Okay, good evening, everyone.

Going to call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, December 9th, 2025, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarillo.

Here.

Rosemary O'Brien.

Absent.

We knew of her absence.

Kelly Moran, I'm here.

Jim Madsen.

Also absent, and we knew of his absence.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Bill Finley.

I got you, Bill.

Brooke Richter.

Here.

Kenny Benell.

Here.

Thank you.

We do have Ms.

O'Brien who is absent who is our vice chair.

So I have asked Brooke Richter to sit in the name of the vice chair position this evening.

I'd like to ask Commissioner Goddard to affirm for the record that he has reviewed all of the materials for the continued applications and watched the prior meeting of Monday, November 10th, 2025, and is prepared to be a voting commissioner on these applications this evening.

Yeah, I have.

Okay.

I'd like to acknowledge that we have Peter Friedrichs from our city solicitor office here this evening supporting the commission.

First, we'll begin with the approval of our minutes from November.

Um to the commission.

Minutes for Monday, November 10th, 2025 were provided to us for review.

Has anyone found any additions or corrections?

No.

No.

Yeah, request a motion to accept the minutes of Monday, November 10th, 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, Tuesday, December 9th, 2025, are valid for one year from the date of approval.

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

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

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

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

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

So the first of those this evening is N7 for 103 Mill Street.

Do we have anyone here for public comment on N11?

Excuse me.

N7, 103 Mill Street.

Anyone here for public comment?

And with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 103 Mill Street, Plat 25, Lot 109 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

The next application for summary is N8, 139 to 141 Pelham Street.

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

So with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 139141 Pelham Street, plat 28, lot 002 as presented, citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80060, a one, two, four, and five.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

And then our last summary application was N11 for 27 Willow Street.

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

So I will request a motion to approve the application of 27 Willow Street, plat 12, lot 96, citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80 060, a 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

We had no applications this evening that were considered for abbreviated summary.

So we will move into our full hearings and I'll ask the vice chair to read the first continued application.

This is item number C2, the application of Karen Winley of 37 Sherman Street, plat 21 lot 108, contributing for permission to replace 11 windows on second floor double hung with wood replacement windows.

Okay, do we have the application?

Welcome back.

I'm gonna have you come forward.

Get you sworn in again.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And just state your name on the record, please.

Stephanie Winley for 37 Sherman Street.

Okay, thank you.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Um if you could just give us an update.

I know the last time we were here, we extensively talked about next steps with the windows that you were looking to replace.

So I did go back to the restoration company.

Um spoke to him at length.

Um he did not feel that doing another report would add anything of significance to help you guys make your decision.

However, he did have several more photos that he provided that I sent to Jill that she has up right now.

So hopefully you had time to look them over.

Um I said, send me all the interior shots as you had requested, and I think there's some exteriors up there as well.

So again, just in short, um, we have started some replacements with all wood.

Um I believe the brand is trimline, their historic replicas.

They are all wood.

Um we've done two on the second floor that were administratively approved.

Now we'd like to continue restoring the rest to have a cohesive look throughout the house.

Um, the first floor of the house also has some of these trim line windows.

The rest are on the first floor, are vinyl windows, which we will also be replacing in the next phase with those trim lines.

Um, so the idea of trying to do the full replacement is to have the cohesive look.

If we are told to restore, the concern is that we're going to have some brand new windows that don't need storms, and then some restored windows that are going to need new storm windows.

We're just trying not to have it look like a patchwork doll, so to speak.

So that's where we're at.

And Ms.

Chen, you could confirm.

I know we had questioned you did receive that documentation from Rob that regarding the window survey.

So the one that we do have on our application materials still holds for the condition of the windows.

Okay.

Just make sure that the commission is clear on that.

Um, those materials were provided when the application was originally submitted.

Um, and that was um we had gone through that in our last meeting to outline exactly which windows it was um from the property.

So if we could, Jill, could you just bring up um the photos that correspond to the ones I think it was two one, two, two, two, three, six, and seven, if I remember correctly, and eight?

The photos that were sent were not sent with you know corresponding numbers uh okay relate to each window.

Um, so unfortunately, this is you know, this is all we have available.

Okay, but we can go off of this evaluation.

Okay, so I'm gonna ask the commission if there was based on um the fact of using the prior window survey that we have before us from 2024.

Are there any follow-up questions for the applicant about those that she is requesting to replace?

No.

Um, okay, so general consensus from the commission um in favor of replacement versus restoring.

No, not from me.

Okay.

Oh no, I I'm saying I I thought you would talk about the survey that was done, right?

Yeah, I haven't changed, right?

So hasn't changed.

So I think we talked about this last time um based on the report that we were provided, um, which we're confirming still holds to 2025.

Um the windows requesting to be replaced, there is insight from uh heritage restoration that those are in a condition that could be restored versus replaced.

So coming back to our guidance um and our newport standard about um repairing before replacing.

Um, I do believe there are multiple commission members that would not be in favor of the application to completely replace those windows, specific to the ones, the condition of the ones that you are requesting.

Any other commissioners would like to speak on that?

It sounds like from Ms.

Moran and Mr.

Goddard, that alignment other commissioners.

No, I I agree.

Oh, Bill, if I could just ask you to turn your mic on.

Thank you.

No, I agree with your assumption.

Okay.

I also agree.

Sorry.

Okay.

So last time I had said that I would support this, especially because of the patchwork, but this month we actually have our whole window restoration um uh revised.

And so based on uh what the chair was saying, the repair before replace um and all that, I think I would go with the rest of the commissioners and agree that they should be repaired before they were placed because if we set it in this instance, there's always people who want to get them replaced, and that would open a whole wormhole of everybody replacing it would notice.

That's what you said.

They're not so much new guidelines, but I was really reviewing them just because they were sent to us um this weekend.

And so I was thinking about this um application specifically in regards to that.

So that's why I would go with uh the um restoration.

Yeah.

So um Mr.

Benell is speaking to our window guidance.

Um, I will actually come back to our newport standard 17 TAC 80 0608 repair before replacement.

Um, this speaks extensively that based on the quality of any material, including windows.

Um, certainly if there is the opportunity to restore or repair that should be done before replacement.

Our staff um notes specific to that standard say that the application does not meet the standard because the window evaluation states that all but two of the windows in the second floor can be repaired.

Um and I think that the commission would be open to discussing those two windows, of which the report does state that they could be in a condition worthy of replacement.

The windows show minor signs of rot and deterioration, with most of the damage being damaged paint, failed glazing, and other repairable issues that impede the functionality of the existing windows.

So other standards in our application in the newport standards are don't necessarily apply, but that one in particular does based on the condition of the windows per the report that we are going off of.

So I'm aligned with other commissioners on the premise of eight five.

And I think others would be.

So are you looking?

So it did there are two windows that per the uh window report that we received could be replaced.

Could you just let me know which two?

So then I know what I have to do now.

Um and maybe Jill, if that's something that we could help the applicant just get into detail, we could always sideline that.

Um again, it's a little bit difficult because that um there were windows on that report that were from the prior application.

So just coming back to exactly which ones.

Um maybe two six.

I think it was two six.

The windows, the number was nine A and nine B.

Um on the second floor.

I believe that those were the ones that I had administratively approved to be replaced uh already.

Okay.

In this previous application, um, which were right here.

Yeah.

And so the report seeking um replacement or reconstruction was you know.

Oh, understood.

So of the 11, those two that we're referencing, you had already administratively approved.

Okay, so I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Um, so then the balance of the nine would be in a state to be repaired versus replacement.

Balance of the 11.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, we um we can amend the application to repair instead of um replacement.

Otherwise, we would need to take it to a vote and based on the premise that it's been presented, it would be a denial.

So you want to amend the application to that.

Also, um, I would be able to connect you with some resources too um for store windows as well if you are interested.

Um, not all of them have to be aluminum and look really bad.

Um, so if you're worried about the appearance of the house, I can certainly help with that.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to amend the application first of 37 Sherman Street, plat 21 lot 108, or for for permission to restore uh nine windows, 11 windows on the second floor double hung with wood replacement windows.

Still moved.

Second.

All those in favor of the amendment.

Aye.

All those opposed.

And with that, I'll uh request a motion to approve the application of 30 37 Sherman Street, plat 21 lot 108.

Um, based on the amended application citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, a one, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Oh, sorry.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is matter number C3, the application of Daniel uh Petashnick of 61 Second Street, plat 12 lot 216 contributing for permission to replace 12 original windows with Anderson 400 series double hung windows made of pine wood with a protective layer and dual pane glass filled with argon gas.

Bathroom window will be an operating casement.

All windows are inserts, no plans to affect framing dimensions.

We'll copy the existing units.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this application?

Okay, we will resequence this to the end and see if we have somebody that comes a little bit later.

This is item number C4, the application of Chris Rousseau of 21 and 23 Brinley Street, plat 25, lot 29 contributing for permission to replace windows.

And do we have anyone here this evening?

Okay, welcome.

We'll get you sworn in.

Raise your right hand.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

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

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Russo.

Thank you.

Um, so we did not hear, um, even though this is a continued application, we did not hear from the applicant at the prior meeting.

So I'm just gonna ask if you could summarize the request on your application this evening, and then the commission can ask some questions.

Sure.

Yeah, we're hoping to uh replace 34 windows at 22 and 23 Brimley Street.

Um we want to replace them with a uh vinyl clad uh pine interior window, uh mostly double hung.

There's 19 different sizes.

Um so it's it's a pretty decent mixed bag.

Um we want to increase the R value at the property.

It is a business, so we want to uh make sure that there's uh reduced liability uh by them, you know, coming down uh whatever uh, you know, affecting someone's finger or something like that.

There are guests that are at the property.

So there's a safety and um overall, you know, heating efficiency purposes behind replacing the window.

We've done a fair amount of work on the property.

We just want to kind of keep up in that fashion.

Okay.

And have you read the staff commons and the staff report?

Yeah, and that's why it's a continuation.

I know it's okay.

Uh the heritage restoration felt uh they would they were happy with the windows.

Uh essentially, there's a lot of good across the board on the 34.

Um, I guess the only thing that I would uh you know like to point out is the basement windows, you know.

Um a lot of them are are in poor condition.

Um you know, there's additional, you know, because it is at the ground level, the request goes into you know um potential for you know past invasion and stuff like that.

So really when it comes to the basement windows, um would like to potentially stick with that.

Of course, we got this uh evaluation on Friday afternoon, so that's why we're on a continuation.

Um so uh yeah, yeah, there's no illusion.

Yeah, the the evaluation was pretty positive.

Okay, and Jill, do we have that on record for the commission?

I don't know that I had seen it in our materials, but I could have missed it.

Yeah, there was a that there was an original evaluation that was done.

Um, and that one was not uh considered valid.

So we went with heritage restoration.

By then we had already entered the certificate of um applicability.

Okay.

So we'll just need to see if we do have that new window evaluation from Heritage.

Oh, I uh you want to see it?

That was okay.

It's also in the portal.

Um if you could submit it as a um an exhibit, that would be the proper procedure since I didn't receive it in time to put it on the agenda.

Okay.

And then let me look through to see if I can get it up here.

Okay.

All right.

So first I'm gonna request a motion of the commission to accept exhibit A window evaluation for 21 and 23.

Excuse me, Brinley plat 25 lot zero two nine.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

If I could just ask you to present that thank you.

Um, I'm gonna recommend if the planner agrees that we resequence this to after our break, just so that we have the commission as an opportunity to review the whole window evaluation of that.

We only have one copy, so rather than holding up, is that possible?

Unless we're just looking at the basement windows.

Well, I think we need to validate yeah, we got it, and it was um included in the link that I sent you all.

It was okay.

Um, so are you in alignment with the details that this is replacement except for the basement window?

Um, no.

I'm not uh not full replacement.

I think the the basement windows could be replaced with the materials such as Fibrex or um a composite material just due to the proximity to the ground and groundwater.

Um the I as I was going through this, um, as you can just see, the black boxes are already replaced windows, the blue boxes are original windows.

It's probably a mix of about half overall on the third floor.

There was um bare replacement windows.

We do have a significant amount of original windows.

Um, and then all of the uh the information provided was good function essentially.

Um I don't believe that there were any that were considered for replacement.

Uh replacement, yeah.

So just to clarify, as the opcon, you are when you said good, you meant to restore versus replace.

Yeah, according to the valuation, that's okay.

That's yeah, everything basement windows seems like it's restorable for sure.

Okay.

And and there, you know, um I guess the request would be you know, would would be a reconsideration for us to replace just the basement windows at this point.

There are some bare and uh poor conditions that is evaluated in that document for the basement windows, but everything else is like this is it's uh uh good functioning.

Do you see that there's one listed as poor replacement or reconstruction, but the first three say good no damage, and then it looks like there are a couple of aluminum basement windows as well.

Yeah, there are some that are down there that I don't know when that was replaced, but and the replacement windows actually was not under the the ownership team now, and for the most part, we're not trying to, you know, do those.

Um the aluminum windows, correct.

So those you want to leave, but you'd like to replace the 34 others, yeah.

Yep.

34 other basement windows or just in general?

No, 34 other windows at the the two properties that are connected.

Okay.

Yeah.

But based on the window evaluation, you said that the owners of the property are open to restoring them instead of replacing them, or are you guys still here asking for replacement?

If you if you're saying we can't replace them, then we'll we'll try our best to restore them.

Yeah.

I mean, that's that's essentially we want to replace them, of course, but I think you know, everybody here wants to I get it, you know.

Um, but the basement ones would love to be able to replace because um they're they're just not in great condition.

And those there's nine of those basement windows, if I according to the report.

Um I don't know for sure to be totally honest with you off the top of my head, but that sounds about right.

There's five that are aluminum and three that are wood original.

Or four that are wood, I think.

One of which maybe is poor.

Oh, there's one more.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

Yeah, so four original wood.

Can you uh maybe pull up the locations or photos of where the window the basement windows are located?

If they're in the front, the back.

Maybe you can speak to that.

Um, Chris is where those are located.

Are the wood windows in the front of the property?

So the original ones that are in question.

Right.

So they would be considered on the side.

So in that picture, there's the bump out, as you can see.

So the basement windows are literally right below there.

Those are the wood ones that are uh basement windows that you know that basement is actually used for you know, like back of the house operations, like laundry and stuff like that as well.

And actually the Google image is of the street view, does show several of the wood windows.

So the wood windows are located under the bay window.

Yes, on center street.

So there's that, yeah, that annex road there.

Yeah.

Right.

And that's on the corner.

Uh yeah, yeah.

Where it would be fairly visible, would you say?

Yes, there's a front porch where you see the front of building, there's a there's a stairs and and a front porch, um, wraparound porch.

So yeah, it's it's pretty much the corner of the structure of the property.

If you don't count the porch.

So while we're reviewing those other details, so if we do find windows that um could be replaced according to our preservation planner and our own guidance on windows, um aluminum clad windows are not within the um approvable material.

Is that something that you would be willing to respecify a new window?

Sure.

Okay.

And that would be something that we could, if you had questions around that material or the details of the windows, that could be confirmed with our preservation planner if and when we get there.

Okay.

And um, not to uh is it uh just aluminum cloud or all cloud.

Um you wanna you were gonna jump in?

Yes, so it depends.

Um if you're only looking at the basement windows, then we have approved basement windows with a composite material before if there is water infiltration and due to the proximity of the ground.

Obviously, that's um up to the commission to direct me to approve that.

Um, but typically an all wood window is preferable.

You do have some basement windows that are in decent condition.

Um, they are screwed shut, so there's no current operation, but it looks like they may be able to be um to be repaired, and you do already have some existing aluminum basement windows from 1940.

Um so it's up to the commission if you would like to maintain one specific look of the windows, or if you would go in a different um direction for materiality based on resiliency.

Okay.

All right, so I'm gonna open it up for other questions and comments, Ms.

Moran.

So I'm in favor of retaining the wood basement windows that are repaired that say they're in good condition.

So they're definitely three of them.

One uh which looks like it's along the same facade.

I would love to see restored or rebuilt to continue with that cohesion when it comes to the aluminum windows.

I would be in favor of replacing them in some manner that helps to keep the cohesion of the building.

I think that we could defer that to the preservation planner, but that would be my position, especially because they are on center, they're right by the front door.

I think they do hold some historic significance and they do seem to be in good condition.

So that would be my position.

Okay.

Other commissioners.

So just to clarify that we're all on the same page here, you would be willing to restore any window that can be restored other than the ones in the basement that are made of something else that would need to be replaced anyway.

Is that what we're all saying?

That's the question I got.

Okay.

Yes.

Just making sure.

Yep.

If I could just ask the question, yeah.

And and I please, I I no disrespect whatsoever, but what if I wasn't okay with it?

Well, that would be taking it up with the rest of the commission and our preservation planner.

Okay.

Yeah, because it sounds like we'll either have to restore or do nothing.

So based, yeah, and that's why we're kind of gauging the um feedback from the commission.

Ultimately, if that was not something that you were aligned with and we were to take it to a vote based on our standard and our window guidance, you would likely not have a favorable outcome of that vote.

So we're trying to find a path forward so that there may be something between restoring and replacing some of the windows that the um window evaluation lens to recommend that those things could be replaced.

So um, let me just check in with other members of the commission at this end based on where we are with the basement windows in particular.

Well, I agree, you know, to get a sense of what actually is going to be done.

He has already said he's going to restore all those that can be restored, correct?

So I think that's quite favorable.

Okay.

So Mr.

Bala, any questions or comments?

I agree with uh Commissioner Moran's position.

Uh I think I would vote in favor of that.

Okay.

Um, and so that one, it's very clear from the window evaluation the there's four wood, three of them definitely can be restored.

The fourth one, um, which is not the two that we're seeing here, it might be uh well, actually, no, I'm sorry, can't tell.

The one that my cursors are over um says poor replacement or reconstruction for basement original wood window.

Um, so that one would have to be replaced.

So three three of the original wood windows in the basement to be restored, the fourth wood and all of the other aluminum would be replaced with a new specification for a window that you could review with our preservation planner.

If that condition on the application as presented is amenable to you, we will take that to a vote.

Does that sound good?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Um, with the condition that all windows be restored with the exception of three original wood basement windows.

Um, excuse me, four aluminum.

Um I yes, four aluminum basement windows.

Those windows in particular, a new window spec needs to be reviewed with our preservation planner.

All other windows in the building, including um three wood basement windows and one uh I'm sorry, including three wood basement windows within that other group within the basement.

It's four aluminum and one wood um be restored.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, a one, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

This is item C5, the application of Kelly Nace of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25, lot 65, contributing for permission to install a pool, spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen, relocate the existing shed and HVAC equipment.

Okay.

Do we have anyone here this evening for this application?

Okay, we'll resequence that guy as well to the end.

And move to C6.

This is the application of Stephen Santos of 40 Sherman Street, plat 21, lot 117 contributing.

This application is a result of a zoning violation in which applicants constructed a closet edition without HDC approval or building permits.

Okay, welcome back to uh and I'll get I need to get everybody else sworn in again so we can start whenever whichever order you would like.

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, Stephen Santos of 40 Sherman Street.

Okay, and also 40 Sherman Street.

Can you say that one more time?

Yeah.

Maria Nelson.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then also if I could get you sworn in to state your name.

Charles Saunder, just uh architect.

Okay.

Can you spell your last name for me, please?

S-O-N-D-E-R.

Thank you.

Okay, so last time we were here, um, certainly we asked for some additional materials.

Um, you did provide great elevations.

So thank you for that.

It was definitely helpful to have that um for the commission review.

Is there anything before we open it up to questions from the commission that you would like to add based on the elevations that have been presented?

Perhaps the architect would like to speak to those.

Um just that we we tried to um design it in keeping with the historic guidelines as best we can.

You know, there's some that are conflicting.

Um, so we tried to um have the least impact on the historic fabric as we could while still maintaining something that fits within the neighborhood.

And if you could speak to um the material, I know at our last meeting we did talk through some of the materials that are already on the construction wouldn't necessarily fall within our guidance.

Yeah, they're actually they're all going to be changed.

The um uh all the trim will be wood.

Uh the windows uh will be changed.

Uh I did send in the specifications for all wooden 16 by 28 gel to win windows, and um again, there will not be any aluminum or vinyl on the addition, it will be 100% wood.

Um, okay, so we have wood trim and is it wood shake?

Is it wood clapboard?

It's gonna um well, the siding will be uh premium red cedar shingles, okay and uh consistent with the house, and then the uh roof shingles will be the same uh or consistent, the same kind of shingles that are used on the roof of the house.

Today I sent a picture of the uh roof shingles in with the application, so it the exterior will basically be identical uh to the house.

Okay, and are those um is that a cedar roof or asphalt?

Asphalt?

Okay.

And no change to the footprint as intended as it's been constructed.

That footprint is staying the same.

It has to because I think you had mentioned the last time if we could push it in a little bit, and there was no way because you'll see there's a window right there by the deck.

Um, you see on that second picture, yeah, right.

That window.

So actually the closet is four feet wide, but inside is probably three and a half, maybe even less.

And that's a window that's already there, so we can't interfere with that window.

So that's the only space you have to put the closet.

So it sort of has to run along the side of the house like you saw it, and not be pushed in, because then it the closet's only been two feet wide.

Okay.

So as it is, it's four feet on the outside, but not it.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna open it up for questions and comments from the condition uh from the commission based on um the new materials that have been submitted, including the elevations and the definition of all the materials.

We have um red cedar shingle siding with wood trim.

That window uh is going to also be elevated to an all-wood window and an asphalt roof.

Any questions or comments from the commission on those changes?

None.

Anyone I guess I'd like to make the comment that to some extent, I think we should be evaluating this as though it's hasn't been constructed yet.

And if this came to us as a not yet constructed matter, I think we'd all have a lot to say.

So I'm empathetic because there is a structure there.

Um but I do have uh problems with you know taking a historic property and slapping on a something for contemporary use in this way.

Um I realize it's at the end of a drive, and there is limited, if any, visibility, so that's definitely a factor.

Um that you know we should should definitely consider.

But if this came as a no work had yet been done, I would not be in favor of it.

Okay, understood.

I'll I'll comment and then open it up.

Um, I do appreciate the elevation of materials.

I think we've drastically gone from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Um, I you know, having gone back by the property again, even though it is at the end of a drive, it is visible from the street.

Um, I do agree with my fellow commissioner that although the construction has been done, that is in violation because the application did not come before us.

Um it is a small footprint, yet it is running directly off the back of that property.

Um, we have many scenarios where although there is a window on that deck, as you're mentioning, that window might be proposed to move a location so that the you know that addition could be pulled in.

There's other construction that can happen.

So I understand that's what you're saying based on the circumstances that you have.

That would be you know, a discussion that we would have if the application was coming before us without having had that construction already in place.

Um I do I respect that view that we do need to consider this as though it is coming before us without having had any of that construction done.

Um so I'll open it up further.

Miss Marin.

I think that you ladies said it quite well.

Um I think I would be aligned with what was stated so far.

Uh yeah, I just don't quite feel that the location of it um really contributes anything to the the building.

I know that there's already potentially a shed edition that's existing, and um, I just don't feel that if this were proposed in the way that it is here, uh again with pre-construction that it would be something I I would be in favor of.

Not to say that there, you know, it couldn't be proposed in a different manner location style, um, that it might not be considered, but as it stands right now, I don't think I could support this.

I don't think it building when I did this when we did this, and I thought I had the permit, but it was really just the permit, as you know, for the shingles that we had.

There was no other option, or else you would really distract the nature of the back of the house.

So I was just in my head trying to be as discreet as possible because we are going to reshingle the whole property, and um and we've invested a lot insulating, doing all the windows all redone.

And um and we've invested a lot insulating doing all the windows all redone.

Ma'am could you speak into the microphone sorry.

Thank you.

Um we restored all the windows as we were told and didn't find new windows.

We've restored everything we now insulated the whole outside of the house and all I wanted at the time was a classic because there was no closet on the first floor and as you know in modern day living I don't know where you put your coats in your boots but I I made a mistake that was my fault.

I understand it but there was really no other place that would in the long term of the building look as part of the building to have your coats and closets that's all I I would tend to agree that if you were to push the closet any further um to the side it would interrupt the symmetry that's on the back of the building which is almost you know completely symmetrical right now.

So if you were to you know move one of those windows it would it would you know it's it does more than just moving a window.

Those are historic you know original windows and I think that the addition is least impact which is stated in the in the guidelines so it's on the back face of the house it's at the rear door which is you know makes the most sense for putting a closet in and um it ties in with the the lowest roof line so it's not much room to drop it or distinguish it from from the rest of the structure um because you're up against both sides with the driveway and the um windows can I uh yes Mr Goddard show my nickels working just gonna ask you to yeah speak into the mic oh sorry it is this portion of the building here this is this is an addition no no no this right here that's the that's that that's that's but that was what is it original yeah yeah that's original to the roof to the building again just the dark piece or early additionally so uh I'm gonna say if it came before my review before I wouldn't necessarily reject it outright uh I think there's something about it it's a little bit quirky and it's clearly not something that's original to the building then I maybe with some modifications would have been able to support it if it come before us.

I think one of them primarily is the factor this up on columns.

I think uh you know if you were to um maybe fill that in so that it wasn't looking like it's just like a little bit I would say that some of the um bum outs on the I recognize brick um brick columns also the building itself is you know has a lot of lot going on if you if you've looked at it you know it has lots of different lines but it it kind of has a monolithic uh aspect to it where like kind of planes unfold off of it there aren't there isn't a lot of like setting in um it's it's sort of just you know one plane folds into the next there's no like five or six inch jogs anywhere in the building so I I think it is you know the addition is somewhat in keeping with the existing that maybe I'll be the case but for for me like I'm saying if it had come before me and you know for consideration before it had been built that would have been my suggestion.

That would have been to you know infill it at the base and would I think make it blend in a little bit nicer.

So uh once it's all shingled I think I would support it.

I'm okay with it.

Is there an option to infill that so it does look like it has some sort of a foundation rather than it being on posts that's just a you know I mean it's on post because the deck is on posts and we were sort of making it look like that's kind of what my thought was is that it makes it look like you covered a piece of the deck.

Well the deck is it was all there so I understood I totally get it I'm just we were just but we can certainly fill in and make a wall like rest of the house look like that would be my thought on it.

Well like I said I for me that would be my had it come before us before it was built that's what I would have said.

Understand by that that's my that's my commentary on Ms.

Chen do you have a um before we open it up to others do you have photos of the property that we could bring up um the another question that I had so that back that rear deck where you do have this some the symmetrical windows around the door you know the side that we're looking at is very visible because it's on the driveway is the other side by the other window is that an opportunity I understand it's reconstructing but moving it it would not be visible from the street one.

Yeah on the other side of the bedroom right on the other side it could be the same thing but on the other side of the building.

And then you would see it as you're coming up the road and you could see it this is the only acid C the last house the last you know we're talking where you're talking so it is visible.

I didn't know if we had photos from both sides of the property that is all right Mr.

Ballet you had a question or comment my uh I'm hearing one of my fellow commissioners uh you know we're kind of in a pickle here because it exists um you've invested into it to this point and I think uh we're not here to uh make you uninvest I uh the the issue I have is that uh this is being treated as an extension of a historic building and not an addition to it's a small scale addition uh it's on a deck which has no foundation and I think you should run with that I think what you should do is lower the eve and not extend the hip roof and put a flat roof on this so it reads as an attachment to the building opposed to an extension of the building I think you should leave the bottom open so it reads as a temporary piece of something opposed to trying to make it look like it was part of the house.

Those two things uh it almost looks like right now the roof maybe is the roof flat now this is it yeah I I just think you know and I would go so far as to suggest that you don't extend the siding onto this maybe you side it with something different uh so it reads as a as an isolated new piece to the building that was not there wasn't meant to look like it was there I think it's admirable that you've uh chosen materials based on our suggestions that are in keeping with the nature of the the construction but that would be my present okay any other comments either from feedback about open Mr.

Bala had some other viewpoints about perhaps making it even more differentiated I think we would want to stay in kind of the materials that you've selected you said shake you're looking to reshake the whole building perhaps this addition is clap or you know a different wood material different wood treatment um that is a treatment that we have done in other buildings to clearly distinguish between something new that's been added to the structure um I would be able to support that view I think elevating the material of the windows as you had discussed is fine um and I'm open to whether you keep it open underneath or add more of a foundation to at least make it feel cohesive but I could go either way on that you know I agree with you and Commissioner Bala I believe that if you make it look like it doesn't really be you know not a part of the structure um it would just make so much more sense specifically with the guidelines that we have that say that if you were to make it such so it doesn't look like original part you know an original part of the building that you could actually remove it if if absolutely necessary in the you know in the future but you're not going to do that but you know it the the philosophy is we if you did that you're not impinging on the actual historical nature of the building so I could I would support that.

Okay.

Just gonna try to get a consensus.

So with the amendments, Mr.

Finley, it sounds like you would be in favor, Mr.

Ballet as well, Miss Richter.

I'd like to hear what the other commissioners say.

Can I see the elevations again, please?

The elevations again.

Ms.

Moran.

So trying to acknowledge what my fellow commissioners have been saying.

Um I am also concerned that wrapping the building with all new shake and putting a faux foundation there would make it look conjectural.

I don't think that that is going to work in in our favor here.

Uh if I were to see this application without it having been built, I would most certainly be opposed.

I I don't see that adding a shed on the back of a house makes uh contributes to the building at all, to be honest.

Um I think my my fellow commissioners do make some good points and suggestions, but I still unfortunately cannot support this.

Sorry.

So Mr.

Goddard.

I I would just like to.

So if you look at the upper east elevation, where there's a proposal to change material as we get into this new addition.

It's all on the same plane.

Right.

So how I don't know how you would do that, but that's kind of what I was looking.

Seems to me like you know, I mean, but I think there's a corner board there.

Is there a corner board?

There no, it's just the shake shingle again.

So you would just be dropping a trim board down and switching materials over.

You know, if there was a return back or something of that, not sure.

Sort of like the wall.

So right after that door, we're saying that that's the same wall.

That's the same plane.

Yeah.

Okay.

I agree.

I thought it was there was some sort of demarcation.

So to me, a flat roof doesn't work.

So it's again, I go back to if I would look at this from an original application.

Uh I would not have approved it up on stilts columns, whatever.

I would have said the same thing I just said.

So I'm not opposed to it as a feature to the house.

It's such a small quirky little addition.

I could go either way with the foundation or the post that it's up on.

I think to me that it reads as an extension of the house.

Like obviously, they didn't just build this little piece off of the back with the posts.

I did like what other people said about possibly having a different type of material that's just a little bit different than the rest of the house, though, uh, to really drive that home.

So that's where I'm at.

I would support it that way.

Ms.

Richter.

I'm sorry, I'm not in support of this application.

Okay.

Um, so in panning the commission, um, I do think you have a majority consensus um with some conditions around modifying as presented this evening.

Um, we do have some commissioners that sound that they are not in a you know in favor.

Um, but for those that are, um, you know, potentially changing that roof line to be a flat roof, clearly to distinguish it from the main structure.

Um, if I understood, I think that there is consensus for you to make the decision about the foundation, whether it be extended or be maintained on the posts as is um materials we talked about.

I do agree again.

I thought that there was a clear line of you know distinction between the original property and the new.

I do think that that becomes tricky in terms of changing something mid-course, let's say.

Um, but I would use, you know, and that could be something, or if Ms.

Chin wants to weigh in, if she has any perspective on what the recommendations of the commission are.

In in kind of what we're saying in terms of the amendments.

Yeah, I mean, I have some different thoughts about the application in terms of the appropriateness and the scale um and the the design based on what the direction that the commission's going.

I guess my my main advice would be to again differentiate that um from the main block.

So that could be done by you know exposing the piers or and also you know, cladding in wood clappered with or perhaps uh just a piece of trim, um, kind of demarcating where the addition meets the the original.

Um, so that would be my professional opinion based on the way that the commission's going.

Um just I'm gonna close by coming back to some of the comments that had been shared in our staff report, which I do believe um some views of the commissioners have.

Um, as far as retaining historic character, the closet edition is attached to the rear elevation on the southeast bay.

This addition is adjacent to the rear deck and is appropriately excuse me, approximately four by ten.

The addition alters the character of the rear elevation and does not um respect the existing architecture, which I think commissioners have spoken to, even you yourself have called out that symmetry on that back entry.

Um it clearly interrupts that symmetry, although you're keeping the windows and the doors.

It there's a very deliberate interruption of what that back fenestration looks like.

Um that's standard A1.

Um, we also have preserved character, standard A4.

The addition clearly does not preserve the feature of that rear elevation.

Um, and then lastly, a seven minimizing harm from alterations.

Um, while we have updated the materials here, certainly in terms of retaining the character of the contributing building in terms of scale and potentially design the size and massing of that addition alters the integrity and scale of the rear elevation.

Um, we've already addressed the windows.

So there's three very clear standards that even with some of the updates that we're making, um, you know, apply again for myself, not strongly in favor of this, but in polling the commission, it does seem that you might, you know, it seems that you would probably have a favorable outcome.

Um, and with that, we would want to make some conditional changes with the preservation planner.

So of those conditional changes that we've talked about, are those um things that you're amenable in terms of looking at distinguishing the material and potentially the roof line.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 40 Sherman Street Plot 21 lot 117, um, on the condition that the application has been updated to have all wood materials, um, including the siding, the design of that siding um to be reviewed with the preservation planner, all wood trim, the windows will be updated to an all wood window.

Um, roof line of the architecture to be reviewed as well.

Any questions to be reviewed with the preservation planner?

Siting Newport standards 17 tact 80 060 A14 and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

I all those opposed.

I think it failed.

Yeah, actually, so I mispolled.

So and and I will state um standards A1, 4, and 7.

A1 and 4.

Um, for myself, a one, a4, and a seven standards A1, A4, and A7 as well.

So we did not get an approval for you this evening.

So we can talk about what your options are for next steps.

Um, in order to reapply, you would have to submit something that is substantially different within the year, or you would wait one year to reapply for the same thing.

No, I thought it is.

I based on polling the commission, I did believe that Mr.

Goddard was going to be in favor of the application.

So that is my misunderstanding.

And then this happens, that's why you vote.

So didn't have the votes.

Okay, so like after going to the office, I want to know what you want.

Yeah, I can I thought we brought it back.

Like we like it on the last meeting.

We had to brought the architect, and you drafted it all into what you want it.

And you know, this is a closet that nobody can live without in modern day.

I don't know.

I've lived in many old towns here, the Pennsylvania back.

And you know, we really, you know, my roof was what I did.

I've already bag.

But you know, I'm not sure a year from now to live in it.

Mess is really trying because we've been living in a mess for six months.

So you can you can reapply with a different design that is different than this one.

What is the different design?

I know we did have a different design.

We redid the roof line as we were told the last meeting.

Now we have the flat roof that's already there that you know has a really tiny slab just to make sure that the water runs off.

So then I you said yes, that that would be better.

We said let's not shingle it the same way because we're going to reshindle it.

We can do like just some wood siding and painted, so it stands out differently.

We're going to do the wood windows as you say.

We got this back.

Yes, so I think the the main issue would be this the size and the massing and the design, which was not altered.

So I think that would that's that's why the commission perhaps voted in the way that they did was because there was no movement on that piece.

And so I can have a further conversation on your next steps after this.

Um but I I unfortunately we we did have uh I don't want to waste your time.

Well, I you know we can talk online, you can talk offline, you know, outside of a meeting setting.

Um I this is really stressful.

No, I I know you don't understand, and this is really stressful.

And one minute you said yes, it was approved, and all of a sudden you go and vote, and now it's not approved.

We go into everything you said, we get the architect, we lack it, we we commodate everything and everything.

There is no other option because I don't want to.

Unfortunately, you weren't approved though, and we can't continue to litigate something that's been denied.

So we've got 25 applications review this month.

You're one of the 25.

And sometimes people don't get their applications approved.

That's a the way the city has been set up.

So there are two alternates voting tonight.

There'll be different membership in a year.

You could try and roll the dice again then.

Uh, and you could certainly change your application.

You have some guidance.

I don't I agree with you that you maybe don't have a clear path forward here, but unfortunately that's sometimes the way that it is in the historic district commission, and there's a lot of applicants waiting to have their applications heard, and we do frankly we just have to move on.

Yeah, I I can connect with you afterwards on on your options.

Um so we'll we'll be in touch after uh we'll be in touch tomorrow.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move forward to C7.

This is the application of Peter and Lisa uh Kugler of 95 John Street, plat 28 lot 59 contributing for permission to rearrange fenestration so all original windows are in the facade, restore eight original windows and replace non-original windows with all wood Colby 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 wings.

Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Peter Regan representing uh Peter and Liza Bugler uh with me tonight, John Tamino of Tomorrow Architects.

Uh we were here last month, at which time you approved the windows and the rear bump out.

Uh, since that time, John has met with Jill, and based on the prior staff report, the comments from last month's meeting has uh submitted some revised plans with regard to the rear dorm or the decorative rail and the small second floor deck, third floor deck has been removed.

Uh so which we think addresses the concerns that were previously raised, but I'm just gonna turn things over to John and let him walk you through that.

Okay, and Mr.

Semino, 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.

I do.

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

John Tamino.

All right, thank you.

All right, if you could walk us through those revisions um since the last submittal.

Of course.

Um so we removed the third floor deck completely, took the door out, uh, which I think really simplified the dormer.

I got the kind of let them blend in with the other additions.

Um we lowered all the decorative rails uh from 36 inches uh to uh I believe 28 inches.

That's considered local with the store branch.

Yes, yeah, which were more uh decorative, they weren't uh code rails.

Um and then for the the deck on the second floor, we moved it to the center of the side, so it's not directly abutting either uh John Street or Memorial.

Um I think it kind of just disappears, you know, in the back with the decorative rails.

Um so those were kind of our attempts to address the concerns um of the board.

And could you just speak to that dormer?

The details of the dormer.

Yeah, so the the dormer um is set back from the side, you know, from the both uh faces, and we just matched the kind of the flat roof uh detail of the other editions um of a building.

Um partially that was uh one of the limits was the height limit.

We if we wanted to do something with a shed roof, which would be a different element in the building, we wouldn't be able to anyway.

Um we thought just matching the addition, you know, the other bump out, the carport, um, and the other, you know, lower uh lower left side there, just matching that detail would let it blend in more with um everything that's there already.

Okay.

Um questions and comments, Mr.

Ballard.

Um I know in the previous hearing that we made comments about this proximity, it's very well seen from memorial, and um I've paid attention to this building in since the hearing, and I would uh like to say that the back of most of those buildings has been modified on John Street, and what is shown on memorial uh is shows uh evolution of architecture and people living in houses.

So I don't think the dormer is uh objectionable in in my case.

I think you've done well with kind of bringing components together.

Um I would not be in favor of the second floor deck, however.

Okay.

So other commissioners either of their own views or commenting on Mr.

Ball's comments about the dormer and that second floor deck.

I would concur with both Mr.

Bellard's comments.

So in support of the dormer and not in support of the second floor deck.

Correct.

And that deck, just to be clear, is on the west elevation.

That's correct.

Okay.

And just to clarify, because the deck is set with the higher rail.

Um, are you okay with if the deck is removed with just the pure decorative rail?

Yes.

So it would match the lower profile of all the other details that we see on this elevation.

Um deck.

With no deck, and that, but that is a door that's out there.

That would be eliminated if eliminated.

So that would that change to a window?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments.

Well, just to clarify, you're amenable to removing the deck.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

It would be updated, so it would not be a deck, it would be just that decorative lower foot point railing that would just at that point it's just a roof.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

And then changing the proposed door to a window that would match.

Which I believe is my phone now.

Okay.

I would be in support of the application with that amendment.

I agree with that as well.

Okay.

Miss Moran is still thinking.

I'll go over.

Miss Richter, anything?

Uh yes, I'm in support of this application with that amendment.

Okay.

Just open that up to Miss Moran if she has the any other thoughts.

I do have a concern about the dormer.

Maybe the standalone on that.

Um honestly, I I'm not a hundred percent convinced that the railings were.

I know that we have a photo of it from the 70s that show that, but I I don't really believe that those uh necessarily were an original feature, have a place on this building.

So I'm struggling a little bit with those elements of the whole thing.

Uh again, it may not stand in the way of you getting an approval, but that's that's where my concern stands.

Um, I'll just comment on that.

Is there a view though that those railings, based on the fact that we had seen them in the 70s have taken on significant character to the building since then?

That would be a fair argument.

I would also add there are a significant number of buildings on that um elevation as you go down Memorial Boulevard that have similar railings, including deck railings, but it it is certainly compatible with the other structures.

And could you just clarify the material intended for those um all of the ballastrad?

I know that there was a comment.

I don't know if it had been changed to be using ASIC it will be all wood.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

Ms.

Moran.

Do I believe my point?

I mean, I guess just in terms of the balustrade, 1825 to 1850.

I mean, it's a very simple building.

It does have it's it doesn't have embellishments.

And I feel like this adds embellishments.

Not that it doesn't look good, but I feel like it's it's adding on a on a structure that wouldn't have necessarily had them.

And I think it does add potentially some conjecture.

I do also acknowledge that it may have um, you know, taken on some historic uh I don't know what word I'm looking for here in presence in history, but for me, uh I'm just I don't support it personally.

I understand.

Okay, so with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 95 John Street, flat 28 lot 059, um, with the condition that on that west elevation um we remove the deck, it will be a continuous lower profile balustrad in all wood.

The door will be replaced with a window.

Um citing newport standard 17 tact 80 tag 060, a one, two, four, five, and seven.

So moved?

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Aye.

I will ask Ms.

Moran to just cite the standard.

Uh standards a one for retained historic character and a two for avoid conjecture.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is item N1, the application of Mark Reitman of 7 Willow Street, plat 12 lot 189 contributing for permission to construct a second floor edition of 216 square feet to include new bathroom and closet, all contained within footprint of house.

Okay, welcome.

I'll get you sworn in.

Thank you.

Good evening.

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

So help you God.

I do.

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

Mark Rightman.

Okay, Mr.

Wrightman, welcome.

Thank you.

Thanks for having me.

Um, if you could just give us a summary of the application as presented.

Yeah, sure.

So essentially what we're doing is um adding on to an addition that was done and approved by the commission back in 2014 on the back of the house.

We can all certainly question my decision making from back in 2014 as to why I didn't do this then, but here we are.

Um so we're adding a 216 square foot addition on, you know, on the back bathroom um walk-in closet.

Um, it's gonna have um differentiated siding from the original house, right?

Because we're not adding on it, it's consistent with the addition that was done in 2014.

We're not adding on to the existing house at you know, at this point.

And at the meeting in 2014, what the commission had me do, there was some debate about how to differentiate it.

The the debate was do you drop the ridgeline a few inches, you know, on the top of the roof, or step in the sides.

Um, and the decision at that time was to step in the sides.

You can see in in the picture, it's this picture here.

How it stepped in.

I'm happy to show you, you know, if you want to step in six inches on each side.

And we also to give it secondary differentiation, we did the cedar shakes as opposed to the clapboard um on the original house.

Um, it's all within the existing footprint, doesn't go outside the footprint um at all.

Um, and that that that and also that decision back in 2014 as a reminder to step in the sides, change the construction of you know of the house.

Um, so instead of just building a wall on top of a wall, we had to bring in all these big steel beams at, you know, honestly, quite an expense.

So I'm you know, I'm hoping that we can just kind of continue and differentiate it in the same way it was approved last time.

So if we go back to that photo that we had, Jill, I just want to um that showed the rear.

So if we're looking at this here, essentially that bottom roof line goes away, that back gets extended all the way out over that.

It's extended back.

Yeah, yeah, look, it looks bigger than it is.

You know, it's it's not that big.

The whole thing's only 216 square feet.

Okay, and if we could go back to the rendering of the elevation.

Um, do you have the color rendering?

There we go.

Okay.

All right.

So commissioners, questions or comments.

All right.

I will open it up.

Um understanding this is a very small house to begin with.

Um, you know, I think my reaction here, although you've been very sympathetic to pulling, you know, roof lines in and uh feedback that had been provided to you um in 2014.

The general overall scale of massing that we're looking at, even though it's only 216 square feet, it has a lot of mass that's being added to that rear.

It aligns with the findings um that our preservation planner had added in our uh staff comments.

Um is there any other way to reduce the overall massing of that expansion in the back, just so it's more I mean overall what visually ends up happening, and you see it very clearly in this elevation, that rear by extending on that second story, it's almost as large as the main house.

Um, which is my concern.

It's it's significantly altering, you know, what is a very small little structure to begin with.

It's 2300 square feet, the you know, the the house.

But it sits far, you know, it sits off the the Yeah, it sits back.

So it has, you know, from a visual presence, it doesn't, you know, read as a very large obtrusive house.

Um it's only one and a half stories for the most part from the front.

Um, but again, you're you're adding significant weight off the back of that, particularly then cantilevered off those posts.

Um so that would be my initial feedback.

Yeah, we could, you know, we could would it would be open to me adding something architectural to break up the mass.

I'll open it up to other questions or comments first.

Um yeah, I I agree with the massing uh issue and I understand your plight to want to utilize square footage.

I'm wondering instead of just extending the mass and keep on going to what you propose.

Uh if you turn the gable in the ridge line 90 degrees to the main house so it reads as a T opposed to an attenuation instead.

And and maybe that would break up the the massing enough so it wouldn't just seem like it's one shot of of a building.

Um I don't know, you know, without drawing what it would entail, but it just seems like um I think you gotta be uh come up with some little finessing about how to kind of make this scene a little less obtrusive.

Yeah, my first thought about uh upon seeing this earlier was that the roof line was far too elongated.

And so perhaps if you could turn it somehow like that, it would um not have that elongated uh sense that it will have, because that is uh kind of unusual design, especially for the uh neighborhood that it's in and the type of house that it is.

Would dropping the ridgeline a few inches?

Well, that was my first thought, yeah.

Okay.

Certainly open to that.

Mr.

Goddard or Ms.

Moran.

I I I don't know.

I'm I I agree with uh most of the comments I've heard here tonight.

I I really can't support that is.

Uh I understand the you know the situation and and uh the desire to increase square footage.

Um but the massing of it in the back is troubling.

And I also don't know that switching around the the ridgeline and having it run the other way is gonna really help you because as I see it, we have a really sort of pretty wild collection of roof lines already, you know, and adding to it.

I don't know is gonna help you.

I just wondered if this I don't know what the answer is, but I I can't really support it in this current lawn.

It just doesn't look appropriate to the historic nature of the the district.

If it helps, it does has zero visibility from anybody except seagulls, like nobody can see anything.

Right, right.

You know, there because my house is the only one that sits back.

And it is stepped in on either side, and I'm certainly willing to drop the ridge line, you know, six inches to differentiate it a little bit more.

Yeah, I think a couple small changes would help, you know, dropping the ridge line on, I think would help.

And I think uh and maybe working with the you know, the mounting in the back and something to do with the cantilever nature of that back there.

Uh it's just a little jarring, but that's my comment.

Okay.

Um it sounds like you know, looking at another version of this would help several of the commissioners to be able to get you to a favorable outcome.

Um certainly I am aligned with you know, in the comments that I shared with Mr.

Bella and Mr.

Goddard.

Um, but without seeing an updated elevation and drawing, I would not be comfortable, you know, making a recommendation this evening.

So I add one quick comment.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm not in favor as it stands currently, but I think trying to match the addition that was already put on the building, which doesn't respect the nature of the house as it is, isn't really helping what you have here.

Okay, I said that that's what was approved by this commission in 2014.

So that's why I said I was trying to extend what they told me to do.

Oh, yeah, sure.

I mean, that was before probably all of us.

So we're it's just different time now.

I just don't think that at least for me, that would be an addition that I would ever approve personally.

I don't think it it this the scale and just um the differentiation isn't really there for me.

So that's why I I don't see that copying that and extending it, making it larger is really the answer.

Not to say that a different plan would not be uh favorable, but this one for me is not, unfortunately.

So I would recommend um you have to be amenable to this, but to continue the application to January, you'd have the opportunity to come back and present new plans.

Um you might be able to get some insight from our preservation planner in the interim of that.

If there's plans that you want to put forward to her just to weigh in before you come back before the commission, um, but with some updated plans, I think you'll be able to have um you know additional feedback from the commission next time.

Okay.

So all right, with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of seven Willow Street plat 12 lot 189 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting.

So moved.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do one more.

Okay.

Um just before we start, um, Mr.

Goddard's gonna be recusing himself from the application of N3.

He'll be stepping off.

Um, and with that, we will go ahead.

This is item N3, the application of Elizabeth Galtra of 41 Everest Street, plat 12, lot 12 contributing for permission to demolish existing north entry stairs and replace with new code compliance stairs, construct new port cochere on the east side, remove existing window and east elevation and replace with door, install new exterior stair on east elevation, relocate electrical meter to south elevation, demolish existing rear deck and associated stairs, remove existing door and east elevation and infill opening with siding to match exterior, demolish existing side yard deck and stairs on west elevation, remove existing plexiglass window at the rear and replace with new Marvin ultimate wood window and existing opening, remove basement door and replace with new door to fit within existing opening.

Bravo.

Okay, 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.

I do.

And if you could state your name for the record.

All right, thank you and welcome.

Thank you.

Um this house was a two-family um and has been kind of uh kind of worked over over the years because of that.

Uh so a lot of the changes are on the side and back that we're proposing.

Um because we're some of the stairs aren't needed.

Some one of the stairs uh actually was underneath the sewer main that was coming in that was blocked.

They needed to tear it out to fix the block, but it was one of these sort of like added stairways.

Um we have some pictures that we showed.

Um there's a pressure-treated deck in the back.

We're taking out just sort of like doing some small housekeeping items around the property.

Um to have the new owner uh live there.

And one of the requests was to try to have a covered area for her car.

And um so we looked at different elements of the building, um, not to try to copy it exactly, but take inspiration from the different details that we see throughout the building.

Not to try to copy it exactly, but take inspiration from the different details that we see throughout the building.

And so that's where we came up with the details around the port crochet.

Pork crochets were very common during this era of building.

And so it feels like it was something that could have been there.

It's set all the way to the back of the property.

So it's not really on the street at all.

It's as far back as it could go.

There's a side window that's turning into a door, which allows for a stair off the kitchen, which is how you'd enter the house from that side portcoch.

You know, we looked at, you know, enclosing it and making it like a one-car garage, but um seemed a lot less sympathetic than trying to do something that we see around town uh from time to time on a house of this of this era.

And so we went with the port crochet because it felt one, you could walk around the car a little easier than a one-car uh when you didn't have sides on it.

So it was an attempt to try to um just make it more usable, uh, make the property more usable, obviously in the winter or heavy rain times uh for the new owner.

We've talked a lot about uh a lot of the windows that are um we'd like to replace that are sort of vinyl windows added to that front porch and even redoing the front porch and even addressing the siding, which is vinyl right now.

Uh, and we're very interested in doing that.

This is sort of a step one of multiple things right now.

We're just trying to get the uh client into the home.

It's been fully renovated internally to change it back to a single family, and then we'll be coming back with some trying to restore the exterior.

But this is sort of the first step of uh cleaning up some of these odd decrepit stairs in the back, and then adding this feature, which will allow her to come in and out of the home without uh with a weather break.

Okay.

Do we have a historical society report on the property?

Um we looked, but they said they didn't have for this.

Um it's definitely not something we saw, and then said, hey, let's put this back.

Okay.

It's just a need that the owner uh was really interested in.

And so this seems the an appropriate way to handle it.

Okay, understood.

I think you know, in our um staff comments, certainly not looking to have conjecture, um, which is why we're just asking if there was historic precedent on the property that would have led to that.

Yeah, we didn't find any okay.

Um and I mean, Ms.

Chen did comment that there's definitely precedent for it in the neighborhood in the district, um, and on other Queen Ann style houses.

So I don't think that's a concern in terms of the compatibility within the neighborhood.

I think the question for the commission before us is is it too conjectural specific to this property?

Um so my other question, um, so now you've just mentioned that there's potentially future phases coming that would address some of the materials.

Um, we know that there was also staff comments relative to the existing siding, and because we're touching areas of certain elevations, the infill is in a material that wouldn't be approvable.

Um so just calling that, you know, definitely a concern if you know it's always hard based on the application before us.

We don't necessarily know what and when will come ahead of us in the future.

So I can't promise that we're going to.

I just can tell you that was the question from staff.

The question I had immediately when I building, like, let's get this.

Bring this back because it's a really beautiful building.

I think it's uh got a lot of detail on the street.

It's you know, and so that's been a big conversation.

I want to just let you know we're okay.

We're all including the owner interested in bringing the full building back.

Okay.

This is a first step.

Okay, so I'll open it up to the commission for other questions and comments um for myself on the decks that you're proposing to remove in the back fully in support of that.

I think that you're doing um good work there in terms of bringing back that rear elevation and taking, you know, late additions that have been added that wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for the building.

So I'm in support of all of those changes otherwise.

Um, and so with that, I'll open it up for other commissioners.

So let me just say that I think this is gorgeous.

I love it, but I do have to agree.

Um, that since it's my favorite part, I just want to put out there the pork cochere.

I was gonna bring that up as my first comment that since there is no evidence that there was one, that it does go against our uh guideline about avoiding conjecture in the neighborhood.

Um so I don't know how other members of the commission feel about that, but that was my immediate thought upon seeing this.

Okay.

Ms.

Moran.

Yeah, I would agree.

I want to support this.

I think it'll look good, uh, especially once the siding is addressed.

But yeah, it it we do have a standard that you know very specific when it comes to conjectural things like this, and this is not a small element.

And being that it is a Queen Anne building, I really would caution adding something that very well could have been there at one time.

Um Go ahead.

Uh I guess I'm wondering.

So if we made it feel unique, then it would be more appropriate.

How would can you elaborate?

Like maybe the columns were more simple or more modern.

Um I think you know the the idea was to you know still be a new addition and not feel like it was faking it or whatever.

Uh but like so it felt like it uh was a newer piece.

Is that is that what we're saying?

I mean, because we could definitely you know change the detailing of it so it feels less like the building.

Is that what you're asking?

Well, I mean, and that's part of what the Queen Anne uh style is is having those elements, and that's why I really would I think again it would it would have it would look nice on the building, but I'm just struggling to support something that can really um have that conjectural element.

There's part of me that would almost rather have something else like a garage, just because we don't have to worry about there being the conjecture, but uh I mean if you had a uh any kind of evidence that something may have been there, then I would 100% be in support of it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Sorry, just to interject.

Um, I also want to point out the sighting of the porco share.

Um typically porco shares would be centered on the side elevation, and so perhaps the sighting, you know, satisfies the conjecture piece.

Um just throwing that out there because I know from the front, it looks like it's you know, in its proper place, but uh just throwing that out there that from the side elevation, it is quite set back.

But I mean, usually the porco share was for the main entrance, typically, right?

So this would not be that.

So I'd we'd like to put it there.

Uh, we'd like to not dumb it down so it felt sort of odd there.

I think a garage would be awkwardly looking and not very functional.

So I think for few reasons, it's you know, maybe worth reconsidering your opinions about the conjecture.

Can I amend my statement from earlier?

And now that that's been pointed out.

I somehow missed the second photo when I was looking at this earlier, so I thought that was the front door of the house.

Um, and since it's not when I saw it from the other side, then I think I could support it because I know that that's not where the porco share would be.

Um, so maybe that would get around the conjecture um guideline.

Um, Joe, could you just pull up the east elevation?

I think that uh yes, okay.

So here everybody could see that it's clearly stepped back.

Um it's not on center of that elevation.

Um does it, it does intercept a little bit of that.

It's hard to tell from I'm looking at the roof line on this image, it does cut into that middle section a little bit, correct?

Yes, exactly.

Right where Jill's got her cursor down there.

Just briefly.

Okay.

Kind of lines up with that with that jog.

Okay.

Yeah.

And any can you speak to that at all?

That little thing.

Say that again.

I don't any clue as to why the flare there is like that.

You may have no answer, and that's totally fine.

I'm just very curious.

You mean why they don't want there, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Let's can we zoom in on that, Joe?

Could there have been something there?

Um it's just kind of interesting how it sits there.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, that high point.

Very odd.

So this roof line would stop before we get to that little area right there.

It kind of sneaks in where it's raised for it's peculiar.

I don't have an answer for why it's like that.

Sure.

Uh, but that's kind of where we're connecting to the building, right?

For about a foot.

Okay.

Um while we're on the porco share, any other comments from the other commissioners at this end.

I'm in support of it as presented.

Okay.

Mr.

Bala.

Yeah, I uh I'm in support of it.

Uh I do agree with the commissioner's statement.

Uh uh I want to be in support of it.

I think it's truly lovely.

The drawings have done a great job explaining what's happening.

Um I do sympathize with the the arguments, uh, but I do think I've heard enough evidence that it's okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Finley, any comments on it?

I'm in support of the poor cochere.

I mean, it's even though that there wasn't you know precedent for it at the house, there certainly is for the Queen Anne.

So and there are several other in the neighborhood, aren't there?

Yes.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, no, I would support it.

Okay.

Um, I think Miss Chin's comments about the placement of it relative to the central line is certainly, you know, a fact to be acknowledged that it is stepped much further back than would have been there with historical reference.

Um my other question was on the height of the cross gable.

Um, particularly then when you look at it from the front, it does like what is the overall height.

My drawings are so tiny I can't see, but what is the so from this view?

That cross gable which sits quite tall.

What is the height of that?

What's the reason for it?

And what is the what is the total height there?

Oh um, it's about 15 feet uh to the ridge, is that what you're asking?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

15 feet.

Um so does it when you see it then relative to the elevation and where it there's that window.

Um Jill coming back to that east elevation.

Yeah.

Okay, so that it's well low of that.

Um the one on the the window on the second story.

Yeah.

Okay.

Did how did you uh determine the height?

Did you do so because of belt coins?

So there's a door um that's above it.

So to walk out of that hole.

I see if it wasn't we had it as low as we could and still have the door be able to walk out and then down those stairs.

Which is currently a window, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So that's set the the ceiling height internally.

I see.

And then we use that uh thickened soffit area to sort of bring that down a little bit and scale.

And you know, looked at the detailing on the upper gable and followed that for proportion uh to get to where the design is.

Um the front gable is um, you know, I think it adds a little detail to it.

It could just be a plane, no, not have a cross gable.

It just added a couple of lines to it, maybe through snow off to the sides instead of having it come straight off outs there.

Yeah, and my comment was less about the front cable, but the cross, the height of in yeah.

So the cross sneaks around this around the uh window that's there, and obviously provides uh a roof line that would make sense in this house.

Okay.

And the window that is being taken out to be replaced with the door, that's being reused on.

Oh, I did see that on another elevation, correct?

Yeah, there's a there's one right above it in the drawing set.

It's sort of the standard window that's um kind of used on the first floor.

It's a single version of that.

And you're planning on retaining it.

Yeah, we can save it.

I don't think it's being moved.

It's not being moved, is it?

We don't have another window that we need that's that size.

Um, so on the west elevation, there it says reuse existing window in new locations.

Okay.

All right, yeah.

So there, so it is being we are reusing.

Okay.

All right.

So that's okay.

Which is even better than saving it.

Yeah.

So okay.

Um, commissioners, any other questions or comments about the decks that are being removed off the back of the property?

And or other, this is a lengthy list of see there.

You can kind of see there, right?

It was focused on the other side, but see that sort of awkward door that's there that was part of a second floor unit that was kind of put in on this building recently.

So we get to make all those sins go away.

And we pick up that window, we get to reuse.

I've forgotten about that since we get this application.

Okay, so this door will be removed.

This is where we're looking to infill.

Okay.

Um, so I mean, I think removing that is fine.

Um, I just want to call out one last time for the commission as far as the materials in and of themselves.

Um, obviously we don't know from the future perspective, but in filling this right now, in kind is aluminum.

I'm not sure how you would avoid some sort of patchwork.

Um, but I just want to make sure the commission is clear.

We had staff comments that did call that out as well.

Yeah, you mean like how the siding's gonna be adjusted to what this like gable land on the building?

Is that the concern?

So I think so.

If I understand correctly, where you're taking out that rear door, that's where there it's gonna be infilled with the aluminum siding.

Yeah, okay.

So it'll whole course of aluminum will be replaced or it'll be taken out, cut, and put back up.

Okay.

Where we're editing it for the moment.

Uh ultimately we want to take it all off, but that's just not in the scope with the second.

Okay, and the any other questions or comments in the other details.

Um as outlined in the application.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Anything else?

Thank you.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 41 Everett Street Plot 22, lot 012 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, let's just do a time check.

815.

Should we take a 10-minute recess?

All right, we are going to resume.

Um, and I'm gonna ask the vice chair to read the application of N5.

This is application of Deborah Goldberg of 15 Codington Street, Unit A, Plat 17, lot 133a, contributing for permission to strip siding and replace with hardy board siding.

Okay.

Do we have anyone here this evening?

Okay.

Welcome.

I'll get you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

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

Amaral.

Okay, and I'm gonna ask you to just pull that mic down a little bit.

All right, perfect.

Make sure you're comfortable.

I could speak loud enough.

That's okay.

All right.

Um, so give us a um an overview of what it is that you are looking to do for your application.

Okay, on 15 Conington Street, they have um their condo.

It's been it's deteriorating.

I don't know if the bitches came through.

Yeah, that that um the front side, the back side, the back side is really bad.

And these are seven year, this is seven years on C to sh see the shingles on this home.

So they had called what happened was we did St.

Paul's church uh a couple of months ago, month and a half ago, and they watched us do the do the roof that was under uh Bowman, because he was the subcontractor.

And she said she called.

She said, Those guys work like crazy.

So would you be interested in coming to see it?

So Jose went out and she said yes.

What are you looking at?

She says, we're kind of looking at Hottie Boy.

So I said, we priced it up.

This is the first time I've had to ever put in a permit here in Newport.

So I didn't know what the backup was.

She said, could have put a pre-permit friend for us.

It was all new.

Okay.

So I did, and then I then she called and she said, Did you see that?

We're kind of getting a denial.

And I said, No, I didn't see that, but she says, Well, bring it up.

It was on that on one day last week.

And I said, Well, we use hottie products in in areas that are close to the water now.

They're not they're holding up.

They have a 30-year warranty on them now.

They're not, you know, they're not deteriorating.

They're they're versatile resist weather, resist fire, resist pets, pest, and they're really getting a ton of tests.

They don't want, you know, nothing like vinyl that they even want.

Um all the woodwork around the windows has to be re-done anyway.

So that's what she was looking at.

I didn't, you know, she that's what they said they wanted.

So I guess everybody has been saying you should use CL board or Bora.

Well, Bora is out there.

It's it was made kind of like around the same time as uh COVID.

So that product only has a 20-year warranty.

But what's happening with that is it only comes out on like an unfinished.

So you still have to take the next expense and finish the product, where at least the hottie comes out and they're going with the soft blue, so that's in that area in that little cove there.

Okay, so based on um, it seems like you've connected with Ms.

Chin about some feedback.

Um, we have multiple standards which speak to material.

Right.

Um, Hardy is understanding it's it's sometimes used, particularly in proximity to um the water.

Uh, but generally our standard is natural materials, particularly around wood.

Um, we have a lot of cedar, as you've heard throughout the course of the meeting this evening.

Um, and that is a character defining feature of many of these properties, including contributing of which this property is.

Um, so based on the pre-review of our um preservation planner, um, and we can certainly speak through the commission.

Um, you know, looking at our standards around retaining historic um character, um, also preserving um preserving character of buildings, which would shingle is of that repair before replacement.

We know that the condition of them is not repairable, but we always replace in kind.

So generally um for myself, I'm aligned with the preservation planner, and that the way forward for me of an approval on this would not be in favor of hardy board, but going back to an all wood cedar material.

Um, but certainly I will open it up to other commissioners in their view.

Now asking in the area, they were talking about the CL, which has got the same type of um materials made in it.

It's also as that glue with shavings in it.

I'm not familiar with that material.

Um, but again, we're looking at an in-kind material of which is wood for wood.

Okay.

So in addition, you're looking you're a contributing building opposed to a non-contributing building.

Sometimes we have a leeway with non-contributing buildings to use uh more non-traditional materials.

So uh I would concur with the statements that have been made, you know, given our standards, we are looking for a traditional building uh material.

Okay.

Other commissioners?

Well, I'm just in alignment with what's been said so far.

Okay, I would agree.

I agree as well.

Okay.

Um I agree as well.

Okay, so are you amenable to changing the material for the application?

I have to check with the uh this four P there's four condos in that okay.

So not those aren't those aren't up to me.

That would have to be from them.

I mean, we can do any project that's needed.

Okay.

We can put any material on that's needed, but this is what they requested.

Understood.

And this is a condo, so there needs to be an approval.

Um, which I believe we had a letter signed for this condo in particular that gave the authority um as up as applied.

Certainly, if we were changing that, there would need to be a new letter.

Um, but Ms.

Chin, is this something that if the applicant amended the materials that you could administratively approve?

Yes, certainly.

And so would the recommendation be to continue to or to approve it with the condition?

Um it's up to it, you know, if you think that your applicants are amenable to the wood, then I would say that you could approve it with a condition.

If not, then you can I think a safe bet is to continue and then when the application I could approve it administratively.

Yeah, I thought Mr.

Lani was going to be here this evening because he's he's one of the one of the members in there.

So he would have been able to give me a kick.

Okay.

So I think following that course recommendation would be to continue the application to January.

However, in the course, you know, before we get to that, if you speak to the other members of the association, amend that application, then um Miss Chen would be able to do an administrative approval, and you wouldn't need to come back at the end in January to see the commission.

Okay.

Yeah.

Well even at that I guess if it's like we're going, we were gonna go plank anyway.

So we could do something else with the plank in the end kind.

For the clapboard.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah it look because the bottom the top with shingles then the bottom and the bottom is clap.

Okay and I do think that that Ms.

Chen should weigh in that might be typically we would want to retain shake on the top and clap on the bottom but Ms.

Chen can provide that guidance to you when you come back.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 15 Cottington Street Unit A to the next regularly scheduled HTC meeting um in January.

Righty thank you everyone moved.

Second all those in favor aye all those opposed thank you Miss Moran had a quick question.

Deborah I just want to confirm because I I heard a different last name than what was on the application I want to just make sure that I have it correct.

Can you just confirm your last name for me again?

Daddy Girlmar that's what confused me.

Okay and you spell your first name the same way as her okay great thank you nine.

This is item N9 the application of the collection of Barney LLC of 18 Barney Street and 3M4 Barney Court plat 21 lot 63 to 64 contributing for permission to add new windows for symmetry at rear property replace one window at rear of three Barney Court replacement of three vinyl windows that were under HCDC violation.

Restoration of existing window and doors when possible and when sash is present addition of exterior doors for proper code compliant egress and for access to dwelling units restore existing second story rear deck mechanization of existing garage door at three Barney Court addition of skylights to three Barney court not visible from street.

Okay welcome and get you sworn in do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.

I do and if you could state your name for the record please EJ Lanny applicant.

Okay.

I also have with me this evening David Okerlin who's our architect.

Okay and we'll get you sworn in as well do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.

Okay and I'm just and depending on who's speaking I'm just gonna ask you to speak into the microphone so the transcript picks it up okay and can you guys just spell your last names for me please when you have a second Lanny's L-A-N-N-I got it ogreland o K E R L U N D.

Thank you.

Okay thank you.

I can just give a brief overview of the project um as the applicant and then I can turn things over to David if you have any specific uh particular questions about architectural details.

That would be perfect.

This is a unique parcel because there's a few different structures on it.

This is um comprised of it's essentially one tax parcel, two tax cards.

There's three structures currently there recently were four structures and there's six dwelling units within these three existing structures so this application has to do with three and four Barney Court um not 18 Barney Street which is sort of the main house on Barney Street but this is um going up the small side streets Barney Court and also Russo Court so the yellow and the the gray buildings if you will the intent of the application is sort of to you know respect the history of what's here to um provide some restoration to the buildings and to provide some uh symmetry to the existing architecture there used to be a two Barney court to the left um or to the south of the yellow building and there's sort of a mishmash of windows now that self-elevation so uh the request in this application is to add a window on the second floor to provide some symmetry to that uh that second floor in addition to replacing the three um vinyl window uh excuse me aluminum windows that were the previous um owner's violation from HDC so we're sort of trying to clean up uh some of the things that were done previously in addition on the rear elevation uh there's some activation with um egress doors uh that would be in compliance with the new zoning certificate issued by the city zoning officer and again to provide some windows on the ground level to provide some symmetry for those uh elevations on the west side um there's one window as well on the rear of the yellow house that you can sort of see in this picture in the elevation that Miss Chin has up currently that's um sort of an old cottage style window that we're requesting to replace um this is window 26 W.

Um there's one window as well on the rear of the yellow house that you can sort of see in this picture and the elevation that Miss Chin has up currently that's um sort of an old cottage style window that we're requesting to replace.

Um this is window 26W.

And um uh in discussions, it seems like it would be better uh to sort of match the other windows on the building for symmetry and consistency, but uh we're certainly open to some feedback from the commission on that particular item.

And then um restoration of the the existing or what's left of the existing deck on that um rear elevation.

We can see some concrete piers, steel columns and some ledger boards and certainly doors going out to the deck.

So uh David has I think done a nice job with redesigning that to um restore that to its uh original glory.

There's a couple other small items.

Um there's a garage door, which is um sort of a carriage style swinging door uh on the front of three Barney Court, and we're requesting to just modernize that with either an overhead operation or mechanized swing.

In terms of the windows, you know, we did do an extensive uh window inventory.

I included, you know, four pictures of every single window in the building, and our intent uh as we understand the board appreciates is to restore the windows whenever possible.

In most of the cases, we will be able to restore these.

I had our partner from New Outlook Window, Bill Latois come out.

We did an inventory and we looked at the sashes.

There are a couple windows where the sashes are just completely missing.

There's just storm windows.

This uh building was used as a workshop for decades, and uh there's a lot of broken windows, but we we do have a couple extra sashes, and our intent is to restore wherever possible, otherwise um indicated on the window schedule as new.

If you guys have any questions or happy to answer, David, I don't know if you want to add anything architecturally or wait for questions.

I'll throw one out there.

Uh had you found any old sashes anywhere on the property or a budding properties because I know the old owner was quite the saver.

He certainly was.

Uh, we found all sorts of fun stuff.

Um, yes, there are a couple limited sashes that are in decent condition that we could reuse.

Some of them were just you know, powder post beetles and sawdust.

So, but there are a couple.

There's one in particular that we're gonna try to reuse uh in four Barney Court.

I think I listed it on the window schedule that there was a sash missing, but we're gonna try to replace it with um sort of the attic stock that we do have.

We do have some limited attic stock.

Any other uh you can move on, Pruno.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Um, so two comments and questions from myself.

Um, I thought you were gonna say something different about that very unique window on the back.

Um, you know, it is truly unique.

Certainly in all wood, we see some images of it in the photos that you have up.

Um, while I respect, you know, a desire to have symmetry here.

This is a window that I would not be in favor of replacing for symmetry.

I do think it's important to restrain the character of that window.

Um so that's one detail for myself.

And then um, speaking to the garage door, I wanted to ask that you mentioned um mechanizing that with an in swing or replacing, I'm assuming it would be replaced if you were to do an overhead mechanism.

The the intent would be to take that door and to modify it so that it would be sectioned, you know, horizontally so that it could, you know, live on a track and be um operated with a motor.

If that's not possible, then certainly just motorize it.

It currently swings now.

Okay.

So we could motorize it and you know, outswing it.

Maintain it as is.

That would be my preference.

I mean, we don't have a lot of original wood um doors like this anymore.

So I would support mechanize, you know, mechanizing it as a swing versus an overhead.

Um, certainly just to retain that character.

Um, it is right, you know, we also don't have that many doors this close to the street in front, you know, street facing.

So it is very defining as it is on the property.

So that would be my other um in terms of just maintaining the character of this particular elevation.

Another fun fact about that particular door.

If you look at the historic photos that we got from the historic society, it actually used to be on four Barney Court, and then they moved it to three.

Which is why we need to keep it even longer.

Yeah, there was certainly a lot of saved pieces, and it's a bit of a lego sort of constructed here.

Okay.

Is that an actual garage?

Um, yes, that's an actual garage.

Four Barney Court has a has a proper garage on a concrete slab.

Three Barney Court is a it's a it's a bit of a hybrid.

There's oak wood floors.

Um behind that door, there's there's oak wood floors with a small crawl space below.

So I don't know what the loading is, but that's something we're gonna check out.

So you're thinking of outswing doors?

Yeah, they outswing currently.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

I'm generally in support of this application with the two modifications that um that our chairwoman um mentioned about the uh unique window and the garage doors.

Mr.

Ben I would fully agree with that as well, just to throw my hat in the ring for that.

The little cottage window and the um garage door.

Yeah, it's it's sort of a unique feature.

I mean, we don't really have, you know, I can't really opine either way.

It's it's okay to stay.

Um I do think it was probably a collection of you know, the previous owner grab something here and grab something there and then kind of put them into place as uh replacement windows.

So I'll let Ms.

Moran continue thinking, Mr.

Balla.

Um the only thing I'm trying to get my head around is this deck.

Um that doesn't look like it's there now.

Um technically we would not be advocating for second floor decks.

Um I I don't disagree with you, but you know, we can't ignore the history of you know the the existing doors.

There's two existing doors, there's structure, there's piers, there's columns, there's ledgers, there's you know, even Joyce.

So um I think you know, our intent is to make that all wood, wood railings, wood decking, and do it in a way that's um you know, historic in design.

Um, but you know, we we clearly have evidence that there is history there of something.

I agree.

Uh I think there's some language in zoning about suggesting the size of decks that we put back that meet the egress that do not meet a party deck scenario, and that's my only concern here.

Uh so I would in light of that say I think that deck should be smaller and it should be an egress deck, it should not be a party deck.

We had considered um a staircase there and decided against it because we thought that would be the most respectful to the historic nature.

I can let David speak to that as well.

But he and I, you know, looked at that quite a bit um to try to do the best thing.

I don't know if you have any comments on that.

Well, and there is a limitation on the size of second floor decks now.

Um this teases that limitation a bit.

Um it felt like um a clearer architectural expression to infill that corner than anything that didn't go corn corner, sort of as the perimeter beam suggest, felt like you read it as an object of itself rather than an object of the limits of the house.

So um I felt that it um it doesn't disappear, but it became uh more integral to the house if it was slightly larger.

Uh the same with that sort of uh terrace wall underneath, um, that it goes to the corner um rather than stepping back in.

Um so we have one outside corner on the first floor and the second floor rather than an outside corner and an inside corner.

Jill, could you bring up the elevation that shows those decks?

Could you explain the unit access to that second floor deck?

Uh it's from the unit itself.

Um it belongs to the second floor unit on three and four barn.

The I thought the the plans I was looking at, I thought it's the second floor of those two buildings were separate units.

They are.

They both access that deck.

So is there any is like a first come first serve situation?

Are there is the idea that they would coexist?

Uh they would coexist and become best of friends side deck.

Okay.

The first floor deck is shared as egress from the first floor unit at the back of four barn.

Right.

Um, and is a secondary regress.

You don't happen to have any uh exterior or rear photos, historic photos.

We check with um Bert at Historical Society, and we poured over the records, and they they didn't photograph Russo Court.

Um, there is that side street back there, Russo Court, but we did not find any um historic photos, just what you see in the um society's submission.

I would guess this previous owner probably would have had photos, maybe even buried amongst all of the stuff, but that's too bad.

Uh I'm curious about the door, particularly on the I don't remember what number it is, the sh the house on the right.

So that door, it's hard to see, but like I would try to date the existence of a deck or an egress based off of that door, if at all possible looks fairly old, but it's also very hard to see.

It's tough to see in these photos, but if you go out to the site, you'll see a lot of the siding that was patched over the years.

You know, some of it's sort of the older yellow coloring paint, what have you.

And then there's a lot of new, you know, newer cedar that was patched.

So I'm just, you know, I'm just assuming that there were things under there, other ledger boards that got covered up with multiple repairs.

This building has been in restoration from the previous owner for the you know, the past 20, 30 years, according to the folks that we talked to and the his wife.

Yeah, because uh a deck of a house this age wouldn't have steel posts, right?

It would be wood, if anything, if there were an existing deck.

So I don't know if that was added in the 80s, you know, and and a door was reused, and now we're using that as our you know, precedence to put a deck back.

So that's my thought and concern there.

But if there were somehow further evidence of it, I could support it.

So that's that's my thought.

Yeah, I think I think the most convincing evidence is the the existing structure that's there today.

We have you know, concrete piers, we have steel columns, we have a beam, we have ledger boards, and we have two doors.

I think to ignore that and say it doesn't exist or it shouldn't exist, or maybe it didn't until 1980 something.

You know, that's this is the evidence that we have, and we're trying to put it back and do it the best way we can with all the architectural and historical knowledge that we have, try to make it look good.

Sure.

And also not be a party deck.

Um, and also not have you know ugly stairs going down to a yard.

What's the depth of that?

If you were to uh six and a half, seven feet.

It's basically gonna end at the neighboring building where the corner is.

Are offset by as David mentioned, about six feet or so, six or seven feet.

About it.

Okay.

Um, and I just have one other question coming back to the photo that you have on the rear of the property, just from a material perspective, all of the bricks that we're seeing underneath here, those are not in any way part of a structure that we are continuing to use them or no, we're gonna we are gonna reuse them to to you know build a driveway or a patio.

Okay.

Um we're trying to restore.

I mean, we have granite slabs, we have cobblestones, everything that we found there is staying there, and we're trying to reuse it.

We even have you know old gas lamp posts from the Newport Gaslam Company that were found in the garage that we're going to try to restore and you know, again, respect the history of the building and previous owner.

Okay.

Um, so far, um, just kind of some notes that I've made.

Um, certainly based on the updated window evaluation, the intention is to restore as many of the windows as possible based on condition, reusing sashes you may also have found throughout the property.

Um agreeing to amend the application to maintain that all wood cottage window on the second story of the rear, and also mechanizing the wood carriage doors with an out swing.

Um commissioners, any other concerns or conditions were we I'm generally in support of the application with exception to the deck, just sort of seems to me a bit of a stretch in terms of the size of it.

And although I can see the clear evidence that there was a deck there, uh you know, clearly obviously was added later to um I I think that you know, pushing the deck all the way out to capture that last window, turn that window into a door is is what the stretch is for me.

I I really think that a less substantial deck would be better for this application.

Um that's my thought on it.

Um are you gonna keep the steel post?

Um we'll have our structural engineer review loading.

Well, if you keep the seal post and the beams out, no, but uh that yeah, that's my that's my thought.

Yeah, I think the um pretty much in alignment with Commission Nabalo in that respect.

Um that's my point, yeah.

So just reviewing the language from our guidance on decks, um, with contributing um buildings, certainly proposals for new decks on contributing historic structures are not considered appropriate unless definitive historical evidence is presented showing a deck on or attached to the original historic structure, the proposal will be objected.

Replacement of an existing deck at the ground floor level will be considered on a case-by-case basis and held to the standards here, and the creation of a new deck on existing building additions are not appropriate.

Um so if the historic precedent of a deck is established, the new deck should be situated in the same or similar similar location as established by the historical evidence presented.

The new deck must neither damage nor obscure the historic fabric of the structure and its character defining features or details.

A deck must be installed to be structurally self-supporting without damage to the historic structure if future removal is necessary.

Um the design and detail of deck and associated supports, pillars, uh railings, balluster steps, and other finishing details must reflect the scale, proportion, and appropriate materials of the historic building of the deck for which historical precedent has been established.

Cabble cable railings are not relevant here.

Um so just coming back to um, I think two sensitivities.

There's there clearly was a deck in this location.

I think the commission needs to weigh in, and if there's precedent that that was historic or not, um and certainly if that is the case, um, that the design and deck of it reflects, excuse me, the design and detail of it reflects um the scale proportion and appropriate material for the building.

Um the addition of the lower um level, you know, per our guidance.

Perhaps there's some discussion there or not.

Um, but I think that that's um just making sure everybody is centered in terms of what our guidelines are around that.

I mean, it's pretty clear to me that there was a deck.

So to me, that establishes the historic precedent of it.

So like I was saying, I don't think the deck was as large as what's being shown to us now.

And so I could support a smaller version of that deck.

Um so I think also that elevation is substantially changing from what it is now.

I mean, what it is now is a door, a small window, and a big window going out onto what looked like a deck.

What they're proposing are four units exiting onto a two-story one-story deck and a one-story porch beneath it.

So the for me, the significance of this ledger board and other material is null.

Because the the whole entire elevation is becoming something else.

Uh that's my that's my own personal.

I would um just clarify that the the first floor deck, we did show railings there.

Uh I say deck, it's really a uh a porch.

There's an existing concrete slab there uh that's relatively close to grade within a couple steps.

So our intent is to maintain that elevation and just have you know a step or two into the into the units.

We may or may not need a railing based on the building code, you know, having multiple steps.

Um does the commission have uh would you like to opine on on that railing having that first floor railing or not?

We can try to you know avoid that with just a grading change or or steps, and that may lessen the impact of you know a wood structure on the rear of the building.

I I I think you can vote-wise eliminate the railing, and I it would that would be helpful to me as well to do that just to sort of decrease the uh how busy it's becoming on the back there.

So, you know, for a slightly smaller deck above no railing below.

I think would go a long way towards softening that.

The other thing that we we we can consider is you know the depth of the deck if we wanted to, you know, try to reduce that.

We do have an existing door, the the red door that's shown in that rendering that we're sort of pushing up against, but we're we're happy to try to you know push that deck back in towards the house to lessen the impact.

And perhaps it's the width of the deck that would be more impactful by being reduced.

Um if the back corner of three Barney, if that corner board could complete itself, if we push that edge of the deck back just to the edge of the second floor window on the right side, um, it would reduce the square footage of the deck and the mass of the house would have its sort of integrity at the corner.

I and I think that also from a street view, you know, you'd obviously see it would pull it back in.

I mean, in the and I'm not sure um from the street view how visible it is, but in that rendering down below, you'd you know, you still see that corner that would pull that back in.

That would be I mean, it becomes less of a deck, it's more of a little terrace or an egress purpose.

Um, I think the depth of it versus the width of it width being pulled in.

Others can share comments in terms of the width of it, um, or excuse me, the depth of it.

Um, but I would like to see that pulled back in.

Um, Jill, you wanted to bring up Samborn.

Yeah, so I found the Sanborne map.

This is from 19.

Let me just confirm.

Maybe it's from 1903 or 1920.

Let me just take a look at what I have.

Well, that yeah, 1903.

So it does show that there is a one-story uh porch.

Uh that's denoted by the kind of like the open dotted lines here.

Um, obviously, as you can see, that these buildings have had substantial change.

They've been substantially altered.

18 Barney used to be connected to these two, and it was all kind of a mismash of apartments.

Um, so they were historically apartments um of varying different levels.

Okay, so let's try to get um some consensus around that second floor deck for the applicant.

Um the proposal about pulling that in from the edge um to align with that window to the right.

Is that something that brings us into compatibility based on our guidance?

I think it helps.

I would support that, along with losing the railing on the first level.

I think generally speaking, the second floor deck needs to be modified both pulling in in both directions, and we lose the railing at the bottom.

I think then yeah, I could support that.

Okay, and is that something, Ms.

Chen, that the applicant you could provide updated drawings and the preservation?

We can make a condition that she could review and confirm that.

I think the only way to modify the depth of the deck is to move the second floor door.

The corner board, the keys and the door uh as they exist are in uh they're very close to the corner.

So we have very little latitude in making the deck less deep without touching the position of that door.

Which door we talked about, the second floor or the second floor and the yellow building.

Yeah.

And maybe that just becomes a window.

If that became a window, you would lose access to to you know the enjoyment of the deck.

But if you're pulling it back, it's gonna be so small.

But two for two apartments.

Yeah, we're a tiny little deck.

Why don't we uh I I would be okay with a condition, you know, that we can review that with the planner, and that will give David and I some time to revise a sketch and submit that.

I think our intent would be to you know to push it back towards three Barney as much as we can with staying away from you know the door casing so that it's not a conflict and then reduce um the length of the deck again, as David said to the to the second window, so that we're reducing it from the street view side.

And could could we get so if it's gonna be released for for the planner to approve?

I think we should have a dimensional you know, an agreement on what we're talking about here in terms of dimensions.

I mean, the other alternative is we could split the application, review everything else and continue the rear porch and have it come that aspect alone come back before the commission.

Yep.

That seems to be more amenable to the commission.

Would you be open to that?

Uh we could get, I think we have good consensus around all of the other details with the exception of that rear um elevation regarding the porch, uh the deck.

It's yes, amenable to splitting it.

I we want to move forward with understanding the egress doors and the windows.

So those are the important milestones for me.

That would be the first floor.

Um, you know, the reddish pink door shown going into the yellow building and those windows.

So if we can make that and we're just leaving the dimensions of the deck on the second floor as a condition, we're we're totally fine with that.

We can we can you know, re-evaluate the size of the deck, we'll take some field dimensions of the corner board and the casing and see how we can reduce the size of that and resubmit that.

I mean, I I think you've established precedence that there was a deck there.

Uh historically, uh, I would back off of my comments about the the said deck, given that information.

I think if you were to take those considerations and you know, nudge as much as you could, it would be favorable.

Um, but I don't think you necessarily need to come back with an additional uh hearing.

Okay.

So Mr.

Goddard, are you so coming back to that?

Ms.

Chin would have not only a revised um plan, but that would include a dimensional detail of what that second floor porch she'd be able to do.

If we got on talking that what would that dimension be?

Well, I I think historically there's a there's case for that this size deck was on the building by looking at the sandboard map.

Um I don't think I could not support saying you've got to modify it less.

Um maybe it doesn't come to all the uh the corner of the corner board on the blue building.

Maybe it's set in.

Uh they're making consolations about not doing the railing on the first floor if it's allowable to code.

So I think you know, I can't sit here and say I think I should tell you to do something different at this point.

Based on the based on the evidence of the sandborne map, which is very helpful.

I think that's what Mr.

Bella is playing.

Well, I would just say that if we could just you know agree to slide that deck in from the corner as you had suggested to the say call it three feet, four feet.

That's that's what we're sort of measuring here off the plans, approximately three feet.

Or maybe a approximately six inches back towards the building.

So that'll reduce the overall size.

You're saying pulling it in off of Barney Street by six inches and then sliding it in three feet or four feet down the direction.

In which case I can support that.

Is it that or the reverse of that?

Excuse me.

Um, I just want to make sure to be crystal clear.

So are we saying three to four feet in so it'll be closer to where the window is or six inches on that side?

Yeah.

Six inches on the depth of the deck moving back towards the bar and the core um and then three feet from the corner of the building.

Um, and then three feet from the corner of the building.

Yes.

So that if that's you know, yeah.

So you won't see it from the side, Ray.

So the opposite the opposite of what you just said.

So it'll be pulled in three to four feet from the corner, so closer to the window and six inches back.

I think we're talking about the drawings keep moving around.

So we're talking in three feet.

Yes, okay.

Six inches.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, can we also put uh dunno if it's a condition that it if there are some usable window sashes on site that they be used for any window restorations or have that in here?

Okay.

Okay.

So I think we've found a path forward here.

Um so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 18 Barney Street, three and four Barney Court, plat 21 lot 63-4, um, as presented with the following conditions.

Um, the applicant will restore as many windows as cited in the window evaluation, including um the use of window sashes found on the property.

They will maintain the all wood cottage window on the second rear elevation.

They will mechanize the wood carriage doors with an outswing.

The second floor um porch, um the railing will be removed, and then the second floor deck.

Um the dimensions of that will be pulled in approximately three feet from Barney Street court court, three feet from Barney Court and approximately um pulled in six inches in the depth off the rear of the building.

Siting Newport standards 17 tact 80 060 a one through five and seven.

Just one clarification.

Sorry, it's the first four porch would not have a rail.

Would no have no railing, yes, correct.

Uh clarification again, the balustrade on the first floor is going away.

Correct.

Okay.

Yep.

If we need to maintain that, you know, for a code reason for building, then I'll I'll I'll email it.

Yeah, that'll be fine.

But we're gonna try to avoid that with a stepped um, you know, uh heartscape.

Correct.

Okay, so citing again Newport standard 17 tag 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

Okay.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Uh-huh.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

This is item N 10, the application of Sheila Taylor of 96 Rhode Island Avenue, plat 23 lot 54-4, contributing for permission to remove existing stucco and replace with wood shingles.

Remove rear porch and repair with wood trim and replace any rotted wood trim.

Replace vinyl windows with aluminum clad wood windows, add new shed roof.

Okay, welcome back.

And 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.

Yes, I do.

And I apologize, there was a little bit more on the next page.

Add new shed roof, enclosure at rear building, remove bump out on east elevation, remove stucco from garage and replace with wood shingles.

Okay, thank you.

Um, we'll try that again.

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

So help you, God.

Yes, I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Dan Herkin Rother, that's H E R C H E N R O E T H E R.

Could you scroll that again for me, please?

One turn only.

Okay, welcome back.

Uh thank you.

Um quick overview here.

Um, obviously it's a um historical Queen and style building.

Uh it has stucco on it now.

The what led to this is the gutters and soft that's at the top are uh the gutters were failing, so water was being sent into the wall cavity.

So the contractor who was doing the work on the uh carriage house, they notice issues with like mold up there.

So we started doing some work and noticed that there's a lot of rot that's behind the siding.

So the sheathing is brought up high, the plywood is rotted, the studs are rotted.

So they have to take off the stucco at this point.

And they wanted to get permission to not put the stucco back.

Um it's been, I mean, I think if the stucco was original, we would agree it was important, but we all know this used to be a wood-sided um uh building.

So we're we're first asking for permission to remove the stucco and replace it with the wood shingles.

Um to the best of our ability, we've gotten photographs of wood shingles at the top and bottom.

Um, I think once if we're allowed to take the stucco off, we'll find out if there's any clapboard behind there, and we would be happy to match whatever we find uh as far as the siding goes.

Um that would be it for siding.

Uh obviously any of the windows that were vinyl, we've noted that, and those will be replaced.

Uh the basin windows are all wood, so those are being kept, and there's a couple stained glass windows, uh, front doors.

We're not touching uh those.

Um, and then on the east elevation, there's what used to be a porch, and at the previous application, we took off the steps to that porch, and now it's just kind of like this room that doesn't have access.

So they'd like to remove that structure, and then we have uh on the east side, there's a basement uh staircase that does not have any protection to it, so water comes down and into the basement.

They'd like to add a roof and enclosure to that, and then uh lastly, the shutters that are on there now are all plastic shutters, so those can go and we can talk about if we want to put the shutters back on and go from there.

Um let you guys comment.

Okay.

Open it up to the commission.

Well, I always wondered how this evening came to be every time I drive past this house.

So I definitely think the shingling is a great idea.

I like the uh design and everything that's going on here.

Um, and I'll echo that.

I think um, you know, staff comments, particularly of this style building and this architect, the idea of having clap on the bottom and shingles above, if in removing the stucco that is found, I do think that that would be something that we would want to return.

Um it's a great opportunity to bring a very important building by a very important architect back to its glory.

So um I would support the removal of the stucco.

Um, do we have any historic photos with reference to the shutters?

We we had them check with historic and they didn't have anything on the main house.

So I don't know what was there originally.

Any any thoughts about shutters if there's no historic shuttered yeah, okay.

Um, and then as far as um for myself again, that bump out on the east elevation.

I don't necessarily believe that's taken on historic um significance on the rear of the property, although the rear of this property is highly visible from the other street.

Um, I do think that you know, taking it off actually brings back the important feature of the rear elevation.

So I would be in support of that as well.

Mr.

Alf.

Um what's on the roof for material now?

Is it slate or it was it was the uh imitation slate.

I guess they had gotten met on a previous application to use that.

Um I I think your drawing package did a great job uh explaining what's going on with it.

It made the application very easy to read.

Uh and uh given the uh explanation, I would be in favor of it.

No, I agree.

I think that the uh the application and uh the uh what you've done is a vast improvement to what's there now.

So I'm I'm totally in support.

Okay.

Ms.

Marianne.

I guess my one uh opinion is really on the stucco, and very much in favor of bringing a building back to its you know, original state, but I do know that this is at least the second building that we are going to be removing stucco from this year, and so there clearly was a fad at some point where stucco was added to some of the buildings in town, and part of me feels maybe we should be respecting that as part of its evolution over time.

Um I'm kind of caught in between on that, to be honest, but I mean, I I think it would look better and and represent its original state better for sure.

I just don't know about losing it entirely.

We do have some stucco at the carriage house still.

So there's a little time capsule if you want to for now.

Yeah, I know.

They actually like to replace that too because I just like to ask Ms.

Chin.

Um, I know you called out the stucco in particular in one of um, you know, has it taken on historic significance in another comment though?

You did say that you called out not an original feature and should be replaced rather than repaired.

Yeah, I also think that you know, this specific building and this style, this is especially inappropriate.

So we've seen some other stucco that you know could potentially pass.

Um also stucco is just like a really tough material in this environment.

Um, so for the health of the house and to avoid uh using damaging treatments, I think it would probably be best to return it to to wood.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Finley.

Go ahead.

Uh the question I had is what's behind the bump up on the on the east side?

Yeah, the one you're taking down, right?

Uh yeah, I believe it's like uh a kitchen area.

So you're gonna put a window in?

Yeah, we would just reuse the windows that windows that that's there.

So we're just showing uh one single double hung being in there because there's a there's a doorway that comes from there into the bump out.

That doorway goes, so what's labeled as B window on the next next slide.

If you go the next slide, we'll see a V window.

We'd be putting a window in that spot.

Okay.

The uh main entrance to the house looks like it's kind of a blocky um it's got an arch on it.

Uh looks like do you think that there's something lurking underneath there that's maybe significant?

Yeah, yeah, it'd be nice to see some kind of like curved bracket, I would assume columns or something.

Yeah.

And we're happy to what they're gonna the first thing is taking the stucco off, so we'll be able to see what's behind there.

Um hopefully there's something nice to preserve.

Great.

Can I add something if everyone's finished?

Or maybe you can come back.

If we're going to wood, my opinion would be to please try to find some historical photos, because I would guess this building has some elements to it that are decorative.

And like, is that a wrought iron um you know, balustrade up there?

It would that have been original.

I just think that if we're going back to wood, there are a lot of questions that I have on what would that actually look like, and are we going to then really respect what it did look like rather than just throwing shingles on it?

Yeah, I would agree.

I mean, like what are the details of were there corner boards with shingles, were there you know, freeze boards with decorative elements or molding, you know.

So I think they're uh it's generally supported, no stucco, but I think we'd be curious to see what it's gonna look like.

Okay, and I think um to Dan's point, it could be a little bit of a time capsule when they start peeling the stucco back.

So certainly if anything comes out of that that's concerning or that you want to address as well with the preservation planner, um you know that would be the recommendation.

Yeah, I'd be happy to um kind of upload photos once they get the stucco off, so you have something on file here for what was there before they do any more pair work.

Okay.

All right, so I think general consensus um from the application as presented in favor by the commission.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 96 Rhode Island Av, lot 23 lot 51-4 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80 tag 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Nice job, Dan.

This is item N13, the application of James D.

Small and Fiona Grant of 104 Mill Street, plat 25 lot 81 contributing for permission to remove existing roof material, removal of stucco and removal of existing windows and doors.

There you go.

Replace with asphalt roof, Alaskan yellow cedars sidewall shingles, Marvin Wood ultimate double hung windows, French doors, and new cedar crown trim and gutter.

Okay.

Welcome.

I'll let you get your glasses.

Then we'll get you sworn in.

Okay.

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

So help you God.

Yes, I do.

And to state your name for the record, please.

Okay, welcome back, Mr.

Weber.

Have you given overview of where we are with this application?

Okay, so we're um we're kind of in a funny position because we had sort of started this application with under the with the understanding that maybe the building, not maybe, but the built that the building wasn't a contributing building.

And when I came to City Hall yesterday, Kimberly was very helpful and pointed out where in what was it called?

The um nominating papers list it in like 1930 and call it contributing.

So it changes our application, I guess considerably.

And um wanted to uh just kind of review some of the issues, uh one of which is the windows.

And uh I we um in in sort of reading the staff report, sort of recognize the uh commission's thoughts on the you know the notion of it being a shingle style carriage house and is it being contextural?

So we're we're fine, sort of abandoning that and sort of toning it down to maybe a simpler sort of aesthetic.

Um I guess I'm not sure where to start.

Maybe we start with uh the windows, and if the building is contributing, it's difficult to tell if these windows are original or not.

Um I guess we could again since we sort of found this out yesterday, or we can dig a little bit more on the windows and sort of figure out if these are original.

Um they don't really look original, but they have the aluminum triple tracks over them, and so it's hard to see.

And inside it's tough to tell too.

I mean, they are putty glazed, so they're not you know, wood stops on the windows.

Um I guess I'd say we're happy to uh if they are original, we're happy to restore them or refurbish them as best we can.

Um if we had our choice, we'd like to replace them with you know insulated glass windows.

And I'm not sure that's gonna be amenable with the commission.

Um the other thing would be is the uh the sliding doors that you see there are definitely not original.

So we wanted to replace those with uh two pairs of marvin French doors.

Um then I guess in terms of what the this sketch shows is we had a couple of alternate schemes showing um removing the side lights off of the French doors in scheme one, two, and three, and in scheme one, removing the belt course around the building, which we had we had a flare there before.

And in scheme two, maybe just a simple board as a belt course.

Um I guess I'd welcome some sort of sort of the comments from the commission so that we can um you know proceed forward.

Sure.

Mr.

Ballard.

Uh excuse me.

I just wanted to mention that there's also this issue of the stucco.

Yeah.

The buildings are stucco now.

It seems to be a theme this evening.

And um we're not enamored with the stucco and don't really feel it's in character with neighborhood.

So we would like to reach, you know, reside the building with shingles and uh I was just gonna say lastly that on the side of the uh with these French doors.

Um if you go back to the photograph of this elevation, there's um some ghosting that goes quite a bit wider than the uh yeah, it's um it's probably so there was a garage door there.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Not sure how that plays into this, but the stucco, there's clearly stucco lines that were uh sort of fractured or cracked, you know, at those points.

Okay.

So the history of this building, this this was noted as being contributing is it noted as a carriage house, or is it it is listed as a carriage house?

Um I was looking at some sandborns from a bit earlier, and it was listed as a dwelling.

Um it's was also its own parcel, and then it was combined with this.

Um I'm trying to pull up some sandborns now on my phone instead of to myself, and I'll be able to show you guys.

So we actually have the sandborne map from 1921, and it doesn't even show it doesn't show the building on that.

I mean, I have that here if anybody'd like to see it.

Do you do you know what the instruction is the post and beam or is it?

No, it's it's I think it's it's not balloon frame, but I think it's framed with uh nominal lumber, so that would kind of bring it up to even more recent timeline.

Um to me, uh you know, uh kudos for tackling it uh and trying to make it nice.

Um I initially looked at this application and I I read the comments and I felt it was you know conjecture to make it look like something else, but the more I'm seeing this, and the more I'm thinking about what the building was and what it wasn't and what it is, uh that's the building.

Yeah, I I'm not really as alarmed by the direction that you took this uh to make it look like something.

Uh so that's I'll I'll stop there for now, but well, we're amenable to I mean, and I understand the point of conjecture, uh conjectural sort of detailing, and we don't want to really tread in that little water.

So we're just trying to figure out a way to make this, you know, sort of anonymous little building, you know, clean it up and make it look good.

Or better.

So Jill, what we're looking at here, so it's the building in the far corner of the property.

Right there.

Yeah, okay.

Just making sure everybody's clear on that.

And those French doors face Mill Street?

Yes.

Okay.

So let me pull up the sandborn that I'm looking at.

Okay.

So we've got the main structure here, which is the brick structure, telescoping L's, and then this would be that building.

And what's the date on that?

And this is uh 1903 to 1950.

Um, so it was revised in 1950.

As you can see, there were some other dwellings that were kind of patched over here.

Um, and then this appears.

So in that photo that you just had up, it looks like there was a building to the right.

That A building.

Which photo?

The one that you or sorry, not photo, the map, the area photo.

Oh, the aerial, yes.

So this is there's three parcels kind of involved here.

Yeah.

And this kind of sits at the rear.

Okay, so the one all the way to the left next to that parking lot is the one that you were talking about with the brick L in the back.

Yep.

Yeah, we had seen that before.

Okay, that's what I thought.

Okay, understood.

Right.

And this has the okay.

That's actually not, or that's actually the building that's referred to in the find is a fact on circus 1758.

Yeah.

And not the building we're talking about.

Right.

Right.

The nominating papers uh Kimberly recalls that it had listed night around 1930 for the construction of this building.

So this was originally two stories.

You can see so D is labeled for dwelling.

Um, so it was originally a house at one point, and then it was later probably a garage structure or um an accessory structure once these parcels were combined.

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

Let's go back here again.

So, Mr.

Bala, with the consideration that you just shared before.

Um, based on what you see before you here, you are you still coming back to the original submission?

Uh I mean, I'm coming back to you're taking something that's not doesn't look like it's got much life left to it.

Right, giving it some life.

Uh in also in the context to the rest of the property, you're bringing it up to level.

Um so maybe maybe we talk about just how far you're taking it.

Um the French doors, you're you're claiming there's uh a wider openings.

So perhaps it's fair to say the wider French door that you're showing is valid, correct?

Yes.

I just I was we sort of came up with the alternates as a response to the um staff comments of things.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

And I respect those comments in you know, the finding of this is a contributing building.

Um I'm not sure what contributing factors I'm looking at at this point, you know.

Right.

So exactly.

Uh so yeah, I I mean, I you know, how far you take it, I think is is what we're talking about now.

So okay, other commissioners.

I think if it were up to me, the part that I'm pretty staunch on would be not changing the fenestration much, like doubling the windows up.

Um that would be one thing and retaining whatever uh original or wood windows, they appear to be wood sash.

Um outside of that, it's really tough to even know what we what was originally there, right?

Um the stucco is another thing where I mentioned before I just would hate to see us lose more of it, but uh I'm not sure how visible this house is anyway from the street, right?

It you might be able to see it down a narrow driveway.

You can't really see down the well, you can see down the driveway, but there's a thick privet edge right in front of this building.

So I guess I'd like to see what the rest of the commission thinks, but that would be something I'm pretty particular about, is not changing the fenestration too much.

That was sort of our scheme three where we had we kept two single windows right in the pair of French doors.

Exactly, and just sort of letting the other elevations be what they are.

Yeah, I'm in favor of uh a simplified version there.

Um, though I think that because there's so little left of the you know what was originally there, um and I don't believe the stucco is historic either, but I think that um adding a new sort of life to it and a new sort of version to it to me works fine.

I don't I mean I I do agree with Commissioner Moran when it comes to maybe keeping the fenestration sort of a hint to what it was in the past, but um I I think for example, I I think that you see in the ghosting of the larger uh opening on the first floor, I think you know, respecting that is fine with me.

I don't know if I would go with the two windows at the top necessarily.

Um you might eventually convince me the stucco is a good thing, but I think it's good.

I think I think stucco was like a 1920s version of Lionel Sighting.

It was back when we're gonna do it.

Well, like I said, I think it was a fed where where a number of people decided to agree on their houses.

Well, I have I have a feeling that we were to you know redo the stucco, it would be so perfect and so it would look out of place, you know.

I mean, but in any case, um I'm in favor of the application in its original form.

Okay, yeah.

Um, given the question of what this property even was to begin with, along with its proximity or lack thereof to Mill Street, I would support it.

I do like the idea of keeping the venestration as it is in the simpler form.

Um, but even so I could be persuaded as you really can't even see it from the street.

So I am in favor.

Any other Mr.

Finley?

Well, I'm in favor of it.

I you know I'm just reading again the staff recommendation where they say the stucco is is very um unusual for a historic building here in Newport.

Um just because of the weather and the you know how it cracks all of that, which it has already.

Yeah.

So um what I'm hearing is that you're really concerned about the the exterior, you know, the the stucco, those French the double windows, correct?

Yes, on the second floor, yeah.

Yeah.

Um I mean, I mean I'm in favor of what you proposed.

Um I'm not really sure what you're proposing, in a sense, it's gonna be a single-family home.

It's just a guest building for the for the homeowner.

And you know, they might live in there while the house main house is being restored.

You don't mean an ADU.

You mean it's a separate home, right?

Well, it's a separate home on the same property, right?

Hmm.

Is it a two-family?

We're not confused.

No, we're not concerned with use as this board.

Okay.

All right.

So I'll um share coming back to the original as proposed, and I think coming, you know, seeing these photos as they are.

Um, I support the simpler fenestration on the second story, having those single windows, but I would be in support of the fringe doors with the side light, sympathetic to the original opening that was likely there for the carriage doors.

So it's, you know, some version of this, but others, you know, I think as presented.

Um, but I do think protecting at least the compatibility of the original, you know, more simplified second story window on this particular view.

Um I would be fine with everything on the first floor as is, but just trying to maintain the original window patterning on that second floor.

How do we feel about the built course?

The uh the the original application shows kind of a flare with you know a crown holding it.

We sort of simplified that to just a board without a flare.

No flare.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, they yes, they simplified that in the revised schemes.

All those things don't matter so much to me.

I'm more concerned with a the original windows that are still there.

If they're if you're adding windows, that means you want to replace all of them, right?

So if the fenestration is at least at the top is left simplified and the windows are re retained.

I don't care about the rest of it.

Because right now we're we don't know what was there.

So that's my only position.

I could support it with the flare or a belt course.

I think I personally belt coursing a little bit simpler would be nicer, but agree.

Isn't the main house have aspects?

The addition on the back, doesn't it have some flare aspect to it?

Or does it um well it doesn't?

It's a umbrella building.

Oh right, but we're you know, that's coming down and gonna be completely renovated.

Right.

Yeah.

I mean, I I would say go for it and and make this look nice.

Okay, so I think so.

Can you just clarify go for it?

Yeah, that's I was gonna do that.

I would say, you know, uh architectural uh up and uh put a um a bell course and uh molding and uh kick on it.

So I'll sort of summarize that again, coming back to the original as presented.

I think general consensus of the commission is as presented with the change of that second story window, just maintaining those in the single windows and restoring all of the windows where possible.

Right is that yeah, I I mean I don't think after you're done, somebody's gonna say, gee, what happened to that building?

Well, maybe they will, but did my summary align with everybody?

Okay on the support.

All right.

Is that Mr.

Weber?

Is that align with Yeah?

Okay, right.

And the stucco goes.

Yes, yeah, right.

Um okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 104 Mill Street plat 25 lot 81, as presented with the condition that all um original wood windows be restored where possible.

The second um story original window fenestration be maintained, and all other details as submitted in the package, including um the removal of the stucco, citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80 tact 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So move second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Paul.

Okay, so we actually are going to um we had resequenced N4 to the end of the meeting.

We do have one of the applicants that wasn't here at the beginning that has come back.

We're gonna slot them back in before we go to N4.

So that's the application of C5.

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

Yes, item C5 is the application of Kelly Nace of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25, lot 65 contributing for permission to install a new pool, spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen.

Relocate the existing shed and HVEC equipment.

Okay, welcome.

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

So help you God.

Yes, I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Mark Horrin.

Okay, Mr.

Horan, welcome.

We didn't hear from you at the last meeting.

So from the beginning.

Give you an overview.

So I'm on here, I'm here on behalf of the clients.

Clients, Kelly Nase.

Um proposal is for all exterior work.

Um, a pool, lap pool, very narrow, seven feet wide by 38 feet.

It's in the back of the property, uh, not visible from Catherine Street.

Um, there's a seven by seven gunite in-ground spa as well.

It's raised up 18 inches from the grade.

There's an outdoor kitchen, nine foot three inches that adjoins the south wall of the house, and in the same vicinity as the spa.

There's a shed that exists now along the east side of the property that's being relocated to the south, closest to the pool, uh, close to the pool.

It is now non-conforming from a zoning perspective.

Moving it will make it conform.

Um believe that's the gist of it.

Okay, so when we um, I know you weren't here at the last meeting, but the materials were before the commission.

We hadn't had um materials included for the kitchen.

Um, those details are now before us.

We had received these details.

Um I will open it up to the commission for questions and comments.

I did happen to go by the property to look at it relative to the ask for this evening.

There's you know, the previous approvals that we had made.

There's a lot of construction happening.

Um, I'll just start by, you know, I think the house in and of itself, the details that we had approved previously on the main structure um are going to greatly enhance um a great property.

Overall, the house is large.

Um, the addition of the let's say details around the pool, the outdoor kitchen.

Um, well, we don't have purview over hardscaping.

Um, essentially the entire rear of this building is being hardscaped with the addition of these elements.

Um complementary view of compatibility to the main structure and within the neighborhood.

Um, there's a lot of elements here that are being added that I am not in favor in totality.

Um, you know, coming from the other view cottage street, while there is a hedge there on that kitchen, the proximity of it to the street is very close.

Um, I understand it's a lap pool, but probably dimensionally because there isn't a lot of space in this yard to fit a pool.

So I have a really hard time supporting this application as presented.

I would agree.

I agree with that as well.

Since it's already such a large house on a small parcel of land, and all of the things being put around it don't really lend themselves to not only the house but also the neighborhood that it's in.

So I think that's why it might be difficult for some of us to um approve.

So I have a question.

What I'm hearing relates more to zoning and setback and proximity of structures to property lines.

Um I'll just correct, I'll just correct.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying as it relates to the compatibility of the structure, not relative to zoning.

Okay, and uh compatibility within the historic district.

I do not believe that those elements are compatible.

Can you just be specific as to which which elements?

So this the stone patio, the stone countertop, the veneer around the outdoor kitchen, which particularly I can't speak to the the hardscaping.

We don't necessarily have purview over that, but the addition of a pool, a spa, a kitchen in the totality of all of those elements.

The property in and of itself feels that it's being overdeveloped and it's taking away from the character defining main structure of the what's on the parcel.

So all of the proposed structures are either below grade, the pool, the biggest one, or three feet high, the countertop to the outdoor kitchen, or 18 inches above grade, the spa.

So I want to advise our clients correctly and tell and say to them with this as specific as you can tell me.

Because the material seem to be compatible.

We see bluestone terraces all over the place, blue mist granite.

We're doing it right now on other sites.

Um those and there are fire pits in their outdoor kitchens all over town.

And just to sit distinguish, so I understand the zoning aspect versus the aesthetic, so I can advise them properly.

It'd be help would be helpful to all of us.

So again, um, I'm not at all speaking to zoning.

Certainly, there's an art, and you know, that's not before this commission.

It's related to the compatibility and other standards of not only the main structure, but also the surrounding properties within the district.

Um, those structures in combination with that terrace are now consuming a large portion of this property that I do not think is compatible with both the property and the surrounding structures in the zone in the historic district.

Okay, even though they're conforming with regard to lot coverage and setbacks.

Right.

It's we do not talk about zoning and lot coverage specific to the standards.

I think for me, Mark, the it's you're you're pushing the boundaries of what the lot is being used, and you're you know, while your countertop is only three feet, there's going to be people standing at that countertop, which are going to be right next to the street.

So this nature of the streetscape and the quaintness of a neighborhood now has humans and activity and noise and maybe lights if somebody strings up some lights.

I mean, how it all naturally evolves thrust right into you know, the neighboring fabric.

Um that's what I see when I see these properties being developed is while the zoning may allow for this, it just seems like it's changing the character of the neighborhood.

And maybe, you know, these things could be brought in a little more so they weren't as much in the face of the rest of the neighborhood.

That's my take.

And I just want to, I think Ms.

Chen wanted to have a comment.

Um, so as was reflected in my staff report, I think the modernity of some of these features on such a small lot and the the prevalence of them on such a small lot doesn't really reflect um, you know, historic development in this area.

And what I feel like we want to be respectful to the historic development patterns and also the modernity of some of these features as it relates, you know, to the sighting um of them.

So I think we should be careful in that sense.

Are there any of the features that are more in conquerus than others?

Are there some?

I mean, you could have a grill, any house can have a grill, it's on wheels that looks very very similar to what's being presented.

So I'd like to advise our clients properly, and then also go for guidance going forward.

Um even the spa you could argue is fairly innocuous.

It's 18 inches off the ground.

I get the pool.

I understand the congestion.

I get that.

I mean, I think since I started the sort of view on this, when you come back to the site plan, um I do think that the pool in and of itself, which takes up a large majority of that backyard.

I'm not opposed to the grill or the outdoor kitchen, if it were tucked in the back of the house, not off the side of the house that's very close to cottage street.

Um, you know, everybody is entitled to outdoor living space.

That's not necessarily my comment here.

It's the summation of everything that is being proposed.

It's not for me to opine on one versus the other.

I think they all need to be reviewed individually of what is most important to the client.

And but I as all of them together on this parcel and the way that they're presented.

Um, I just I think that it's over, it's overdeveloped and taking away from the parcel and this particular area of the neighborhood and the district, I should say, because we have approved other properties in the district that have a pool and a spa and a kitchen, but much larger parcels, the house relative to that outdoor living space is much more balanced.

This feels that the two now the um the property at the structure itself and all of these elements are at they're not complementary to one another and compatible, they're at odds, regardless of being a pool that's in ground or an 18-foot spa.

Because I think Mr.

Balas said it, it all of these elements now bring you know life to the property in spaces that otherwise would be much more subtle.

So I agree with my fellow commissioners.

I think it's the totality of the project that we're talking about.

You know, if your client were to come back and say, well, we could make the pool smaller and the table smaller and the grill smaller.

I still think I'd have an issue with it just because of the totality of what's being proposed specifically for this neighborhood in this location.

So uh right now I couldn't support this.

Okay.

I would I would say based based on that feedback, let's continue.

I'll advise them of the all the feedback and see what they want to do.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Rest of the work looks great on the property.

So it's coming along.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25 lot 65 to our next regularly scheduled January HDC meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Yeah.

We I just want to check in on a time.

So we we typically we can start new applications before 10.

Um, I just need to poll the commission that everyone is comfortable starting this application and for this evening.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

So this is item N14.

Um, the application of Carbon View Limited LLC of zero or 562 Bellevue Avenue, plat 37 lot 12, contributing for permission to replace failing slate roof with slate.

Um, sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Sorry.

It's okay.

My apologies.

This is um item N4, the application of John Pacote Jr.

of Zero Brenton Road, plat 41 lot 14, non-contributing for permission to construct a new home at former site of Underwood School.

Okay.

Welcome.

We will get everybody sworn in.

Um either one of you first.

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.

John Brundage, P-R-U-N-T-A-G-E.

Okay.

And 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.

Mark Mason.

Okay.

And just checking in, Ms.

Chin, we have both of these as representatives on the property.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Floor is yours.

Great.

So as you said, this is located on the site of the underwood school.

The Ocean Drive Historic District.

One of the comments was they were unclear on the project size.

The proposed above-ground living area is 3,911 square feet.

We have a footprint of 3,000 five hundred forty square feet.

So that gives us a lot coverage of about four and a half percent.

This is a flat site bordered on the northeast.

Thank you.

Bordered on the northeast by a um a wetland regulated by Rhode Island VEM.

And the buildable area is delineated by the 50-foot front yard setback along Brenton Road, 40-foot side yard set back at the uh west, and the wetland setback at the rear in the east.

And the access to the rear part of the site is severely limited by the wetland.

Could I ask um before we get too much into the details of the individual property?

Could you just give a little bit of context around the overall site?

I think the commission had some questions around the overall parcel that's being developed as part of what was the underwood school.

Do you have details and context around that?

So yes.

Basically, this was a parcel of land that was subdivided into four different lots.

Okay.

So there, yes, there are four lots.

This is the first house that we are looking to construct.

Um again, it's it's on the wetlands, so the space that we have to construct this is limited.

Um, with the design that we included.

Um, if you yeah, if you want to pull up the uh plans that we have, take a look at that.

Um we also added an attachment this morning.

I'm not sure if that made it onto it.

Oh, it's right there.

That just helps to ground the commission in terms of what we're looking at in terms of the overall site.

So based on that first photo, what we did is we went around to the neighboring houses within that area that had similar um attributes to what we're looking to place based on the comments in the staff review.

Um a few of the comments were based on the overall frontage of the building, the window placement and things of that sort.

Um, all these are examples of houses in that area that contribute to what we had on the plans.

So in looking at you know, other properties to sort of develop our context, we try to get a mix of older homes and then newer homes as well, seeing as this is gonna be you know, a non-contributing.

So we tried to find a mixture of contributing and non-contributing to sort of bring context.

Yeah, these these photos are based on the staff reviewing the questions that you guys had, uh specifically speaking of the uh front-facing garage, um, the second floor deck, um, the window patterns and the amount of windows included in the structure.

And how far, um, what is the setback off of Brenton Road for the the house?

50 feet.

50 feet, okay.

And can you speak to, I know there were also staff comments um about roof lines and the architectural design of the property?

Sure.

Um so you know, without trying to mimic or you know, make this appear to be a historic home.

We were just drawing from some shingle style elements, you know, with the varied roof lines and the um you know, the pitches and then you know, the dormer up in the roof, the eyebrow.

Um another aspect that um we had notes on in the staff report was the garage door facing the street.

We did actually explore flipping that and putting the garage door on the west side, but as this site sits on the outside point of the curb in Brenton Road, traveling um west to east, you know, towards downtown.

Putting the garage over on that side, actually, whether we put the garage doors facing the side lot line or the front, being that as you're coming around that curve, the garage doors were like right in your face there.

So we made the design decision, flip the garage doors to the east side.

Um would have loved to get them actually on the side lot line, but that wetland kind of hinders the ability to get into the garage.

Um thing that we did make note of that you know helped reinforce our decision to put the garage doors there, is that that wetland is pretty heavily wooded and actually provides screening as you're traveling along Brenton Road, and you actually wouldn't see the garage doors until you're beyond the wetland right in front of the garage doors.

So that design decision was kind of based on experimentation, you know, walking the site, driving up and down the road, walking up and down the road.

Um yeah, if you can see basically in that clearing, that corner right there, that's basically where the uh wetland is flagged.

If you follow that line of trees coming around and then towards the road, uh the house will be situated kind of nested right in that nook there, and the garage would be facing Brenton Road from where you see those uh three trees.

Right.

So again, heading from west to east, you see that curve in the road as you're driving along, especially with the garage doors facing the side lot line, or actually like facing the street directly and not obscured by any trees at all.

So we realize it is kind of one of the things of the HTC don't like garage doors facing the street in these historic districts, but we kind of took that gamble on this one.

And is there a need for three cars versus a two-car garage?

I'm sorry.

Just thinking about overall scale and massing and the idea if we end up having to have street facing garage doors, having three of them versus two of them, and the overall nature of the project.

Is that something that's you know open for I think that might help some of us?

At this point, everything's probably open, everything's open discussion and open to comments, and we welcome your comments actually.

And one of the things that we did as a team is we walked around and found comparative houses.

Um there is a historical home there that has three car, uh has three garage bays, including a high bay for a boat storage, and it's right off the main road.

Not installation.

Yeah, that was a new construction.

Yep.

Um, and again, if I could just talk a little bit more about you know, site design.

So this is an extremely flat site, and we are leaving it as such, you know, doing minimal changes to the topography just to provide you know the positive pitch away from the foundation and the addition of a stormwater management rain guard over you see that it's off to the um right hand side of the driveway, so kind of pucked in that nook.

So really grading changes are going to be very limited.

Um other site design elements would be plantings in the front yard.

Um could you uh could you go to the other attachment for us?

Yes, that yes, that one, thank you.

So this is the more developed site plan that we were able to get in today.

So we've actually added further plantings in the front yard to help screen that garage door.

So, you know, the concept being as you're traveling from east to west, garage doors screened by the wetland and then screened by those two large trees as you're traveling west to east, those four trees across the front, you know, we're working to just sort of screen that view.

Um, other site improvements include in the west side yard, uh a hedgerow with a wood gate and a stone walkway, and then in the rear yard, pushed up against the wooded wetland would be the bulk patio and um more landscape plantings.

And relative to the other parcels that are going to be developed in the the other three, where are there access points off of Brenton as well?

That route around this house, or what how will they be situated on the same parcel, those other three lots?

So if you go to uh that plant right there, there's there's four.

Oh, that's an older plan actually, but there are there's four lots, and the two lots on Brenton are right next to each other, and there's two lots on Harrison.

So there's two lots that have access to Brenton and two uh lots that have access to Harrison.

The two uh lots that are on Brenton, they share a private sewer system that is um it's um it's called um it's got a through path to Harrison where it connects right away.

Okay, yeah.

So each each property is gonna have its own driveway, it's gonna be no you know, interconnecting of pathways between the properties, they're gonna all be treated as separate properties, and and again the the footprints shown on this drawing were um you know very preliminary.

This is from the subdivision approval.

Okay, yeah.

Joe, could you go back to that last one?

No, the white background.

Nope.

That one.

Okay.

Uh is there a structure in the middle of the plat there?

Yeah, you can use that.

Those so that is actually the old school buildings that have since been raised.

Thank you.

Okay.

So um can I continue?

Yeah, absolutely.

So some of the other comments that uh were in the staff report had to do with building height and size, and um so if you can go to that other document with the uh example photos, thanks.

So um leave that one is 24 up.

Oh that one there leave is 24 Brenton Road.

Um again, a three-story home.

So right now we're at the 30 foot above grade maximum allowable.

So um, you know, in walking the neighborhood and picking other properties, you know, to sort of blend this thing into the context, we sort of use the houses right across the street and in the immediate neighborhood, 24 Brenton being one.

Um 6,000 square feet at three stories.

And uh you can scroll around.

Okay, so this is um beacon 20 Beacon Hill Road, um, built in 2007, two stories, 4500 square feet.

You know, so we're kind of right in that sweet spot between some of the larger homes and more medium-sized homes.

What is the total square foot?

Um our total square foot right now.

So the metric that I'm using is the above grade living area, because that's the you know, the metric that we can see on the tax cards.

So these numbers I'm giving you for the other homes is the above grade living area.

Our total above grade living area is 3,911.

Our footprint um 3,178 and a half.

That that includes porches, um, patio, uh, not the pool patio, just the terrace off the back of the house.

Um and overhangs.

And not the garage.

Correct.

The garage itself is oh well, that the footprint does include the garage, but that's not included in the um living area.

Garage is 758 square feet of that footprint.

And uh back to you.

Um that's sorry, back to your question about the three-car garage versus two-car garage.

So this was actually um a request of the client because you know the new ruling allowing golf carts in town.

So this is actually a smaller, the one on the right is a smaller bay golf cart garage.

Okay.

Um yeah, so back to the comments again.

There were comments about the roof line being a little buried and giving a busy look.

So, you know, again, we were would be welcome to any input regarding that for you guys.

All right, before we any other comments from your side before I open it up to the commission for feedback.

So um the only other thing, if we go to the other document with the photos again, we can so scroll kind of yes.

So now we we just have examples of garage doors facing the street.

Um there's a few more further up.

Yeah, so that one right there was kind of one, you know.

This is new construction, I believe that was built in 2023 with you know, three bay detached garage that was not there, you know, originally that was um there was no detached garage.

That was just I believe a single story ranch.

Um again, that's 24 Beacon Hill, and that is 21 Hallidon, I believe.

Okay, so these site photos.

I took these to try to illustrate, you know, that view of that west side yard.

So it I am at the property line of the adjacent lot right here.

So if you could scroll down one more for me, please.

Thank you.

So then this is approaching the site.

This is at the corner of Brenton and Wickham right here.

And um, so this kind of view here sort of illustrates my point best, I think.

About if we had those garage doors on the side on this side of the lot, it would have been kind of you know, a lot more visible to the street.

Um what's that?

Yeah, that's about it for our comments.

Yeah, we welcome any questions you guys may have for us.

Okay.

Anyone want to dive in?

Mr.

Ballon.

Um, you know, it's a new house, it's non-contributing, it's got garages.

You know, kudos to you for taking it on.

I guess my only reaction, I have a couple of reactions.

This is a big mass on a flat piece of property.

It's within your uh zoning purview to build this big mass and height.

Um it is not in my purview to talk about landscaping, but I think you did mention you were planning on doing some landscaping to help buffer this building.

That's correct.

I would urge that landscaping to be very mature landscaping opposed to uh the $14 Home Depot variety.

Uh that's going to take about 40 years to do anything.

Um, you know, in looking at the site, this is a big mass.

Um, you know.

I'm not I don't have anything specific except there appears to be a second story porch on the back.

Can you pull down one more sheet that we should see the site?

So there's second story board.

So we understand that the board typically does not care for these in the historic district.

Um we tried to incorporate this thing with the roof mass so that it really kind of blended and became part of the you know, part of the structure, as opposed to a deck tacked on.

I know that kind of goes backwards in thinking if you were to be wanting to put a deck onto a historic contributing house, you would want to go the opposite direction, not on the first floor, and have it be something that you could remove in the future without impacting the structure.

This we kind of took in a different level.

I mean, obviously the the round turreted deck is well represented in the city of Newport, you know, in this district, um, along Bellevue.

There's some very famous houses that have a decks similar to this.

I'd be lying if I said that was not inspiration.

Um the choice of using the solid shingled rail wall was made to again help to disguise it.

You know, if there's any deck furniture out there, it wouldn't be visible from the street.

This deck itself is off of the master bedroom, so it's not really you know where there would be a party taking place.

You know, it's a private deck for you know the people residing in the primary bedroom.

The I think the zoning might have been changed earlier this year with regard to that space.

Are you aware of that?

I'm not.

I made a note of that when it came up.

Yeah, take a look at the meeting.

Um, I believe the law is a hundred square feet above the the first level, so you might want to look at that so it goes a hundred square feet, and then if you are at the third story level, then it would be 30 square feet.

So take a look at it.

Yeah, that would that might be pushing that 100 square feet.

And we could definitely work to decrease the size of that.

Yeah, that was.

I mean, if I had to pick anything, that's what I would pick to comment on.

Uh it's just the size of that deck or porch.

Thank you.

I'm generally in support of that application um for non-contributing structures.

Um, I think you've done a really nice job in presenting a home that's compatible with the surrounding area.

Um, you know, on the two-car garage versus three, I think there's plenty of support for that third one.

Um, and again, because it's not a historic um structure, I'm not bothered by the um the third bay being smaller to accommodate the golf cart.

So um I'm generally in support of this application.

Thank you.

I and I'd also like to point out is it is actually also smaller in floor plan as well.

It does not extend the full depth of the two-car garage portion.

That was what I was actually gonna mention is is there a way so that it doesn't seem so wide and sprawling to maybe bring that into the back of the garage, so you have like a three-car that's not necessarily all next to each other because this looks like a three-car garage, even though it's a much uh more shallow bay, it appears to be a third, a third bay.

And I feel like even just that element bringing it into the back or you know somehow minimizing it would at least bring the structure mass down a little bit.

Thanks.

Yeah, we struggled with that.

In fact, originally we wanted to push it even further back, but we're up against that wet.

Yeah, what we do there is very dictated by that wetland setback.

We're trying to make the most out of the space we have to use.

Yeah, the whole area is really hindered by the the wetland.

Not so much by the you know, the zoning ordinance setbacks, but by that wetland.

Yeah, and one of the things to keep in mind too is we we can't even be right up against it because we can't do any type of construction, any type of footings.

We can't approach on that area.

So the house itself is actually three feet off of that setback.

But there wouldn't be any way to make the garage a little deeper and have a door on the side so the dart the golf cart can get into the back of the garage from the side or something like that.

Just again to take down that that third bay and I think I think that in itself would help just to reduce the massing episode slightly.

But that would be like my one suggestion.

I think otherwise, as far as the materials and design go, I think you're pushing it on the scale.

Um but I I guess I would agree with Mr.

Bala that if there was some you know, screening and whatnot, mature screening, then it would help to kind of build it in because that the historic district we're talking about is very tucked into the countryside and behind plantings and hills.

So this is going to be very right in your face.

Yep.

So for me for me, uh it it does it it doesn't just go up to against the to the edge of the massing, it it surpasses it in my opinion.

This is a massive structure, and though 50 feet setback may seem like a lot is right up looming on the road, and I don't think you're gonna be able to put any kind of landscape screening that's gonna prevent that from having that effect on you.

And I think the primary thing for me as I look at this is the unrelenting nature of the e-line and the sort of ponderous nature of that roof is just and if you look at some of the examples that you provided, um uh I wouldn't have chosen 24 Bretton Road as a that's a terrible structure right there, and that um used to be stuck, by the way.

Just maybe it's stuck away today.

Uh and it is it's worse by the fact that it's up on a hill, but I think if you look at some of the other examples, you'll know that the e lines and the roof lines uh are coming down a lot closer to the ground, and it helps to sort of bring the scale of the building way down, right?

So as you look there, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Um, and they have a varied sort of roof line where they're bringing the eaves down, and and in your case, it's not, it's like a almost like uh extrusion with a hat on it, and and um and uh and I do not like the three-car garage facing the road.

I think that I understand you can find precedence over those around.

Um but you know, I think I can't support it in this current version um for those reasons.

I think the scaling mass and uh not appropriate to that spot.

Not to say that it can't be worked on.

I don't think the footprint is overly large.

I think it's if the presentation of the elevation that I see as being a really massive.

Okay, Mr.

Benellini.

I would agree with the um other commissioners that it does echo the other houses being built in the neighborhood, and it's not a contributing structure, obviously, because you're building it from scratch, so you kind of have some more freedom to work with that.

I think the only thing I would say is yeah, my comment would be about the garage if it was able to enter from the side, but as you were saying, that's probably not possible because the wetlands so would it you know we would have to review this, obviously with clients, but omitting that third bay would that help to satisfying some of the well, if you're speaking directly to me, for no, no, I mean it well, I mean, I think redirecting the the the issue with the mass is really from you know the the halfway point uh, you know, in terms of elevation, it's really not the footprint.

I don't that that doesn't really necessarily bother me.

You know, we would have to review this obviously with clients, but omitting that third bay would that help to satisfying some of the well if you're speaking directly to me for no I mean it well I mean I think redirecting the the the the issue with the mass is really from you know the the halfway point uh you know in terms of elevation it's really not the footprint I don't that that doesn't really necessarily bother me I think if you were to move that third garage door around to the other side so it didn't read as a three-car garage that would be helpful to you okay um maybe even some architectural features that come over the like a small um uh shed dormers that come over the garages, something like that to break down the mashing of that elevation of of that two-car garage there, just a number of little things that I see that um in totality just leads me to say that it needs more work.

So I'll kind of just ask ask a quick question.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about the three-car garage and the little one on the side.

Yes.

There's wetland behind this, right?

That is correct.

What's in front of it?

Why can't you move the whole house forward?

The setback.

The setback?

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

So between the 50-foot front yard setback and the wetland behind, I mean, that is stuck right where you are.

That's our allowable building area.

So we are kind of shoehorned in there.

Okay.

Okay, so um you have an amazing parcel, an amazing opportunity to build something here.

I think everyone on the commission wants to get to a great outcome for you and your client.

I I would recommend that we schedule a site visit uh for myself, um, particularly when we have had properties, and it doesn't necessarily mean we do it when there's larger properties because we've done it with smaller, but this parcel relative to understanding the relationship to the road to the wetlands.

Um we do that in new construction, we do ask that it be staked out in some so we can really see where the property is going or the the building on the building staked out.

Yes, correct.

Um that would be very helpful for myself personally to see in context where this is then coming back to, you know, and we we don't typically provide a lot of feedback in that site visit.

We as a commissioner actually not allowed to discuss it while we are at the site visit.

So that is one thing I would recommend.

I think that would be very helpful.

Um we could also present an opportunity to have a separate design review committee, which is a smaller group of what you're there's three commissioners.

Um, you know, we sit, we go through you know, plan options so that when you're coming back before the commission, um, you're getting a sense of it's not majority by any means, but you're getting a sense of different inputs.

Um that may or may not be necessary based on feedback from this evening, but that could be something that's also on the table.

Um we've had great outcome when we've done DRCs in the past.

It usually um, you know, within one round, we're able to get a good consensus to give you that direct feedback.

So that's something that you have to agree to, but I would like to propose first and foremost, this is an important and very visible property.

Um I would like to have the confidence of seeing the site with it staked out to be able to make a more informed decision.

So that's but you have to be able to agree to that with your clients.

It obviously delays the process a little bit.

Um, but I would not be in position to actually take for myself to vote this evening based on not seeing the the site in and of itself.

So I don't know how other commissioners feel about that.

I think that's valid.

That would be helpful.

Yeah.

So yeah, we're we're in agreement with that.

We can have the state.

Um, how do I go about scheduling that?

So what we will do, we will um procedurally we would continue the application to January.

You will coordinate with the preservation planner.

She does a poll.

It's based on who's available, who wants to participate again.

It's no more than three commissioners.

Oh, excuse me, site visits are thinking of design review committee.

Um, she'll just coordinate with you different times that the majority of the commission is able to come out and visit the site.

Um, and then at that point you could decide if you want to do a DRC or if it's something that we if you feel that that's important now, we can also put that on the record now to schedule that, and that would go through the preservation planner as well.

So that's in your court.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, we can go ahead and schedule that and to do both of those things.

Okay, is the commission support that?

Yeah, for sure.

Mr.

Goddard?

Yes, yeah.

Okay.

One of the non-binding question.

Generally speaking, are you guys okay with the garage where it sits and the garage doors facing the street?

Because I know that that is kind of a big deal on the store.

You're talking about the three-car garage.

Correct.

Okay.

It seems like you're confined by site restraints to not have another option.

I I I disagree.

Okay.

I think that there is other options, and I think that this project would benefit greatly if they were looked at.

Um but given what we're looking at now, yeah.

I can see that you pushed into a corner and then you limited your options.

Yes, I agree with that.

Can you elaborate?

I mean, uh, are you are you talking about because right now the front of the garage is at the front setback?

Yeah.

But are you talking about pivoting the garage entrance or a number of options on pursue?

Modifying where the yeah.

Yep, I am so this is the type of thing that comes up in like a design review.

And having context if members of the commission are able to go to the site, then that makes the DRC process even better.

Um, we do have members of the commission that are part of the architecture community, so they definitely have viewpoints and you know, to be able to provide guidance.

Again, we can't tell you how to design the property, but they can certainly provide recommendations, and I think that would be beneficial after seeing the site.

Ms.

Jen, you were gonna say something.

Yeah, I think also um my comments surrounding the street facing garage.

I think my main issue was with it was that it's a primary focal point of the facade, and so rather than having it be flush with the primary facade, perhaps stepping it back and having it be subsidiary to that elevation.

Um, I think when you have a new construction on a on an empty lot, then you can be really creative with the way that you lay out the house and whether that's you know, taking some size and and mass away from the house in order to accommodate that.

Um, that's something that you can discuss with your clients and with the design review committee, but just some things to kind of think about going into that.

Yeah, I think I think again it comes down to our site restrictions.

All the input as well.

You know, and I think uh Ray brought up a good point about the Eve and the mass and the scale of this.

Um you know is something uh you may want to come back and explore and and bring something back to us, uh or not, you know.

So yeah, I would agree with that as well.

Can I add one thing?

I think that it is important that we treat this carefully because I expect we're gonna see three more houses soon, right?

So I just think we need to be careful about what we go ahead and approve right now because it will set precedence just for the future of your development in this particular parcel, or if these this cluster of parcels.

So, but I will add that I agree on I think maybe revisiting the roof line to try to scale back the messing would be important.

Sure.

That's it.

Sorry.

Yeah, it certainly is a unique scenario in that you're here before us with one application on this lot, but there's a development that's going to be happening.

We have no view of what that looks like in the future.

We can't reference that to this property right now, but we do want to make sure that um, you know, we're looking at other surrounding houses in the district, and but there's other things that are going to be happening that we don't yet know.

So that's why there is sensitivity.

But like I said, the objective here is to get you a beautiful house on a great parcel.

So we want to have that be the outcome.

We just want to be make sure that we're thinking through all the facets of that.

So okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to schedule both a site visit and design review committee for zero Brenton Road, plat 41 lot 416, ideally prior to our next regularly scheduled uh January HDC meeting.

So moved.

Oh, second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Um, and then we will um request a motion to continue the application of zero Brenton Road plat 41 lot 416 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting in January of 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very good.

So this channel be in touch with you and we'll get those things.

Is um so since the address was assigned as 11 Brenton Road, would it make sense to change it to 11 Brenton Road versus zero, Brenton?

Yeah, we can we can change that.

Once it uploads into um our GIS system, our GIS system just had a little bit of a lag.

So um I assume that the curb cut was approved recently, regular like recently.

Uh the address was assigned probably six months ago.

Oh, okay.

Interesting.

Um, all right, but yeah, that we could definitely change that.

Sure, that'd be excellent.

Okay.

Well, thank you guys for your time.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate you hanging out.

Thanks for the comments.

Okay.

All right.

So I'm just gonna circle back.

Um, we had one application earlier this evening.

Um, that we didn't have anyone present.

Is anyone here now for C361 2nd Street?

No.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to dismiss the application of 61 2nd Street Plat 12 lot 216 without prejudice.

Till moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

All right.

So uh moving to new business.

We have a couple of um agenda.

Sorry, guys.

Um, a couple of agenda items this evening.

So the first before the commission this evening is our 2026 meeting schedule.

Ms.

Chen, is there anything that you want to call attention to?

So it's pretty straightforward second Tuesday of every month, except for September, uh, due to some stuff in council chambers around elections, I guess.

Um, I didn't want to move you guys to a different location because it's just easiest to do it here.

Um, and also we have an extra week in um that works with my cycle um for reviewing applications between this time.

So I felt that the third Tuesday would be good.

Um, so that's really the only change is September 15th is gonna be the third Tuesday um rather than the second.

So they're all Tuesdays, no Mondays.

They're all Tuesdays.

Why we're all good.

Okay, and miss nothing.

Good.

Okay.

We could miss the oh, yeah, he did.

He missed that.

What do you think?

It's okay.

It all happens.

It's all so okay.

It's a special reminder to ray.

Okay, so um, with that commission, any concerns or questions about the 2026 schedule?

All right, so request a motion to approve and adopt the City of Newport Historic District Commission meeting schedule for 2026 as presented.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All right.

All those opposed.

Um, last on our new agenda, excuse me, new business agenda is an updated draft guidance for windows, doors, and skylights.

This includes updated language and in collaboration with our partners at NRF for lead paint adaptation, um adaptation, excuse me.

Um, this has been presented to the commission prior to this evening's meeting for review, um, not only the primary document, but two appendixes, which will appendices, I should say, which would be um also adopted there, referenced in the updated guidance.

Those are an um adoption manual and also a more homeowner-friendly user guide.

Um, commission, have you had a chance to review the proposed updated guidance and any questions or comments?

No.

Yes and no.

Okay.

Um, I'll just state um, you know, the project that we did um through a CLG grant with our partners at NRF, um, which took over a year, but the output of that which was presented in a workshop before this commission is incredibly thorough.

And I personally believe that it will be hugely advantageous to our applicants to be able to streamline the process and provide guidance to us as a commission when we have circumstances coming before us.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve and adopt the updated guidance on windows, doors, and skylights as of our meeting this evening, Tuesday, December 9th, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Excellent.

And I'll also say that Rob Cagneta, um, who was the consultant for this um for the lead project.

He has presented in front of other um commissions he presented at the training um for commissions, which was great.

He's been in contact with the Department of Health.

He's a great liaison uh between you know the historic community and um and the department of health.

And then he's also um what else is he done?

He's done a lot of great stuff.

Um he's oh yes, he's presented to the lead inspectors themselves, which is excellent to kind of educate them on, you know, when they come into a situation where they have a wood window, they're not just immediately failing it.

And so he's doing a lot of great work on the ground, and I think there is more work to do in this sector.

So we're hoping to continue this project for next year if we get funding in some way.

Um, so yeah, more to come.

Thank you.