mean, floors, forget about it.

Floors are very, very, very difficult, especially if they've been painted for 350 years.

Um, and that um, and then consistent thorough prep and mitigation practices uh are better long-term results.

I mean, that that's that sort of goes without saying.

If you strip everything and you and and you encapsulate everything by painting over it, you will be lead safe.

You know, and I would love it if if that the state or the inspectors can recognize like, hey, we strip this, we have proof of stripping it, stripping it, we have photographs, we have you know, uh uh, you know, we filled out the the lead hazard mitigation uh sheet and we've identified that we went through this process.

So the lead that's being created is not from this window.

Because we did find on that house I what we did a year previous, the people didn't even operate their windows.

There was no other work going on in the house.

Um this place was not falling apart, and there was a uh higher lead level in the window wells than there without and this is without us cleaning it.

So um so it raised for when we talk about future uh investigations or future work.

Um I'd really love to go around and look at replacement windows after a year and see if there's dust on the windowsill.

I'd love to look at other conditions that um I think are more environmental than directly related to the window.

So uh so anyway, so that that is really important, I think, to make sure uh well, just to understand that cleaning is the is the critical part of all this.

Um so the case studies are uh what we ended up using as our uh proving ground as to the ways we mitigated it, identified the hazard, mitigated it, and then what the results were uh for the lead tests.

So this particular building, it's a plank frame building.

Uh so a single hung, which have their own unique characteristics because uh a single hung plank frame window does not have a parting strip.

So that means that the faces, the back side, the outside of the lower window and the inside of the upper window are gonna rub against each other.

So that means that you really have to strip those down the bare wood because there's so much incidental contact that you could be creating dust just by the fact of these guys operating.

Um we ended up uh identifying that that really there was a lot of uh binding happening and there was a lot of uh failing paint on this unit.

So this was our before.

Uh when we talk about remediation, like I said, we went through these windows and we ended up stripping the jams to bare wood.

We ended up stripping the sill.

Um, it's not doing it on this one.

So we ended up uh stripping the sills, stripping the jams, uh uh repainting them.

We ended up stripping the the sash and that that were older and re glazing them.

Uh and then we ended up putting a uh track, not a track, but just we ended up putting a liner on the jam on the right, uh, right and left, I believe it's a piece of bronze.

Uh and I think we even put it on uh uh an impact strip on the bottom just to be extra careful.

So um so the mitigation sheet, this is uh where we ended up um identifying on the particular window uh what we did.

So this is basically tracing sort of how the work was done on a building.

This will be a really great way to for homeowners uh to to have record that these things occurred on their property.

Um what you're seeing on the the left side there is that track system I talked about.

Um, and then there is a piece of metal on the windowsill for that too.

So that was the way I did every window before this study because I knew that if I put in that that track on the side, it's a T weather stripping that was invented around 1900 or so, 1890, somewhere around there.

Um they still make it now, and it's cut into a fresh groove on the side of the sash and it runs on that that piece of metal, so it never really touches the parting strip or the stop.

So it's a great, easy way, well, not easy, but it's a great way to sort of isolate a sash.

So if there's uh a particular building uh or a particular particular inspector that says there's no way that you can get it, you know, to operate without having any incidental impact or creating any dust at all.

This is uh an absolute way to do it.

Um it adds a lot of you know effort and cost to it.

Um I mean, it could be just a couple 150 bucks just for the metal for a window like that, uh, let alone the the time to get it fit and so forth.

It's very finicky.

Uh I would not leave it for the amateur.

Um, but like I said, there are many, many ways to sort of skin it.

And and this this way in particular was a good one for us.

Um, and and by the way, uh in all of this, we are never telling anyone this is how you're removing paint.

Right?

That's not the intent of this.

Uh it's up to them to sort of make sure that they're following the law and following proper procedures of of uh containment uh and and proper removal procedures.

So we're not talking about at all, you know, that you have to use chemicals, you have to use heat, you have to use steam or any of that stuff.

Um so we're just trying to keep it uh where this is the before, and then this is the outcome.

Um, and it's up to you to figure out the in-between the metal.

I think the metal.

I think unofficial like officially we're I think we were saying don't try it yourself.

Um, but honestly, most of the people I know who started their own window company, window restoration company started with their own house.

And they're like, oh wow, I this isn't that bad.

I can do all these steps.

And so I I kind of, you know, and that and the whole idea of you know putting some sweat equity in your building.

I think you can certainly make a multi-unit lead safe by by chipping away at it over time.

Um, and and we've taught people how to do that.

Um, so I mean, I think again, if you're identifying the hazards, it then becomes very methodical to say, like, okay, you're stripping your windowsill.

You're don't have to strip the jams because your jams are clean, you know, your stops have excess paint.

Um, your parting strips, you really should replace them because they have too much paint on them.

So it becomes sort of a very methodical way to say, like, oh, okay, well, if I just spend the next few weeks stripping all my windowsills, I'll have all my windowsills prepped.

You know, and then next I'm gonna end up addressing this.

So I really do think, yes.

I mean, I it's just unfortunate.

Well, even though the law uh requires everyone to be compliant already, um we found out uh, and I don't know if you guys have discussed it at all, but there are ways to ask for time for the Department of Health.

It's not an easy process.

Uh what do you call it?

Was it a variance or something like that?

Um, but there is a way to submit to the state that I'm trying and I expect to finish by April of 2026.

And in April 2026, they're gonna come calling and make sure that you did it.

So um, so I think there are ways for people to sort of do it in chunks, you know, and and and also do it in a way that isn't sort of creating a hazard for everyone that's in your home.

Um well, yeah, I mean I I I don't well, I don't want to say like, oh, do it on uh uh your rental unit because that's that's when you're getting involved in uh the RRP laws and you have to make sure that you're creating containment for anybody that lives there.

Um but if people are doing work on their home, you know, and it's a work site and they're not living there, then there's many ways that they can actually do some of that themselves.

I mean, I I I would love it.

I would love to.

I mean, and I I think um it's been, you know, the Providence Preservation Society is is had its hand at at training people where we've made uh a couple people that are very successful businesses now in Providence.

Um, you know, and I know NRF has done a program just uh two weeks ago uh to teach people how to how to do it, but I think honestly, that's that's you know, that's Rhode Island.

I mean, uh, you know, the Yankee ingenuity is you know, people doing it themselves.

It's you know, that's why I can't really trust dating a building by its nails because somebody used the nails that was sitting in their barn for a hundred years, you know.

So it's it's something that I think is really in the spirit of of what got us here, you know, and and I I think it's you know what I would love to advocate is is a very uh um distinct way to address it in and rather than a knee-jerk everything all at once.

I mean, it it it took us 250 years to get here.

I think it's gonna take us at least 10 or so to kind of get out of it and and where we're being a bit more purposeful about it.

So, yes, I I think training people, but it it's hard because I think you know, when when you get into the legality of it and and exposing people to these hazards as as you're working on these windows, um, you know, and and I know you know, when Marguerite who helped me write this uh when she did the program for for NRF, it was very, you know, they were pretty much trying not to touch anything with lead during the whole program.

Um because nobody really, it's it's sort of everybody's you know, so afraid of it.

And rightfully so, but I think we have to teach people, you know, and and that's what we did up at PPS is is we were really teaching them how to work with it.

Um so I think in concert with uh the RRP classes, there could be things, you know, because even the Department of Health had me, this this was barely the ink was barely dry on it, and he had me present to all the inspectors in the state about this, and they they would love to do more training to kind of help them understand old windows.

Um so there's a lot that that's got to come out of this.

Um I I it would be a real shame if this is it.

I think it need we need a lot more um effort.

Yeah, please.

I think in terms of a homeowner doing the work, I know a lot of people probably want to do that, especially a more savvy DIY homeowner.

They still would need to get certified, which isn't super costly, but does take about a day to a day and a half of training to get their RRP training and at further mitigation training as well, um, which everyone needs to have if they're working on any type of lead hazards, because it's not only a pose a health risk to yourself, but also your neighbors if you don't properly encapsulate the area you're working on.

But I think with a lot of the different strategies that Rob outlines in the report, there are ones where we would recommend going to a contractor for the work just because if you're doing full paint stripping, that's a that's a really intense project, but also will get you a really clear solution because now your windows have been fully fully removed of lead paint versus um encapsulation, the track systems that Rob was showing.

Again, your typical DIY homeowner most likely won't be able to do that, and so we'd recommend just going to a contractor.

But these smaller things where you're replacing a component of a window over time or part of a sash could perhaps a more savvy DIY homeowner could certainly could do after they've received their training.

So and I think with with future training, uh you you outlined some really good options, Rob, and I think that's definitely a next step that we see after this process.

Um, a lot of advocacy, we hope to come from this, from this report that we hope will be useful statewide and kind of show that really gap right now missing in terms of contractors who can do this work.

Yeah, and you know, the the Providence one was great uh because they they took uh I think it was four or five weeks.

So you're really there were people coming out of it had confidence to be able to go forward either on their own or or with someone else.

So I think it's it's not sort of like, oh, we can teach you in three hours how to do this.

I think it it is a it's definitely an intense uh um you know, jump in.

Um but being in in that world of window restoration, um, it's kind of amazing what's out there to learn from.

Uh there's something called the craftsman's blog, uh Scott Siddler down in uh uh Florida that has some tutorials online that you can take.

And so there's there's more out there, I think, uh uh for people to learn from.

Um, but definitely taking the RRP is is uh the lead training is is a great first step because um people have to know what risks they're putting themselves and their community in.

Um because it is real.

I think you know, and as I found when when they demo that house, I didn't feel any better about the environment they're leaving there, right?

I felt like, oh, okay, well, you demoed this thing.

I know somebody's not coming through afterwards and cleaning this, you know, they're just actually putting drywall on top of all that.

They're actually putting new trim on top of all that, but it doesn't mean all that dust isn't like in the walls or it isn't being spread out as they're pushing in their insulation, you know.

So it, you know, the only thing that masks it is either fresh paint or or other stuff on top of it.

Um, but it it you know it it's creating a big mess.

I don't know.

I I was very disappointed um by that one.

So um uh the the this one we're actually uh uh talking about that uh we stripped components of the of the sash, we made sure that there wasn't any uh abrasion or friction points when it functioned, um, and we were able to get it uh under uh the clearance.

So and it passed the visual clearance, which is essential because they won't even test it for the lead swipes, um, and it and it passed on um the uh actual dust lead or the dust swipes.

Um so um, but the actual report, um the guide itself uh goes through it, and like I said, I have all of this data as well.

So if for some reason we needed to incorporate some of that data to reassure people that that we actually did collect this and it was all realistic, um we have all the data of all the 80 samples that we took relative to the location in each building that we worked on.

So um so and we we did I think we were talking about at one point, like it would be great to put a a cost on these things.

Um I was more uncomfortable with cost I was uh than I was just saying the time, right?

Because this particular window took 63 hours, right?

So uh, but somebody could charge 40 an hour or they can charge 80 an hour.

So it was harder to say.

Uh, but it was 63 hours in the end.

Um so that that's that's a pretty significant investment.

Um, and if you're a homeowner doing it, uh it's a couple years, you know, unless you have more time to dedicate to it.

Um so um all right.

So I think I think what we were able to determine is that we can eliminate the hazards um in a variety of different ways by either encapsulating it or stripping it or making it inoperable.

Um so there's lots of methods in in making old windows functional and lead safe.

So, you know, I think it's it's yet another um because I I know I wear a couple different hats here.

I know I I know when I when I give our observations when we're looking at windows uh for the HDC, I'm not even talking about lead because I don't see lead as an obstacle.

I I I don't see paint condition as an obstacle, you know, all of these things are just a component of of how something ages over time.

So it's really a matter of of people really mitigating or you know, sort of that that layering and and that non-function of these windows of these units that that really just taking off all of this excess paint, really making sure that things function well again.

We can get a 200-year-old window, 150-year-old window, wait and pulley windows uh are my favorite because you go from non-functional to functional with two fingers, right?

So for for me to say, you know, when people say to me, well, is this window restorable?

And I'm like, well, they all are.

Uh it's just a matter of how much effort you want to put in.

So I think it's really, you know, to for people to say this as a as a I understand sort of the burden this is putting on all the homeowners.

Um, but I think it just is emphasizing that that we need to have other ways to sort of mitigate it or other ways to either buy time or identifying what the hazards are and how to um address them in a more sort of uh holistic way.

That's that's not just using sort of the federal standards that are used for uh um section eight housing for for dust levels, um, that there are more practical ways, especially for looking at these buildings every two years as to what their condition is.

Um you know, that that there has to be uh another way for us to to kind of really be able to interact with these windows.

So um I'm hoping this is really useful to everyone um and and the city, and uh I'm also hoping that that we can do some more work on this because I think we're just getting started.

Um so um oops.

So um so yeah, so I honestly uh I think in the back of the report we have future things or more things that we can kind of look at.

Um, and to me that's that's really where the work needs to be done at this point um to help educate those that are making the rules and the laws um as to how we can sort of make these these windows and these units get compliant because windows are just one part of it.

Um like I said, floors are really, really hard to get in compliance.

Um certain exteriors of buildings, I don't even know how people are gonna maintain their building every two years to make sure there's no peeling anywhere on the outside of their building.

Um so I think there has to be a very pragmatic way of sort of interacting with these buildings um rather than just a knee-jerk of saying, oh, get us to this level.

Um so anyway.

More questions, yeah.

Madison.

Sure.

They still do, but just not for houses.

Um that you can get it for industrial applications now, uh, but it was really in the late 70s, 76.

So it was banned in 76.

But um, again, being Rhode Islanders, they'd had a can of paint in their garage that they're like, oh, this is the good stuff.

Um so yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.

Well, and you know, we're it was a great solution for all this bad air, you know, the humidity and um it was it, I mean, lead paint.

If you guys don't know, like lead paint is the greatest paint out there uh because it's hard, right?

It doesn't um it it doesn't fade real fast.

Um it doesn't get mildewy.

Um, you know, so it really was for the areas they used it, doors and windows, it was the perfect paint to use, um, except they should have learned from the Romans.

So on one of your first line that didn't have to be a good one.

Yep.

Technically, it's the earliest window before the double hung.

You know, so if you look at uh Clements Irons House and Johnston, uh the Arnold House, um they have reproduction.

Oh no, actually the Fairbanks House.

If anybody's been in the Fairbanks house, um in Dedham mass, uh they have an original leaded casement window.

The casements, because before we started really manufacturing stuff, they were just shipping it from England, like they would just ship the whole unit, uh hinges, you know, the whole thing.

Um so yeah, so they are the earliest, but we don't see see them until I don't know, uh 18 in you know, Victorian, late Victorian, they start coming out again, you know, they start having different crank systems and so forth.

So the core and occupied all by the law, by law.

They don't well, it's it's yeah.

Well, uh at this point it's the registry that's gonna identify who's on who has come into compliance, and those not in compliance are subject to the fine.

Um uh various fines.

They're who knows when they're gonna start it, but they're ready to last year, yeah.

And well, and what's interesting and talking with the Department of Health, he has no sympathy for anyone that has this problem right now because he's the way he he was describing it, that this has been on the books for a long time, you know.

Um it's it's really just the the owner-occupied three units and under that was added to this rule.

Um, but everybody else before this was supposed to be in compliance.

So he doesn't have a lot of sympathy for everybody worried about this because nobody was really in compliance.

So this has been on the books for a long time, uh, but just not enforced.

I mean, I think from what I've seen out there, um, it's it's it's where there is a problem is where they'll enforce it, right?

So if there is a child that that has elevated lead levels, uh um, or if there's a uh violations just on the general condition of the building, um, is when they will use the law to enforce it, um, is is kind of where I've seen it for the most part now.

Um, but I think you know it, yeah.

I I think it's really you just don't know when when though I mean they don't really have enough people still.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's just time.

If I can oh, sorry, if I can interject just to answer some of Jim's questions.

Um, so short-term rentals, so anything that's under a hundred days is exempt.

Um, and so that creates a problem that's unique to cities that are you know seasonal, such as ours.

So someone could turn over their unit into a 90-day rental for three months, and then they wouldn't have to deal with this.

And so it creates a larger housing problem.

Um, and also, you know, the time it takes to you know remove lead and create that safe area.

Um, a lot of people are being displaced, and so I'm seeing that a lot with the calls that I'm getting.

Um, so they've definitely started to enforce.

Um, there's a lot of confusion, and so we were really eager to kind of get get this work going because it does pose a larger housing issue.

Of course.

Correct.

Yeah.

Um, and so I I'll get into all of kind of the the bigger picture next month when we choose to adopt this.

Um, but yeah, this was just a really great overview.

And oh my god, it's fantastic the work that's being done.

Um, and we do hope that this is just the beginning.

I hope so too.

Um it was a lot to do outside of just our normal stuff.

Um, but unfortunately, like poor Jackie, I hired her right when this started, and I said to her, You realize this is my capstone project for my life, like all the years I've been doing restoration.

This report means everything.

Um, and she's been great.

So um, but really I I thank everybody for their patience and and and flexibility in in making all this happen.

Um, but I I am totally ready to to do more.

Um I think uh, you know, I I'd love to get paid for it, but at the same time, I think this is something I think is really important to help educate both our lawmakers.

Um I'm looking forward to this session.

Hopefully, I get to sit in front of a few committees and and talk about this to try to sort of um adjust sort of how we're looking at this, and you know, and and without without sacrificing safety, right?

And and you you say like single family homes.

I get a lot of calls from new new parents that are like, I'm moving into this old house old house, and I'm my lead inspector came through and told me this place is just an absolute hotspot, and I'm just freaking out.

And I and I talk them through the fact that all of my employees, we all have kids, we all grew up in old buildings, um, and all of my staff were tested once a year.

And I have my my Marguerite, who's our main uh uh manager, and she pulls all of our windows and is in the shop all the time.

Um her lead levels like one and a half or two, right?

Which is obscenely low.

Um, and it's all about hygiene, it's all about being aware of it, you know.

We're not necessarily walking around in suits all the time, uh, but we're just very mindful of of the of the dust we're creating and and how we're transferring it.

Um so I really do my best to try to help people understand how to live with it and then how to address it over time.

Um, so that that for me is sort of you know, so when I read things like, oh, well, we have to stop children from eating windowsills.

I'm like, there's yeah, I mean, yeah, no, I uh that's not my main object, that's not my life goal.

But um, but I can help people understand what it is to mitigate a hazard so your children aren't grabbing it, you know, so they're not sort of you're not allowing a chip to fall on the ground uncleaned, you know, or multiple chips uncleaned.

I mean, as there's a lot of times I walk into houses with uh forced high-air systems and I pull up the grate and they did a renovation work and I look at the bottom of the ductwork and there's just piles of dust and chunks of paint.

And I'm like, it's not your windows, you know, it's this.

So I think I think there's a broader sort of education of not demonizing windows, hopefully, uh, that we can get out of this.

But I I really thank everybody.

This has really been a great opportunity.

So yeah.

Yep.

I mean there was no advantage to putting lead in in putty uh it it in and there's really there it's really the things you put in putty or asbestos and and in cock you put asbestos because that that kind of helps uh with with the the holding it together right so it doesn't crack as much it create it's sort of like this lattice work of it.

Um y you can um well i i if the glaze if the glaze does have asbestos in it you can use steam um and steam uh will will reduce the amount of airborne particles um and you know when we talk about the way we do it versus a homeowner doing it uh I've met people that were doing it like this one guy was restoring his windows in his kitchen and um like in his kitchen not the windows in his kitchen but we was restoring the windows inside his kitchen you know and and so just kind of helping people understand of isolating a space creating containment you know and that's what we do when we bring it to our shop our shop is just one big bubble um you know so but it's a industrial space we don't have the same level you know expectations uh uh for for safety but anyway so it it it just becomes a broader education point so excellent thank you so much Rob and NRF for joining us um so we'll be revisiting this next month um to adopt and yeah stay tuned for more those of you who are here for the HCC the regular scheduled HTC meeting um we'll be taking a ten minute break and then we'll be pre-meeting in the second floor conference room and then we will join you back here at six thirty for the meeting thank you.

Hi guys I just want the clap on the back so yeah this is always it would be reporting that we may have to think that's good we need to read it so that we're not the thing is it's like we're right after the VAT um Robert so I'm like I'm saying to have a cover but you know yeah we would come back for some and yeah they look kind of I I want to see my

Yeah, because we'll come back for some.

Yeah, it would kind of go.

I want to see my good.

I don't want to.

Yeah.

So we'll have to put the arrival.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I can tell you that it would not be.

Yeah.

Well, you can have fun.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um they all do right in the basic summary.

What's not?

Um, that's the new one.

Oh no, you can look at it.

But yeah, you'll find it right here.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, I mean that's what I'm saying.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, I thought it was a good thing.

Yeah, I'll be back.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, we'll let you out and so I don't want to stick some.

But here we are.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it's not actually going to be the colour.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

I mean no, not the bottom.

Um yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah, so yeah.

I know.

Yeah, you know the paper played the trade.

Yeah, but I think that you uh see what should have.

Good evening.

I call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Monday, November 10th, 2025, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarillo?

Here.

Rosemary O'Brien?

Here.

Kelly Moran, I'm here.

Jim Manson?

Here.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Is absent.

Bill Finley?

Here.

Brooke Richter.

And Kenny Benell.

Here.

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

In the absence of Mr.

Goddard, alternate commissioner Kenny Bennell will be a voting commissioner this evening.

See, I would just like to acknowledge Peter Friedrichs from our city solicitor's office who's attending this evening's meeting in support of the commission.

Commissioners, minutes for Tuesday, October 14th, 2025 have been provided to the commission for review.

Are there any additions or corrections to those meeting minutes?

Request a motion to accept the minutes for Tuesday, October 14th, 2025, as presented.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Monday, November 10th, 2025, are valid for one year from the date of approval.

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

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

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

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

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

Uh based on the review of the agenda, we do not have any resequencing.

We do have a few uh continuations that have come in that was uh the commission was made aware after the agenda was published.

There are three of those this evening.

The first is C4 for 61 2nd Street, and one for 21 and 23 Brinley Street, and N2 for 19 Catherine Street.

Uh if anyone is here from the public for those applications this evening, they will be rescheduled to the next regular HDC meeting on Tuesday, December 10th, excuse me, December 9th, 2025.

In this evening's pre-meeting, the commission identified a few applications to be considered for summary approval.

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

So the first of those this evening is the application of N6 for four Brenton Road.

Do we have anyone here this evening for four Brenton Road?

Okay.

Um so I will ask the commission to um oh we'll summary approve the application.

Okay, sorry.

Um for four Brenton Road, plat 41, lot 014-4 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 Tac 80, Tech 060, A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Next is the application of N7 for 53 uh 53 Bridge Street and 113rd.

Um request a motion to approve the application of 53 Bridge Street and 113rd, plat sixteen lot zero five five, citing Newport standard 17 tact 80, tact 060 A1, 24, 5, 6, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, next is the application of N51 Doris Terrace.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this application?

The public.

No.

All right, request a motion to approve the application of one Doris Terrace, plat 44 lot 101, citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 B 1.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Similarly, in this evening's pre-meeting, the commission identified one application for an abbreviated summary approval.

This just has a minor clarification.

This is the application of N8 for four Red Cross AV Unit 5.

Do we have the applicant here this evening?

If I could just ask you to come forward and we will uh ask the vice chair to read that application for us.

Excuse me.

This is the application of Gregory Johnick of four Red Cross Avenue, Unit 5, Platte 26, Lot 195, contributing property for permission to add one new window in bathroom and move down spout.

Okay, good evening.

Just gonna have to get you sworn in before we ask our questions.

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, please.

Okay, Mr.

Johnick.

I'm gonna open it up to the commission.

There was one simple question that a few of the commissioners had for you.

I'll start with Mr.

Ballet.

Um you've submitted a window that doesn't meet our guidance for window.

And would you consider a different manufacturer?

You can work with the historic planner to work that out, but we'd like to see that.

Thank you.

Okay, so we will make a conditional um approval on your application this evening with that, unless there was any other questions.

I believe that was the one question that we had.

Okay, so with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of four Red Cross AV unit five, plat 26 lot 019-5.

Um, as presented with the condition that the window selection um be updated and confirmed by the uh preservation planner citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 TAC 060, a one four and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, just as a reminder, we have some action items.

Oh, yes, we will do those next.

Okay, so now moving into our full agenda beginning with our action items.

I will ask the vice chair to begin with A1.

This is the application of uh uh John Patrick Knight of 10 Cross Street, flat 17, lot 288 contributing for permission to extend a previously approved plan to replace existing bulkhead with a new flat bulkhead.

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

Okay, um, commissioners, were there any questions about the extension of this application?

Um, the certificate of appropriateness as presented.

No, no, no.

Okay, so I will request a motion to approve the extension for um 10 cross street, plat 17, lot two eighty-eight for one year.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

A two.

This is the application of Margaret Maloney of 275 Harrison Avenue, plat 44, lot 121 contributing property.

We're permission to extend a previously approved plan to construct a three-car garage to the southeast of the existing residence and move it by four feet.

And anyone here this evening for this application.

Commissioners, any questions um for the applicant about the extension for the certificate of appropriateness?

None.

Nope.

Request a motion to um grant the extension for the application of 275 Harrison Ave, plat 44, lot 121 for one year.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

See what?

This is the application of Luke Fleury of 8 Beacon Hill Road, plat 41, lot 274, this contributing property for permission to construct a garage.

Welcome, council.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission, Jay Russell Jackson, Miller Scott, Bullbrook, and Jackson.

Uh on behalf of the applicant, I have with me this evening, Mark Rapp.

Um, as you all recall, we've been here a few times on this project.

And um the main residence, uh, we've got the approvals last month when we were before you.

Uh and we discussed the garage, and they were still a concern that as proposed last month, uh, they were still a concern about the massing of the garage given the dormers that were originally proposed for this.

So uh since last month, uh Mark has gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new dormer plan for the proposed garage, and he's available to sort of walk through those changes uh and describe those changes for you.

Uh as Mark gets set up.

I do have we did submit renderings.

I have a printout of the two uh main renderings which focus on the parking area and garage.

So uh those were submitted digitally, but we just missed the uh posting of the agenda.

So uh I'll if I could just submit these hard copies as an exhibit.

Uh yes, for the commission, I'll request a motion to accept exhibit A.

Um, renderings of the garage for eight Beacon Hill Road, plat 41 lot 274.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Okay, Mr.

Rapp, we'll get you 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, please.

Mark Rap Architect.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yeah, we uh had another site visit uh with members of the board about two weeks ago, three weeks ago.

And their concern was primarily the dorm, the side, the scale of the dormer of the upper level of the garage.

So I reduced the width of the dormer and changed its profile to match that of the carriage house.

The carriage house dormers on the south have a shed dormer, which have uh pedimented ends of each side.

So this dormer mimics that uh profile from the uh main carriage house.

The other thing we did for the site is that we uh lowered the garage another foot into the ground, so the garage would be two feet lower than the main floor of the house, reducing its mass in the site, and the rendering you have sort of give a sense of how much it gets tucked into the rock ledge behind it.

Um secondly, I just want to point out it was concerned about the size of the garage.

The house is 3,765 square foot footprint.

The garage is 720 square feet, so at 19% of the house.

The garage is 36 feet away from the house, and the height of the garage is 20 foot four inches, which is as low as I could probably make it with eight-foot ceiling on two floors and a uh a stable roof coming off of the second floor, as you'll see in a second.

I think we brought it down as much as we can.

It's only a two-stall garage with a stair.

So we're hoping that the board would accept uh these changes and uh go along with uh both.

Also, just to remind the board, what's the distance between um the house and the rock?

About 36 feet.

Okay.

Just gonna ask our preservation planner if she can.

I think she's pulling up those renders.

Okay.

That is a new rendering.

Yes.

That reflects the uh approved uh entry roof on the carriage house, and then the low stone wall in the front is the storage stone wall, it's gonna remain in the driveway wraps around that up to the garage, which gets tucked into that ledge in the back there.

So it necessitates the door to the garage on the front rather than to the ledge.

That's where we get the width from okay.

Um so with that, I will open it up to the commission for questions and comments.

Murray, thank you.

Can you just uh repeat again how much the height was reduced by bringing it down into the hill a bit more?

Well, we the the height itself remains the height, but we dropped it into the grade about a foot.

Another foot.

So we dropped it for foot down, looks at the grade around it.

Uh you can see in the building section on that drawing there.

You can see how we have an eight-foot ceiling in the garage.

So we're trying to it's a one bedroom apartment up there.

So the height hasn't changed on this.

Reduce the normal width.

Got it.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments.

What's up, Brian?

No, I I feel that the uh the proportions of the dorm are much better now that they're brought in from the sides.

I I I have no trouble supporting this project.

Okay.

Mr.

Madsen.

Yeah, thank you.

And and thanks, Mark, for the changes you've made.

So the the front there is that part way up.

Is it a a stone kind of veneer or what's that?

Yeah, we build that stone from the air and do the shingle flare combat, but the carriage house has the stone foundation with a big shingle flare coming out.

Right.

So we do the same kind of detail on the carriage house.

Stone foundation felt like it was part of it in the ground, and the wood frame would be built above it.

Yes.

And did you move it back a little bit then as well further into the outcropping there?

Yeah, we're gonna excavate and push it in there.

But yeah, right.

Okay, yeah.

You can see the how the gray on the side there goes around the back.

So yeah, I think that'll make a big difference relative to this scale and massing, even though it's not that much smaller itself physically, but by the way you located it, it does.

So no, I appreciate all the work you've done to get us to this point.

So I'm good with it.

Thank you.

I agree.

Um council, any other questions or comments?

Good to go.

Okay, with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of eight Beacon Hill Road, Plot 41, lot 274, um, specific to the garage as presented this evening, citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 060 A1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

It's a T.

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

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.

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

Uh Garrett Conroy with Center Line Communications.

Okay, I'm just gonna ask you to speak clearly into the mic just so we get okay.

You good?

Okay.

Okay, so updates.

Uh so last time I was here, I was asked to provide some alternative options for the uh pose antennas on the Viking Hotel.

I was able to get some renderings done.

I did miss the uh agenda cutoff, submitted them electronically.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh so commission uh request a motion to accept exhibit A renderings for one Bellevue Avenue Plot 25, lot 124.

So moved.

Could you speak into the mic, please?

Yes, I'm sorry.

Second.

Sorry.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

We'll just have one wait till we get the okay.

And Jill, this is the same document you have pulled up.

Okay.

All right, if you want to walk us through.

Yeah, of course.

Uh so last time we talked about uh the two main issues being the uh sectors, uh the antennas on facing Toro Street and the um antennas facing church street.

The antennas inside the flagpoles uh were not an issue with the board, so we didn't really look into that.

So if we can go to the uh second page, this is the existing antennas um looking down Toro Street.

This this viewpoint is from Toro.

This is the what the antennas look like now.

They are existing.

Um and as you can see, we are just referencing the two antennas in the middle of the of the uh picture.

The bottom right antenna is not a T-Mobile antenna that belongs to uh another carrier.

Um so if you can go to the second picture, this would be uh proposed one, which would be to replace these antennas and paint them to match.

And when you say painted to match, it looks like in the rendering here it's there's still a faux brick around these.

This would be um sorry if you can go back one.

So this is the proposal to paint the antennas to match without any stealth updates.

So the stealthing option here would be to reinstall the new antennas and then paint them to match the existing brick.

Okay.

And if you go to the second uh the next page, this is an option to uh stealthy antennas with um faux uh material that would would be isara friendly, um would be to match the existing brick uh and would box in the antennas so before we go to the next location.

So before we go to the next location, I'm just gonna open it up for this specific aspect for the commission questions or comments.

Thank you.

Um these boxes, are they also painted?

They're they'll be painted to match the brick, correct.

So whether it be stealth, box or bare antenna, they will essentially have the same look.

Correct.

To match the existing condition of the brick on which they're mounted.

Is there any way to know exactly what that would look like?

Since we have a mixture of different painted antenna on the building at this time.

In the sense of how we obtain that.

Who who paints it?

What's it gonna look like?

Is it gonna look like the existing ones?

You know, we're looking at two just on here that are painted kind of differently.

One looks better than the other.

The existing ones, correct.

Yeah, the existing ones could be painted better, admittedly.

Um proposed, we will take a uh photo um from the brick, submit it to the company that manages these and designs these.

Uh, they will do their best to match.

Um the one in the back, if you can see that back left corner right there, that's another carrier as well.

That's something that's a faux brick as well.

Um, it would be you know, best attempts to match it to match the existing conditions.

I have kind of an odd question.

Is there any way to like create some consistency with these?

Maybe more for the staff, like moving forward.

Is there like a wrap that we can kind of approve for all of these so that they at least have the same appearance on the building?

Yeah, that's something that I would be hopeful that we could you know begin that process.

Um, you know, taking a photo, you know, we have pretty good technology these days for high resolution photos, and then you know, printing that out and wrapping.

Um, just to get a better look rather than you know, kind of a hodgepodge.

Um, I think the commission is just most concerned about the visual impact and how close of a match we're gonna get.

And if I could ask, so between the boxing in the stealth version, which obviously increases the scale, and the one that we were just looking at, what is what are you painting on in the one that's not stealth, painting directly onto the antenna?

Correct.

The antennas are white.

Okay.

They look like this, the ones that are proposed for the railing, essentially.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, Mr.

Bell.

Why are we painting fake bricks and mortars on this?

I mean, this is not a piece of masonry that's on the building and as a historic building, we're plopping some little ornamentation on it, the equipment and making it trying to make it look like it's brick, the mortar.

I think that's the exact wrong thing to do.

Uh I do agree that the equipment should be harmonious in its connection with all the other equipment, but trying to make it look like something is not, I don't think is what we're here for.

Understood.

Um, I think when we were in front of the board last time, it was mentioned to do the best to stealth it.

It in typical conditions, we try to match existing conditions.

That's usually how we kind of work and move forward.

If the board prefers that we stealth it in terms of a box and then use a different color uh or a different shape, and we have no issue with that.

We have no con we have no problem with the outside of the box.

So if that's a directive from the board, we can we can certainly achieve that.

I I would be more in favor to have the equipment standalone, no fake cover box, no fake appearance, and some unanimous uh color choice that it comes in.

Uh it's equipment on a piece of the building that looks like equipment on the building.

Um I don't think it should be looking like something else.

Okay.

We have we have no issue if that's indirect.

Okay, so let's go to the other antennas that are proposed to be a different style, and then we can discuss.

So let's talk about the ones that are on the ballasters.

Yeah.

Jill, can we go to the next the ones that are on the railing?

So this is the existing condition.

Uh these are the antennas uh in the middle again on the railing.

So the antennas to the left um on the on the brick wall to the left are another carrier.

The antennas to the right, uh, the one that is not painted to match is another carrier as well.

Uh so ours are uh the ones just in the middle.

Um the two are the only one that we're proposing to install to swap.

So I think I have three options here.

This is what we were initially proposing to just replace them, paint them white to match the the banister, um, and have them kind of blend in as best they can to the existing banister and you know, not on the brick or on the roof or anything like that.

Uh the board did ask for some sled options and some stealth options.

And as I mentioned, um there are some complications with that in that the height of the antenna does need to clear the banister, and there is not a lot of space on that section of the roof to really set uh a sled back or really anywhere to put a sled.

So if you can go to the next one, this would be the rendering uh sorry, one back.

This would be a sled mount with the antennas proposed, just um without stealth.

This is how high it would be, um, what it would have to look like from the street.

Uh this would also be visible from Bellevue from the front, uh, which right now obviously the ends are not.

Um, and if you can go to the next one, this would be a stealth box around those those uh antennas on the sled again.

Um it would need to be that high to clear the the the railing.

Um and again, there's not really anywhere to put the uh put that sled on that section of the roof that would allow a minimal visibility because it does need to clear that that railing.

This is I'm sorry, this viewpoint is from Church Street.

And the location of the antennas that we were looking about um at originally, they need to stay on those brick structures.

Not everything can be relocated to the roof.

Correct.

You need you need the three different uh antenna locations so they cannot be combined.

Okay.

Um there wouldn't be a way to move the bricks section to the roof because of the other carrier and the existing brick stuff that's already in the way.

God um Mr.

Bennell.

Well, out of these three options, if we have to pick one, I would say the first one because I don't think that the stealth box or the um propped up antennas look okay, but I also don't really agree with them being on the balustrade.

Right.

I don't know how everybody else feels about that.

Yeah, I would agree with Kenny.

I'm I'm opposed to anything being attached to the ballastrate, right?

To the railing there.

Whatsoever.

They're existing on the on the railing now.

Okay, I oppose to put anything new there.

So uh so no, you're not gonna put them there in my in according to me anyway.

I'd vote against that.

So uh and I would uh also agree with uh measure ballot that you know they're ugly pieces of equipment, so just call it what it is, right?

Why try to hide them in something that's faux?

And you know, if Viking wants to put these things standing on top of their building, then that's up to them.

But it's not gonna go on a historic elements of the building, in my view.

Does it make sense?

So I just want to clarify when you said option one.

Are you speaking to the case?

Yes, I'm talking about them being on the balustrade.

Keeping them on the balustrade.

So just make sure, Mr.

Madsen, that was clear.

Right.

So you're saying you're not in favor of that.

Not anything on the balustrade.

No.

Okay.

I mean, I'm not really in favor of any of them.

I was just saying if we're gonna pick one.

We can say no.

Okay, well, then there we go.

Right.

Okay.

Is there a location if they cannot be on the ballister?

Is there can these go somewhere else?

Not that's gonna provide the same coverage of where they are now, or that won't look like options two and three, fortunately.

Okay.

So which option is this right here with the sled?

This is three.

Three.

And what color is that sled?

Right now it's white.

Um it can be anything.

It can be anything.

Uh we again this this one would be visible from Bellevue.

So it would it would stick up above and that not personally, not T-Mobile's first choice.

So it's it's like about a about a four by five, something like that.

No, no, much bigger.

It's about much bigger.

Six by ten, yeah.

Because it has to it has to clear that baluster and then and then have enough room for the and the antennas to be installed inside of it.

Could I open up like a brainstorming type thing here?

And maybe this is totally impossible.

So tell me to show up if that is the case.

Is there like any possibility uh of sort of combining these into one place when it comes to further placing these on the Viking, like let's say putting one big box on the roof that just houses everything?

Is that even a possibility, or are we dealing with too many carriers, a private property?

You know, how does or is it just maybe that won't even be a good solution?

Maybe it'll be just as ugly.

So uh just kind of like trying to get the brains going here on like if we're gonna keep seeing this just in rotation, new replacements, new replacements.

Like, is there a solution that might be better?

Can we move it to the hospital?

Move them to the hospital.

I love that.

Isn't that the highest point?

It's as high as is the Viking.

We have them on the hospital.

All the carriers.

Oh, you put some more on the hospital.

Maybe it doesn't reach down.

You would like that, but no, it you need to be periodically spaced out so that the coverage can propagate over different areas.

It does solely in the hospital.

Does not cover, for example, thanes in Parate Park.

It doesn't make it down there.

And I think the challenge before the commission is that although this is a commercial building, we would not, if this was a residential building for whatever reason that was on the highest point, we would not find that this was compatible.

So you know, we're in a very challenged position here to albeit that there are existing antennas on the building that were installed there before this commission was before you, but I that's my biggest challenge as far as you know, feeling that this is in alignment with the standards.

There's no question.

It's a tough one.

Just private homes aren't too much fallen in historic district.

Ms.

Moran, to your question about combining um antennas in the one area.

I don't know that the gentleman that's before you at the moment can answer that question.

Um probably a question for the building ownership.

There are a lot of issues within the different carriers and the frequencies operating in fine space that close.

There needs to be some sort of separation.

The box is big enough.

Yes, it's possible.

It's a tight area the carrier, the the frequencies don't operate correctly.

And not saying no, but that would be that would be one of the challenges.

Sure.

I don't even know what it looks like.

Maybe there's one on each side of a building.

Um just again, I don't even know that that's a solution, but I just feel like we're only gonna continue to see more in different types.

And I flag poles are like maybe the best solution, I guess, but we can't have 10 flagpoles on the building that have no flags on them, right?

I mean, and you would need about that for all the carriers, not 10, but you would need there's only two for T-Mobile there.

We'd need, yeah, eight, nine, probably for the different carriers if you were to make them relocate.

So are you saying there's four or five different carriers?

There's there's three at least.

I don't I do not know if it's four.

Um I think we should refocus commissioners on choosing the best possible outcome for this particular application and for this particular carrier.

Um, and if we want to implement something going forward, then we can certainly discuss that.

So there's particular color, or I know Frank, that you you said that you know, leave them either white or if you wanted to pick a color that resembles brick, but it's not exactly you know the wrapped brick, then that may be an option as well.

Yeah, I would I would clarify that I'd be in favor of I'm not uh opposed to the two on the ballusters painted white, match the ballister or whatever ballister color it is.

It from the ground, it looks like it's some part of the baluster structure.

Uh so I'm not opposed to that.

The other two, I would suggest painting a brick color, whatever that is close to the brick pillow and not mimicking anything beyond that.

If I could just ask Jill, if you could go to the last page that shows the aerial view of the roof, that's just perfect.

So I think this helps the commission to see that the other two options for the ones that are on the baluster that are essentially would be centered in the roof of this will be very clear from Bellevue Avenue.

There is actually not that.

I'm not sure what the width of the top of the roof is there, but it's clear with the height that would be required, it will be very visible.

So that might help everybody.

Those I do think the least intrusive from this view are to replace the ones on the ballast rod and paint them white.

Um and then the ones that are on the brick.

Um but just painting the antennas as is either a dark brick color or even a gray, like a dark gray.

I concur with my fellow commissioners.

Um and uh chairperson, Mr.

Madsen.

Uh I'm just a little confused as to what we're are we trying to is it a foregone conclusion that there's going to be these antennas somewhere up there.

And so that's one and two.

So are we just deciding whether we want option one or option two?

And if so, what color is that what we're doing?

I'm not quite sure.

I think there's equipment up there now, and they're replacing equipment is the first answer.

Right.

So it's gonna be up.

Something's gonna be up.

Seller has to go somewhere.

Something has to go up there, and it has to be on the Viking roof.

So it doesn't matter what we say.

So oops, right.

So you can Rogers High School is out.

There's actually we have uh down at Rogers High School.

How about a few more?

Yeah, black poles.

Get them.

I mean, just move the antennas down second more to a more southerly location, like Rogers High School.

Again, it's it's it's proximity of coverage, so then that would leave a huge gap in downtown in the main, the heart of downtown.

Well, let me ask you what would you do if the building wasn't there?

Yeah, what would you do?

We we wouldn't be here.

Not that I imagine we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is like somebody replacing a deck with a new deck.

Yeah, I mean, what if it was just a parking lot?

Would you just put up a big tower?

Why don't you just do that somewhere?

In downtown Newport.

The alternative.

If I could just interject it, we you know, as the HDC, we review applications as they come in.

We don't have any power over what people propose, and so we have to review this application as you know as it's presented.

Okay, well no, but not being.

I think the only I understand your frustration, and I I don't want to get into this death spiral of well, they're gonna go there anyways.

I don't care what they look like.

So yeah, and I I and correct me if I'm wrong.

I think part of the challenge as well is that this is on behalf of a service, not necessarily on behalf of the building.

Typically, the applicants that come before us are of the structure.

This is no different than a roofing, you know, company or whomever else from a technical perspective would come before us that A wouldn't necessarily be authorized to represent the application.

So we're in a little bit of a bind as far as no feel comfortable.

I think the material rep is a concern about the material not being appropriate for the district.

I think this is slightly different, and that the applicant is willing to use different treatments to try and comply with the requirements of the district.

No, I appreciate what the general T Mobile is presenting.

I absolutely do.

You're doing a lot of work.

I get your answer.

Pretty tough, pretty tight, but without the owner terror to make these kind of decisions.

I don't know how we can do that.

Fair point.

I you know, I think that it they're antennas, they should look like antennas, certainly the ones on the front on the balustrade to make them look like anything else will just look funky.

And um I have to say I was very much against the first time this came up um, you know, across our desk, uh, looking at those antennas.

And I was the one who suggested perhaps putting them horizontally, um, which you know you said you couldn't too.

Um it's funny, seeing them again today.

I actually see them less.

You know, perhaps it's in relationship to the other options, but uh I would support that, you know, on the balustrade.

But uh I would support that, you know, on the ballast.

Okay.

I agree with that as well.

Okay.

So just to summarize what I think general consensus of the commission is, doesn't mean everybody will vote this way.

Um, so the first two that need to go on the brick portion of the building.

It sounds that there's consensus around location one, which we see here.

Um, but instead of painting them to match in a faux brick um style, it would just be a solid color, either to match the brick or in a darker color.

And then the replacement of the two that are currently on the balustrad, um, location two as presented, also painted white.

So those would just be a straight replacement.

Um, I believe that's generally what we had the commission in favor of.

Um so with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of one Bellevue Avenue, plat 25, lot 124.

Um, as presented in exhibit A this evening.

So the first two um antennas on the brick portion of the building, location A will be updated, not painted to match in a faux brick finish, um, but in a solid color to blend in with the background.

And then the additional two antennas that are existing on the rear balustrade, location two, those will be replaced as they are currently painted white to match.

Citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80, tact 060, a one, four, six, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Uh-huh.

Aye, all those opposed.

All right.

I'll just ask Mr.

Madsen to state his opposition relative to the standards.

Uh 17.80.060A1 retain historic character and a five, or excuse me, a four preserved character.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

You're all set.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

On second floor double hung with wood replacement windows.

Okay.

I'm gonna have you come forward.

We will get you sworn in.

Have you raise your right hand?

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

So help you, God.

And if you state your name for the record, please.

My name is Stephanie Windley here on behalf of Karen Winley for 37 Sherman Street.

Okay.

W-I-N-D-L-E-Y.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Windley, um, the application was before us at the last meeting.

Um, I believe we had shared um with the person that was here at the last meeting that we are missing a window inventory to establish um details of the condition of all of the windows.

I don't believe that we've received any updated material to that effect.

Do you have an updated window inventory?

Uh inventory in terms of photographs or so it is a document that outlines the condition, the location, and oh, we do.

Was this just that so that is the survey that was done?

Um in that survey, it does say that there are some that are in or condition.

Um little recap on the history of the windows for the house.

A couple of years ago, there were five windows that were approved.

This was the initial start of this project.

We were doing it in phases two to the cost of whole project.

Um those five windows were initially approved and replaced.

We then requested uh to have two more four windows replaced, which was also approved.

Now that we have the funds to do the remaining 11 windows, we were asked to submit the survey and are now being asked to explore restoration.

I'm just hoping the commission can provide a little insight as to why we're allowed to replace now or being asked to restore.

And what ultimately we're looking to avoid is just having mismatched windows and have the house look like a patchwork doll, so to speak.

Um, because if we do have to restore some, we'll have to put storm windows up, which means some of the house will have storm windows, some of the windows will not.

We really just want to keep with theesthetics and have the appearance be consistent throughout the house.

So I'm hoping the commission can provide a little insight as to where we go from here.

Um so commission, what I pulled up was the previous application.

So you guys had provided um as part of that first application that uh window survey that was for the second floor only.

And so we're looking for information on the windows that are proposed to us now.

Um first floor.

Um, so we would need something similar to what was provided for the first floor for the commission to determine if the replacement would be um acceptable.

And so they need that information to determine if uh restoration would be appropriate or if replacement would be appropriate.

So we don't quite know at this point what the remedy would be, but we need that information.

So the the first five windows that were done on the first floor, there was no survey requested when those were approved.

The remaining 11 windows are all on the second floor.

The two that were replaced as the second phase of this project were on the second floor.

Um also for those two windows, we were not asked to submit a survey.

However, to finish the second floor, we're now being asked to submit the survey, which is here.

Um, when this survey was done, I was told that some of these windows cannot be replaced due to wood rot and damage.

Um some of them have since then the innards have broken off and they're completely not functioning.

Um again, we're just looking to keep with the aesthetics of the house, have everything look consistent.

Um, and just kind of want to know where we go from here since some have been replaced.

Is that something we can continue to do?

So I'm just gonna ask um Ms.

Chen, um, in the staff, and I apologize I misstated about the um survey that had been included, but you had documented in your staff findings that according to the window survey, all windows with the exception of two could be repaired.

Yeah, so based on the survey that we received from heritage restoration, and this was back in February and during the February application.

So it wasn't included in this current application, but we did have the information provided.

And so, based on that information, um, that is what I gleaned from that report.

All of the windows, the age of the windows vary from there are few original windows, there's some that date to 1880.

Um, that seems to be the majority of the windows date to 1880.

Um, and so that was my recommendation.

Okay.

And can we go back to the photographs of the windows that we're discussing on the building?

Also, just as a as a point.

So the ones that were previously approved in the last application, at least the ones on the first floor, that is clearly a replacement window.

So we wouldn't have you know required additional information to prove that the it appears to be vinyl, um, would be you know, able to be replaced.

And so that's part of the reason every window is judged based on its own merits.

And so um consistency, obviously, in the appearance is maybe most important for for you guys, but preserving historic material is the job of this commission.

And so we have to look at everything uh based on its own merits.

So since we didn't we don't have that window inventory included in this application, it does not cover the windows that we are looking at today, anyway.

Correct?

I think if I understood Ms.

Chen, it does, but we haven't had a chance to necessarily evaluate it relative to this application.

So I would suggest we could either move this to the end of the meeting and provide the commission an opportunity if we have time to review the survey or continue so that we since it wasn't submitted with the materials that we had before us to review the application at the time to provide the commission to do so.

Uh the previous application materials were included on this agenda for review.

I know that you weren't looking at it with a you know uh a close eye, perhaps, but um this was part of the uh application submittals that I had included on the agenda.

I'm not sure that I saw it.

I'd say it.

Unless it was um in like the Google, the Google.

I know.

That's what I'm using, the old links.

I don't seem to have what year was this um window report done?

April of 2024 was the date of the survey.

Okay, so recent enough.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't have it for some reason.

So to the commission, um, based on the information that we have in this surveys additional time needed to review relative to the 11 windows, or want to provide some guidance to the applicant here.

Um I can't speak to what's in the survey because I didn't see it.

Um I think the question before us is there's already partially replaced windows using what they have submitted.

Um and if we would approve using those windows or the new windows, should we decide these windows should be replaced.

Um typically I would say that we would not be our guidance does not allow for the um the window that's uh submitted, the manufacturer, correct.

We could ask you to choose a different manufacturer to replace these windows and work with the planner uh for those.

Um I would imagine that time is becoming part of the essence here that you would like to get these done.

So I would say in this application where there are been replacement of some brand of windows that is not in alignment to what we're wishing that I would be okay with re replacing the rest of the windows, regardless of what's in the report at this point.

Uh but I would ask that you choose a different manufacturer for these windows that's more compatible to what we accept.

I would just like to say that I would urge all the commissioners to review the um the materials.

There are some original windows.

Um there are many that have historic value that are waiting pulley.

There's some that are uh pinch lock, and there were two that were you know, obviously poor condition and replacement or reconstruction was considered.

Um some of these are you know quite character defining.

We have some arch topped here.

Um so I just want to make sure that we're not you know reviewing allowing a replacement just because you know we need consistency and um in the look.

So I would I would encourage all of you to look at this.

So I'm gonna recommend it.

Sounds that the commission there's general confusion about whether the material is included for us.

I would suggest we resequence to the end of the meeting.

If we have a few minutes, we can take the time to review the window survey and then come back at the end of the meeting to go through that if that's okay.

Okay, so with that, we'll resequence the application of 37 Sherman Street Plat 21 lot 108 to the end of the evening after other applications.

I could come back up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

C5.

This is the application of D Gordon of 47 Bridge Street, plat 16 lot 53, non-contributing for permission to install a patio and sports court across two properties.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this application?

Yes.

Okay.

I didn't did you call both C5 and C6 or just one just one.

Do you want can we do both both at the same time?

Um procedurally.

I think it I don't know if there's different representation between the two properties.

Um maybe combined.

Yeah, so we'll review them together.

Try and get everyone to speak to the property that they're referring to as they're reviewing it, and then vote on the two properties separately.

Okay, understood.

So I can check um how do you handle my personal oh okay.

Okay, so I'm gonna ask our vice chair.

So we've read the application of C5.

We'll read C6 onto the record.

This is the application of Francis and Kelly Dubois of 45 Bridge Street, Platte 16, Lot 52, non-contributing, for permission to retain basketball court.

Okay, welcome, counsel.

Um for the record, Madam Chair Robert Silva, uh attorney for uh the LLC, D.

Gordon, and also uh there's another application later on in the uh agenda, uh Francis and Kelly Dubois of 45 Bridge Street.

That's a second property, they're adjacent to each other.

Uh they're both lots of record, but are uh well below the 10,000 square foot uh limit or requirement.

One is about 5,000 square feet, the other one is about 4,090.

Uh, this matter has come before this commission on a number of occasions, uh, and the dwellings that were built with the proper building inspections uh and the uh building permits were all approved architecturally as uh non-contributing uh elements uh and they were built accordingly.

I think uh you can see they look similar uh to each other, uh, and they're on these small lots at the end of Bridge Street, Bridge Street ends just to the right of uh Mr.

Du Bois' house.

Uh and uh it's a dead end.

But uh when the properties uh were before it was bored, a number of conditions on how they should look and how they should be built, were placed on the uh certificate of appropriateness for each one, and uh we went ahead and we built the the structures as you see them.

Uh that'll give you an idea of the lots, and uh Mr.

Richard Gordon, who's here with me tonight, he owned both lots.

He bought them, put them into an LLC, one in his wife's name, D, and the other one in his name.

Uh that's the uh property to the right, and uh he ultimately sold that to uh Mr.

Du Bois, who is here as well.

Uh and Mr.

Rick Richard Gordon's son David is the gentleman that has actually participated in this process uh for the certificate of appropriateness, uh, which was ultimately granted.

He is the contractor for the two buildings or residences.

Unfortunately, after we got our certificate of proprieteness, he showed up at the building office for building permit about four or five days beyond the one-year statute.

So he couldn't get the permit, which required us to come back, and we did, uh at least David did, and he got the certificate of appropriateness.

Uh, and that was granted back in uh 2023.

Since then, uh David has been living in the house uh which is uh lot 53 or 47 uh Bridge Street, which is the one on the left, uh and uh the one on the right is lot 52, that's 45 Bridge Street, and that's the one that was sold to and occupied by Mr.

Du Bois.

After the houses were constructed, pursuant to the requirements of the certificate of appropriateness, David uh decided he wanted to put in a recreational portion in the backyard, and he checked with Lynn Small, who's here from Northeast Engineering, and she had done most of the engineering, if not all of it, uh, for the site.

Uh, and he inquired about the need for a building permit.

Lynn thought that he was putting in the equivalent of a deck or or an area in the backyard with tile, which would be similar to what a basketball court is.

We provided you with the um component parts of uh the area, which was dug up completely.

This area used to be uh the the old lake or basin, and there was a lot of materials dumped into the area to build up the area so it would be usable.

Uh and they got rid of a lot of material that didn't allow for percolation whatsoever, and uh they put two or three feet of stone, and then they put this basketball court, which is um um an amendment amenity to the house, but it crosses the center line of the two lots.

So David built this, and he was encountered by the zoning officer who inquired about the court and had he gotten permission uh from the zoning board of review uh because from the perspective of the zoning officer, uh it appeared that there was variance relief necessary to allow this quote structure to be created.

Uh Lynn didn't think it was a structure, neither did David, but nonetheless, the zoning officer took the position that it was a structure, uh, and as such, it crossed over a lot line, which violated setback requirements, and it also uh exceeded in the zoning officer's opinion the lot coverage if it were a structure.

So we were requested by the zoning officer, one to come back to the historic district commission, because he felt that in looking at the plans that were approved as soon to the certificate of appropriate, uh no basketball court was shown on plans.

So we felt that we should come back to the historic district commission before filing anything before the zoning board to ask for zoning relief.

So we did that.

Uh I filed one application for Dordon LLC, and I followed that up later with the application for uh Francis and Kelly Dubois because they had purchased property and they were a different applicant.

So we are prepared to go forward and to address the concerns of the planner whose uh staff report uh was not favorable.

She just took the position that this kind of a facility uh doesn't belong in the uh historic zone.

Uh so knowing that we would have to address her concerns, I engage at the services of Frederick Statura, who's here with me tonight, is a preservation planner, and I submitted uh uh his uh curriculum Vitae, and it might be already out of the application uh itself.

So I would ask the chair how she wishes me to proceed with a qualifying Alfred, uh Fred uh Statura as an expert in uh preservation uh testimony and have him share with you his review of the situation, uh the buildings that were constructed, uh, and in particular address some of the concerns expressed by staff report by uh Ms.

Chin.

Okay, so Mr.

Silva, we'll begin first by just confirming Ms.

Chin, we did not have this C V in our packet, correct?

So we should accept this as an exhibit.

Yes, we should accept it as an exhibit.

Okay, so we'll start there.

So I'm gonna request a motion to accept exhibit A of 47 Bridge Street and 45 Bridge Street.

Um, the C V of Mr.

Statura Um proposed, I'll leave it up there.

So all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Um Mr.

Silva, ask if Mr.

Satura could come before the commission, just briefly speak to his um CV and experience and historic preservation.

We'll make a determination.

Talk a little bit of his qualifications and his his back experience, although I don't think Fred's had the pleasure of being before this historic district commission.

Okay.

He has in Providence, Bristol, and a lot in Maryland where he uh worked here.

Okay.

Just can I ask one quick question, though, first?

Just for clarification, is it your position that this is not just for clarification?

So your your position is that this is not a structure, is that correct?

Well we're I'm I'm prepared to go ahead with that assumption being correct, but I personally don't think it's a structure, but the zoning officer took a different position.

And quite frankly, zoning officers have a great uh wealth of uh knowledge and uh under Rhode Island law, the zoning officer can make an opinion.

And if he makes an opinion, uh he's the one that uh can make that opinion part of the application.

So I can just uh I can disagree with him, but I don't think it makes sense to disagree.

I would just go ahead and say, well, if that's what the city says.

Okay.

It's a structure, and I'm violating lot coverage and a lot setbacks.

We'll just do what we have to do to approach the appropriate board and ask for relief.

And I haven't filed anything, as I mentioned, with the zoning board, because I think the first step is to come back the historic district commission and see if we could uh obtain permission to allow what has been built to remain.

And uh you'll see from uh the photographs that uh I submitted with the application uh at the suggestion of the zoning officer.

Uh I think it's Mr.

Dennis uh Mr.

Armour.

Yeah.

Uh he thought that the first thing we had to do was to make this thing disappear from site from Bridge Street in particular.

And David went ahead and he erected uh substantial fence, lattice, substantial plantings, and a couple of the pictures that you'll see, which were taken from Bridge Street looking down between the two structures themselves.

You can hardly see uh the facility itself.

Uh that's the one that I'm referring to.

So I asked Fred uh to um do a site visit, uh check the regulations uh that would apply from the historic district commission, check the historic district commission itself, uh, and uh uh render an opinion which he would share uh with the historic district commission.

Okay.

Uh Fred indicated that in his efforts to prepare for this, uh, he did not find that uh basketball court is uh unpermitted use.

It's permitted by zoning, and it's also permitted by this district commission, uh historic district commission, uh, in other areas.

And I think you'll see that uh Ms.

Chin's report suggests that basketball facilities, recreational facilities are allowed in a historic district uh in Bellevue Avenue and in Ocean Drive, but she found that there was no similar uh facility in the historic district commission.

Fred, however, has taken a bunch of pictures, which I have.

I don't think uh I can give you copies of what he took.

If we can use the he took the pictures all around the area in that historic district, and in particular the area just surrounding the perimeter, uh this these properties are on the far extreme area of the historic district, you're almost out of the historic district.

Uh but uh there are other commercial uses, and in particular in Storo Park, which is in the district uh for basketball uh facilities.

So I don't know if I can it's late to submit these, but I made 10 copies uh seven for the board.

I'm uh okay.

So commission, I'm gonna request a motion to accept exhibit B for 47 Bridge Street and 45 Bridge Street.

Um photos from the neighborhood of similar um examples of sport courts.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Uh Mr.

Silva, I'm just gonna ask in the spirit of keeping us on track and time for this evening.

Um, because you made a statement about um speaking to the buildings themselves.

The applicants, uh the applications before us this evening are specific to the sport court, so we don't necessarily need to come back to relevance related to the structures that have already been built.

Okay, so just before you have your other witnesses come up, just want to bring that to the pictures of the structures that have been built according to this board's uh approval uh were included just so you can understand where the facility that needs to be considered as non uh as non-contributing uh to these two structures.

Uh and you will see in pictures that uh Fred took, these lots were absolutely abandoned.

We didn't even know they were there.

In fact, the city of Newport, unfortunately, it was using as a dumping ground for um public works uh materials, and that all got cleaned up and the two houses that were built.

I personally think that they're beautifully done.

The best materials were used, uh, and uh we took every uh effort to make sure that we did what the Stark District Committee told us to do.

So if I could have Fred Stutura uh sworn in, yes, and he'll be able to describe his background.

Absolutely.

Okay.

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, please.

Yes, my name is Frederick Stitchura.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Statura.

Uh yes, for the past 17 years, I was the supervisor uh of planning with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which is the seventh largest planning organization in the United States.

Our jurisdiction takes in Montgomery County and uh Prince George's County in the Greater Washington, D.C.

area.

Part of my role there was to be liaison with the historic preservation commissions uh with that particular agency.

I also am a professor of historic preservation law and public policy at the University of Maryland Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.

I've also taught at uh Roger Williams University and the School of Architecture and Planning with uh course in historic uh preservation and uh historic preservation law and public policy and also uh planning.

And I also taught at the Boston Architectural College, a course in historic preservation law.

In addition to those uh jobs, uh I am involved with the Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions.

I'm president and chairman of the board of that statewide preservation organization, where our main goal is that of commissioner training and education.

So we go around the state of Maryland and the Greater Washington, DC area, meeting with commissions like yourselves to do uh various training opportunities with certified local governments uh uh in various areas of uh historic preservation, such as uh law, public policy, design review, sustainability, all these important topics that commissioners should be familiar with.

Um and uh I've also been involved with preservation in the town of Bristol, representing individual clients and historic organizations, as well as representing uh the Providence Preservation Society, and I was also involved with the public policy committee committee for the preservation society of Newport County.

Uh I've been in the field of preservation for the past 30 years or more.

Okay, thank you.

Um Commission questions or comments about uh Mr.

Statura's C V.

No.

With that, I'll uh request a motion of the commission.

Oh, sure.

I was gonna we want to accept him as an expert first.

Is it a question about that?

Okay, certainly an expert.

Okay.

Um so request a motion to accept um Mr.

Statura as an expert witness in the field of historic preservation relative to the applications of 47 and 45 Bridge Street.

Salmo second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Got that housekeeping out of the way.

Okay.

So we'll build and uh basketball described the build subsequent to the construction of the uh yes, I was engaged uh as an expert.

Yes, I was engaged as an expert.

I made uh three site visits to the property on different weather conditions and different times of the day as well.

And you describe one and put together and couldn't address the concerns.

Sorry, McDonald.

Yes, I'd happily do that.

So I think in this particular instance, uh, we're dealing with a very important historic district.

The point area is one of the most important districts in Newport.

And however, in this particular case, we're dealing with a building that is new construction, buildings that are new construction.

We're talking about non-contributing buildings within a historic district.

As uh Mr.

Silva pointed out, these two buildings, these two uh residences, uh, were built.

They you've got COA from this uh from this body here.

They were built with the finest materials, and they are compatible within the historic district.

It's a great picture right there.

Um with that, however, we have the issue of uh this basketball court and extended what we could call an extended patio.

Uh one of the things that I would say when if I were reviewing this case is staffing view, I would look obviously at the impact that this would have, although it's a non-contributing property, uh, the impact that it would have on the historic district itself, the integrity uh of the historic district, how does it impact it?

Does it negatively impact?

My professional opinion is that this does not negatively impact uh the historic district at all.

As a matter of fact, it's my opinion that property owner has done all the proper things, all the appropriate things with respect to design considerations regarding the development of the basketball court and this extended patio.

Some of these things we look at, obviously, both with contributing buildings but also with non-contributing buildings, and we have to look at the context of this property.

As Mr.

Silva stated, uh this is right at the very, very edge of the delineated line, the delineated boundary of the historic district.

It's not in the center of the point neighborhood, it's not on probably the most important street, which is Washington Street, it is at the very edge.

So, what do we have at the very edge of the uh of the historic district here?

Uh the site lines, when we look outside uh in the uh direction of uh uh uh the uh carding fields, you have cardium fields, you're looking at a locomotive uh with the Newport Dinner train there.

Uh you're looking at uh busy intersection, uh it's not a quiet, secluded part of the point neighborhood.

As a matter of fact, some people just wouldn't even consider that to be part of the point neighborhood because it's on the very, very edge uh of that.

You have commercial uh right on top of this property with 10 speed spokes, uh and uh you know, there is just a lot of activity, a lot of commercial activity, and it really is this very edge as we transition away from the historic core of the point neighborhood into more commercial areas, such as you know, the the the large Mario Hotel uh and other enterprises uh along that part of Bridge Street and America's Cup Avenue.

So that's the context in which we're dealing with at this point.

If this was on Washington Street next door to St.

John the Evangelist Church, I would have probably have a little bit more concern about this, but here we're at the very edge, and I think that this property owner has done everything that would be that I would recommend to mitigate and to minimize the impact that this private basketball or extended patio uh has on the neighborhood.

So let's let's just think about some of the considerations uh when building this type of uh when building uh this type of private facility.

Um of the things we would look at obviously is visibility.

So we typically look at what is visible from a public right away or street.

Uh I've driven by that a couple of times.

I actually brought an architect friend of mine by it, and I had to actually point out, yeah, the basketball court is back there, uh, you know, behind that fence.

Uh and you can see the net, sure you can see the net.

The net, however, is uh one that is controlled, the height is controlled, it can be uh you know lowered uh as well to reduce visibility.

So the property owner took that into consideration when when constructing uh the basketball nets, the basketball hoops.

So again, it's not in the front yard, it's not in the side yard, it's not uh, you know, even in the driveway.

Uh, what if this property owner uh decided not to build a basketball court but decided to put two hoops on each of the ends of those garages with the historic district commission be opposed to having hoops attached to a garage?

I think not, uh, which would be clearly visible from the public street right away.

So we're looking at aesthetics and making sure that this basketball court, this patio, is harmonious with the historic character of the neighborhood.

Again, there's nothing historic here, as Mr.

Silva pointed out.

This was a vacant lot, uh and I remember the lot when it was vacant, it had a lot of debris there, and it was unattractive, it wasn't cut, it was overgrown, and some of the photos that we submitted as an exhibit uh show that uh condition.

Uh so again, uh the aesthetics here were taken into consideration.

Uh, when the basketball court was being uh built and developed, they used what's known as pickle grip technology, uh, which was this uh this type of reversible uh snap sports type of interlocking system.

So again, when we're looking at uh anything that may impact a historic district, uh, you know, we look at reversibility.

This is entirely reversible.

The whole thing can probably be taken down in an afternoon.

Uh it is also uh economically friendly, economically, but environmentally friendly, in the sense that this uh technology, the snap sports technology, uh is uh completely permeable.

I went there in the pouring rain, we'd had some bad weather, and there was no ponding, no puddles, no nothing.

It was completely being absorbed into uh the ground.

So it's a self-draining design that doesn't contribute anything harmful, you know, to the point neighborhood, which we know uh you know, there's a sensitivity towards uh flooding and mitigation uh has taken place here uh with the construction of this basketball court.

Also, uh this slide shows the color here that was chosen, it was purposely chosen.

Um this pickle grip technology comes in, if you look at the website, comes in yellow, orange, bright red, and bright blue.

Uh but uh the property owner decided to use more muted color here, again, uh to uh not bring attention to the basketball court.

Uh also uh you can see in this photograph that's up here uh that there was a cedar uh fence that was put up with true lattice uh above.

Um he took the care to actually uh match this with existing property owner fences so that it's very consistent uh with regard to that.

So again, these are aesthetic considerations uh that took place.

Uh as far as uh lighting goes, there is no additional light pollution here.

There's no specific lighting that illuminates these courts at night.

So again, there's no uh light pollution.

Uh I think there might be a standard spotlight, backyard spotlight on the back of the house, and that's about it.

So again, uh the lighting is is non-existent, and the fencing is compatible with what is uh around it.

Uh as far as the impact on the landscape, uh, this is an appropriate improvement on the landscape because as I said, you had uh a vacant lot.

This is now the backyard.

Uh it's a multi-use patio that also serves as the playing court as well.

The property owner has taken great care and great expense to soften the property by extensive planting around it.

Uh there's rows, there are rose laurel plants that will grow eight to ten feet or more in height, uh, which will uh again block uh any view of the basketball court in any in all directions.

Uh also the types of plantings that were used were very sympathetic to the area around uh the neighborhood.

And uh again, even uh softening up the uh the the stone uh the stone veneer on the house, there's an apple espalier that was planted there as well.

So I mean this great care and great thought that went to all aspects of this.

This basketball court wasn't just you know haphazardly thrown up uh and uh and and constructed again uh being sensitive to everything in the area, uh, even though it's a non-contributing building.

So the only standard here that we're looking at is compatibility.

You know, is this compatible or is it not compatible?

And again, if you look at this slide, we see the 10-speed spokes building right in the backyard here.

There, you know, uh in the backyard, when you look again, you see the locomotive, you see 10 speed spokes.

Uh there's nothing really historic that in the viewshed uh other than uh the building right to the left uh on Bridge Street, which is owned by the Newport uh Restoration Foundation NRF.

Uh but where the basketball is look, basketball court is located, it really has no impact you know on any landscape or any historic uh buildings uh in the neighborhood.

Actually, basketball court in the show.

Um well, what I did was I did drive around extensively, and it really was hard to see, but I pulled up an aerial and looked to see if I could find any basketball courts in the point area.

And the only one I found was uh the public one at Storra Park.

Uh and uh in the packet that uh uh was presented to you, I have a photograph.

Um I think it's the third from the third page from the back.

Um it shows uh the basketball hoop and uh asphalt pavement at Storrow Park and the important uh 18th century houses on Washington Street that are clearly within uh view of the basketball court.

Uh so again, this is this is actually a much uh I think a much more detrimental uh type of construction of this basketball court in an important area, although it's a public, it's for public use, it's in a public park.

You know, it's different.

Absolutely.

Uh but you know, it it is there, and these historic houses, you know, overlook the basketball court.

In the case at Bar here, uh it is not the case.

You know, it's it's secluded, uh, it is enclosed by fencing.

Uh the fencing and the plantings will also mitigate any kind of noise uh that's being used here.

And again, uh if we're looking at use, this is a private use.

Uh this is for use of uh young young children, you know, uh young adults uh to play, you know, at their leisure.

Uh so again, it's it doesn't have any kind of public component where uh we're gonna be attracting cars or other people or whatever.

It's it's completely private use.

So I believe that it has minimal impact on the historic district.

Uh I believe that there was great care that was taken into the construction of this patio and uh basketball court.

And I think that you know, it is really a case of first impression for this historic district commission, because it's the only private, as far as I know, it's the only private basketball court in the point neighborhood outside of the public court that I pointed out on Storo at Sorrow Park.

However, you know, basketball courts are uh allowed in historic districts, and here in Newport, as Mr.

Silver had pointed out, um, it is permitted in uh on Bellevue Avenue and uh some of the on Ocean Drive as well.

So I think that when we, you know, what you have to do, or what you should do, what any historic president of the district commission does is you apply your standards.

So there are no design standards for basketball courts in historic districts, at least in as I far as I know in Newport that doesn't exist.

So what you have to do is you have to consider the facts, you have to consider the design selections that were made, the materials that were made, and see how this you know impacts or doesn't impact the historic district.

Again, this is a non-contributing property.

There were no historic gardens that were ripped up to put this in.

There were no historic structures or or ancillary buildings that were taken down to put this in.

This is somebody's backyard, it's a shared backyard, and it's for private use in an area that's at the very fringe, the very end of the point historic district.

So one of the things uh Mr.

Satur, if I could just interrupt you for a moment, do you have how much more do you have to go through?

I'm wrapping it up.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Um because it's a non-contributing building, how do you apply the standards?

That's a question.

And typically, when we interpret the Secretary of Interior standards.

Yeah.

Okay.

So again, I think you have to look at Secretary of Interior Standards, look at the fact that there are no design regulations with regard to how do you build an appropriate basketball court in a historic district.

You know, this there's no answer to that.

Well, what you do look at, you look at the sighting, you look at the materials, you look at uh the considerations of aesthetics uh and impact on the landscape.

So I think in this particular case, this is a case where property owner of a non-contributing property has done the very best that one can do to build this type of facility.

Okay, thank you.

I don't uh add any public witnesses, but I'm making commission aware of the fact that Lynn Small and Sure, if you have any questions as to how uh her engineering company affected this and what was done and how it was she would be able to answer that.

Okay.

And Mr.

Gordon, David Boy, who lives in the facility as a part-time resident boy.

He's not here today because he's already left Florida.

So until sometime this coming spring, there won't be anybody in the house.

He doesn't intend to do anything like we're in tournaments or whatnot.

This is for his private use, and he has three boys for young adults uh when they visit um they use the facility.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Silva.

Um, so for the commission, I'm just going to um read off the standard that does apply to the structure before us this evening, which is 17 TACT 80 060 B1 for compatibility.

The alteration of a non-contributing structure or existing walls, gates, gateposts, and fences made subject to review pursuant to section 17 tact 80 100 of this chapter shall be generally of size, scale, sighting, massing, setback materials and detail, as will be compatible with other structures and the surrounding historic district.

Um, I would just like to comment on Mr.

Statura's um view about the historic district and the property located on the edge.

We do not discriminate against the location of a property within a historic district.

All properties are created equal.

So regardless if it's on the edge of what is perceived as the uh you know, the end of the point for many on the commission, this is actually viewed as the entrance to the point in this location.

So I'll just make that as a statement.

I'm gonna ask um our preservation planner to share her um view and notes that were shared in the um staff report this evening and also the destructure, uh the view of the structure by the zoning officer as a structure in and of itself.

Yes, the zoning officer um had determined that this was a structure.

Um we're not here to discuss the fact that this was um built over property lines.

That's something that will be reviewed by the zoning board if it gets there.

Um I mean, additionally, this was, you know, I the offense, but the this was done without permits um or without you know any approvals, and so you know, the careful care that was taken was maybe not maybe overlooked some aspects.

And so um also, you know, including store park, it's a you know, public park.

It's pretty um applic, it's pretty appropriate for a sports court to be within a public park.

Um, and also to mention, you know, not to mention the the proximity of the park to this property.

Um and so we're gonna be talking about the um if it's appropriate for you know historic uh for historic district to especially in the point.

I know you mentioned that some there are some in um Bellevue or on um Ocean Drive, but they're characterized by by larger lots with some um finer amenities.

And so the point district is is really uh a special neighborhood and that's characterized by small lots.

Um and I'd like the ECC to focus on on those aspects um and also think about um I guess historic um building patterns and if this fits into that.

Uh one other point about Storer Park um is that I can't speak to historically what may have transpired with the creation of that basketball court, but as a present um municipal activities are exempt from the zoning ordinance, so a public uh city basketball court would not come before you.

And not should not be considered as part of the surround structure within the surrounding historic district because it's a municipal structure.

I leave that determination to you.

Okay, understood.

Um and so Ms.

Chen is also so in your staff report to the comment you just made, the size scale, massing setback and materials are not appropriate for the point neighborhood, which is characterized by densely populated small lots of colonial and 19th century dwellings, generally of modest size.

Well, the structures that the sport court is related to are non-contributing and were built in 2024, the relative neighborhood that we're discussing, the surrounding historic district of um the Newport National Historic Landmark District, um, is of those additional small lots of colonial and 19th century.

So it's the fabric of the entire district, whether this be um associated to a non-contributing building or a contributing.

So I will um begin my commentary and then open it up for questions and comments from the commission.

Um, for all of the details presented um before us this evening.

I appreciate our expert um testimony to what is perceived as compatibility within the neighborhood.

However, um I am in alignment with our staff, and that the as viewed as a structure, a sport court is not compatible um in this historic district.

Um, and I would be against this application according to 17 TACT 80060B1.

And with that, I will open it up to the view of other commissioners.

Mr.

Mr.

Madsen, go ahead.

Sure.

Um thank you.

Um I would agree with the chair that just because it's on the edge and I find it unusual, not maybe unusual, maybe it's your intent that you took pictures from one direction to say it's on the edge, and they're also contributing buildings behind there that you have in your picture.

But to the other side, did you happen to look there at those two buildings that are owned by the NRF and one's actually a town building, one of the most historic in the country?

And you say that's on the edge, so it doesn't matter.

So I I object to that in wholeheartedly.

And to say that it's not a structure, no, we're not here to say that when you put two to three feet of foundation under it of stone, that calls it a structure anyway.

So I think uh we would agree with that.

And I would be um, and I think trying to pull in a public park as a as a comp to say this should be allowed is ridiculous, just so you know.

And I'll be voting against it as well.

Thank you.

And I been to Annapolis a lot of times.

I haven't seen any full basketball courts in people's backyards and historic districts there once.

So you're not approved in your backyard either.

So um thank you, Mr.

Matson.

I'll just um speak to our preservation planner did speak to sport courts or other um like facilities in other districts within Newport, particularly in the Ocean Drive and Bellevue Avenue.

It is not to say that they are allowed generally in those other districts.

It goes by each individual property and whether it was found to be compatible with the respective property in which it was added.

So I think it's important to say that it is not a broad stroke statement that sports courts are allowed in other districts.

It's again specific to the application of that specific property.

Um, so also important that it's not a generalized theme that it's allowed outside of the point district.

So Mr.

Bella.

There's also one big light here, too, by the way, that you didn't see apparently when you said there's an old lighting.

Yeah, big light in your picture.

Um I would agree with my fellow commissioners.

I do not see this as appropriate at all in the point neighborhood.

Um I don't think it's compatible.

Um I think there were intents on putting it in that did not follow a protocol.

So you're supporting arguments and using selective materials and planting and stuff.

Doesn't really hold much water with me since no permits were pulled.

Uh if you're being thoughtful, you'd pull permits.

Um I'm also suspicious about why this level of court was installed in a residential neighborhood.

And you mentioned once in your statement that is a facility.

If this is a facility, it doesn't belong in this property, period.

So with that said, I would not be supporting this.

Ms.

O'Brien.

I I'm not going to repeat what my fellow commissioners have said.

I'm in total agreement with what's uh what their feelings that have been expressed tonight.

And I feel the major issue here is the lack of compatibility uh in that particular point neighborhood.

It's just not it's not an appropriate use of the property.

I also um imagine that had this been included in the original applications for the houses, it would have been roundly disapproved.

You wouldn't have built house.

Yeah.

No question.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from the commission before Mr.

Silva, if you have any other closing remarks, but I just want to make sure if there's any other feedback from the commission that differs from any other opinion.

I don't uh I will say one thing that the audio system in this city hall chamber is very, very poor.

Uh I missed a lot of what was said.

So I uh make a request uh if I can uh to get whatever record is kept either verbal or written, uh, and I intend to take an appeal.

Okay, any other so no further closing questions or comments.

Okay.

Uh I'd ask a question if it were decided that this is not the structure.

Would the decision of the district historic district commission be different?

You wouldn't have any non-contributing aspect.

I think I'll cut that one off and say it wouldn't be before us structure.

So whether it ultimately is determined to be a structure or not would impact whether this review this evening was proper, but under the assumption that it is a structure, uh this is the review we're doing.

Yeah, then based on the fact that we just spoke.

Right.

And the application was made, so it's it's being heard.

I have no uh further evidence.

Yeah.

Um, this is the sure as an opportunity just to clarify the record.

Thank you.

Uh, just a point of clarification.

There are no lights uh on the property.

That's a security light, it's a motion sensor light.

It's basically to make sure that intruders, if anyone intrudes on the property, the sensor light goes on.

There are no basketball lights at all.

Okay.

The record please reflect that.

Absolutely.

And and the commission does not have purview over lighting, so that's that definitely won't be consideration.

Yeah, you know, in this type of understood situation.

Um so with that, and just to confirm for the record, um, my view, and we can um confirm with the others that I'm in alignment with the view of the zoning official and our preservation planner that this is a structure and as such is subject to the same standards for non-contributing structures um as stated in the application.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application.

We will do these separately.

First, we will begin with C5 47 Bridge Street, plat 16 lot 053 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060 B1.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

This is for approval or approval.

I'm sorry.

I think so let's restate that.

So request a motion.

Um first we begin with the application of C5 47 Bridge Street Plat 16 lot 053 as presented, citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80 060 B1 for compatibility.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

I'm given that this is uh one standard that is applicable.

Um that vote of denial is 17 tact 80 060 B1 for compatibility.

Next, I will request a motion to approve the application of 45 Bridge Street Platte 16 lot 052, citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 B1 for compatibility.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

I uh again stating that this is an application for a non-contributing structure relative to 17 TAC 80 060 B1, which supports the denial of all commission members.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to present.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna take a 10-minute recess and we will reconvene um just before 8 30.

Okay.

Um C seven.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, we're gonna reconvene this evening.

Um and we will I'm gonna ask the vice chair to um read the application of C7.

This is the application of KHP Capital Partners at one Belleview, plat 25 lot 124 contributing property for permission to replace all windows and exterior doors in the main historic block.

Okay, welcome.

Good evening.

Um members of the commission, my name's Rob Stallsman.

I'm at Adler Pollock and China and Providence, an office here at Bellevue Avenue, and um representing KHP Capital Partners, the applicant with me as Jeff Moniz, the uh architect uh of record on the project.

Um just uh it's worth a second to recap where we are.

And in August, you may re you may recall in August you considered this matter.

You considered an application that was originally submitted on May 21 that was supplemented by uh materials dated August 7 and your staff report of July 7.

And then you heard the matter on August 14, at which time you uh moved to approve and grant a certificate of appropriateness subject to and if you look at the recording of your meeting, the motion was uh to grant a certificate of appropriateness to approve the app, I'm sorry, to approve the application with the condition that the windows be replaced with all wood, true divided light windows confirmed and reviewed in partnership with city staff and the preservation planner.

And that was after a discussion about this being a commercial building and having to have impact rated windows, and it was unclear exactly what was available in terms of a replacement product with respect to impact rated windows.

So then on um September 17, we supplemented, and Mr.

Moniz will go through this.

We supplemented the record with um a submission of all wood windows because the window profiles that you received had the indura clad aluminum exterior clad windows.

So those were supplemented with the all wood uh windows indoors.

Then uh through the course of the fall, September, October, Ms.

Chen and um and Mr.

Moniz had communications regarding uh trying to find custom all wood true divided light windows that were also impact rated.

Simultaneously with that, Mr.

Ward, your building official, and Mr.

Moniz and and Ms.

Chen and I had a series of emails confirming that they windows have to be impact rated because of the commercial uh structure, and also um uh Mr.

Monies will testify that there doesn't we cannot locate a all wood true divided light replacement window.

We can we have identified the Pella architectural window, which you've approved in this district before.

Has the same putty profile, sash pans, mullion profile.

Unfortunately, they're not true divided light, they're simulated divided light.

When I say unfortunately, only because it just doesn't exist.

We're in a bit of a Hobson's choice.

I would also point out, just to keep this moving along, that your policy statement on window and door replacements from April 21, April 20, 2021, specifically states that double pane insulated glazing with simulated divide divided lights is acceptable in replacing true divided light windows.

As a final point of as factual background, point out that while most of the windows here are uh are being replaced, are not our are original.

The doors, some of them are fiberglass.

We have a hodgepodge of different materials being replaced.

So Mr.

Moniz will testify as to uh the process we got.

I think we're not here for permission to replace the windows.

We're here for merely for permission to use the simulated divided light versus the true divided light windows.

They will be all wood.

We've already gotten the certificate of appropriateness to replace the window.

So the question is are the true divided light or simulated light?

They will be all wood, even though your regulations guidance also allows the aluminum clad exterior.

We passed that Rubicon.

We absolutely agree they're gonna be all wood.

The final issue is simulated versus true divided light.

And Mr.

Moniz will testify as to why we physically cannot accommodate the true divided light and meet the profile requirements and more importantly, the safety code requirements uh for this structure.

Okay, under sense.

Yes, understood.

We'll get Mr.

Moni's sworn in.

Yep, yeah.

We'll try to keep this.

Sounds good.

Uh, 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.

It's Jeffrey Monas.

Okay, thank you, and welcome back.

All right, nice to see you again.

Um, so yeah, after our meeting in August, I went to Brad Ward, the building official, and I submitted a spec of a true divided light impact glass window.

And he rejected that window and said he could not issue a permit for a true divided light window.

Um he pointed me to the section of the building code.

Um this is section 1609.2.

It's protection of openings, and it basically defines um the requirements that an impact rated window has to meet.

So it said in windborne degree regions, which we are one of them, glazing in buildings shall be impact resisted, um uh meeting the requirements of an approved impact resistant standard or ASTM E1996 and ASTM B1886 referred here as below.

And it says glazed openings located within 30 feet of grade shall meet the requirements of the large missile test of ASTME 1996 and glazed openings located more than 30 feet above grade shall meet the provisions of the small missile test of ASTME 1996.

So, with referencing that, he said that he would not approve a true divided light window in any way, shape, or form for this building.

Um, I did look at true divided light windows that were impact rated, and the only ones that are are steel windows because they rely on the strength of the mully in to resist the impact.

So Brad's pushback on the true divided light impact last week.

He said, Well, the wood mully and cannot resist the impact.

So if the projectile hits the wood mulllian and it breaks, all the glass falls out, and it doesn't matter if it's impact rated or not.

Um he also wants the testing to back this up.

Uh so I went back to Jill right after I talked to him about that, and she sent me an email on the 17th and said, you know, I understand there are no true divided light windows that are impact rated.

I see that there are all wood window options that are impact rated.

Please choose an SDL option and I will confer with the chair to see if this needs to go back in front of the commission, as that was the condition of the approval.

So I sent the Pella Reserve traditional line that we've used many times over.

You approved it for the boys and girls club behind this.

It's on the corner of Mary Street and High Street, right behind the Viking.

We've used this window on Washington Square, the Points, Ocean Drive, Bellevue Avenue, all over the place.

Um I submitted that to her and said, look, Brad accepts this window as an impact rated window.

Um, and so kind of where do we go from from here?

Um she got back to me in October and asked about looking at custom window options.

Uh so I did talk to three different custom window companies.

One she recommended was Boston Sash, and they sort of echoed what I've heard from the others that they do not have an impact-rated window.

Um they had impact-rated storms at one point, um, but at a certain size, they couldn't pass the testing.

Um, so they kind of do not do any testing of their windows.

They sort of explained to me just like two of the other smaller manufacturers that just to go through the time and expense it would take to get a custom one-off window tested and impact certified, um, is well beyond what they would be.

Uh so we're kind of stuck here.

We can't pull a building permit because Brad did not accept our window spec that came out of the last meeting, and we're just trying to find a path forward.

Okay.

So just to confirm for the commission, then the window being presented this evening is a Pellar reserve all wood simulated divided light, which meets the impact rated standard for commercial building.

And one other point, like when we did talk to the custom people, like the the thing that all of them said were, you know, even if we could make this like the profile is gonna change, right?

We're going from an eighth-inch thick single pane of glass, and now it's a one-inch thick glass assembly with multiple layers and a laminate.

They said the sashes would all get thicker, everything would get bulked up in order to pass these tests, um, which is why they don't really do them anymore.

Okay.

Well, that's where we're at.

Um, council, any other questions or comments?

That's our story, and we're sticking to commissioners.

Any follow-up questions based on the new window being requested this evening.

I'm good.

I feel like we're backed into a corner.

Yeah, we've been in the corner for months.

Um, I would just like to ask our um our historic planner if they if she has any um is this the story?

Is this the end of the story?

So this is the story.

Um council had just um you know asked if they had appealed the building officials what was it?

Can you just speak to that?

I don't know if that was a thought that crossed your mind as yeah, joining the same building board.

He said we'd never get it because this is a category risk one building the high risk of loss of life that there were in the storm because it will always be occupied.

It's not like it, you know, is a restaurant, so like nobody's gonna be eating in a restaurant during a hurricane, obviously, but you might have to weather storm at the hotel Viking if you are here from somewhere else.

So that risk category puts us in a whole other and you will have cell service in that building, apparently.

We have learned this evening.

So all your kids can stream.

Okay.

We do have representative.

We resisted participating in that.

That's all good.

Little levity this evening.

Okay, any other are you questions or comments?

Looks like Mr.

Ba has Mr.

Bala.

Um microphone, Frank.

I understand your plight.

Uh I sympathize with your plate.

I don't think it's appropriate for this building.

Um I don't think replacing the windows, even though you have a uh ruling that says you can is appropriate.

Uh furthermore, as a commissioner, I don't think we should be setting this as a standard of construction because we have other buildings in town that may or may not follow suit.

Uh so with with that, I have I have uh reservations.

Understanding what you put before me.

It doesn't make it more palatable for me.

I understand that.

I just would say going forward.

Brad is very clear that any commercial building that is replacing windows will need to be factory.

And we do also have an unusual circumstance here.

You've got a four and a half five story building that's a rather unique location in storm you know in your storm surge area.

So uh I you could rely on your solicitor to talk about precedent setting, but in this instance, the the building um has has this mix of of replacement needs and and we think this is the most this is the most appropriate replacement building, which I did submit that we did talk about the true divided by window.

It's not like we didn't have the conversation, you know.

So if he won't issue us a building permit, like we're just we we can't move forward.

I understand that.

I guess uh we arrived here based on a report of asbestos in caulking on the outside of the windows.

Uh that report had very uh narrow uh uh parameters, and now we're taking out all the windows and we're replacing everything.

Um I just I I don't feel comfortable about this.

Uh and that's my personal opinion.

I I would just just for the record that that certificate of appropriateness was issued.

And reported.

I don't know yes, I was part of that.

I wasn't involved with the project at the time, but you know, you review the record with application complete, you considered it and voted.

I I was part of that decision.

I understand that.

You're now here now asking me to make a follow-up.

May I add to that?

Um, I have to agree with Mr.

Bala.

I I recall that we arrived at that option because at least for myself, one of the big things, and I don't want to get on the soapbox again, but when it comes to historic windows, especially on a building of this scale, of this era.

Um, and I'll bring it back to the reflection reflectiveness in the panes as you, for example, walk or drive by the building.

And that was really, I think what one of the things that helped us arrive to the true divided light being a potential decent option as far as replacing in kind with a wood window.

It would still emulate that feature that does not get um duplicated in new windows.

And at least for me, that was maybe a compromise.

Um, I wasn't a fan of or I didn't support the replacement of the windows at all.

And after sitting through further education on how things can be mitigated, removed from old windows down to the bare uh wood, putty included, glue included.

Um, I recognizing that it is a challenge and not easy.

But you know, we're trying to, we're talking about custom wood windows, and and I don't know if it's an option to revisit that, but um I I do not support a single pane window, uh simulated divided light.

I do not think that it's going to provide the same um display of workmanship and craftsmanship that went into putting those windows together 100 some odd years ago.

Um, and I just simply can't support it.

So unfortunately, I I just don't feel that this is going to be a compatible.

I understand that, but let's be clear.

You've approved the replacement of the windows.

You approved that with the condition with the condition that the condition that they be replaced with all wood windows, subject to review of their compatibility with your building code.

That's the condition.

I I would argue that's the condition.

If you go back and look at the record, and and you and now we're in a position where the glass is going to be replaced regardless.

Contracts have been let to remove those windows.

The contracts are based on your approval of the replacement of the windows.

Contracts have been let to set up the scaffolding, additional contracts because of the delays for painting the exterior wood, even though the endura clad is permitted by your regulations.

So I I understand the beauty of 100-year-old glass.

But that decision, that decision was made.

The the decision now is whether they're simulated divided or true divided with new glass.

Right.

Uh, I just want to clarify you're not wrong about that.

But the the difference between it's not necessarily about the glass, it's the whole thing, but the sim the true divided light was going to potentially at least maintain the again, what at least for me was a irreplaceable thing, an irreplaceable feature that's displayed by a true divided light window.

I would prefer that they don't get replaced at all, but if it's going to be, at least that would have been again somewhat of a compromise to maintain that particular display that those windows provide.

I still don't find it to be equivalent.

I don't believe it's in kind.

I don't believe it's compatible, but it was a compromise, at least from my position.

And now we're dialing it back, and therefore I cannot support it.

And I'm sorry about that.

I would also like to clarify the um the condition of the approval.

So the motion to approve in which was recorded, and I've stated to you this stated this to you before, is that the windows are were to be replaced with custom wood, true divided light windows to review by the preservation planner.

Any deviation of the project will have to get HTC approval.

And so that's why we're here today.

It's not because I didn't necessarily agree with what was proposed or that I disagreed with the the building official.

It's because the the deviation of the project had to get HTC approval.

And to clarify to that point, because at the time that we made that conditional approval, it was not relative to the building inspector and the impact rating.

It was due to the compatibility of the existing windows that were there.

So we approved it.

If it was appropriate to that type of window, that's why I timed it at the end of and added.

I said we need to work with the building.

I knew just before I even left that meeting that he wasn't going to accept this.

So I know like we can talk about how it should be going to him, but like we can't rewrite building codes here, and you can't leave us in between this fight between whether it's the historic preservation code or the building code and us unable to move forward in any fashion.

And just to have us totally locked, the bureaucracy of the approval is not.

I think this is an opportunity for some coordination between the commission and the building official uh in this type of project.

I and if I may make one additional legal point just for the record.

I am I am a little confused because your policy statement on window and door replacements at section two a paragraph three structures of window panes, e.g.

12 over 12, 2 over one, is extremely important.

It should be selected to be most historically accurate based on existing windows and historic photos as determined by the preservation planner.

So we're replacing them with the same structure, the same the same sequencing, and also replicating with the proposal the the again, the sashes, pans, mullions, putty profile.

And then the next sentence, which I stated earlier, double pane insulated glazing with simulated divided lights is acceptable in replacing true divided light windows.

All simulated divided lights shall contain spacer bars between the glazing.

And that's exactly the point.

And so just following your own regulations, we have this this is appropriate.

Could you just send you you were going off of the 2021 uh windows and doors uh guidance?

I I did send you on October 24th the updated guidance for windows endorsement 2025.

And so um, yeah, I think that we're here now.

We have to review um the application based on its own merits, and chair, if you'd like to continue the conversation between commissioners.

Um so one thing I was just gonna ask of you based on the conversation that you've had with the building inspector.

If in fact um the applicant is unable to find an impact related uh impact rated window that is true divided light, are you of the view that the window is being presented this evening is the next best most compatible window?

I believe that it as far as meeting impact rating, yes.

Okay, all wood window, simulated divided lights, at least there's no cladding on the exterior.

Um I think that's probably the best we're gonna get.

Although, you know, that's not to say that I I endorse any of the the replacement or any of that, but just speaking to uh answering your question specifically.

Yes, I do believe these are the best.

Okay, um, so the view of our preservation planner for myself personally.

Um, I do take that as the strong recommendation to align with the building official.

I agree with the um solicitor's comments as far as us needing to work with the building official here to find the most compatible um solution.

So as presented this evening, I would be in favor of open it up to other questions or comments.

Anyone Mr.

Finlay?

Um I think you've done your due diligence on this from what I've heard from the last meeting as well.

And um I also believe you followed the guidelines as well as you could on this, and so I would be in support of this.

Okay.

I would also be in support of this as there needs to be some sort of compromise here.

We can't just keep going back and forth month after month, and obviously you all need to move forward, and the contracts have been drawn, so I am definitely in support of this.

Okay, Mr.

Mountson, okay, Miss Moran.

I think I spoke my position.

I am opposed.

Okay.

Ms.

O'Brien.

I feel that we have to make this um I feel as though we have to make this uh compromise given the stage of um project that we're at.

Uh and I do feel uh with um my colleague that you guys have tried to do the best you can to meet the uh standards and the current and the guidance, and um I'm grateful for that much.

I guess um I guess I could support what you're asking of us.

Okay, um and I know Mr.

Ballet, you stated your view earlier.

Yes.

Okay, so general consensus.

Um, you know, we would bring this to a vote reading the commission.

I think you're likely going to get a favorable outcome.

Any other questions or comments to close?

No, thank you.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of one Bellevue Avenue Plat 25.

Lot 124 is presented this evening, which includes a Pellar Reserve all wood window with impact rating and simulated divided light, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, a one, a four, a five, and a seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Uh all those opposed.

I can I'll ask Mr.

Bala first to state his um reasoning for the denial.

Um I don't think the window is compatible with uh the uh historic nature of the building.

Okay, any specific standard you'd like to say?

I'm sorry, what were the standards?

A one, four, five, and seven.

A four preserved character.

Okay, fine.

Thank you, Ms.

Moran.

Uh I have a one retain historic character, a four preserved character, a five repair before replacement, and a seven minimize harm from alterations.

Okay, thank you.

You're all set.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, could you just spell your last name for me, please?

I want to make sure I have it correct.

S T O L Z M-A-N.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And three.

And three.

Ready?

This is the application of Stephen Santos of 40 Sherman Street, Platte 21, lot 117 contributing.

Uh this application is the result of a zoning violation in which applicants constructed a closet addition without HTC approval or building permits.

Okay, welcome.

We will get you both sworn in.

I'll do the um gentleman first.

If you raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth, but nothing but the truth, so help you God.

Yes, I do.

And state your name for the record.

Stephen Santos.

Okay.

40 Sherman Street.

Okay.

And similarly, 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.

Maria Nelson.

Okay, thank you.

And welcome this evening.

So before us, um, as noted in the um application, um, this did come before the commission as a violation.

Um, it believes, as we've seen through construction images, um, construction was undertaken on the property before coming before the HDC.

Um, and also zoning, I believe.

Um, if you could talk us through the status, as we can see, um, and what you're looking to accomplish with the construction that you've done.

Well, we uh sought to construct the addition of the closet, the back of our residential building, and the closet would be finished with uh premium red cedar shingles, as is used on the uh current house.

Uh it will be four feet wide, 10 feet long, nine feet tall, and the roof uh the roof was going to be uh pitched rubber roof, and there would be two small windows as you can see in some of the pictures.

Uh the closet is flush with the house, and it's flush with the back deck.

Okay, and oh go ahead.

Uh my turn.

Um we did this because there are no closets.

We have taken care of this house since we bought it in June, and we um have redone all our windows as we were told.

We have done everything.

We just needed a closet for when the kids come.

We are going to be reshingling the whole house once the weather breaks.

So everything will be done according to the whole new shingles.

So you won't have old shingles and new shingles.

The two little windows that they put are one foot wide by 18 or 20 inches long.

And you know, they have white now, but we were gonna paint those green, dark green, just like the rest of all the trim work, which will be repainted when they reshingled everything.

And then the little white trim there will be painted um green as well.

It I didn't have them, you know, when they did that, there is a pitch and the water goes out, but it's only one story that the first floor is nine nine feet high, not eight feet.

So they made it the same story.

As soon as you come into the house from the back stair, you the closet's right there, so it doesn't interfere with anything in the house.

We kept it all the integrity of the house.

And um, I just needed a closet because there were no closets on the first floor, and I don't know anybody who can live without a closet.

And um, and I my mistake was that uh when I ordered for the um uh shingles, the uh the uh the permit for the shingles.

I thought I could then build the closet with that permit.

That was my mistake.

So I I'm sorry, but I did get a permit.

Oh, and then we got we did get the permit for the shingles, but we haven't done that.

We're going to do it, and we were gonna then attach the shingles.

So it's just the story of four by eight is a closet.

I added the two little windows that are gonna be painted green just like the big windows because it's a closet, and I just needed a closet from when my kids come when we're there that there was no closet closet for the coats and your winter things.

And I just needed a closet from when my kids come when we're there, that there was no closet for the coats and your winter things.

So and you don't see it from the house from the front of the house.

You don't see this, like when that's all like in the driveway, when you go all the way back and you see in the driveway, that's gonna look just like the side of the house.

It's a picture that shows that.

That's yeah, like there.

Like when you go down to the driveway, it will look all like that.

The rest, because it's all going to be all renewed with red shingles that are okay.

So a couple of questions for you and also for a preservation planner.

Um so the windows have you replaced the windows since you purchased the home?

No.

No, we we uh we applied for HDC permission to put uh Anderson windows in.

No, we and we were talking uh with Gillian and uh realized they should be all wood, and well, we were going to put in Lincoln all wood windows to replace these damaged rotten windows that weren't functional.

Uh but Jilly advised us to see if we can find someone who could repair those windows, and that's what's happening now.

Okay.

We um there it's probably three quarters of the way done repairing the original windows.

We did not we're not replacing them at all.

Okay, and I wasn't asking specific to the application, just understanding if this was the first time you had gone through the application process.

So and have you you had conditionally or you had administratively approved the replacement of the cedar shingles that led to this?

Yes.

So for the building permit, um, the replacement of the shingles was administratively approved.

Okay.

Yep, in kind replacement.

In kind, okay.

Um understanding that was a misunderstanding on your behalf that that application included the ability to construct an addition off the rear of the building.

Um I will say that I did drive down Sherman Street.

Um, you know, from this angle specific to that location on the driveway, a little less discreet, but when you go to the you know, the end of Sherman Street, the dead end, it is very clear that there's an addition back there visible.

So that was a concern of mine.

Um I think right now it's all standing out because you've got that green board.

True stands out, and I think once it's all done with the new seat and we're insulating the whole wind, the whole building would have an approach yet because the insulation people haven't applied for it, but it's gonna be all insulated on the outside before it gets shingled all on the outside.

So if this has been that hasn't been we haven't applied for that, right?

And we're working closely with uh Brad, and he's aware of everything we're doing, and uh so uh keep them abreast also.

We hired a uh a um surveyor to uh do a land uh plot uh per Zach's request, and the survey actually was done and it should be finished in a couple of days, which I'll then send to Zachary.

Okay.

Um have you read the staff report that came with your application with the comments of Ms.

Chin?

I read a report.

Uh I found it, I found it attached as an attachment in our okay, and I did I did read it.

Okay, so before I came.

Understood.

So just so that everybody's aligned, um as it relates to um our standard about minimizing harm from alterations.

So you have a contributing structure.

Um Ms.

Chin does advise the addition does not make an effort to retain the character of the contributing building in terms of scale material or design.

The size and massing of the closet addition alters the integrity and scale of the rear elevation, the addition of one over one vinyl windows and the side elevations and vinyl trim at the eve line.

Vinyl is not an approved material for use in the historic district.

Um so we have multiple um details in that stuff staff comment to we can open it up for discussion from the commission.

So there's the architectural design of the addition as one aspect of what's before us, also the specification of the window, as you've heard this evening.

We have a very um rigorous guideline around windows, particularly for contributing buildings.

A vinyl product is not allowed on any um contributing building in Newport according to our standards.

So that would be something that we'd have to talk about specific as well.

Um her overall comments are the addition of a narrow flat roof vinyl trimmed closet addition, does not meet the standards for contributing properties.

The addition is incompatible with the existing architecture.

Um similarly, in terms of scale massing materials and design is recommended that drawings of the rear elevation be provided with options of a more compatible design to be submitted.

Um we spoke about the vinyl windows.

Um understanding the position that you're in, any other application that would come before us, we would need to see some sort of elevation off of the rear to ascertain if the addition as being proposed is compatible not only with the rear structure, um, but the overall structure.

Are you working with an architect to facilitate well?

We would we would come to the meeting first, and and um, but we would be willing to of course uh you know eliminate the vinyl, uh the windows could be wood, uh the trim could be wood.

Uh it actually is a pitched roof, it doesn't look like it from the picture, uh, but it is in fact pitched, and the house next to us actually the entire lodge roof is pitched very similar.

Um the person that put the roof up uh contractor assures me that it is a pitched roof.

Um it's not a steep pitched roof, but it's pitched.

Okay.

Um so I will open it up for other questions or comments.

My recommendation would be um knowing you want to move this ahead to come back or present to the preservation planner some architectural elevations.

Um as constructed, I would not be in favor of maintaining as is.

Um I'm happy to support um you know alternate options for this, um, as long as they're compatible with the remainder of the building, but I would need to see additional elevations or eight and elevation to make that decision.

Um not sure how other commissioners feel.

Um is this building on a foundation?

This addition.

No, it's on um filings.

Okay.

Okay.

It's got, I mean, I sent all that information in.

It's got cement filings.

Yep.

And then, you know, so and that is right next to the deck.

Yeah.

So that you don't see the picture of the deck, but actually it's it's really in sync with the whole deck.

The deck was there.

Like you only see a tiny piece of that deck.

That whole deck is the width of the house.

So it's really like the way you're looking at it right now with that green thing on your face, it's really not a very feeling.

But if you saw with the whole deck and the property, and then if that was shingled and not green, like it is, it's very distorted.

So I can see that you're not going to like that.

I wouldn't like it either because of the distortion of that picture.

So um, so there's no doubt that I can see that the aluminum can be changed to wood, no big deal.

The little windows, I can get little wooden windows instead of that.

I was just gonna paint them, but you know, I like that whole thing when we that's shingled and it's in the back door right there, right where it stops.

And if you saw that all with the door, and then the window that comes out, because there's like an overhang over like the the way that the house is, it's flat like that, and this is the door, and then there's an overhang right here.

Okay, and so if that was all shielded, you would never know if it's all gonna be red clear.

So we got you.

Yeah, but I think it's not good for you if the visual effect is really up, but then one did see it.

Well, we would work with an architect and if we have a continuing application, perhaps.

I'm not sure what do you process is.

What what utilities, if any, will there be in that closet edition?

Oh, just um, you know, the closet.

So I put the two little windows to get circulation during the heat because we don't have air conditioning, and so I just wanted a little air, and then I guess I don't even think we need baseboard because you know it'll just insulate it.

It would probably be just a light.

Okay, a single light.

Yeah, yeah, single light, obviously.

We're not putting heating or anything, you know.

So that's in the back hallway, like when you walk not an outdoor kitchen.

No, no, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, there'll be coats in there.

Where's a coat?

Where's the coats?

Is it a contractor that's building this for you?

Yeah, you know, yeah.

Yeah, no, we have a contract uh uh sign up.

I think there isn't advice you to get a permit.

So we assume you had.

You assumed you had one already.

Yeah, yeah.

We have one filed now of a permit.

There was a permit filed now with Brad.

Like this whole the picture is very disgusting as to the way you're looking at this bottle.

And it looks like a massive wall.

There's no gap, but you can measure it.

It is four by ten exactly.

The deck is 10 feet wide by 26 feet wide.

And so um, and then it's the backyard, and you don't get a feel for that at all in that picture.

That green wall, it's right in your face.

But it's not like that at all.

And if that's all shingled with the new shingle that's going to be going up, you're never gonna know that that I love the historical.

I believe in the home or like I'm from Pennsylvania.

And I believe in chicken of all of it.

So you know, I I just needed mine that's big.

Okay, understood.

So let me ask the commission another question.

Um as designed with an update of windows, is the commission in favor of the design as presented this evening.

I'm not no and we amend that to windows trim um siding.

Maybe it sounds like we have other commissioners though, as designed the addition, you would not be in favor of as presented outside of materials and trim details with the information and things that I have now correct.

Yes.

Okay.

So my gauge of the commission is that we need to revisit the design of the um addition if that's done in conjunction with your architect, your contractor.

Um certainly our preservation planner can do a first pass.

It would most likely need to come back before the commission at our next meeting.

Um, but she would be able to provide some guidance in terms of compatibility.

Um, understanding your point that it looks like a continuous line that once shingled would be unidentifiable.

We actually on additions like this, just to give you a little bit of context, typically we pull them in from the edge of the building so it clearly reads as a different structure.

We don't like to have continuity from an existing structure to a new addition, because it's it doesn't differentiate between original and new.

So it's something to take back to talk through with your contractor, but Ms.

Chen can provide some other guidance to help you.

Um, but shingling it.

So at this point, you know, even though it's like yeah, it's my visual effect felt to be burst, and I thought that I wanted to look like since I was reshingling.

Understood.

Yep.

Yeah, we understand.

Um maybe provide actually that it's always been there, and that's kind of what you're saying.

Yeah, it's gonna look like it's always been there.

Yeah, we don't we don't want to do that, support that it's not an original.

We don't want anybody to be confused thinking it is.

No, they probably wouldn't with a the flat you know, rubber roof, right?

But yeah, you probably want to give some more character to the roof lines as well, and you know, come closer to the windows in the front, you know, on the back.

Yeah, nothing the trim that's no big deal to put wood trim.

I just I figured out the painting cleaning one gonna know the difference if you know what it's painted cleaning and a little forever.

Um the window thing has been a really fine situation to redo what we've been doing to keep the integrity of everything except so um we were just looking for a positive.

Okay, that was a good faith effort.

We'll give you that.

And without without moving that house, without stirping that house.

Right so you know, um, so no, I mean we appreciate you're trying to bring some TLC to this home.

It needs a little help, so we appreciate that.

My recommendation is gonna be to continue the application to our December meeting.

In the meantime, you can connect with Miss Chin.

She can provide some guidance of what we would be looking for ahead of that meeting so that we would have an opportunity to review something that was more complete.

Also, you know, you mentioned that these photographs are not flattering.

So you might want to come back with with a drawing that kind of has a little bit more perspective to it so that so that so that we can the commission can see how it fits into its surroundings and how it relates to the house.

Okay, sure.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 40 Sherman Street, plat 21 lot 117 to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, December 9th.

So thank you very much.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Okay.

This is the application of Peter L and Liz and Liza M Kugler of 90 of 95 John Street, plat 28, lot 59 contributing structure for permission to rearrange penestration.

So all original windows are in the facade, restore eight original windows, and replace non-original windows with all wood Colbay windows.

Construct a small addition over existing flat roof on the rear of the building with a roof deck and construct a third floor dormer with a roof deck.

Install balustrades on the top of the flat roof, flat roof wings.

Okay, welcome, counsel.

Good evening, uh chair members of the commission.

Peter Regan representing uh Peter and Eliza uh Kugler.

Um with me tonight is John Tamino of Demoral Architects, who is the project designer.

Um so we did receive the staff report last week, which noted some concerns about the proposed decks on the second and third floor, the size of the uh third floor dormer as well as the height of the proposed balustrades.

Uh unfortunately, due to a death in the applicant's family, we haven't been able to fully discuss those concerns with them or to review some alternatives to what was proposed.

So what we'd like to do tonight is to really sort of focus on the replacement of the windows and as well as the small bump out on the rear proposed in the rear of the house.

I I was um there was a question in my mind as to whether the staff was favorable of the bump out or not, because there's a sentence missing in the staff report that said the proposed bump out is not, and then the that's all she needs to say.

You know, she's through the gavel going at that point.

I suppose.

Uh but it did confirm that staff is is used to bump out favorably, and I'll let them speak for themselves.

Um, so what we'd like to do is to see if we can move through perhaps approval of those items, get some feedback from you on the other ones, and then come back to you in December, uh, probably with some revised plans on those remaining items.

Uh so with that, what I'd like to do is to just have John briefly explain you what's being proposed with regard to the restoration and the reconfiguration of the eight original windows.

Can I before we jump into that?

I just have a quick question and then I'll get you sworn in.

So just to clarify, because we'll split the application and then we can um review.

So the the windows and the bump out is on the south elevation.

It is on the south elevation on the second floor.

Over the existing flat roof on the first floor.

Okay.

Oh, I see it here.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, all right, so that's clear.

Second floor.

All right, we'll get you sworn in and then we will go through there.

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

So hope you got I do.

And if you could state your name for the record.

John Tamino.

I'm just gonna have you.

Do you mind spelling your last name for me?

Sure.

T-U-M-I-N-O.

Thank you.

So for the for the windows, there are eight uh original windows, which we would be restoring.

Two of them are on the front of the house on John Street.

Four of them are on the third floor on the two side elevations.

And then there are two on both uh one on each side, one on the left, one on the right side, original, and we propose moving those to the front of the house.

Um, just so we have as many original windows on John Street as possible, and the rest of the windows will be replaced with all wood uh Colby windows.

Just give the just have the commission take a second to review that may I ask a question in the media?

Yes, absolutely.

Are the windows in the gable being changed?

It looks like those are original.

The two the two side game lines.

Right.

Those are original, they're staying on both sides.

On both sides, yeah.

So those those four windows are part of the original eight.

So how many how many originals are currently on the front facade?

There are two originals on the current front facade on the first floor.

Uh the eight originals.

So what would totally six on the front facade?

So uh so we're posing uh this two originals on the two sides on the uh I think one is on the second one's on the first.

Actually, both on the first floor.

Uh and we're opposing moving those two to the front.

So out of the five original uh the five windows on the front facade will now have four originals as opposed to two originals.

And the one, so I see that on your proposed north elevation, and then the window um that's directly above the front entrance, that will be a new window.

Um we so that will be a new, yeah, because there aren't there isn't another one.

Not enough.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

So just so the commission is clear on that um second floor, the middle window will not will be a new window.

The other floor will be we figured if one had to be new, the one it made sense to have that one as the one.

Okay.

And what's the current stats of that window in the middle on the second floor?

Is that not an original?

Yeah, all the second floor windows are not original.

They're not original.

Yeah, they're all located on the first floor, third floor.

Yeah.

Do you know the age of the non-original windows?

Uh yeah, we have a report.

They it looks like a lot from the 1980s.

And 2000.

Okay.

Yeah, a lot of 1980, 2000.

Uh 2000.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah, it looks like between 1980 and 2000 were all the replacements.

And just for the commitment, I just checked that window number.

The one in the middle is 2.2, and on the window survey, it is a wood window from 1980.

Um it does have some failure.

It's in fair condition for um interior glazing, exterior glazing.

So is that a fully wood true divided light window?

Like a essentially a replica of what was there, or is it more of a modern double pane wood window?

Because we don't have any photos of the windows, do we?

1980s.

It's a 2.8.

I don't remember if this was the application that had which one the folder.

The folder with all the photos.

I think that's the gilded um okay.

I think that's the Brindley one.

Okay.

Two points.

Two points.

I believe, yeah, I believe that window is two, two.

Two point two.

Okay, yes, that one is from 1980.

It is a wood window.

Yeah, it doesn't say about divided light, it just says six over six.

Double.

Yeah.

It looks like it has a storm window on it.

So would that give us some indication?

Um I think they're a real mix of all the new windows, are just a mix of uh styles.

Um spring balance.

Is it fair to say that the the new wood all these would be closer?

Yes, definitely.

And yeah.

Definitely replacement.

Yes, yeah, definitely would be some of them have metal jams, uh metal jam lines that are visible.

Um yeah, they're not they don't look as sore, you know.

What a new wood Colby window, historic window would look like do we require photos in our window surveys generally?

Is that part of the requirement?

Survey, yeah.

The report is very detailed, and that that's great.

I guess my question is the it appears that we do have um wood windows in place, and are those again like replicas and do we could certainly get staff photos of that particular window?

But I think that John mentioned that the sort of a hodgepodge of different replacement windows there and what's being proposed only is a much closer representation of the existing original windows than the 1980s replacements.

So we think it would be certainly more compatible than what's there now, but we could certainly get that information too.

Yeah.

Any other it would be helpful.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments on the windows from the case?

Uh concerned with the windows right here right now, right?

Window windows for right now, and then we're gonna talk about the addition on the rear.

Okay, and then everything else will.

So respective to windows, Mr.

Bala.

No.

Anybody else?

I was moving around.

And then the replacement of everything else.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

So John, if you could just briefly explain what's being proposed small out on the second floor and what the Yeah, so it's just to make uh uh bedroom on that side, and we just carried that existing.

I think that's an addition, it's a flat roof edition.

We just carried it over.

Um it's on top of an existing flat roof, so there's no footprint increase.

Um the goal is just to make it uh again, it's not I think that's obviously the flat roof additions are not original to the structure.

Um so we just carry that over for uh for a bedroom.

You're taking some of the existing obviously that the bump out is smaller than the bedroom itself.

Yeah, existing.

Yep.

And then just extending it out over that flat roof.

Yep.

So my question relative to that extension.

Um, knowing that we're not discussing necessarily those second floor decks.

Right now, that bump out, you have a door.

We wouldn't do the door okay.

I just want to my the door.

I want to for my view, um so we would take the door out, and that would be a blind wall until we come back and talk about the deck separate to happen.

Um I'm in favor of the addition subject to decisions about that door on the second floor, but would you have this addition regardless if there was a deck or not there?

Yes, yeah, that wouldn't be.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at my as well.

Yeah, it doesn't need to be there for the maybe a nice bonus, but not necessary.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm fine.

Um, and then while we're chatting about this, just distant we could um show the um the third floor formerly the rear of the um so there was I guess a concern about the scale of this one thing I think we can say is that very likely we come back a little founding in the war will be true.

Cool.

Yeah, we're pretty sure.

Yeah, with that, but uh one you're getting what you're thinking in terms of.

Yeah, so I think you know that was again something if she if they could get it, great, but we know that was probably the toughest cell, and so that could be removed sure, it's not necessary.

Um again, there's just two very tight slope bedrooms up there.

The dormer was just to create more usable bedroom space on that third floor.

Um and I'm saying for the bath and odd you know, slope loop bathroom, and just to so no new space out of there more useful.

So the deck is not required.

So um, yeah, so any input on the uh the size of it, um what could be done to make it uh more um before we go to that any other questions though about that second floor extension?

Mr.

Madsen, you know I'm okay with it.

Circle door no door on the left side, yeah.

Yeah, so we would consider that as part of the split.

Right.

Um general consensus, it seems in favor of the window update as proposed in the application this evening and that second floor um addition on the south elevation.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So first I'm gonna any other questions or comments?

I think we're let's go ahead and okay.

All right, so let's split the application and then we'll um vote on that first part, and then we if there's any other questions we can provide on the other one.

So first I'm gonna request of the commission a motion to split the application of 95 John Street plat 28 lot zero five nine into the part one, which includes the windows and the bump out on the second floor of the south elevation, the second part, all other details of the application.

So move second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Um so this evening I'll request a motion to approve part one of the application of 95 John Street, plat 28 lot 059, which includes windows and the bump out on the second floor of the south elevation, with the condition uh that that bump out um the facade with the door be continued into the application part two, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80060, a one, two, four, five, and seven.

So second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Um, are you looking for other feedback on part two?

Okay.

So regarding to the dormer, scale, we understand that the addition of this proposed balcony and door makes that scale a little bit larger.

So we need that.

I guess anything else.

We brought it in from the sides, and so it's not directly space though side.

Um and uh the height is kind of limited by the height limit.

We can't make any but kind of matches the other flat roofs and zoning couldn't do anything.

We wanted to make a uh C or shed roof, we couldn't do it.

Um and then in terms of you know, if we can eliminate the deck, and that would be uh good, I mean the size as it is, that would be great.

Just took the functionality of spaces on the inside, but any other but um yeah, I I would be in favor of it, it seems to be along the composure of the back of the building, which seems to be added on to and modified uh from its original form.

So I'd say that would be a good thing.

Yeah, part of the thing it it fronts both memorial and John Street, right?

So you've got kind of a you know, kind of work on both of those and get the side of those more acting.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

On the front, right?

When wouldn't it council?

You mentioned the flat roofs were added.

Any idea when those sections were bolted on?

No evidence of that anyway.

They were in the 1970 picture.

Yeah, normally you would have report we did have the photo going that had them on the uh straw set up on it historically, which will be lower, so that's something we'll also take a look at if the lines want to proceed with that the design.

I wouldn't buy the really rubber table is previously there.

Right.

And I think there was a higher now because the code is people were shorter.

Are we giving feedback?

Yeah.

Just on the railings and then are all saying the decks are kind of your negatively railing the top of the bottom like one inches for the third six.

Um is that how did we do that?

Separate I think the concern of the staff report was that they burn higher sound.

I guess I know we're not talking about that part, but you know, here when they're shown, they appear to me.

Don't need doors going out there, that they're they're decorative.

They're decorative, right?

So if they're continuum decorative, we've approved those in the past, even a new construction with decorative, right?

Not uh what are the 41, 42 inches they have to be, right?

Something like that.

Right.

No, no, I wouldn't approve that, but that's how this basically should be.

Yeah, I mean to me, it looks a little bit better than just a plain flat to have some kind of decorative.

There's no corbel around it or anything like that on those flat sides.

In the historical report, there were two different photos, right?

One that from the 70s, I believe that had the railings, and then what looked to be an earlier photo that did not have one.

Um, and clearly at some point it had been removed if my assumptions are correct.

So that and actually this photo from the 70s shows railings around all the sides of the house, which have since been removed.

Um yeah, I uh I would not be in favor of returning those personally.

Um and while I'm at it, I guess I'll say that on the uh rear elevation.

I would beyond that bump out, would not be in favor of any of the other additions, including the dormer, the railings, the balcony.

I just feel it's extremely exposed on memorial and there are a lot of alterations that were that we're looking at there, and dormers are you know more of a modern feature, especially one like this.

So for me, uh I I would not be able to approve the remainder of it.

Yeah, if you're just looking for input, I mean I don't know how my other commissioners feel, but like on the front where you've got the one new addition on the on the left side, it's kind of a carport, right?

Where they left the rest of the house intact there and built that carport.

You know, it doesn't have a garage door on it now.

We we have an approved many garage front facing addition.

Just more devices off it it looks well done, but uh we certainly there isn't any more on historic hill.

I don't know if there are this just to clarify, is that proposed to be a garage door?

No, no, it's not.

Oh, it's not.

Oh, yeah, okay.

Just to clear that cardboard.

It's hard to tell that.

Yeah, it's conceiving so the windows are on the back.

They kind of look like a door.

Yeah, sorry, they'll look at the background.

Oh, I'm looking through it.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Never mind.

But don't put a garage in anything.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it doesn't look like it did.

No, it does.

Right, yeah.

Right.

That's kind of what happened.

We're not we're gonna pay that.

We're not sorry.

Okay.

I think that that's helpful uh feedback.

So uh yeah, I just want to echo Ms.

Moran's comments about that rear dorm.

Certainly aligned in terms of no deck up there.

Um, it is very exposed on memorial.

Um, and the overall, while I fully appreciate you've pulled it in from the sides, you've pulled it in from the roof line.

It's still it's a large structure to begin with.

This building, it is a significant dormer.

I would be, you know, in favor of maybe two smaller dormers or things that are broken up versus one long shed dormer.

Um, but with the massing, when you look at it relative to a photo of the rear with that bump out, we're adding a lot of mass because that back bump out we just talked about is gonna add significant, then you're adding another dormer on top of that.

It's definitely bringing a lot of weight to the rear of the building that happens to be very visible from memorial.

I'm sorry, you've got the road sits down.

You're just looking up.

Right to start with, right?

So it's just what you're up against.

That's how yeah.

So okay, I think that's some good feedback.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I think we gave them some feedback for the decks.

All right, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue part two of the application of 95 John Street Plat 28 lot 059 to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, December 9th, 2025.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Okay.

And I think we're back to 37.

We're back to our number is that C3.

We're not gonna leave the application again.

No, we're not um, so just resequencing back to the application of C337 Sherman Street.

Um for the record, the commission was provided a copy of the window survey um from the applicant.

Um in reviewing that, there are 13 windows in that window survey.

Application this evening is for 11 windows.

The two windows that are not included on the application are on the second floor 9A and 9B.

All other windows are um as being requested, those 11.

So I'm gonna ask the commission um for those that have had a chance this evening to review the window survey um for questions or comments.

Again, the applicant is requesting to replace these with wood uh replacement windows.

I'm gonna have you just come back up to the podium.

So we if we need to answer some questions, just give us a moment and we'll stop.

So your recommendation is to restore the windows and rebuild the two windows that are beyond repair.

Which are the two that you are.

Sorry, when I wrote the staff report, I was under the impression that those two windows were part of this.

Those were the ones that had been well replaced already.

Okay.

So the restoration was in relation to the other windows.

Okay.

So all the windows on this that we're discussing this evening are original or eighteen eighty.

From what we could tell, yes, he was not a hundred percent certain when he did the survey.

He just did his best guess.

But they're old for sure.

Old wood windows.

Old and some of them are just not functioning anymore.

And we live there year round.

We need them to be functioning to be able to open both regularly.

Can duplicate that to their historical accuracy, which is what we insisted, because we want them to look almost exactly the same if possible.

They do also have might not get this right by the five eighth inch mutton bars, if I'm saying that right.

So we did try to make sure we can find someone to literally make them look exactly the same, all would just be functioning and reduce the draft that we get.

And could you remind us the type of window that you're proposing?

Do you know the what the brand is?

I don't.

It's in the application somewhere or contacted it for us.

Jill, do we have that?

But it's the same brand that we've used for five windows downstairs and the two that we just replaced on the second floor that have been approved.

So we want to use the same brand for consistency.

It looks like trimline, trimline windows.

I can rise it because I know we tried Anderson before and that was rejected, so we abandoned that.

When we're when we're dealing with original windows, um our window and door guidance most recently published is if your windows are beyond repair, which I think it's not a hundred percent clear to me that they are in the report that we have here.

Seems that many of them can be restored.

Um our standards do require uh repair before replacement.

Um if that were not the case, and if some of them are beyond repair, that I would need more information.

Um my position would be that I'm I would be opposed to replacement of the windows.

The new product.

How many of the is it all the second the all those dormer windows have the detailing of the arch?

Correct.

There's four in total.

Okay.

Um so clearly two one.

We can see that arch.

Oh, I'm sorry, arch top is two eight.

Yeah.

Um I was gonna say, you know, depending on the condition of those, are we?

I mean, I agree our window guidance and even our standards are repair before replace.

If those were an opportunity in particular to restore, um given they are original all wood.

Um, and then I would support the balance of them to be replaced.

Which ones, madam?

Um so she's she mentioned four, but I I see three from the window survey.

So two one, two, two.

There's one on the driveway side of the house.

And two, eight, I'll say arch top glass.

There could be another one in here, it's just not called out in the window survey, which one it is.

Um, which is the let's see here, two, so probably two seven.

Then if we're going according, well no, two ten, two nine, two seven, two six, maybe on that side.

So that that double, if you go back to the garage, um, sorry, that driveway side that has the doubles next to each other.

So those are not arched, correct?

No, it's the other side of the house.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

It's the east facing side of the house.

Okay.

I don't know if we might even have taken a picture of that.

But there is there is one dormer there.

Okay.

So there's four dormers in total on the entire house.

They're all in so it's not this side.

I can't see the numbers on that side.

Right there.

Right.

Oh, yeah, go back.

It's that one.

The smaller one.

That's the other door.

Okay.

Wow.

And for in case you're wondering, the one to the left of that on the edition that has the black circle.

That's one where it's something on the inside snapped off in my hand, and we had to shut it with the rubber mallet.

And I'm not confident that we'll ever be able to get that window open again because it's just it's dry rod.

It just ripped right off in my hands.

All the innards are starting to poke in from the wood just warping and dry rotting.

Um the window report that that we have here, which I know is now a few, you know, several months old.

Um, it does state that in terms of rot and wood damage.

You have a number of windows that they consider to be, you know, in in good condition.

Um for example, uh two, four A, two, four B, two C.

Um three.

I mean, there are several here that I mean I I think that the one thing that that would um be very convincing would be um that category of rotten wood damage that would make me feel as though they would be impossible to restore or difficult to restore, let's put it that way.

Yeah.

I mean, everything else seems like it could be it was really just like a hodgepodge of things.

Like some things were okay, some things weren't on windows where I had wood that was okay.

The glass is broken um and held together with scotch tape.

Um, and again, the reports now a year and a half old and things have changed.

Yeah.

I just um I'd be hesitant to just give a blanket approval for the replacement of all of them when it looks according to this report.

And and as you say, time has passed since this report was issued.

But according to this report, there are several here that look like they've could be restored.

And if I have to explore that, I will the concern that I had is that where we have we're basically mid-project at this point, where I have new wood windows that don't require storms.

But if I have to restore any, I'm then gonna have to put new storm windows up.

And we're gonna have just a hodgepodge of mixed match windows throughout the house, which is what we're trying to avoid.

We're looking for excuse me, um, consistency throughout the house, really for aesthetics purposes.

Understood.

We do have a pretty clear policy though that like to see things repaired before replaced.

Historic fabric is you know, yeah, being lost, and you know, we have a responsibility to try and maintain it as best we can.

I understand, and that's why we we want them to be done to their historical accuracy.

Fortunately, the house is almost 200 years old, things just don't last forever.

Yeah, you know.

I I do think in support of the applicant that there is a percentage of the windows that have been replaced already.

So we're not looking at a new application where we've got a survey of all windows that some percentage could be replaced.

In this case, applications before us have replaced windows.

There's a remainder of windows, some of which could be repaired, but is it better to have all new windows that are historically accurate uh with strides being taken or windows that are just rebuilt because they happen to be remaining windows.

We've got applications in front of us tonight that we've just blanketly you know get rid of historic fabric.

I think this is a case where for better or worse, there are windows that are gone, and the remaining windows, the applicant is making uh a conscious effort to meet the standards to bring the rest of the windows to be replaced.

And and I think in this case, and I think it should be noted that this is a case by case scenario.

I would support the application in this case to replace the windows, given the uh replication of arch tops, historic um you know, mutton patterns, etc.

I mean, can no follow that um and I respect that and do understand where you're coming from as well.

Um to write on that though, I I don't believe that because we've replaced a couple, which according to this report sounded like the two windows that were not repairable um or restorable.

So understandably, you know, when we hit those types of roadblocks and you cannot repair the window, um I replacing them sometimes, there's nothing else that you can do.

But in my opinion, to go through and therefore remove the rest of them from the house, just because they may not be although you said they're going the windows that you have replaced do represent what was in place before.

Um, and so therefore you may not really be able to tell the whole difference by looking at it, you know, standing back for for a quick second.

But uh again, I don't believe that we should remove all the rest of the windows just because um they may not be constructed at the same time.

Um these newer windows probably in my opinion won't even outlast the ones that are original in your house now.

That's just based off of the data and the facts that we've kind of seen.

So I would not I believe that those original windows should have the chance to be restored and live another 50 to 100 years at least.

Um the ones that can be repaired.

And though from what I'm seeing in this report personally, I don't see that the remaining windows um are or should be bound for at the landfill.

So um I would be opposed, Mr.

Madsen.

Anyway I think I'm more aligned with you, Chair, or you'll repair those two with the two and go ahead and replace the others.

And go ahead and replace the others.

I could also go ahead with the applicant and replace them all just because of where we are today.

Mr.

Bennell.

I can see every side of this, obviously.

I would like.

Obviously, I would like to see the windows restored.

That's what we're here for.

Um, but I also understand that we have to live in your position that you're in currently.

So I think I would support the um replacement of the window since you're taking such good care to replicate them exactly, it seems like, especially with the arches and everything.

So I think I can go along with that.

I agree with Commissioner Ballett.

I think we have to look at um many times uh something that comes before us on a case-by-case basis.

And I think that you're trying to do it right.

You you know, you're making the uh you know the decisions of according to um the guidelines as well as you can.

And so I would be in support of this project.

Okay, Ms.

O'Brien.

I sorry, okay.

Ms.

Chen.

I was also just gonna provide um perhaps if you said like things have changed since the report.

If we were to get if the commission wanted to get updated photos of each window um from the inside just to kind of see the level of of damage and rot, um that may be helpful to to their decision making.

That's up to you guys.

Does that count?

Yeah, you could include that as well.

Um so it's just up to you guys if you need more information or if you are okay with the information that we've been given in your and you're okay to move forward.

I feel I need more information.

Um I was gonna ask too about I mean, this report that was in April.

I mean, you're definitely a year and a half out since this report.

Um, I don't know if Heritage would come back out and just do an update to you know, say what the status is of as of now.

Um reviewing, and I agree we have very updated guidance around the standards or preservation planner has provided very clear feedback in her staff notes.

Um that upholds um a denial as presented.

Um, I would be more so inclined to review in the context of an updated window evaluation to understand if the condition has in fact deteriorated since um that no longer supports repair.

Um so I would be in favor of continuing to have more information to be able to make a more informed decision.

Otherwise, I would not be in favor of replacing as presented this evening, which but sounds like we have that.

But let's just get a consensus.

So we have in favor, Mr.

Ballet, as presented, Mr.

Finley.

Sorry again.

Um, as presented this evening, is your position in favor or needing more information?

I don't need any more information.

Okay, Ms.