All right, good evening, everyone.

I'm going to call to order the Newport Historic District Commission meeting for Thursday, June 11th, 2026, and ask our secretary to call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deanna Amarello.

Present.

Kelly Moran, I'm here.

Jim Madsen is absent.

We knew of his absence.

Absent.

Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Bill Finley.

Here.

Brooke Richter.

Here.

Ben Willett is also absent.

We knew of his absence.

And Jen Dontremont.

Here.

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

I will confirm for the record myself that I reviewed all of the materials for the prior meeting, which was held on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, and I am prepared to be a voting member of the commission on any continued applications this evening.

I'd like to acknowledge that we have Kevin Gavin here from the city solicitor's office supporting the commission.

Minutes for two prior meetings have been provided to the commission this evening.

Those are the minutes of Tuesday, April 14th, and Tuesday, May 12th.

Commission members, are there any additions or corrections?

We'll start with the April 14th minutes.

No.

No, okay, and then May 12th.

I have an amendment for May 12th on C1 for 719 Bellevue Avenue.

The second has my name noted down, and I was uh recused.

Okay.

I don't have the.

And do we have record um of who made the second?

Jill of who made the second.

I'm not exactly sure who seconded, but we do have the recording, which we will watch it.

The next meeting.

Okay.

Okay, so I'll request a motion to accept the minutes first for Tuesday, April 14th, 2026 as presented.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

And next I'll request a motion to approve the excuse me, the meeting minutes of Tuesday, May 12th, 2026, with a correction on C1.

That will be corrected per the transcript by the city staff.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

All applications approved and certificates of appropriateness issued this evening, Thursday, June 11th, 2026, are valid for one year from the date of approval.

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

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

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

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

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

Uh we have no resequencing this evening, no withdrawals, no continuations.

These applications are viewed by the members of the commission as complete with no questions and in acceptance of the staff recommendations and findings.

So the first of those this evening is N1, which is the application of 260 Ocean AV.

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

No, so I will request a motion to approve the application of 260 Ocean AV plat 41 lot 064 as presented, citing Newport standards 17 TAC 80060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

The next application reviewed for summary was N5 320 Harrison Av.

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

Okay, I will request a motion to approve the application of 320 Harrison Av, Plat 43, Lot 45, citing Newport as presented, citing Newport Standard 17 TAC 80C 060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Uh we did not have any abbreviated summary proposals for this evening.

So with that, we will move into our full agenda.

And I will ask our vice chair to read um the first action item.

This is A1, the applicant Flurry Properties LLC of One Cottage street, Platte 25 Lot 64 contributing for reconsideration of a previously approved single bay garage and denial of permission to install pool.

Okay, 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, this matter was before this commission at its March 10th meeting and also its April 14th meeting.

The application that was considered consisted of three components.

One was the removal and reconstruction of a chimney on the rear portion or rear wing of the contributing structure.

Then the other two elements were new proposed accessory structures.

So during that meeting on March 10th, and again, just to remind the commission, the staff report in relation to this application was negative in relation to both proposed accessory structures.

When this matter was reached towards the end of the evening on March 10th, uh Ms.

Chin had already had left and wasn't here to provide any input or guidance uh during the deliberations and discussion for that project.

And what happened was the application was bifurcated with the consent of the applicant and the chimney work and the garage were approved.

We came back in April for further consideration of the pool, and at that meeting, the pool was denied.

Prior to the issuance of any decision or certificate of appropriateness in regards to the pool, I filed the motion for reconsideration, which is before you this evening.

It was on the agenda last month.

As an accommodation to an abutter who had concerns and was represented by attorney Matthew Lees, we agreed to continue it to this month.

Mr.

Lees had requested last week that we continue it again, and I indicated that we would not do that, that we would be here before the commission.

My understanding is his client wrote in a letter of objection to this uh proposal.

Uh on the merits or on the elements.

Um, I think uh we set it forth in the motion that was filed, and just to be sort of concise and direct, our position is that we understand the staff had concerns and certainly commission had concerns that both accessory structures that were proposed was going to be too much for that corner of the parcel.

Uh, it was going to crowd a relatively small yard area, and um after the denial, I discussed this at length with Ms.

Chin and indicated that you know the the pool was an important element to the project as far as the applicant was concerned, and if there was an opportunity to have the commission reconsider, we certainly would abandon the garage approval.

Um so that's what gave rise to the motion that's before you this evening.

And since then, um we filed a new application as well, which is unrelated to this um element at the moment, and we filed an application to uh reconstruct a previously existing front porch.

So the project has pivoted somewhat with the understanding by the applicant that there's only so much lot coverage we're going to be able to get from the zoning board, there's only some so many things we can do, and we've reached the conclusion that the most we think appropriate and beneficial in terms of future occupants for this would be to let go of the garage, construct that front porch, and still ask that the commission, in light of abandoning the garage approval, reconsider this uh proposed accessory structure in the side yard.

So that's sort of where we are that's for before you.

I'll rely since since if you grant this motion for reconsideration and you formally sort of reopen the matter, um, there is already a record from the April meeting with testimony from Dr.

Onorado regarding um satisfaction of the standards in regards to the pool.

He also submitted a letter in regards to that.

So I don't have any additional witnesses.

I'm not going to get involved in any full presentation.

Um I just uh I'm putting the issue back before the understanding that we'll be back next month with the proposal, probably for the last time on this project on this property to construct a front porch, which we think will be an outstanding feature for this property.

Okay.

And just to confirm the renderings that we're looking at now, these represent the removal of the garage and only the pool before us.

Correct.

And the pool equipment is if you zoom in a little bit, you can see a little picket fencing around that walk-in bulkhead basement access.

That's where we can tuck the pool equipment so it can't be seen from anywhere.

It's well away from any uh setbacks.

So we thought that was the most appropriate spot to propose for the pool equipment.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna open it up to the commission for questions and comments on the request to reopen and reconsider the pool.

Anybody?

Mr.

Ballon.

Thanks for painting the picture for us.

Um my position on the pool, as I stated in previous meetings, is that pools tend to be, although the illustration shows a pool with some material around it, and that's it.

Uh they tend to grow and they tend to be used in people who want to have deck tears out there, and they want to have, you know, more material, maybe a pool house, you know, a changing room, you know, all of all of these things, which I can't comment to because it's not part of this application.

But I just seems suspicious about where this pool will go.

Um, I do agree with the comments that were put forth from the objectors that you know it's just not part of the character of the neighborhood.

Uh and I think with that said, uh, I could not be in favor of this application.

Madam Chair, if I could, I'm sorry, there is there is one sort of exhibit I would like to present just in light of the objection from the owner of 12 Redwood.

This is a satellite photograph so that the board can have the commission can have some context as well as a site plan for the property at 12 Redwood.

Ironically, um my firm and myself represented 12 Redwood six years ago when they got their pool and they got their modifications to uh their residence.

Um so if I could I'll submit this.

All right, so the request of motion of the commission to accept exhibit A, uh satellite photo and site photo for 12 Redwood AV for the application of one cottage street.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russ.

Next one.

So what I've uh presented as our applicants exhibit is a two-page exhibit, and the first page is satellite photo, which depicts um the general area in terms of the property at one cottage street as well as the property which is at 12 Redwood, which shares common boundary with one cottage.

And um, you know, the reason why I've presented this is to be honest.

The when the objection first surfaced, again, it didn't surface until we filed a motion for reconsideration.

The owner of 12 Redwood did not participate at all in any of the HDC hearings relative to one cottage street until we filed that motion for reconsideration.

And the reasons for their concerns as expressed by their attorney had to do with stormwater management for the site.

And I relate to Mr.

Lee's that that has nothing to do with HDC and that we still have to go to the zoning board and he'll have plenty of opportunity to express concerns and present evidence regarding that.

Once I indicated that I would not agree to continue this again after providing the owner of 12 Redwood with an updated stormwater management site plan for one cottage, uh now this gentleman has a concern about the impact that this will have on the historic character and of the neighborhood, which frankly, when you look at his property, the fact that he just got a pool a few years ago, uh and when you look closely at it, there is uh a lot of as Mr.

Bala's indicated activity taking place on that site.

Um the objection relating to the character and the historic character of the neighborhood is simply disingenuous.

Um I also will respectfully remind this commission that repeatedly pools in this area have been approved as being consistent with the historic district in this area.

Last month, as an example, I understand last month's application was not a contributing structure, but again, if we're talking about what's consistent with this area, there are pools throughout this neighborhood.

So respectfully, I understand you have to give consideration, you should give consideration to whatever neighbors present or express concerns.

Uh I would ask you to take it within the context of who's presenting this objection and what their ultimately what their um objective is.

Um and so lastly, I'll conclude.

I think as it relates to the district, it's not inappropriate.

There are plenty of examples of pools that have existed existed and been granted over the last few years in this neighborhood as it relates to the subject property itself.

Again, the pool doesn't interfere with disrupt or do anything to detract from any of the character-defining features of the contributing structure.

Um, and that's generally, I think the lens that um something like this accessory structure should be viewed through by removing the garage.

We are opening up that yard, and I think for all intents and purposes, anybody walking along Cottage Street and Catherine Street will not even know that pool exists, and with the elimination of the garage, they're gonna have a view corridor around the perimeter of this property that currently exists.

So, for those reasons, we think it is appropriate to allow uh or to grant this motion for the abandonment of the garage and approval of the pool.

Thank you.

Okay.

I have a question for the preservation planner.

Um, I read um an earlier report uh that was evaluating the pool and the garage.

Have you um made a recommendation based just on the pool?

I haven't made a recommendation based just on the pool.

Um, I will say that the garage is more intrusive in terms of size and scale for the streetscape, um, but I have not made a specific determination on the pool.

Um I've had you know similar uh thoughts to the commission on pools in this in this district.

Um, however, the the abandonment of the garage I feel would be uh a benefit to to the site.

Thank you for that.

Um, I'm generally in support of this application, okay.

Mr.

Finley?

My major concern uh in the prior application was the the double, the the garage and the pool in that tiny lot.

And since you've come back and said that, you know, the garage will be taken away and just dealing with the pool and just rereading Professor Honorado's uh uh letter, you know, an expert in the whole uh area and what's there and what's not there.

Um, I'm at this point in favor of it.

Moran.

I originally voted to approve it, so I will stay consistent, and I also think that this is an improvement from there.

So I would vote to approve.

Okay.

Okay, I um similarly, I actually had not been in favor of the pool originally based on um massing generally on the lot.

My question, which is a little bit difficult because you're talking about a porch coming forward.

Is are you able to tell us is that porch only going to be on the front of the building?

Is it gonna wrap around by the pool?

No, it's just on the front.

I and I did um again, there's a separate application pending, but I do believe I submitted through the portal and attachment, uh, just sort of for context and reference of the proposed front porch.

And I think they're pulling it up now.

No, that's the site plan.

Just to get a sense of what's gonna happen on the side, okay.

So it's it will only be on the front of the building.

Right, and that's because that's consistent with the historic photograph that we got that appeared to be, you know, the porch that was original to the structure.

Okay, um, so based on that, I would and the removal of the garage, I would be in favor of supporting the application as presented this evening.

Um, if there's any other questions or comments, no.

Anything else?

Counsel?

No, thank you.

Okay, um, so with that, I will request a motion um that the commission is willing to reconsider um the request of one cottage tree plat 25 lot 64.

Um, that was a previously approved application for a single bay garage and denial of um the permission to install the pool.

With that a motion now to approve the installation of the pool citing Newport standard 17 TAC 80 060 A1 through 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Uh all those opposed.

Aye.

Okay, I was uh uh A4 and A7.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is A2, the application of Diane Moore of 90 Rhode Island Avenue, plat 23, lot 19 could contributing for permission to use gray ready slate tile to replace red slate roof.

Hi, I'm here again.

Uh we were approved on just gonna get you sworn in first.

That's okay.

Just raise your right hand.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

And state your name for the record, please.

I am more okay.

Welcome back, Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

Um, we appreciated being a getting the certificate of appropriateness for our ready slate.

Only to find out that it is not manufactured in red, it only is a slate true slate color.

Um that was despite the fact we had two comp briefing companies quote us for red, and then they subsequently found out it was not available in red.

So we just wanted to come again and make sure that gray would be appropriate.

Um, I submitted photographs of three other mansions within three blocks that also have just the gray slate.

Um, so that's my request.

So my question, if I remember correctly, the back of the building has red asphalt.

Yes.

So what is the intention with the ready slate?

What we're going to try to do is to when they dismantle the slate, the existing red slate that's there, is to incorporate some of the pieces of the red somehow into the new structure so that it is similar to another photograph that I provided that had a combination of red and gray.

I think was the first one.

Um that was my inspiration for pursuing this.

The issue is whether or not the materials will be compatible safely.

Um he suggested maybe just doing a couple rows out like the first or second, the top row or the bottom row in red, and then incorporating the gray into the center of it.

Um he's very willing to work with us.

We just can't really say until it's actually dismantled and see what kind of product is left.

But the entire rear of the building will stay the red asphalt.

Correct.

Okay.

Alright, I'll open it up for feedback.

I'm in support of this application.

I think um I we would love the red ready slate to be available, but um, given that it's not available, this seems then the next most reasonable um solution.

Okay, I'm gonna just ask our preservation planner.

In the original application, is the there a character defining feature that denotes the red slate.

I would have to check my staff report.

I'm not sure that I specified red slate rather than just slate.

Okay.

The previous uh a similar application was approved on Tarot Street for um a red slate roof to be replaced with ready slate.

So okay, uh, I do believe that the nominating uh description did cite red slate on this, but uh again, it's not readily available.

Um it's not and it's even questionable whether the red slate, the real red slate comes out of only one quarry in upstate New York, and they're not even replying to the roofing request for quotes.

So I mean, I don't really know what else to do at that point.

That's because it's all being used on another house on that view.

Um so I guess I mean comments I think for the commission, uh, you know, about the idea of mixing the ready slate with some of the existing red slate that's on the front.

Um if that's you know, potentially conjecture or I would agree with that that it's conjectural.

I don't know if I'd support that.

Yeah, I think the character of the ready slate the way it is assembled.

I I'm not a slate roof thing.

I don't I don't think it's compatible with a flat slate.

I think it's different profile.

I think so too.

Um so I would tend to believe that's not going to happen.

Unless he said he could do it in rows.

Right.

Um, which he thinks he could do it, but again, until they actually start to work, it's an unknown.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

Mr.

God.

So the way I understand it's there is gonna be red asphalt in the back and gray on the front.

With trying to mix some red into the front.

Yeah, I'm not so sure that that's a good idea, but I I also think from a practical point of view, you'll find that's probably not gonna happen anyway.

Um, there is that a state on value this.

I'd say, I just said you might buy your shingles.

I'll uh I can support it as it is, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

As much as I'd love to see red as well.

I understand what you're dealing with here.

So thank you.

I appreciate that you're working with uh the slate um anyway, so um, so I would be in favor of the all over ready slate.

I don't think that mixing stripes in or any other patterning.

There's a lot of other buildings in the town that have that, but I would assume that that's part of the original patterning.

So I think it would be conjectural here.

I would prefer to just see the all over gray.

Okay.

Um but and I think there's a few other commissioners that agree with that.

Um, so I believe we have consensus on I'm gonna request a motion to approve the um amended application of 90 Rhode Island AB plat 23 lot zero one nine, which includes replacing red the street-facing red slate slate roof with ready slate in the gray color, citing Newport standard 17 tact 80 060 A1 through 7.

So moved second.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It wasn't even okay.

I think we're um okay, I'm gonna ask the vice chair to proceed with application C one.

This is the application of the city of Newport uh for 365 or zero thame street, Platte 24, lot one contributing for permission to remove existing glass wall and vestibule to replace it with new glass wall and create new vestibule by infilling arches with storefront glass.

Brick floor will be removed and relay to create level floor within the vestibule as well as an ADA compliant ramp with handrails.

Replace existing exterior signage on the northeast and south side of the building with new signs.

Three new temporary banners are proposed to be installed on the east facing east side facing Thames Street.

Okay, thank you.

And before we um hear the application, I'm just gonna reconfirm what was the outcome of the last meeting.

So the commission did split the application into two parts.

The first part was for the temporary banners, which were approved.

The second part, which is back before us this evening, was for the front elevation, the vestibule, resin signage, and we will hear the continuation of that this evening.

So with that.

Alright, and I will get you sworn in.

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

We do.

And just state your name for the record, please.

Rebecca Bertrand.

Okay.

Good evening, Chair Emerillo and members of the commission.

Um, as I mentioned, my name is Becca Bertrand.

I'm the executive director of the Newport Historical Society, and thank you for continuing this application.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the NHS in our capacity as tenants of the City of Newport in the Brick Market, one of six properties of the Newport Historical Society actively stewards throughout this city.

The Brick Market, which I hope you know opened to the public in 1772, is individually designated as a national historic landmark, a reflection of its exceptional importance, not just to Newport, but to the nation.

Throughout its long life, this building has served many functions as a commercial market house, a town's, as Newport Town and later City Hall.

So we could have been sitting there for this meeting as a theater, the home of the Chamber of Commerce, and ultimately as a museum.

Each era has left its mark on the ground floor arcade, which has been infilled and reconfigured repeatedly for more than two and a half centuries.

It is within that layered context that tonight's application must be understood.

I want to extend my sincere gratitude to the members of the commission who gave their time to participate in a site visit to view the proposed work firsthand and to see the brick market.

As a reminder, tonight's application is one component of a larger transformative initiative, the creation of a new museum of Newport history at the brick market, which represents a total of investment of 2.6 million dollars in the building and its future.

This project will reinvigorate the museum, which was last designed in 1993, dedicated to telling the full sweep of Newport's extraordinary history.

And every dollar supporting this project is coming from private philanthropy.

Central to the museum's accessibility is what we're here tonight to discuss with you.

A properly enclosed entry vestibule with a glass enclosure and an ADA compliant ramp and handrail system.

A museum that cannot be entered by all members of the public, regardless of mobility, is not a true public institution.

The vestibule is not merely a practical convenience, it is an ethical imperative, and it is the threshold through which every visitor will pass on their way into Newport Story.

As you're aware, the Newport Historical Society is requesting permission to undertake several improvements to the brick market that will advance the Museum of Newport history project, improve the building's long-term operational sustainability, and preserve the building's same street facing masonry.

The existing currently vandalized glass wall and the vestibule on the front elevation will be removed and replaced in kind with glass infill that within the front arched openings to extend the enclosed entry vestibule.

The existing brick floor within that zone will be carefully lifted and relaid to create a level surface, and an ADA compliant ramp with handrails will provide equitable access for all visitors.

Our existing signage on the north, south, and east elevations, which is all terribly damaged at the moment, will be replaced with updated signs.

We've engaged SV Designs, an architecture firm with deep experience in historic preservation and rehabilitation on landmark structures.

SV Design and their founder, Thad Samasco are with us this evening.

He's even missing a statewide preservation award in Massachusetts tonight for being here that his firm is receiving at Fenway Park, so I can't believe he's here.

Um, but we're very grateful for his presence.

Uh the practice of enclosing historic open air market arcades and glass to accommodate contemporary use is well established both across the United States and internationally.

We as preservation professionals have long recognized that carefully designed glass infill, which preserves the original masonry arches while creating a controlled interior is a sympathetic and reversible approach to adapting historic market buildings for modern visitors.

Prominent examples include Quincy Market in Boston, where the arcade of 1826 Faniu Hall marketplace was enclosed as part of its celebrated renovation.

The Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia, which has adapted its historic structure over time while retaining its historic character.

Internationally, this tradition is even more deeply rooted.

Historic cupboard markets across France, landmark British markets, including the Oxford Covered Market and Borough Market in London, have undergone various forms of enclosure in their histories, transforming from an open arcaded structure into a sheltered environment that now serves millions of visitors, in each case preserving their essential architectural character of the original.

This brick market proposal fits squarely within this tradition.

The front arcade has already been altered multiple times over its history, and similar glass enclosures exist within the remaining arches of the building today.

The proposed vestibule does not disturb the main designing, the defining masonry fabric of the structure, introduces no conjectural historic elements, and can be removed without affecting the essential form or integrity of the brick market.

We believe the proposed work satisfies the applicable Newport standards for treatment of historic properties.

This doesn't project does not remove historic fabric.

The arched openings have already been altered previously, and the proposed glass infill maintains their shape and definition.

No conjectural conjectural features are being introduced and no false historical narrative is being created.

The exact existing vestibule configuration dates to the late 20th century and has not acquired independent historic significance.

The distinctive features and craftsmanship of the structure remain fully preserved.

And finally, these alterations are reversible, consistent with the existing conditions at the building, which minimize harm to the historic structure while leaving the essential form and integrity of the structure unchanged.

The Newport Historical Society takes very seriously its obligations as steward of this landmark.

And this represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to honor this building's significance and make Newport's remarkable story accessible to all.

On behalf of the Historical Society SV Design and our exhibit designers H2 Design, we are grateful for the commission's time and consideration and respectfully request your approval of this application and are happy to answer any questions you might have.

And do you have the architects planning to present the revised plans this evening?

Any questions?

Um, can answer them for you.

Okay, I think it would be helpful to have you walk through what the updates are if the commission agrees.

I know that there was a site visit, but if you could walk through the updated plans, I'll get you sworn in as well.

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

So help you, God.

Yes.

And state your name for the record, please.

That's Samasco Architect, S V Design L L C.

Okay, and I can ask you to spell your last name for the secretary.

It's S-I-E-M-A-S-K-O.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Okay, if you could walk us through the revisions that have been made since the last meeting.

Yeah, glad uh glad to be here tonight, by the way.

And congratulations on your reward.

Um rather be here.

Uh as you saw in the uh well, the biggest change of beta is that we removed the uh spandrel glass panels from the lower section to leave it as as now clear glass.

That was really the major change that we've made.

Um, we've added a fair number of notes to the drawings for clarity uh to uh so that we thought um everyone could more clearly understand what we're trying to do.

Um, on the site visit, you would have you saw that there's the brick arches are 21 inches deep of brick, and then there's nine inches of wood fragment behind that.

So it's up there 30 inches total depth.

And our window uh system, excuse me, is five inches deep.

It's coming in one inch forward from the nine inches of wood.

So you're going to have effectively a 24-inch recess from the face of the brick to the face of the glass.

The glass is very far pushed back, as it was done on all of the other openings.

Basically simulating what was done uh before on the existing openings.

I was, you know, I've been by the building a few different times, times a day.

Yes, the glass infill does it's not completely open, but it's pretty good because it's so deep of feeling like it's not necessarily infilled so much.

And the dark frames and the clear glass set back.

We think we we need to be close the vestibule, but it also is doing it in a way that's that's reasonably transparent with you know a thermally broken uh system.

It is completely removable that the frames are going to be screwed into this wood, it's that's not touching the brick at all.

The brick itself will be restored where it needs to be, and the bases of the stone base, the few places it will be touched up, but basically, this is something that could come out completely at any time if if funds are available to put back something else.

So that I think honestly, with what the rest of the building is doing and what we're trying to do here, I think this is perfectly appropriate solution.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to questions and comments from the commission.

I look at it.

Well, I know we had a long discussion the last time you guys were here, and other than the spandled glass, I see no change.

And I feel like my issue with this version of uh adaptive reuse is that it's wholly inappropriate to a national landmark, and that uh it looks far too much like a storefront and encloses what I think was uh it diminishes what I think was a tasteful, well thought out um renovation that was done in 1993 by a well-loaded preservationist at the time, and I think there are alternatives that have not been explored, and uh I feel like you had an opportunity to explore some alternatives, but chose not to.

So I don't know how you know when you come before the commission and tell us that it doesn't damage the building, and other people have damaged it worse than this in the past, is the lowest bar that you can you know aim for, and I feel like given that this is a you know Newport Historic Society, and this is a treasured piece of architecture in the city of Newport, we shouldn't be aiming at the lowest bar, we should be aiming at a higher bar.

That's how I see it.

Okay, other questions or comments, Mr.

Ballard.

Uh I would agree.

Uh uh, I think we established commentary in the last meeting.

Um we have this in front of us.

I think the points that were made in the previous meeting where this is a building on the National Historic Landmark.

Uh the tenant is the historic society.

Um, and I I agree with uh previous comment that I think the bar has been too low on this.

Thank you.

Other commissioners.

I supported this at the last hearing and I continue to support it.

I think um going from the darkened glass to the clear glass, um, at least accommodates some of the concerns.

Um I think it's a very um tasteful and um will be very significant in terms of your usability of the building going forward.

So I continue to support it.

Okay, Mr.

Finley?

Uh I will um I'll support this as well.

Um I was um moved by your um comments on other uh museums in different places that were doing very similar things um to their historic um uh buildings, but that are very similar to this.

So uh and I was at the site visit, so um I was able to walk through it and get a sense of it of what you're doing.

Um, the frame on all of the glass is wood, you said.

The the frame around the arches existing now is is a wooden two inch by nine inch uh for frame where the brick actually ends and then it's a jam frame that runs around, and then our our frame is aluminum that would be and you and you're and you're not touching the existing building at all.

It's really just a fill in.

Exactly right, okay.

Yeah, I will support this.

Okay.

Um I was also at the site visit, and I am inclined to support this as well.

I think it was very tasteful.

I think the prominence of this building in Newport, the changes that you're proposing are really an enhancement.

And also, I don't know if every commissioner heard during the site visit you discussed with us that within the museum, you're also going to talk about the evolution of the building.

Do you want to mention any of that?

Sure.

Within the first floor, there will be uh a large um exhibition case that will talk about the history of the brick market, it's it's past the architectural significance of the building, um, right on the first floor, right as you walk in, prominently telling the story of the building and its significance to Newport.

And the changes it's gone through, right?

Yeah, and the changes that have gone on.

Um, you know, it it always always was um a market, always was a public building, and and we're um proud to steward it and kind of continue that legacy because truly the first question that when visitors ask when they come in is what is this place?

Um, like so many other buildings in Newport.

They really want to know about the building.

So we're excited to tell its story.

Okay.

I unfortunately was not here for the site visit, but uh I do know the building.

I've been in there, I've walked by a million times.

Um I'm struggling with this to be honest, and I understand completely where you come from with this design.

It it is minimally impactful on the building.

It's um I guess designed to sort of disappear and and perhaps highlight what is more originally there.

For example, the brick, but it is very it is a bit storefront and very, you know, 21st century.

And I'm not sure that that's a whole lot to um admire some of the things that we put in places today that do look very commercial.

Um I I appreciate all the historic photo.

I didn't realize how many changes the building had actually gone through.

Um and how some of them didn't even really include the the arches.

So I I was quite surprised by that to be honest.

Um, but even through some of these these photos and postcards, it seems like there were some possibly better like, you know, I I understand that this is so far off from what we have today, but there were some uh examples of something that would potentially look better in the building.

I I don't know that I can support it as it stands, and I'm also envisioning this with these banners on the front where the building's not really gonna look a whole lot like itself at all unless you're off to the side.

Um I understand those are not permanent, but I'm just kind of trying to envision what it would look like with all of these new elements put onto it and if it's really going to um do the building justice.

So I'm definitely on the fence here because I can see both sides.

I don't know if that's helpful at all, but um I need to make a decision now, and I'm just kind of digesting this a little bit, but I'm I'm I'll be honest, I'm struggling with it a little bit, and I do feel like perhaps there's something that could be better.

I don't know what that is, though.

Well, what I can say is that one of the things, and I'm not an architect, but what we're what the building does have are these when you're in the space, you can really understand that we have on the north and south wall this infill of this existing window and aluminum structure that was put in in the 1990s.

So we have to live with that already.

If we had come before you with some other hearkening back to the 1840s structure that was putting back on something that maybe was there for some undefined period of time, I think it would be adding more conjecture to uh the building than what currently is there.

Um, so what we've really tried to do is work with what we have, which is what was put in in the 1990s, which is that that window system already.

Um, and truly just bumping it forward, one more arch, if that makes sense.

I I guess I would add, I think the right answer to this is make this as transparent as possible.

It's not to put in something that was once there before, maybe and try to rebuild it.

That's not I know, you know, you you really want to just experience this building as empty arches, right?

We could knock out all the windows and make it an opener market, we would, but obviously, we can't run a museum that way.

So what we're trying to do is just continue what was done before.

I don't think it was done poorly before.

I don't think I stated that.

I think it was we're actually pretty well done.

What they put in the the frames, they're dark, they're transparent, pretty transparent.

We're just continuing that same notion.

It still will feel at least that's it always was one building with a series of arches to change the the motif of these front arches to be different than the side arches, I don't think is the right answer.

You know, looking at the Part of Interior Standards for this, I I couldn't find anything that suggested that what we're doing here is against the National Park Service standards, uh, material standards.

I have a I just wanted to ask a question.

Um, regards to the rationale behind the change.

It seemed like there was a lot of leaning on EDA access, which you already have.

Uh is there ADA access to the back of the building?

Not currently, no.

Can we get ADA access in the back of the building?

Um possibly.

And the current plan as I look at it, I know we're not supposed to really necessarily take into consideration all the rationale behind what you're doing to the exterior, but as I look at the plan, I see what I consider to be wasted space.

And I and I look at that's a lot of um character alteration to the building simply based on uh ADA access to the building.

And I feel like there are certainly alternatives, and I need you you know you need not really to even just go across the street to the Bank of Newport, which I believe is also on the National Historic Register, and they have a very tasteful um airlock entry to their building, right?

And uh I don't know what the occupant load of this building is, but I suspect it's probably such that you don't need a double door at the front.

And I do know that buildings that are on the National Historic Register uh are allowed exemptions for ADA access, whereby you could have an access in the back, and that would then negate the need to fill in the front.

And so I don't know if you even explored those options at all.

Well um, as I mentioned earlier, um, in the museum field, there's a strong emphasis on an equitable museum experience for all, so that no one feels like they're other, whether you're a young child or you're coming with an an elderly person who is in a walker.

What we're experiencing are are not often individuals who are, you know, perhaps in a mechanized wheelchair, but uh the museum field does skew older in our visitation.

And so we often have people who are in walkers or need some uh help opening a door.

Um our current doors are extremely heavy.

Um I do think if you're able to look on the the second sheet of the plan.

Who's driving this still?

Can you drive that?

Oh, thanks.

Um, I think the the um the most clear way to look at what the building will look like is that's the central, the top middle picture.

Um thank you.

Which is when you look at the you see stuff from all that I mean, I would argue all you see is that handrail.

Well, I I also question the necessity for the handrail as well, because we're looking at a six-inch rise.

That's a thad question, not not me.

We did field measurements to do to do the one inch uh of rise and 12 inches up front requires a rail on each side of uh uh and we so we do need we do need a rail.

We're out there with and with measurements.

We took all the measurements.

So you do need you do need the rail.

We feel strongly that the front entrance of the building should be accessible.

There may be an exception to ADA, but we don't think that's appropriate.

And I and I'm not going to stamp drawings that would not have the front end to be accessible.

It's close now, but it's not accessible now.

Well, we're not talking like someone has to walk hundreds of feet to get to an alternate entry, which would just be 50 feet or 30 feet to the right of that, and every bit as welcoming as that would be.

You know, so I I don't feel like you've explored alternatives.

You came back to the commission with the same plan they had before.

Well, what I can add to this also is if you know the interior plan of the building, you would then be entering right where the bathrooms are, um, and not entering at the museum's admissions desk.

And again, to the equitable museum experience, that truly would be making probably twenty-five percent of our visitors feel like they're entering into the back, but that's into the bathroom.

Not 25% of your visitors, but we're not gonna quibble about the percentage of people that need ADA access, but it's not for strollers, people with walkers.

Yeah, no, I understand.

Like I understand, and I'm not trying to be an obstructionist, but I really do think there are multiple options that have not been considered that would be far better than what we're looking at here.

Um then I also look at the storefront application with the muntains and the mullions or emulions as you call them and operable windows, and that certainly doesn't go away.

It's the most prom one of the most prominent buildings in Newport.

I mean, pretty much anybody who drives through Newport goes to the bottom of Washington Square and it's right there.

You know, it's not like it's hidden on a you know back street somewhere.

It's it's right there, and that's what you're looking at, and that's the elevation that you're pointing at, and uh I just don't see it.

I I see it as a diminishment of the building.

Uh I have a couple questions.

So, first, um, do we know at what point the arcade was opened?

Obviously, we've seen a lot of iterations of it through the years, but at what point did it get to the open arcade that we have now?

Was it in this current iteration, 1992?

That's when all the opening was open, like this.

Yeah, 1992.

Okay.

Um, and then my other follow-up question is so I did, as I stated at the beginning of the meeting, I listened to the um prior meeting.

Unfortunately, I was not able to go to the site visit.

Clearly, we have the same plan that's before us this evening with the addition removal, I should say, of that other type of glass.

Um, so my question was from an alternate perspective, understanding what you're trying to accomplish.

Is there an opportunity to, if I'm looking at the building, enclose the far right arch to create a smaller vestibule, enter into the building and leave the remaining arcade open.

So the center and the left would stay open.

You'd have to move your interior door, but you would create a smaller vestibule.

You'd still be able to maintain your ramp and enter the building to the far right.

So if you go to the next uh the top page, Jill.

So here where you have your ramp, you currently have.

So that door, you would still seal that, or you have a door there currently.

So if you look to the front arch immediately to the left of that, you've inserted a wall, and then currently in the back of that, there's an enclosed window.

Your front door is in the center to move that to the right to create a smaller vestibule and keep everything else to the left open.

That would work.

Um, you'd have the smaller vestibule, you have I think more of a wasted space that's left over on the far left where you just have the two open arches that kind of lead to nowhere.

Um, but you could the vestibular, it means it would meet code to to add an additional perpendicular wall at the call it the second, you know, between the first and the second arch going left to right.

That does work.

We just wonder what right now we have a space, the larger vestibule isn't wasted in that we can do some exhibit stuff out there, we can gather some groups there before they go into the museum.

It's useful space.

I'm not sure it's not a place that folks would gather that are just I don't know what you do with that extra with that additional space, but to your to your point, it does work.

You could take out the the leftmost window, the front and the left and right.

When those and only enclosed the center.

That's an alternative, yes.

Only enclose the far right.

So the center and the left would stay open, so your wall that you're proposing would remain.

You would enclose that far right front, and you'd have to move your front interior door over to the right.

I misunderstood.

No, that that doesn't work.

What I thought you had were going was the center bay would become the vestibule.

So you'd have the ramp where it is, the doors where they are going in, but rather than having and then putting another wall between the first and second arch going from left to right.

Yeah, I mean, that would be my proposal.

It's it may not accommodate a wheelchair, but I think the majority of the other, you know, ADA accessibility.

If you need wheelchair access in the back of the building, in my view, that accomplishes the goal of having some more of a formalized entrance with ADA access, but maintaining the arcade feel of everything from the center to the left.

I I do think that part of the experience, and this was touched on in the last meeting is experiencing the open air of that space of the arcade.

So for me, that would be a proposal that is sympathetic to wanting to advance the building, but also maintaining that space to the left.

Um I understand the aspect of the museum.

If we don't, you know, opine on interior programming typically, regardless.

Um we're here about the structure itself.

So that is a little bit challenging to weigh in, but that would be an alternate plan that I would be considering.

Otherwise, I would not be able to support it and close the entire arcade.

I think yes.

Um you touched on uh I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth.

Uh preferred or correct would be transparent.

Uh there was some mention about transparent.

Glass is not going to be transparent, glasses reflective.

Uh this is going to probably end up having stuff put in front of it that you display in the, like in the museum.

You currently have stuff in front of the windows.

This is at the bottom of a street, so it's going to reflect headlights, it's going to reflect everything else.

Uh it's going to be not transparent.

I'm gonna come back to Ms.

Moran.

So I wasn't in favor of enclosing the arcade to begin with.

I still feel strongly about that right now.

And it I guess my question is, is having the arcade enclosed absolutely critical for front ADA access, and why can't the ramp exist and it be open and to have a a button that opens the door to the front so they can still enter the museum from the arcade?

I mean, it's essentially a big open space.

What are you gonna do with the interior space and that that redone patio?

It won't even really be experienced by people walking by.

And I do think that walking through that building is part of experiencing it, even so without going inside that people that that area gets so crowded with people.

I feel like they're almost forced into it sometimes.

Um I do feel like part of the attraction to that building and you know how it's represented now is the openness of the arcade.

So I really struggle with enclosing it, and again, I do appreciate what you've done to try to make these disappear, but I'm just trying to also understand how and why it's critical when it's really just gonna be an enclosed patio from what I can see.

I think um from the early 19th century until from the early 1800s until 1992, it was enclosed.

I think it's probably in our best interest to ask for um a continuation on this still, and perhaps we'll come back.

Can I just make a suggestion?

Could a design do you are we familiar with design review committees?

Excuse me.

So we have a process we could do a design review committee.

You would you know, meet with up to three of the commissioners, we can go through alternate plans, provide um recommendations.

It doesn't necessarily mean that it's the view of the whole commission, but we usually have very favorable outcomes to that.

Um that could be scheduled if that's something that you're interested in ahead of the next HDC meeting or at a schedule that works for you.

Um, we can certainly do that.

And we can do another site visit if individuals who weren't able to come would like to visit.

Thank you.

Okay, so we will request a motion um first to schedule a design review committee for zero theme street plat 24 lot zero zero one.

So moved, second.

All those in favor, aye, all those opposed.

And I will request a motion to continue the application of zero theme street plat 24 lot zero zero one to our next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026.

So moved, second, all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay.

This is the application of Sean Burns of Six Catsman Place, plat 12 lot 271, non-contributing for permission to add covered wood framed front porch at facade and replace existing landing and stared on side elevation, add exterior swing door to the rear north elevation and a landing and stare at the proposed rear exterior door alter fenestration on the facade.

Okay, welcome back.

I'll get you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

I do.

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

Yes, Kevin Connery, uh C O N N ERY.

Okay, and Mr.

Connery, you're authorized to represent the applicant.

I am okay.

Sean, it's the homeowner, six catsmen.

Okay.

Um, so welcome back.

I think we have some revisions to just walk through.

I would like to start with that.

Um by the way, my name's Kevin Connery of JPS Construction and Design.

Um, and as you mentioned, I'll be speaking on behalf of Sean Burns tonight, the homeowner at Six Catsmen.

Okay.

Um, I'd like to start with just a brief summary of the revisions that we made from last um from the last meeting.

Um we removed all the PVC slash um manufactured trim, and we're gonna replace it with wood trim to match the existing and paint it to match the existing.

It's more consistent with you know the character of the neighborhood and historical standards.

So that was a pretty big change.

Um the other thing that we decided to do was to add railings along the main front porch.

We also added um a little bit more detail to the proposed roof porch and basically that header that'll kind of wrap around that sits on top of the columns.

Um I don't know if you have the renderings from the last meeting, but and there's also a section that I attached when I attached the revised um drawings earlier this month.

And um, yeah, I mean, to be honest, we we always kind of had these details in the back of our minds.

It was just, you know, we were just showing it kind of schematically, so maybe that was a little bit of a fault on my end.

Um so I I actually have it drawn as we would build it now.

So I think it's the very last slide where you can see the section in those actual details I'm talking about.

So the other thing that I want to mention too, and this was the main topic from the first meeting, is we understand that the porch is off center from the house, but as you can see from this front street elevation, but you know, we went through a lot of different um options back and forth.

As designers, we felt that this was the best solution because we simply can't move that front door to center it on the front elevation without doing some major structural revisions to the house.

There's a partition that goes straight um in the middle that divides the kitchen on the right and the living room on the left.

So all things being considered and all the different options we went through, we felt like this was the strongest one.

So I think I'm gonna leave it at that and I'll take any questions you guys might have.

Okay, Mr.

Fallon.

Um thank you for coming back with this package and taking our uh comments to heart and and having a result.

Um I was pleased with seeing the information and I would be supporting this.

Thank you.

Okay, I can go.

Okay.

Thank you.

I support the change.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Generally consensus.

I did um look through the materials from the last time.

I actually like the off-centered porch.

I think it makes it a little bit different from the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood.

Um, so with the details just to confirm for the commission from the original application, we're gonna update all wood trim.

Um, and there's architectural detail um to the roof of that front porch as well as railings that have been updated, if I understand correctly.

Okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of six Catsman Place, plat 12 lot 271.

Um, with the updates uh that from the original application to all wood trim and architectural architectural detail will be added to the roof of the front porch along with railings, citing Newport Standard 1780 Tech 060 B1.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

This is the application of Heather Shepurkowski of 22nd Street.

Platte 16 lot 197 contributing for permission to replace existing wood shingle roof with asphalt shingles.

I apologize for probably mispronouncing your last name.

Very well, very well.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, welcome.

I'm gonna get you sworn in.

Uh, 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.

Sure.

Heather Scheperkovsky.

Okay.

Well, we're gonna probably pull it off the can make you spell it.

Um, I can I do that many times a day, so I can spell it for you.

That's fine.

Uh no, okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alright.

No, we're good.

She's gonna pull it.

She'll pull it off the agenda.

I do that a couple times a day.

Um welcome.

I know you weren't able to join the last meeting.

So um talk us through seems fairly simple, but we wanted to understand what you were looking to accomplish in the application.

Uh Ted Corey, who's done a lot of work on this house for many years, uh, came and represented me because I couldn't come last time.

So this house uh we bought it in 1986.

So it has been in my house, my family for like 40 years.

Almost not in I was in college when they bought it.

So I didn't quite grow up in the house, but I've known this house for a long time.

Um and it did initially it had asphalt, it did not have a wooden roof.

The main reason um it's really um the neighborhood houses are really tight at the point.

Very close, like six to eight feet apart sometimes.

And they're wood.

So in 2017, the Lavelets, who they've been there for like 40 plus years themselves, they basically didn't turn their hibachi off, and they basically burned their whole house down and they set my parents' house on fire.

So um my parents were out of the house for a year and a half.

Um my father who was dying didn't get the chance to dye his own house.

He had to die in the hospital.

It caused enormous, enormous pain and grief.

The problem is I today I go to the front door.

There is a house that is completely burned down in front in my front door.

It is on the corner of Elm, and I think it was like a it was a two-alarm fire on Elm Street on January 11th of this year.

So that almost caught the house.

Oh they're all really close another side across from me, only on fire, which could have spread to my house again easily.

Like I'm I'm sure you guys all know the point.

Like things are so tight there.

Um I'm always very grateful.

Firefighters pulled my parents out and they were, you know, saved, which is great.

But I'm really interested in getting a material, like you know, you start fires with wood, like you would fire.

I would really the reason I'm here is I really want to get a material on this house that can at least I don't know if you can really prevent prevent, but to help, because part of this fire spread through the roof lines.

Um from the dilavelettes onto my parents' house.

So that's really why I'm here.

And um, I want to replace the roof, so it's I know it needs help that needs replacement.

So I'm planning on doing that, but I I just wanted you to understand like why um why I want to do this and why it's important just because I, for me, I look at this as like a ideally God willing, I'd like to have my kids to have this house.

Like I really need it as a family home.

It's been a family home for 40 years, and I don't want it to burn down again.

That was really bad.

So the shingle roof that's on here then was installed when um you know I was I would say in the nineties like maybe 95 96 I we lost everything kind of in this fire.

So a lot of records things like that do not exist anymore um because it blew through the attic where we kept all the stuff all my my father's office was in there with all the paperwork so we lost um many different things and one of them was any records we have but it was in the midnight it was about maybe 10 years in after owning the house it wasn't an immediate thing.

Okay.

All right so that's really why I'm here and why I'm asking for this so okay um and you have um read the preservation planners comments and the staff report I have yeah I saw it because I saw the video with Ted Croy and he did a great job you know explaining and he's I mean the nice thing about being in this neighborhood for 40 years is I mean he's done work on my parents' house for like probably 30 years so he knows this house so well so it was a real honor to have him be able to represent this house because he's he's done lots of work on it he knows it really well um but so I I understand historically that yes of course the wooden roof is of course I'm sure ideally in the past it had a wooden roof when we bought it it didn't and just the nature of this neighborhood um and basically we are the only wooden roof around us the Lavalettes when they rebuilt their house they don't have a wooden roof they're the ones right next to us so we're surrounded by we don't have there are no other wooden roofs in our area and we are the only one they all have asphalt roofs so um that's I'm just letting you know what it's like so all right I'm gonna open it up for questions and comments.

Miss Maria.

Okay um well first of all I'm sorry what happened to the hat I can tell that it's well it's very traumatic yes I can tell you this place and they're like in their 90s.

Yeah I can I completely understand it sounds like it was a trama a very traumatic event so I I understand where you're coming from.

I I also am a little stuck here because this house is this is the most appropriate roof for your your property and it also is everything else is wood inflammable and will it really be preventative if we change your roof but I don't know if there are options out there to have your shingles treated for with fire retardants if that's something that really concerns you because I just feel that this is really the only roof that should be on this house and uh to make a concession on that outside of our standards because of that fear that you have and I'm very sorry again for that I just don't think that that's the right decision here and I'm hoping maybe there's an alternative that would give you that peace of mind where you can stick with this kind of material.

Yeah I think that I can certainly there are wooden shingles that have some sort of reading.

I mean they're not asphalt I mean they're just you know you burn wood right you when you set a fire you put wood on it right so you wood burning stove so um it's just not an ideal material um for a roof with houses so close that's really my point um I understand um all right let's open it up for other feedback from the commission Mr.

Goddard I I mean I I'm very sympathetic as well I just don't know how we could make a decision to make an exemption or an exception based on fear.

Um I guess could I ask a question so the DeLavellettes we had pretty much identical homes.

There's house is black and ours is white and when they rebuilt they they do not have wooden shingles they have asphalt roof so what I'm trying to understand is I understand you want to keep this you know the the look and the nature of the point but I'm not understanding why they burn their whole house down and I'm they've got beautiful home now I'm glad they were the rebuild that took them a huge amount of time and effort too but that's what I'm trying to understand.

So we're literally next to each other and we have identical homes we're basically like there's a black ours is white and they did a beautiful job it looks it's they did a beautiful job it looks like it used to it's not a different house so to speak so I'm trying to understand that yeah I would I would comment again without knowing the details of that property if it was actually new construction there's different standards for new construction and the materials that can be used.

Yours is an existing contributing structure um not only in our standards um which speak to replacement in kind we also have a roof guidance which speaks to materials character defining features include wood shingle roofs um so on both principles of that this the um commission would be following those to replace in kind which would be the wood shingle so Mr Balla um you know uh I understand your plea for the roof but the rest of you of your building is wood and it would seem if you were coming in front of me wanting to protect your home from fire you'd be including other parts of your house opposed to just the roof.

But I think part of it is I need to replace this roof so it's an opportunity for me to actually change materials.

I don't think I've actively be doing taking apart the roof um in this particular fire it's spread through the roof lines how it's spread.

So that's why I I mean I care anyway but that's why the roof is particularly sure sparks fly and they're going through roof their roofs seven fire our roofs I would I would strongly recommend I mean we're all you know sensitive to fire.

We've seen what it did on the West Coast and it you know oblivious a whole community uh and what happens but uh I do think there are methods and means that you can apply to wood and I understand your objection to having wood but when you change the characteristic of wood it it does become fire resistant so I would ask that you you maybe research some of that maybe the historic planner can assist you uh we definitely as a commission would be very receptive to you coming back I believe with some type of similar product that has a treatment uh and I think then we could look at the treatment as a separate entity opposed to just a material that's my suggestion.

Mr.

Finley um I agree with my fellow commissioners um my background is in theater and I've spend my entire life in theaters and um they uh the fire departments could not be more um conscious of what we do in theaters and there are many products that are used to prevent fire on on all sorts of uh uh woods and plastics and things like that so it's it's not a new science at all um so it's easily actually um I think researched and and done um certainly I mean I can I can buy wooden shingles that have some sort of treatment they're they they can make them more resistant but they're my whole point is they're wood they're not they can never get them fireproof so to speak.

I mean you might even start with the fire department and ask them um because it's that's what they do.

Oh I know I I I've encountered them a lot I know very well and I thank them every time I see them I think.

I I mean I think generally in in hearing the commission um following our standards certainly with the recommendation of the um preservation planner um you we could take this to a vote I don't know that you will have a favorable outcome without a condition to um update the application to replace in kind um if we were to take it to a vote and it did not pass you would have to come back um with a new application house is trashed that's completely burned down just so you know as you're just because you're going through the pictures that blue house right there on the right right across the stone but go over the other way that blue house there that was the two alarm fire and my house is right across from that that is completely gutted just FY I mean I'm I'm I won't pursue this any more that's yeah maybe just so you just kind of know a little bit more what's going on but how bad things are so wanna understand how you want to move forward if you would like us to amend the application um otherwise we can take it to a vote as you've submitted it um you can just take it to a vote I don't have that much time to all right but just to clarify if it's taken to a vote based on what you submitted and it's denied then you you have to wait some period of time and come back with a new application.

So do I need a new application just to put a new roof on I don't understand this process yeah it was so yeah so and maybe our preservation planner can just chime in here with some recommendations.

So for a replacement in kind you would be able to you know replace the roof with wood shingles um and then if you were looking to replace it with any other material then and this proceeds to a vote tonight and it gets denied then you would have to wait a year or come back with a significantly different application.

But if you were just to replace with wood shingles that's something that I could do administratively so you wouldn't have to want to replace with shingles I could maybe contact you and I wouldn't need another yeah so we would with that if that's where you're going we could make a motion to update that as a condition that you would replace in kind and then you could follow up with the preservation planner that would be a more favorable outcome for you so I appreciate Miss Richter.

Okay.

All right so with that I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of 22nd Street plat sixteen lot 197 with the condition that the existing uh wood shingle roof be replaced in kind with wood shingles citing newport standard 17 tact 80 060 a one two four five and seven so move second all those in favor aye aye all those opposed thank you okay good luck then two thank you yes this is the application of reflections LLC of one eleven ocean avenue plat 41 lot 353 non-contributing for permission to replace rotted stucco with wood siding construct new stair in rear replace two windows and replace stores are you oh my name is Spencer Alexander I'm representing the owners okay I'm gonna get you if you could raise your right hand there you go do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God and I'm sorry if you could just state your name again into the mic.

Spencer Alexander okay Mr.

Alexander thank you.

This is a non contributing structure um and I have a few exhibits but should I talk about it first we could be the exhibits for you uh let's go let's get the exhibits yeah rolled in here first let's do that so how many do you have uh three okay so let's go through those individually so the first one first one is just the letter that I was gonna like my speeches it also has quotes and um it's not quotes citations from historic register to show why stucco I can't do you're gonna talk about like the first one is just a my what I'm gonna read but it has citations from the historic register about why stucco is allowed to be changed as a materiality just to show my sources and everything where it came from, so it's not just me talking.

Okay, so that's we'll put that in as exhibit A, exhibit B.

Second one is I have a kind of a list of your approved stucco change to CLAAD projects from the past.

I went through all your um meeting notes that are online.

So the past four or five years.

So there's about seven or eight of them that have been approved that are contributing, and none of them are non-contributing, like my projects.

So just to kind of again focus on that.

And the other one is pictures of the project as well as a 3D rendering to show how we're not changing the uh shape and size of the building or the mass of the building.

The mass of the building is the same, it's just the materiality change, why the materiality change should exist.

Okay, sounds good.

So for the commission, I'm gonna request a motion to accept three exhibits as follows.

Exhibit A, uh 411 Oceanab, plat 41353, exhibit A are notes from the applicant, exhibit B are references of other um buildings, and exhibit C photos and renderings of the property.

Yeah, I also have a sample for the wood material if you want to see it, but I kind of need a back when it gets.

Yeah, we won't accept that one as an exhibit.

No problem.

Okay.

So move second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Thanks.

We just got a whole package of like this.

Well, and then I have everything stable, but the other ones, and how to make it easier.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ben check.

Could I ask while he's passing this out, if Jill could kind of time in with her, would you kind of give us your rationale behind your your uh your staff report?

Staff reports.

I will.

Well, she's pulling it up.

Would you like me to read your your notes, Jill to help you, and then you can jump in?

Okay.

All right, so um in our um stop report from the preservation planner on the recommendations, denial or approval with conditions.

The applicants are requesting to significantly alter the exterior of the structure by proposing the replacement of existing stucco with wood siding.

The building is likely inspired by the international style, which is characterized by lack of ornamentation, balance, and volume rather than mass.

Stucco and concrete were common materials for this style of building.

The international style is referenced in the ocean drive historic district nominating papers as a significant style.

The stucco is a character defining feature of the building and should be retained.

The replacement of stucco with wood clapboard is not appropriate for the structure.

The proposed green roof is low profile and reversible.

It will likely only be seen from Ocean Ave at the top of the small hill to the east.

The intervention is reversible and minimally intrusive to the surrounding historic district.

The proposed alterations to the fenestration on the facade impact of the character defining irregular spacing of windows and doors throughout the house.

The HDC should discuss of the alterations, meet the standard for B2.

The proposed rear stair for access to the roof is minimally invasive and does not impact character defining features of the structure or the surrounding historic district.

The proposal should be reviewed in the context of standard 17 80 060 B1 and 2.

Maybe Jill wants to add some color.

Sure.

So for the style of the building, um I believe that the stucco is a character defining feature.

Um, it's meant to be kind of this monolithic block essentially, um, which is true to the international style or buildings at that period.

Um so that was my take on this.

Um that would be my recommendation.

Um as for the other alterations, I think that that I could support them.

Um, some of the the buildings that you mentioned that were uh approved for to go from stucco to wood clap um had previously been wood clappered um and is appropriate for that style, but I believe that this building being uh this is what was the intended look uh and material for the building.

Can I respond to that?

Is that okay?

Thank you, just thank you.

So uh I went to IIT, which is the architectural school designed by Mies Vanderro, uh which is the father of international style.

Um, it's my entire architectural education is international style.

I I don't think this building fits with the international style and our styles glass and steel.

Um, I think there also we are not changing the form or the shape of the monolithic form or or beauty of the building.

I also find the building very pretty.

I just don't think stucco is the appropriate material.

I think the stucco was done because it was in the 70s or 80s.

It was a sheet material.

It was when Newport everything was getting gutted and they were throwing things up with whatever they wanted, but I don't know that this is a character defining feature.

I think the shape of the building is character defining, it's not changing.

Um and so then I could read my sorry, I hate public speaking.

Uh sorry, you're doing fine.

Okay, can I add much?

Yes, Mr.

Goddard, sorry, we'll just interrupt one second.

Um it's being referred to as clap, but the sample you showed is not clap, right?

So it's a clapboard siding, it's a shiplap that sits inside of it.

So it's not gonna be there'll be no raised edge.

Everything's no raised edge, right?

So and how are you treating corners?

So the corners are staying, they're getting mitered.

You have mighty corners.

So you're basically gonna retain the sort of block.

Keeping the block, I love the form of the building.

Yeah, the block stays.

And that is that the color you've chosen then?

Not that we have to say anything with the color, yeah.

That's fine.

Yeah, I would actually, yeah, we would like to see it.

You just throw it, just as well.

So it burnt cedar, it's a natural material and it's naturally also um, fire retardant.

Yes, fire retardant.

It's actually uh it's a burnt material.

What did you get the material for?

Blackwood siding, it's a Sheshugi bond material, yeah.

A thousand year old process of making cedar last forever.

Yeah.

No, go ahead.

Okay.

If I could just ask, I know you wanted to respond to the preservation planner, so if you could I understand, I don't know if I agree that this is international style.

Um I think it's a I think it's a gorgeous building.

I just think the stucco is of a moment when it was created, not the character defining feature.

I think the form and the shape is the character defining, which and it's also a non-contributing building, and we are maintaining the character of the building um throughout this.

Can you can you give us a statement of why you are not presenting stucco?

Yeah, so stucco uh in salt water or salt assault environments is uh heavily deteriorated all the time.

So I think the internal crystallization uh with stucco creates kind of embedded metal lath all the roads, it creates effervescent efflorescence, which you can see in the pictures of the stucco here.

It also creates kind of uh areas for mold and it rots relatively quickly.

This is right on the water on Ocean Drive.

Um, so it's just not the material that should be for a house on the water.

And because of that, you either have to demo and rip the whole thing out every time you need to repair it because everything underneath it gets rotted.

When you do a wood siding, the wood siding collect uh protects everything behind it and creates a barrier that will keep the house safe.

Uh the way that stucco is made makes it impossible to really maintain this environment that the house sits in.

And and this wood siding is going over the existing stucco comes down.

Okay, it's gonna be completely removed.

It's it's brought in and deteriorating, it's got holes in it.

Um there's pictures in the in there that I've shown you where it it was done wrong and it was put directly to the ground.

So since it was brought right to the ground, there's water coming up from the ground, there's water coming at it from the side, and it's just falling apart.

You can grab it and it completely.

And so your project is going to consist of removing the siding and doing new siding.

Yes, and then uh the green.

Regardless of what the siding is.

Yes.

It's it's falling apart.

Um, and then the windows that we are changing, or I can talk about the green roof if you want.

Um the green roof is just to help with the heat island of the house, the neighboring house has it too, and I find that the green roofs are continuous, what historic preservation helps with energy efficiency without changing the character of the building.

Um the windows that we're doing are keeping the same exact line of the height of the glass.

So there's no change to the glass.

The glass is the same bronzed aluminum clad.

The mullion size is the exact same, it's just getting wider.

And then there's a new window going in, and that image on the top left.

You can I think that's no, sorry, not that side.

The other part of it, if you look at the pictures, this house actually can't be seen from the road for 90% of the house unless you're at the top of the hill.

Um but you don't see it from here, you see it from so that's the how that's it's trees riding all the way around.

This was taken during the winter to kind of show that even at the winter you barely see this home.

And so this you would the window is there at the front that you won't see.

It's right in that kind of corner.

Um, so it really doesn't change the character of the house in any way for the neighborhood.

Is this property connected to the property and back of it?

No.

No, it's so it's independent, separate.

They've owned this for 30 40 years.

They bought it from the original owner.

Um you have anything else?

I don't know if you want me to read my long-winded thing.

I don't think you need me to, but um, I would say that uh, you know, you've done a good job.

I think the the wood siding looks good, but I would be prone to think that it's the wrong material.

Uh I think Jill has made a good argument about the state of this house and its position in Newport and the material and what it reads, and I do believe, as we stated in past application, that you know, technology has come a long way, and stucco, while problematic in the past, has made great strides to be used in conditions like this.

Um, so I would say uh I would be prone to you to using stucco for this application.

I think the rest of the changes are fine.

Uh, but I would be uh citing that as condition of my approval.

Even though it's a non-contributing.

Okay.

I'd like to actually hear from Mr.

Goddard.

Um, so I like the wood idea.

I just my concern I guess is with the material that you showed, shows it sort of already cupping.

And sorry.

It's cupping and twisting and deforming already.

That one and that sample.

And you know, um, what what that does over time on the side of the building is it starts to give it uh a little bit of um a nuance that you probably don't want.

And I feel like there are other shush I I mean, there are the I know I know for a fact that there are the places where you can get Shoshuri Bond that have been slightly treated.

I think I'm not sure exactly.

I can give you an example.

Yeah, I think Delta Mill works.

There's a bunch of things.

Yeah, exactly.

I'm happy to use a different supply.

Yeah, no, I mean, those so when they're properly applied, yeah.

And then and you know, you you basically don't hardly even see the seams.

Yeah, you it has a very monolithic appearance, and so in a sense, you're not really changing the form of the building.

Although I I agree with Jill and I and Frank on the materiality of it.

Um the other thing I would just mention is that you know the corners are very critical, how they're treated because a lot of times mighty corners will open up and start looking a little wonky.

Yeah, with a little bit of a corner bead on there.

I think it could be really stunning.

I think it'd be beautiful.

Um, and I recognize the challenges with stucco, but I really don't think it's that much of an ask, to be honest with you.

I think it's um, although I do like the stucco, because originally that building, which you guys don't know, but was surrounded by a seven-foot-high stucco wall.

I know, and then that's gone now, it's gone for a long time.

But uh I would say if that stuck all wall was still there, then I would say yeah, because that was a part of the original sort of composition.

But I I like I can support it.

Okay.

Other commissioners.

I agree.

I so I I can support this.

Ms.

I support this application.

Okay, Miss Marion.

Uh I uh I understand that this is a non-contributing building but it is very detailed in the nominating papers what this building is and what it is made of and and what it represents.

And for that reason I I don't believe that the ship lap is really compatible with the building or the neighborhood personally.

So when it comes down to the windows I'm okay you know essentially with that but when it comes to changing the stucco on this particular building I I cannot support it.

Could you um just to make sure we're touching on the um windows I know I read it but we were looking at materials so just walk us through the change in fenestration of the new windows because it is confirmed in the papers that they part of the character defining details were that they were irregularly spaced.

I guess so all right if if you go back to the picture or there so if you go to that picture on the left there is like four little three little windows together plus one larger window it's going to be pushed to be one big window so you have a better view.

It's a master bedroom a primary bedroom over there.

And then the other side where there's a tall grasses doesn't have a window in the bedroom looking out towards the water again you don't see this from the street it's raised up and there's planting all around it so the window is going to come in with the same datum top and bottom of all the other windows so it fits within the character of the home.

Okay.

So I just want to make sure the commission is also just clear on those windows changing.

I would just like to also ask Ms Chen if anything has changed based on hearing from the applicant this evening in your view.

Um I can understand the uh you know I said that this was could have been inspired by the international style not obviously national style um simply because I don't really have any other language to to use for this it's very unique house.

I will also say that uh I understand that some houses have have issues with stucco and the salt air but um you know many houses in Portugal and you know all throughout the Mediterranean are stucco and are able to survive.

That's a very different con Lime stat lime wash and you know there there are yeah we recently approved a house um that was stucco on Leroy and uh by Mohamed Farzan and so he you know I asked him about stucco and you know it seems like a lot of people are in problems and he had reassured me that there were some good good folks out there that could properly um install stucco so it's I I do believe it is a character defined feature of the of the building and um yeah that's that's my stance.

Okay.

I think uh finding a stucco uh contractor that could do that work in this area would be far and few between well maybe you could ask Mohammed I I well I think we'll wait until see if we really start cracking I um but I do think that the uh all the other houses in the area are also woods um I think they and one thing I did want to say was the material change is also consistent with the preservation principles embodied by the Secretary of Interior standards of rehabilitation which favor repairs and alterations which preserve historic character use compatible replacement materials to avoid unnecessary destructive interventions to historic fabric where an existing material is underperforming in a manner tied to site specific environmental exposure replacement with a compatible traditional cladding can be justified when it is a better product that for the building over time and remains visually appropriate to the structure in its setting which I think the wood siding meets those requirements for and that's from the historic national register.

You know I I think what you're presenting is beautiful uh I don't think it's right for this house.

I also think that if I were to drive by that house, I would think it was built yesterday.

And and you know, and like you said, this is the only one left.

Or when it's a square box.

The stucco, there's a stucco and it's rotting up the top of the head so I I I just feel that uh it's not impossible to find a material that has additives that deal with salt air.

Uh the uh the person who applies it may be a little more difficult to find, but I I don't think it's impossible.

Um I would suggest that we split this vote to everything other than the siding and the siding.

Um because I sense that there is a division on siding and not everything else.

I'm gonna just do a I have some notes on who I think is in favor, and um I'm gonna ask Ms.

Moran one way or the other if which way you're leaning towards voting.

In regards to the siding, yes.

I do not support the siding change.

Okay.

Um and Ms.

Dontremont.

I I agree with the preservation planner that it's a defining feature.

So I do not support the wood siding.

Okay.

Um and I will say I came into this um potentially with an abbreviated summary.

I really felt very strongly about the stucco maintaining you've provided some very sound evidence this evening.

But yet I agree with Mr.

Ballet.

If I were to drive by to see the building that you're proposing, I would think it was a contemporary structure that had just been built.

Although it is a non-contributing building, it is very identifiable, um, not only for its form, but also its material.

So I'm back to where I was previously.

Um so I would also not be in favor of changing that material.

I would be fine with everything else.

Um, so that said, you based on what I'm hearing from the other commissioners, you would most likely not have a favorable outcome on the stucco.

Changing it and then push for a continuance on the stucco.

So we can do that.

Um I just wanted to ask, and you guys can all say I'm crazy.

Is there any place at all where there is a mix of materials in this structure?

No, thank you.

It's it's gotta be one because if you mix it, it's not the same building and it it should be a continuous beautiful box that stays.

I'm just trying to get you to an outcome that maybe you'd like, but it will work if you mix the material.

Okay, I think it's um this house is also overshadowed by a newer contemporary which has similar materials that you're proposing.

Which is why I would then look at the combination of it if I was driving by and think, oh yeah, that's a new one and that's a new one.

I'm thinking contextually they speak to each other.

So it helps to be contextual in the neighborhood.

Instead of it being uh it's like an older house falling down that is non-contributing and a new house up.

So they would it'd be a refresh of something that's beautiful again to see this beautiful structure and the form and really feel the you're missing this house now.

You drive by and you think, oh man, look at that ugly house that's just been sitting there for 30 years.

And I think you need a refresh to make the house feel exciting when you drive by Ocean Drive.

I think you look at it and it's like, why is it still there?

Um, and I think doing something beautiful to it and maintaining the form would like uh emphasize how beautiful the form is of this house that has been missed, I think, in this neighborhood.

I agree.

I I I mean, uh I I'm all for the beauty that you presented, but I don't think that's on the right house.

I just don't think stuck will ever get there either.

Uh only because I think stucco is a material that uh it just it isn't this house.

It's a rough texture that doesn't give the house there should be a linear map to this house.

The the linear side of giving the siding like this accentuates the the strong box feelings of this house that the stucco I think was a material chose because of the expense and not because of anything other than that, and I think to to celebrate this house, it should be something that's horizontal, something that shows the beauty of the lines of this house, which I think is completely missing.

The stucco is why it's a bland background house.

It may, it may also be reflective of its color too, you know, and I mean that's something you may want to go down the rabbit hole and and look at.

Should you explore the material.

You know, white is a very harsh color in stucco.

It shows everything.

This unfortunately is aged and decrepit.

Hopefully, new is not going to read as such.

So, okay.

So I think consensus for this evening, um, to split the application.

Um, and change their mind and the beauty of the house being all right.

So um, so first we'll procedurally do that split and then we'll um is there any other questions or concerns about the anything that is not related to the siding before we go down that path?

No, okay.

So I'm gonna request a motion to split the application of one eleven ocean app plat 41 lot 353 into part A, which is a um request to replace the stucco facade with new wood signing wood siding, and part two, which is a new stair in the rear yard, adding new windows and replacement of doors.

So moved.

Second green roof.

Sorry?

Oh, did I miss that?

Uh oh, it's not written here, and the green roof.

That's correct.

Okay, go ahead.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor of the split.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed.

Okay, so we'll request a motion to approve part two of the application of 11 ocean ab plat 41 lot 353, which includes a request for a new green roof, new stair in the rear yard, two new windows, and a replacement of doors, citing newport standards 17 TAC 80060 B1 and 2.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

And lastly, I will request a motion to continue part one of um one eleven ocean ab plat 41 lot 353 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you, everybody.

See you next month.

Okay.

Sorry, this is the application of Thomas Wool of 77K Street, plat 22 lot 99 contributing for permission to convert existing garage to two-story accessory dwelling unit.

Okay, and before we get you sworn in, I just want to um state for the record that Commissioner Goddard has recused himself.

Um, and we will get you sworn in.

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

So help you, God.

Yes.

And state your name into the mic, please.

Thomas Wool.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Wool, walk us through your application.

So I'm Thomas, I'm with Wool Construction.

I'm looking to do an ADU in the back of my client's house, which is 77K.

Um, we're not going to be doing any um pretty much structural.

We're gonna keep three sides of the walls up.

We're just gonna be the ceilings right now are 14 feet tall.

Um, so I'm looking to just put another floor on and make it an ADU client building.

Okay, so just if we could pull up the photo of the existing structure.

Okay.

So um, Mr.

Wall, have you read the staff recommendations on the staff report?

I haven't, and my my structural engineers working on this as we speak, so I'm not fully prepared.

Okay, just wanted to, you know, see if I could at least get it passed.

Okay.

So I'm gonna just read while we're pulling up some images, um, the recommendations.

Um, so denial.

Applicants are requesting to significantly alter an original garage and convert it into an ADU.

The structure appears on historic maps as an auto house and retains integrity of sighting use, materials, and design.

The structure predates many of the concrete block garages constructed in the mid-20th century that are commonly seen in the K-Catherine district, which are considered non-contributing.

The proposed alterations do not meet the standards in terms of size, scale, massing materials, and design.

The alterations also pose the risk of conjecture and fails to preserve distinctive features.

The proposed design does not reflect the original use as an auto house and alters the structure beyond recognition.

Alternate alternative project design should be explored.

So um we can certainly continue.

And what the existing um garage looks like versus the plans that we have received.

I'll open it up in my feedback that compared, and I am asking to look at photos to.

Um the garage would be unrecognizable based on what is before us this evening.

So I am in agreement with our preservation planner that it completely takes away all features of the original property.

So I would not be in favor of supporting it.

Yeah, uh I would agree.

I think the scale is a bit much.

I think it takes away the existing character.

So I would not be in favor.

I concur as well that I would not be in support of this application.

Since it's a character defining feature of the well, since it is a contributing structure on the property and it does have some um contributing features that are not incorporated into this design.

I don't think I can support it anyway.

I agree with my fellow commissioners.

Okay.

So my options are so we based on the feedback, um, recommendation would be to come back with an alternate plan.

Okay.

Um certainly, I mean, I think just looking at the photo here with the elevations that we have before us.

Um, if there's some insight that the preservation planner can provide, I mean, we have approved other projects to convert existing structures into ADUs.

Um, we don't view them as ADUs, we view them as just a you know, a piece of structure that's on the property.

We follow all the same standards.

Um, but especially to the point of um other commissioners that this is a contributing structure on the lot, it does need to maintain those defining features.

So it the recommendation would be to continue the application and come back with something that's different.

Okay.

All right, so okay.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to continue the application of 77 K Street plat 22 lot 99 to the next regularly scheduled HDC meeting on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye, all those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the application of Newport Community Church at Zero Toro Street, plat 24 lot 54 contributing for permission to replace exterior drainage systems, including scuppers, downspouts, and the roof of the copper on it.

Okay, welcome.

Get you.

We'll do our best here.

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.

And state your name if you can into the mic there.

Matthew Carker.

Okay.

Let's just get our.

Oh, he's here.

He's sneaking in the just land to my direction.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

If you could just give us an overview of what it is that you're looking to do, sure.

Yeah.

Um, I am the pastor of Newport Community Church, fairly new pastor, so it's nice to meet you all.

Um, on behalf of our church, um we have had some interior leakage inside of the church, uh, mainly coming from these scuppers.

Um, we have a rubber roof that's on top.

Um, and so they are needing to get replaced.

And so uh as my application states, it's just a permission to um to replace the scuppers and the downspouts uh with um uh anodized copper aluminum uh just to be a little bit more efficient.

We're relatively small church, so we're trying to stay efficient in our funds.

Uh, and so that is the request that is being uh.

And then it's also can you speak to the so the roof awning that we're looking at here, which is currently um that's solid copper, which we see that patina there, so you're also looking to replace that.

Yes, that's correct.

Yep.

Okay, all right.

So I'll open it up for questions and comments.

What material are you planning on using on the roof it's copper anodized aluminum that's a little bit and I think the the planner's comments were uh that it doesn't patina the same as copper um I imagine there is a cost implication to changing materials but the anodized aluminum is just colored aluminum basically is what it is right no so it's a copper brown you you you can pick your color yeah and so would there be room to uh not to use anodized aluminum but not in a copper color and so it's distinctively not trying to be copper maybe it's brick red or dark brown or you know fluorescent orange but um maybe that fits within the character and the expense.

Yeah and I don't know if they have anything that I mean it can be scary depending on what it looks like but something that's already very degree in terms of a color.

Yeah.

Yeah I I think I think that maybe the nuance of the color you could pass by Jill.

But it would seem like I could support the application if we did that.

Okay.

Others I mean yeah you're you're never gonna replicate uh copper right because copper continuously changes color patina and it doesn't change color uniformly um but there's a wide range of colors and we don't really have purview over it so what I would say is I could support it I think is one others is Mariah so I know we don't have purview over color but we do have purview over the material and it is a sort of a living breathing material copper and I had to look up what copper anodized aluminum really looks like and so it my understanding is that it comes like mostly in a brown like as if it's sort of a fresh copper look is that what you were thinking about doing correct yeah okay and then in terms of the other features it it was a little confusing on the application.

I wasn't sure if you were looking to do that for all of the elements and they would all be this brown for example or if you were thinking of doing some things in copper some things in I just maybe need a little bit more clarification on that if you don't mind.

Sure yeah I think um the the main thing that we are really trying to go for as far as the anodized copper aluminum would be the scuppers and the downspouts.

So I think as far as the awning uh there um you know I think just because especially it's uh it's the character behind that uh with the building I think that would be okay to replace with just regular copper but I think just the scuppers and the downspouts around the building would be thing that we're asking.

Which are currently what material you said they're painted metal yeah so the scuppers look so but yeah the downspouts.

That's I mean I wasn't here when the when those were replaced um and so yeah I think it I think it is just a metal aluminum that's painted brown.

Um so I just kind of make sure that anodized just a more so dura more durable color coding but it's actually chemically burned into the skin of the copper I mean to the aluminum.

Right.

I I've never seen it in person but when I look at it online it looks like just a flat flat sheet of brown metal and it doesn't appear that it's going to or that it's meant to change over time but does it no okay well not patina.

I mean the color may fade slightly.

Yeah.

So I just want to make sure I heard what you just said.

So that roof you are looking to replace in kind with real copper, but everything else would be the okay.

I would be able to support that.

I do think that that roof in particular to maintain that in copper that's gonna, you know, patina to the very degree that you have there is very character defining.

So I would be able to support that.

I'm fine with the alternate material on the scuppers on the downspout.

Yeah, I agree with that.

Very different the character defining versus the the piping, etc.

So I could support it that way as well.

Okay, great.

All right, all right.

So with that, I'm going to request a motion to approve the application of Zero Toro Street Plot 24 lot 54.

Citing Newport Standards 17 TACT 80 060, um a one, four, and seven.

I just want to make a note to clarify that the roof awning will be replaced in kind with copper, and the exterior drainage system of the scuppers and the downspouts will be the copper anodized aluminum.

Again, citing Newport standards 17 tact 80 060 A14 and 7.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, um, do we have any new business for the commission this evening?

Um, I'm gonna request a motion then to adjourn uh the Thursday, June 11th, 2026, Newport Historic District Commission meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Amazing.

We're off the record.

I wanted to make an announcement to the commit