Okay.

Ready, guys?

Ready.

Okay.

Okay, welcome everyone.

Apologies for that technical delay.

I'm going to call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, January 13th, 2026, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarillo.

Present.

Rosemary O'Brien.

Here.

Kelly Moran, I'm here.

Jim Madsen.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Bill Finley.

Here.

Brooke Richter.

And Kenny Manel.

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

Going to ask Commissioners Roe O'Brien and Jim Madsen to affirm for the record that you reviewed all materials for the continued applications and watched the Tuesday, December 9th, 2025 meeting and are prepared to be voting commissioners on these applications this evening.

I have.

I have as well.

Okay, thank you.

I will acknowledge we have Mr.

Kevin Gavin with us this evening from the solicitor's office.

He is supporting the HDC.

Minutes for Tuesday, December 9th, 2025 have been provided to the commission for review.

Commission members, are there any additions or corrections on those meeting minutes?

None.

No.

Okay, so with that, I'll request a motion to accept the minutes for Tuesday, December 9th, 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, January 13th, 2026, 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, I request a motion to accept all staff's findings of fact as our findings of fact.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

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

We do have one resequencing this evening.

Um, based on the agenda for this um this evening, we will be moving the application of C411 Brenton Road to the end of the new applications.

So if you are here for C4, that will be heard at the end of the meeting.

Uh, we also were made aware of one withdrawal after the app um agenda was published this evening.

That is the application of C161 Second Street.

That application has been withdrawn.

We also had um one application that was continued after the agenda was published.

That is the application of 73 Catherine Street.

Um, so that will be continued to our next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

In this evening's pre-meeting, the commission identified applications for summary approval.

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

The first of those this evening is the application of C8, 562 Bellevue Avenue, um, plat 37 lot 12.

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

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 562 Bellevue Avenue, Plat 37 Lot 12 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 8060, a one three, four, five, and seven.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Uh the next application for summary is N 109 Cherry Street.

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

Not a request a motion to approve the application of 9 Cherry Street, plat 12, lot 33 as presented, citing Newport Standards 17 TAC 80, TAC 060, B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those um in favor.

Aye, all those approved.

Um opposed, excuse me.

All those opposed.

No.

Okay.

Next for summary is the application of N12 for four Brenton Road.

Do we have any public comment this evening on that application?

Not a request a motion to approve the application of four Brenton Road, plat 41, lot 014-4.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 A12 34 and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

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

These simply require a minor clarification.

We had one application that fell to that this evening.

That is the application of N1 for five Memorial Boulevard.

I could ask the applicant to come forward.

This is the application of Brewer Row of Five Memorial Boulevard, Platte 29, lot 177 contributing for permission to remove existing exhaust hoods, ducts, and vents on the north elevation.

Remove existing infilled faux windows and replace with new custom wood windows to match existing.

Demolish stairs and landing demonstrators and landing on east elevation and rebuild stairs with raised landing to accommodate new raised door sill.

Okay, and I'll just um state for the record that Commissioner Goddard has recused himself, and Commissioner Richter will be sitting in for the application.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Okay.

Can you spell it for me, please?

Um last name or first.

Both.

Yeah, you go for both.

This is J E D E D I A H.

Last is S O P C H A K.

Thank you.

So I believe the commission just had a couple of questions.

I'm going to open it up for them to pose those, and then we will wrap that up.

Ms.

Moran.

So I just had uh minor clarifications.

I did see that the windows were going to be custom wood made, which is great.

Uh my questions were are is the plan for them to be true divided light?

And the second question is is it plan for single or double pane?

Yes, they would be true divided light.

They would most likely be single pane to match what's existing there.

And um our intention and goal is to match as closely as possible the existing windows that were originally installed in the building.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from the commission?

No.

No.

Okay, so with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of five Memorial Boulevard, plat 29, lot 177, as presented with the condition that the uh windows be replaced with all wood windows, a true divided light, and single pane.

Citing Newport standard 17 TAC 80 TACT 060 A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Okay.

And with that, we will move to our full agenda for the evening.

I'm going to ask our vice chair to read the first application.

C2.

Second.

This is the application of Kelly Nase of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25, lot 65 contributing for permission to install a new pool.

SPA.

And I believe the remainder of these items have been withdrawn.

And relocate the existing shed and HVAC equipment.

Okay, welcome, counsel.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Peter Regan representing Jeffrey and Kelly Nace, the owners of 19 Catherine Street.

This matter was before you previously.

And based on comments at the last hearing that there was essentially too much going on in terms of the proposed artscape for this property.

My clients have revised and uh paired back their plans.

Uh they have removed the proposed outdoor kitchen from the plan as well as the uh fire pit.

And that reduces this request to the pool with the connected spa, which are both at grade.

Um the relocation of the existing shed.

And the placement of the HVAC pool equipment to the west side of the house.

I would point out that there is a short rivet hedge on all four sides of this property that will shield the view of the pool and spa as well as the equipment.

I would point out that there is a mature rivet hedge on all four sides of this property that will shield the view of the pool and spa as well as the equipment and the equipment will also be uh shielded by a short fence as shown on the plan.

Uh would also note that there are a number of other pools that have been approved in this neighborhood for uh similar sorts of properties.

Uh one next door, 21 Catherine, uh two houses to the west of 12 Redwood, three houses to the south at seven cottage, and uh recently two blocks to the east to 29 greenos.

So we believe that with this uh pared down plan, what is being proposed is is compatible with both the site as well as the surrounding historic district, and uh happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay, I will open it up to the commission for questions and comments.

No question.

Okay, no, Mr.

Finley.

Okay, Maria.

Okay.

Um with that, I'll request a motion to approve the application.

Well, sorry, council, I should ask anything else to add.

No, I'm just happy to be first.

Okay.

Especially with the delay start.

Um, all right.

With that, I'll request a motion to approve the application of 19 Catherine Street, plat 25, lot 65.

Um, citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 tact 060 a 1, excuse me, and seven.

So all those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Thanks very much.

All those opposed.

Aye.

Citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 tact 060 A1 for retaining historic character.

Gotcha.

Ready.

Uh this is 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 the house.

Okay, welcome back.

We'll 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 state your name for the record, please.

Okay, Mr.

Wrightman, welcome back.

Thank you.

All right.

We will um I know that you had submitted updated drawings.

I'm gonna ask you to just walk the commission through those, and then we'll open it up for questions.

Yes, absolutely.

So um at the December meeting, the comments around the application centered mainly around volume, scale and massing of the project.

Um, and also some architectural detail or lack thereof, I you know, I should say.

Um, so what we did was we took all of those comments um along with the um inputting guidance that Gillian um gave us, because Gillian was nice enough to have two in-person meetings with me along the way over the past month to get us to a good place, and um we used all of those collectively to get us to the next design.

So I'd honestly like to thank the commission and Gillian for the comments because they definitely led us to a better um you know design here.

Um so the modifications that you can see.

This is the new rear elevation on the screen, are much smaller in volume and mass.

They show different roof lines, um, and they continue to have a different exterior from number one, the original house, and number two, um, it continues, you know, with the exterior from the 2014 edition.

Um, so it avoids any conjecture.

Um, and it also adds layers of dimension and depth to it.

So if you start going from the top down, um you can see we've added the roof lines, you know, the horizontal roof line is there, which is different from before.

The eve on the peak is hard to see, but we're making that molded.

So it's a shadow eave that has layers to it, and then the two second floor windows, we equalize them, you know, brought them equidistant and added the eaves over them, which are going to be wrapped in copper, and a picture of the copper is later in the presentation.

If you guys want to see that, and then the Eve between the first and second floor will also be um wrapped in in copper.

And then if you go to the next slide, which is the sides.

What we did, which is you know, based on the input that we got in the meetings was add the gable dormer over the over the windows um there and the differentiated siding continues um as it was from the 2014 edition, again, avoiding any um you know conjecture.

Um so you know, we feel again, we feel that it's much smaller in mass and and and hopefully addressed you know all of the concerns and and comments that the committee had.

Um any questions, I'm happy to answer.

And I also brought the architect um that designed it with me tonight who would be happy to answer questions as well.

So thank you.

Okay, commissioners.

Any questions may I miss Moran?

Hi.

So I appreciate the elements that you've added.

Aside from the additions, has there been any scaling back of the size or any other significant changes that you can speak to?

From the December meeting?

Correct.

No, we didn't scale back like square footage or anything because this addition actually is only 213 square feet.

It's actually very, you know, you know, very small.

We just added elements that reduce the mass and volume.

Okay.

Um I'm still on the fence.

I'm kind of chewing on this a little bit, and I'm curious to see how the other commissioners feel.

I I do still have some concern that the massing is quite large compared to the original house.

Uh, I mean, it's almost 100% of the same size, but um I like I said, I'm still kind of chewing on this a little bit.

So um, thank you for answering my questions.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Mr.

Bala.

Um, you know, I appreciate the work you did on it.

Also, I would just go on record as saying um the main part of the house, if I was looking at it as an application for the dormer that's on the main part, which I understand you're not dealing with.

Um I wouldn't be approving it, would go against the character of a contributing building that that I would that we measure.

Um and then adding this addition to an already piece of a building that's been modified to something I wouldn't be approving.

I'm having a hard time with the massing of this audition.

The second story seems like a lot of mass on this building.

Um and I just see this application as continuing a movement of modifying contributing buildings not matching our standards that we measure again.

So I would not be in favor of this application.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Madsen.

Yeah, I guess I guess when I look at it, you know, when you go by the house today, you know, it's you know, a lot of those additions have already been made, right?

He's really adding uh cubic feet versus square feet.

It's not getting any bigger, and what's there we really can't take away.

So it's really, you know, going up a little bit in the back section.

You know, I do like the way you've you know kind of accent it the original structure.

So I think that anybody going up or down the street would be able to tell you what part, you know, is the historic part, you know, of that particular uh property, because the uh what's been added either in 2014 or presented today, you know, it would be significantly different from that, and they'd be able to see what's you know what's what's original and what's what's been added since.

So I don't think you know, approving or disapproving approving it's gonna really add anything more to the massing, it's already there, I guess is my you know, my view of that.

And I do like the uh added changes.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I wonder if there was anything that you could do just because to me when I look at the side elevation, I see that continuous ridge, and I think that that sort of works against you uh in the massing.

And that if if I know as you know, when the old building sort of blends into the new building on the sides, there's a small return there.

I think it looks like about six or eight inches.

Yeah, it's eight inches on either side.

And I'm wondering if maybe if you did the same thing on the ridge, that would help to further differentiate it.

Um that would be my comment on that.

Just drop the ridge line.

Is that what you're saying?

Well, yeah, because then you would get that shadow line there, and it would make it clearly obviously uh I mean it is really obviously an addition as well, but I think it would help further distinguish the original building from the addition.

And that might even address uh Commissioner Moran's concerns about massing a little bit.

I might bring it down to I mean, with a 200 square foot edition or 250 square foot edition is not a whole lot right much difference.

But that would be helpful, I think.

Ms.

O'Brien, can he?

Um, I think Mr.

God Mr.

Goddard's comment is a real real good suggestion.

I think it would help to uh break up the massing a little if the if there was some distinction between the um at the roof line can I bring the architect up to kind of just comment on that and make sure that that's something that absolutely get him sworn in me.

Hi, how are you?

God I do, and if you could state your name for the record, please.

Chris Major, M-A-Z-Z-I-E-R, uh principal at Studio 401 Architecture in East Greenwich, Rhode Island and licensed in this state as well.

Okay.

So um could you repeat that?

I'm a bit because I had suggested to Mark.

Um the reality is uh, and I appreciate your comments, but the reality is as an architect as a designer, you have an existing home that's there.

So contextually, you need to respect that to some degree.

When we start adding, oh, we want it to look different in this and then it gets a bit schizophrenic in my opinion.

Um I understand there's uh a notion, but we can't, you know, you can't uh go back and change history.

What was approved, it was approved, and Mark owns this home.

The reality is only adding about 10, 12 feet of addition to that mass the back of the home.

I don't know if we have any pictures of that existing elevation or existing, there it is.

Um, and I understand, and it's also the back of the home.

But I did have a proposal of almost uh you think of a solarium as an aesthetic, where just that addition was glazed at the bedrooms and so forth with a flat route.

Uh I have that.

Mark didn't seem to like that.

We can consider it in a different in a different manner.

I don't think it was Mark.

Um, but uh and I wasn't a big fan of it either, because again, you know, contextually, you have a home that's not going to change.

That front is not going to change, right?

That's there.

And there's a uh uh contextual respect that you need to pay to what is there, right?

Um uh unless he tears it down and build something new.

But with that said, I think we start to diminish uh the massing, um, which isn't much in my opinion, if you comparatively see these two masses together.

Um that starts to kind of add to the uh notion of a uh a home of add-ons.

So I mean we can look at it, but um just in in my professional opinion, and I've done this a long time.

Uh I would think, you know, we can certainly look at it, but uh I would do my best to make it as as beautiful as possible.

So bringing down the ridge line, Chris, is what you're saying is the back section we brought it down.

That ridge is pretty steep uh pretty uh uh almost flat.

Yeah, so the reality is you know it's three and twelve and whatnot, or whom ever.

I go down there, you go past that.

Mark's not gonna be able to afford uh and get a warranty on a roof shingle, right?

So unless you make it flat or a metal roof.

Um that's the reality of that.

I did have again like a flat roof, and if you're thinking about trying to think of an example of a uh like a solarium, if you will, where it was all glazed.

Um not bored and batten, but rail and style above and a cornice that was flat that bit into the home.

But again, we we looked at it and it didn't look really that nice to with what's in front of that.

So what I would say is my suggestion really wasn't uh yeah, yes, to bring the ridge down, but to bring not to change the pitch, but to bring the whole bring the whole roof down, like say six inches.

And that give bring that roof down, starting with the ridge.

It's the ceiling is it so there's another uh code implication.

So he's got um I'd have to see the drawings that we submitted.

You know, I'm limited to so right now that section you have created a uh a dormer if it continuous storm, if you will, because that ceiling is so low.

I bring that down six inches.

We don't meet code because more than 50% of that is below seven two.

More than more than 50% of what of the the ceiling because I'm creating what what what is the window head now?

Because I'm creating what what what is the window head now?

Uh it's the height of it.

Excuse me one moment.

I'm gonna get my phone because I have that sure okay.

Those window heads are six six four.

So this is six four, roughly, yeah.

Right.

Because again, um Mr.

Goddard, that section, I can show you.

Do you have a second?

Can I bring my phone up?

I don't know how procedurally how you do that.

I seem to so that's the section.

So if I bring this down, that's six eight.

No, no, get you.

So again, but you're gonna be happy.

So we do that, then we don't meet the building code.

Well, I understood, yeah.

I mean, but I I would think that you probably have less you probably could meet it by bringing it down six, I would say.

But I mean, if to the 50% rule what I'm saying, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So anyway.

But so that ceiling now is formed by what is a rafter tie, and that's those we have to have because it's sticky.

So that ceiling, that rafter tie.

I start bringing that pitch down, that rafter tie has to be a third of the span.

Can you not just have a structural ridge on it then?

Maybe we have the structural ridge.

We have a ridge game.

Yeah, we have a collar tie and we have a rafter tie because it's uh to make it nice and solid.

If I suggest if you're suggesting playing with a ridge, I would make it fine.

Well, no, I'm what I'm suggesting is a shadow line to just differentiates the two structures, the two masses, that's all.

Right.

Because what I what I see is it's a continuous roof net.

Which it is, absolutely.

Yeah.

We did differentiate two other weights of the siding.

No, no, I'm done.

But I would have stepped in.

Go ahead and change the roof material in the hugs again.

I I I get you, I understand.

Any other follow-up from you?

No, I'll add on to that.

Uh so I think Mr.

Bala kind of alluded to this a bit.

So I'm starting to, I think, determine where the massing is coming from for me, and it is that dormer, right?

So we're not matching the original roof line of the house.

We're matching a dormer, which is already adding on to the massing the how tall the building is, how large it looks.

I personally am not in favor of dormers for the most part, on especially on small houses like this.

They look like new houses once they're added.

Uh and so for me, it's it's that dormer line that's carrying all the way back to the house.

That's it's it looks larger than the original house.

Yeah, it's existing though, yeah.

I understand that, but when you begin to extend it back, now we have this structure that's actually larger or has visibly more mass than the original structure in front.

The addition we're talking about now is only all the way to the left, that one small.

If you go back to that slide you were just on, it's only right there, that small window to the back.

That's all the additions are still there.

Yeah, I know I feel it's okay right now.

I probably wouldn't have been in favor of adding that to begin with in the way that it was added anyway.

But uh for me, you know, your south side is is the more visible side of the house, right?

You've got a little more space between the houses, so you have a better view of this of the south side.

The front of the house, yeah.

The front is the sound.

The front is the south side.

Oh, sorry, of the east side east side.

The east side is probably where you have if you're gonna call it good.

I mean, it's not there's there's really no visibility.

This is the east side.

That is his correct okay.

So this is the side that you're gonna be seeing most from the street view, correct?

But you can't see it, but if you were gonna see it from the street, that's what you would see.

But there's no visibility from the street.

Oh, I feel like you can see it a bit.

Uh I mean, I did a tiny little bit, you can you know, see it, but yeah.

Yeah, I do think.

I mean, I went by there.

I mean, I do think even on the other side you can see down what is the corridor to the other property line.

You see the mass that is the existing extension that's there.

So sorry to me to cut Moran off.

But that is my similar concern that extending that even further exaggerates that extension that was already added.

So it makes something that's already mass that I think the consensus of the you know, the commission here is that we probably would not have approved that originally, which is neither here nor there before us this evening, but adding on to it amplifies what is already extra mass.

I mean, almost to the same mass of the original historic structure.

So I similarly am having a very hard time as it relates to maintaining um that original historic character of the building.

So any other Mr.

Finley, any other feedback?

Well, I agree.

I mean, it seems as if every other word out of what the commissioners is mass here.

And I think that's one of the issues that um we have to deal with.

And I agree with um the majority of the commissioners that I think the mass has yet to be addressed.

Does anybody on the commission feel like if that ridge did come down?

Would that be sufficient?

And that was a shadow line across this portion in terms of it's really hard to say.

It did and those peaks over the windows are also adding to the height of the building.

We're also we're we're drawing it up from what is already a small structure.

That was done.

Sure.

I don't think those help.

But uh, in my opinion, still seeing that bridge line um or the soft line continue from your dormer.

I feel that is creating the massing.

What if we this is uh what if I took the the ridge all the way off back to that linear dormer?

So that's inclusive of the original edition Mark had done and ours and we made it, and it and and I know Mark's saying, what are you talking about?

I know it's actually it would be a low-pitched roof with a cornice that would contain that and flatten that whole mass out.

The reality of that is it would lessen the mass more than the existing home is now.

Okay, I mean that would be something to look at, but again, lessening the mass.

It's the historic commission and it and um just in my opinion, you know, it's what's there is there, and it there's a certain responsibility to maintain contextually what is there.

So but we certainly can look at it.

I mean uh I'm I'm I'm we can get fairly creative and and come up with something.

I just hope you know it's a matter of if the homeowner likes it and wants to spend the money on it.

Sure.

So I would recommend I don't think that there's enough of a consensus to even conditionally approve.

I believe everybody's gonna need to see drawings and potentially a render.

I would say yes.

Um, so I would recommend continuing the application.

Um there's too many facets in terms of piecemealing something on the fly here for us to really have a clear sense of what that looks like.

So if you're in agreement, Mr.

Wrightman, we would continue the um to the February meeting.

There's no way we can get it on the I mean we typically do not design here on the fly.

We we do ask to have renderings.

If it was something a little bit simpler, we might be able to put a conditional approval in, but I don't believe otherwise the commission has to go based on the materials that are before us, which I don't think would be favorable for you this evening.

So I other commissioners to weigh in, but I agree.

Okay.

Um question for the commission.

If if we're within our setbacks and within the height restrictions, um does the commission have the ability to actually govern what massing occurs?

You do Ms.

Chen, and yeah, just validate, but yes.

Anything that we approve will go to zoning, so they will understand.

Yeah.

Um, so continuation to February.

Um yeah, well, I'll go ahead.

Can I do that now?

And I don't honestly don't know if I'll continue.

Um can I continue it now and then decide whether or not I want to withdraw?

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, that's fine, Ms.

Chen, right?

Some money on plans.

Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely fine.

Um, all right.

So 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 meeting on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

C5.

Ready?

Yep.

This is the application of Deborah Goldberg of 15 Cottington Street, Unit A, flat 17, lot 133-A contributing for permission to strip siding and replace with Hardy Board signing siding.

Okay, welcome back.

I'm gonna get both of you sworn in.

Whoever wants to go first.

I will work.

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

So help you, God.

And if you could just state your name, I'm sorry again into the microphone.

Deborah Goldberg.

Okay, thank you.

And for yourself.

DJ Lanny.

Okay, and you also swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you, God.

I do.

Okay.

Thank you.

And welcome back.

Good evening, Commission.

So uh last month we were here to talk about the siding at 15 Cottington.

Um since that last meeting, we went to the historic society and did some homework.

We were able to pull some historic photos of this property.

Um the best photo that we found was from the 70s, and it did demonstrate that the siding style uh was the same back then.

So we have uh clapboard on the first level and then cedar shakes up on the second and third level, uh including the gables.

So what we're proposing tonight is to basically replace in kind.

Uh we will essentially keep all of the materials wood, including the corner boards and the freeze.

Um so that's the first part of the application for this evening.

Uh the second part is um in reviewing the front of the building.

We're sort of blessed and cursed to have one of the historic beach trees out in front of the property on Cottington.

And it's a beautiful tree, but man, does it make a mess?

So our front doors have taken quite a beating from the trees and the weather, and they don't have any weather protection currently.

Um I did work with Gillian a little bit to um find some historic um examples of overhangs.

We had initially proposed a more colonial type look in uh after consult with Gillian.

We decided to change it to something that was more age appropriate for the 19 uh excuse me, 1850s, which is this um Corbel style overhang.

Um so that's what we're proposing this evening for the exterior doors.

We just want to try to get a little bit um of weather protection.

We've had to add storm doors to the front of the house, and they're not as beautiful as something uh something like this woodwork would be.

Okay, all right.

With that, I'll open it up.

Questions or comments, Mr.

Ballet?

Um, I have one question.

Your uh application makes um reference to Plan Cedar on the lower level, which uh I believe the company you're using for the cedar shingles is Maybec.

Um Maybeck does not make a wood plank siding.

Are you using a different siding for the horizontal siding?

Is that it?

No, yeah, that I think that might have been the original.

Yeah, this would just be cedar uh cedar clap.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

And we would um just make a note on the record that it is being updated from hardy board to cedar clap and um shake.

Okay.

Correct.

All would okay.

Um, any other questions or comments on the revisions?

Do we do we have a uh elevation showing those in place?

There's new of the new entries, the new entries.

Is that we we did not draft uh an elevation of the front of the building with with the corbell overhang overlaid.

We we can um well we had looked at a few different designs for this corable overhang, and from this period, you know, they they can get quite pretty ornate with different scroll details, and in order to avoid conjecture, we wanted to go with a simpler design.

Um again, we're just trying to get some weather protection.

If you do look at the 1970s photos that we found, um Jill, I don't know if we have that in the record, but I I did email you a copy recently.

Um, but that did show a much larger overhang.

This property was owned by the Aquidnik Electric Club, uh, electric club electric uh company, and it was likely for um you know worker housing.

There was a large overhang and even two doors above the the entry door on the second level.

Um, and that obviously is not um existing anymore.

So we are putting, you know, we're looking to put something back just for some weather protection, but there was something there previously.

Yeah, I would say conceptually I'm fine with the idea.

Um I'm just looking for more proportion and dimension.

Uh and I can't get that from that drawing there.

I mean, I can guess at it a little bit, but to me, it looks a little bit on the heavy, bulky side, and that it could be refined further.

I think that maybe was something that can be taken up with Jill or something like that.

I mean, yeah.

Um but to me, like if I look at the drawing, the hand drawings look they look a little ponderous and a little bulky and probably out of scale for in terms of the depth of the freeze and maybe even the fascia board and a few other things.

And so without dimensions, I really can't comment exactly to what I'm saying, but other than just even those look a little bulky to me, to be honest with you.

Could we just pull up the um historic photo again for a second?

Yes, please.

So approximately how far apart are those front doors?

Those doors are about eight feet apart, six to eight feet.

Jill, I emailed you maybe 20 minutes ago that historic photo from the 70s.

Yeah.

That's what you got right now.

But I I do I have it on my phone.

If you'd like to see it, I can show it to you.

But we're I think we're amenable to changing the dimensions and sort of the volume of those overhangs.

When I look at the front of the building, I see the freeze board that separates the first and second level.

Our intent is to stay below that.

So the little lights above will move to the side, and we can change the dimensions of those.

Obviously, it needs to be the width of the 36-inch door.

Um, and the core ball would attach to, you know, just outside of the door casing.

But I think we want to try to stay within that call at 18 to 24-inch dimension high.

Yes, I mean, I would say that um seeing that drawing that you have provided us here, and then seeing two of those side by side, you know, on a full elevation, would um kind of tell the tale for me.

But uh I'm I I think it just needs to be refined, but I'm willing to, you know, let it go to let Ina and Jill work with them to get those dimensions right.

But I think it it needs a little bit of a okay, and I'll just share for Constance and maybe wound up getting the photo, maybe not.

But Ro did just pull something up.

There is correct me if I'm wrong, the steps are actually separated, so there isn't in that historic photo, it's hard to tell.

There's two separate stairwells that are not joined in the middle.

So it doesn't matter.

Was it in the historic picture?

Was it ever adjoined at the top?

Yes, it was it was okay.

I'll show you the photo if you you're interested.

I'd like to see it.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

I'm kind of thinking the opposite of Ray, in that if it was one, it may make a uh rather than two separate ones and make it a little bit more uh appealing, I think, rather than two of them just sitting out there like tombstones.

So maybe it's just we'll talk about it.

Can I ask a question while you're looking at that?

Yes, on the top of those overhangs.

Is that asphalt shingle or is that slate or copper?

A little bit.

It's it's asphalt shingles.

Oh accurate that is what year was that from 1970s.

Yeah, do that.

No, can I shoot that?

Oh I'd love to see.

Yeah, just for shelf.

That's gives us a unique character.

No, I I mean conceptually, I I do think you know, putting it as one large one would change also the character of the faces building.

I think two smaller ones sufficient to cover the width of the you know, the stair, the door, and then maybe adjust the height slightly.

Um I'm just gonna ask our preservation planner.

Um, based on the revised plans that have been submitted.

Yeah, Jill, what is your perspective on as proposed?

Second four.

Um, I do agree with Ray that I I think that they could certainly be refined.

Um, my suggestion was to go for this kind of overhang because it's simple, it can be removed.

Um, it doesn't change the facade too much.

Um, this kind of simple style is would be seen on a building of that age, um, particularly a worker building.

Typically, they have the overhangs um over the the entrances.

I do agree that the fascia and the um the freeze need to be shrunken a bit.

Um, so I would be willing to to look at a revised version of this okay for approval.

Well, what I would uh propose if it pleases the board is to I can have my architect overlay and you know take the front elevation of the building, overlay it.

We can mess with those dimensions and the proportions, and you know, if if Jillian would be able to administratively approve that, that would that would work for us.

Yeah, the simpler the better, EJ.

Yeah.

I mean, uh I I think this the freeze is the problem.

I think they're simple enough, in my opinion.

I think they're appropriate, but I do agree that the bulk is probably needs to be reduced.

You're gonna have to, you don't have the space, I think.

You're you're right.

I agree, and I think we're okay to you know contract that a little bit.

Yep.

Okay.

So based on um feedback, I think that that's um a condition that we would be able to move ahead with.

Um any other public comment here for this application this evening.

No, all right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 15 Cottington Street Unit A, Plat 17, lot 133-A, um, with the amendment to the application that um all siding will be replaced in kind, which is clapboard and seat or shake, um, and a conditional approval that the proposed overhang and freeze will be simplified for administrative approval from the preservation planner.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 A145 and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

This is the application of Elijah Deckworth Shacter of 6 Greeno Place, plat 22, lot 27, contributing for permission to retain existing carriage house, raising it to install new concrete foundation, rebuilding rot and deterioration as needed.

Install two new outswing wood carriage doors, restore all existing windows, remove later lean to addition and and rebuilding and same footprint and entrance vestibule and stair to the second floor.

Reframe exact existing second floor and convert space into dwelling unit.

Retain existing windows and install new skylights in west elevation, build 918 square foot single floor guest cottage and porch to the south of the existing carriage house and connecting it to the new entrance vestibule.

Okay, and I'll just state for the record that Commissioner Bala has uh recused himself for the application, and Commissioner Richter will be set again.

Uh welcome this evening.

I'm gonna have you sworn in.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Uh, my name is Francisco Sanchez.

I go by Kiko Sanchez.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Mr.

Sanchez, walk us through the application, please.

Yeah, so the intent is to um well, first of all, to restore the um the contributing uh carriage house that's on the property.

Um the biggest challenge with it is that it's actually not sitting square to the house, and it has to do with the fact that um actually if you could show the um the bigger side plan, the existing one um on the screen.

Uh one more page up.

Sorry.

There.

So on the top left, you'll see how the carriage house is actually um squared for the rear property line, and that's because the property line that's on the top of the page there um was um, I guess the property used to be bigger.

That was added later on that that portion of the lot was conceded to the neighbor or sold to a neighbor um at some point in time.

So the um the proposal is to actually, you know, since we have to rebuild the foundation, um, because it's completely brought and it's it's really just sitting on wood and stone piers, and we would have to do a uh concrete foundation.

Um our intent is to lift it and rotate it um so it's squared to the house and it actually you know can be talks, you know, design-wise, it talks to the um to the driveway and the entire property.

And um then there is a little lean to on the side.

If you can scroll down through the elevations.

Um, I mean uh we can talk about the garage doors too, but the there's a lean to on the side that's not non-contributing, which is that third garage door there you see on the second photo.

So that would be removed.

And then the idea is to bring back the character of carriage house by adding another matching garage door on the right hand side.

So it you know, it looks like they added a window and a door on the right hand side of the building and they eliminated a garage door.

So our intent in terms of the historic carriage house is to bring back the character of the carriage house by adding two garage doors and removing that lean two on the left-hand side, which we don't believe is the story, and also to lift it and rotate it so it's square to the house in the entire property.

Then the um the uh the guest house that has been added to this proposal is um to be connected by a new staircase that's um sitting right against the existing carriage house, and we've differentiated the roofs there, as you were mentioning for a previous application.

Um you can see there on the south elevation.

Um so we have those two um garage doors that are proposed.

We have a little lean to roof there on the right hand side, which has a staircase and a basically a connecting piece, and then on the left-hand side you can see our new proposed um guest house that we've designed for the property.

Um so the whole addition from the from the connecting piece to the two bedrooms that you see on the left is about 900 square feet.

Um the lot coverage on the property, the existing is about 16-16%, and then by adding this new ADU structure, we are at the 20%, which is the uh the maximum that we can build on this property.

Um we've added a porch facing um well, aside from the you know, the two bedrooms, we have a bay window.

Um we've added a porch that's now facing the west side of the building and the garden side.

And the um if you look at the site plan, we've arranged the two, well, the one the single structure, we've added the um the guest house in a way that we you know, so that we can hide the um I guess the garage doors from the main house.

Um sort of create more privacy on the south side of the property, and then the second floor of the existing carriage house will be um we're proposing to do a playroom up there um with uh with a bathroom and us in a small bedroom.

Okay, all right.

I will open it up to the commission for questions or comments.

I have a couple of quick questions myself if people are digesting.

Um so just to touch on the um carriage doors themselves.

So as drawn in the elevation, um it looks just like a four-panel overhang, but I think in the application it does say outswing wood carriage doors.

I just wanted to clarify, and if there's a visual that you have of what those yeah, I guess it doesn't match the elevation, yeah.

But it would be outswing just to match the character of the building.

Okay.

I think it's an issue with a computer program, it just didn't load the um the actual drone.

Okay, okay.

Um then the other question was um wood spec uh window specs for all of the new windows.

What windows are you planning to put in?

The older windows are existing.

Um, and the idea is to restore them, except you know, they're not historic, they're actually uh Marvin windows, they're all wood, and they're perfectly great.

Um, so the intent is to keep the ones that we are removing, which are only two windows, I believe, um, and the door, and then to restore all the other ones.

And on the main on the new structure that you're building, those will be new windows.

So those will so you will do uh something either you know, Marvin or or Brasco, something like a single pane, you know, something that matches um and it would comply with the guidelines of the historic district.

Okay.

So in essence, what you're what you're doing is making one building, correct?

It's gonna be one structure now.

So it's we're kind of looking at it as two, but it's really going to become one.

It's almost like new construction in the in the back there, correct?

Correct.

So what's a total square foot if we put the two together as one structure?

Uh off the top of my head, sorry.

I we have it here somewhere.

Um I guess while you're looking at it, is this going to be an ADU or is that the intent here?

Or so the ADU, the footprint is 794 square feet.

Right.

The connector footprint, which I guess you can say that's part of the ADU.

Um, it's an additional 264 square feet.

Um the carriage house footprint is 570 square feet.

So the total proposed footprint is 1628 square feet.

The main house is second floor.

Right.

Yeah.

It's just a footprint.

It doesn't count as the footprint of the original house that's on the lot now.

So the carriage house.

Not the carriage, the original, the house it's on the private house.

Six screen up place.

The footprint?

Yeah.

So you're double the size of the footprint of the original house of the existing house.

No, you mean of the carriage house?

No.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I'm trying to figure out how much of the lot coverage are you taking up from more square footage to add this common now structure, which was once a garage, now it's going to be an expanded garage with uh uh we're adding plus or minus 950 square feet.

Okay.

And change.

I don't know.

I have the exact number here somewhere if you but it's it is around that around that number.

So yeah, the allowed lot coverage is 20%, and we're proposing to max that out to at least 20% with the added um ADU and with the connected piece.

And then the front design there, I see you you kind of picked up from the the front of the house.

But if you look at the back of the house, uh again, the primary house.

It's very simple in the back.

I mean, in the front, it's very ornate and um.

But in the back, it's plain, and now we're kind of bringing that you know ornate piece into the back.

I mean, it's it's gonna look to me like a pretty six substantial structure in the back, almost becoming a house in its on in its own right, I guess.

Yeah, I mean, there's some detail it's pretty significant.

Sort of belongs to that carpenter Gothic style of the time.

Now it's right, it's a pared down version of what you see at the main house.

You can see a picture of the main house on the coverprint.

Um, so almost like we're proposing uh a folly um mini me, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I our um preservation planner, one of our standards is conjecture, she had also called out the use of the gothic revival architectural features on the new structure, does read heavy and may create a false sense of historical development.

Um particularly as the original carriage house obviously was a very simple design.

So I think that that's definitely worth discussion.

Um the other question I wanted to ask.

Um the connector piece in and of itself, is that you know, looking, we don't necessarily get involved in interior programming.

However, looking at that footprint, you're even saying 264 square feet.

Is there an opportunity to move a stairwell somewhere else to pull the two structures closer together to reduce the overall size?

And also the way that you know the roof line is separated, but now we have a lot of roof lines going on.

It goes on and on if you look at the last one of that.

Yeah.

We can study that.

Okay.

Ms.

O'Brien.

I would echo some of the concerns that have already been expressed in that I think that some of the architectural detailing is conjectural by nature.

I just think it it's um adding um it's too imitative of the original structure.

And I I think that that begs the conjectural issue.

I also feel that the the roof, you know, the the multiplicity of roof lines that are going on here in connected buildings, it it's it's just it's giving the building a lot of like weight and mass.

I think too much weight and mass.

And I think also um the new building on the left that you're calling the guest house, um, being that it's attached to the carriage house, it now looks like you've built a house with a garage attached to it.

And I uh feel that that's not something that if it were presented on its own, um that I don't feel that that's something that the commission would find acceptable in the historic district to attach a big garage like that to a house.

So I um I at this point I I couldn't um support this project.

Do we have any historic photos of the carriage house itself that we can pull up?

I don't have any historic photos of the carriage house.

The only thing I have is the existing.

Um it does show up on historic maps in its current location.

But that's that's about it.

Um you had called out in one of your staff notes um that the original structure probably had only one carriage door.

Yes.

So what you see it could have had two uh where the existing entrance in the door okay window is.

Um, but this massing this main mass with the center gable is typical of that time period since okay.

And I was asking, like if we need to maintain one door versus adding to that point, which looks like a garage.

Okay.

Any other feedback for the applicant?

Could I also just clarify something?

Yeah, the original carriage house, the gable main gable is being raised up to accommodate the living space inside.

No, that's all existing.

It's gonna stay the same.

It'll stay the same.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have a site plan showing the existing main house?

Yes, but showing it, okay.

That should with the addition.

So I mean, I mean, yeah, it's right here.

No, I understand.

I know.

Oh, with the is it drawn in there though?

Okay.

Right here.

Right here.

And this is Pell Street, so you'll see it right there.

Yeah.

Do we have specs on the garage doors as well?

No, you just we don't have special.

He just said it would be a wood outswing carriage door.

Okay, yeah, because the drawings don't actually represent that.

Okay, I just wanted I'd like to see that.

Any other questions from the side?

Or feedback for the applicant.

Yeah, I'm um generally concurring with uh other commissioners in terms of um the um multiple uh roof lines um and a bit on the scale, the mass relative to the property in the main house.

The scale of the guest house or the or the garage.

Garage is existing, and we haven't modified the left at all.

I think it sounds like the summation of all of the yeah, I think it's uh it's I think the project is feasible, but it's not quite there, would would be my use the architect from the last hearing, it's kind of schizophrenic with all those roof lines exactly.

Just a bunch of boxes put together with different fronts, different roof lines, you know, different doors.

It's highly visible from Pell Street around the corner, you know.

I think it in the size is you know, more than 50% of the existing home.

So from a massing perspective as well, you know, I would not be in favor of this particular application.

Yeah, I would say um the conjectural aspect of it.

I think it was a very handsome addition, to be honest with you.

I I the way it marries up to the existing carriage house, I think is a little problematic.

Uh, but the I I think is well executed in terms of the if we could just separate the two.

I think the addition is well executed, perhaps too conjectural.

So simplification there might be helpful, but how it actually connects to me, I think needs a little massaging, maybe, but uh I think overall, I mean it's a doable project, right?

I think uh just needs to be pushed.

I think about that overall.

Sorry, what was that?

Last part.

No, I was just saying overall, I think it's moving, you know, it could be done.

Uh I just think right now it just needs a little additional work to get it there.

You know, so and uh what was a comment about all the doors?

Um uh there's be from Pell Street, is that what you said?

No, that it's highly visible.

The structure will be from from Pell Street around the corner.

So you know, it it's gonna look to me anyway, it's gonna be uh a new house in the back of an existing house with a front-facing garage door.

That's the way it looks.

I mean, if you just walk, if you just look at that, it looks like a brand new house with front-facing garage door, which we typically don't allow within historic districts.

Well, that's greenhouse, that's greenow place.

Um that elevation it's facing Greeno Street, so it's forward facing.

Yeah, so it's it's way in the back.

It would be hard to see, but the the side that's facing Pale is the um just to clarify is the um so yeah, the top elevation on the left and west elevation, that's what's facing Pell Street.

So the garage doors are not really facing Pell Street.

I don't know if that's not directly facing Greenhouse Street, which is the address of the house, front face, yeah.

But if you um and I'm not trying to fight you on this or anything, it's just that if you look at if you go to the Google maps, and you look at at the view from um Green One, you can hardly see the the guest house from the street if you're walking down the street.

I mean that the guest house ordered or the carriage, so garage.

Yeah, it is set pretty pretty far off the property.

Yeah.

Can we see the GIS map again?

Sorry, yeah, you can see there have the property jogs to the right.

It has to be one structure.

Um it was, you know, the owner wanted to connect the two buildings.

Um that's how it was designed.

Um, but it does not have to be to answer your question.

No, does not have to be completely.

Didn't know if that was like a zoning limitation or setback limitation.

I just feel like we're trying to connect them where it doesn't really fit together.

They almost would be better separated.

That would be my opinion anyway.

Yeah, and I think oh I feel like in addition, in addition to it looking now like a front-facing garage attached to a house.

You've lost the character of the carriage house.

Yeah, I mean, it's just become a garage on a new house.

It's become a new garage on a new house.

Um, instead of a carriage, instead of having a carriage house that historically has been there and has its own character related to the house.

Okay, so you're you say that you're saying that you prefer that these two be separated though?

Personally, it seems it seems like it's a more viable alternative.

Yes.

I have to read the zoning here.

I don't know if it's allowed or not.

But yeah, that's the okay.

So well, you've already got a carriage house.

So you you know, I mean now you're just talking about adding an ABU.

That seems like a different problem.

I think if I could offer another suggestion, um, I think what the commission is the carriage house in and of itself is its own structure currently that has the character of a carriage house.

We have seen instances where understanding you might want to connect the two buildings, you might have to do something from interior again, stairwells and how you're getting to the second floor of the carriage house, but sometimes a very simple you know, windowed glass walkway that connects the structures that clearly reads that the carriage house remains and there's a new structure that's been added, but it's much more secondary to a structure that feels like it's connecting to other buildings might be an opportunity.

Um it's just it's it would still be a dwelling with a garage.

I mean, that's the that's my own that's the way I'm reading that comment.

So it's either connected or not, you know, in my mind.

But um, I think the commission is really looking to protect the character of that carriage house, however, that's done, it needs to read still as that primary structure of the combined of the total understanding.

Um while maintaining the character of the of the carriage house.

Yeah.

But I agree with Mr.

Goddard.

I think there are a lot of very appropriate architectural details without over um, I do think the conjecture is something that needs to be considered maybe scaled back with some of those details and taking references from the main structure of the house.

Um, but I I agree with the commission's feedback that it's an excellent opportunity to show how a carriage house can be adaptively reused.

Um, but overall the consensus we need to protect that historical um nature of the carriage house and not have conjecture.

Um so I would recommend um continuing the application so that we could come back and look at some revised plans.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that, I will request a motion to continue the application of six Green O Place Plat 22 lot 27 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, February.

I think it's the ninth um February 10th, 2026.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you, Mr.

Sanders.

So this is the application of 115 Pelham LLC of 115 Pelham Street, plat 28, lot five, contributing for permission to replace three windows in the west bump out with custom wood windows to match style in the front facade.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms.

Johnson, 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 to state your name for the record, please.

Helen Johnson.

Okay, welcome.

Could you go to the each screen?

There, I think there's a different attachment that has the elevations.

Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah, that's okay.

So our client is requesting to replace three existing windows with two custom wood windows, single pane, weight and chain, true divided light.

Uh the window opening will remain the same.

115 Pelham Street was constructed circa 1831, 1840 in the Greek revival style.

And it was one of several Greek revivals built around Thurrow Park at that time.

The bump outs at the east and west elevations were constructed circa 1880, 1890-ish.

And that added to the symmetry of the building, which was typical of the Greek revival style.

As it now stands, there is a mix of window styles throughout the elevations of 115 Pelham Street.

The first four windows of the east and west bump outs are atypical of what would have been found in a late 19th century Greek revival.

And there is no precedent for these windows on any other elevations in the house.

As you can see at the west elevation, the large transoms, one over one large light pattern, and a lack of muntain profiles indicate that these windows would not typically be found in a house of this style and period of construction.

Can you scroll up so we can see the yeah, the that's the existing the three windows right there?

Yep.

So you see the large transoms, the one over one large light pattern, and a lack of muntain profiles.

Nor are they mentioned in the national register nominations as character defining features.

We believe that all these points give us the latitude to alter the window style, but not the opening.

As I mentioned, there's a huge mix of windows in this house that have been replaced over time.

So we wanted to go in and get a better understanding of exactly how many windows we had that might be original, um, what different window types we had and build a precedence for uh this replacement.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Leo got you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

Okay, and just say your name for the record, please.

Timothy Leahy.

Okay, thank you.

So typically when I do an assessment for um customers for uh work that they propose to do, uh, my main goal uh in the city of Newport and these historic structures is to look for uh windows that are typical of original construction or historic uh fabric.

Uh in this house, we found only one window that would have typical details of thin mutton profile, cylinder glass, and the type of uh moldings and hardware that would be typical of a window of that time.

That window may have been moved or installed after original construction, but was the only one we found.

So in assessing the entire house and all the windows, you know, we feel that um doing this part of the project to improve that bump out and create a better aesthetic and to allow for the design of what the owners wish to do on the interior, that we're not creating any full sense of history to try to mimic what was there originally because much of the original fabric has already been lost.

And um, I'd also like to use Jamie Fancy.

He is the design architect in the budget and speak about the design intent.

Okay.

All right, we'll get you, Swannan.

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.

My name is JV Clancy.

I am an architect to partner with Albert Ryder and Titman.

We're based in Boston, but I'm licensed Rhode Island.

Uh we've been in front of this commission for a project out on Ridge Road.

Anyway, um, yes, the the intent here uh with these windows is um is really kind of from an interior perspective.

Uh you can see the Pelham Street elevation has these unique four over one double-hung windows.

Um, the room we're talking about has one of those windows in them that faces Pelham, and then it has these three windows that we're looking at here, the double hung with the transom.

And we're creating this kind of new room inside, and the intent is when you're in the room, you know, the windows relate between the north and the west facade.

I think we have an interior pinkwash drawing that was done where you can kind of see the relationship of the two.

Um it's not a very big room.

Um, and uh anyway, that that's the design intent.

Okay.

All right, any other and as was stated, you know, the um we would literally match what's there.

So it's not just a you know, a Marvin replacement window.

We would put in wait and chain, single pane windows, true divided lights, literally matching those munch profiles.

You can see this elevation here, how kind of prominent they are and how it relates to that single window on the right, which is the four over one.

Um, and then as I stated before, it's interesting how they fit literally in this exact opening.

It's the same height and put two windows in three at the same width with a very kind of normal sized um mullion in the middle.

Okay.

Anything else, Jake?

Okay.

Mr.

Ballon.

Um I think you answered this, but I just wanted to double check.

The new two new windows equal the same size as those single window in front, but just too wide.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other what and what what's the age?

Do you figure um maybe this is from Mr.

Leahy?

Um, what do you figure is the age of the existing windows that you're trying to remove?

So the existing windows with the transoms.

That then that was in the possible well, we had trouble dating that to be honest.

We searched high and low for archival photos.

Um I would say it could range anywhere from the early 1900s up through the 1960s.

I mean, it's it's yeah.

There's a hell of a range.

Yeah.

Um they're really interesting style.

I've not really seen something like that, especially with the transom above the each one, and then the triple across.

It's a true double-hung setup on the windows themselves, but uh many of the windows have been changed from rope to weight and chain, and there's been several alterations to hardware, um, mechanical hardware, lifts, all that over time.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any comments, Miss Moran?

Oddly enough, I had this on my summary list.

I know, right?

I know.

I just I looked at the photo and I thought I just this couldn't ever have been original.

And whatever you're gonna put in there, especially with a uh wood window with the weight and chains, it that just seems far more appropriate to me.

I think it's an improvement to the building, so I would support.

Okay.

I would agree.

It's great.

Okay.

All right.

So any other comments?

Good to go.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 115 Palm Street plat 28 lot 005.

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

So move second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Everybody good to get going.

Yes.

Let's go one more.

Okay.

Um, this is the application of Anthony Dews of 14 Sherman Street, plat 21, lot 47 contributing for permission to install gable overhang over front door on east elevation.

Install metal handrail attached to wall and and east and south on feast at south elevation.

Install new set of concrete and stone stairs at the front of the house and stairs on west elevation going into mud rum.

Repair and cleanup foundation with stone veneer and fill in cracks at south elevation.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Rapp.

We'll get you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And if you could state your name for the record.

Mark Rap, R A P.

Okay, Mr.

Rapp, welcome back.

Thank you.

Um, I'm just gonna do a quick check-in with Ms.

Chin.

Do we have any updates from the details that had been provided about work that's already been done on the property?

Um, so I did check, and there were no building permits that were pulled, no exterior building permits at all.

So I forwarded that to the building official who will be you know checking in on that.

The alterations that were completed without building permits did have HDC approval from last year.

Um so the HGC did approve it, but it just didn't have permits.

Um that's everything except for the foundation and the steps.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So if you could um walk us through the application and then talk through that point of um some of the work that has already been done.

Uh yeah, he uh the owner came to be in the middle of this project asking for a uh some kind of roof overhang at the uh entry door, and I said to him we didn't have any overhangs on the building, and I didn't have a reference to create one, but he insisted on trying to do something which he thought would help the building.

So I developed a simple gable overhang matching the pitch and forms of the main gables of the building and two simple brackets to create a roof between keeping the door and the windows where they are.

And in addition to that, you wanted some railings from the existing stairs from the street.

Uh I suggested just one metal handrail on the building itself to minimize its impact.

And he asked for another rail on the other side with some kind of bolusters, which we have shown.

Uh thirdly, with this entrance, I noticed on site that he had applied a stone veneer without any approval.

So I went to put it onto the application for your review and comment because um it was not authorized.

So that's the scope of work for a project that we previously uh had approval from your board last year.

That's ongoing.

So this is sort of supplementary.

And the railings that are proposed on the other elevations, those are also new, correct?

Yes, correct.

Okay.

So we have a total of three new railings, including the front entry.

Correct, one the front you see from the street.

The other two are pretty much uh hidden by uh where they're located.

Okay.

Side in the rear.

Um, all right, I'll open it up for questions and comments.

Mr.

Madsen.

What's then behind the um the stone veneer?

What's it was that like a parch or what you would just give a parched a parched up.

It's meant probably on some kind of rubble.

Okay, it's already done.

That's already covered up and right.

Yeah, he applied a thin stone veneer of some kind to look like probably thinking it was a good idea.

I don't know that agree with that, but okay.

See there the photo that house had nice rubble stone foundation that was parched.

Right.

It was a different as it was a dish of it so I see, yeah.

Okay.

This is what it looks to me to be either barge or just a granite slab.

I can't tell exactly from the photo.

I think it's parked, it's a pretty okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I hope he didn't cover a granite slab.

Yeah, exactly.

I have yeah, did you see what it looks like?

The new up close.

Oh god.

Yeah.

Oh, the house.

Yeah.

Other questions or comments.

I guess I don't know if you guys want to see it.

This is a photo from the yeah.

It needed something.

I just don't know if this was the something it needed.

Ray, do you want to see this?

Looks like to me.

Let's start with the overhang before we get into the foundation, the overhang.

Um, how does the commission what is the commission's view about the overhang relative to the structure?

I think our preservation planner had put comments in that she felt that the scale, the simplicity of it was appropriate.

Yeah, I'm fine with it.

I think it's fine.

Okay.

Yeah, I would agree.

I uh I don't think it's something that you would uh you would see on other houses of the same age.

So I'm sorry, I think you would see this on other houses.

So what it's appropriate.

Mr.

Madson, the overhang.

Yeah, I don't think there's an alternative.

But it works, it's simple.

Okay, so I think that any concerns about the railings.

They're metal railings, right?

Yeah.

No, that's required.

Okay.

So that we don't feel like the stone veneer is an improvement to what was there, assuming it wasn't a piece of granite, which would be kind of cool, but uh I don't think the stone veneer was done very nice.

I also just want to mention that the metal hand railing will be painted white.

Yeah.

Don't love that, but trim in the house of our preview, right?

Um can it just be a standard wrought iron?

It could be black, yes.

Yeah.

I had a 50-50 chance of the color.

Okay.

But we when you talked about the railings, you mentioned that there was gonna be I was I was can't I'm confused because you said there was gonna be there were gonna be two railings.

I I suggested one rail just attached to the building itself on the clabbards for so you could hold on to it to be a minimal impact.

And he wanted a second rail with the bolusters on the right side.

If you look at the front elevation there, in other words, if you listen, you see the if you look at the entrance straight on, you'll see the the railing with bolusters.

That's on the right side of the stairs, whereas the one on the house would just be attached to the house.

Try to do less of a railing.

So you're gonna attach the railing below those windows.

It'd just be a rail, yes.

And for code, do you need to have railings on both sides?

No.

Just one side.

Don't have that on the old side.

I mean, yeah, it's not high enough to require garbage.

Oh, it's not obvious.

I'm leaning towards not affixing something to the house.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean the owner has I mean they couldn't have mobility issues than for city reasons.

I I think right-on railings are are used throughout the historic district.

You know, they read as something new.

I I think it's fine, unless okay.

So I think really we're left with we need to just align on the foundation.

So I've shared site photos from what has been done.

Um, Ms.

Chen, you did confirm, I think in your staff report that you did.

You think that was the original that is when the that addition was put on.

Okay.

So what what's under the parched foundation, whether that be brick or stone is unknown, but the clear delineation, you know, even looking at the building, you can see that they're I mean, that's a flat roof edition from that period of time.

So I felt that it contributed to the delay delineation of between building phases.

To be honest, anything can be removed, but it's well I mean so that parge area is still intact.

I I don't know how it was applied, but I'm assuming that if they applied it with a cementitious bag, elastic it's gonna be just reparge the foundation.

I guess I guess my question is how bad is it gonna look if he took it off?

Well, like Mark said he'd have to reparge it.

Oh yeah, yeah.

I think you know, looking at the photos, the bigger discussion is the steps themselves and the stone around the stairs, also a foundation is one thing, but he also added stone on the face of the stairs and out of the these bluestone pavers, which hadn't been reviewed.

There were just concrete stairs and a parts foundation, which we have not shown being changed.

And the same stone goes around like the little retaining wall next to this, yeah.

So it's it's blended in, yeah.

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with the stairs, it's more on the foundation, personally.

How much do those stone veneers sit prominent from the other foundation?

You could see that they shut out a little bit under that out.

I mean, I think for myself, coming back to that original photo that we were just looking at, it's it's a feature that you'd be walking down the street and you'd you'd look down and you'd notice, oh wow, that was something happened at that point in time that shows to Jill's point the evolution of the building.

It's clearly aligned with the windows up above.

Um it looks what the the veneer that's been applied is a is a bad attempt at merging it with what's there.

Right.

It's it's like that parched piece is part of a story of the house as it developed.

I yeah, I I agree with that.

So would in that context would it be removed from the stairs and the other piece of the wall and just parge all of this.

I wouldn't so you're just saying remove the stone from the front that corner of the building.

I mean, there's there is stone veneer on the side next to the steps that is right.

I'm not sure how that will read.

There'll then be three separate materials.

I think that should be.

Can we tell in that other photo if that was parged also?

I think that I think it should wrap around and then maintain the steps and that side area, but that whole corner should be returned.

Yes.

I agree.

Yeah, it was parged.

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

Other feedback, Mr.

Goddard.

Yeah, I I look at it and I feel like you know, you chip it off and then you're gonna reparge it and itself almost baking that too, right?

At that point.

So I mean I think it's a really poor job of veneer.

And in its attempt to look like the original, it kind of fails in every aspect, including the corner being so crisp and clean and just but I I'm on the look from a practical point of view.

What do you want to do?

Right, you know, chisel it off and reparge it.

You're gonna call cause more damage.

Try to make it right.

You're not gonna get there.

So is what it is in my view.

Yeah, I could have, I think a different veneer could have been chosen.

Um at least it does delineate where the change was.

I guess that's the upside.

We've seen things like this before, so uh we're seeing it again.

Yeah, and and it is now now that you've got it throughout the rest of the front of the property.

I just I don't know what it would look like with it removed if it's gonna look worse, the fresh parging.

I don't know if that's gonna look any better.

It's so yeah, I have a more of a problem with the overhang to be honest with you.

Okay, other we've gone kind of gone back and forth here, so it sounds like we think it should have been the parge, but it seems like maybe there's consensus that it's more damaging to tear off the veneer that's now on there, or then we can we put language in the uh application that the existing stone veneer was not approved.

Uh our belief would be that we would have not likely uh approved it um or worked into the original material, just so we have a record when somebody comes down with a new application, they say this house just did this stone veneer, and you guys approved it.

We didn't.

I understand.

Just for your awareness, um, since the work was done without a certificate of appropriateness for each, you know, or uh building permit, it will likely be taking action in municipal court.

Um for other properties that have done something the same, we have required them to go back to what was originally there.

So I don't want the fact that it is there to be to hinder your decision based on you know what is best for the property.

Oh, good job.

Then I I think I would as the HC say we would like it removed and returned to the original.

Um see where that goes.

I understand.

So Ms.

Chen, is it better to make that a conditional approval or to split the application and deny so uh you can do a conditional approval?

That's fine.

Um if you want to keep because there is a portion of it that is that you guys seem to be okay with, which is the steps, yeah.

Um so you could do a conditional approval based on you know that that portion will be returned to a parched foundation, and then you can address the handrails as you see fit, and the other and the overhang okay.

I mean, and really we don't have purview over color of the railings, right?

It's about the material, correct?

Okay, I think the material and the way it you know the addition of it reads uh something the side, it doesn't sticks out from the water table.

It it's not well done, and it doesn't read as it was original by any means.

So uh I I think you know the HDC should we're fine on it being parged or going back to their original.

Oh, yes, okay.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the railings.

No, please.

Oh, okay.

So general consensus then coming back to the overhang, it seemed like overall, however, we felt we were in favor of the overhang.

Personally, not me, but that's okay.

Yeah, it'll pass that part.

Okay.

So I do agree with Ms.

Chin um for conditional approval that we would require that the foundation be returned.

Um, Mr.

Rapp, is that yes?

Sound in favor?

Okay.

Um, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 14 Sherman Street, plat 21 lot 47 as presented with the conditional um change that the original foundation be returned um to a parged profile, citing Newport standards 17 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So move.

Second, all those in favor, aye, all those opposed, aye.

Okay, citing um a one retain historic character, a two, avoid conjecture, um, and a four preserve character.

A two, avoid conjecture.

Um, and a four preserve character.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Rabbit.

Thank you.

Um, everybody, yeah.

Do we want to take a quick break?

Quick break.

Sure.

Okay.

We'll do a quick 10-minute break.

This is the application of this is the application of Matthew Feeney of 30 Poplar Street, plant 16, lot 21-4 contributing for permission to move house off of the east property line and construct an addition.

Okay, so before we get started, just to um speak on to the record that Commissioner Jim Madsen has recused himself and uh Brooke Richter will be sitting in as a commissioner.

And I will get you sworn in, Mr.

Feeney.

I'll have you raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

Yeah.

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

Matt Feeney.

Okay.

And I just have a couple little okay.

So I think we have um an exhibit A.

And is this what are we looking at here?

Okay, so some historic historic photos.

I just have I didn't include just the submission, but if anybody's interested in historical society.

Okay.

Okay, so I'm gonna request a motion of the commission to accept exhibit A, um, historic photos and the historical society report for 30 Poplar Street.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

All right.

I'm gonna have you um walk us through the application, and then in the meantime, we'll pass some of these photos around.

Sure.

What uh what I would like to do, I mean, I'd like to think it's fairly simple.

That the house sits uh the east side of the house sits right on the uh property line, like literally right on the property line.

And originally um the structure was built in I think about 1859, and the original access to the property was through Fourth Street, so the original address was on fourth street.

So there used to be uh another structure in front of the house um until about 1931.

That structure was removed.

I don't know what that structure was.

Um, so there were two separate lots.

So this sits very far back, which is good in one sense, but not great another.

Um so what I wanted, and in addition to that, there are a number of issues with the foundation, and I know you you guys don't probably don't really get into that.

So in a perfect world, I wanted to move it, say two and a half feet, two feet off the east property line, and then about you know, I think 12 feet forward.

Um but in order to do that, uh, based on the condition of the main house, uh, I was told that I would need to basically knock down that main, just the main living area, keep the two bedrooms, two baths, which is you know, if the house sits like a a T, uh leave the top of the T the same, just move it up uh and re you know, put a new foundation in there with a crawl space, and then basically rebuild um that main section in kind, but just about 300 square feet bigger.

So it looks it'll look pretty much the same as it does now.

Uh, but all the work that has been done, I think you can see in 1979 what it looked like, and those pictures that I provide over from my I knew Ross and Pam who used to own the house.

I've known them probably since about 2005.

So those are two photos that they have provided to me, but he pretty much did all that work himself.

Uh so that that's my intent, and that's it.

Uh, just to rebuild in kind, you know, with a new foundation.

Um, because there are a number of, as I said, if if you looked uh in in the crawl space, you would see that a lot of the joists aren't even on, you know, the pylons and things, so they're six inch waivers in the floor.

It it's something that I that needs to be done, but that's essentially what I'd like to do.

Um, okay, so I'm sorry, just to clarify because you I was looking at some of the photos.

So you're looking to move the structure as is, not demolish.

I I would like to demolish the main section, because I I did have a gentleman by the name of Scott Cattell come over and look at it uh to ask him what the feasibility was, and he said, Well, look, number one, uh you can't really do it based on the condition of his opinion the way it is.

And he said, I would suggest that you knock down that main section and rebuild in kind.

Uh so I guess how it would work in the order of operations would be you knock down that um that main section, you prop up uh the top of the T section and just move that forward, you know, 12 feet and and over two feet, and then rebuild uh in kind that main section.

And that's it.

You know, just about 300 square feet bigger.

So really this becomes an application for demolition.

Part of it, yeah.

Partial.

Which just to bring you up.

So we have different standards for demolition versus what the application that's before us this evening.

Well, that that just that was the intent from the get-go.

To demolish.

Yeah, 100%.

That that piece of it.

Okay.

For sure.

Sorry, I don't think I was totally aware of the demolition piece since these, you know, this is proposed addition.

Um, so I didn't apply the the demolition standards in my staff report.

Um, so in addition to demolition, I know that we had asked some questions because we do apply for um flood zones are applicable in terms of the value of the property.

It might change the application that comes before us this evening.

Um, I do believe that the preservation planner confirmed this isn't a flood zone.

Yes.

Um, so that also would be subject to any type of demolition coming back.

It would have to be an elevated structure.

Well, that's the other piece of it.

Um, if I if I'm understanding this correctly, my my intent again, based on the size of the project, it's a it's a fairly small project.

So my intent on 100% is not to exceed that 50% threshold.

You know, basically, because I'm just putting up a new box uh, you know, which is going to be 300 square feet bigger than the existing, but that is my 100% uh intent.

I will not do the project uh because I will not, I will not that would ruin the neighborhood, quite frankly, if uh that were raised 12 feet.

So I absolutely am not going to do that.

So I'm 100% want to do it and stay under that 50% threshold, no question.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up first for questions and comments.

I I don't think we're able to evaluate this on uh what we have before us because the standard for demolition requires that we have um a structural engineer assessment of the existing structure.

I understand what you've presented, but we can't take that as evidence in terms of what somebody may you know told you.

Well, does the the Prince CB letter is in there, should be in there.

Was I think that was in the Yeah, so that that's why I'm just unclear on why it's kind of a surprise.

I guess because um it was presented as an addition.

So I wasn't of I didn't look at anything in the packet relative to the demolition standards, which are you know, for obvious reasons we want to be very careful about taking any portion of a historic structure down.

Yeah, and I think the the other piece of it, obviously I I felt by showing the photographs, you know, the way it used to be.

I I understand it's contributing, you know, but uh it would certainly be nothing that would be detracting from the property with you know, without a doubt.

And uh as I said, all the work that was done.

I think if you were to go in the home, you you would get a feel for the quality of the work that was done.

Uh you know, everything is Home Depot in there.

Yeah, windows, everything.

So I guess in the the engineering letter, um, another reason why I wasn't really privy to the information that it was a demolition, that there was a demolition aspect is because the letter states um my professional opinion, the most appropriate course of action is to carefully remove the structure and sections and relocate it onto a newly constructed foundation designed to meet current code requirements.

This method will allow the preservation of historic elements of the house while ensuring long-term structural integrity and safety.

So um, you know, sexually removed and place a new foundation to me, read as uh, you know, moving that structure.

And accordingly, your staff report was written based on that premise, not on the premise of a demolition.

So I do agree with Ms.

Richter that the application before us this evening doesn't accurately represent what the commission believed was happening.

Um it's not to say that you can't come back before us with that application.

Um, but as presented this evening, I don't think it we have the accurate facts before us to weigh in on a especially a demolition of a contributing building.

That is a significant um ask of the commission based on standards, and we wouldn't have we would need more information.

I would include perhaps more details from that structural engineer, um, if that is the case, because the letter as presented this evening does not state a full demolition.

So it's not a full demolition.

That's that's that just that one section was to be demolished.

The other, as I said, the other entire section was just to be moved up.

So it's just that one piece.

That's understood understandable, but it's still any part of a demolition, any part of a structure that's coming down.

We still see that as a demolition, even though it might be a portion of the building.

Um but I don't that's my point of view in terms of what's before us this evening, Mr.

Baller.

Um I do I do agree with the comments.

Uh and I'm also um wondering if if you are going to continue this application.

If you would um run this through zoning in terms of their uh how they view demolition of a structure and rebuilding on that you're not guaranteed that you can build in the same footprint, um if you're demolishing more than 50% of the building.

So I just you know think there's a little legwork to do in terms of what's allowed planning beyond the HTC before you come back to us.

Okay.

Then I guess uh well, I I I have a few things that I'd like to say because when I look at it, I mean I uh perhaps unlike you the rest of you guys here on the commission.

I just assumed because based on moving the property and seeing the scale and size change of the right hand portion, if you want the east portion of the building, that it was going to be a demolition, right?

That was just a given for me.

I looked at that.

Do you uh my question to you is do you know uh uh how old that portion is that you uh was the demolish.

Based on what I can tell, there is nothing left of the original structure.

I'm sorry.

I said based on from what I can tell in terms of what's left of it from like 1859.

I I don't know that any of it is.

So like the the the portion as we if we refer to it as a T on the left-hand side, the top of the T, that's original.

No, the top of the T there might be some beams in inside that I don't see that are original, but you can see by the photo that so that section was completely changed, and even the the facade uh facing you know, the the street was completely removed.

So anything that you see right now, uh you didn't see before 1979.

So everything we're looking at here now is is the 80s.

Right, okay.

And so would it be safe to say that perhaps the uh the building that was removed was the contributing building?

Um in my staff report I provided some sandboard maps which shows the original structure.

It seems to me that the east portion of the structure, so not the long portion, but the east portion was the original structure, at least that's the footprint.

What uh historic material remains is you know, we we're not quite sure at this point.

I think my recommendation to you would be uh the structural port highlight specific structural deficiencies and also an interior um exploration of the building to figure out what what historic portions remain.

I think that would be helpful to the commission in terms of moving forward with this.

Yeah, I mean, I'm I'll do you know whatever you guys want me to do.

I just it's the one thing that's for sure is that that facade, the historical facade is completely gone.

So whatever you see today has only been there since the 80s.

There's no question about that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We're we're also, I mean, we do concern ourselves with the internal structure as well.

Okay.

And and uh, you know, it I would love for you guys.

I would love to all of you.

I'd love to take a note.

I would I would have been in that house.

It's very unusual.

Well, it was probably added on to over time multiple times.

Probably a one room check or something at one point.

Yeah.

Uh yeah.

I mean, I think it's hard to tell what was original.

Yeah.

But we've seen plenty of times you where you could, you know, maybe if it if it does turn out that you know it is original and there are portions that you'd we'd want to keep that doesn't prevent you from you know adding on to it.

Yeah, I I I wouldn't honestly.

I mean, the floor the floors, if I could keep them, I would.

I don't know that they're original out there.

Yeah.

I mean the floors are, you know, there's a six-inch differential on the floors, you know, three feet or whatever.

We we have no we don't have any purview on it in the interior.

That is just a structure itself, right?

So um I like where you're going with the project.

I don't want to see it succeed.

Um, but I think that you know the the technical aspect of it not being brought before us as a demolition, I suppose, even though it I saw it as that uh something that needs to be addressed, I think.

Right.

So all right.

So that will I will it be will I get a communication that kind of makes it walks me through what I what I need to do.

Yep.

Um unless it's you know crazy prohibitive.

I I I just I absolutely don't want to do the the 12 foot, so I'll do whatever I can to stay with on it within that threshold.

Um thank you for that.

What's that?

Thank you for that.

I appreciate that.

That'd be horrible, but no interest.

But you've definitely got a challenge.

Just um in terms of zoning, I just want to kind of teach where you are.

So is the desire to move it off of the property line to avoid seeking a variance of some sort?

No, it's it's it just it it just literally sits right on.

I mean, it's literally there's no space between the you know 28 poplar and the house.

I mean, there's about that much space, but I would I you know I used to live on 213rd Street, so you'd have what about you'd have enough space to kind of between just to paint.

So I I would like to at least have that so you can do a little shimmy between the two homes, yeah, and then just move it.

It would actually be moved more into kind of a conforming spot on a lot.

Um, and that's and that's really it.

I'm not looking to do anything crazy.

I just want to get a little bit more space because you know, when you get four people in there, you know, you're kind of touching each other.

But we see the site plan again, Jim.

Yep, let me pull it up.

So as I look at that, I I uh those shaded areas, those are your setbacks.

Yeah, so you could see and that rear portion actually was added, you know, in the 80s as well.

Yeah, no, I'm just thinking if if you were to move ahead, right?

Do what you want to do.

Uh it looks to me like you could do that by right as far as zoning goes.

You have you know you you don't it doesn't look like you have coverage issues you're outside of your setbacks.

So um yeah, I think it's just a technical issue with getting the demolition application in front of the commission.

Okay, so but is it it would the recommendation that I come back to?

Yeah, so we would without going to uh planning and zoning first, or could I come back with the the demolition piece and then do that or yeah?

So so what I would have you do is I would have you meet with myself and the zoning officer and perhaps the the building official just to kind of walk through everything wholesale just to see where you may have issues, um, and then we'll get a better idea of what is needed for HDC, but definitely you know, interior or structural analysis of that that portion that you're wishing to demolish.

Um, but yeah, I see a few issues that we may have to you know come to a consensus on.

Okay.

Um so yeah, that can definitely be arranged.

All right for the next thing.

That's fair.

Okay.

All right, all right, thank you all.

Okay, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 30 Poplar Street, plat 16 lot 021-4 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

Yeah, this is the application of Quincy Miller of 63 John Street, Pat 28, lot 67 contributing for permission to install hot tub in the side yard.

We are going to give those to Jill.

Sorry.

We have to give these, we have to accept them.

Yeah, yeah.

Do you have a sorry about that?

I'm sorry.

I'm just gonna have you reread that because I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Uh this is the application of Quincy Miller of 63 John Street, plat 28, lot 67 contributing for permission to install hot tub in rear slash side yacht of the front.

Okay, welcome.

I'm going to have 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.

Quincy Miller.

Okay, Mr.

Miller.

Talk us through your okay.

So I mean, I guess in the grand scheme of things, this is relatively simple.

Um I'm looking to uh put in a hot tub, uh a temporary hot tub in the backyard, no permanent placement.

Uh and I intentionally try to find the place in the only yard I have that is the least visible from any locations, and that is tucked behind uh this set of stairs, uh, as you see there at the house.

Um I also took uh extensive photos trying to provide context from Memorial Boulevard from multiple angles, multiple different levels, how much you could actually see of the top of the hot tub when it would be installed.

So I set you'll see photos of ironically, my dining room chairs are the exact same size of the hot tub.

So I created a temporary hot tub in the space and took the photos, and as you can see, um, even from the most visible locations across memorial, you could only see about an inch or two of the hot tub from any street level, and I'm six two.

Uh and then when you put I use the two by four as an example and put the two by four up on the wall right where the hot tub will be, and you can see from the photos you can't see it any longer from memorial, even with just a couple inches.

Sorry about that, of uh visibility.

So um that's what I'm here to look for.

Hopefully, I have been diligent uh enough in this process, and uh I can figure out a way to make my wife happy.

Something else, you know that I'll open it up for questions and comments.

Hi one, Miss Moran.

Do you have any photos of what the hot tub is going to look like?

Oh gosh, you know, it it is a standard hot tub spa.

I have the dimensions there, bullfrog, it's the top of the line spa.

Uh and so I have all the dimensions and everything, but no act that doesn't look any different than a standard hot tub.

No extra pieces, standard cover, yep, nothing now.

Was the height that you were considering including the cover, or was that to the top edge of the hot tub?

The height of that is to the top end of the hot tub now that I think about it.

So you'll get a couple more inches with the cover.

And you know, what I do plan, I know it's not on there and it's not listed, uh, but I do plan to, you know, once it's in, if uh it's seems too visible, or if we're sitting in it and it seems like people can see us sitting in the hot tub, is to put up some planter, some planted um what's the right thing?

Trees and some planters, because you can't really get plantings in that space because of that giant enormous tree.

And so um, I do have potted trees that I could put up.

So we do plan because I'm redoing all of the not all of it, but a lot of the landscaping, putting in new um bushes and things and trees uh in the spring when I get to that point.

So, you know, plan to make sure any aspect of that is seen would be blocked and covered.

What about a section of fencing?

So I don't, I mean, you've all known I actually find all the fencing along memorial hideous.

There we go.

Um, and so I tried to find a way to not add to that, and like, and so that's why I thought some plantings and you know something that was more natural would look better.

Um, you know, this is a home I purchased in I guess maybe four or five years ago, and came here to really try to bring it back to its glory and work with Kirby Perkins to do all that work, and um this is you know, I'm now getting to the last parts of it, which is the backyard.

And no, you've done a lot with it over the years, Mr.

Goddard.

I'm fine.

Ms.

Brown.

I really don't have an issue.

Okay, maybe just don't pick a crazy color.

Oh no.

I think it's it's it's a brownish color that matched the house, so that's you know, intentional no inflatable flamingos.

So we're my kids are 18 and 20, so no more, no more flamingos.

Although we did have one in the pool back in the day.

Okay.

Um, I think you did a great job on your application.

Uh providing photos and context.

So kudos to you.

I don't have any objection.

I do think for your own sanctity, uh having some planted material out there may just uh give you a little relief, but um I I don't have any issue.

Okay, you know, I agree.

I mean, one of the things I would not want to see going down memorial uh is you uh in the hot tub.

Hey, I don't know.

I mean, I you're a good little guy, you know, and all this but can we strike that from the minutes, please?

I think you're cool with that.

Well, definitely okay.

I met his wife, she's more attractive.

Definitely more than that.

Even with the flamingo, even with the flamingo.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 63 John Street, plat 28, lot 67.

Sighting Newport stand as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80 tech 060 A1 and A7.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Aye.

Sighting Newport standards 17 tact 80 tech 060 A1 retain historic character.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next.

This is the application of Janine Harrington Farrick of 27 Atlantic Avenue, plat 44, lot 134, non-contributing for permission to construct new detached accessory structure.

Okay.

Uh good evening, uh, members of the commission.

Uh Jay Lynch from the law firm of more of a Gadamo Lynch on behalf of the uh owner and applicant.

Uh I'm not gonna belabor this.

Uh, we do have Chris uh Fagan here, the architect.

I'm gonna have Chris come up and walk through the design of the uh structure and its proposed use.

I also have here the uh the owner, uh Janine Harrington Ferrick was available.

Answer any questions that the commission may have.

Okay.

Uh so without going any without wasting your time.

Uh I'll have Chris come up and present the uh design to you.

Okay, Mr.

Fagan will 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, yes.

And your name for the record, please.

Chris Fagan.

Okay.

Great.

Um, but we are proposing a one-spory pool house here.

It is a simple gable structure with a gable roof and a dormer.

We also have a second dormer which comes off to create an enclosure.

Um for just uh outdoor kitchen and entry door.

Uh the building would be shingled, all wood siding, all wood trim, the main roof would be asphalt, the accent roofs would be a standing seam aluminum.

Uh all the windows would be an all with wood product.

Um we've got a cupboard outdoor shower on one side, uh few all wood entry doors and a four-panel glass slider.

And this is so it's a vaulted ceiling on the end.

So a vaulted ceiling, yeah.

Okay.

Um, I'm gonna actually just open it right up for we had quite a few in our pre-meeting that had this for a summary, but there's some questions.

We did want to hear the applications.

I'm gonna open it up.

I think Mr.

Ballet had a few questions.

Yeah, I I generally am favor of this, except the the dormer kind of reads to me as the a second story, and I know there's not a second story on this.

It just seems like it's a little bit much for the the massing of the roof to have uh a dormer that I guess is providing highlight down into a vaulted space, but um I just would question the dormer on this building.

Okay.

I mean, the dormer's already sort of set below the gable ridge.

Um, I mean, it could be smaller, but I don't I don't know.

I don't I would probably want to see what the rest of the commission thought if that was an issue for everyone.

Yeah, we I think this is a relatively modest building in terms of its massing and form questions and comments from the commission, Mr.

Madson.

Yeah, I don't think I would be in favor of taking the dormer off.

I mean it's for the area, it's it's it's a little simple of a design, right?

So anything to kind of bring more attraction, I think, to it.

I think from the front.

And you know, with those windows, I think it it'll probably give a little bit more dimension.

Yeah, the house is is a relatively contemporary house.

So you know, we didn't want to go in that direction.

We just wanted to provide something that was simple and fit in with the cow in that neighborhood.

Yeah, I think it'll blend in.

I'm fine with it.

Miss Moran, what's the footprint of this building?

Square footage 28 by 32.

20, yeah.

32 by 28.

Which one?

And how large is the um the footprint of the original structure?

I don't know that option.

Certainly a good deal smaller than the main house.

We just bring up the site plan, Jill.

Thank you.

It's gonna be located in pretty okay.

There it is.

Yeah, close to the house.

And that and the pool is existing.

That's there.

Yeah, okay.

That's the full building.

The footprint is 3,000.

Yes.

2,000.

So this would be less than a third of the main house.

Interesting.

Chris, now what's this separating the new structure from the pool?

Is that almost looks like a wall there?

There's a wall there now.

We'd have to we'd have to look at some landscape and as to how we're gonna connect these two.

Yeah, you're gonna be bringing off to think it'd be by the pool.

It look it looks like the grade changes quite a bit.

Is it going to be grade drops?

So I mean that probably incorporates some landscape scares.

So are you going to be re-grading or is it basically going to drop down?

It's gonna drop down to the pool area.

We have stairs on the US here's already built in between that point.

Okay.

Any other okay?

Well, I agree uh with my fellow commissioner down there.

I think the Domer gives it the needed dimensionality that it needs, otherwise it's just a bit too simple for me.

So um I I'm in favor of it as it is.

Okay.

Okay, smart.

I'm depending on this.

Okay.

Any other closing comments or no?

I don't have any.

No, I think okay.

Um, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 27 Atlantic Ave, plat 44, lot 134 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, C1, C2, and C3.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye, all those opposed.

Aye.

Uh I will cite C30.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the application of Fleury Properties, LLC of one cottage street, plat 25, lot 64 contributing for permission to remove non-historic siding and repair replace rotted wood clavard as needed.

Repair and/or replace rotted exterior trim is needed, new trim to be painted cedar, repair windows as needed, and new windows to be wood.

Roof to be replaced in kind, repoint foundation as needed and construct two new small entranceways and stairs to be wood.

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

Russell Jackson, Miller, Scott Holberg, and Jackson on behalf of the applicants.

I have with me this evening, uh Chris Fagan, who's done the work, the design work on this uh project as indicated in the staff report and the application itself.

Um this is primarily a project which contemplates um repairs and in-kind replacements.

Um I think uh the focus of I think the hearing tonight will probably be discussion about the windows, and there are some um changes to uh removal of some existing staircases, exterior staircases in the back of the property and modifications to those um entrance exits uh to the building.

If you reviewed the um window survey from heritage restoration, you see that um of the 36 total windows, there's only five that are original to the building, and those are obviously being kept and will be repaired and restored.

Um, and the remaining uh the uh fenestration is really a patchwork of different replacements that's taken place over the decades.

So Chris is here, and he can walk through each elevation in terms of what changes, if any, take place to the and what uh windows will be kept and what's being proposed for replacements.

I know he's had um some conversations with Jill since this was first uh this application was first submitted.

So I'll hand it over to Chris.

Okay.

Mr.

Fagan, you've already been sworn in.

I'm just gonna have you state your name again for the record.

Chris Fagan.

Okay, thank you.

Great.

Um, since we put this application together uh initially and submitted it, a couple like a little bit of new information I think has come to light.

Okay.

So we got the window report back for paritage restoration.

And a lot of these windows that you're seeing in this house are these three sort of stacked casement windows.

They date from I think around the 50s to 60s.

They're wood windows.

Um, they're not in terrible shape, but quite frankly, they're inappropriate for the house.

So the original application we put together calls for the restoration of those windows.

We since then have sort of worked with the guys at Pella.

We put together a proposal to actually replace those with all new wood wood windows.

So I've got some updated drawings and window specifications that would feed to that now, okay.

Which I can give to take that as an exhibit.

Um, so of the commission, I'm gonna request a motion to accept exhibit A of new drawings and spec sheets for one cottage street.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

I don't know if we want to go through the other items first on this house, or we want to do the windows first.

Um as you prefer.

Okay.

Well, get through it all.

So we'll start with the just the elevation.

If we go to A211, which is our front elevation, um the first floor, we're proposing to restore the windows and front entry door.

On the second floor, we're proposing to replace the three windows there that are all been already replaced.

And they are stated in the uh the window inventory.

So it'd be the second floor of those three, and the basement windows are also non-historic.

Those will be replaced.

Everything else on that facade would be replacement in kind.

So there's some, you know, basically the the entire building is wrapped in like a shell of siding now.

It's very much non-inappropriate.

That's all gonna come off underneath is the original clapboard siding and trim.

We can't tell the exact condition of it because it is covered.

The hope is to restore it, uh, but the request would be to restore and replace as needed.

Uh that includes all the siding, all the window trim, any new trim would be would match the existing historic profiles.

Um, in terms of the roof, the roof is going to be replaced.

It's an asphalt roof now, that would be a replacement in kind.

Uh there are some sort of roof detailing that all looks to be in relatively good shape.

Anything that needed to be replaced would be a replacement in kind.

All work.

Uh that's our front east elevation.

The next page A212.

Chris, can I uh sorry to ask a quick question on that front elevation?

So those two windows um on the second floor, those um understanding they're not original, but the the sizing of them is quite unique.

You're going to a much larger um the ones the sizing would stay the same.

All the windows are sizing would stay the same on that.

Okay, so the elevation is drawn looks a little bit larger.

Is it just yeah, that might be a graphic issue?

Okay, okay.

I just want to double check.

Okay.

Okay.

If we go to the next phase, the north elevation.

So pretty much all of the windows on that main front section would be replaced.

There's no historic fabric that's left.

Um if we go to the back.

There's a there was a little bit of like few additions that were like that were put on this building over time that were in all honesty not very well done, both sort of aesthetically and structurally.

So we're really just trying to clean those up and replace the windows.

We are moving them a little bit just due to interior programming.

I don't think it's gonna dramatically alter the look of the building as it is today.

If anything it would just be a little bit cleaner.

Um is the west the rear, Chris.

That is a north.

Um yeah, that's the north elevation.

That's the rear is the north.

This is page A212.

Okay.

That's A2, yep, that one.

Oh, okay.

Got it.

So that right portion has been sort of altered over the years.

Gotcha.

If we go to A213, which is the rear elevation, this is where things have been like very dramatically altered over time.

We're not really proposing any any additional changes to the massing.

Uh we're just looking to sort of clean clean up the windows that were not historic.

Um the biggest things I think that you're seeing is we're we are changing some of the um stairs that are going into the building.

So we're we're basically removing one set of stairs that go to went into a second kitchen, and we're putting in a new all-wood stair, all wood landing that's gonna go into the mudroom.

Essentially just changing the direction that you would access the mudroom from coming in off the driveway now as opposed to coming in off of the um backyard.

Um just flipping to the final elevation, uh, which is A214.

Uh, there's a non-appropriate metal um fire uh fire escape that's there.

That's going to come off.

There's a door which led to it.

We're gonna turn that into a window.

Um directly below that, you know, one of our asks would be to convert one non-historic window into an egress door and another sort of wood landing with all wood rails uh and stairs that would go down to the backyard.

And then just moving forward.

There's a a bay, uh like a three-window bay that has non-historic windows.

We were replacing those and the three windows above it.

Um the large window in the lower right first air corner is historic window that'll be restored.

Those windows are pretty spectacular.

So we're looking forward to kind of bringing those back to the original character.

Are all three of them still in place?

Um that or is there four?

Yeah, but it's hard to tell with the storm.

That one, the two in the front.

So that they are there are originals under those storm windows?

Yeah, there are original.

Oh, okay.

That's great.

And the storm windows themselves are actually pretty impressive.

That they'd be restored as well.

Um, I think that's probably it for it's a it's a lot of stuff, but I don't know if there's individual questions or now it makes sense why they put those triple pane windows in.

I think they were trying to emulate the yeah, the foe or the triple.

I don't forget what you call that like cottage style window or something.

Yeah, what do you call those?

When you have one small sash and a big one at the bottom.

Do those go up into the ceiling by chance?

Which one?

Those those large windows, or do they just open as far as that?

They don't open, they're all they're very much painted shut.

If they need a lot of work to come back.

That'd be cool if they were pot.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, pretty cool.

Yeah, the interiors of this house are need a lot of work, but they are very impressive.

Cool house for sure.

Okay, continue.

Okay.

Um so the windows you are replacing are not being replaced in kind.

Um this bay, for example.

The new proposal, the windows are different size, they're at a different head height.

If I were to go around the building, it looks like the new windows are slightly different size than existing windows.

I would also say if these new windows are being replaced.

They may need egress windows from some bedrooms.

Bedrooms are if there's window changes there to meet egress in the bedrooms, right?

So that is a factor on the up on the second floor windows.

Okay.

Some of those windows are a little bit bigger.

Um the windows in the bay, you know, if they read larger, you know, they certainly could could go to smaller proportions there.

I mean, I I think your proposal looks fantastic.

It's just I'm trying to clarify what Spent said on record that we're replacing in kind.

Which we're not.

Which I I'm not objecting to, but I think you know, it it bears.

It should be noted.

Yeah.

Are you are you changing anything about the size of the windows on that bay?

Because it doesn't look like there's any trim around them.

So if you were to put trim around those windows, you're basically at the corners.

The intention would be to replace the windows in the size that they are now.

And to add trim like a five six-inch board, because again, it looks like then you're gonna have trim butting up on the corners.

It's difficult to see now because it is covered in and not I don't want to call it asbestos, but there is some type of product, yeah.

70s sort of product on it.

That is it's it's hard to all the house has not been uncovered.

Well, we've only done small sections.

So in terms of what the trim details are on those sections, we don't know.

Um I certainly would be happy to work with Jill on some of these details as we start to take material off the house and then evaluate what's there and what the the exact you know right profile of those trim corners would be.

Yeah, I'd be I'd be curious, because it looks like you're gonna run it if if you don't sh shrink the the cavity, it seems like you're gonna run into a problem there with the trim, or it's gonna end up looking really awkward.

Yep.

Yeah, question, Chris.

On the on that bay window, or there's the three windows.

You've got the one in the middle that is so much smaller, right?

Was that you think that size of window was original there?

Because it looks kind of no, they they put a counter in front of it.

Oh, is that what that is?

Okay, so I would you just replace it with the right size window.

Okay, so that's a replacement window of a small one, I suspect when they put the counter in.

Now, what about on that mud room window you had in the back?

It had it.

Yeah, there's a weird little window in there.

We just it's a it's really just a piece of plexiglass.

Yeah, but it looks like you put another weird little window.

We just we match this the size of it and turned it out.

Oh, okay.

Um I mean, I think you put a window in this size of the one that's up there in the top.

We certainly could, or we could go with no window.

There's no no rather than have you know introducing another size.

If you just kind of match the size if you want that one, yep.

And just put the same size down there, it's not it might look a little bit.

Yeah, we certainly certainly could make that change.

I'd do that.

Oh, that's on the west elevation.

Yeah, I think so.

On the on the mud room, yeah, on the little mud room thing.

That's stupid.

Um, can we go back to those that bay window on A214?

So on that south elevation, the one that Jim was calling out, the middle window was smaller, but the two side windows looked like they went down to the floor, but the new windows don't do not.

Yeah, we certainly could program in a window that would go make all three of those windows go down to the floor.

I mean, I think if it's consistent with that window that's in the front room there, if they probably all I don't know.

Do we have any historically photos?

No, it photos of this house.

Oh, which is crazy.

They they look side of your report, which we submitted, and there's one photo on the cover, but it's from they look to match up.

Yeah, oh yeah, currently.

I think the rendering unless you did this on purpose, the windows are raised up from the current location that they're in.

Yeah, it might just be a graphical issue.

Right.

Yeah, they raise them up filling in all this.

I mean, for me, I would like your renovating the interior as well.

I'd like to know what the original window cavities are.

You're gonna find out.

Yep.

I mean, I feel like that would be my condition, is just to respect that and fit the windows within your existing cavity.

Yep.

It's unusual to not be able to see the windows from the outside.

What I'm just taking a couple of notes here.

So the on the south elevation, so we're clear that those bay windows went to the floor.

Were they also if we go to the photo of the north elevation, the other bay window?

Were they similarly to the floor?

The actual those are the three stacked hoppers.

Oh, those are.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't have the updated planes that you guys have.

Not the plans, the the photos of the building.

Oh, yeah, I can pull them up.

Yeah, I'd be curious to know where the original location of those were as well.

I guess we can't really tell on the other side.

So not this bay, Jill, the other one that you just had up.

Oh yeah.

So here that's the other bay.

I don't know if they infilled the framing.

Yeah, okay.

Up to that height.

Yeah.

Yeah, we certainly could match the two bump outs with the lower window condition.

Well, I I think it would make sense to see what the what's the pockets are when the uh openings, the original openings look like once you get some of the exterior shingling off that off those bays.

Right.

I mean, I I my guess would be that they would be as long as the ones in the front.

But most of the guess.

I don't know if we're gonna see that from taking the exterior siding off.

I think we'd have to do interior interior work.

Taking the plaster off, which is really we're trying to keep those rooms intact.

Oh, if you'd see anything from taking that siding off.

Uh I don't know that.

Could have new sheeting underneath.

Those windows are from the 50s or 60s.

So I mean it's been the obvious if you're replacing that one small window in the bay, yeah.

At minimum, you're gonna be opening that up from inside.

So you'll probably be able to see.

Did they fill in a rough opening?

Even if you just opened that one and had more information from that, that would be helpful.

Yeah.

I think to Chris's point, though, that's on that bay, they're trying not to do the same thing here, right?

You want to just fill this in what's here.

This section of the house, so the interiors are still very much intact.

All the I just think you want to make this original part of the house look as uh authentic as it as it can, you know.

So any information you can get on the original openings for the windows, as well as I don't know, the I guess we don't have any pictures to go by, but the the entrance, the entrance portico doesn't seem exactly right to me, but without without historic photography, I guess.

Yeah, I mean we are gonna we put in a request with the historical society, they do a great report for us, but it's not able to locate any significant photos.

Um I do agree with you.

I don't think the entrance way is what it would have been originally.

No, but um, you know, we're also it wasn't something we were planning on getting into.

Um but I wouldn't want to be overly careful about making uh understood.

Yeah, um so it seems like to summarize the only correct me if I'm wrong, the only significant window change just on that west elevation, the mud room window to be enlarged from what's on the drawing, and then the condition that all the windows are as close as possible to be replaced to the original window openings.

And if you have any questions, we could have that run through, Jill.

Yeah.

Um other questions about roofing or siding or as presented.

No.

Jill, would you be amenable to do in a walkthrough of the house with me?

I would love to do one.

We'll all come to you.

Yeah, I mean it's a cool house.

Um okay.

So I think that sounds amenable.

Okay.

Can I just one question if we're going to a vote?

Uh there's one on the back of the house on the addition.

There's like a section of the roof that almost looks like it's missing, although the decorative piece stops there too.

I is it does it look as odd as it does to me in the po in the photo.

Uh you may need to pull up the picture.

Which one this is of the rear.

Oh, well, actually, you can kind of see it in the left there.

So it's just lower left.

So that so that section of the building is expanded to the north.

So if you if you look at it, it's like where it jogs back is where the addition was put on.

Okay, we're gonna leave it like that then.

Yeah.

Since I think it does end it, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't have even been able to tell, but that makes sense.

I propose to the client to demolish all of that, but it did go back to the original, but it wasn't didn't work with the program.

So it does look like they filled in this uh overhang there.

Okay, that makes sense.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of one cottage tree, plat 25, lot 64, as presented with two um conditions, the and changes, the west mudroom window to be enlarged, and all other window replacements to follow window openings as the project is opened.

Um any questions to be reviewed by the preservation planner, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80, TAC 060, a one three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And exhibit A was new drawing.

So we're specs.

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, we can.

He's just running to the uh this is the application of Mariah G.

Withers and Aaron E.

McCormick of 47 K Street, plat 22, lot 105 for permission to demolish existing portico and build new one-story porch.

Hey, welcome this evening.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

Yes.

Take a breath.

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

So help you, God.

Yes.

Okay.

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

Uh Dr.

Mario Withers.

Okay.

See, are you able to lift that up so you don't have to hunch over?

Maybe.

How's that?

Okay, that's a little better.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, so if you could um explain to us what you're looking to do on the property.

Yes.

Um, as stated, remove the portico and install a porch.

Um, might be a little bit hard to see with the rhododendrons in that picture.

If you need another visual, I did bring a picture of it without the rhododendrons.

You could see how overgrown they are.

It's a little bit hard for you to see the windows.

There are no um windows on the basement.

Just those, just those three windows there.

Okay.

But if you need to see that, I have a picture of it without the rhododendrons for a better look.

Um, Ms.

Withers, did you have an opportunity to read the staff report that accompanied your application?

No.

That came from our preservation planner.

Um, so in that it does talk about the and mission.

Feel free to jump in if you'd like to.

Um, you know, the the characteristics of this home and what the application is requesting definitely goes against the the defining features of the home and the style of the home.

Um, Ms.

Chin, do you want to elaborate on that for the applicant?

Sure.

Um, so basically my staff report I kind of laid out.

I I always apply what's presented to the standards.

And um in my uh in my staff report, I kind of laid out how the introduction of a different roof line and a full width porch with kind of these craftsman-esque style uh pilings was not a character-defining feature you would typically find on a house of of this age.

Um so that's what the basis of my staff report was about.

Um, and also kind of retaining the the closed pediment portico.

Um I thought was important.

So in my staff report, I also suggested a potential alternative in which this portico is retained and perhaps extended in in a way um across the front, just to keep the that character defining feature.

Okay.

I mean, um we would just love a porch.

I I find um case treat to be beautiful, but um, as much as our house is built strong and you know, it's built like a tank.

Um, it's not aesthetically pleasing from the street whatsoever.

I find it to be the least aesthetically pleasing house in the neighborhood.

So we're interested in a porch to try to improve the curb appeal and to enjoy the neighbors passing by a lot of dog walkers in the area that we enjoy.

Um so we'd be willing to do, you know, history and uh design and construction, but um we'll do whatever is necessary to make it look great and fit into the historic you know needs of the community.

So we're open to your ideas and we can make adjustments to the design to ensure that we can enjoy a porch and maybe improve the look of the house.

Official comments or no, it it sounds like um maybe you go back to the drawing board and sit with Jill to work out some details and then uh bring it back to us for approval.

Um I don't think there were any unfavorable mentions about having a porch in the staff comment.

Um so I think you could pursue down a route of just making it a little more encompassing the existing portico extension and going from there, okay.

Probably choice of um column materials and and that type of stuff, just to keep it in characteristic of your home.

Okay, so instead of paralleling, um you have the picture of the drawing you can put back up.

So um the thought was to mirror um the roof line that already exists, continue that straight across.

So you're saying, Jill, um, that to keep the portico in place and then just run it to the right.

So I would perhaps do maybe a shed or like a variation on a hip that comes out just to, you know, about where the portico or the steps land.

Um you have some good examples of pillars right here, so kind of mimicking these along.

Um, and you know, keeping the overall focus of, you know, that's like a main feature, and then having the porch be cut kind of subsidiary to that in terms of design.

Okay.

Um so you have some good examples of you know the balustrade and the the types of of columns that you would use um already on the house just to avoid can a conjectural feature.

Okay.

I I I would say that um if the porch is going to be secondary to the port portico, it the portico doesn't appear very deep.

Right.

So we uh you would work with Jill to how to best you know get the end product that you're looking for.

Uh but that's something that you can do and then come back to us.

Sure.

We could do that very quickly.

You would you like to come visit the house, Jill?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Um she likes to visit all houses.

Yeah, I'm there tonight tonight, and uh you're welcome to come by with all up here for Florida.

No, no, just meet with you guys and uh try to see when we get a porch built.

Okay, yeah, let's do it.

So okay.

So I'll get your car, Jill, and we'll redesign it.

And but there's no no opposition to porching, just uh a different aesthetic.

Shall we come in?

Or yeah, I think we should.

Uh I I'd like to see if you are able to find any historical photos of the property.

If you're really going to be redesigning this, I think it would absolutely have to be either bringing it back to what it maybe used to be, if that was anything different than this.

This was built in the 50s.

This is nothing's been done to it since, other than the back porch deck thing, which we plan to remove to um bring down the coverage of the property.

What about that thing over the driveway?

That was there.

Was that added on at some point?

Do you know, or is that original?

Not to my knowledge.

My understanding is it was there.

It was always there.

And that you're retaining that.

Yep, nothing's changing.

Okay.

Porch.

If you want to take it off, that'd be okay.

I think it's like a carpal.

Take it on character.

Yeah, it's not it's on a couple of the homes in the area.

Yeah.

There's a area.

Yeah.

Basically, to come up with this design and the project, we walked around the neighborhood for a bunch of blocks and up and down K Street and took pictures of places and um, you know, picked out the things that we thought were already in the neighborhood that looked nice.

Um, and there are homes that have very similar looks to this.

So I mean, I agree with Ms.

Moran.

I think if you can also connect with the historical society, um, maybe not.

If this is truly the house, I also I'm struggling to present an element to a very simple facade.

Um, you know, I think personal opinion, you feel like it's not a beautiful house, but in its simplicity to what it was, and it's not one of the other houses on K Street, like it is a mix of homes.

I actually think it is quite simple and lovely.

So I would it would have to be a very specific porch.

I'm not sure if I would be in favor, I'd have to see what that would look like to not present another element that takes away from the simplicity of the front.

I would agree.

It seems like a lot of your neighbors um have front porticos and not really front porches.

Not that that really dictates what should happen to this house, but uh I I guess I would just kind of echo what was just said about the simplicity, how you know that was in how it was originally built, and we're here to kind of try to preserve that when we can.

I can also pull some historic maps to see if there's any evidence of yeah, you know, the how the house has changed over time, if at all.

Um so yeah, I can provide you some resources.

Yeah, that's great because I there are colonials in the area that have porches as well.

Okay.

So um, those would be good references that we can look at.

Okay, so with that, we'll continue to February.

Okay.

Um, and if you need more time after that, you can always connect with Jill.

We can work around that if it has to get pushed out, but for sequencing purposes, we'll put it to February and you can push if you need to.

What day in February is that um February 10th.

Okay.

So I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 47 K Street Platte 22 lot 105 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

The next application is that of Leah and Jonathan Stearns of 91 Washington Street, Platin 12, lot 27 contributing for permission to construct new storage building that is 598 square feet using cedar sidewall shingles, red cedar roof, barrail uh running trim and marvin clad ultimate double hung windows and in-swing French doors.

Okay, welcome.

We'll get you sworn in.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Jennifer Nye.

Who spell your last name for me?

NYE.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mr.

Weber, we'll do the same at the same time.

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

So help you, God.

Yes.

And to state your name for the record.

Paul Weber.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Um, so the application was um to construct a storage shed in the rear portion of the property on anyone watching the street.

Keeping in mind could you talk into the mic, please?

Sorry.

Keeping in mind um zoning regulations and um the guidelines for accessory structures in the area and an R10 district.

Um the aesthetic of a storage shed would draw from the previously approved pool house design, which sits um to the the north of building, as you'll see here.

So in that top portion of the site.

And all the materials would be the same, water tape would be the same, um, trim profiles would be the same, and we would be keeping with the same um exterior doors and windows as well.

And in terms of just to elaborate on, I saw the staff reports concerned about massing.

We did take that into consideration and stuck with a uh three over 12 roof pitch to keep the pitch down as much as possible with you know respect to using the um the shingles and viability for that.

Okay.

Any other comments, feedback before we open it up?

Just one, I mean, we definitely saw the staff which were a little brutal, but uh we just wanted to point out that uh this spot is a 40,000 square foot lot, so it's unusually large for the point.

And uh based on the zoning, we still have uh considerable amount of um room to build.

Yeah, so if we were to if we were to max out this site, we would be allowed um 942 square feet, and we're just you know not going anywhere near that word 598.

So we're staying respectful of that 20%.

Well would you be allowed?

I didn't hear you.

The um allowable if we were to max out the at 20% was 942 square feet, and our structure is 598.

So we'll need that.

So we've approved the pool in the other building, and you've got this building now.

Do you have any more buildings coming?

No, this is a response.

They were hoping to have a three-car garage for the storage purposes, and that was um required to be revised to move forward with that project.

So they're looking for some additional storage space on the property, and this was the next phase of that.

Okay.

Questions and comments.

I can start, if not um.

Yeah, I think understanding it is a very large lot.

Um, and having been through the first application and seeing the development of this lot um over time, clearly there was a very prominent original structure.

Um which there was nothing, you know, there was those gardens in the back.

Um, you know, in seeing the additional structure that's been built on the property, which is considerable in size.

Um, I do agree with our staff comments in terms of the overdevelopment of the lot.

I agree it's a you're allowed a much bigger footprint.

Um, you know, again, it it to the point we don't know necessarily what would happen in the future if more would you know to come before us?

It's that's not what's here before us this evening.

Um I'm just struggling with Washington Street.

This is visible from the road.

Um, even though it's set way back, it is visible from the other side of the house.

Um, I it's larger than a storage shed that we would typically approve.

Um I'm struggling with the overdevelopment of the lot, even though the lot is large, I think that's defined by this very prominent primary structure and then a lot of open space, which we've already considerably covered with not only a structure but a pool.

Um, you know, we extended walkways on that side, we you know, cut the new driveway, you know, there's a lot now happening on this property.

Um beautiful work is being done, but I'm just struggling to add another structure onto the property of that size.

Well, that being said, obviously the the owner saw the report as well, and I we chatted with them about what are they open to, you know, scaling back.

And um, in terms of the overall footprint, they would be open to scaling that back.

Understanding there they had you know plans for you know summer equipment or whatnot, and they they were open to scaling that back.

And um I didn't get it in time to send it to show everyone, but they would be open to reducing it significantly.

So if that's something that you're you're open to, I would love to be able to either continue it till next month or send it to Jill and kind of show that to her as an option.

Um, and the idea would be to take the southern end of the building and kind of bring it up so it's close to aligning with those bay windows on the main house and you can see.

Okay, I mean that's just my one opinion.

We can certainly open it up for other comments and feedback, but I I concur with our chair.

Um I you know, I it it was a very beautifully treed and green.

Um there was quite a lot of tree and green space around the original house.

The house itself, the original house is uh is large, but I think that having all these outbuildings is becoming a serious distraction to the original structure and to the character of the house and more importantly to the character of the property.

So I I couldn't support this at this point.

I will say to just also um just forgot to mention there's an ex a bunch of existing trees that are there now and they want to remain, they don't want to have to disrupt those trees, and they've also um planted a series of aberrites to connect with existing everybody's there on the the um east side of the property, which kind of shield from the neighbors directly behind them.

So there will be some screening.

So if we were able to work with the commission and scale down the building to present another option as a not compromise, but as a as a response to your staff comments, we would love to be able to do that, kind of explore that.

I'd also just ask Jill, could you go back to the site plan for a second?

What is happening at the far um rear property line?

What is that a building or is that additional parking?

So if we look at the new building and go directly.

Um if you go towards the the driveway cut.

So right there are those two parking spots.

It looks like it does appear to be up here.

Yeah, those cars.

So in addition to the garage parking, we also have a parking courtyard, and that's part of the courtyard.

Like, is that an area where a storage building could go.

So that at least it's integrated into what's already happening, maybe in the back, and we're not introducing another standalone structure.

You're saying in the location of the cars that you're pointing.

So yeah, I don't know.

I mean, I don't know if those are full-size cars or golf carts or whatever they are, but potentially one thing we also were working against was the accessory building setback location.

So that has to be at the at the height to make it kind of a usable space for the first storage.

We exceeded that 12 foot height limit.

And um putting in that location with that, we have to reduce the building significantly in height to to make it kind of usable for them.

Um it may be worth uh since you're talking about going back to the drawing board.

Um there's been commentary about the development of the law and kind of the uh detraction from the organic matter of the the law in the gardens.

It may be worth thinking of this accessory structure as something that takes on a garden type structure that has maybe some elements of garden design to it.

So it it adds to that sensitivity of the of the as a standalone separate, it's not a building, it's a garden, it's a piece of landscaping.

It's a folly, yeah.

I mean, uh and and maybe that would be more successful in the development picture of the common.

Yeah, it's a great idea.

I mean, and to that point, if you wanted to keep it sighted, I'm not sure.

There's that greenhouse extension off the back.

I can't remember if that was coming off or not, where that seating area, there's pavers back there.

Right.

Like then it would feel like it was integrated into directly to the left of the proposed structure, there was a there was an out like a patio that was like a patio greenhouse, right?

I don't has that come off the building, or did we maintain that?

That's being maintained.

Okay, but then to I think to Mr.

Ball's point, maybe it feels more integrated.

I still would like to see the footprint be a little bit smaller, but at least maybe it would feel more connected to that outdoor space.

I think you have to be careful of conjecture.

I mean, in Follies can be very conjectural if new, but um so yeah, yeah, I'm not like entirely opposed to this, but I think there needs to be some kind of modification.

Uh they're all clustered right in that one location.

Um, it's not a shed, it kind of looks like could be a dwelling space.

I in my opinion, I think if if there's going to be another structure here, it would have to be more shed size, uh scaled down.

This one looks a little underwhelming.

Um, not that I'm saying to make it decorative, but I don't know.

I think it does need to sort of just fit into the landscape a little bit more, like Mr.

Bala said.

So yeah.

Open open to seeing a different design, I think.

Understood.

I agree.

Agree.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, so I think continuing, probably our best bet here.

Um, so with that, I'm gonna request a motion to continue the application of 91 Washington Street flat 12 lot 27 to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

So all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So last but not least to C4.

Yeah.

This is the application of John P.

Picott Jr.

of 11 Breton Road, flat 41, lot 14, non-contributing for permission to construct new home at former site of Underwood School.

Okay, so we will get both of you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record.

John Brundage.

Okay, and similarly, 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.

Jason.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, I just want to before we get into um updates.

Several commissioners were able to attend that.

Others of us that weren't able to have been able to drive by, see the staking.

So thank you for that.

We also did hold a design review committee.

So we had three commissioners that participated in that to provide feedback to the applicant and for us is some updated materials based on those reviews and site visit.

So that the floor is yours.

And I think it's helped us deliver a much better design at this point.

So currently, uh, if you could you go to the landscape plan showing the setback.

Yes.

So currently, as this is proposed, the house is sited with the garage pushed 18 inches back from the front yard setback, the front porch two feet back from the front yard setback, and the southeast corner seven feet back from that setback.

And at the side south side yard, um the house is set nine feet back from the setback at the southeast corner and eighteen inches at the back corner and rear terrace.

So part of what we did was bring all those front lines of the building in so we are no longer sitting on that setback on any of the setbacks, actually.

As you can see, the garage is still located in the north side yard of the property.

Um, we made this decision because we felt that this location offered the most screening, most visual screening from the street for the garage.

You know, um there was discussion of flipping the house, putting the garage in the south yard, but as the site is located on that curve in Brenton Road, yeah.

Um, as the you know, as the house this the lot is in that curve along Branton Road, you know, traveling um towards downtown, the views are focused onto that side yard.

So um we did decide to leave the garage on that side of the property.

Um the bar garage doors do remain on that street facing facade, but you'll see that we moved the golf cart garage door around the corner facing the the wooded wetland.

Yeah.

Uh so in these drawings that we're looking at now, the red lines represent the design as it was proposed last month.

Um changes were made to reduce and simplify the fenestration, deal with the garage door issue, move inward from the setbacks, break up the massing and simplify the roof lines in overall form.

Uh to go to the first floor plan question.

Uh first scroll back up the first floor with the red lines.

A couple more sheets up.

Keep going.

Um other direction.

So thank you.

Yeah, keep going two more sheets to the first floor.

Uh yes.

So at the um first floor, the street facing wall of the garage was pushed 18 inches back.

Street facing wall of the golf cart garage was pushed an additional two feet back, and the width was reduced by a foot.

Um changes were also made on the south, that being the left-hand side of the page.

Um, including reducing the area of the rear terrace and pulling that terrace edge away from that exterior wall by two feet.

You know, simplifying that and giving a sort of a break in that elevation.

Um at the second floor, one sheet down.

Yes.

Um the exterior walls between the gables and the street-facing walls of the garage.

The walls above the garage, and then that dormer with the bathroom, everything was pushed back from the street at this level, an additional 18 inches.

And did that to reduce mass and just provide more depth to break up the massing of the elevations.

Then you can see from the roof plan, but then probably better in the elevations that the overall roof form has been greatly simplified.

Um the roof mass and height was reduced throughout the whole entire house.

Um, with the highest top of roof now 18 inches below the allowable maximum.

So previously, I think we were two inches below that allowable maximum.

So we dropped the roof to 18 inches below, and then continued to drop everything throughout as much as we could.

So those front facing gables that used to be hips, the uh ridge of those gables are also about 18, I think 18 inches lower than the origin than the design as proposed last month.

Oh, Jill, could you go back up to the second floor plan?

I just wanted to point one more thing out.

Yeah, so the rear deck, you'll see that the square footage of that rear deck, the curved deck was reduced by half, and that edge was pulled in from that south elevation three feet from that corner.

Thanks.

So in pushing those walls at the garage back from the street, that offered us some room to create a canopy overage doors, uh supported by brackets, and you know, again helping to break up the mass and simplify and you know, bring the scale, the overall scale of that garage gable down.

Uh the garage doors were eight foot doors, and they've been reduced to seven foot six tall doors as well.

All these moves sort of just to bring you know the scale of the house closer down to the ground.

Uh a stone veneer base was added.

Um if you zoom in on those elevations, if you can, I do have dimensions showing what the actual elevation above grade of those eve lines.

So that right where the cursor is, I believe that's about nine foot three.

Um that next eve up, that's 16 feet.

So that red line dimension right there, three feet.

That shows that's showing that that eve dropped three feet from what we had proposed originally.

And then overall, you can see that I I believe that's also three feet that that the ridge of that gable dropped from the ridge of the hip as it was proposed last time.

So we really made a lot of big moves to just reduce height and reduce the overall mass and sort of that extrusion with a hat look with the design as it was last week.

Um tried to show some shade and shadow in this elevation to make you know the depth of the exterior walls between the gables read a little bit more as they would 3D.

Um you'll see that the notice that the hip dormer was removed, the eyebrow window was removed, and now any all the dormers that remain are all in the simple relating shed roof style.

Um so this is the south elevation, the elevation that sort of faces that view you have from the curved the curve in Brenton Road.

So this would kind of be that what I think of as the sort of secondary front of the building.

You can see that uh the roof mass was greatly reduced there.

Um again the red lines represent the design as it was last time around.

Uh and you see the stone base, you know, the um eye uh the shingle flare that was also added, you know, to create the shadow line at the second floor level, and all these things were done just to break up that mass, and then on the rear elevation again, the fenestration was simplified.

You know, all these things were done just to break up that mass, and then on the rear elevation again, the fenestration was simplified.

Uh you know getting rid of some of the more random window sizes, trying to bring everything into about three or four window sizes, keeping all the windows proportional to each other, um, less windows, and then obviously that second floor deck, which is now at um I believe it's about 90 square foot net, so it's underneath that 100 maximum for the city of Newport zoning.

And you see the turret roof, and the other ones over here decreased in size, and then again pulling that edge of the deck away from that corner of the building also just helped to break up that massive turret, and then the next elevation down.

You'll see this is where we rotated that golf cart garage door to the other elevation.

That is a seven-foot tall garage door right there.

Um, again, you see that uh shed dormer there that houses that second floor bathroom again.

That shifted the 18 inches back away from the street as well.

And again, um and then actually catch a little view of the bracket supported uh canopy over the garage doors there, and then these drawings here are just the current design without the red lines showing changes, and that's it.

That's those are the changes.

Um we found the design review process pretty helpful.

You guys had great comments for us, and you know, we did our best to respond to everything.

Yeah, we uh appreciate all the time that you guys gave us between the site visit and the staff review was definitely helpful towards the time.

Okay.

All right, I'm gonna open it up to feedback and comments from the commission.

I can go.

Uh yeah, thanks for uh coming back and coming up with a new design.

Um I'm sure it's come up a lot.

I wasn't here last time.

I did watch the video.

Um but there's no way around those front garage.

Is that what you're saying?

Because I can't approve anything with a front garage, like I just won't.

So it's you it that's an impeccable drive around there, and you don't see any houses that you know that look but have front garages, you know, like this.

Now we've got one on the other side too.

So there's not something I'm gonna prove.

We found about four houses right in the vicinity.

Okay, I'm not gonna prove this one.

Okay, I understand your position.

Okay.

So that is a that's a hard line for you.

It's a hard line.

Front garage.

Not gonna happen on my view, in my view.

So one down.

I agree.

I I think it's a I think it's a very nice design, and the refinements you've made of are awesome.

And I I love the house and the project, but you know, having those giant garage doors in the front of the house on the front facade of the house, just I could totally concur with Mr.

Edson.

It's an hard no.

Could we scroll up to the civil engineering site plan?

That might actually be in the um in the uh stuff we submitted for last month.

Have access to that.

I know that it's in the photo submission with the context references for other housing.

That might be that might be a little bit okay.

So understand everybody's feelings on garage doors facing the street.

Um I would just like to speak to our site analysis on that issue.

So the buildable area is delineated by obviously the 50-foot front yard setback.

40-foot side yard setback to the south, and then that wetland setback to rear and to the north side yard.

Side yard facing garage doors on the north, we just don't have the room to make that swing to get the direct the garage to get the driveway to come around to the garage.

The opportunity to put garage doors on the south side yard is there, yes, because you know, we can come pretty much up to that setback line with a with a driveway, but could you zoom out a little bit more, Joe?

This sits at the outside point of a curve in Brenton Road.

So as you travel, you know, um southwest off the sheet, the road curves pretty sharp around to the right.

So imagine traveling northeast along that, you're basically looking straight at dead ahead at garage doors as located on the south side yard.

But it's not the front.

I'm sorry, but it's not the front, but not the front, right?

So we chose that location on the north side, front facing, because the wooded wetland there actually does provide screening, visual screening for the garage doors as you're traveling down Brenton Road.

You kind of by the time you notice the garage doors are there, you've passed them already.

So that was our thinking, thinking that we were making the proper response to keeping the garage doors in the least viewable location on the site, the viewable in the buildable area.

So if I could just ask a follow-up question, when you're saying you don't have room to put the garage on the other side and come into the property and swing around, is that based on the size of the house existing?

If the footprint of the house came down, you'd be able to there you go.

Slightly on the property to the toward toward that curve area we're talking about before.

If you moved it slid it to the left essentially, well, we can't slide to the left because of the setback.

We're 18 inches off of the setback as we sit now.

That just doesn't give us the room.

So I think that if we were to make the decision to locate the garage doors on the side, we wouldn't mirror the house and put the garage on that south side because then we would have the yard space to put the driveway there.

Have you thought about getting this is chill?

Hi.

Um, have you thought about seeking a setback variance, the side setback variants from the zoning board?

Because you do have a feature on your property that is you know inhibiting your the buildability of the lot.

And so that's you know, a feature that something that the zoning board would take into consideration.

Yeah, we need to have it okay, and it's going to get worse.

The wetland setback.

Um the other having gone to the site, and actually, what was very helpful was the board that's there that shows the the division of the four lots.

This is definitely the trickiest lot of the four of them.

I think what coming back and seeing the property again, what I'm struggling with is it feels that we're not being sympathetic to the undulation of the wetland, and instead there's just this very large structure that faces the road.

And if there was a way to design the house such that it tucked back and it may have different heights, it may, but it might be more sympathetic that you don't have this just massive structure facing.

Um that's what I'm reacting to, even though you've brought things down, there's still a very large two-plus story building that's just very solid in its appearance.

Um, and I I don't know how much of this is being factored because there's a desire to put the pool in the backyard, and so that might be constraining the footprint of where the house is going.

But that's a concession that might have to come to the table in terms of if it needs to be the pool needs to be removed to make a house that feels more, you know, compatible with it's not only the neighborhood, but it's compatible with the typography of what's happening there in the wetlands.

Um I mean, I think for myself with the garage, I agree with the my fellow commissioners about a street-facing garage.

I think if there were again variations in depth and things that it didn't just feel like this wall, I I cannot support a third garage on the side, even though you've turned it around for the the golf cart.

I just think that adds to the mass of the overall, unless again that can be tucked somewhere behind.

Um but that's what I'm reacting to, having gone to the site to see where it there is this it's a curved area that's a buildable lot, but the house is rectangle on a very undulating footprint.

So I mean I think there's a lot of architectural opportunity to do something that's I wanna say more um charming.

That's not the right word, but that has more depths and valleys coming back around that that typography set to the back where you can, and maybe that needs to take into some of the the land that's being allocated to the pool.

And maybe that also enables the driveway to come around to the back and you tuck around and you know, maybe there's a courtyard back there to park.

I'm not sure what that looks like, but I feel right now the structure is fighting the actual lot versus working with it.

Uh Jill, can you go to the landscape design plan?

That's a little bit.

That's the old one, right?

Yes, thank you.

Right.

So you can see the red line represents our setback.

Um, our yard setback.

The dashed black line represents our um wetland buffer zone.

So we did actually work with the um characteristics of the site to fit our program within our allowable buildable area.

Uh and yes, you know, the pool and the backyard improvements are part of you know the our design program.

Um so let me ask this question.

If the design similar to very similar design was taking a near locating the garage on the opposite side, getting those garage doors on that side elevation, taking all of that off front elevation.

Would that be more in line with what you guys have in mind?

Side and re garage.

Side entry garage.

Yes.

Okay.

So that would you know, just off the top of my head, knocking that um golf cart garage off, flipping the house, rotating the garage doors to where that golf park garage is on the side.

And exactly exactly the move you just showed Mr.

Madison.

Yeah.

Jump's fine.

Jim is fine.

Is that more in line with the yeah, I think that that solves the problem of having you know, street-facing doors if there's an area to set back that garage even so that you're creating, I guess what I'm trying to say is right now that whole front is one plane more or less.

If there's ways to do some create some depth within the structure block, that helps the eye to not see this massive structure.

And it's like, oh, there's depth, there's a garage back there, you know, maybe something else is happening over to the wetlands on the other side.

But it's so I would need to see what flipping, but I don't think just flipping and mirroring is gonna solve that block challenge for myself.

There needs to be more depth of the building.

Um to just reduce the overall mass from the street view.

I think you can have, you know, there's opportunities to have other things happening in the back, but from a street view, it just reads very tall and like I said, just very rectangular.

But I think others that were at the design review should weigh in.

No, I I concur with everyone's statements.

And I think this was a point that we ended up with in the design review.

Also, it was, you know, I think you address the needs of you know, adding architectural features, so it changes the lines of the building, you brought down the massing, whether or not that's enough.

But I do think once you potentially look at flipping this house, um, in addition to kind of relaxing some of the massing or setting it back and moving it forward.

Um I think you'll come up with a solution for this.

Um the garage was uh uh statement in the design review.

Uh and I think that's the key to making this work right now.

So I I uh appreciate all the moves that you guys have made in response to what we you know we're talking about in the design review, and I think it's definitely moving in the right direction.

Uh but I I I think the garage obviously is the sticking point.

And uh I do also agree with uh the chair that it may not be as simple as just flipping it, but I took in the operation of flipping it, you know, other opportunities will present themselves.

It's a very challenging lot.

I get that, you know.

I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on here that you guys have to deal with, not the least of which is that you, you know, you have a lot of program you're trying to squeeze in there.

And I think in a way, that's what uh the chair was speaking about is like it's it's like fighting it a little bit, you know.

But I don't think there's a the changes are all that dramatic.

Uh I think uh as we spoke about in that review, right?

If there was something that would, you know, another feature such as a pass-through.

I know that programmatically that might not fit for you guys, but some way to get you know to add more character to the face of it, a little more depth.

Um, and maybe the garage you know doesn't go on the south side I mean on the left side that what would that be south?

So yeah, maybe it doesn't go on the southwest side.

Um maybe it goes on the west side, you know, maybe it I don't I don't know, but I'm just saying at some level um that you know it's there's a lot of program going on and in a in a big building, and uh and I I just I I I feel your pain, I get the struggle, I understand it, you know.

And um, but I feel like uh it needs it just needs a little more push.

And I and I will say that I don't mind the golf cart.

Um for me, the golf cart garage part of it actually helps to bring the mass of the building down, although it makes the building bigger, it's the element actually brings the roof line down closer to the ground.

The elevation for me that that actually helps for me.

Um like in my uh thank you and and again, you know, this is really almost like if you want to call it uh the entrance to the ocean drive, right?

So it's a very visible piece of property, and you know, the sometimes these real tricky challenging lots, you know will present you with opportunities that maybe other lots wouldn't because you kind of forced into it, you know.

Um but I I like where it's you know, you the the reactions you guys did to you know the design review have been very favorable in my mind anyway, right?

I there's a lot of things there that um moving it in the right direction for sure.

I think just echoing some of my comments uh during the design review is that you know the the chair made a great point that this is kind of fighting the lot, and I had asked for some creativity, and you know, I mentioned some of the the architectural quality that's present in the historic district, you know, we're looking at peabody insterns, we're looking at Richard Morris Hunt, we're looking at some really impressive structures, and even some of the structures that are vernacular and surrounding kind of speak to the colic nature of the interior of the ocean drive.

And so um, if we're looking at the standards in terms of architectural quality, how it meets the standard for for what is present, I think that there is some real creativity and there isn't it uh an opportunity that this lot provides to be really creative and create something really cool.

Um there may have to be concessions along the way, certainly.

Perhaps, you know, the garage, the pool of the you know, etc.

etc.

But um I perhaps the size, but I do really encourage you to speak to the what is on the lot in terms of the the natural features because that's what everyone else on Ocean Drive is contending with.

So I know I had said that, and I really encourage you to use creativity and have fun.

Yeah, I think a great example of where there's homes that are built into ledge, you know, there's areas where you know at one point it might be one story and it goes to two in the back, like there's ways with within the architecture to be able to fool the viewer from the street that the house is much larger than it presents.

That's one example, but I think that's what I was trying to communicate by working with the profile of the wetland area.

Um, but to Jill's point, that might have to come with some concessions of I understand the clients want to have all of these pieces coming together.

Um, but and maybe that's possible with some of that creativity and coming back to it, but right now fitting it all in as it's cited.

I just I agree.

I think it's it's just fighting the lot.

But I think the lot in and of itself pushes the limit to get something that's very differentiated, and and to that point, the other three lots, which are much more cookie-cutter, may end up having much more cookie cutter style homes on them.

Does that provide enough feedback from everybody?

Or yeah, I guess we will um we may end up trying to schedule another design review.

Yeah, at this point, if we could continue the next month, but yeah, sure.

We'll set up another stop review.

Yeah, yeah, you may want to just uh as Jill said, uh, you know, talk to the zoning about the setbacks.

Maybe there is some relief that we haven't seen.

So there may be an opportunity for like a detached garage as well, like later on, if you know, in one of the corners, if you know, because the site provides such a you know a challenge.

Um so I would encourage you to talk to the zoning officer perhaps about the possibility, and if we can nail down the house, and that would be uh really great.

I I have looked at some kind of like inspiration uh photos for the lot, and I could you know send over what I think would the commission and you know would would meet the standards.

Um yeah, I know this is really tricky, but we can definitely kind of keep massaging this.

Yeah, any any additional information that you guys want to pass along, gladly accept it.

Sure.

Okay, so with that, um we'll request a motion to continue the application of 11 Brenton Road flat 41 lot 416 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026, and the potential of the applicant to request a second design review.

Um second, all those in favor.

Uh aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

Right.

That's it.

Okay.

Um, I don't believe we have any new business this evening.

Jill.

It just looked like part of a household win off number thing.

We do not have any new business.

I do want to highlight that this is Roe and Kenny's last meeting.

Um, Ro, you've served for many years and so appreciative of you.

Kenny, thank you for taking the leap and joining a commission and getting your toes wet.

I hope that you do come back to to public service uh in the future.

So thank you both for your your contributions.

I concur.

I I just want to say um thanks for the opportunity.

It's been it's been fascinating.

And um you know what's what's great is that I'm leaving this commission feeling like it is an unbelievably good thing.

So you know, that just makes it all worth going.

Thanks, Ro.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, January 13th, 2026, Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.