Welcome everyone.

Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, March tenth, two thousand and twenty-six, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarillo.

Here.

Kelly Morin is present.

Jim Madsen.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Bill Finley.

Here.

And Brooke Richter.

Here.

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

I will ask Commissioner Bill Finley to affirm for the record that you reviewed all materials for the continued applications and watched the Tuesday, February tenth, two thousand and twenty-six HDC meeting and are prepared to be a voting commissioner this evening on those applications.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

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

No.

No.

I request a motion to accept the minutes for Tuesday, February tenth, two thousand and twenty-six as presented.

So moved.

Okay.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

All of the applications in this meeting have a published staff report, which includes the confirmed location of each property within a Newport Historic District record as a contributing or non-contributing building, construction date of the property, and character defining features.

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

So moved.

All those in favor.

The commission convened earlier in our standard pre-meeting immediately prior.

We have no resequencing this evening.

Just to state some of these details were published on the agenda.

I'll just go through them.

We did have one application that had been withdrawn by the applicant.

That was the application C473 Catherine Street.

If there's anyone here from the public for that application, that was withdrawn.

We similarly have three continuations.

That was C330 Poplar Street.

But two additional applications were brought before the commission as continued after it was published.

So the first of those is N1 for 5 Sunshine Court and N8, 719 Bellevue Avenue.

Those will be continued to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026.

So if we have anyone here for those three applications, they will not be heard this evening.

That is the application of C2 97 Harrison Av unit PL.

I will request a motion to redirect that application to the preservation planner this evening.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

So then in this evening's pre-meeting, um, we did identify one application to be considered for summary approval.

This application was viewed viewed by members of the commission as complete with no questions and acceptance of the staff's recommendations.

Um so that application this evening is N5 for 18 Barney Court.

Um, and three and four Barney Court, plat 21 lot 63-4.

Is there anyone here for public comment for that application?

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of 18 Barney Street 3 and 4 Barney Court, Plat 21 Lot 63, as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

And then lastly, we had one application this evening to be considered for an abbreviated summary.

This just has a need for minor clarification and a question from the commission.

That is the application of N3 for 27K Street.

Do we have the applicant here this evening?

Okay.

Welcome, counsel.

I good evening, Tanner Jackson, on behalf of the applicant.

I have with me the contractor as well.

Um, I understand the proposed condition upon approval, which is the ghost window for the rear, uh, the rear window at the addition of the property.

Um, I've I've spoken with my client and we politely ask that if we can be able to move forward without the ghost window.

Um, we just don't think it would be as aesthetically pleasing on the back of the house.

And we think that the application and the photos that are taken of this rear window um would be adequate memorialization of the fact that this window was in fact there, especially given that that the window itself um is only about 25 to 30 years old.

Okay, so with that, I will open it up for comments from the commission.

That seemed to be fairly unanimous request in our pre-meeting.

So can you just clarify that for a second?

The window has only been there for a few decades, like as if it it there was never one there before.

Is it uh the the actual window itself is only 25 to 30 years old?

I don't know if there was a previous window there, as in the window opening.

Okay, yeah, that was my question.

Okay.

I'm sorry, we were and if the board has any alternate methods of um of memorializing the fact that there was a window there that we hope may be alternate.

I would just ask our preservation planner.

I know you had also recommended um ghosting that given that we talked to uh Tanner before about other options.

Um another option that I mentioned was to just build the interior wall and let the window remain.

We've seen that on a few properties um in which you know obviously the window doesn't become operable and it's stuck behind a um a wall, but I don't not sure if he's amenable to that option.

Um but typically ghosting is the preferred method.

Um as in our standards, the buildings are a um a physical record of their time, and so you know, I I feel like uh some sort of ghost window would be appropriate.

Okay.

Any other comments from the commission one way or the other okay?

Um I will echo the view of our preservation planner.

It does serve as a record of the building and transformation over years.

Um I do think, you know, while I appreciate potentially building on the inside, I actually think just ghosting that in and from the outside would benefit your client, but um I would be in favor of ghosting, but not an alternative.

Understood.

Then I think in that case, please strike what I've said and please move forward as proposed.

Thank you.

Okay.

So just to clarify then for the record, you would be amenable to the conditional approval with ghosting in that rear.

Uh yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Um, my apologies.

I'm gonna have our vice chair just read the application onto the record.

I overstep that.

So we'll do that and then we will move forward with that.

Uh microphone, there we go.

This is the application of Trisha Light of nope of six Sunshine Court.

Is that the right one?

No.

And three, twenty three.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm off.

This is the application of old acre LLC of 27k Street, plat 22 lot 11 contributing for permission to infill bathroom window in the rear addition to accommodate new interior program.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Okay.

Okay, so if no further comments from council, I will request a motion to approve the application of 27 K Street, plat 22, lot 11 as presented with the condition that the window on the rear be infilled with a ghost profile.

Um, citing Newport Standard 17 tact 80 060, a one, two, three, four, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So with that, uh, we will move into our full agenda for the evening, and I'll ask our vice chair to read the first application.

Um, this is C1.

I will just um ask um Commissioner Ballot to step down.

He will be recusing himself this evening.

This is the application of Elijah Ductworth Shatter of six Green Isle Place, Lat 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 rebuild in the same footprint in entrance vestibule and stair to the second floor.

Reframe the existing second floor and convert space into a dwelling unit, retain existing windows and install new skylights in west elevation, build 918 square feet single floor guest cottage and porch to the south of the existing carriage house and connecting it to the new entrance vestibule.

And I will um I'm just gonna read the amended because the application per your staff comments to change current uh the scope of the project was updated.

So I'll just write for your okay.

Um so from the original published published application or excuse me, agenda, um, just the updated project description.

So permission to alter the carriage house by demolishing the shed roof addition and constructing a one and a half story addition, installing carriage style doors, replacing the roof with fiberglass shingles, and altering the fenestration on the rear elevation.

So significant change in scope from the original as published on the agenda.

Um so with that, I will ask to get you sworn in.

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

So help you God.

I do.

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

Uh Kiko Sanchez.

Okay, welcome back, Mr.

Sanchez.

Okay, so um we are back um with the um uh parish house redesigned project and um the new proposal is to uh remove the little lean to and build a small two-story addition off to the side.

Um the idea uh per the other one, same, you know, uh the other application is to keep the carriage house.

Um, although since we have to rebuild the foundation, um and um and some of the framing we're proposing to actually rotate the carriage house slightly so it aligns better with the driveway, the existing driveway, and also it works better with the setbacks, or you know, it's just more square with the um uh property line.

Um the other I guess uh change is uh you know, we've removed the the two bedroom uh ground floor edition.

Um we're adding this little bedroom in the ground floor, a staircase that goes up to a second floor, um, so that we can access the um second floor of the existing carriage house.

Um those two garage doors that you see there would be new, outswing.

Um, just to clarify, we're not changing the windows at all.

All the windows are existing, um, for the exception of the new ones, and they're not historic, they're marbin.

Um and the idea is just to repair and and reuse.

Um the new addition is board and batten just to differentiate the materials between one and the other.

Um we're not trying to create a false sense of history, we're just trying to create a the architectural difference differentiation between the two.

Um, we're also within the lot coverage.

Um yeah, we've lowered the roof.

Um, or if you can see on the elevation, I think I don't know if you have to the last um image um is a a color rendering of the house.

I don't know if that made it there it is.

That's a better one.

So um you can see how the two groups are being um they're they're set at different heights so we can differentiate the uh addition from the um historic carriage house, and also the uh building steps back in footprint by about six inches to create the same sense of difference.

And um we've created that little notch on the roof or what we call a jerking head to reduce the massing and thus you know, also you know mitigate the amount of water that goes on the front and the back of the um uh new addition for that matter.

Okay.

Questions and comments from the commission.

Mr.

Madsen.

Yeah, thank you.

And and thank you for uh really coming back with uh a plan that I think does meet all of our concerns from from the last meeting.

And you know, I like that it's shifted uh you know towards the front.

I think it makes makes a lot of sense.

I think it does differentiate itself from the original building.

And yeah, I'm uh I'm fine with it.

I think it's nice job.

Yeah, I agree with my fellow commissioner.

I'm fine with this as it stands.

Okay, I support this application as well.

Okay, Sir Bernard, Miss Marion.

Any I support it.

Okay, all right.

So with that, I will request a motion to approve the application of six Green O Place, plat 22 lot 27 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 tag 060 A1 through 7.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Hi.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

So C5.

Is it moved?

It's no good.

C5.

So the application of Rhode Island property wire uh 27 and a half Franklin Street, flat 27, lot 72, contributing for permission to add new rear shed dormer, replace existing doghouse style bulkhead with a new bulkhead, construct faux chimney to replace brick chimney, replace front door with larger door, rearrange vestation, install 20 inch high by 27 inch wide, install HVAC or sign install HVAC equipment and replace windows that are deemed irreparable from window report.

Okay, and I will just um update.

We had heard this application at our last meeting.

We had actually split that and approved both the bulkhead and the chimney.

Um so all other um points of the application still stand for this evening, except those two.

Uh with that, I will ask to get you both sworn in.

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

So help you God.

I do.

I did.

And if you could both state your name and spell them for the record for the secretary.

Shane Cooper, S H A N E C O O E R.

Brian Shoel, Shell Architecture.

Hey.

All right, welcome back.

Um just wonder what you know, we'll be removing the portion with the sign and the HVAC uh this evening.

Oh right.

Okay, so just to um, since it was a little quiet, just for everybody to have heard the applicant is withdrawing the 20 inch by 27 inch sign and the HVAC equipment from the application.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so at the last meeting, uh we discussed the dormer and we took um the the comments that uh the committee gave us and uh redesigned it.

Uh we brought it in from originally it was three feet from each of the sides and brought it in to 10 feet from each of the sides, now making it virtually impossible to see unless you are on America's Cup Avenue, and even there uh you would only get a glimpse of the uh west side potentially.

It's hard to really determine that line of sight without a laser.

Um but uh so that was for that portion.

Um I don't know if you guys want to go in like order or let's we can do a whole summary and then we'll go through it.

Okay.

Um so then at the last meeting we had discussed the front door, which is uh item four on our um application.

Uh it's currently a 32.

Uh we believed it had been a larger door at some point.

Uh we have we had Rob from Heritage Restoration come out and do an assessment of it to uh kind of back that all up.

And his assessment and findings should be in your packet, uh, which indicated that the door isn't in fact not original, and that he did believe that at one point there may have been a set of double swinging doors.

Uh but uh either way, the current door is certainly not original, and it was likely a larger door in the place.

Um Rob also sent an email that I forwarded to Jill.

I believe that maybe in your new packet, this kind of giving a little more color to there were four windows that the committee had just questions about like his thoughts on it, and he was just like, Yeah, they're they're bad.

So um we just that was a little additional color he gave on that.

And he his words were my report, kind of summed that up.

Um, so he left it at that.

Um, so beyond that, it's just the changes to the locations of uh some windows on the rear of the house.

Um we're asking the committee to approve the removal of a window on the rear of the house and the uh second floor east side.

Uh that's where a new bathroom would go on the inside of that, and approve the installation of a new window on the first floor, kind of near the center of the house, and that's where the new bedroom would be in there, and it's an egress safety issue to be able to get that window in.

Um, and then the removal of the uh bathroom um window to the right.

Uh that's the uh what do they call that window on it?

Awning window.

Um then there's the couple other windows in here.

We have a window on the west side first floor.

Um east.

Sorry, east side, yeah.

Sorry, good call, thank you.

And um the installation of a window on the west side as well.

That's where I was thinking on the second floor, which uh would kind of line up with the existing window that's on the second floor.

Um just looking at the window survey.

So that one on the second floor is that 2.2.5.

Uh there's a couple that I think are replacements from some time.

I believe the one on the first floor, but we're not trying to change that.

So 2.5 is the one that you're talking about right now.

Yeah.

Okay.

So if I'm just, I'll just go through this for the commission.

So no changes to those windows that we had talked about from the last meeting.

So the one on the first floor is window one point six, which is an 1850 wood on the second floor, um, 2.8 to be removed.

That's an original to the property, all wood window, and then that one that we were just talking about, which was two five was a window from 2000.

So we have three that are being proposed.

One is original, one is 1850, and one is 2000.

One other thing to mention, uh the three windows and then the fourth right above it um on the like bump out, those were determined to be you know, beyond saving.

Um so those would be replaced in kind with something that looks uh identical to it.

Uh just not rotted out.

That's 1.9, 1.10, 1.11.

Yeah.

And then the one above it is um here uh 2.10.

It's amazing the amount of paperwork this generates.

Okay.

Um all right.

So we talked about original uh excuse me, the front door, windows, um, and the dormer.

Was there anything else?

Um I think that that's it.

Okay.

All right.

So that'll open it up to the commission.

You can touch on any of those, or we can go sequentially as you guys prefer.

Mr.

Ballet.

Should we take it in section maybe talk about the door first?

Sure, let's do that.

I I think you've done research on the front door.

I think your proposal I'm fine with your proposal on the front door.

Thank you.

I would agree.

Relative to the door.

I agree as well.

Thank you.

Okay, Miss Moran.

Okay.

Um I think the solution on the dormer is uh is uh admirable that you sacrificed some of the sh the space that you were trying to get to take in uh some of the views that were offered.

So I'm fine with the dormer.

Thank you.

We I think we essentially took your advice and you notice that we dropped it down from the roof line so it no longer touches the chimney or the peak.

Um, and that was a thought process behind that.

Still gives us adequate room to make uh the interior design is not quite as flowy, but it's it's a balance.

Okay, other comments and feedback about the dormer revision.

Yeah, I'm not quite there yet on the dormer, you know, because I went, you know, down Thames near an America's Cup, and it does have a pretty significant you know, view of that roof line uh from the back, and you can see that it's you know, certainly a you know, historic home.

Is it is that space currently or has it had it recently been rented out as a yes, it's a third floor apartment.

It's a third floor apartment, and this is to make it more comfortable.

More comfortable, safer when you get to the top of the steps.

You see, like if I can take you in there, you'll see like you gotta kind of like crouch to get in.

Um, so I think it would be you know, uh much appreciated to someone living in the unit, but also for fire safety and and all the other factors that kind of surround that.

Uh that's fire safety, but um yeah, I'm not quite sure on that.

I I'm thinking I'd rather not see it there quit on this.

I mean, it's already a rental space, it's not gonna add any additional housing by making it into it a rentable space.

Uh it can be viewed from the public in the right of way from uh America's Cup and Thames, and you know, I don't think it's necessary.

Okay.

Appreciate the view.

Yep.

Mr.

Finley, was that third floor um originally an attic?

Um I'm not sure what it originally was when we bought the building, it was uh already was it converted to an apartment?

It probably at some point, long before we've had it.

Um clearly it had an old dated bathroom, old dated kitchen.

Um, so it looks like it had been that way for quite some time.

Um so you were up there.

What's the oldest thing that you kind of saw?

Like it was 60s, 70s.

Yeah.

Okay.

Something like that.

You know, uh, and I'll say just from the view from the rear.

I mean, when you're looking at it from America's Cup, um yes, it the you know, some visibility to it, but my eye is always drawn right to the the other building that looks like it was somehow, I don't know how it was approved to come up right behind us.

Uh so we share like must have been uh one lot.

It's really a bad building.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

How that ever got approved.

I that's my eye goes right there.

Um was like one lot that got subdivided, and somehow they got approval this.

I don't know, it looks like something built in the early 80s, mid-80s, if I had to guess.

Likely.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I I have issues with the dormer as well.

I mean, I look at it and it just looks completely out of keeping with a colonial building.

Uh I mean, at the the most I think, you know, two individual dormers that sort of mirror what you have on the front, would be about as far as I can see it going.

Well, there's currently existing one dormer on the rear.

Um it uh um so like to do two, I mean I'm just speaking to the character of the design.

I'm not saying it's a bad design.

I'm just saying within you know the colonial building of its age and its visibility.

I just I can't support that dormer.

I just that's a problem for me.

So you'd rather see us remove just separate and remove the I mean that's that's where I would go with it, you know.

Yeah.

Um what what is the projection of the infill?

I mean, is it like really noticeable?

No, it's set back with two feet.

Would it be possible if we remove it reduced it so it was like 18?

It's really for me, it's just a matter of in keeping with the with the colonial design.

And then it's going to see that.

Um what about expanding the size of the existing dormer in both directions a few feet?

Kimberly, do we have current photos that we can bring up?

So while she brings that up, um I'll jump on Mr.

Goddard's comments.

Um just so everybody's grounded.

This is a 1780 building.

So we see a lot of old buildings, but 1780 is particularly um of that clearly colonial um character defining features, side gable roof line pierced by a brick chimney and two front gable dormers.

Um I agree with Mr.

Goddard.

Um, I could see two smaller dormers, maybe similar to the one that's there currently, another one mimicking what's on the front.

I would not be able to support a continuation of the two connecting them.

Um I I agree that it's not of the character of the building and pushes um the envelope.

It is it is visible from both America's cup, it is visible coming around um and up Franklin Street when you come around the corner from the post office.

So, and at some point we don't know what could happen to that other building that's there.

So if that goes away at some point in time, clearly this is um you know, still a very prevalent building.

Would the committee support potentially just widening this existing daughter so the stairwell going up would satisfy any like height requirements for proper access?

I think the challenge of the commission is we are not here to debate on interior programming.

Um if there is a a dwelling in there currently that's functioning without having these additional dormers.

Um we're looking at the compatibility of the exterior of the building.

It's just I worried about fire safety, and I could take you through if you guys wanted to do you would see like if there was an emergency and you needed to get out of this unit quickly.

You'd see why I'd be I mean we're here asking.

When you were I think I mean I was gonna say, I mean, then really it's not it's a concern.

If you were worried about putting your safety, you wouldn't put somebody in a sleeping quarters on the third floor kindling.

So it's legal, right?

Well, we don't, and that's what I'm trying to try to say.

We don't want to uh do that, but of course we bought the building and diminished its value if we can't.

And you want to make as much money as possible.

We get that, but yeah, I mean it's an apartment, but the the key is that we also want to do it safely.

Um and um even if like I said, we scrap the what's there, if we just widen it a couple feet, it so it hits the stairwell coming up, then at least it's safe as habitable.

Hate to muddy the waters a little bit.

Sorry, I hate to muddy the waters a little bit, but we are a bit divided, I think.

Um on the the panel today.

I do support the dormer in its present um presentation.

Um so I thought we maybe I think we know where six of us stand, but we might want to explore that.

Ms.

Moran, do you have a view on the dormer?

I don't really support the dormer.

I also am concerned about the conjecture of changing the existing one, adding duplicating it, and connecting the two with something else.

So I think that there's some uniqueness in there being that one offset to the side.

So I'm struggling with the dormer in general, to be honest with you.

Especially with the age of the building and it being in such a visible downtown location.

So I'm struggling with that, to be honest.

Um, just to clarify, Mr.

Finley, as it relates to the dormer.

Did you weigh in?

I have to concur with you know, my fellow uh commissioners.

Um it is one of the oldest buildings that we we've dealt with in a long time, 1700s, right?

Um so I would agree that I think an expansion of the dormer just for those reasons doesn't make it for me.

So um I would keep it as is.

Okay.

Can you go down further on that street?

I I don't even see it.

No, that's not that's not house, is it?

No, that's not it.

It's behind the deck.

It's behind that.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

If you go a little down the street, you'll be able to see it.

And I agree.

I think several commissioners have gone by there and have gone by there in person.

So yeah.

Yeah, right.

Towards America's top.

No other way, Jill.

Looking past the post office.

Yep.

There you go.

Um, so as our before we go to windows, just as it um sort of reads by the commission right now on the dormer.

We have two commissioners that would be in favor as is.

Um the other five not in favor.

Um, so we can talk about windows and then come back to that.

But just to give you some context.

Um, so lastly, let's go through windows.

Um, I'll open that up for other comments from the commission.

Um, so one thing I mentioned last time, uh, the window that is currently on the second floor of the rear.

And we we provided a bunch of extra pictures uh of the rear area.

It's just like a tight little alleyway between that and that house that was built right behind us.

Uh, but we we discussed moving that window, which is original down to that location to provide egress for the first floor bedroom.

Um it uh as for that awning window.

If the commission really, if that was a break point, I mean, I'm sure we could find a way to just make that a dummy window and leave it there and um you know, for the its uh visual appeal on the exterior.

So you're speaking to the south elevation.

So the window on the second floor.

Um, I have to check the number though.

I think that we said that that was two eight, maybe.

Yeah.

Which is an original wood window to be moved to the first floor.

And then that casement that you're talking about, which is also an original wood window.

Um, to be removed.

So just looking at the south elevation.

Which one gets some number?

Um, so there's two eight to be moved down to the first floor.

And that's original, right?

That's original.

Um from the window inventory that actually has I mean, very it says good, no damage to rotten window, good function, obviously some chipping and paint, you know, peeling of paint.

Right.

Um and then also on the first floor one six.

I apologize.

That's a hopper, it's an 1850, not original, but an 1850 wood that they want to remove.

Um my question on this moving the second floor window down to the first floor window, which you're using as egress.

There's going to have to be some modification to this window to make it operable to meet egress requirements.

The window is the correct size.

Um, so it would need to be sent out to be restored.

Uh there's no question of that.

So we would have uh the carpenterism frame the correct opening to meet the uh sizing requirements of this window and and put it back in.

And how about like the balances and all of this stuff?

Because uh heritage we're gonna have to do all of that.

Okay.

So Rob is not only uh done our appraisal or report, but he's getting about a work out of it as well.

Um I mean, more or less all of the windows in the house will need to go be restored to some level, whether it's full removal and take it to a shop or just in in place repair, but there's a good majority, a good portion of it do need to go to shop.

And it's uh it's a hefty price tag along on that.

Other comments on windows.

I'm not favoring removing or uh moving them.

Okay.

And restore as needed.

And restore as needed.

Okay.

I would agree with Mr.

Madsen on that point.

Other commissioners.

It I think if it made any difference, the only one we truly need is that bedroom window on the first floor.

We could leave the window in place on the second floor and make it kind of a dummy if that made a difference, as long as we could add one additional period specific window.

Uh, that Rob has told me he could in fact recreate to be identical in appearance to the current ones.

Um, so that's another option.

So from the rear alley, which if you guys have gone back there, you'll see like there's no way you're gonna see that from any place unless you were there.

Um walking in the rear of the house.

That'd be the only one that's really truly critical on the southern elevation.

And that would be the medium-sized window here in the center, is what you're talking about.

Yes, yeah, just increasing that size.

That's all it and you would leave the window above in place.

We could, yeah, we could make that a dummy window.

It would just be non- You say a dummy window.

Yeah, leave the window, it would be there, but there'd be like a lot of a curtain on the inside, and then it'd be a washer and dryer that'd be behind it.

So it wouldn't be I see.

It would stay there, but I'm saying people wouldn't have access to like look out it.

But there's not much of a view anyway, unless you really like looking through your neighbor's window directly behind you in that two family there.

Okay.

It I'm not sure.

Do you have do we have the pictures of that alleyway?

I think it's uh so that one um one seven that they're asking to remove downstairs.

That is an 1850 wood um operation is poor.

Um good as far as wood damage, um, chipping peeling as as expected.

Um I'm struggling with replacing or removing almost any of these, also.

And I know it seems a little crazy, but the uniqueness of these oddball windows being incorporated into the house does tell a story on this property.

And so that's where I get kind of caught in the middle with uh replacing them with something else, or just losing that piece of of history that we're talking about.

So we could also move the current one that's there now that we would be replacing.

We could move that upstairs, so just flip-flopping that gives the uh appropriate sizing to meet uh that is a requirement.

We we will lose the use of that unit without that, uh as it's currently being designed.

Uh so that's like really the that is the most important piece of our puzzle here.

Uh really, like if if we got walked away with nothing tonight, that would be it.

And where would you propose to move it if you didn't?

Uh we could flip-flop the window that's the small window that's there now and move it up.

You know, it wouldn't have the correct sizing, uh, but they're already not really sized equally anyway.

Yeah, you could follow.

Now you're doing a large interior renovation, and my understanding is there's a bathroom where that larger window is next to the bay window, right?

Uh yeah, above the uh awning window.

Yeah.

So there's no way you I know you need egress on the interior.

Is there any way to switch those so that you can keep the little window in the bathroom?

Our egress is actually on the first floor.

Right, that's what I'm talking about.

Yeah, that those ones right there.

That's where we need the uh the larger window put in.

And so that was like kind of my question is is there any way to flip-flop where in on the inside where your bathroom is so that you can keep the little window in the bathroom and use that larger window as an egress?

We moved the space around multiple times, and this is really the only way that really looked decent and flowed in in any way that made sense.

Um, that allowed you to have a bathroom that you didn't have to do this in.

Uh it uh, you know, we're trying to meet some some standards of human decency when you're you're living in a unit.

Um, so that it was like you could, but then you shrink the bathroom to you know, you're climbing over a toilet to get into a shower.

So for the commission, I might ask our preservation planner to also in.

I'm just gonna um read.

I know we've gotten some additional context this evening, but on according to the windows, so staff comments according to the window evaluation.

There are 14 original windows, 14 that date from the middle of the 19th century, two windows from the 2000s.

The original windows date to about 1745 and represent rare surviving historic fabric.

There is one original window that requires which is 210 that requires reconstruction or replacement in the back of the house.

We can locate that one.

Three of the windows from 1850, one nine, one ten, and one eleven also require replacement and are located on the rear elevation.

The remainder of the windows can be restored.

The proposal to remove the windows in the east bay of the rear elevation is not appropriate, as the second floor window is original and the first floor window is an 1850s hopper window.

An additional small wood window dating to the 1850s is proposed to be replaced with a six over six window for egress.

Any removal or rearranging of historic windows should be avoided.

So I'm gonna ask our preservation planner to just further comment on her staff recommendations relative to the windows.

So my staff recommendations are based upon the information that we've gotten from the window expert.

So heritage restoration.

Um he specified that the existing windows were very rare.

Um, but there's no not many surviving uh windows from the 18th century.

Um the configuration of the windows has likely changed, but hasn't changed probably since the mid-19th century.

Um so it is the opinion of staff that the existing fenestration remain um interior programming, although challenging is not up to the purview of HCC.

We are concerned about the exterior of the building and um retaining the building as a physical record of its time, and so that that would be my professional opinion.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the commission on windows?

Ms.

Moran, I do have one the bay window in the back.

I know you're proposing to change out those three windows.

Uh I understand they're in poor shape, but they are also pretty unique for this building in that they are floor to ceiling.

I'm not sure that there are any other floor-to-ceiling windows on the property.

Um the plan would be to uh replace them with like kind.

The only thing is we will have to figure out because they're they're shot now, figuring out how to go about it with the building department because they wouldn't meet current building codes.

So they have to be so far off off the ground, or you can speak to that better than I can.

So in the past, though, when we renovated 41 Pellem, we had uh ballusters that were too low and didn't meet current building.

I guess you guys somehow spoke with the building department and we wound up going back with the original height ballusters, which we pay more in insurance, but they also look great.

So I'm really happy with it.

But I don't know how if the process of going back with the exact occurred, I wasn't part of those meetings, but it came out that the building officer at the time uh approved those lower ballasters, even though they don't meet current building codes.

Uh and we were grateful that I think you guys are really grateful for it.

I think it looks great.

Um so we would be open to going back with the exact same size windows that are there, uh, that are replacement of if we can get that same relief from the building department.

Um I think they really do look awesome.

I would love to see those uh remain just in the exact size they are.

And if they're rebuilt or reconstructed or repaired, uh, do you still need the relief from the building department?

Or is that just considered a repair?

I that's a question for them.

I went we will have to pull a permit to replace repair because they can't be repaired.

He said Rob said they're just too far, there's no real wood left.

They do say they could be reconstructed.

He could build new frames, I guess, but it's it's like it's not original glass anyway, it's just some of the old red rotten wood.

But point being, I think there's a way.

The only thing that would be probably the building department would have an issue is that if we didn't go with tempered glass because it is low and a child could fall out or cut themselves if they threw a boy truck at it or something.

Um so as long as the commission was okay with us replacing what isn't original glass with safety glass that somebody won't hurt themselves on.

I think that that could be done easily.

So they they're they're gonna be custom sizes anyway when we do it.

So when he takes it and replaces the wood and puts it in, it's all replacement anyway.

So I'll just jump into that.

So in terms of repair, um, Jill, if we're repairing, not replacing here, obviously there will be restoration and that includes the frames and all of the other details that would be, I mean, we're not subject to understanding what the exceptions are.

They have to request the variants from the building inspector, correct?

Yes, so they would be responsible for uh talking with the the building inspector and seeking relief from the state building code if need be.

Um there is a threshold for repair versus replacement.

So if you are repairing them, um then you may not need to seek relief.

Um, but that's something that we'll have to bring up with the building inspector.

You know, you can also apply uh interior tempered panel to the interior side of these windows and maintain the window as is.

Yeah.

So so they're as long as it meets code, everybody's happy.

Um I'm not saying meets code, but as long as we get approvals to do everything we need to do, we're we're fine.

We would love to keep those big woods, put it that way.

That's even though they wouldn't, the height, I believe Julie might know better, but they I think that the height are you know, you were telling me that they'd have to be a little bit further off the ground.

No, set me to under, I think.

Okay.

But the uh Brian, you can correct me if I'm wrong, yeah, but I believe limitation is on the operability, it's not the height.

And so if you were to put a sash limiter so that the window can only open four inches at the bottom.

Oh that you would only need that if it was on the like the second floor.

Yeah, so we don't we can have floor to replace the windows in kind.

Yeah, and then they're not operable now, so uh we probably just try to leave it so they're just a visual standpoint.

You know, they're replaced, they look exactly the way they were.

Um, but I think you kind of get in a trouble with some breaking and if they if they do try to open one of those large windows.

I'd really like to see those retained, rebuilt.

I understand that it may be an undertaking, but a lot can be done with these old windows to piece them back together.

Well, that's really what we're asking for is the ability to do it.

That's what we want to do.

Uh so I mean that's uh we we know that any window we put in that position that's gonna look like that is going to be a very fully custom.

So if Rob can save a piece of the wood, we'll let him save a piece of the wood.

Uh, I just don't know to what degree, and you know how it is when you pull it out, it's like he said it was pretty bad, it was all spungy.

So does he have to replace four pieces, you know, top bottom, left or right, or can get away with maybe replacing three.

Um, but either way, he's gonna have to make custom knives, it'll make it all like just the way it was, and we're fine with that.

We do that all the time.

Um, you know, so I think at the end of the day, what we just can't do is leave it there because it you can push it out.

Um yeah, I mean, obviously that it needs uh attention, yeah.

But I I just feel that the house deserves to have those restored.

And if you guys have seen what we've done over on Pelham Street, you'd understand that like we're totally fine with that.

You know, we met with our custom wood worker that does all this crazy molding.

We're trying to match something right now on a uh early 1800s house, and he's gotta go make the custom blades for it, and we're good with that.

Uh and then we'll have it in the arsenal in case we want to do something that looks like 1800s later on.

Madam Chair.

Um, I just wanted to put this out there.

Um, we are approaching about 40 minutes spent on this application.

I'm not sure if we made uh have made significant progress.

Um that's up to to you, but we could also pull this into a design review committee meeting in which we are able to speak through the windows and all the challenges with the building official as well, um, just to kind of get it getting us moved along.

Um, but that's up to you if you guys think you are able to come to a decision tonight, then go for it.

But um just for time's sake.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Um I think that we can open that up.

I was just um again coming back to our window, um, obviously our standard our ordinance 1780 0608 repair before replacement.

The historic materials out of which contributing structure buildings are constructed are significant and once lost, they cannot be recovered.

Every every effort should be made to repair rather than replace deteriorated historic fabric and features when the severity of deterioration requires replacement of features or fabric, the replacement should match the old and materials dimensions, design, configuration, texture, and visual appearance.

It does seem from the applicant that you know, per the window evaluation, anything that can be restored will be restored.

Anything that is deemed not capable of that um extensive restoration would be replaced in kind um that would need to follow, and we have additional uh window guidance, um, which does speak to if for contributing buildings, if the wood windows to be replaced are original or considered to have historic value.

Anything that we're talking about this evening from 1850 or original, any new or replaced window should be authentic to the original window, including but not limited to size, materials, profile, mutton type and pattern, glazing operation, and finish.

New or added windows shall match existing and all details.

These complete details must be included in the window inventory for record keeping in comparison to new construction.

So it would be my recommendation.

Um, depending on how the rest of the commission feels, if there continues to be questions around that part of the restoration and/or what would be replaced, that perhaps a design review um where we have those additional details, perhaps um somebody, and I'm not sure if that would be Rob or somebody from Heritage could be in that meeting.

Um but it seems to be, I mean, windows is a very prevalent topic for this property and application.

So going by our standards and our and our ordinance, that would be my recommendation.

It might have to say, I mean, that is our plan.

Um, so I mean we could do that, but just say Rob will be the one rebuilding these and doing what he's gonna be doing to preserve the windows and everything you just said, that that's already like planned.

So I feel like uh we could have that meeting, but we're just gonna say, hey, Rob, you're gonna do it, right?

Yeah, he's gonna do all that.

So I think what remains open for the commission is the moving of windows, which um, and if we were all aligned in that it is gonna be repair before replace or replacement in kind, perhaps that's fine, but um there's several commissioners not in favor of moving windows, particularly those that are original.

Um so I would not be in favor of moving anything.

I could support as presented replacement um in kind, if not repair.

Um, but that leaves the conversation around the dormer as well.

So other commissioners' thoughts on windows as it relates to moving ahead this evening.

Again, I I still stay where I was that I don't feel and it's you know, housed in the 1700s and modified in the mid-1850s, should have the windows removed, modified, moved around.

I think they should stay where they are, as the roof should stay the way it is.

So at the end of the day, really the only window that's truly of importance is the egress on the first floor.

Um, so because the others, like I said, we can formulate a plan to leave them uh where they are.

Um so just narrowing that maybe a little bit for you.

Um so that's the one that small double-hung window that we're looking to the left of the hotel.

Yeah, that I think it was report in the report, it was replaced subtime like said in the seven 1850s.

So uh I'm looking at your floor plans, and I see that there's a kitchen and a bathroom.

Kitchen by the little uh double hung bathroom.

Kitchen is the front of the existing.

So why do you need an egress in the kitchen?

No, sorry, that's the original.

Um, this is the original floor plan.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Okay.

It's going to become a bedroom.

Right.

That's why we did the egress.

And that door is a common hallway.

Uh yes, that is a stairwell to uh the back door of the first floor unit on the uh east side and the uh stairwell up to the second floor and third floor, actually.

It's the second means of egress.

If I may I would be okay with the suggestion that you made to swap the windows.

So the the one on the second floor to the right, you would want it to remove.

Um why don't you move that down to the the smaller one and the smaller one up?

And I think it's just really darn close to we are totally meetable to you know, it's an eclectic window pattern on the side of the house.

And um, so while I you know really pay attention to our standards, I also recognize that um these old buildings must be presently lived in and enjoyed.

So I would I would support the swapping of those windows.

I think that gets really darn close.

Um meets your needs, and I I feel that it's close enough on our standards.

Okay, Mr.

Goddard.

Trying to get to a consensus here so we can move forward, just in terms of the windows.

So we can either agree that we need to continue this and talk about it separately or take this to a vote.

Yeah, I mean I'm I'm torn because I I just feel like you know changing the exterior of the building based on you know floor plan challenges is not something that's really something for us to consider at all, right?

And so based on that, I think we should have a design review.

And if they want to get deeper into you know the rest of it, then I'd be happy to join that.

Any other comments?

So we have consensus around the dormer.

Um you do not have a favorable panel of the commission as far as moving forward with the dormer as presented this evening.

I would say we probably trying to gauge on the windows.

I'm not sure that you're also going to get a favorable outcome as presented.

There's some different solutions, but generally I don't think you have favorable um consensus to get that to a positive outcome.

So the options before we can continue, we can schedule a design review.

I don't know how much of a difference um moving into a window conversation in a design review committee will change.

Um you may get some different outcomes on the dormer.

Yeah, so if we table the dormer, I mean the only thing that really is stopping us from the pain, the whole project is stalled, but if you walk by building is vacant, and we're we're not moving forward.

We can't move forward until we get uh figure out how to get the window, the one window.

So if we could vote on that one thing tonight, that would be huge for us if it's possible to just get that one thing dealt with.

So just to clarify, the one window we're discussing is the larger egress that could either be swapped uh uh as uh mentioned or uh placed an enlarged um, but I I would be totally open to swapping it just to preserve every ounce of the history.

It's still there, it's just been moved to I'm personally not in favor of swapping it.

I think that creates some awkwardness upstairs, then personally.

Yeah, I agree.

I think if anything, um keeping that second floor window as is, and then it would be subject to replacing the one downstairs with a new window um to meet your egress would be subject to review of the commission.

How about another idea?

I I think we're we're yeah, we're trying to move this forward.

So if you want to continue conversations around other ideas, we can move it to a design review committee, but for this evening, otherwise we have to resequence this to the end of the meeting and come back.

Sure, the idea the only simple thing was just swapping the little window with the window to the left and that achieves the same thing.

Um I'm not sure how that works if you need egress, how moving a hopper.

Because the window to the left is in uh the bathroom uh other unit.

So you don't need that egress for that bathroom.

Okay.

Commissioners can take that into consideration.

Otherwise, I suggest we if let's just clarify on the dormer.

Are you looking to remove the dormer as presented this evening from the application, or do you want to continue that?

We'll we'll continue the dormer.

So that's fine.

Um okay, so continuing the dormer to April, we do have um consensus on the the front door, and then as far as the windows, either taking that to a vote this evening or moving that forward.

I would advise for the windows, given what you've heard, given your uh this is your second time before us that you come back with an alternate plan taking in the comments tonight.

And I understand that you haven't heard a solution, but I think we're putting that back in very clear terms to you of what the parameters are that you need to work or try to work within.

And if you can't, I think your next appearance will be a discussion on the whys you can't.

Okay, um, uh, so we'll take the front door tonight, I guess.

Um we'll rework the plan and we're I think those two windows there.

I just thought I'm sorry I thought about that so late because it's like the first floor would have actually made more sense.

Um but uh we'll we'll come back in April to try again.

Um but this is critical for us on that project.

Okay, so with that, um, for the application of 27-31.5 Franklin Street, plat 27 lot 072 this evening, request a motion to approve the replacement of the front door as presented this evening, citing Newport Standards 17 Tag 80 Tag 060, a one four five and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

And then I will request a motion to continue the dormer and replacement of the windows to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026.

What's the for the committee?

Uh is Rob allowed to start repairing.

Sorry, let's just wrap up that motion.

Uh so moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Is Rob allowed to start repairing other windows that weren't in discussion tonight, or does he need to get a certificate of appropriateness to be the like touch them?

Yes, that includes we need a full certificate of appropriateness on the windows.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

Okay.

Right.

Thank you.

Does that include paint as well blazing?

They can't repair the windows in the meantime.

No, it depends what the consensus is.

Since the windows are still, you know, in HDC.

I don't think it's appropriate to move forward without the full window approval.

I I feel that if you are looking at repairing and replacing uh repairing a window and not moving it, keeping it in its place.

We have the adequate uh window report that says what it is, if it needs to be repaired, it's going to be repaired.

The only exception I would have tonight is that if you take a window and take it off the building and try to put something else anywhere else.

Anything that's there, I think we've all been have seen that you're going to do to our standards.

So is that something because I think we should detail out by the window inventory which ones are the replacements that staff can put together for the applicant and then which are subject to coming back before the commission.

Sure.

Yeah, we've held off just the re glazing paves that are falling out because we just wanted to wait.

But if we know it was appropriate, we'd have approvals.

Um if it's all right, we'd at least like to putty things up so they don't get worse.

Uh even if it's temporary.

Okay, so Jill, I should amend.

Okay, so I'm gonna amend the motion for 27 31.5 Franklin Street, plat 27 lot 072.

Um, continuing the dormers and any windows subject to relocation or completely new replacements um to the April 14th, 2026 HDC meeting.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

And I'll request a motion to approve um the restoration of any existing windows for 27-31.5 Franklin Street, plat 27 lot 072, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80060, a one, four, five, and seven, as to be detailed um by the preservation planner per the window inventory.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

And two.

And two.

Ready?

Yep.

This is the application for Ronald Polito of 364 Belly View Avenue, plat 34 lot 21, contributing for permission to replace 12 windows on the first floor and one round window on the second floor of the unit.

Okay, welcome this evening.

I'm gonna get you both sworn in.

Um raise your right hand, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

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

Uh Ronald Polito.

Okay.

Okay.

I think we could just spell that for secretary.

F-I-L-O-M-E-N-A.

Last name is M-E-N-E-Z-E-S.

Got it.

And if I could just ask quickly, you represent Pella?

Pella.

Yep.

So Peller as the window company and also the installer.

Okay.

So Ms.

Chin, um do we have approval for her to be representing the applicant this evening?

So she's not representing the applicant, she's just the product representative that can speak to the windows.

Okay.

All right.

Clarifying that we typically do not have product people representing applications.

So all right.

If you could give us a summary of the request um of those 12 windows and the one round window on the second floor.

Yep.

So we are looking well that they're older Pella windows, they're about 1990 vintage and they have wood wood existing with uh a gray cover jam line.

They've got a removable snapping grill.

We're proposing to replace them with replacement windows again back to wood wood.

Um the exterior would get painted, the iron ore, which is the color of the building.

Um, the interior would be stained.

Um, and they would go right back into the same openings.

So there's that wood covered jam liner.

Um these that we're putting in here now are wood wood windows as well.

Um, but they no longer have that plastic cover jam liner.

They're actually a wood covered jam liner, it's actually much nicer.

And the removable grills are not removable, they're actually permanently applied to the glass.

So they actually are much nicer, much more historic.

Um similar to the building or the unit right under, we did that a couple of years ago, and that's what we use that architectural series product with that true, you know, that bonded grill.

Um so that's what we're proposing to do right now.

These windows are um a lot of them don't open and close the balance systems are broken because they're old appellar windows, you can no longer get balance systems, so they're no longer able to operate.

Um some of the locks are broken.

Um that's an interior stop, that little rounded that would get removed that would get replaced with new.

That's to the interior.

And right now they have those aluminum storm windows on the inside, uh, not very attractive.

That would actually be coming out, and that would actually be insulated glass, and it would be all wood, so much nicer, more historic looking anyway, than these older um Pella windows.

And there's actually two circle windows that are in need.

Um the the white one there, that one isn't really rubber sheet.

Um, there's you can see that it's taking in water and it's bubbling the inside of the um the the wall, and then if you like scroll down on the bottom of the window, you'll see that the wood is deteriorating, it's soft.

It's soft.

I mean, that is actually, you know, a single pane glass.

So they're not very energy efficient.

But besides that, it's the it's the deterioration of the wood itself.

That I mean, it's just completely no good.

The other one is this in the same condition, but they're up higher if you couldn't get to it.

But it's there's actually two of them.

Okay.

And the um before we get to the round windows to confirm.

So it looks like the existing windows are true divided light.

The others are a um removable.

Oh, okay.

It's a removable, like a wood three-quarter removable grill that's inside that storm window that you can remove.

Um, so not very attractive.

But what I'm we're proposing now is actually a true divided light.

It would be true divided.

Okay.

Much more authentic and simulated.

Simulated device.

Simulated with a foam, yeah, got a foam spacer, Bob, but it's a it's two, you know, wood grills stuck to the glass.

They're they're insert, they're not wood, they're metal.

Uh they're metal frame.

Now now they're yes, yes.

Okay.

But there are current ones are Pellow brand as well from the 90s, you mentioned.

Exactly.

That's current.

That's what's in the house now.

Yep.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Okay.

So they're they're older replacement windows.

May I ask a quick question before we proceed?

Sure.

So it's a condominium.

Does the condominium have any requirements throughout the the property on what windows are supposed to be used for this building for the cohesion?

They have approved column of the past, like I said, the unit right underneath has the same window we're proposing to use, and they've approved them as long as they're installed and warrantied, and we are all you know, license insured and all that.

So the homeowners association will basically allow a condo owner to use whatever window they or within a couple of different choices as long as it matches a grill.

I mean, is there a certain pattern?

Because looking at the building, they seem some look like one over ones, some look like two over twos.

We've got to follow the same the same um pattern that's there now.

See how the top it just has like a basically a one over one.

Yeah, the seat at the bottom.

Right.

So we've got one over.

I can see that.

We can we have one over ones, two over twos.

So what is actually the goal with this building?

Is it two over two moving forward?

They never uh specified that, but their their concerns were color and wood.

And that was their primary concern expressed by the board.

Hmm.

We typically also require a letter from the board, the condominium board is submitted that.

Did you have that?

Okay.

Yeah, they have that.

I think that's fine.

Okay.

So you're duplicating what's on the floor below it.

Correct.

Okay.

Yep.

It maybe this is a question for the preservation planner.

Well, how do we approach things like that?

Just because um, I mean, maybe I'm thinking way too far into the future here, but this building clearly has a mixture of windows.

We don't know what's original and what isn't, right?

So these one over ones, I kind of doubt our original windows, but if those are the most historically appropriate, and now we're putting two over twos upstairs, and someday we may hear these lower level window applications, and they may want to keep the.

I mean, I'm just trying to figure out what the correct path forward here is for the building.

So obviously we take a look at things on a case-by-case basis.

So all of these and we you know, we can't control whether a property is conduized or not.

And so um, unfortunately, with a lot of these condos, this type of kind of degradation tends to happen.

Um a surefire way that we could improve in the future is to do research to see if there are any historic photos of the building that show um a period of significance and a window style that aligns with that.

Um but in terms of our role at HGC, we have to just review as as they come.

But that's certainly something that we could look towards in the future.

Um, so Mr.

Palito, I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the staff recommendations um from our preservation planner.

She um had advised, and according to our window guidance, we do request um a window inventory that more specifically calls out some of the details.

I do think to the point about some sort of historic photo to give us is always an opportunity to bring something back as close as possible in a building like this to what the original was.

And I think the speculation around a one over one or a two over two that may help.

Um it's hard based on the information that we have before us this evening.

I think you know you're proposing a high quality window that we would typically approve.

Um, but making sure that and again, other commissioners to jump in, just making sure that we're making an informed decision based on the information before us this evening.

Um, and then I would also open up for questions and comments relative to the round windows.

Um, making sure that the commission has enough information um for those to be proposed with the Pellor replacement versus a custom um all wood window.

So it looks like our preservation planners trying to find maybe a historic photo on the fly.

Yeah, I okay have one.

I'm just gonna find it while you look for that.

So let me sure on the circle windows.

We can't put a wood wood circle window in there.

Okay.

So it would be a new window, you know, frame, and um it would be painted on the outside the same color, but it would have insulated glass.

What's there now?

It's like an old built frame with like a piece of plexi glass kind of glass.

Okay.

Are they meant to open and close?

No, none of them.

Sometimes they're cases.

Not the round ones for sure.

Yeah, the rounds, okay.

It looks like they could possibly pivot open or something.

So they're all wanted anyway, so maybe once upon a time, but they do have some like fasteners on one of them.

So maybe one, not sure, but they're definitely fixed.

So there does look like we have a mix of two over two and one over one.

This photos from 1903.

Oh wow, interesting.

That's 1903.

Yeah.

Wow.

So it looks like the third floor.

So you're gonna go two over two on the you're on the top floor, right?

Yes.

Two over, yeah.

Yeah, that's not uh my side of the building.

Yeah, but it's top floor.

That's fair enough.

Yeah, got it.

Cool house.

Um I guess you should move it along.

I I guess I would be in favor of a all of the uh since they're all 1990 pillow windows.

These are a better window.

I'm familiar with that window, it's it's not a good window, not cheap.

And uh, you know, I would be fine with the change out of those, and as long as you get the two over two one oh one squared away with the preservation planner.

I'm good.

Okay, yeah, we'll see.

I mean, we're open to changing.

Okay.

I concur with Mr.

Madsen.

I support the application.

Has the HDC ever approved any other um windows in this building?

Do we know?

I don't know.

Since 1903.

I mean, those are new those are windows.

Yeah, so the they said that the lower units have had these same windows.

Yeah, they're pillows.

The same windows put in.

So yeah.

Okay, so those must have come through the HDC.

You've pulled at some point.

Yeah.

I'm fine with it.

Okay.

Mr.

Bell.

Uh I'm struggling with this.

I mean, uh you're nothing against your window.

However, this is a contributing building, and our guidelines are for you to replace it with a wood window.

Historic window.

Uh insulating glass is not historic.

Applied grills with a space bar is not historic.

Those windows there are not insulated glass, they're single pane glass with a true uh frame to them.

Um I would not based on that, I would not be supporting the replacement of these windows with the proposed pillow window.

They're not inserts in the device.

Right, but existing placement would windows.

Yeah, but um what I'm saying is you have a contributing building.

I understand you have no authentic window material.

Right.

But you're putting new windows in.

This is an opportunity for you to put in windows that are in kind to the house, not to continue the process of putting in non-applicable windows per our standards.

I mean, this is what we measure other applications on.

Okay, noted.

I I think I agree with Mr.

Ball on the technical point that he brought up, but I think in this particular case, uh I can support the application as with uh the condition that the circular window um is somehow detailed and um dimensioned properly in put in front of the the historic planner for her to approve of it.

Um so that would be my point.

Okay.

I definitely think that the the circular windows should be rebuilt probably by hand to duplicate exactly what you have if they are in that poor condition, otherwise to be repaired before replaced, which is one of our standards.

Um I'm really having a little bit of a hard time with the other windows.

I just struggle with this property becoming a mixture of different windows and and not following some kind of cohesive um layout.

I don't know what the answer is to that.

Um I do think that these 1990s windows are a great representation of why we try to preserve the old ones because they're already failing, and like you said, there are no the parts for it aren't even available.

So with that even said, it probably would be my suggestion to rebuild a window that is appropriate for the house that can be maintained throughout the future rather than having to continuously replace them.

I'm not sure if we can require that since they are already replacements, but um, as far as the circular windows go, I think they would need to be repaired if not rebuilt exactly in kind.

Um, but I don't know if I really have an answer on the windows because I would like to better understand what the future of the building is going to look like, or if you're going to be putting in two over twos that the HOA kind of makes some decision that that is going to be the plan for the rest of the building, so we don't continue to see this mixture of windows.

One right underneath us are newer and they don't have grills.

So that's most windows will be in there 40, 50, 60 years now.

So that's not gonna change.

And they are the same as what we are wanting to put in.

Yeah, it's the same window that's right underneath us.

Right.

They are wood wood with the bonded grills.

Right.

So that would mean that the whole side of the building that I'm on back and side is all compatible with the unit below.

Right.

And then what happens when the first floor unit decides to change theirs, are they going to you know use the pattern or not?

And now we're talking about having an you know, continuing the the mess, I guess if you want to call it that of different windows in the building.

So for me, it's really hard to make a decision when I don't really know what we're looking at here as far as what was and what will be in the future.

I don't know if that's very helpful, but I'm you know, I'm I'm challenged with this one personally.

Okay.

Well, if there is a difference between my unit and the uh downstairs unit now, then that difference is gonna stay there.

Whereas if I move make mine the same as the ones below and update it so that it doesn't have metal lined inserts.

It's gonna it's not gonna have inserts.

Uh all the other things will be exactly the same.

Okay.

Um, Ms.

Richter, did we hear from you?

Yeah, I support the application on um as all aspects of it.

Okay.

Um so just gauging um our commission, it does look like we have um consensus for a majority to pass.

Um I would echo Mr.

Goddard's um comments about a potential condition that the wood windows need to be restored rather than replaced.

Um I think that those are very character defining and even moving to a different window.

Um we don't have enough information to understand the current status of them.

Um so I would be in favor of approving with that condition, but otherwise in pan, you know, panning the commission, it looks like we have a majority if we were to take this forward.

Um just in Mr.

Finley in support of Mr.

Bala, not in support of Mr.

Madsen in support, myself in support, Kelly in support, um, Ms.

Richter, excuse me, Ms.

Moran not in support, Ms.

Richter in support, and Mr.

Goddard not in support or in support, I'm sorry, with the condition.

So commissioners um confident to move that forward.

Have I misrepresented anyone's position?

Okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application for 364 Bellevue Avenue, W 301S, plat 34, lot 21 as presented, citing Newport Standards.

17 TACT 80060, A145, and 7 with the condition that the round original windows be restored.

Just we need a motion.

Some move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

I would cite standards.

Uh A one.

Um A five.

Okay.

And moment for four.

I want this open.

I apologize.

I'm just trying to pull my standards up and I'm getting an error.

Yes, please.

Um, I'm done.

Thank you, Mike.

Appreciate it.

Um I am opposed because of standards.

A one retaining historic character.

And a four preserved character.

Okay.

Thank you.

So you have a passing motion this evening.

Um, with that condition that the two original um round windows need to be restored.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No, that's okay.

Thank you.

Does anyone need a break?

How many more do we have to go?

Um cottage and six sunshine.

Okay.

Everybody's good.

Okay.

All right.

So next is four.

Okay.

This is the application of Trisha Light of Six Sunshine Court, plat 12, lot 20-4, contributing for permission to replace the front front entry stairs in kind.

Replace the vinyl windows with Pella SDL wood windows.

Okay, welcome.

We'll get you sworn in again.

I could just stay in stage.

Okay, I can just have you state your name for the record, please.

Brian Shoel, Shaw Architecture.

Okay, thank you.

I have the homeowners here if you have questions, but okay, we'll see.

I'll just explain.

Um we're trying to get approval to replace the fronts.

Do you want to read it?

I just did, didn't I?

Oh, you did?

I thought you did.

Oh, sorry.

Screw one maybe.

Um change in time.

So replacing the front stair with like materials.

Um we're trying to replace some windows and some skylights, and we're trying to add a couple windows.

Basically it.

Okay, so we did um discuss the application in our pre-meeting.

We had um four commissioners that actually had proposed this for a summary.

There was a few questions from the others.

Um there were some staff comments.

I'll just call attention to those in particular.

Um I know around the front, um, the entry porch.

Um potentially changing the design of the new caps to match um the historic photo that had been provided.

Um maybe we could if we have a detail of that, are you able to zoom in on that at all?

Kimberly, are you able to zoom in on that at all?

Yeah, I was looking at that too.

It's a little rambler.

Yeah, Juice Notch.

Yeah.

So from our preservation planner, I believe um the recommendation to update those new posts based on um that they've taken on some um historical characteristics over time, even from the nineteen seventies.

Um we can talk to the other commissioners if that's something of importance for them.

That was one thing that had come up in our pre-meeting.

Um anyone have an opinion on that for the recommendation.

Yeah, I would agree.

I think Jill brought up a point.

I think it's more considering.

Yeah, I think it's a good point.

Yeah.

Is that something that your client would be in favor of?

Okay, we got a thumbs up from the the peanut gallery.

Yep, okay.

Yeah.

Um and then I else any other questions on those nool caps.

Um my other question was the windows on the south elevation, the two little um casement windows.

Um on the other elevation, the two small little double hungs that are being put in.

Um the small little casement windows, not necessarily um compatible with a structure of this age.

I was curious if there's an opportunity here um in favor of moving that to a double hong instead of those little casements or awnings, hoppers, whatever.

Yeah, there's a neighbor that's really close to this.

Um I think we were just trying to get light in without really having to look at the back of that house.

Okay.

Um I don't think the yeah, we don't have any good photos of that, but it's like maybe six feet away.

Okay.

It's just a blank wall.

Okay.

Any other concerns on that from the commission?

No, I've completed it.

It's not yeah.

Okay.

Other questions, comments, Mr.

Goddard.

You're good?

Okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of six Sunshine Court, Plot 12, lot zero two zero dash four, citing Newport standard seventeen tact eight oh tack oh six oh a one, two, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thanks for watching.

Thank you guys.

Um just one.

Um I'm sorry, I should amend running into and I do just I apologize.

I need to amend that.

Um, with the condition that those new um post caps be updated to s a spherical design to align with the historic photos.

Um so I'll amend that citing Newport standard 17 tack eight oh tech 060 a one, two, four, five, and seven.

So move.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Um the application said that we're gonna replace skylights.

Is there a problem if we decide to get rid of some of them?

No.

Perfect.

No.

And says it all.

Yeah.

Second question is um these windows are not original that are in there now.

Do we have to use wood buttons for the new ones?

Or can they be um aluminum clad?

Is it is aluminum cloud ever allowed or we have.

Um so just to clarify, so you in your application you had specified the Pella, I'm not sure which series of Pella simulated divided light wood windows.

Are you changing that specific?

I'm just curious if if if aluminum clouds, I'm just from my general knowledge, if aluminum clouds ever allowed.

It depends on uh the property and what windows are there.

I mean, we have specific guidance.

If you look at our um updated window guidance that complements there's a very rigorous detail by property contributing, non-contributing, what's there, what's being replaced when that would be a circumstance.

But we're approving this based on the pillow that was provided with the application.

We have approved fiberglass cloud as well in the past in some instances.

Right.

Would it matter here for this particular one?

Yeah, yeah, I think what what was the answer?

I mean I think the way that the guide is written at this point from moving forward that we would be expecting wood.

Okay.

Uh we have in situations approved uh fiberglass.

Um if you wanted to consider that, I think we'd have to look at it and hear it.

Okay.

Very good.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Great.

Thank you.

Thanks for your patience.

Um six and six and six.

This is the application of Wesley Properties and Holdings LLC of 38 Pelham Street contributing for permission to reconstruct the rear addition.

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

I have um Chris Fagan with me here tonight.

He's uh the architectural designer on the project.

If you remember, we were here for a few meetings, I think last year for various components of the restoration of this building.

Um we're here before you this evening because as the project has progressed, it's been determined that the additions, the existing additions on the rear of this building, uh are structurally unsound, have have insufficient foundations, and uh despite you know, I think the original intent, it's been discovered that it's just not possible to restore what's there and have it uh structurally sound and safe to the point where it's gonna satisfy the Newport building official.

So the proposal is to um take these down and rebuild them in kind.

And um we did provide a uh structural engineer's letter, uh, some photographs to document the condition that was discovered.

And um, I think it's best probably if Chris wants to come up and sort of walk you through some of the more uh some of the details uh about the project.

Mr.

Fagan, we'll get you sworn in.

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

So help you got I do, yes.

And state your name for the record, please.

Chris Fagan.

All right, thank you.

Got it.

Great.

Well, we are working our way through trying to preserve this building.

Uh, when we started out, it was in extremely extremely poor condition.

I can't reiterate how bad it was to the point where we were nervous about people going inside.

Uh, we basically started from the Palm Street and have been working backwards.

So to date, the floor systems have been completely reinforced on the front three floors.

Footing's been put in, it's now structurally sound.

The building is safe, people can go inside it.

Um that part has been done, it's been successful.

Uh, we are moving our way towards the back of the property, and there were existing floors, existing sheathing, or sheetrock.

When that piece was uncovered, it was determined that the structural members that are there are dramatically unsound.

Um the most it's you know, not uncommon to kind of deal with things that are structurally unsound from a framing standpoint, but these pieces lack foundations, so they're like sitting in a lot of cases on dirt, or the foundations they are sitting on were extremely poorly done when they were put in.

Um the foundation on the back is sitting below grade and above the frost line.

So it's not doing anything it's remotely supposed to do.

So we worked in tandem with our engineering team, Principally Engineering.

They've been on site throughout this entire project.

They've come to the determination that they are not comfortable with this going forward as it is today.

Um, and they have requested that we take down these additions, put in proper code compliant foundations and build them back.

Um, I put together the set of plans, which shows you that we are proposing to put it back exactly the way it was.

Um, you know, there are plans in there that show the original condition, the condition that was approved by HDC, and the condition which we were ultimately going to put this back.

Um the thing that you'll see is that nothing is changing from what was previously approved.

It's just the construction is going to be a replacement in kind as opposed to what's there today.

So, you know, I don't come to this commission, you know, looking for structural demolitions, but we're in a position where I don't really know how to move this forward without it.

Um I certainly welcome any questions from the from the commission.

I just had one question.

Um, I think I'll just summarize our preservation planner is in favor to preserve the overall historic structure, that it is a recommendation.

Obviously, we don't take removing and demolishing lightly.

Um, but she is in favor of this to save the integrity of the overall building.

Um, one thing, and it may just be a um minor oversight on the plans.

The chimney that's being proposed on that section um that will be rebuilt.

I noticed that the profile on the existing is a little bit smaller than on the new one.

The chimney would be exactly as it was.

Okay, so that might just be a graphical error, but it'll it'll be to the specification of the previous chimney.

Okay.

All right.

So that was my one question.

Any other feedback from the commission?

Um Chris.

Uh so far I would say what you've done is certainly on the front of the building and what the your uh construction team and they've done a fantastic job.

I think it does look great on the front.

Uh and it was about to go down.

So uh this section on the back.

Do we what what's the history there?

How old is that section?

Any idea?

I mean, there's there's sort of two sections that we're dealing with.

There's a section on the left, which is sort of the longer elevation shape, right?

That you know, looking at the sandboard maps that appears to be the older section, right?

But when we get into it, the framing is clear that it was like very substantially rebuilt, and that's the portion that does have a modern in quote foundations, albeit a non-functioning foundation.

Right.

So in one of the photos that's in there, there's some like LVLs that are showing up in the rafters.

You know, I I there was definitely a building that was there.

I'm not super convinced that what is there today has a tremendous amount of that fabric that's left.

And the contractor's not able to reinforce the foundation.

I mean, multiple foundation contractors out there, and they said they were to date, they've all been uncomfortable working in the conditions um you know of supporting the building and trying to replace the foundation and sections.

We'd probably have to take the building down first and then build it.

Yeah.

But you I mean, it's not uncommon for us to do these type of renovations sort of basically build a building inside of a building.

Right.

So this is just not kind of well suited for that.

Do it what's below the ground or what's not below the ground.

Right.

And of those um walls, like looking at the um north elevation to that point, there's some windows that are there, and it says that those walls are to be rebuilt.

Are those windows being saved?

Are they not any all the the previous historic windows would be saved and put back in?

So there's a section of like two to three windows there that we previously approved for restoration.

They would still be restored to go back in.

Okay.

Yeah, I was looking on that upper right, those windows in that red section.

Okay.

Mr.

Ballon.

Chris, is are is there any existing like roof trim that's worth saving, or are you planning on just duplicating it in kind and it would be replaced in kind.

Okay.

Thanks.

It's just this property suffered for decades of deferred maintenance, and the framing that was done was not done well.

Okay, somebody had a bar back there or something.

Someone did have a bar back there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Speaking.

Okay.

Mr.

Goddard, did you have a no?

I'm just curious.

Um, the foundation that you're saying is not functional.

Is it stone or is it concrete?

Or concrete.

Yeah, it's concrete.

Yeah, it's it's a concrete foundation that is it doesn't basically the um exterior siding goes below grade on the outside, but in the and the foundation doesn't go below the frost line inside.

So I don't know if they just dug a hole and poured some cement into it at some point, but the engineers not willing to stand by it.

So there's no way of of you know supporting the building, uh, pulling that out and and putting something in that would be uh approvable by the engineer without taking it.

I mean to date, I know that the contractors had multiple companies come through to look at the foundation and they're well, I think the foundation is shot, right?

Yeah, the foundation's shot.

But is there any way of just supporting what's there taking that foundation out and then putting another foundation in its place?

The engineer's opinion was no.

I'm sorry, the engineer's opinion was no.

Isn't that a more of a means and methods thing though, as opposed to the engineers decision?

So it could be done, but you it's not a cost effective thing.

In my mind, it might be cheaper to do that than take this thing down and reframe it all.

Well, I'm just curious because I'm like if the if the foundation is uh deteriorating to the point where it no longer works, which clearly it is.

Then what is it above the foundation that's no longer viable?

It would just be the first two feet of the the wall studs of the sill.

Yeah, I mean that that entire cell section is gone.

I mean, I think that picture sort of illustrates it.

Kimberly, did the map show uh the structure on any of the dates.

It didn't, and Jill had a comment in here that going back to at least the 19th century, those rear editions were there per the maps.

Switch, yeah.

Yeah, so they're definitely there they've been there a long time.

I I I would be if you as you say it would be easier to do that to sort of support the existing structure, take out the foundation that's there, and then maintain what you can of the uh those walls, and then replace those parts of the walls that are deteriorated beyond repair.

That would be something I would look at.

But I mean, I don't I mean to the date they've had multiple crews come through and they've been unwilling to do that approach.

So they haven't got anyone to take on that project.

Well, I mean, it's these are one-story walls, yeah.

What's so difficult about just supporting it?

That's what I want to hard to do.

I don't I don't I can't speak to that.

Okay.

So I'll just add a little additional color from our um staff comments.

Um as far as standard A4 preserve character defining features and workmanship.

Um staff commons, this proposal does not preserve construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship, but judging by the photos, provided the rear editions do not possess architectural integrity and needs repair in order to ensure the preservation of the existing layout.

Um A5 repair before replacement, the rear edition should be preserved, and every effort to retain historic miracle, excuse me, historic miracles.

This might need a miracle, historic materials should be undertaken.

From the photos provided in the engineering report, it does appear that the building has suffered years of deferred maintenance and very little of the structures contain historic materials that can be repaired.

The replacement matches the old and materials dimensions, design configuration, texture, and visual appearance.

Apologies, I'm in support of this application.

Okay, thank you.

Initially I was too.

Now I'm kind of thinking just looking at these photos.

I it it's clearly in pretty rough shape, but we've we've required property owners to figure it out when it's been worse, even.

So my question is I haven't heard you say that the framing is in such poor shape that it's not salvageable.

Um, but I also think about what we're going to lose all on the outside, which is a lot of the original clapboards or old clapboards and other exterior wood.

Um, which maybe you can speak to it, but looks like it's fairly intact.

I think we were previously approved for residing this building anyway.

So I don't I don't think that there was any intention to salvage those sections of clapboard.

Um, you know, I think if if we look at it in sort of two pieces, you know, the section on the right, which is the smaller bumper.

I but in my mind, that has to there's no path forward that that can salvage that.

I mean, the framing is like that is there is two by four.

So I mean it's in it's in terrible shape.

There's literally no foundation under that section.

You know, that's a series of like very poorly done bump outs.

I I can't see any way to salvage that.

Um somebody could make an argument to me that the other bump out on the left, there's maybe some path to shorten, but it this section here is beyond repair, it's dangerous.

And we're talking walls only, not not the roof.

The roof as well.

I mean, that the that's the so which section is this, Chris, is that's the one that's on the driveway side.

Or the L shape on the driveway.

Yeah, okay.

Not at L.

Okay.

Well, I mean, I I struggle with it because as Commissioner Moran just spoke about, we've asked other applicants to go the extra mile on cases that are as bad as this, if not worse.

And so, you know, I would be in support of replacing what absolutely has to be replaced, um, and then saving as much as we can possibly save on the existing structure.

Uh, which would include the roof, I think.

I mean, so we had um previously approved, um, I'm just looking at the west elevation, um, which is that extension coming off the rear, um, a new sear roof with copper downspouts.

So I'm not sure if those are the photos that we're seeing where that roof is being replaced.

Well, it's the roofing as opposed to the roof, right?

I mean, true.

Yeah, two different things.

Um, but I was gonna ask the question of the photo that has it looks this photo.

Is this work already done?

And now we're talking about taking this building, like that part of the building down.

Uh there were a few courses of shingles that went up that were stopped.

What a roofer jumped the gun a little bit on us, and so that that work is stopped.

Typical of that contract.

Jump the gun, not jump the gun and turn.

Yeah, it was it was permitted, but yeah, yeah, they started roofing and then they got into the floor system against being a made the judgment call stuff.

So the only part you're saving are the windows.

You're gonna restore the windows and put them back, correct.

I mean, respectfully, when we've already been this has already been approved, resiting, new roof.

Um I'm just not clear what the objective is when you're asking us to go the extra mile to try to preserve structurally what's there when it's gonna have to be rebuilt in some form or fashion, and what's on the exterior and visually, the only thing that that wouldn't be new would be the restoration of the windows, and that's gonna that's gonna continue.

Um, I the only question I have for our council here is given that the application that we had reviewed previously when we had approved replacement and kind of siding and other, you know, obviously the roofing material at that point in time.

If we had thought that there was demolition and rebuilding, we potentially would have like it's a little bit more challenging now because we're going backwards to something that we had previously approved, but the conditions of the sighting have changed.

So what is the the standard here as far, you know, to Mr.

Jackson's point, we did previously approve that, however, now the circumstances are different.

We're being it's being requested to essentially take that part of the building down.

Okay.

Now you are talking about demolition.

I think that's the key.

Yeah.

Uh you're talking about taking it away and putting something new up, keeping windows, and then adding roofing and siding.

That's a completely different scenario than I want to keep what's there, and I want to sub, I may need to change some cloudboards here.

I may need to do some roofing here.

That's a very different scenario.

We're now talking demolition.

Yeah.

And I think that's the key that most of the commissioners have reacted to, as well as have been on record to other applications that have come before us about demolition.

Yeah.

And I also I to that point, and I want to clarify because our staff recommendation, we're citing standards for contributing buildings, not demolition.

Um to clarify for the commission, I mean, technically we are demolishing and rebuilding something.

So I think it's we need to be very clear on are we approving a demolition and then a reconstruction?

Seems that way.

What it looks like.

I I think was in similar projects that we had this scenario happen where you've gotten into construction and hey, this is really bad.

We'd like to take it down.

We've had site visits on other projects that we've gone in and with a team and said, okay, we can see that this portion here, but this portion here looks like you could salvage it.

And so I think that's where we're at on this project, is that we have to look at the whole opposed to just saying we need to take it all down now.

Um again, I am reacting to this based on uh another application in the past year of another building, historic building that had very similar uh context to yours.

Um we have kind of made our way through it in multiple scenarios, uh, but I think that's what we owe to this building is to be careful, and we can't just knock it down.

No, evidently the roofing company thought it was stable enough to put a roof on, right?

I don't know.

I don't know what the roofing company thought when they were starting this, and in terms of I don't know if they had any inkling of whether or not there was structural integrity, you know.

They had a job to do and they showed up to start the job, and then Chris put the brakes on.

So uh is the commission suggesting that that you'd prefer to defer any type of decision on this until there's a site visit.

I do think so, especially if we're gonna adjust here and be looking at demolition standards.

You know, I think that that's again just wanting to make sure that we're making the right decisions.

I'm not, I think what has been presented from the engineer, um, you know, I'm just looking at our demolition standards.

Um, you know, we do have evidence before us this evening that would support you know the demolition, but I think a a site visit would be beneficial because if there is an opportunity, otherwise, um I mean there's this is a lot of building in the back, even though it's in the rear, there's we're talking about three structures, yeah.

I mean, I I think we could we could have a couple of scenarios.

We could add that scenario, or we could say you could proceed as the original application.

I think we could determine tonight successfully about replacing a foundation and keeping the building, raising it, putting it back on a foundation, and that would allow you to move forward and keep going.

And if you found that you really can't deal with the structure, then there's a site visit and and reapplication for demolition.

If I may add to um since it's not it wouldn't it wouldn't be heard as a demolition because it's not the full structure, it's only part of the structure.

So just to keep that in mind, it's just a portion.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Well, you were chatting.

I was chatting with Chris.

I'm trying to pull, I was gonna pull up the ordinance on my phone.

I don't know what I think the definition in terms of what constitutes a demolition may not apply to this.

Um it sounds like maybe she's saying that.

I mean, I support the the idea that we're approving a replacement of a foundation.

Um, and through that, if there is means that the foundation can be if the structure can be shored up, lifted and foundation poured, fabric, you know, protected, we can still be replacing materials that we had proved previously.

I would be comfortable with that condition.

Is there a is there a path forward we could get the driveway section approved so we can shore up that part of the building and we could revisit the conversation on the the other single story piece?

The driveway one is you know, I that's the the the two-story of addition on the east side, yeah.

That has you know, no foundation and the framing's dramatically undersized.

You know, there's there's really I don't see any way to save what's there.

We need to take it down and build it back.

Yeah, the other section, I'd be happy to, you know, work with the commission, bring them out, see it.

Um, you know, try to maybe find some other alternatives, but that one on the driveway, I think really in order to I don't know.

I I don't know how to save what's there.

There's just it it's basically floating at this point is that I was just gonna say that's the one that's on the the posts.

Yeah.

That that section there.

Okay.

What which section are we talking about?

Yeah.

That's uh two-story.

I would be in favor of that.

Where is it in plan?

That big box it's on the corner.

Yeah, it's gonna lean to where there's a makeshift bar built into it.

Yeah, it's not was ever probably tied back into the house.

It's like a series of little bump out additions that were all very poorly done.

So can we can we just identify it in plan?

Yeah, that looked pretty makeshift back there.

Yeah, it's very ramshackle.

Yeah, yeah.

It's that section to the lower, it's the upper left drawing with the three windows.

That's kind of looks like it's floating there.

It is literally floating.

I recall seeing a demo plan.

And what would you do with that, Chris?

Rebuild it at once you put short up.

Yeah, we we'd rebuild it and place it in kind, and then we would get the restored windows would go back into that piece.

But because that section is tied into the floor sections of the rest of the house, it's like we project really can't continue until that gets rebuilt.

And so on that plan where you so the current, you have the posts to the left, and then on the right wall to be rebuilt so it won't be a suspended structure that overhang that was the makeshift bar in our previous approval.

We got approved to enclose that.

Okay.

So that that section is getting a new foundation anyway because there's no foundation under it at all.

But we'd like to do in order to kind of do all this work, we need to get a foundation under the back section when it steps back, and that framing all needs to get tied together, but there's no framing there now to attach any of this stuff to.

What what page is the plan on, Chris?

You remember?

If you went to two thirteen, A111.

Just I think just scroll up.

Let's keep going up.

One more.

There we go.

So the drawing on the left, it's that section there on the right side with those trying with the angular bump out is that's the section that needs to get rebuilt.

So this this piece right here?

Yeah, that section right there.

But not this.

I mean, what would it what's the extent of it?

No, not it's it's where that jog occurs, Ray, right below your your cursor, keep coming down right there.

It's from that jog back.

Yeah, that's on the first floor.

So we were gonna replace that back section anyway, because that was the lean to.

Um, but when we jump inside the house, if you go to the floor, the second floor plan to your right, it's that section right there.

So it might only be about a three or four foot section that we're talking about on the second floor.

And the whole stairwell in the back needs you're basically pouring the foundation for that now as well.

In order to do any of this, it needs to happen simultaneously.

So and would it be an issue for you to continue with that portion if you don't have approval for the the long extent edition there, since it basically puts up we have to get this sorted out anyway, and the timelines are gonna work out that you know we wouldn't be in a position to pour this and do this before this was resolved.

But at the very least, like the structural the int in framing could continue.

So in your set, I remember seeing there was a plan with red indicating areas when new walls are gonna go.

Oh, I see this was an updated set for for this here today, right?

Kind of mostly focused on the elevations.

I mean, if you go to A212, an elevation page, it's gonna show the elevation from the driveway right there.

That drawing on the upper right hand corner.

Gotcha, yeah.

That is really the section that we're talking about.

So that's coming down.

That is what we're looking to come down and put back.

So come down new foundation and goes back.

And that the one story piece is getting a new foundation anyway, because that is literally a lean to.

There's no there's nothing to that now.

So it's the two story T s that's inbound of it that we most need approval on in order to move this forward.

Thank you.

I know it's confusing.

It's a very complicated building.

I need a clarification, I think, from the um, you know, from uh the preservation the preservation planning office of we talked a little bit about this.

What is a demolition?

Because if this is not a demolition, it's a restoration, which is totally different, correct?

Correct.

So then we would be applying our standards for contributing structures.

Right.

So I can't make a I can't make a decision unless I know this is a demolition or not.

So it sounds like from our preservation team that this would not be viewed as a demolition.

So it's a restoration.

Yes.

Okay.

And that's what you believe, Chris.

I believe that this is the only path forward here for this this section of this building.

Go ahead, Kimberly.

And just to clarify, even if yes, technically the it would be demoed, but it just we're not hearing it as a demolition application.

So the standards for demolition would not apply.

So they are proposing within the confines of restoring the property, there is a section that needs to be demolished, but it goes under the standards of a contributing structure.

So it's not about the the two demolition standards.

Demolition has to be followed by just to clarify then, we're potentially proposing to split the application into the east part of the building and um then the longer L on the north.

Is that I just want to make sure.

And so with the idea that we would be continuing that L section or approving that with a replacement for a foundation.

Well, based on the conversation, uh I I don't know what anybody else feels, but based on the evolution of the conversation, I'm like, you know, it doesn't seem like this single story L has much merit.

Uh and rebuilding it like the other piece of the building is something that would be okay to do.

It it just seems you know, it's going to go away in some shape and form.

Um so to not hold them up, I think I would now, based on this conversation, say, you know, take it down and build it in kind and put it on a foundation and reuse the windows.

So essentially the recommendation of the preservation planner.

Okay.

Um, which I think we had talked about originally.

Um, Mr.

Goddard, you were the one that was talking about elevating.

Yeah, I mean I'm I'm just I I can't support the removal of the L without exploring the possibility of save and isn't really based on you know, um other cases that we've seen before us both recently where we've made people go through what I think is extraordinary effort to preserve what we could.

Um, and so in keeping that, I would say the driveway side I could support the L.

I would want to see what we are a site visit, see what I could actually with my own eyes determine you know what maybe be savable, uh, if there are possible ways of you know supporting what's existing and shoring it up temporarily and putting a new foundation in that way.

So to my recollection, I don't remember if Kimberly was here when we had heard that.

Um what we had done in the in the past is essentially approving the application as presented, but we had checkpoints throughout the process with the preservation planner.

So as you're assessing, you know, we would say yes, potentially on this part of the building, go through this process on that L section as you go to relook at pouring the foundation, if that can be a check-in point with the preservation planner, if there's an opportunity to save historic structure, just so that we're not all of a sudden ripping down something that potentially we had the opportunity to preserve.

If the commission would be open to that, we could make that as a condition.

Um approving it with the the permission to reconstruct, but as outlined by the preservation planner, what those intermediate stages would be to check in with the applicant to make sure that and if there was any sense, she always brought that back to the commission if we needed to have another check and we would do that, but it gives you the grounds to continue moving until you get to a point where okay, maybe there is an opportunity to do, you know, we're trying to do the right thing, obviously, for the building.

I know that you both respect that.

Um, is that something that you would be open to?

Yes, we'd be open to that.

Okay.

Just to clarify, madam chair, are you suggesting that process applied to the L or to both sections?

I would say to both.

Okay.

Would be my proposal.

I would agree.

I support that.

Mr.

Goddard.

Uh could you clarify?

Yeah, clarify that process a little for me because it I'm a little bit confused how that would take place.

Because I know the last time we did it was it was in sort of um reaction to a violation.

Correct.

So we have no violations.

We have no violation here, right?

So it's really we're trying to determine, you know, what is it that we can put possibly save if it's even worse saving, right?

Um I think that there's possibility just from what I've seen, and what you know, that there is a potential for saving some of the structure in the L.

And I'd like to see that explored, right?

So um maybe it's a site visit, you know.

Um which we can put that into the condition that as is, you know, and unfortunately, Jill's not here, um, that with the approval as presented conditions, and she could even outline what those steps need to be.

We had walked through that previously.

Um, we're not trying to, you know, carbon copy what we did on another application, but yet we ended up we were able to save more of a property than we had originally anticipated.

Um, so with that condition, she can outline what some of those intermediary steps would be, potentially the opportunity for a site visit.

Um, that it actually included in some cases it was us, other times it was just she coming out with the inspector.

Um and to determine that we would like to be able to preserve as much of the historic fabric as possible.

And through those steps, which Jill should outline rather than us, unless we I don't want to necessarily continue the application because they want to continue, they want to be able to move forward.

If Jill was here, maybe we would be able to outline that in more detail.

But I am comfortable putting that to the city staff to outline what those phases of the process would be.

I don't know if I'm quite as comfortable as you are with that, because we already know what her opinion is, right?

So she's already written in her staff report that she I was unaware that we were taking the whole roof down, and that basically I know this is a topic of I guess semantics, yeah.

It is a demolition, right?

We're taking the whole structure down and we're replacing, right?

That was maybe I didn't read it correctly.

Well, what I saw was we're taking a wall down and putting a wall back, right?

That's not what we're doing.

We're taking the whole structure down.

I'm okay with your approach for the for the left side, the driveway side, but not for the L.

I I I would agree with you, Jim.

Right.

No.

I think that could be.

Yeah, the only thing obviously Jill is not here to comment.

I think she is very reactive to feedback from the commission.

Um, hearing the commentary this evening, I do think she would support.

I'm not again, I don't know 100%, but Kimberly is here representing she also can what you know, chime in here, what you think is comfortable supporting Jill.

Um, so just to clarify then on that L section, um what would be the conditional approval for what you guys are proposing?

So you're saying step by step for the the addition that's on the east, and what would be the proof right and what would be the proposal on the I think we should put it in the condition that the historic planner should go and lay eyes on this and both additions uh before they're proceeded to come down and rebuilt.

Um I think that is the commissioners the um record of saying this was our decision.

We did not say yes, we did not say no.

Uh and if another application comes before us, we can look at that.

Um I do think somebody should lay eyes on this, other than the people involved, and and we can default to the historic planner on both additions.

It seems like maybe one is easier than the other, but that's for somebody to determine.

And Kimberly, do you know if there was if Jill went to the property by any chance?

I can't say for certain, but okay.

I I don't know.

Okay.

I mean, I agree, and I think sometimes the building inspector can go with her as well to weigh in.

I also just to point out from her staff report too.

Um, she does say that every effort to retain historic material should be undertaken.

So I do think not to speak on behalf of Jill, but she would be willing to you know keep eye on it and take those steps to preserve as much as possible.

I don't think she necessarily, you know, saying get rid of everything.

Um so I think she would be open to that.

I guess I guess I just don't want it to go forward thinking that we're just gonna take it down systematically, you know, step by step as we go.

And at the end of the day, it's still gonna be totally replaced in kind to get that app on a new foundation, and it's gonna, you know, or I think that certainly on the L shape side, I've seen it done, right?

You can you can hold it up and put it in a foundation, you put it back down.

We see it all the time at the point.

So just because you have a contract who says he doesn't want to do it or can't do it, or a couple contractors that can't do it.

Well, there are some that can, right?

It's just gonna cost them more money.

So you know that's what it is.

Don't tell me it can't be done.

I'm just to I guess add something in here, I would be okay with uh with them proceeding on everything but the L section as well.

I also didn't realize until I was looking back at this how visible and and there's a door onto Pelham Street from that addition.

So it is a bit more visible, it is a bit more important, if you will, than the other Mishmash additions that are there.

So I don't know if that helps to show some direction here, but I think we sounds like we could proceed with a portion of it and then either continue the L and do a site visit.

It seems like that would be yeah.

That's I I concur.

I think that is the most best way forward would be to split it.

So into the east elevation and then the north elevation.

Yeah, we'd be we'd be rather than get involved in um conditional approval with a lot of steps on the L, we'd be okay just continuing the L.

Okay.

Have site visits in relation to the L.

We would request I I get the sense that the board the commission is generally okay with moving forward with the other part of this project, which is in much more dire conditions.

So um if we could split the application and get approval on that part, and then we'll continue the L to the next meeting.

Okay, so just to summarize after we split um proving the east elevation as presented in the application, and then continuing the north elevation um to a future meeting, potentially with the opportunity for a site visit, certainly by the preservation planner, if not also with the HDC.

Is that summarize accurately?

Yeah, council?

Okay.

All right.

So first I will request a motion to split the application of 38 Pellem Street, Plot 24, lot 259.

Um, the first part is the east elevation.

Um, second part is the north elevation.

So west elevation.

Oh I'm looking sorry, let's just clarify.

So east, I don't know.

I'm looking at the the drawings, the L's coming off in the north.

It does put to the north.

We can do the West just to keep it east-west.

Okay, so split the application, the first part, the east elevation, the second part the west elevation.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

So request a motion to approve the first part of the application, which is for the east elevation as presented this evening, citing Newport Standards 17 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Before you address the L, just a quick question.

That seems to be the theme of the night.

Okay.

Um if this gets continued, there's nothing.

I mean, the the prior approval, I think would contemplate and allow us to, as Jim mentioned, if we found a contractor that'd be willing to take this on, replace the foundation.

We could still move forward with that without having to worry to come back to the commission, correct?

I think that we could um yes.

And we could put that in as a conditional condition, I guess, condition to the continuum.

I guess so.

True.

So I guess you could withdraw that part of the application if you needed to.

If that's well, if we if we discover that we're able to do that, we'll certainly have Jill to the site.

Um, then we wouldn't need to come back.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, it's fine.

Otherwise, it'll just be continued for tonight.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, and so then with that, I'll request a motion um to continue the second part of the application for the west elevation um to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting for 38 Palm Street Platte 24 lot 259, which is April 14th, 2026.

Uh so moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

All right.

Last one.

Application of Flurry properties of one cottage contributing structure for permission to remove the chimney and construct a faux chimney, construct a one-stall garage and install an ingram.

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

Um this is another property.

We were we were here uh before you previously.

We got approval to start uh the project in relation to um the historic structure.

Um, so we're back this evening with different elements of the project.

Um proposed garage and pool.

Um, I'll let Chris again, he's on this project as well.

Chris Fagan, I'll let him walk through some of the details.

But in general, again, what's being proposed is a pretty small single-stall garage in the southwest corner of the of the lot, and then in adjacent to that, adjacent to that area where the proposed garage is and uh close to the rear uh ex entrance and exit uh of the building is a proposed pool.

Um couple comments.

I know um staff, Jill had made um seemed to be fine with the proposed design of the garage, but expressed concerns about the sighting of the garage.

So I just wanted to point out a couple things.

There is a little inconsistency between uh Chris's plan set versus the engineer's site plan.

Uh and it it is relevant to the sighting of the garage.

So if you look at the site plan itself from the engineer, yeah, the engineer maintains uh and depicts a deck off the rear corner of the building.

But you know, I double checked with Chris, and that element is is being removed, and that's part of what was previously approved.

So I think Jill was concerned that the garage would only be about three feet away from an existing wood deck, but that's not going to be the case.

That existing wood deck off the back of the main house is gone.

And if you if you look at Chris's elevations, you can see that.

So then so then what you really have between the one stall garage and the residence is about 11 feet of clearance.

One more comment.

Uming perspective, we can go a little tighter into the corner with the garage.

Um, I think the the engineer had cited that structure to be about six feet from both property lines.

So if we need to, we can move uh both to the west and to the south.

We can move the garage another foot or so and still be within um allowable zoning setbacks.

So again, even though it's only a foot, that I think that does will that will create a little more separation between the garage and the main residence, which seem to be um the only concern of Jill in relation to the garage.

And then my only comment before letting Chris sort of go through the details and he he'll go into the details of the chimney um more than I will.

The only other comment I'd make in relation to the pool is that when you look at the site plan, that the location of that pool, it would already be you know, visibly it's it's it's in an area which is completely enclosed on the site, just the view corridor from cottage street, which again can easily be there has to be fencing put up anyways, and can be easily remedied so that the existence of the pool won't detract at all from the for any viewscape or perspective of the historic house, and that can be easily achieved by again some fencing and some vegetative screening in that view court or looking down um the lot line from Cottage Street.

Um so I'll let Chris pick it up from there.

The last actually the last thing I uh and this is I have an exhibit.

This is a pretty simple rudimentary exhibit, but there was um again in terms of concern about sort of the sighting of the garage versus the building itself.

Um I'm gonna pass out this is the tax assessor's map, and obviously this isn't to scale, but I just wanted to point out just in this immediate neighborhood, there are a handful of historic properties where the accessory structure is detached, but it's very close in proximity to the main structure, and there's actually also a couple um properties which have detached garages and pools.

Both of these properties were properties that I did some work on.

One is at 21 Catherine Street and one is at 12 Redwood Street, which is immediately abutting this subject.

So I'll just pass this out just to give some sort of context to the neighborhood where this is located.

Then I'll let Chris get started.

Okay, so for the commission, I'm gonna request a motion to accept exhibit A, a tax assessor's map for the surrounding area of one cottage street, plat 25, lot 64.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um have to get you sworn in, I'll just have you state your record.

I state your name for the record.

Chris Fagan.

Okay.

Uh all right.

Well, I'm pleased to report this restoration's going well.

This project's moving along.

Uh, it's a beautiful home.

I'm excited about what it ultimately is going to become when it is put back together again.

Um, we're here for a few kind of relatively hopefully relatively small things.

Um, one of which is a 12 by 24 unstall garage, uh, which Russ has spoken to from a programming standpoint.

It's in the back of the lot.

This is a basically a very, very simple structure, you know, almost a yeah, about as small of a garage as you could possibly have.

Uh it's 12 feet high, it has wood clapboard siding, all the trim is wood, all the door, the doors that are and windows that are out are also wood.

Um kind of make it absolutely as small and minimal as possible just for some additional storage for the property.

Uh the other piece is that there is a rear chimney on the building.

We are proposing taking it down and rebuilding it with the same bricks.

Um, it does have some water infiltration in it now.

We're looking to salvage that historic material, repurpose it.

You know, it does help out a little bit in the interior programming if we can get the lower part of it removed, but we're putting put it back with the same material so it would maintain a consistent look from the exterior.

I think that's the scope of the proposal that we're looking for tonight.

I don't know if there's any the door on the garage, is that a roll-up door or the roll-up door?

Yeah, it could be open to other options there.

If you'd be, you know, if you'd want a non-roll up, I mean it's obviously a simple structure.

Yeah, you know, but if it's a little bit more character to the door, might be.

I mean, it's it's not a deal breaker, but that just looks more like a whole depot.

All right.

I mean, it would be certainly open any suggestions.

Some of those that had like the vertical clanking look to them or something.

Um carriage style.

Is there a spec on that door included here?

I don't know if there's a spec on the doornub.

Yeah, cut.

And the driveway will be off of Catherine Street down that whole length of the back of the property.

The property has two drivers, one off of Catherine, and you know, this would be that okay.

That sort of it's almost feels like a back driveway.

Because the other one has a more grand roundabout.

Uh Chris, uh the lot are we looking at.

I know it's not our purview, but is lot coverage something that you're looking at here.

Yeah, that we have a we have a zoning application support to get relief for lot coverage.

Yeah.

Um no, I know it's not our view, but I mean it does determine if you know we're looking at putting something that requires a variance.

Um I think that sort of changes the uh my view on whether or not this should be there.

Um I I would say at this point, you know, yes, I see your supporting data that other buildings have garages.

I would say the garage, I would probably be in favor of the garage.

I don't think I'd be in favor of the pool at this application.

The the only thing I'd say about you know the pool, and I don't want to speak for the zoning board.

I think the the zoning board does appreciate when we're there asking for a lot coverage variants, they understand and appreciate that a pool counts towards lot coverage, but there's no massing, there's no scale, there's no visual impact to the neighbors.

So I think when I have an application in front of the zoning board, and part of what I'm requesting is lock coverage, and it's driven in part by a pool.

There's a little more flexibility, especially if if there's no objectors by neighbors, and I discovered that with you know, when you look at the property at 12 Redwood, I mean that was I want to say that was during COVID, so it's probably four years ago or so.

Um the GIS map doesn't depict it, but in between the main residence and the garage, which is accessed by cat through Catherine Street is a large pool.

Yeah, and that the lot coverage there, I think was driven up similar to what's being proposed here.

Um beyond 25%.

I think my uh comments are more gauged along staff comment.

I think there was some comment about development of these lots in in this area, and kind of we've looked at other applications that are similar about adding pools and stuff, and it starts to uh change the uh environment of the of the of the community, and and I think that's where I'm coming from.

Not really massing or scale, but it's just we're putting more and more onto these lots, which I think changed the characteristic of the community.

Um I'll echo that.

I think um specific to the garage, I would be able to support it's it's a very modest garage.

I think the condition to um potentially elevate the style of the garage doors to more of a carriage style, I would be in favor of that.

Similarly, um, I don't find the addition of the pool here compatible.

Um, you know, when we had the recent application just down the street on Catherine, I also did not vote in favor of the pool there for the same reason.

Um you know, I wasn't around when the other property on Redwood had gotten through.

Um, but I agree with staff comments that the overdevelopment compatibility of adding it's it's the garage, then it's the pool, and then it just it does change the characteristic of not only the the site and the property but the surrounding area.

So I'd be able to support the garage, but I would not be in favor of the the pool.

I concur.

I concur with the chair, Miss Moran.

I'm okay with the garage.

Uh pool does seem to be pretty visible from cottage.

Um not vehemently opposed to it, but it definitely is starting to crowd that lot quite a bit.

Um but ultimately I think I'm okay with it.

I don't know if it would be of any assistance if we um again if you took action on the garage tonight, continue the pool.

We can come back with some renderings.

We can potentially look at reducing the size of the pool itself and the apron patio surrounding it to try to um lessen the density of what's being placed back there.

Uh the renderings would illustrate perspective from cottage street with vegetation or some type of screening, fencing in place, that type of thing.

Um right now you're just looking at it two-dimensional, and I think it may be helpful um if you look at it with some renderings.

I mean, I'll open that up to the commission.

I I walked the property today, and um I don't see how a large pool could go back there comfortably myself.

But again, that's a you know, looking at it in a 3D perspective.

If you come in with drawings, uh you know, renderings and things like that, I'm sure it'll it'll help a lot.

Okay.

That'd be great.

Thank you.

Okay, so another split.

Yeah, better than your drawing.

That was close.

No, that's organium.

The magic of a big pen.

Got the point across though, right?

Yeah, yeah.

This pen looking for that.

Full water blue.

I used on the um so just one last question um for the commission as far as the chimney.

Any concerns about the reconstruction of the chimney?

Reconstruction to duplicate what's there, yes.

Right.

Then I'm okay with the original brick.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So request a motion to split the application of one cottage street, plat 25, lot 64.

The first section to um permission to remove the chimney and construct a faux chimney and excuse me, construct a one-stall garage, and the second part to install an in-ground pool.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

I all those opposed.

So request a motion to approve um the first part of the application for one cottage street, plat 25, lot 64, um, as presented, citing Newport Standards 17 tact 80060, a one four five six seven, and C one and three for the construction of the garage.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, the condition changed.

With the um apologies, sorry, tonight.

Um, on that, I'll amend that um, excuse me, amend that motion on the first part um with the condition that we will update the design of the garage door to a carriage style um citing those same standard 17 tact 80 060 um C1 and 3 for the garage.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, uh all those opposed.

And request a motion to continue the second part of the application, which is installing an in-ground pool to our next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

Okay.

We've been having some chance.

I think they both pretty good.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think I think her concern is.

Do we need a motion to adjourn the meeting?

Yeah, I'm gonna do that.

Um, all right, so no new business this evening.

So with that, I'll request a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, March 10th, 2026, Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, everyone.