Order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, April 14th, 2026.

And I'll ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarillo.

Here.

Kelly Moran, I'm here.

Jim Madsen.

Here.

Frank Bala.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Bill Finley.

Brooke Richter.

Is absent and we knew of her absence.

We have Ben Willet.

And Jen Deontremont.

So just for um everyone here this evening, we have two new alternates.

They're going to be observing this evening.

They will not be voting commissioners.

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

I would just like to acknowledge that we have Kevin Gavin here supporting us from the city solicitor's office.

So to the commission, um, minutes for the meeting of Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 have been provided for our review.

Are there any additions or corrections?

No.

Okay, so request a motion to accept the minutes for Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 as presented.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, are valid from one year for one year from the date of approval.

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

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

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

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

We do have one withdrawal after the uh agenda was published.

That is the application C4 for 38 Pelham Street.

So again, that application has been withdrawn by the applicant and will not be heard this evening.

We do not have any continuations this evening.

Uh two applications um before the commission.

We have one for summary.

So that is the application of N7 25 Ocean Heights Road.

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

No.

Okay, so I will um request a motion to approve the application of 25 Ocean Heights Road, plat 41, lot 328 as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80, TACT 060B1 and 2.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye, all those opposed.

Um, for abbreviated summary this evening, that is the application of N4 for 51 Lawrence Av.

If I could have that applicate um applicant come forward, we'll get that read in.

Do we have anyone here this evening for that?

Okay, so um I'm gonna ask the vice chair to read that application, um, and then we'll speak to some questions quickly for the applicant.

This is the application of Salve Regina University of 51 Lawrence Avenue, flat 36, Lodge 067 is a contributing property for permission to remove the fabric awning at the front entrance, replace the front entrance doors, replace existing front walkways with accessible walkways and ramps, and install one accessible door to the south entrance, add an elevated pavers to the south entrance, and replace the stair treads at the south side of the terrace.

Okay, um, good evening.

We um just had one quick comment.

I think it was more procedural that there were um details of the door, which I think had been provided to our preservation planner.

Um, we just wanted to make sure that we have on the record um that that has been provided and reviewed by the preservation planner.

So I don't think there's necessarily any questions or comments.

It's more about making sure that that was is that correct?

Ms.

Chen?

Yeah, so I spoke to the applicant about the material, which was to be a custom all wood door.

Um I'm not sure if that was included in the application, but just to have it on the record, is that the proposed material?

Yes, that's the intent.

Okay.

That's it.

Madam Chair.

Um these doors are going to be the existing doors are going to be left in place and placed open.

So we're not the the application should say not replacing the doors.

We're adding new doors to the original doors.

There's one location where the existing door um is missing.

So we're going to put a new door there, and that's the picture on the left hand side there.

The one on the right hand side.

Those doors will be pinned open.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh so just to clarify then, so we are adding a new okay.

Okay, so any other questions or comments from the commission on that.

Good.

Okay, so with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of 51 Lawrence Ab, Plat 36, lot 67 as presented with the slight amendment um that the application is adding a front entrance door, um, not replacing, and that that um there is also a custom all wood door that has been provided to the preservation planner citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

C one.

This is one.

Um, yep.

So just um before we go to the full applications this evening.

So our first one this evening, C one.

Um, just noting for the record that Commissioner uh Madsen will be recusing himself.

This is the application of Matthew Feeney of 30 Popular Street, plat 16, lot 21-4 contributing for permission to construct an East addition.

Okay.

Good evening.

Okay, welcome back.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

Thank you for having me.

Luckily, we got the right arm in the right place.

Have you raised your right arm?

Uh do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you, God.

I do.

Okay.

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

Uh Matt Feeney.

Okay, Mr.

Feeney, welcome back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh just I put these together just to have some.

Are these additional materials from what was provided?

Uh no.

No, everything is in.

Is the same materials we received?

Okay.

Physical copies just I think everybody probably remembered, but just to kind of uh start off, I just wanted to remind everybody what the house looked like uh, you know, in 1979.

Um, versus what it looks like today.

So really my primary goal is just to make the living space more livable and a bit safer.

Um actually improve, you know, improve the look of the house.

And I desperately do not want to raise it.

Uh, because I just that that would just ruin, you know, the the neighborhood.

So uh yeah, I did speak uh and had some good back and forth and you guys had originally suggested with you know the building apartment, uh Brad Ward, uh you know, Michael Monty.

So we did a lot of back and forth, and I think we kind of came to uh a meeting of the mind, so to speak.

So I believe that what I proposed, uh you know, it's not gonna be an issue in that regard because I I still do plan to stay above that that threshold, you know, 50% threshold, uh, which is great.

So I'm I'm happy about that.

So that's really uh, you know, it's very similar to the old uh proposal.

I literally just want to add about 250 square feet of living space because my living space as it stands right now, probably about 810 square feet, and and the living area is very, you know, if any of you I think you may have been in the house, or if anybody's been in the house knows probably what it looks like.

You know, there's like a foot difference between the height of the floor and the base of the floor.

So I just I just want to have a nice living space with a little bit of extra space.

You know, I plan to do a nice job and and uh actually have it look better than it does today.

So that's that's the simple plan, and it will not be moved.

So that was the big issue, you know, the last time.

I think that's I mean that's pretty much it.

Okay.

I will open it up to questions and comments from the commission.

Mr.

Goddard.

I I can support that is okay.

Wait a minute.

Okay, Mr.

Ballet.

Um, the only possibility of an exception that I have with your application is I think that the existing historic structure is getting a little lost.

And I'm not sure if maybe there's a change of siding material or something that would lead people to see what was authentic and what was added.

I'd be I mean, I'd I have no problem doing that.

I have no problem, you know, for appearances.

I mean, I I get what you're saying.

The reality is there's nothing left of the original structure, but uh I agree with you.

I'd rather bring it back, you know, maybe to a clapboard or something.

Uh to be honest with you, whatever.

I mean, if you have a preference, uh again, that wouldn't wouldn't be a problem for me in terms of the siding.

I mean, I I think a clapboard look would be better and a bit more historical.

That's just my personal opinion.

But I guess what I'm saying is um some way to differentiate new and and what you're keeping of the structure, right?

You're keeping a part of the structure and you're adding on.

Yeah, I mean, the the only thing that's really gonna change is that that piece.

Yes.

Um, so do you you want them to be differentiated or you want them to look uniform?

I I would like to see you suggest uh doing something different.

So it's it's uh highlight of and that I feel you can work with the planner on submitting material.

Yeah.

Uh that's in a suggestion, my suggestion only.

Um, but I think that way we would be able to in the future be able to see, well, there was something and now there's something else.

So yeah, I mean, I I I have no problem with that.

I I figured that if I did that, you'd you'd want to match it up.

So I that's less work on it.

So 50 50 shot.

That's that's easy.

Thank you.

Um, I would echo Mr.

Ball's comments about differentiating the material, whether it be shake and clap, however, you want to break that out.

Um, so to that point, I think that helps.

One of my comments was, you know, they're very there was a very clear setback that created that T structure previously with the addition.

Well, I'm not opposed to the addition.

Now that's moving forward from the structure.

Is there any opportunity to still maintain that point, you know, the setback that was of the original structure and still gain the same amount of space that you're looking for?

Well, the original setback is basically there is no setback.

That's part of the pro.

Well, I would say part of the problem.

So there's there's a setback uh in the front, or no set back kind of in the front section of that living area, and then there's a bit of a setback.

There's like a little bit of an L because there's a telephone pole there right next to the house.

Um, I'm trying to see where that would be.

So I'm sorry, maybe and I'm yeah, and maybe setback is not the right word to use, but where you so if I if I could, I mean, I I would love to you know be right on the property line.

I don't know that that they'll allow that, you know.

So I'm thinking, you know, I'm just gonna go for whatever uh minimum variance they'll they'll give me.

I mean, it's that's I would hope I could do uh basically the same as it is in the rear and how it's depicted, you know, in the in the document.

Um I'm I apologize, I shouldn't have used setback.

So Jill's pointing to what I was talking about.

So that corner where there's a very clear off of the main that structure that we see to the left, the T to the right comes down off the back.

Now you're moving the whole addition to the front of that structure.

Can that be maintained?

And you start your addition at that same point.

I mean, I guess it could, but the only problem is is that the house is so far back in the lot as it is.

That was one of the reasons that I wanted to move it, is that I don't have much space in the back, and the more I encroach in the back, the less space I have.

And I have all this, I'm not gonna call it wasted, but I have a ton of space up front, and that doesn't restrict me in the back.

So honestly, that's the real reason that I would I'm I'm not gonna say lobby for it, but that's my real preference because I just lose, you know, that yard is small as it is, and I don't want to lose any more space back there.

Okay.

Ms.

Moran, uh I do kind of agree with what she's saying, even if it were six inches, just to give it that shadow line and the depth that it currently has.

I know that that kind of reworks your whole plan, but I I would agree that that would somewhat maintain the differentiation between both of the portions of the house.

And I know you said you didn't want to move it.

If that's I mean, I guess I don't have any choice if that's a deal breaker.

Uh that would bum me out for lack of a better term to have to do that because again, you know, the space in the back and just being super limited and just about whatever I want to do.

Um so I I would ask to reconsider on that point.

Uh that would be my my only ask, really.

Um I have no problem, you know, differentiating it from a visual perspective as best I can, independent of that.

But it would make much sense for me to do it and have it be like six inches off because then I'd have to go, you know, to just get 250 square feet.

I'd have to go out pretty good distance in the back.

Right, because you're you're leaving the portion if you're looking at the house on the right side.

I guess that would be the west portion is not moving, it's remaining on its foundation.

Right.

Okay.

It would be different if you were just yeah, in a perfect world, I would have rather I would have rather been more compliant and move the house to better positioning on the lap, but can't do that.

So that's my that's my one hope that I can compel you to perhaps uh work with me on, and I can I can do whatever you know the ask is to make it distinctive and and tasteful.

Okay.

Mr.

Finlay.

I'm fine with it as long as you're accepting the fact that you have to make the differentiation between you know the yeah, no, I'm that's you just said it's no problem.

Uh as he um is amenable to that, I'm fine.

Okay.

Happy to do that.

I wouldn't want to suggest you building building the right side out even further, but uh I'm really trying to visualize what how the transition even is going to happen between your east and west portion of the building with that set in a little bit.

Uh the more that I think about it, the more important that I feel it is.

Um I'm adding a lot of unnecessary uh complication and work to this.

So that we're that in how it goes out, probably a few feet from this left section is saying building it now.

You want to see from that I think that that's part of the I don't know if I would even call it character, but identity of the building, how it sits that way right now.

And I think if like I said, if it were not so far back in the lot, I would have no problem doing that.

It's just that that real estate back there is limited.

It is, you know, it's tight.

I don't have any other ideas.

I mean, I'll just from I think I agree.

I mean, raising the comments, I do agree you're tight back there.

I think um making that point of demarcation between the two structures at least does create that opportunity.

So it will definitely look better.

We appreciate that.

Okay, so improvement.

Any other questions, comments?

No.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 30 Poplar Street plat 16 lot 021-4.

Um, with the condition that the applicant differentiate the original and new structure by um material differentiation that can be shared with the preservation planner.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 800601, 2, 4, 5, and 7.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate your time.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Thank you.

I'll need it.

This is the application of Rhode Island property wire LLC of 27-31 and a half Franklin Street Plat 11, flat 27, lot 72.

It's a contributing property.

They're looking for permission to add the new rear shed dormer and rearrange the fest station.

Okay.

Good evening.

I'll 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.

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

I'm attorney Aaron Weissman.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

Cameron Smith.

Can you say that again, please?

Your name?

Cameron Smith.

Cameron Smith.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

So thank you.

I think this is the third time we've been here before the commission, and we thank the commission for its time and attention that's been paid to this matter.

Recently, a week ago Friday, we we thank Julie and her team.

They actually met with my colleague here and a couple other members with respect to a couple of the proposals.

Most pertinently right now are the windows.

And we think we came to an agreeable resolution all around.

And I'm gonna have uh my colleague Cam who was at that meeting.

Um talk about those proposed changes, which we believe we had a buy-in from the commission.

So we respectfully begin with the windows, and at that point we'll go to the dormer.

We could okay.

So if you could just summarize um the new application materials that um cover what was discussed in so just so everybody that's familiar, we did have a design review commission, which is what council is speaking to.

Um the purpose of that is to provide input.

It is not necessarily to receive a buy-in of the commission, just to clarify.

Um feedback can be taken by the applicant and used as you wish, whether to amend your application or not.

So we did discuss those two points, um, some of the window updates, and then also a dormer on the rear of the uh structure.

So if you could just walk the commission um through those window changes.

Um so what we went over, we went over three main uh window changes.

The first one, as you can see on the rear elevation, um two windows, the squared in that red box there, the large window and the small window.

Um, as it exists right now, the larger window you see on the right side is swapped with that smaller window.

So what we propose um instead of what we have had talked about before was to switch those two windows to what you see right now, so that we keep all existing windows.

Um that large window is now in the bedroom, so it meets egress requirements.

It keeps the same um look of the building with the two different size windows, and now the small window is the bathroom, which is okay, and then the large window is in a bedroom.

Um, and we're not like we had proposed before, switching the two windows from the first and second floor.

Now we're keeping it on the same floor, and they're just switching places.

Um that was the first one we went over.

The second one was on the west elevation.

Um, and this yes, right here.

Um, so we proposed to add a window there.

It would be all wood construction.

Um, it would have uh a casing to match the existing casings on the building, and what was um favored by at our design commission was that it's a different size than the other windows, so it keeps the same look and nature of the building.

Um, this one would be a I believe it's a three by four, um, the one we're proposing to add.

Um, and that it's smaller and higher so that it could allow for a countertop to go there.

Um, and then the third window was on the east elevation on the first floor.

Um we proposed a smaller window three by four, uh all wood construction, mass matching the historical uh historic nature of the other windows on the building, um, and matching existing casings on the building.

Um same thing, smaller windows, so it, you know, as you can see from this elevation, not every window is the same.

So this this goes along with that, and this also allows for a countertop to go there on the inside.

And those were the three main things we touched in that in that review committee.

Um regarding the windows.

And Jill, if I could just ask, can you remind me?

So the bay, the three-bay window on the south elevation, that was still pending, or that was uh so in the back here in the back corner on the bottom left there, those three windows are just gonna be restored as is, correct?

Uh yes, and if there needs to be he has to work that out with the building official on the type of um glass that's in there.

Um, but we can improve it as a restoration.

Okay, so that's still active.

We need to review that as well.

Okay.

So commissioners, any questions on the window proposals before we go to the dormer.

Can we go back to the one on the side?

The west side, I think.

Second floor or the second floor.

That was that was west side.

Yeah, so this is an egress window, or is this accommodating a kitchen?

This is uh accommodating kitchen, which is why it's smaller than the one next to it.

Correct, yes.

So personally, I don't have any issue with the other window because of the mixture of different sizes, but this side remains moderately symmetrical and uniform.

So I don't really support this window going in that place.

I'm gonna have to think on that a little bit.

Okay.

And yeah, I just think it kind of mixes up the fenestration a little.

Okay.

Mr.

Goddard.

Regards that same window, I would uh make the suggestion that the window is out of proportion.

Um it's probably wider if you view it in juxtaposition to the other windows on that elevation.

You're saying it's wider.

Sorry.

Well, if I look at the if you zoom in on that, you'll see what I'm speaking about.

So the the proportion of the each light appears to be more square in the proposed new window as opposed to rectangular on the other windows.

So I mean, if if we could change that to be more in proportion with the other windows, I think that would help a lot.

Yeah.

Yeah, I um I wish Brian was here, but I'm pretty sure just this drawing shows it like that, because our idea was to match the existing windows, but just have it not be as tall too.

So um we'll check on the proportion.

Yeah, we'll be sure that is well, I think the proportions are a little uh offsetting, and I think uh I don't know if we can approve it as drawn.

I don't know if you can put a condition in with that.

Um but that might maybe that's something you're picking up in the middle.

This is gonna be a new window.

Okay.

And I think I mean, I'll just on it from a different perspective.

I portion wise, you know, I agree that it should be proportionally correct to the rest of the structure, but I like that it's actually a different size, that we're not adding something that's in the same.

It would clearly differentiate it from the original windows that are on that elevation.

And just further left to that point, that was an important point.

That was at that other meeting that it does look different than those other ones at least.

And there's an absolute need for a window in this location.

Yes, yes, there is uh because why?

Yeah, because of the use of it, because the layout on the interior.

Um that part of the building used to be a plaza.

Um bedroom that had no windows on the outside.

So would make sense from our standpoint to add a window.

Um we thought doing it this way.

Having it be different from the other windows, it matches other side of the house, um, and that same how they seem to like the you know, layout windows.

I get I understand the background behind it.

I'll be honest, I'm struggling with that.

It's also the west side of the building, the most visible side.

I just don't know how I feel about adding a window and really making a big quite a big change to the fenestration of that side of the building.

Um I I don't I just can't really support that.

I know there's a mixture of windows on the other side, and that's fine.

They have had some you know development over history of their own historical significance or accommodations to the inside, but uh now we're adding more of that, you know, decades later, and I just um I'm not sure that it's really helping with the mixture of things going on in the building.

So I'll think on that, but right now I cannot support that window, but we can move on.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Um I would be in favor of flipping the windows on the first floor in the back.

Um I am okay with adding the window to the east side on the first floor.

Uh I would not be in favor of adding a window of any type to the west side.

Thank you.

I think I would agree.

I think the problem with this application is that it's been cited that this is one of the eldest oldest buildings in Newport, which has undergone drastic changes, as you're well aware.

So I think that the hard thing is like where do you draw the line in the sand to keep this building looking?

And I think one of the things that's often used is windows trying to make something a little more uniform and less jarring.

And I think you're doing that on this elevation.

Pardon?

The west side and the east side, I think.

Oh okay, yeah.

Um I'm okay with those.

Uh uh I think it's the development of the property, it's keeping it from looking worse.

So and I if I could just ask to clarify for my own.

So um, Mr.

Ball and Mr.

Goddard, when you say that, are you asking for the dimension of the window to be the same as the existing window?

I think they should be the same, uh, particularly on the west elevation.

I would say on the west and east elevation, that window just looks out of place.

For both the width and the height.

Yeah.

Um I don't know about the height.

I mean, I see what you're doing for kitchens.

Um, I think if you put a same height window that's on the other side there, you're going to have a counter in front of it.

Um that to me is more uh jarring because it it never was there.

So uh I'd rather have something that looks like it was added and not mimicked.

Uh so I think the height is okay.

I just think the width needs to change.

And dimensionally that would be something that the preservation planner could review.

Yep.

Okay.

Let me ask a quick question.

You said earlier that drawing does not represent what it really is.

Yeah, so what I again I wish our architect Brian was able to make it tonight.

He wasn't able to, but I believe they are going to be the same width, just the height is what's different.

Um our intention was to like if you were to look at the east elevation, um, it mimics that all those windows are existing in historic, and as you can see, they're all different dimensions.

So our intention was to keep that historic nature of that period.

As much as possible, yes.

Yeah.

We could do the same width.

Um more the height that was the issue.

Sorry.

Are you finished?

You good?

I'm good.

Okay.

May I ask one more question?

Sure.

And then we'll go to the dormer.

On that same vein there, this window is also slightly offset from the center of that bump out.

Is that intentional?

Is that where it would be located, or would you be centering it?

Um it would be no, it would be centered.

Okay.

Yeah.

So that one would be centered, and you're saying that the window on the west side that you're adding would also be more properly in scale, if you will, but also the same width as all the existing on that west elevation.

Would it also be set in to the location mirroring the other window?

Jill, could you um jump to the east side or the west side rather?

Yeah, it would be symmetrical.

So it would be in actually a little further, say in line with that upper window.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's you know, just troubling and and untough to see when the run when the um drawings are not really accurate.

But my problem.

Okay.

But no, yeah, for the west elevation, it's symmetrical.

Um, off of the center, just like that one on the UCLO.

Um then westward leaves.

Thank you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Okay.

So with that, I think we should move to the dormer.

Um, would it be possible?

I don't know, because the windows seem to be used, it would be possible to get a boat on the windows for turning to the dormer.

Um we uh we're not looking to split the application at this point.

So if you could talk through the this new revised proposal.

Okay, let's talk about the one that the third one that we have isn't there.

Um we want it because it enables continued residential use as we said by providing light and air and functional space consisting with the building's historic purpose.

Uh we've changed it a number of times.

We have here it is just down from the chimney, it's three feet on each side.

Um we maintain that because it's uh at least historically naturally consistent evolution of the Nantucket dormer.

Um it is low on the plane, it min minimal minimizes visual intrusion.

Uh so it's not visual, we just maintain it's not visible disruptive.

Um it does not destroy the storic materials or alter any defining characteristics.

Um maintains the overall character visually because of where it can be seen from the street.

Um it obviously has an economic purpose as well.

I understand that's not the commission's role, but I mean clearly here by providing light and really us being able to maintain the fourth unit there, balancing um all those considerations.

Um we would ask for the commission's approval of that.

It makes it economically viable.

So just to clarify for everyone, this is not the version we're looking at, correct?

It would be version three.

Yes, it's okay version.

Yeah, those are this one we're looking at.

Yes, yes.

Um, can you remind us uh what exists on this roof right now?

Um it's a single um dormer like the other side.

Yes.

Yeah, Jill, if you could we do have we have that very clear.

Yeah.

Yes.

Um can speak.

Um you know, I think uh you've been here uh this is your third time as you've noted.

Um I think this dormer is not evolving at all.

I think it's gotten much worse.

Uh I think the the other version that you had, you got feedback on that and coming back to the table with a larger dormer seems a little bit jarring.

Uh I couldn't support this dormer at all.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh I would concur with Mr.

Balo.

Uh again, we've mentioned it's uh this building was built in the 1700s, it's right in the center of town, and to make any changes to this building, uh, I'm pretty hard-pressed to approve.

So I would not be approving any type of a dormer.

So I will concur with my commissioners.

Um, you know, from our findings of fact, one of the character-defining features is a side gable roof line pierced by a brick chimney and two front gable dormers.

There happens to be um another piercing dormer, very small on the back now.

Um, you know, feedback that we've provided in multiple reviews at this point um about the importance of protecting that rear.

So for uh myself, based on standards A1 return uh retaining historic character and A7 for minimizing harm from alterations, I would not be in favor of supporting this application in the dormer.

I think that's well said, and I will echo that I do not support the dormer, sorry.

I have nothing.

I I can't support it either.

Based on A1 and A7.

Okay.

Yeah, I also agree with the uh the board, the commissioners.

Um the dormer is really not happening for me either.

So I would not be in support of it.

Thank you.

Okay, so um, Ms.

Chen, just to move us along here at this point.

The application before us this evening, there's two parts.

There's the dormer and the windows.

Should we be raising a motion here in its totality?

If you'd like to split it, um and the applicants are amenable to that, then you may split it and approve one portion or both.

Um, and then if you feel that you need to make uh a separate motion on the remainder, then you may do that as well.

But okay.

So council, um, based on feedback that's been provided, and I will want to just make sure that we're clear on any details for the windows that we decide on.

Um is clear from paneling the commission as far as supporting the dormers.

You do not have good favorable uh outcome there.

Um are you amenable to splitting the application?

And yes, we are okay.

Um, so we'll do that in a moment.

So I just want to make sure that I'm clear from the commission regarding the windows.

We've had a couple of comments um about different elevations.

I'm just gonna walk through those from a south elevation as proposed.

Um that's swapping the placement of two original windows.

Um that's number one, and then we've talked about um on both the east.

Sorry, let me just look east and west elevations.

Um, that these new windows proportions need to be revised and positioning and the condition that that could be approved through the preservation planner.

And that covers there's no um windows on the north elevation.

Correct.

Yeah, so east and west.

Um, those are the two new windows, those would be redefined for spec and placement per the preservation planner for the west side 5.1.

I uh I would support it if it was proportional and symmetrical.

Correct.

Okay.

Don't support it at all.

Okay.

Neither do I um so then just kind of gauge.

Should we want to go down the line?

Okay, so let's do that first.

We're gonna do um gonna make a motion to split the application of 27-31.5 Franklin Street, plat 27 lot 072 into part A, which is the uh addition of a dormer on the south elevation, part one, and part two is the updating of windows on the south, east and west elevations.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay, so um on that first part of the application.

Um, I'm gonna request a motion to approve uh 27-31.5 Franklin Street, plat 27 lot 072 for the addition of a dormer on the south elevations, south elevation, excuse me, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 TACT 060, A145, and seven.

I'm sorry, this is the dormer.

Dormer.

Oh move second.

All those in favor, all those opposed, aye.

I would say A1 and A7.

I would agree.

I concur.

I had the same thing.

A one and seven.

Okay.

And then I will request a motion to approve the app the second part of the application for 27-31.5 Franklin Street, plat 27 lot 072, um, which includes the um changing of location of uh uh two original windows on the south elevation, and then updating new windows proposed on the east and west elevations based on size, proportions, and placement to be um conditionally approved by the preservation planner, citing newport standards 17 TAC 80 060, a one four five, and seven.

So moved second.

All those in favor, I all those opposed.

Aye.

I would stay 17.80.1 and a seven.

And I have the same standards A1 and A7 as well.

Okay, the motion passes for the windows.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

Nice nine.

See there.

You're welcome.

Well blot and it's a contribution structure for permission to replace 15 windows in the home, repair the rotted window and framing in time.

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna get you sworn in this evening.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

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

Okay, welcome.

Um, this is a continuing application, but I don't think we've heard it.

No, I was away last.

Okay.

So I'm just gonna have you um do a quick overview.

We actually did talk a little bit about this in our pre-meeting.

We had a few commissioners that thought it was complete for summary, so we just have a couple of questions to go through.

Sure.

So um we did have a a gentleman come in uh to do the assessment, which you have here.

Um, and I provided photographs, um, many of the windows.

So I think we have four decades represented within the windows.

Um but two are the same size.

So there's a kitchen window that is the oldest window.

That window does not have a screen, and that window does not open, and it has not opened since I bought the house in 2013.

Um the other windows you'll be able to see by the photographs.

There are places where you can actually see outside where they've come apart from the house.

And then on the front of the house, there's quite a bit of rotting on the bottom uh around the the sills.

Um, so I've just asked that in kind they be replaced.

Uh what has been quoted are the um displaced.

The true divided light is it where you what's the word I'm looking for where it's a solid window and then the piece that was simulated displaced.

Simulated divided light.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh that's basically in a nutshell.

So the proposal is just replacement of windows, and then the rotted pieces around the outside be repaired.

Um, and I'm not sure.

Have you had a chance to review the staff report that came with your application based on it?

Okay.

So in that, um, our preservation planner is um calling out that the replacement window should be true divided light, not simulated with the same mutton pattern that is existing.

Um, so I think that that's also one of the points that some of the commissioners had brought up in our pre-meet.

Um, but I'll open the floor for comments.

Could you uh do you know the uh date your house was built there?

Around the 1870, late 1870s.

So you have a contributing building uh and our guidelines and make note of contributing buildings of having authentic true divided light wood windows, uh which are not a Marvin window uh that has a um exterior cladding to it.

Um I would like to see you use a wood true divided light window and replace all the windows in kind with these type of windows, opposed to this um right.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um just one of the things that I talked to the construction guy about today.

Um he did say that he has seen these approved before, which is why he quoted me these.

And that the other big reason was he said, you know, take my quote if we have to go with the purely divided and double it.

So it's a it's a big price um increase as well when you get the same aesthetic look, I think at the end.

But I've got to do something because I can stand in some of the rooms and in the winter feel the feel the cold coming in.

So environmentally, I have to have to do something sooner than later.

So I do have uh a copy of the exact spec that was not part of the original application, it was more of a general specification.

So I could either leave this with you or I can upload it to the application if you maybe present it.

Oh, yeah, is it the same window that you it's the same window that I mentioned?

It's just it goes into specific detail on the window versus the other one, which was a little salesy.

Okay.

Um, would you guys like to see that?

Or do you have a understanding?

I don't think it's necessary right now.

Anyway, okay.

Personally, yeah.

Okay.

We can hold on to it for being okay.

Yeah, so I think coming back to again, I would just call out an echo um the feedback provided that it, you know, in terms of replacing here looking at true divided light.

Um, you know, we are the commission here, we do not look at price, which really about our standards.

Um so I concur with the recommendation of our preservation planner in terms of making sure that we have a true divided light and a matching mutton profile.

Um, so I would be in favor of approving with that as a condition, um, but not in favor as presented with the simulated.

Okay.

Yeah, and maybe Jill could just take a look at your final product and give you a thumbs up or thumbs down.

Um any other questions or comments.

I agree with the commission.

You know, you you actually have true divided, even though they may not be original.

They are still of wood construction.

They are still representative of what was originally there, which is superior to as great of a Marvin window to any kind of replacement that you'd be looking at today, unless it has those true divided light sections.

Okay.

So yeah, I would have to support what the rest of the commission is saying that we'd like to see true divided light windows there.

Okay.

Yeah, you can get it from Anderson or a Pella, they make them.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Goddard?

Pretty much the same.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, we would um I'll request a motion to approve the application of five Sunshine Court Plat 12 lot 010 on the condition that the application be updated to a true divided light uh window with a matching mutton pattern that can be shared with our preservation planner for approval.

Citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80 060 A1, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you in fine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

C five.

C5.

This is the application of Fleury Properties LLC of one cottage street.

Plot 25, lot 064, contributing for permission to install an in-ground pool.

Welcome, counsel.

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

As you recall, we were here last month on both the pool and a single stall one-level garage.

The garage was approved, but there were some concerns about the way the site was, uh, some crowding in that in that uh southwest corner of the property.

Um, which for a couple commission members raised questions of compatibility.

So since then, we've updated the site plan uh in a couple respects.

One, we've taken the location of the garage uh and we have moved it uh further, deep deeper in the corner, if you will, to the required five foot setbacks.

Previously it was um a couple feet closer to the residence.

So where it's sited now, right at the setback line on the corner, that gives uh 13.4 feet of clearance between the two closest points between the garage and the house.

And um there was concern or comments about I think um a deck, but if you look closely at the plan, uh the comment on the plan clearly indicates that that decking right there is is being removed as part of the renovation and as part of what was previously approved in our last application for the main house.

Um we've also reduced the size of the pool a little bit.

We shrunk it down uh to 10 by 22.

It was previously 12 by 24 and reduced the size of the apron.

So I think by doing that and and earlier today, uh I finally got my hands on ready renderings, which we I uploaded into the portal, but I don't know if all of you have had the opportunity to look at those.

So I did bring hard copies that I'll pass out to you as well.

So you have that in front of you.

If I could have this identified as applicants exhibit.

I'll request a motion to accept exhibit a uh renders for one cottage street plat 25 lot 64.

So moved.

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

Thanks.

Thank you, Russ.

Oh and then the and then I just wanted to mention too, since last meeting, again, based on the staff report and comments of uh some of the commissioners regarding the issue of compatibility.

I did have the project reviewed by uh Professor Ronald Onorado, who you've recognized as an expert um architectural historian.

He's provided a letter, and he's also here this evening uh to provide some testimony in support of this.

Um, in a nutshell, as you can see, especially from the renderings, we've done a couple things.

We've given a little more breathing space between the two proposed accessory structures.

We've made the pool a little smaller, and most importantly, you'd now have a visualization of what that area of the property will look like in terms of screening.

Uh, it's not going to be visible from either of the public ways.

This property's on a corner.

Uh Cottage Street and Catherine Street, and the pool uh with the appropriate screening involved simply just will not be visible from the public right away.

Um, and our position would be that the in-ground pool in and of itself does not detract from any of the character defining features of this contributing structure, keeping in mind that it is the structure that is contributing and not the grounds.

Um with that, I can answer any questions.

I'd also um can offer uh Professor Onorado to come up and speak in in regards to the letter he's presented.

Okay.

First of all, I mean, do you want to present Dr.

Honorado or you want to get a little bit more?

If you have any questions for me, I'll answer them.

Otherwise, I do want to put on Professor Onorado's testimony on the record.

Okay.

Um any questions for counsel?

Mr.

Bala.

Um could you review what the previous application had for setbacks on the garage that was approved?

Yeah, it was well again that the the where the garage is located does meet zoning setbacks.

And now you're moving the garage, so you need zoning relief.

Not for the setbacks.

Okay.

Because the garage is less than 12 feet, the accessory structure is allowed to be as close as five feet to the property line.

Okay, thank you.

And just to clarify, we're not, we're just looking at the pool this evening, though, Jill, right?

Because okay, that's me.

Yeah, but I but again to clarify the slight movement did not create the need for a variance from the zoning board in relation to the sighting of the garage.

Right, but it is a change in location from what we previously approved, not that it needs to be reapproved, but it if you build the pool, you put the garage in this proposed location.

Correct.

So that so that so the yes, the garage that was approved last month has moved maybe a foot in each direction.

It was about if if let me see if I have the I'm not sure that I have the site plan from last month at my fingertips, but my recollection is it was it wasn't much, it was about a foot in each direction.

Okay, thank you.

I have that.

Oopsie.

I will have uh Professor Honorado come on up.

Okay, thank you.

We'll first get you sworn in.

Good evening.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

Ronald Honorado.

Okay, thank you.

So um Professor Honorado, you appear before the report because it passed for it.

Yes.

Yes.

Recognize Professor Honorado as an expert.

Commission.

Yes.

Okay, yes, we do accept him as a witness.

So um, since last meeting, um, I reached out to you and engaged you to take the application, the original application materials be material to visit the site.

Uh, why don't you quit just walk through the steps you took during the analysis you want, uh we went through a uh post installation.

Sure, thanks.

Um you all have my letter, I think, uh in front of you or have seen it.

Uh, so I'll just very briefly go over what I did.

Um after I was contacted by Mr.

Jackson, I I walked the neighborhood, but I also looked at all the relevant uh documents, the National Historic Landmark nominating papers, the RHPHC uh booklet on the neighborhood, thinking thinking about both the individual contributing uh residents, the Cunningham residents, historically called Cunningham's residents, and the um and the neighborhood.

And in both ways, in both cases, I saw the the proposed pool as as being compatible with the neighborhood.

Uh as the as the nominating papers make clear and very characterized in a very early set of nominating papers.

Um, and many of you know the neighborhood already.

the um and the neighborhood and in both ways in both cases i saw the the proposed pool as as being compatible with the neighborhood uh as the as the nominating papers make clear and very characterized in a very early set of nominating papers um and many of you know the neighborhood already uh this was not the bellevue avenue type neighborhood of very large grand estates but was really the history of the of the 19th century development of this neighborhood was largely uh a history of divisions and subdivisions so the lots are quite small uh certainly compared to the Bellevue Avenue lots uh the character of the people who lived there was different than than most of the people living along Bellevue Avenue um and I've done some specific work on uh the Mason firm Dort C Mason and Sun firm uh who did the house in 1874 and uh this particular kind of house was a sort of modest Chalet style it had some stylistic uh ornamentation on it uh and that's what it's specifically cited for in the in the nominating papers uh nowhere does it mention the landscape around the house at all so it's really about the structure of the house itself but looking walking around the neighborhood to get a sense of the of the character of the neighborhood firsthand even though I knew it I do I always do a review visually um uh it's clear that there are a number of other pools in the neighborhood uh some very close to this on on to this particular property uh on Catherine Street on Redwood and I mentioned these in my in my uh letter to you uh some uh on properties with I would say more significant historically significant uh architectural structures McKin Meet and White uh Irving Gill and others uh so those have been allowed uh uh in the in the very recent past um for the most part so I've I I counted five to six uh other pools in the area uh some very close again to this so I I when looking at the um uh standards and the and the ordinance the issue of compatibility was clearly uh a focal point for me and I see no reason not to think about this as being compatible in fact I think the renderings that that Mr.

Jackson just handed out make the point clearer than I could even make in text and that is that it's invisible from the public right away uh what you do see in the in the renderings is that the house as Mason designed it is all front I mean it's really about being seen from the front and I think if anything it was looking rather tired until this last uh this last uh proposed set of proposals and uh it looks it I think it will will enhance the look of the house and even that chalet style uh moving forward so I see no reason uh that this would be considered incompatible with the neighborhood but but instead should be accepted under both the Newport standards and the um and uh particularly the ordinance thank you and doctor just to be clear that because this is a new structure and the standards for new construction under the historic district zoning ordinance would apply correct that's right among the standards that apply for new construction and really really the only one which would be applicable would be the issue of compatibility right that's right that's what again just to be clear because this is a contributing structure and it's the uh architectural features of the residence itself that make it contributing your opinion is that this small pool in the side yard is compatible in relation to property itself yes i mean it it just doesn't affect the main house at all and is it your testimony that's also compatible with district itself yes thank you okay um yes questions mr um where's the pool equipment i'm sorry where is the pool pool equipment going to be a house for this hole in the ground with water yeah i mean i i don't it's not on the the 3D rendering space along the side call the garage uh screen lattice or none of that will be seen by the public as well correct that that entire corner once the landscaping is done it's gonna be completely screened yeah I have a question for Dr.

Ornado um you did a great job really explaining the the the contributing neighborhood and the streetscape and the the the history of the neighborhood itself but then you referenced the seven other properties that have swimming pools.

I mean, are you just basing this on because seven other people put pools in backyards of architecturally historic buildings by you know world renowned architects?

Is it because they put pools in before this particular property, or is it because you really think it fits in the historic nature of the neighborhood?

I think the issue of compatibility, I think the issue of historic districts is one of visibility to the public.

I mean, that's what that's how historic districts are formed, as you well know, and uh and and defined.

And this to me doesn't affect the public's view of this of this historic structure at all.

So it's I I I hear what you're saying, and you're right.

There are two different issues there.

One has to do with recent pools being accepted, right?

The other one has to do with the historic um value, if you will, of this particular Cunningham house.

Um, but separating those, I would say this it hasn't the compatibility has nothing to do with with the other pools being put in it.

Um it has to do with the fact that it doesn't affect the historic quality of the historic character of the of the Cunningham House.

So it's not so we should just disregard all these other homes.

So the other so it really doesn't matter that all these other homes then have pools.

So well, only if you only in terms of being being consistent in terms of applying the uh standards or the or the ordinance.

All right, thank you.

I will start by saying that I don't really have a problem with the pool per se.

I'm sorry, I don't really have a problem with the pool per se, but the pool equipment mention is something that gets me thinking, and compatibility in the neighborhood or you know, retaining its historic piece is a question of mine.

And how much does noise contribute to a neighborhood that generally has very low traffic, is generally very quiet, and if there are eight pools within a certain distance, how much are we hearing as people are walking through and appreciating the historic, you know, properties?

Maybe that's not within our purview, but that's something that I've begun thinking about, right?

This is a dense neighborhood.

I know what it's like to live next to a pool.

Um and I know we're not talking about the neighbors here.

That's I guess a different problem, but even the public walking through, there's gonna be this pool pump white noise that we're gonna have in the Catherine K neighborhood, and it just makes me think.

But as far as compatibility goes, it has my vote.

I this is just something that I'm beginning to think about as we move into the future here with all these pools.

So I just figured I would put that on the record and and my comment.

Jill.

As a Newport resident, I appreciate noise pollution, but but I don't think it may not, it may not matter.

It looks like the preservation planner wants to make a comment.

Uh no, it's not that obviously that's not within our purview.

Um, I do want to call out that I'm not uh that C one through three is not the standards that I'm basing this off of.

I would consider pool and appurtenance, and so I'm basing uh my review off of standards A one through seven.

So for not new construction, but for uh appurtenances on a historic site.

Thank you.

I was gonna say that I find it uh despite the testimony um to be incompatible.

Microphone, Ray.

I'm sorry, speaking to the mic.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I find it to be incompatible based on the you know C one uh the sighting and the massing.

I guess if you will, if we want to look consider landscape features, you know, that are not uh above ground, but they're part of our purview, it contributes to the massing of the site, in my opinion, makes it incompatible.

And I also uh speaking to what Jill just said, um I find it it also uh is incompatible with with A1.

Okay.

I just want some clarity.

You've referenced two different standard collections of standards.

Now this is a new structure.

No, my point is Mr.

Goddard has referenced two different it's a new structure, but it's adjacent to an original structure.

So I don't know exactly legally how that split and the the staff report identifies compatibility as the issue.

There is compatibility within our which he within retained historic structure A1.

So just to confirm for the commission relative to the pool at the at the prior hearing when we were looking at the garage and in addition to the pool, obviously the garage was new construction.

Um I just want to be clear from our city solicitor and Jill that we're looking at standards for contributing structure.

Yes.

Okay.

So the garage would have been the correct construction.

It would be under retain historic character, um, which is A1 alteration of features and spaces that characterize a contributing structure.

Um preserve character minimize harm from alterations.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear.

I think proposed additions are tier alterations to a contributing structure compatible with the existing features, materials size, and visual relationships and massing to protect the integrity and scale of the original historic structure or site.

Okay.

And I would respectfully disagree because the historic structure is not being touched as part of this application.

And the grounds and the grounds have not been identified as historic.

I would argue that the massing and the alteration to the site, the alteration to the site and I mean it's it's A7, which is mentions the site.

Okay, and it speaks the contributing structure, which isn't being touched by this application, but I'll leave it to the commission to apply whatever standards they think is fit.

Um I'm just sort of baffled that a pool is pools are within our are within our jurisdiction.

I don't I don't disagree.

I just think I think so if we have no grounds to deny it here.

If we would have no grounds to deny a pool, then why would we have burpee over the sighting and no?

I'll give you there there are grounds to deny a pool as an example.

The one I can think of, which surprises me it ever passed is the old Hamley funeral home on Red Cross that now has a pool in the front yard.

So that that is an example of this commission at some point in the past making determination that that was compatible, even though it's clearly visible from the public right of way, and it disrupts the approach to a historic home.

Here you have a small pool in the corner of the property that's not visible from either public right-of-way and does nothing to detract from the historic structure, which is where the character defining features are, yet somehow the commission's troubled by this.

I'm just sort of surprised by it.

So I mean, everything is is site-specific, and you know that it goes property by property.

Yeah, and that's why we made changes to this to try to address some of the concerns that were discussed last month.

So I just want to clarify again, and also feedback from our um council in terms of the correct standards for the commission to be weighing here.

Contributing structure versus new construction.

This would be a contributing structure as it remains to the site.

That's how I've always characterized it.

I've never characterized any pool because a pool would be an appurtenance to the site and the structure.

I've never considered a um a pool under new construction standards.

Okay.

Um and my follow-up question for our preservation planner.

Um, based on the new information that's been provided, the updated plans, testimony that you've heard, um, in your original staff report, you had talked about, and obviously at the time it was relative to the pool and the garage.

We've since approved the garage.

Um talking about um the development of that area of this of the sighting in the inner corner of the lot becoming crowded.

Um, has your perspective changed since the materials and the submission as far as what that looks like?

Obviously, they've scaled the pool down, they've changed the location of it from the main structure.

Do you still have the view based on your experience?

Um my experience and from my perspective, I think that the proliferation of pools on small lots.

Um, this is not kind of like a grand building that has a you know large parcel.

And so, in terms of historic development standards, um, and as it pertains to A7.

Um, stand.

Um, I wasn't here for the last meeting when you discussed the garage.

I was a little surprised at the the garage approval versus the pool.

Um, but I think the collection as a whole um is you know troubling to me.

But obviously the commission, those are that's just my perspective.

The commission may weigh those um with the standards before them.

Okay.

Other questions and comments from the commission.

Mr.

Finley.

Um certainly Professor O'Norado's um uh analysis of what's going on, swayed me um in terms of the compatibility issues.

I think you've taken um the recommendations that were put forward uh on the sighting and change that and uh you diminished the size of the pool.

So um on those on the basis of those three things, I'm in favor of the application.

Okay.

Um we heard from you, okay.

Mr.

Bala.

Um feedback.

No, I'm ready to vote.

Okay.

Um I you know, again, I gone back and forth.

Um, similarly, you know, we've referenced other properties in the neighborhood of which I was also not in favor of the pool based on um similar standards um within A1 and 7.

Um, so while I respect the modifications to the size, um, I still believe that the pool does not um retain historic character or um minimize harm from alterations to the site as we've discussed.

So I would not be in favor of the pool as presented.

I'm fine to support it.

Um I won't support it based on A17 and C1.

A one council, any vote no any further?

Let's just wrap it up however it falls out, and okay, we'll deal with it from there.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of one cottage street, plat 25 lot 64 as presented this evening, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80 060, a one and a seven.

So move second.

All those in favor, aye, aye.

All those opposed, aye.

I would say A1, A4, and A7.

I would cite A1 and A7.

Uh, myself as well, A1 and A7.

Um, A1, A7 and C1.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

C6.

Okay.

This is the application of Ross Camp or 719 Bellevue, flat 38, lot zero two zero contributing for permission to enclose a large three-storied deck and construct a 165 square foot deck.

Oh, yes.

Okay, so just um for the record, uh, Commissioner Moran will be recusing from this application.

Do you want me to continue taking notes?

Or yeah, Jill, just procedurally, she can continue to take notes even though she's not probably better not to.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so I'm gonna ask um the vice chair to read the app uh sorry, did you just read the application?

Just right.

Okay, sorry, we got a little disrupted there.

Um okay, council, welcome back.

Good to be back.

Just Russell Jackson, Miller Scott Holbert and Jackson on behalf of the applicant.

Um, we were here last month.

You didn't really hear anything from us last month.

We uh I think uh uh based on the staff report uh prior to the meeting, we just requested it be continued so that we have a uh design review committee meeting on the site, and that did take place for at least a couple of you.

Um so you had the opportunity to see um uh the property, what some of the issues are that the owners are dealing with in this section at the rear of the historic building, this this add-on that's been modified quite a bit over a long period of time.

Um one of the things that came out of that meeting was a request to provide some alternatives to the commission to review what's being proposed, uh alternatives in terms of materials.

So uh Mr.

Kan has done that, and I think since we met on site, and uh another issue has developed which resulted in a minor alteration of the plans, which wasn't part of the original submission, and that is once um I think uh Mr.

Can and Kirby Perkins started peeling the onion on what is on site.

It was determined that the roof structure as it currently exists, which is flat with a drain in the center, which is where all the problems arose, um cannot be or should not be sort of replicated because it just is going to lead to more problems in turn in terms of water penetration.

So what's being requested is to be allowed to elevate the entire roof on that rear edition one foot in terms of where you see where the eye is drawn to the soffit line.

Um and then there's going to be for better phrase, uh Ross can discuss it in further detail, but a crown in the center of the flat roof, if you will.

So there is some pitch towards the edges, and we don't have the same situation where water's collecting in the center of the roof and leaking into the third floor.

So that is um a little bit of a different um element that wasn't before wasn't part of the original application and wasn't discussed at the site visit because it essentially has developed since that time and it was reflected in the plans that were submitted by Ross on Friday, uploaded into the portal.

So I will um step aside and let Ross sort of walk through uh the design and the different alternatives in terms of materials.

Okay, Mr.

Campbell, just get you sworn in first.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record.

Ross can be for architecture.

So uh as we discovered as we walked around as a as a group, this was uh this back addition kind of collided into Inchiquin, which is a more uh gilded age type structure uh in the 1970s.

It has popcorn ceilings, uh PVC pipe, um foil wrapped cabinets, all of the lovely things that went into houses in the in the 1980s.

And uh this house is slowly kind of being converted back into a single family house.

It's not there yet, but the goal of the owners is to integrate uh additions more seamlessly into the building and elevate them in character uh and quality to match the front of the building, uh, the original structure.

Uh there's a number of different approaches that we've we've taken.

Different uh the the two owners have slightly differing feelings on this.

Uh one really uh believes that the stone aspect of the building is what defines the character of the building, and wanted to see uh any of the the rear additions that we're dealing with uh handled in that way with a with a veneer stone, which is similar to what we did for the uh the previous uh enclosure of uh a terrace, um, which happened several years ago.

Uh another approach is to is to upgrade uh but keep the shingle appearance that uh all of the uh back building currently has, but um enclose these uh decks which have a very wide space um kind of anonymous colonial turned spindle uh that just doesn't look not only does it not look historic, it doesn't look Victorian or appropriate to to the character of the building, and they want to enclose those decks, which is what the zoning board would like to see uh raise decks above the first level are are now being highly discouraged um with the new zoning code.

So, in a way, we are conforming with that zoning uh preference, and then the last approach we took, um, which is the one that came out of the design review committee, which is the uh C version, is more like what we uh did for the terrace, where it is a um looks a little bit more like an enclosed uh decks, which is is what its historic precedence is, and we are um putting in uh push-out casement windows as opposed to folding nano uh wall windows.

Um it's much more articulated, it's broken down.

One of the concerns seem to be that the that this element was taking on uh too much mass in of itself.

And so those are the three basic ideas that we've had to try and uh solve the issue of of how to upgrade the quality of these open decks, make them into more three-season spaces for uh the use of the the building.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, so this last I'm just trying to be clear on what version it is that we're providing feedback on version C.

So A is stone, B is shingle, C is sort of panelized with um surface, so on ballasters.

So which what is the of A, B, and C, what is being presented to the commission to provide feedback on?

I would say all three.

Um, you know, you had seen A and B previously, those are the ones that the owners are strongly in favor of, and they wanted us to present them.

But I guess uh if you guys uh like the the aspect of C in that it's been articulated and broken down and and doesn't feel as massive as the previous versions, um, that would be ideal.

So I guess I guess we put all three cards on the table for your uh comment and consideration and hope that one of them uh rises to the level that the commission would um approve it.

Good.

So just removing the decks isn't an option.

Well, yes, everybody always wants to tear half their house down.

Yeah, exactly.

No, that doesn't go over so well.

No, I wouldn't, it's all but you can see in the uh both the photographs of the existing building and uh the existing condition uh elevations.

This is almost feels like a kind of a Boston triple decker with uh you know open joists and wide spaced ballasters.

Um it just doesn't kind of rise to the level of the quality of the house that the uh the current owners are are trying to achieve.

Uh let me ask a question.

I was at the site visit, and um we had to walk around and look at the original structure.

In regards to the stone, um would it match the existing building, or is it gonna look different?

Uh it would look it could never look exactly the same because that's an actual structural stone.

This would be even near, and there's certainly enough difference between the uh detailing of this building and the original building so that there would be clear distinction between what's old and what's new.

Okay.

But the goal is, as you well know, it must be compatible, but it can't be suppositional.

So it can't be black, it can't be white.

We're just finding that right shade of gray in between those two extremes to try and find something that works and helps um express the natural evolution of these buildings.

And if you were to do it in stone, would it still be open decks?

Uh it would not be open deck, it would be much more closed, and there would be uh and similar to the terrace, a nano wall system or really a nano window system, so that in nice times of the year it could open up uh and and be almost like a terrace, but in the winter it could be closed and continue to be used.

Okay.

So there you can see that in the in the alternative.

Yeah, I mean, I know some of us on the commission have been part of this building in prior iterations.

We did make a thoughtful um update on the rear of the elevation, um, which you see in the far right corner there that did have nano system weld um windows built into it, um, but very seamlessly added into the main structure of the building.

Um that's really the the feeling that we're trying to achieve with the the the approach C, you know, which is broken down a little bit more, has more articulation, honors the open terraces that were created later, but elevates them in terms of their character and quality.

I just offering our attorney the chance to use his golden tongue to think you've covered everything, and it's and again, we've offering three alternatives because that was suggested as something that would be helpful for the commission, that we can make some progress in terms of is there a preference regarding materials?

Is one material reduced or max or other materials sort of looking at that?

Is is the roof over the structure that's not changing at all?

Is that uh you were talking about making it a foot higher or something?

Can you be more clear on what that exactly means?

Because as I look at it, it looks like the fascia and the overhangs and the corobals are out of proportion to what they should be.

Is that what we're talking about?

Did they did that get thicker for some reason?

No, it didn't get thicker, it just moved up uh 12 inches.

It just went higher.

Yeah, just higher.

So yeah, it is a rather thick, as you see in the photograph.

Yeah, and because we're not doing it all the way around, you know, to change that.

We we thought let's just take the carry it through holes and structure and and elevate it up to make this roof work better than it it does currently, since it looks like we're going to need roof.

And in some ways, I think from a historic standpoint, we'll have our zoning issue with this, but it gives a little bit more space around the windows.

The top windows are not jammed up against the freeze board of the uh cornice.

Um, if you will talk about it that way, um with the soffit as as tightly as as they are currently.

So can we uh of a just a 2D elevation of the third version?

Do we have that?

Or is it just an Yep?

That's that's the A version.

So that section right there.

Yeah, there you go.

That's that's the that's the C version right there.

The C version there, right.

And so what we're talking about is this one up?

Yes, yep.

All the windows and other elements stayed where they were.

It's just the third board.

The fascia in relation to the rest of the building, is that correct?

Yep.

So we we didn't make that change, just elevated it.

But it it is a large building, so the heaviness of that soffit um it has never been my biggest concern with this uh property.

It's been more the kind of accidental quality of those back terraces.

The fact that they don't meet current code in terms of four-inch sphere rule.

Um, the fact that they're turned ballasters that have more of a colonial character, or this has a much more French um gilded age, almost gothic quality to it.

So using sawn ballasters, we thought was a much more appropriate from both code standpoint and from historic standpoint for um the nature of this kind of gilded age neighborhood and this um particular structure.

Yeah, I would say that like if I had to choose, I would say the third version is the most successful of the three.

Uh my concern with the stone version is you know, executing these large opens in the stone facade.

It doesn't look natural, it looks somehow forced in there, and then it almost reads like the it is an air stone, is definitely not yeah.

So uh that would be my input on it.

I'm just wondering, and I I don't think you'd want to do this because it would require carrying it through the rest of the building, I suppose, but why there isn't uh an additional piece of detail on that fascia so that it would provide a shadow line so it wouldn't read so thick.

You know, because it does look almost like someone just pushed a piece of fascia board on top of a two by 12.

There is fortunately one break in it currently, but I think we could probably add something to break it down a little bit, even a very thin um OG trim would create additional shadow line to it.

But in no way replicate, you know.

Well, there's nothing suppositional about this.

No one will ever look uh and say, is this a 19th early 20th century uh construction?

That's that's for sure.

But we do want it to feel um compatible to the kind of uh mansion district of this newport community on Bellevue Avenue, and we want it to fit better with the existing house, even though there are other elements that we're not addressing currently.

This is one further step, hopefully, to just re-integrate that back part, which you know no one will tear down you know, six five thousand square feet of of space that they've purchased.

It's a very hard thing to ask anybody.

We'll go back to the section that you just skipped over.

And then we zoom in on that roof line.

Is that that's the yes, that's the projection of the roof.

Right.

So and then the OG, the shadow piece that you were speaking of would go where it said that would go on the the face of that.

Yeah, exactly, right there.

Right now there's there's one break, but beneath that we could add a very thin, like a half inch by two inch piece of trim with some OG uh aspect to it to create additional shadow lines and break down the flatness of that so that uh it the eye isn't drawn to it quite so readily as as do you agree that would be an improvement?

Do you think that would I think anything that um l makes this feel less 1970s or 1980s is a good thing.

Yeah, you know, that's my well you're putting a whole new, I would assume it's a membrane roof on there now, right?

It would have to be P PDM roof, yeah.

Well part of the reason, just so you all know the the roof as it was built was built with the slope reverse, and they had internal drains, PVC, they got stuck during the big freeze and there was large amounts of flooding into the roof as a result, uh, because we basically had invited a pond to be created up there, uh which you know overburdened and and and caused deflection, and we're trying to transform that so that the water sheds outward instead of inward, and the roof needs to be replaced, and therefore that's why this has sort of come up as an additional feature to the project because this is the time to do it since we're going to be replacing the roof anyway.

But I wonder if like when you reverse the pitch and the roof and it sends it over the edge of the overhang.

You might want to have that OG and shadow line to keep water from dripping down the face of your uh your fascia there.

Right.

Or even a small gutter.

Gutter might be exactly the solution.

Would give you both the shadow line and functionality.

Yeah.

Uh I I think I could support number three.

I think it it works for me.

It gives a differentiation that uh I think would be we would you know be required to, and I think it also is the most successful of the three options that I'm looking at.

So I just could work with that.

Thank you.

Um so I'll comment.

Um I agree um in terms of option three.

I do agree with Mr.

Goddard.

I I'm still, even though you're just talking about the roof and the soffits there, like the rendering definitely feels much larger in terms of an overhang than the 2D elevations.

I don't know if that's just an optical illusion, but yeah.

I I think it is, it's drawn.

Okay.

The 2D elevations come from the same 3D model.

Okay.

So they have to be the same.

Okay.

Um I concur that I would not be in favor of supporting the stone.

I think it presents, well, there is representation and and also from our findings the fact that there was stone on this part of the building that was constructed later, nine early 1900s.

Um representing stone, I think starts to bring some conjecture to the table.

Um, it's very difficult.

There's in such a beautiful original structure, this whole thing.

It's kind of like what is the best half of least resistance?

It's it is very much a challenge.

Um you know, similarly, I was not in favor of the nano system.

I aligned with our preservation planner when that was originally presented.

So these case these are casements in this option you said.

Okay.

Um, so I would be in favor of supporting option three.

Um I guess when I look at it when for the first time I went out as well, not the first time I was here, but when it came through originally, but I I just got to feel like when did the place get turned into an apartment building, right?

Right, especially if you if you come in from the the back side of it where you've got this separate building and then it connects with uh you know with the uh over or the uh roof lines that connect them and it just looks just all bolted on to this chairs at a beautiful structure.

I mean, the home, you know, when it was built, was remarkable.

Now when you put this structure kind of bolted on, and to your point, the worst thing was putting on those decks.

So if this is I guess in my view, three is the best way to incorporate those decks into the structure as best we can.

It does mimic a little bit of that nano section we put around on the around the corner there.

Um so I guess that's the one I would if we had to go with one of them.

Right.

I appreciate all the comments and uh like where this is going.

I would say that in trying to find a place from a public way where you could see this, we really were unsuccessful because this is hidden behind each mound from um cogshell, uh you know the extension of Spring Street and along Bellevue Avenue again, it's hidden by the main structure.

So the only place to really see this is from uh aerial drone flying over uh uh spouting rock beach.

It's really the only place you can see this, except for that back parking lot.

I'm sure many of you when you came to that back parking lot and looked up at those terraces were seeing them for the very first time, and probably weren't terribly happy with what you saw.

Exactly.

That's what happened.

But that's why we're and and the owners feel the same way, which is why they they want to integrate this, you know, in the same way that the terrace uh is compatible but not suppositional.

But it is gonna be their intent is uh a single family or two family, is that what it is?

It's look like they have children, right?

And they going to have grandchildren, their first grandchildren are on the way, and they're really thinking about this as a legacy house that the entire family can come and visit and stay.

So they will be distinct apartments, but they will be for uh family members.

Got it.

I I would just like to go on the record.

I mean, it is visible from Bellevue Avenue.

It is yeah, you drive around that and you can see this part of the building.

So and I also think that you know, um we will be reminded of this by example by somebody else bringing it up to us.

So I am very careful on what I'm going to approve here.

I'm having difficulty with uh enclosing non-conforming decks.

I know they're there, I know they don't want to tear them off, but the deck is not that much structure.

This just seems to be added mass and added decor and added detailing that wasn't there.

And I think I've heard uh several comments about shouldn't have been there.

Uh and so I'm having a really hard time getting behind.

I do agree, number three uh is a more better solution.

However, I'm looking at it and I'm like, you know, that's a heck of a lot of stuff right there that I'm approving.

And somebody else is going to come down the road and say, I've got a deck and I want to enclose it like this.

So I don't think I can get on board with this.

But is it a deck though?

It is a deck who has a roof over it.

There are three decks with but it does have a roof over it though, right?

Yes, but it's not a porch.

Okay.

It does not have a roof.

Oh, that one doesn't have a roof, I get you.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

But this is where the zoning board is pulling one way and you're going in another way, and we're the rope caught in between the two.

Yeah, no, um, I am aware of the evolution of the zoning amendments, and and I just think if this was any other building in any part of town and somebody had a deck of this size, we would be saying, you know, it's been our our previous uh applications have been like you can take it and fix it and keep it, but you can't do anything more to it.

And I just I I think if this was any other building in any part of town and somebody had a deck of this size, we would be saying, you know, it's been our our previous uh applications have been like you can take it and fix it and keep it, but you can't do anything more to it.

And I think that's what we're seeing here.

It's you want to keep it and add it and put a roof over it.

And I'm thinking, you know, we all have our opinion on what the architectural merit is of this addition.

Uh I don't think we should be perpetuating it.

So all right, I guess we're in some ways thinking about decreasing the use of it so that there isn't noise and other things that start to migrate out over the neighborhood.

Right.

And our main focus, and I would say the main focus of the owners is to transform something that looks cheap and cheesy in 80s and turn it into something that feels appropriate to a new courthouse.

That's that's our goal here.

And I think that's our goal as a community, and and certainly I'm sure as the HDC is that's one of your driving features, as well as maintaining high quality of construction and high quality of design.

I agree, and I stood I stood on these decks, and and this space is wonderful.

I would want to capitalize on it, but I cannot, as a commissioner, be behind enclosing it in making it a roof over it and and making it bigger than it already is.

If I could just ask um for clarification, um, because zoning has come up several times.

Is there a reason that these have to be enclosed?

Like there's no, so this is existing.

Um if they were to alter them in any way, then that would be a different story, but so alter them in terms of enlarging them.

Okay, so we could just be updating spindles and and making them correct.

Okay, so I think that's an important distinction that there's zoning was uh adoption recent changes to the ordinance relative to the size of second and third level decks.

So obviously when these were built, there were no restrictions on the size.

Um now there are restrictions.

So, as an example, a third-level deck has to be a certain distance from edge of the roof line, can't be more than 30 square feet in size, which is really just a balcony.

Um second level decks can be a little bigger, but there's specific restrictions in the code.

So I think when Ross was discussing that, he's talking about um the zoning code looking forward wanting to see second and third level decks smaller.

And I guess my position, I understand the concern about massing and sort of memorializing some probably shouldn't have been put on originally, but you know, I think the other I would argue the other way to look at this is the options that are being offered here, I would suggest are more consistent and compatible with the standards than leaving the decks as they are.

Because then the alternative is you're you're suggesting the decks off altogether.

And I know that in a perfect world maybe that would make sense, but I don't know any property owners that would immediately you know sort of eliminate um you know the use and enjoyment of outdoor space that they already have.

Well, I guess I'm trying to clarify.

Do they um we're not building something new?

So the the decks as they are can be ground grandfathered in under current zoning.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Russ, but they're allowed to be exhibiting maintained.

They're allowed to continue, they're allowed to exist, but also once once if this renovation project goes for goes forward, they no longer fit the definition of deck.

Now, this is really an addition, you know, if you look at it that way.

Well, so that's always my opinion in terms of I mean, I agree.

The massing of enclosing them, it adds a lot.

I was under the impression we were talking about that they had to be brought up to standard.

If that is not the case, then I am in favor of them being maintained that you can update some of the architectural features, but the open air idea of um, you know, that that has in and of itself taken on characteristics.

Um, we're not looking about adding them.

Um, and I do think that that would help to at least alleviate the the mass that is there by what's been presented in all three options.

So I I do agree that uh you've the roof repair is something that needs to be done for the lively uh hood of the building, and so that that's uh would be on board with that, but I personally wouldn't be on board with either of the three options of enclosing the decks.

So just to clarify, um what I'm hearing from the commissioners, it's not so much the use of the decks, it's the addition of bulk and mass to that corner, correct?

Yes, I'm sorry, Jill.

Repeat that and walls, right?

So it's it's less to do with the um the use of the decks and more to do with the addition of bulk and mass to the yes, correct.

Yeah, I mean we can't we can't tell somebody to take their non-conforming deck off.

But I think we can tell somebody not to make it walls and roof.

Make it a build, I mean make it an enclosed structure.

Yes, yeah.

So I'll I'll just update based on additional conversations.

I would be in support of updating what is there currently, you know, new replacing in kind, obviously repairing um whatever roofing structure is there, but I would not be in favor of enclosing those spaces in any of the options that were presented.

Right?

You're okay with the elevating of the route, at least if we think of that as uh uh another aspect of our our ask.

Um can we just go to the um existing structure?

I mean, obviously I agree.

I'm I'm totally in favor of protecting the building, and if that includes having to update the roof, but is there a roof on the third story here?

There's not a roof on the footprint of the deck.

So where is the roof?

Where is the leap?

We're talking about the roof for the entire rear edition of that.

Oh, I'm in favor, that's fine.

But I yeah, so can we is it possible to bifurcate this, take a vote on elevating the roof so that the interior work here and and elevateing the existing structure with a new roof?

Should we get zoning relief on that?

Go forward, and maybe we'll go back to the client, go back to the drawing board and let the client decide whether they want to make additional changes and try to come back one more time with some type of modification, or whether they want to abandon the idea of enclosing those decks.

I would prefer not to have it go to a boat now without having that discussion with a client.

And just to clarify, you're talking about us adding a six-inch pitch, just six inches.

Well, the the roof is going up one foot, one foot, and then the pitch is changing from downward to upward six inches.

But it's going so it'll be going up a foot.

So the bigger crown.

Yeah, but well, I we won't call it a crown, it's really a flat roof with a slight slope.

Yeah, yeah.

And you you'd be adding gutters and downslopes.

Yeah.

Yes.

Do we see the roof from the float from the ground?

No.

It would be very hard even visually uh gauge that the roof had gone up because it has a proportion of the total height, it's it's so little.

Yep.

There is so much other architecture to see here.

You don't see the roof.

Okay, so just to confirm um, in terms of splitting the application into part one, which would be elevating the existing structural roof for repair, and part two, um, enclosing the large um three-story existing deck.

Right.

Clarify.

I guess I would just one last pitch.

You're you're arguing between enclosing and fixing the reality may be enclosing and doing nothing.

So uh I I'd hate for that to happen too, because that's just a denigration of of the overall project, and it will continue to kind of exist in this uh hybrid state where you have a gilded age mansion with a 1980s uh addition that's slammed into the backbone, and that's really what we were looking to fix.

Aren't we also deciding on the siding whether it's stone or isn't that a separate issue?

Well, once you approve what is yeah, if AB Yeah, that'll go with that'll go with the second part.

Okay, so if council agrees, um before before we uh have the vote on the first part.

Well, we just I'm first voting to split it into two parts.

Okay.

I just I don't know if we have an elevation of the whole existing building with the addition and everything together so we can see the relationship with the roof.

We still split it.

Yeah, I think we okay.

I know, yep.

Okay, so I'm gonna request a motion to split the application of 719 Bellevue Avenue, plat 38 lot 20 into two parts.

The first being um an elevation of the existing structural roof for repair, um, and part two enclosing a large three-story deck.

So moved.

Okay.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, so coming back to the first part.

Um the structural roof.

So Ray, just to clarify what you're looking for.

Well, uh, on this elevation, we don't see any aspects of the original building.

This is the the addition, right?

Is for the main building is we have no elevations of the whole structure.

There, I think there's elevations of the existing conditions in the packet.

Yeah, that's yeah.

But it's much much higher.

It's it's uh a much higher room.

And what they did in the 1970s was they took a roof that was like this.

Yeah.

The a rigal crown, and they changed the slope and added another level, a third level around the front.

Yeah.

So that was again one of these things.

So we'd love to change if we can.

You can see a little bit of it in that last view you just had there.

You can see there's the original roof off the right, which is the new higher roof, uh, and then the lower slope to the old ground.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

If I'm not mistaken, that was a result of a fire.

I think that burned down.

There was a fire.

It might well have.

There were because it just yeah, but in any case, uh probably the opportunity for them to make the change.

Yeah.

Um yeah, I'm okay with the roof.

I'm sorry.

I'm okay with the roof.

Okay.

All right.

So um commission, other commissioners in favor of part one on repairing that.

Okay.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve part one um of the application for 719 Bellevue Avenue, plat 38 lot 20, which is to elevate the existing structural roof for repair.

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

So moved.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Sorry, just doing double duty as secretary here.

Okay.

Um, and so then um for the applicant, okay, to continue the second part of the application.

Okay.

So with that, I'll request a motion to continue the second part of um 719 Bellevue Avenue, Platte 38 Lot 20 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, May 12th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For those interested, this is the picture of the fire.

Well, yeah, that's pretty amazing.

Oh, but look at how beautiful that part of the building was.

If we took took it off.

It'd look a lot better than a deck there.

Are you being facetious?

No, I'm not.

Oh, okay.

Right.

Yeah.

Right.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I think we should just take a quick recess.

If we'll we have a lot to get through still, so just uh five or seven minutes if possible.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think it should be stuck.

Aesthetically, my goddess.

It should be still it doesn't match the roots.

The sun here right next to real stuff.

It's no one.

This is the application of our glass farm LLC of 152 Harrison Avenue, plat 41, lot 405 contributing structure for permission to renovate three existing garage bays to create a habitable, habitable living space by installing windows and a door within the existing base.

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna get you both sworn in this evening.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And if you could state your name into the microphone, please.

Melissa Conlin.

Connell?

Conlin.

Connley.

Okay.

And similarly, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.

I do.

And if you could state your name for the record.

Chris Cody, Cody Architecture.

Okay.

Good.

All right.

All yours.

Okay.

So as the application states, the uh plan here is to uh convert what is currently six-bay garage uh to convert three of those bays into resident, you know, uh residential spaces, um, two bedrooms and uh and a bathroom.

Um and so what we're asking for is uh for three of those bays and that the doors that are there, the existing doors to be converted in in some capacity to uh different you know fenestration uh windows and in one case a door.

Um the um in the we have existing photographs in our application.

Um, you know, a really interesting thing if it's sort of the the last picture in that.

Uh yeah, right there.

Um the interesting thing that we discovered through this process is that uh what you're seeing in that elevation um with those those bays.

Um where we're talking about this work, there are actually seven bays there, seven openings.

And what we're seeing, you know, what we have now what it exists now is six bays.

So at some point, and and so that these pictures were taken in uh 2000, and so when this building was changed during that time, um, you know, it was an interesting discovery to find out that you know it got converted from seven bays to six bays for you know who knows what reason.

Um so the reason I mention it is just simply that you know, clearly what we're seeing here in the existing, um, which you can see in some of the other photographs as it exists today, uh, those uh six bays are clearly not original.

Um the five of those bays are overhead doors, um overhead garage doors that are, as far as we can tell, they're just kind of fiberglass panel over overhead doors that have been uh clad with the with the black wood on the outside, and then there's one that is kind of the one the far uh right hand one is a carriage door that opens out.

Um again, nothing nothing here is um original.

Um, but to maintain uh part of the character of what's there, what we're doing with the infill of these new um openings is maintaining the existing uh opening, or you know, the the nine foot roughly by eight foot wide um opening and kind of inserting our new fabric, our new fenestration and an infill wall kind of into those existing openings to maintain that you know rhythm of those bays.

Okay.

Um I will say that in our pre-meeting, um, we did have a few commissioners that actually had thought this application was good for summary.

There was a couple of questions or suggestions.

Um, I think that might be able to help a couple of commissioners um move towards a favorable outcome.

So I'm gonna open um it up for comments to Mr.

Bala.

Um my comments were that uh I would like to see the development of the windows and doors uh bring forward the characteristic of the existing doors somehow, so it doesn't look like you just inserted two windows and a door.

Uh I think if you were to add some trim elements and maybe similar uh board and batten siding to make it look like it was a door that still reads as a door but has windows and doors in it somehow.

Um so it just doesn't change the character that these are doors.

There's a rhythm to how this building looks uh and it's been abrupted by just putting something uh so I'd like to see you uh develop it maybe a little more and uh you could probably submit that to the planner and for a thumbs up.

Okay.

Um I mean, I think that that was a very good comment from Commissioner Bala.

Um, you know, whether they even maybe there's some arch windows, but I agree, mimicking that profile of something that was there rather than just cookie cutter dropping something in.

Um I would be in favor.

I think, you know, obviously it's been an adaptive reuse already, but I think furthering that continuation in a way, um, I highly support.

So, but I would echo the idea that trying to find some way to continue at least that legacy of them having been you know, carriage doors at one point and some semblance of that.

I would be in favor of that.

Uh a couple of questions.

What's the date of the building?

Do you know the date?

1914.

Building 1914.

We believe, yeah.

And are those eyebrow doors that I see?

What are those little things?

They're not dormers, they're ventilation eyebrow kind of ventilation pieces.

There's a um kind of an attic space above the garage there, and so they're you know some roof.

Okay.

I'm in some okay.

Most of these structures were like housed animals before it was inhabited by um Dottie Hamilton owned it and worked with SVS uh most popularly, and now um, yeah, we've taken the animal elements out as she did as she the space evolved under her ownership.

Yeah, Mr.

Goddard.

Uh though I am sympathetic to the notion that you might want to change the doors to mimic all the windows to mimic the doors.

Uh I think I can support it as it is.

Okay.

I know that this is not a very publicly visible place.

Uh so I do recognize that.

Um I was hopeful that we could see something that did respect what the structure was.

I didn't know it exactly what that looks like.

I do agree with Mr.

Bala that I feel like there could be something done to essentially um refer to that, what it had looked like, what it had been used for, um, rather than kind of building a wall and sticking a window in it.

But uh I I can't I can't say what that looks like.

Um not vehemently opposed to this, but um would appreciate something that is a little bit more respectable to the original use of it.

That's my opinion.

Audience.

No, I I would be uh I certainly agree with Mr.

Balla that would be my preference, and I think the preservation planner in our pre-meeting kind of put it to the which made a lot of sense when she said that you're replacing the doors now with windows, but how could you make it look so you could take the windows out and replace them with doors, right?

And lift away, you know, to put it back the way it was if you wanted to.

So that's kind of where you want to go.

But I I think you're pretty close to there.

You'll figure it out.

Okay.

All right.

So if that sounds amenable, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 152 Harrison F, plat 41 lot 405, um, with the condition that the three proposed bays for updates be considered um with potential architectural updates um reflective of the original doors that can be reviewed with the preservation planner.

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.

Okay.

Thank you.

Great, thank you very much.

Great project.

Thank you.

They do it all in.

This is the application of Stephen Santos and Maria Nelson of 40 Sherman Street, plat 21, lot 117 contributing for permission to construct a four-foot by six-foot closet addition to the north elevation.

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

I'm representing the owners, Charles Saunder.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And I'm sorry, just repeat your name again.

Charles Saunder.

Can you spell your last name for me quickly?

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

Just wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

Okay, so Mr.

Saunder, um this had been um an out a separate application that had been before the commission previously um that had been denied.

So first process we need to go through.

If you could just walk us through the changes from the application that had been denied, um, the commission needs to um review and make an approval that we see it as a considerable change from what had been previously presented, and then we can go into reviewing it as an application.

So very um succinctly, if you could summarize what it is that's different from what had been previously reviewed and denied.

Um simply put, it's uh six by four addition before it was 10 10 foot by four.

So that's one aspect of the change, and also um the materials as well as the um fenestration.

So some windows were removed.

Okay, so the size changed from I'm sorry, 10 by 4 to 4 by 6.

Yes.

And removal of windows.

Okay, so to the commission, um, based on those changes, um, that this application was before us previously.

Um a size reduction from 10 by 4 to 4 by 6, architecturally, otherwise no changes um and the removal of windows.

Um before the commission this evening, um we do need to uh I'll request a motion or commentary first, or we can go straight to a motion.

If you'd like to put the motion on the table, you can discuss while the motion is on the table.

Okay.

Um I also like to point out that another change would be the um I do believe I have previous.

So this is a different option.

Um, you're seeing the roof line here.

Um is a hip roof versus kind of like a shed.

Um, and then obviously, yeah, the fenestration and the size in material.

Okay.

So just to restate that, um, the changes from the original, um, in addition from size of 10 by 4 to 4 by 6, um, the change of the roof profile and removal of windows um from the fenestration.

So request a motion for 40 Sherman, plat 21 lot 117, um, to accept the changes as substantially different from the prior application.

So moved second.

All those in favor.

I would discuss the one by one if you determine that this is okay.

Why not?

Um, and then you can bring it to a vote.

Okay.

All right.

So open the floor to Mr.

Bell.

Um, I don't see this as a substantial change.

I think, and I sympathize uh to the work that you've put into this project and the owner's wishes for this project, recalling their past visits.

However, I think uh from my recollection, we were more uh in tune with offering suggestions about making this addition more of an addition opposed to decreasing the size of the addition.

Um I think we or myself looked at this before as it was just really kind of this minor thing added on to the building that didn't seem to really work, and making it smaller doesn't seem to make it work any better, in my estimation.

So I don't see it as significantly changed.

Um and and again, I I sympathize that the owner is just trying to look for a closet.

Um I don't think this is a successful um application, though.

Okay, so first just to clarify as we go down the line, just to um first weigh in on if it's different enough, just to clarify.

That's okay.

All good, Mr.

Finley.

From the review of explicitly different from the original.

I agree with Michel Bell.

It doesn't to me seem like a big change.

It's still a just looks like the closet stuck on the back.

Okay, Mr.

Madsen.

Uh I would be in agreement with that, but it's you know, it's not a stigmat change.

I denied it once and wouldn't do it again.

Okay.

Ms.

Moran.

Uh unfortunately, I don't feel that's shrinking the scale of this really uh substantially changes what the plan looks like.

Mr.

Gonnard?

I I'd have to agree.

I don't think it makes a criteria for substantial change.

Okay, and I would agree.

I I don't think that there's been any architectural changes other, you know, size um and removing windows isn't um a considerable enough change for myself.

Um so with that, I'm going to again just restate that motion um for 40 Sherman Street plat 21 lot 117 um to accept the proposed changes as substantially changed from the original application.

So move second.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

So I'll just explain procedurally so you know for your clients um how this happens.

So you you're welcome to apply again with a um with an application that is substantially different if you'd like to go back to the drawing board.

Um, then they're more than welcome to do that and reapply.

Um, but they wouldn't be able to move forward with the same application.

Okay.

Yeah.

So there'd have to be some substantial differences.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um three.

And three.

This is the application of 90 Rhode Island condominium association of 90 Rhode Island Avenue, plat 23 lot 019.

It's a contributing structure for permission to replace street facing red slate root with red asphalt shingles.

Okay, welcome this evening.

I'm gonna 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.

More more.

Okay.

Okay, welcome, Ms.

Moore.

Um if you could just uh give us a summary.

I think it's fairly straightforward from the application, but in case we're missing anything, just highlight for us what we're looking at.

Pretty straightforward, especially after what I've just seen today.

Um so um this is an old mansion built in the 1900s, was converted into condos in the 70s.

Um the majority of our owners purchased their units prior to the building being placed in the historical district.

It's in the K.

Okay, yeah.

Um, which was placed in on January 19th, 2018.

Um I guess most importantly is the carriage house that is directly behind it that's now on Prairie Ave, was also tile had tile roof, and it has been converted, it was approved to be converted to red asphalt um shingles.

The cost is tremendous the cost difference, and I've heard you say earlier that cost doesn't matter per se, but for people who weren't knowingly buying in this area for that historical preservation, it does present a bit of a conflict for for us.

Um another owner also found historical building data that said that the residents had red shingles originally.

I don't know if red shingles means red asphalt shingles, red tile shingles, but there's a potential that historically backwards it was asphalt.

Um it's a little bit unclear.

Um, but I also in whatever your decision is, I found an article um that was published by Hogan and Associates, and it's all about the historical society and everything.

And it says while the guidelines may sound restrictive, Newport provides certain financial incentives to help offset the higher costs associated with maintaining and restoring historic homes.

Tax credits and grants are sometimes available for preservation projects that comply with local, state, and federal guidelines, understanding and applying for these incentives can use the financial burden of owning historic property while ensuring that you meet the regulations.

I just ask that if you do decide it still has to be tile if you could help guide us to um possibly get some financial assistance in the in the okay, and that would that would definitely need to be managed through our city staff.

Um, and just to clarify, you are the I'm the chair of the um association.

Okay, so Jill, procedurally, this doesn't do we need documentation of that, or this you typically we require if it's a condo owner that we need to have approval from the association.

So I just want to make sure that submitted.

Yeah, I didn't see one in the materials.

Yep, this was a condo authorization, uh, the board letter, which was oh, it's in a different spot.

It's yeah in our materials.

Um although the um the historic district was updated, so the K Catherine district was updated, um, I believe in 2011 or the mid-2000s.

Um the building has been the boundaries of the historic district haven't changed since uh 1968, I believe.

Um, when council adopted those papers.

So um yeah.

You bought it, it was a historic district already.

Okay.

Information given to another person on our association, I believe from Kimberley.

Can we hide?

Thank you for your hope.

Um said it was placed in the historical district on January 19th, 2018.

Yeah, so that that's when the um the national register papers were published.

Okay, um, versus the boundaries of the local historic district.

So National Register Historic District is at the national level and local historic district was codified um in our local standards, so our local ordinance back in the 70s, I believe.

Okay, so yeah, I know it's it's confusing the two levels.

Yeah, and I'm I'm the most recent owner.

I purchased face here.

Yeah, and here I am.

I've a tiny little 300 square foot studio in the very back of the building.

I'm like, oh, okay.

I guess why you're the head.

Okay.

All right.

So um I forgot.

Go ahead and every other home surrounding it.

I provide photos, it has asphalt shingles.

Every single one.

Understood.

And you've looked at the ready slate, it says in here the we yeah, the ready slate is 10,000 less than the tile.

So goes from 63,000 to 53,000.

Um, we've also got another quote because we thought, all right, let's just comparatively shop in the the second quote we got was 100,000 for the tile.

It's not tile.

Okay.

So as stated in our staff report, obviously, we're looking at a contributing structure.

Um, you've heard this evening, we have standards specific to that.

We also have um guidance, which is available on our website.

Um that speaks specifically to roofing repair and replacement.

Um so I'm just gonna read that um as a reference.

Um, and certainly um I think it's important.

So roofs are a character defining feature of historic buildings, historic roofing types like slate, standing seam metal, wood, shingle, and tile are highly significant elements of the buildings in Newport's historic districts and should be preserved.

Not only do roofs protect the buildings underneath, but then they also form an important part of the visual experience of the city.

Therefore, we have the standards which supplement our um standards as mentioned earlier, those A1 through seven.

So here for contributing buildings, when a roof must be replaced due to deterioration, it shall be replaced in kind.

Construction methods and materials should match the historic roof.

Example, if replacement is necessary and improved, original slate roof tiles should be replaced with slate roof tiles.

So it's really before the commission this evening.

This is a replacement in kind scenario.

Um we are um we have seen ready slate, which is a true slate material.

Um, something obviously roof um red is a very distinguishable color.

I don't just know that we've seen red ready slate come before us previously.

We haven't.

Um we have approved a project um in Washington Square.

There was um a building that had red slate, um, and they decided to you guys approved uh ready slate in the gray color, and that's a completed project.

Um, so you'd be able to see that.

Um, I was also wondering if the quote was for are you just planning on replacing um this front slope of the roof, or are you thinking about doing the entire thing in the room?

Everything else is except for the front part has already been replaced.

Okay, it has to be done.

Okay, so you're talking about the just the front slope being correct.

Okay, so just the front on Rhode Island.

Okay.

Um so clearly between um our specific guidance on roofing repair and replacement and in accordance with the standards that we have for construct um contributing structures replacement in kind.

I would be in um supportive.

I would not be able to support replacing with asphalt.

So I agree.

Uh additionally, um, as we've stated tonight.

Um examples of other buildings, examples of what you do to your buildings are then brought back to us.

Uh and if it differs from our standards, we really don't have much to fall back on.

So because our standards, that's what we vote on.

Uh I could not support this being replaced other than slate.

Slate or ready would be slate is kind of yes, yeah.

I'd love to see red slate.

That's just a hope and a dream versus ready slate.

Versus ready slate.

Just a suggestion.

I know you're in a tough spot.

Um, okay.

So with that, um, I'm going to request a motion to approve um the application of 90 Rhode Island AB plat 23 lot 19 on the condition that the application be updated to a true slate material that could be authentic slate or ready slate.

Citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 060, a one, two, four, five, seven, and our newport guidance for roofing repair and replacement.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, and also check with the planner.

She can help you on those.

Oh, yeah, on the other thing, other details.

Thank you for all your help.

And 51.

Oh.

And five.

Yeah, we'll skip four.

Yeah.

We already did that.

Fine.

Application of the International Tennis Hall of Fame of 186th through 202 Bellevue Avenue, flat 29, lot 052.

It's a contributing structure for permission to remove five sets of cement stairs on a horseshoe deck and replace with wood in the same design.

Do we have anyone here this evening?

No.

Okay, we'll cycle that to the end.

We will go to end six.

This is the application of Legely Math Al Hogan of 128 through 130 Prospect Hill, Plat 28, lot 017.

It's a contributing structure for permission to replace existing replacement windows with divided light double paint insulated windows.

Replace wood front double doors with one new door and add side lights.

Replace roof with the same materials as existing roof, see cedar shingles, and asphalt.

Okay, welcome.

I'm gonna 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 state your name for the record, please.

Leslie Matthew Hogan.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So I would like to replace all of the windows in my 1750s colonial.

Um this structure, as I think you saw in my application, underwent massive um reconstruction in the late 1970s.

In fact, the whole front facade of the um property was taken off.

And it was in very bad condition.

And all of the windows were replaced at that time.

And then in 2003, uh about half of those replaced windows were replaced again.

So everything, there's not a rope or a weight or a pulley anywhere in the house.

So I would like to uh replace them all.

Some of them have um aluminum storms on them, and some of them don't.

So I think if I can replace them with a beautiful divided light uh window, I would like to do that, and I think it will make the whole building look a lot nicer and be a lot more weather tight.

So that's the first part of my application.

Do you want to discuss that before I go on to the other two items?

Um, I think we can you can give us a summary of the other.

Okay.

Um I read the staff recommendation.

I had proposed mostly I just wanted to know if I could do it because a long time ago I'd had an architect draw up a plan to replace the two doors with a single door, but I don't have strong feelings about that.

So I uh understand the suggestion that we keep it as two separate doors, but I would like permission to replace those two doors because they're really in rough shape now with in kind materials, and then the roof is pretty straightforward.

It's cedar shingles on the front in pretty rough shape now, and asphalt on the back, and uh the recommendation is that I change the sh the asphalt in the back to cedar, which if I have any money left over when after I replace the windows, I will consider.

Uh so that's what it's been another people's money.

Yes, um, so I think just to clear up, um, and we could just do this procedurally, Jill, if you agree, we'll just amend the application as far as the replacement of the wood front doors in kind, the double front doors.

Sure.

Okay, so that'll clear that up, and then we can get that out of the way.

So I'm gonna request a motion to amend um the aspect of the application for 128-130 prospect Hill Street, plat 28 lot 17.

Um, from replacing wood front double doors with new doors um to replacement in kind.

Um, should we also add the uh replacing the asphalt with cedar?

I think that that's gonna be depending on okay after, yeah.

So moved.

Okay.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, so that's out of the way.

Um, all right.

So let's open it up to the commission for questions.

Um about windows.

Um I commend you for this project.

Uh I think you should just uh follow up before you place an order, submit the specs to Jill's so she has a record of it.

Uh so she can just give it a review and make sure it's in alignment with our guidelines.

Okay.

Other questions on windows or I have some questions.

So it looks like the windows on the sides of the building are pretty flat, like they um have grills or or something, whereas the front appear to have true divided lights.

Do I have that correct?

Oh you know we don't have a window report, so I'm just trying to piece everything together.

Well, when you say true divided lights, what what do you mean?

All individual panes.

Yeah, you have what uh 12 over 12s, they're all individual panes on the front, even though they're replacements.

Yes.

Okay, and the sides are a single pane with some kind of a grill or internal grill.

Yeah, some of them are single pane and some of them are actually double pane.

I I think also there's exterior storms on some of the windows that you're seeing.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

If there's a storm, although they do look still pretty flat.

So do they have the ones that were replaced in that have the yellow line around them in 2002?

Um have individual well, they're they're double-paned.

Um but I think they're a single pane on the outside.

Like one piece of glass.

Yes.

That's what it looks like in your pictures.

Yes.

And the ones in the front are true divided light, they're single pane, and I have interior terrible storm.

Storm insert plexi or something like that.

Yes.

And what about the condition of those front-facing windows or all of your true divided light wood windows?

Are they in poor condition?

I know that they may most of them are pretty bad.

Um yeah, I have T on them to keep the window and some of them open and some of them don't.

Um, and enough of them are problematic that I just want to replace them all with high quality true divided light windows.

So I we do have window guidance that speaks to contributing buildings, what's existing, uh generally with some later replacements like your 2000s windows that are one single piece of glass, uh an upgrade from that, which could be a simulated divided light window, would be an improvement.

But as far as your other wood fully wood windows with um true divided lights, I uh our window guidance suggests that if you're even going to replace those, that they be also true wood simulated divided light, respecting what's existing.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

I that's what she's doing.

Yeah, I think that's true divided lights.

Yeah, did I mistake that?

I apologize.

Walked us through it, Kelly.

That was good.

Do we have a spec?

Because maybe I missed that.

That's what we were just saying.

She's gonna take it to Jill.

She could submit this back to Jill.

Okay.

Okay.

They're going to be true divided light, all wood windows.

Did I just enter the room or did like did I miss all of that?

What was I doing?

Um, I want to do true divided light on all of them.

Yes.

Okay.

And those the the single pane true divided light, older ones that were put in in the 70s, have aluminum storms over them, which are really unattractive.

Not ideal.

Get rid of those.

Okay.

Then we're good.

I'll dial it back.

Sorry about that.

Good morning, Kelly.

I saw something else here, I guess.

So all right.

So you're saying you don't like the aluminum storm windows.

So your intention is just to remove them and get rid of them.

No.

I mean, yeah, that makes everybody happy.

I don't like them.

I I was really surprised to find out you even allowed them.

Kelly, do you like it?

Do you want to keep them?

Because sometimes they're necessary to keep a historic window, and in those cases, I think they're worth keeping, but I don't see that there's anything that we need to preserve per se on this building as long as long as we're doing what everybody says we're doing, which I missed.

So sorry about that.

I can support us if just to summarize.

Um in favor of moving ahead with the application as presented, um, with the condition all the windows are true, divided window wood windows to be submitted to the preservation planner.

That's okay.

And then um just to comment, obviously.

So with the amendment to the application for replacing those wood double doors in kind, there's no um truly it's the the double-sided door, it'll be all wood.

Um, just to clarify that.

And then um should at the end of the project you determine that um you're gonna extend those cedar shingles onto the back of the house.

That can be something that is easily presented to the preservation planner.

So if that summarizes what you're hearing from the commission.

So did you just say if I decide to do the seat of shingles on the back of the house, there's something else I have to present.

You just have to let the preservation planner know.

Okay.

It would I mean she would be in favor of it.

Otherwise, yeah, I would just do the asphalt and I don't have to present anything.

Correct.

Okay, yep.

All right, all right.

You probably won't have any money left over.

I know.

Um, all right.

So with that, I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application of 128-130 prospect hill street, plat 28 lot 17, um, as presented and um updated this evening with the condition that all windows be replaced with an all wood true divided light option, the spec to be provided to the preservation planner for approval.

Citing Newport and sorry, the um condition that should the applicant determine um later in the project that they want to update the rear roof to also cedar shingles that can be um administratively approved, citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 tact 060, a one, two, three, four, five, and seven.

So moved.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and seven.

And eight.

Seven, isn't it?

We summarize summarize.

Okay.

Oh bug.

This is the application of Maria.

There's it, Evelina Tabor of 452 Bellevue Avenue, flat 36 lot 015.

The contributing structure for permission to demolish the existing pool house and construct a new pool house.

Okay, welcome.

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.

Oh, and state your name for the record.

Uh Jacob Trent.

Jacob Trent.

Okay, Mr.

Trent, if you could just give us um a high-level summary.

We did review this application in our pre-meeting um procedurally, because we do have a demolition at play here.

We need to hear the application.

It can be high level.

We actually um there's a lot of favorable um support of the project from the commission.

So just give us uh summary of what you're looking to do.

Yes, uh, the original pool house was built in 2001.

Um, we're just looking to remove it and build a uh a nicer structure that matches the existing home.

Okay.

Um, so first before we take this um into our motions for demolition and new construction.

Um that first part of the application, obviously the demolition.

Do we have any questions or comments from the commission specific to the demolition?

Nope, no.

No.

Okay, so I'm gonna request a motion um for um the demolition of the existing pool house for 452 Bellevue Avenue, plat 36 lot 015, citing Newport standards 17 tact 80, tact 060 D1 and 2.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, next um on the floor for discussion is the construction of the new pool house.

So here I think that we had a couple of questions, so I'm gonna open that up, Mr.

Bella.

Um it looks from the provided elevations that the new pool house is slightly larger than the footprint of it.

I don't have anything in front of me to gauge that other than the elevations.

Uh can you speak to how much larger it is?

So it's uh it's gonna be about uh five feet taller.

Um and the uh the coverage is gonna be the same as the original coverage, but we're adding uh pergola corners to it that are extra, but that doesn't uh change anything in what in the zoning.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

Okay, so I'm gonna request a motion to approve the application for 452 Bellevue Avenue, plat 36 lot 015 to construct a new pool house, citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80, TACT 060, B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

All said, thank you.

Okay, number nine.

Yep.

It's the application of Gordon 1986 limited partnership of 81 Ocean Ave, plat 41 lot 072 non contributing for permission to demolish the existing pool house and construct a new pool house and a garage.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Weber.

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 state your name for the record, please.

Paul Weber.

Okay, Mr.

Weber.

Very similar circumstances to the application we just heard.

Um, both a demolition and a new construction.

Um so if you could also just give us a high-level summary of what you're looking to do.

Okay, so the owners would like to um remove the existing building and uh replace it with a new new garage and pool house.

Um, they're in need of more garage space.

And one of the one of the uh uh uh requests for the owner was to have a tall garage bay so that they could stack cars in there and work on them.

So that's why the the building went up a little bit higher than uh the existing, but it's um uh really trying to sort of make the building feel as though it's more in scale with the existing house, and um yeah, there's a large screen porch off to the pool side of the building, and um you know, sort of activity space inside okay, the uh the roof would be asphalt to match the asphalt roof on the existing house and the existing building, or excuse me, the uh proposed building would also be stucco to match the existing house.

Okay, um, all right.

So, first for the commission from a demolition perspective.

Any um comments or questions on that aspect of the existing structure?

No.

No.

Okay, so first I'm gonna request a motion to approve um the demolition application for 81 Ocean App plat 41 lot 72, citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80 TACT 060 D1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

Now, relative to the new construction, um, there was a few questions and comments at our pre-meeting, so I'm gonna open the floor for that.

Yeah, I I had comments about the size, scale, and massing of this looking at replacing the existing pool house, but you know, given the site and the characteristic of the existing house, it now doesn't bother me.

Okay.

I I would tend to agree.

I think the uh given the scale of the main building that this is quite the handsome little addition to it.

I think it's nicely done, totally appropriate to the area.

I have no problem supporting it.

Okay, great.

I agree.

Okay, Mr.

Madson, good.

How much bigger is it than the other pool house?

It's about 30 35, 40% bigger.

I don't have the exact square footage.

Almost like another house on the property.

Yeah.

Okay, I guess I'm gonna go ahead.

Okay.

By the minimum.

Um, okay, so with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the second part of the application for 81 Ocean Ab plat 41 lot 72, um, which is the construction of a new pool house and garage, citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80, TACT 060, C1 through 3.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Paul.

Um, I do that.

Oh, yeah.

No, no, you're right.

Okay.

Um, yeah, sorry, Jill, I just caught something on the last application for 452 Bellevue.

I just want to clarify.

So for the new construction, you have standards B1 and 2.

Should that be C1 and through 3?

I was gonna mention that, yes.

C one.

Okay, so your staff report, just so you know, has okay.

So let's go back to can we amend the app the um amend the motion?

Okay.

Um, so for the commission coming back to the application of N8.

Um, I'm going to amend the motion for the second part um for 452 Bellevue Avenue, plat 36, lot zero one five, which is the construction of the new pool house, citing Newport Standard 17 TACT 80, tact 060, C1 through 3.

So moved, second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

And then we're going continue in five.

Um, so um, just coming back.

Do we have anyone here now for 186-202 Bellevue Avenue?

Going on.

Helen.

You don't want to go home or what, Helen?

Okay, so um, so we do not have um a representation.

Jill, do you have any requests for this to be continued?

I do not.

Okay, so we should dismiss without prejudice.

Okay.

Um, so just stating we do not have an applicant here this evening to represent N5 186-202 Bellevue Avenue.

I'm going to request a motion to dismiss this application 186-202 Bellevue Avenue, plat 29, lot 052 without prejudice.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

So just one quick um procedural update.

Um, just letting the commission know I will not be present at the May meeting.

Um, I've asked our vice chair to step in um as chair, so Mr.

Madsen will fill my spot, and Commissioner Ballow will step in as vice chair.

Any other open topics for new business?

No.

You guys gonna come back next month?

So let me just wrap us up here.

So I'm gonna request a motion to dismiss or uh excuse me, adjourn um the Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

So you won the voice.