e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay I need glasses you took my glasses too Jesus actually they had you set up here well and I got of move your stuff down okay so it's Judy's fault you were ghosted here yeah historic preservation commission um May 20th 2024 and 5 minutes after 6 and compliance with the open public meeting act in 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided if any member has reason to believe this meeting is held in violation of that act they should state so at this time Pledge of Allegiance please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all roll call please Mr copelan here Mr Carol Mr Becker here Mr Stevenson here Mr Tesa here Miss Wilson strick here Mr Johnson here thank you minutes March 18th 2024 and April 15 2024 excuse me you've had an opportunity to review those minutes do I have a motion to accept them I'll move to accept the minutes as presented to the meeting second motion by Mr Tesa seconded by Mr Becker Mr Copan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Testa yes Miss Wilson stck yes Mr Johnson yes thank you resolutions um Lawrence a pre Builders 523 Bank Street block 1054 lot 22 resolution 20248 Drake 177 South Broadway block 1018 lot 20 resolution 20249 duam and Carol 921 Stockton Avenue block 1082 lot 1401 resolution 20 2410 mullik 828 Corgi street block 1090 Lot 10 resolution 20241 Kings Cottage Enterprises nine Perry Street block 1034 lot 15 resolution 20242 Oaks 1145 Washington Street block 1113 lot 22 resolution 20 2413 and Oaks again 1145 Washington Street block 1113 lot 22 resolution 20 2414 do I have a motion to accept those resolutions I will move that Mo a second I'll second motion by Mr Carol seconded by Mr Becker Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson stck yes Mr Johnson yes thank you applications approved or denied in review you've had a chance to review those um do I have a motion to accept them motion do I have a second I'll second I have a recusal uh Carol six city of K May at 1048 Washington Street I recused myself I I'll do that at the time the vote is called I have one too but motion by Mr Stevenson seconded by Miss Wilson stck Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes accept of K thank you Mr Becker yes accept for recusal for Sheffer at 1011 Washington Street thank you Mr Stevenson yes Mr chesta Yes except for Duca 1515 Beach Avenue from which I abstain thank you Miss Wilson yes Mr Johnson yes thank you um first order of business tonight is old business Cohen 16 reading Avenue block 1115 lot 17.02 this is a non-contributing um property and it's a new house Mr kiss can you turn on your microphone please a green okay sorry Paul kiss from OK design Partners architects of the project um here representing the homeowners Scott and Lois Cohen uh who apologize they were on a long planned trip in not be here tonight but wanted this application to continue so I'm here without them um we have to put on record whether he has the authority to present it so uh Mr kiss two things one um need you to represent uh that you have the authority to present this application on behalf of the applicants and understand that any conditions or things agreed to on the record tonight are not going to go forward unless the applicants themselves acknowledge and writing the representations that you put on the record tonight I understand okay um they have authorized me to present tonight okay agree to that condition okay who whose signature is it on the application uh is it your it should be mine okay so it's not the homeowners just checking I can double check you would avoid this if they would simply sign the back the bottom of the application it's your okay thank you I was pretty sure I just wanted to be sure well they would they would still have to authorize that's a standard condition of our resolutions now that if an applicant's not physically present they're going to have to acknowledge your representations any conditions on the record so they can't later say oh we didn't know about that Mr kiss was understand didn't have the authority okay but we take out your word and the applicants will confirm that whatever happens okay very good thank you so we were here a couple months ago uh presented an application um and uh the board reviewed and made a number of suggestions um so I'm here to present um our uh response to those suggestions um the uh if you recall the property is one unit one uh property one lot of a two lot subdivision on reading Avenue um at the time of the last application we were anticipating requesting uh some variances from the approved subdivision uh since then my my clients have reconsidered and we are not going to be requesting any variances so everything I'm presenting uh conforms to all the zoning code requirements um we found out subsequently that um it's my client's responsibility to um provide proof of um compliance with the conditions of the subdivision and we're currently working through that with the engineer U but we will be able to to provide that um so with that um I can with your permission I'll just go through the application um so uh if if you recall the last time we were proposing um a large driveway with parking in the front of the building um we've reconsidered that approach um and we've eliminated that we have a a uh 12T wide driveway on the left that leads to the back of the property um and we have recessed under the building um the enclosed parking so um two of the required spaces would be inside and then the last remaining required space would be toward the back of the property on the driveway um in the front yard we're proposing a um a Terrace landscaped uh front with um Native plannings plannings on Kate May's list of approved plannings um that's really the only only difference um and if you like I do have uh if there's any questions about what I presented the last time I've got the boards from the last presentation as well uh what I'm presenting now is what was submitted with the application packet so um drawing number A1 shows the new ground floor um with the Terrace Landscaping in the front uh the parking recess back under the building it's recessed about 12 ft from the building above so it's well concealed and we'll be planning uh Landscaping in front to help to conceal that uh there's there's really nothing changed in the back of the pool the patio from the prior application uh still on on drawing A1 um one of the um suggestions from the um commission was to maybe reduce some of the size of the uh porches that wrapped around so we've eliminated um some of the side porch we we kept enough to make a connection between the sitting area on the side and the front porch um because of some positive changes in the zoning code allowing some steps to and true uh into the front yard we were able to reduce the number of steps that cut into the porch um make it a more traditional look um on the right side we kept the symmetry of the the dimension created by this connection on the side um there's nothing really different about the plan other than that as we go up on A2 to the second floor again we eliminated the wrap around we cut back on the width of the porch we've eliminated the screen enclosure so it's all open now that's it on that floor [Music] so we come to the elevations and the overall dimension of the front facade of the building has been reduced um by about 8 to 10 ft from what it was previously um and again I have a I I will be submitting one exhibit tonight uh perspective drawings that compare the previous application to the current application um the rest of the elevations are just indicating the change from the floor plan um so the next is is so we went into the new guidelines um we had a surveyor survey the surrounding properties so on on page A6 uh I'm pointing to uh where the project site is um Beach Avenue is at the bottom and then there a series of um surrounding properties that we had surveyed we had the porch elevation surveyed we had the roof Peak surveyed um and we drew all those to scale um to compare it to our proposed uh property so if we start um number one is the house directly across the street from us at 15 reading um it has a porch at elevation 15.09% 33 our roof Peak is 47.276760 [Music] height 2 and 1/2 ft um and then we go around the neighborhood um this graphically shows to scale how we compare unfortunately the surveyor did not give us the information on that so I just included a photograph of that one which is kind of across the street um I can go through all the numbers if You' like or I can move on move on uh the next page is is a recreation of the previous page but with photographs of the houses so you can see what they look like as compared to our proposal and again they're they're as to scale as we can make them estimating on photographs previous drawing has actual surveyed information the materials proposed are the same as last time natural wood all everything that that that you're looking for basically um and finally and this is this is what um I'd like to submit tonight which is perspective rendering so how would you like me to do this I have handouts for everyone you're we already have A1 in here correct pardon we'll just Mark that as Coen one right okay yeah and um just hand them out there should be plenty of copies there Mr kiss that that's just a one-page document right onepage document and that's what you have on the board right now that's what's on the board it's called Uh sheet number A8 that's it's a A8 A8 is the number of the drawing yeah okay in the set around [Applause] so the the drawing on the left is is what was presented last time um shows four story building it shows the parking in the front the drive the large driveway and the steps recessed into the porch um Unfortunately they renderer made them slightly different scale so this one the one to the right with the new proposal looks looks a little bigger but it's really smaller you don't want to make it look bigger I know can only you can only do so much um but it does show the terrist front yard and Landscaping um the open second floor porch as opposed to the enclosed uh screened in porch the reduced scale and size left to right of the porches and the uh disappearance of the garages that's what I've got um normally we as you know we go around the room but in this instance uh we've heard this application before and we've heard the responses to our observations at that meeting so at this point I would ask are there any members of the commission that have questions or comments about this application just one or two comments this is a significant improvement from my perspective you addressed I think all of our concerns and it's an extraordin EXT extraordinarily well choreographed presentation you've given us everything I think we need um interestingly we are proposing to city council an ordinance for prohibiting parking beneath buildings including new construction however the way you've handled it in this case in my opinion is extraordinarily well can't see the garage doors from the street the way you've in essence made the front facade not feel as if it's up on stilts because of the Terrace gardening I think it's a really well done job thank you thank you other comments I I do have um questions on on the materials this by and large I thought the materials were complete and um easy to see how they comply with um uh fitting in with materials for new construction um on the roof though you've listed Cedar asphalt and slate as Alternatives want to tell us what you're doing well if my clients were to decide I could tell you um it somewhat has to do with the overall cost of the project um which is when they would go to an architectural asphalt um I think their preference would be Cedar um I doubt that we would see slate but I just wanted to be open that they're thinking about all all this I just pointed out that normally when we have a material sheet and and you specify what you're going to do that forms the basis for the approval so we might have to condition it or put it in the alternative so you're saying it's either going to be asphalt or Cedar likely asphalt or Ceder I'd prefer it to be Cedar um I'd be happy to submit the final selection you know back again for approval okay another question regarding the materials on A4 you know there are a lot of panels that go along the sidewalls there I don't see anything on the materials list are they going to be doors are they lattice panels um on the first floor there's on the bottom on the right side elevation there's three then two then one and on the are you you're looking at the top drawing here no yes and then there's five panels on the first floor or six panels first floor a FL on the top this no well the ground level Flor the ground level yeah are they doors windows uh lattice panels this this is where the garage is so this is set back 12 ft from what's above and then on the other side there's similar panels are they in the bottom these are doors for storage yes and on the bottom as well there're all doors uh this is the outside shower which is no over to the three and then these are doors into the lower level and these are um uh storage well it's on the floor plan right do you have any like cut sheets on those doors they would be um vertical beadboard I don't have a cut sheet it's just kind of a material painted so there doors that are vertical beadboard yeah painted um so on the floor plan um what you're seeing on the right side um these are windows which are bringing light into the garage then you have doors uh for bikes and trash can storage towards the front of the house and these are all the vertical bbard uh painted doors that's the shower that projects out from the house um and then these are doors for Beach carts and beach chairs okay so on your on your materials cut sheets that you supply you show all your windows to be Anderson 400 series so that's still accurate right yes and you show doors of three types um the uh uh Grill pattern on looks like front to match elevation front door looks like a slider and the carriage style garage doors but you U you you do identify them as thick mahogany by signature door and then Anderson 400 gliding and garage door carage style door by Artisan doors to match the front elevation are there doors that you were just talking about that aren't in that list your your material section on doors where Jake just found another set of doors that we well I mean looking at the photos of all the uh materials being used and I didn't see any doors he's got that I don't know if he's got more doors um um no so the front door would be a mahogany door as it shows the um the sliding doors are the Anderson uh a series sliding doors they're actually a series um not 400 but um they look the same the um yeah unfortunately the garage doors are left over from the last application um they're they're going to be the vertical white beadboard that just look like every other of the doors um because they're sort of custom siteb built doors I didn't include them in the material list um again I can resubmit anything you'd like to see in more detail of happy to do that I'm I'm not sure I just completely understood so the carriage style doors you show here by Artisan doors are not going to be used not going to be used okay um I I would just say if we're we're going to we're going to approve it we just want to make sure the cut sheets are um supplied for for the right doors right I'm happy to do that and I one one last comment and and I you know and I I Echo I Echo John's um comments that this looks like there was a substantial revision and it and it went in the direction of the comments that you received on on this um I will say though that when you did your comparison of the uhu of the structures not the photographs but the graphic comparison um you you did leave out the roof sections that are behind the original front roof so that it actually is a little bit bigger when seen against the other buildings I'm not saying it's out of proportion because I I think it is well proportioned for other structures in the neighborhood but I saw this as a little bit smaller um on the on paper than it really was like like this for example see that you you really have You' you've shown the front section but you haven't shown the roof and back uh well you know what on on the on the bigger print it it shows in the background but notice how everybody else everybody else is is gray and that's almost impossible to read I I I don't I don't change my comment I I think it's still within the proportions um of of the neighborhood I think I was just trying to highlight that the the part that's furthest forward I just was testing my eyes to make sure I really could see properly unfortunately it doesn't always come through on the small PR lorine you have a comment I do um just taking a look at the ground FL plan and looking at the columns the turning radius just kind of to take a look at where you're going into that garage area is that Canever out from there so there's no column that's in the way of that turning radius cuz that's a pretty hefty hander to If you're looking at the ground floor plan I know some of you are looking at it now there's two columns that are kind of in front of that turning radius going into the garage if that makes sense it does okay um so these dashed columns are the porch above right the the porch would be CED out so there's no no obstructions here there's no obstruction there so you're ke Levering everything out length wow yes okay that's a pretty substantial 13 foot it is it is it's it's going to be made of steel structural okay structural steel um I've done this a few times in other projects I know work I'm not questioning that I'm just wondering the you won't end up with surprise columns and the and the turning radius does not work just yeah just logistically accessing that working thank great question yeah anyone else I would agree with the comments that were made this is a significant Improvement and responsive to the observations that were made at the original presentation so thank you um this so be an attractive addition to the community and appropriate do I have a motion I I'll move to Grant the application in final review St uh as as final uh finally approved um I would ask had the condition that full cut sheets be supplied uh including uh the accurate cut sheets relating to the G to the doors yes I'll second that motion can I ask a question just on the motion Mr Tesa is any is there any concern about the opt the different options and materials contained in there or or is the HPC looking for confirmation of what the final choice is going to be I think the ladder okay I don't think there's any we expect them to look like garage doors um and and the the fact that you choose a manufacturer and you choose something that's made of X Y or Z I don't think we care at this point I I was also asking about the roof though because we talked about ah the roof I I'm sorry I should probably say that we approve it with condition that the roof be either SL be either asphalt shingle or Cedar okay modification to the asphalt should be um a design or um dimensional dimensional and again you'll Supply a cut sheet relating to the shingle chosen yes it's been a little moved back and forth but I think I we understand the motion I accept any of the revisions you made to it so I'll provide cut sheets on all the doors as they're being proposed um um I'll provide one of the final decisions made on the roof material I'll provide cut sheets on that thank you motion by Mr Tesa seconded by Mr Becker Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Testa yes Miss bson stck yes Mr Johnson yes thank you can I ask you a question did you price out the cost of doing a slate roof is compared to other roofs um no I know what the cost would be substantially higher from what looked at it it seems like slate could be twice as expensive as a cedar Shake roof and actually slate on houses that are trying to look like early 20th century colonial revival and things uh slate really wasn't used on houses as much as Cedar Shake was used more on commercial buildings it it's really just an expression of what my client was asking for and I I agree that cedar is the appropriate um choice we would use a heavy duty Cedar okay um but we'll sub we'll definitely submit that to you Cedar would be great I agree thank you all right thank you very much next order of business to H and Carol 921 Stockton Avenue block 1082 lot 14.01 is a contributing property and an addition for a new detached garage turn your mic on wa turn your mic on turn it on there we go and we need your name name is Doug goosman with the Highland group and I'm representing the owner of Duan Carroll uh I was here last month and U do you need to ask me if I have the rights to defend yes yes just like that time okay yes you have the Mr Gusman you have the authority of your client to be here and present this application to the board potentially for approval that is correct and you understand that as a standard condition of our approval process that the applicant is going to have to acknowledge any condition of approval or anything discussed on the record as if they were here tonight that is correct in order for the project to go forward I agree okay thank you thank you um so last time uh I here essentially um the garage Aesthetics and materials were all uh designed in I mean approved in concept with the request of uh providing the diagonal bracing uh Gage doors uh aesthetic where we had single panel or stack panel uh garage doors and so that has been uh revised on the uh garage elevations on sheet a201 uh of note the previous uh application I gave you was uh exhibits uh where this is a set of construction drawings and so this is a full set of construction drawings for the garage um uh foray your request uh last time I was here you asked uh for more clarity on the uh the steps expansions off and landings off the existing house I'm sorry sir are you presenting the demolition request or the not you're not demolition was approved today okay thank you we did demolition at the last meeting the board wanted to hear comment about the new proposal that's correct and we reviewed the design of the garage last time I was here and uh there was a request uh based upon the plot plan that I had where I identified uh a a steps and Landing being expanded on the principal structure to provide more clarity on that so there has been a drawing a 401 which illustrates in both floor plan and building elevations the rear steps uh and landing of the house that uh comes off of a laundry room uh down to the proposed new rear patio and uh the the proposed uh materials and uh and railings are of uh similar to the existing house with turn Uh Wood uh railings and balls uh and then we have provided some uh 50% Pine uh lattice work pitcher framed uh hiding or concealing the underside of the landing on on sheet a for 1 yes um stair Landing detail 5 yes would you just confirm that those spindles or balls are the same at all around um including the things you show on two and three because up above they really look like they're turned and on A5 they look like they're they're flat spindle you are accurate in your uh assessment uh what A5 is essentially a con set of construction drawing typical details from our library uh where the um prescriptive description is identified on the building elevations and floor plans okay so we're talking spindles yes all around yep okay and just to be sure in the same in the same Vein on a401 those those what you're calling Victorian spindles are in fact wood right they're not that is correct they are not composite or plastic or vinyl I'm I'm sorry you were continue I just wanted to have clarification on a401 so essentially uh in floor plan you can see that the the extent of the uh expansion of the existing uh porch is going uh one Bay of the bay window uh where you can see there's a dotted dash line on drawing one on again I'm still on 401 which identifies where it was previously right at the corner and then what we're going out is approximately uh 2 fo 6 in if I'm reading correctly uh out to be essentially flush with the face of the bay window the previous uh set of steps was an L configuration where this configuration is a straight run any questions on the stairs and landings Additionally you asked for uh clarity on the pavement uh and pavers so we have obtained the services of a landscape designer who uh has provided and in your package a uh Landscaping plan and as well as a plant schedule and in addition to that uh the the pavers uh have for the driveway have been added to the um materials list uh the pavers just to point out uh we have reduce the amount of hardscaping of the driveway uh to where we have drive strips now implementing more green space uh the paving uh walking stones and the rear patio are identified uh and a cut sheet provided for a blue stone uh p and then also on our details of the construction drawings identify that is uh to be installed on top of a sandbed and crushed uh Stone uh compacted Crush Stone uh subsurface that's the extent of the changes and U additional information uh requested from my last our appointment thank you questions comments anyone only comment I have is on your application you indicate on the cover page that there is exterior lighting but on the materials page on page two um you don't indicate any exterior lighting and I don't I didn't see a cut sheet for the new exterior fixures you're proposing did I miss that I'm going to say you missed that okay uh I'm sorry to is it in is it in this material cut sheet no no no oh I'm going from the landscape plan it says there's lighting no where where is the cut sheet or the lighting I must I might have just missed it yeah I can hold I did got it thank you never mind so tell the rest of us John yeah it is so it's just a little confusing because near the back of the I see I'm in the should I be in the Landscaping yeah it's on materials cut sheet third to last page all right all right second to last it's a separate this is what you're looking at right now is from the landscaper this is materials got it y so the only real inconsistency then is page two of your materials checklist does not have exterior lighting indicated that's all oh I didn't check it not you're telling tell us that is but it's in this package so I think you're going to be okay any other questions or comments I I have a comment I think this is one of Kate May's nicest garages I I I wish the owners well with it um looks to me like you could have a party upstairs on the second floor I see your electrical Arrangement has plenty of power so I don't know what you're going to do up there U but it is it is certainly a really nice looking garage thank you especially since they front the street behind it too I I don't know many garages that have porches with balconies that look over things but but we we confirmed at the last meeting that that second floor of the garage it's not going to be insulated or finished in any form that's correct no Plumbing no heating no cooling y so I'd like to move make a motion yes do I have a motion I would like to move for final approval for this project as presented second motion by Mr Becker seconded by Mr Stevenson Mr copelan yes Mr Carrol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Testa yes Miss Wilson stck yes Mr Johnson yes thank you thank you all thank you next next order of business 106 Washington Street block 1110 lot two it's a contributing U property and they're amending um the resolution to remove the shutters evening Mr chairman members of the commission uh Richard Hoff here on behalf of myself so I have the authority to speak for myself tonight so um uh first I I appreciate the board given us the time I recognize that this request was denied by the call the subcommittee but the um uh review panel um so I do appreciate you considering the materials that were submitted I just want to give just a little bit of supplement to what you've already reviewed as part of the submission um when my wife and I decided to purchase this property we had obviously that we saw the house as it was and we saw the approved plans and the thing that's most appealing to us about it was the Simplicity of the house there are lots of wonderful orate architectural wonders in this city this house is frankly not one of them it is simple um it's you know relatively boring and that's actually what attracted us to the house and to the plans we were never crazy about the shutters to begin with it's just from a personal perspective not something we have on our home uh in atfield and it's just you know but they were on the approved plan so as a l use attorney I tend to take the path of BCE resistance I'll do what's approved and I'm not going to cause myself any difficulty um but we came to learn during construction and you see it well you you probably knew it we didn't um if you see the approved plans and we provided those in the the larger 11 by 17s and you look at the front elevations the the drawing has the appearance that the shutters along the front facade will appear proportionate and they'll be spacing in between those shutters but that's not actually when you go out there and do the measurements what can be done so the the porch post that you see in that front elevation on the plans we thought they blocked what were going to be separation amongst the shutters they will not um the shutters on the front elevation will need to abut in order to almost get to a half width on the windows on the front I don't know how it got that way I think at some point maybe the porch was added we actually have structural supports on the front of that the house that attached to the porch that pinch us on both sides of the front elevation such that we're now going to have a situation where you have shutter window all shutters and then all shutters to the porch and when we finally realized that it really from our perspective just took away from what we liked about it which was the Simplicity of it again weren't crazy about the shutters but if we had some spacing and it appeared you know functional then it made sense but now from we got further looking into it we're going to have a front full of shutters along the front of what we had hoped to be a relatively modest presentation and that's just something from our perspective we didn't want to have um we've made significant and are continuing to make significant investments in the property um so I think we're we're doing right by the plans and in other respects all the materials from the approved drawings are going in as you can drive up you can see constructions ongoing um but this is something that we felt passionate about which is why I'm here tonight um and we got deeper into it and there's 23 pairs of shutters on this house and it's just from our perspective certainly very busy on the front um having shutters along the rear of a property is not something I see very often uh we think that's unnecessary but again from our perspective it was always about the front of this house it's about walking down Washington and seeing the front you know the sides you could take or leave nobody's going to see those shutters anyway um and we thought well if it's not going to work on the front why are we doing it on the sides and rear there are examples along Washington we could both play this game there are examples of shutters on similar houses there are examples of similar houses without shutter so um we cited a couple of addresses in our submission um where there are no shutters that we think are a very attractive home uh we intend to follow that model uh the existing framing around the windows will be uh repaired as necessary um and we think we'll provide a nice framing for the new windows that have been installed uh and really it's it's no more than that um we think that we'd rather have a cleaner look um that we don't think the shutters are lending to we do recognize they were approved as part of the drawings uh but as I've indicated we're here tonight to seek a revision to that because as during the course of construction at least from our perspective we realize it it wasn't going to be as we thought it would in terms of its uniformity and it certainly will not be operable in the sense that listen I know we no one goes out and shuts the shutters anymore but you want to have the appearance I grew up in the suburbs the worst thing for me aesthetically is to see a 12in shutter on each side of a 40-in window it's it's from our perspective just somewhat pointless that's recognized in the city City standards you don't want that you want it to look as if the shutters actually do something here we're not going to be able to achieve that and the closer we get the worse it gets because we lose the separation we were trying and thought we had achieved with these drawings so really that's our pitch for um this board's uh or a request to this board to remove the shutters for to amend the approval to allow for the the windows to stand without them and I'm happy to answer any questions this is a contributing property and and it talks about uh shutters being evidenced on the original there there Mr chairman no question about that you can go out there and you can look and you can see that there's little interior hinges as to where there were uh hinges for some form of shutter no doubt um obviously don't know when that was done and as I indicated I don't know when this porch was done along the front front um but that that porch and the light that's also part of the application there was no light we saw on the approval so for you know safety purposes we'd like to have a light on the porch um and and we're at 10 in clearance from the light to the first window the the number of shutters that conflict with your ability to put them on are two two windows the I'm sorry can you the the the conflict with the shutters that don't fit relate to two windows correct the two front windows and you're asking to remove all shutters that's correct on the front windows have you considered um having a hinged shutter a split shutter that would unfold and cover yeah I we've looked at that um again aesthetic wise you know I you're going to have two 7 in stack shutters on this it's not something we frankly if if if we had to go in that direction we'd probably just stick with this and have the wall of shutters that we don't want to do because just but I mean but bfold shutters would allow you to put a shutter on the side of one window and when you looked at the at the facade you'd have the impression of a window and a shutter a window and a shutter and there would be space you can design bolds to do that I I I recognize that and you you'd have a 7in bfold shutter is that is the window 14 inches yes yeah it's well it's 29 so you've got 14 and a half on each side so you'd have 7even inch bfold shutter and that's just not a look that we would want to do if we would just default to having an inches separation sorry I'm not I'm not really following the math you would have a bfold shutter which was the the width of a normal shutter they would just be folded up oh you're iold you got a hinge pin and and on one side and hinges they bold they show show you the the surface for and then you close them they they actually can close over the window I don't doubt that you can do that but we will never close the shutters so we'll have wait till the next I think the problem here is this is a contributing property um this this commission has approved a a substantial addition to a contributing property we approved a next a large porch on the side um and now after all that is done and approved um you don't want to do the shutters when the only historic portion of the house that's left had shutters so it's a contributing property it the idea is to preserve um the presentation of the original envelope so because you don't like the aesthetic is interesting but I'm not sure it's relevant and Mr chair I you know I don't know when the shutters are on the home I'm I'm just telling you because you know we have an architectural historian that says that there's evidence there were Shutters on the building and it's rated as contributing I I'm not going to dispute that I I told I've conceded there's hinges that if you put a large addition on and then you put a large porch on and then you take the ornamentation off pretty soon you no longer have a contributing property I mean I I I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation I mean we're we're maintaining as much of the original signing as possible um you know we took away what we couldn't so I mean in terms of what was there and underneath the asbesto siding we're doing our best to preserve including the existing framing of the windows so you know we're not trying to do anything to undermine you know the existing structure I mean I yeah it was there's no doubt there was an approval again not disputing that either it's not that approval is the size of the house as proposed is not necessarily inconsistent with some of the neighboring properties it also had similar addition see see the nature of the of the approval with the shutters and I you know we're we are in this back and forth between threats and improvements and things that you make to improve and to keep it consistent with being contributory when you add shutters it pushes that structure in the direction of being more properly being able to be labeled as contributing so so to us at least to me um that approval relating to the facade with the shutters was something important in order to M to make it stay as a contributing structure and not jeopardize that and that's a major concern here we do not want to let the building slip back even though there have been improvements and even though there have been things done to make it um to keep it where it is so I I I have to say I think the shutters are material and important to the house and I think that's one of the reasons why we wanted to see them and I do think there are other ways to solve the problem so so I mean I I don't I'm not really very sympathetic to to to the to let's get rid of all of them because we can't do too so just in terms of those two um we we're in a bit of a dilemma in terms of how we go about doing those shutters so you mean the first FL correct correct I think that was suggested as to how you could do that when I first read your application I thought you were only thinking of not doing the first floor under The Veranda shutters but all the other shutters but now that you're looking at all of them uh when you begun your begun your presentation you really kind of downgraded your house as not one of those important houses in K May uh of which we have quite a few however when k got its National Historic uh Landmark status and was put on the the register for the United States for all of our buildings they said it's because you have a full city of buildings of not all Mansion Styles but Cottages that were properly decorated and represented life in the town at that period of time and shutters make a big difference if you look at some of the houses that just have maybe they have their shutters down while they're painting their house they look totally different they look bare it has a naked look to it shutters you know in a little bit different color gives a something coming out a little bit from a flat side it helps recess the windows uh and to use a color with those things brings them out so I I really think most of us are not sympathetic particularly after Warren said we did an awful lot of things to help you make that house a little bit more livable for your your life and the and and and I don't think we should go further by now dropping as uh Jim said the one the one thing you were moving in the really right direction was by redoing something that was there originally we don't know when they came down either but K May went through a pretty depressed period of time and if the painter said you know you know I can take 10% off if I don't have to do the shutters it came was in a period of time when the shutters went to the dump but look at how many have come back on and at no small expense I know that yeah so this isn't about expense this is just again as I I'm not going to reiterate but for the first floor Windows if if we do them per the plan is it okay that they'll be short of the full half width because they will be you they can you can fold them you ought to give that a try I mean it's better than shutters this wide yeah so all right I I think we're willing to work with you to I just want to make sure that if we do what's on the I don't want to be in a situation where we we do what's on this plan and it ends up short of a half width because it's per the drawings and then it's short of a half width and it doesn't comply with the HPC standard no so um I am sympathetic to your case however we are obligated to abide by our standards I'd like to read from you from page 28 of our standards colonial revival and italianate homes typically have shutters you have an italianate home the addition or removal of window shutters should be based on documentary historical evidence we have documentary historical evidence that there were shutters on this house therefore we can't approve the removal of shutters and and maintain Allegiance with our own standards so that's where this argument is coming from it's it's it's it's our written standard I I I I've read it um yeah and there is evidence of shutters it's just we don't know when those shutters were put on taken off but again I'm not going to argue what is clearly written I've well was an Italian a structure it almost certainly had shutters when it was constructed okay um one last question um shutters are not easily they take there's a lead time on shutters so if I'm if we are able to provide you know proof that they've been ordered and everything else is is finished on the house do the shutters prohibit us from occupying the house you could get a temporary OCC okay so that would be a standard for a temporary you'd be fine okay um the condition of a TCO potenti okay but it it won't withhold a TCO if we provide proof that we've ordered the shutters that's an issue with the construction official but I don't see how that type of thing would impact health and safety which is the primary consider not notless is a hurricane okay um we're not GNA city is not going to renew the TCO U no I understand all into the future the idea is to get the shutters and to get the shutters put on again you know we will follow up with our inspectors to make sure it is done down the line okay and then lastly we requested the light fixture wasn't part of the original um approval so I don't know if that's something that needs to be resolved tonight but I we realized it when we were going through this that there was no detail for that light that one it's the last sheet the Hinkley fixture yes yeah I just saw it's fine I don't see it now but I saw it before we kept it small to make room for the potential of needing to do the shutter so it's um almost at the end yeah it's the last is this so shall we make a motion yes Be Be Our Guest so I would like to move that the proposal to remove the shutters is denied the proposal to add the light fixture is approved do I have a second uh don't we make a motion to pass it and then vote against it or do we can refer that to council but I think Tom's right you have to we have to proove on you have to pass on the application as submit it so the motion is to um approve the shutter removal and the addition of the light fure John also the the bfold 7in shutters is that going to be a condition or is that going to be left I I would give him the opportunity to do his narrow ones or to bolds just to make sure he he's flexible enough to do either one and I would none can be removed so that also addresses the one I mean when we grant them something I would condition it with that but so so we have a motion to approve the application it might be a little easier if you if you have the first motion on the shutters and then one for the light fish yeah okay so move to approve the removal of the shutters seconded motion by U Mr Becker seconded by Mr Tesa Mr copelan no Mr Carol no Mr Becker no Mr Stevenson Mr Tesa no Miss Wilson strick no Mr Johnson no thank you I make a motion to approve the light fixture uh that's in the application second motion by Mr Carol seconded by Mr Becker could could we could we perhaps phrase this though in way that that he's he's can approve the application with the continuation of using shutters but give him the opportunity to choose between what was approved before and bolds well is under the current approval he's he's been approved for a structure with shutters that's contained in the prior approval would the board and the would the Review Committee even consider uh an alternative proposal that maintains the shutter on those first two but incorporates of this discussion MH that would be terrific MH because at that point if if he's just swapping out the style of shutter it's living up to that approval and we could probably deem that minor work if I understand then that's fine so let's just do the light fixture and then he continues on with the application that's been approved uh and he uh he he does you still have to deny that we did he's made an application for we just we just denied it yeah we voted we've denied this right we've denied the shut so now you can do the light fixture but I'm I'm just indicating for the record Mr off you understand that I understand the board want as long as I keep the shutters it could be a subject of minor approval by the Review Committee so long as the shutters remain but it's a bfold versus a full shutter yeah subject to review further by the HBC but there might be another option there yes thank you so are we on on we on a motion for just a light fixture now yes okay we do who who made the motion for the life fixture Tom Carol and I seconded it John second okay motion by Mr Carol seconded by Mr Becker Mr copelan yes Mr Carrol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson stck yes Mr Johnson yes sorry Chris Chris I have a question so the first motion was it subject to submission to the Review Committee or not because that wasn't part of the motion I was just noting for the record that he has an approval and if he wants to make an alteration he can he's got to make a subsequent application but he can do that to the Review Committee okay if it's minor work that that application would just be a change in the shutters correct so cut sheet review by the Review Committee okay you all right Judy um new business um granados and routes 502 West Perry Street block 1032 Lot 2 C- 502 this is a contributing property and this is a garage demolition Doug goosman representing uh the owners grandios Rue um Doug Gman from The Hiding group we have the same rest Mr Gman your applicants here they are not okay do you have the uh authority to present this application by the applicants tonight I do and that includes any conditions of approval that you put on the record and this board discusses that is correct you understand that any resolution of approval would contain a requirement prior to them proceeding to construction that they acknowledge and ratify anything that you put on the record tonight on their behalf correct thank you go ahead the uh existing very unique property uh has uh two actually has three uh it's a three condos uh one uh structure occupying two units one uh single unit uh this garage that is in question for demolition is uh occupied by the rear half of the property and the single unit uh property and is separate and the two uh parts or two houses are separated by a fence um to uh address the nine points in this case the seven of the nine points uh for demolition are we ready good with that um it's historic and Architectural cultural and aesthetic significance uh this garage was uh constructed between 1909 and 1932 uh it has signif it is historic in nature and has historic U materials uh uh designs means and methods of construction uh is the current uh uh its current use and potential use uh the current use is that of a garage uh is accessed through a very narrow driveway but a narrow driveway off the side is not used for vehicular uh storage but is used as a garage uh for storage purposes uh it's historic or architectural value um the importance to the municipality and extent to which its historic and Architectural value is such that if a removal will be detrimental to the Integrity of the historic property uh or District uh this is actually kind of an obscure uh garage that essentially is not really visible from the street uh it has uh no real pedestrian uh access Andor visibility uh so it would not necessarily have any impact on the historic or architectural value uh to the district and the public at large in my opinion uh is of such uncommon uh design and craftsmanship that it would not be able to be reproduced uh that is not correct is not uncommon is very conventional Lumber and and construction means and methods in which uh the garage was constructed uh and could be replicated uh as such in kind uh the retention of this would increase property values and promote business and positions and new positions and attract tourists and such uh and would make the municip ipity a more attractive and desirable place to live I don't see where this garage being located in the center of a lot that's not visible to the public uh will provide any additional uh value to the public at large in tourism and or the actual historic district at large I'm sorry Mr Gusman could you speak into the mic it doesn't appear to be registering thank you do you want me to repeat anything okay the impact of its removal upon the historic district uh it is a historic structure it was built uh between 1909 and 1932 so it is does have relevance uh does its impact on the actual District uh by its removal is up for discussion uh it's uh not something that is being uh utilized by the public at Large uh and so I would say is not uh going to be detrimental to the historic district number seven uh the the structural soundness Integrity of the building and economic feasibility of restoring rehabbing the structures so as to comply with the requirements of the applicable building codes this is basically why I'm here asking to have the uh you review the application for demolishing this building uh it is not a safe structure as it currently uh the condition of the of the structure it uh we have done a structural assessment of the uh the wood members of the uh structure the building actually sits on Earth uh with no foundation and has has shows significant rot and deterioration that has uh progressed through the structure of the walls and the actual uh uh wall sheathing uh which is essentially tongue and groove uh uh uh vertical boards and in addition to that it has roof Rafters that have significant rot as well as the sheathing supporting the roof above has significant rot and uh which also has U black mold uh so because of that uh the as my it's it's not a safe uh structure as it currently uh is thank you do I have a motion I I believe that the applicant has sufficiently and reasonably established the criteria for demolition uh so I would move that we approve the application for demolition as submitted second Janice did that motion by Mr Testa seconded by Mr Becker Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Tesa yes Mr Wilson strick yes Mr Johnson yes thank you next order of business is uh Rado and Ru 502 perish Street 1032 lot two c502 this a contributing property that is proposing a new detach garage you Doug go Doug Gusman uh with the Highland group uh representing the owners I they do you want to it's the same applicant we just went over that on the record you have the authority to present this application you can knock it down can you build it up that's correct go ahead Mr Gman thank you um there is a uh a series of drawings that uh exhibits that have been provided uh that uh essentially has taken the existing garage that has essentially uh we has now been approved to be demolished and we are proposing to replicate uh in place with the same materials uh the uh the garage that uh is being replaced uh we are proposing that the exterior uh sheathing uh be of the same vertical sighting um the roof Rafters being exposed and uh being Timber framed uh we have uh Corner uh Pine uh Corner beads we have uh solid wood Marvin Windows uh with uh um two over two or four over4 um Windows uh a uh archtop garage door and asphalt shingles uh which uh there's a dimensional shingles uh identified and shown in the uh uh materials list uh the proposed uh location is intended or is proposed to go back uh to the same width depth and location on the uh on the lot to replace the garage that is being proposed to be uh reconstructed uh different from the previous uh garage this is proposed to have a concrete foundation and a uh with the concrete footings uh in which to then build uh the garage it does not show or does not have uh con Mason uh Foundation walls to where this will be framed on top of the slab with pressure treated uh Lumber uh because of the base flood elevation pressure tree Lum would be uh required uh for the framing uh in contact with the concrete Doug is this going to be stick built on site yes stick built on site um has the zoning officer indicated anything for Need for variances since this has not been before the zoning officer okay um you know when a building disappears completely whatever is new going on on the property has to conform to the zoning or get zoning relief and I believe the zoning uh for uh auxiliary buildings like that would require 5T removal from the side yard or rear yard if I remember right no it's actually on the first cover sheet and it does identify that uh you correct it's 5et and we would require variance relief uh to for said garage uh I will put it out there uh with the HPC are we permitted to move it off its existing site location into a uh a a conforming uh setback location well let's let's back up a little bit of course first first off your application is for final MH and we can't do a final because we have questions about zoning okay um so we're looking at conceptual okay not final um we and I I think when we get to that point we would do our um we could do our resolution in such a way that we would encourage the garage be put in its original sight and and then the zoning hopefully zoning would agree with that if if not then you will have to come back um um as to where you're going to put the garage okay well he have to come back anyway because it's conceptual right he'll have to come back anyway because it's conceptual approval well you you you're asking for variances and and and then that normally requires us to Grant you when we Grant you an approval a conceptual approval not a final as as Warren just mentioned so you would have to come back anyway and and we're I think we'll see how the motion goes but we do communicate to the various other boards um with a confirmation of conceptual approval with recommendations and conditions in it so so we would presumably communicate to the the the zoning board uh that um it's our belief that it should be it we would recommend it be put back in its original right place would be our argument for the zoning board and and you would make that argument right and hopefully they would Grant it they don't I I understand you'll have to come back and tell us where you're going to put it right is for purposes of a conceptual approval at this point because the zoning issues are outstanding is there any particular streetcape or other reason that the HPC would like that to stay in its current location versus shift it around well it's it's historic uh location and it's a building as close as possible replicating a de a self-d demolishing structure that is in the way and we feel it would be best to for the original keeping with the original Landscaping that we would like to see it return to that and I think it's for that reason in the sense that what's being built here is a design so close to replicating the original structure better because of the other things you've done to it and with right material so I Echo what Tom said which is it's it's going to stand in for something that's falling apart and we'd like to have it stand in where it's standing MH and that's I understand that's my justification going before the board zoning board uh I think the proper terminology would be historic site so since the the building is historic but the site remains and so we would like to see it at it's site well so it would it would putting it back in the original place would promote the the Historic Site aspects I think is what I'm just hearing oh it's what you're proposing right yes that is exactly proposing 12 by 18 basically it was 12 x 18 before and and and and I must I must say I keep saying this about your garages but this is a really nice looking garage well it really it really is I never thought I'd be praising garages but frankly this has aspects of it it's replicating the original but the things you've done to the the windows and the doors just really make it a nicer well with that said um a couple comments you would do this yeah so the the garage that's being demolished had vertical tongue and groove and I'm assuming by your renderings that you're also proposing vertical tongue and groove okay I just think that needs to be clarified um in your application mainly because it just says tongue and groove and normally that's installed horizontally so I just want to make sure of that second is proportionately by looking at the existing garage facade um the doors were 8 ft wide as opposed to the doors you're proposing that are six so 6ft wide door doesn't look like it's really a carriage house because you can't fit a carriage like or car vehicle in a six- foot opening so would you consider making the doors 8ot garage doors as opposed to six I agre and try and replicate to some extent the the character of the original garage doors mhm great and I do just I'm going to point out it does say on the elevations proposed tongue and groove vertical wood sighting perfect thank you fy yeah just on the application it doesn't it just says application yeah I will make a motion that the application be approved with a recommendation to the zoning board if they require zoning uh uh approval that the building be put on as historic site on the property to and be in keeping with the uh uh historic nature of the neighborhood and the property in general that would be conceptual approval conceptual approval and and and the guy who writes the letter um ought to ought to add those those things on behalf of the commission which is that it be placed in the same location for with 8 foot wide doors to replicate those that were I'll I'll put all that in the in the conditions list Mr Gusman just so you understand if the board approves this motion you're not going to get a resolution you get a conceptual approval notice with the conditions discussed on the record and that Finds Its way to you the applicant and the zoning office right and and you are looking for zoning approval then uh for this concept to be brought back to you for final review correct however you get there through the zoning officer or through the zoning board if necessary and then once you get that you come back for final right I was going to actually ask you a naive question if you don't mind uh can you Adit have in the past you've been able to achieve administrative review with a zoning office for an item such as a set back to something my experience is we'll have to go before the zoning board the the the zoning officer is not going to be able to this is not an HPC item but the zoning officer is not going to be able to wave right you know you can go five feet into a 10 fo is we have to go before you've got a board you've got a board process that you're going to be going through but you've also got our conceptual um approval letter which will talk about these issues okay I understand so there was a motion in a second I believe do we have a second I second thank you motion by Mr Carol seconded by Miss Wilson stck Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson stck yes Mr Johnson yes thank you thank you all no more applications tonight that's it he's run he's run out of garage we're in the garage business next order of business smoka family irrevocable trust 12 North Street block 1021 lot three this is a contributing property and want to consider a rear addition and windows push the thank you so I'm on to Patel I'm Casey Patel Marcelo moo these with southwater construction and Casey and I are the homeowners so we're here today seeking a application uh for the rear addition of our home enclosing the side porch adding a gabled roof in comparison to the mismatched things that are there today which have led to a dilapidation of the structure um and amending the fenestration on the Windsor Street side elevation and we came before members of the HPC previously they've given us some notes and we've brought some pictures that they asked for um as well during that review and hopefully all the other things that that were you were interested in we've added or tweaked to satisfy this Commission so the very first question I have before you go through this it appears as if you're proposing two different proposed Solutions because on SP 2 and three you show it's existing S 4 and five show one one kind of a a proposed solution and Z I'm sorry zp and zp 78 shows a different proposed solution so which is it is it the the one depicted on zp 7 and8 or the one depicted on zp 4 and five zp 78 four and five was something that had come to you in the interim before we actually got to meet with you we made revisions okay it four and five is original before the conversation got it then we had an opportunity to have a conversation with some of the folks and then after that we came up with seven or eight meeting all of those open items okay so I can take essentially I can take four and five out of the packet right just about to do that because I would be overloaded sorry John can you just site which Pages those were zp so it's seven he okay that helps thank you so supposed to be at zp and seven we've so this is exhibit one you've distributed it's photo did you just distribute this photo yes so that was the photo that when we were in review the pictures that we previously submitted kind of missed that piece so you could see what it would look like okay so I'm just going to title it exhibit one yes okay thank you Mr Patel I'm just going to ask a maybe a dumb question but the your properties on the right in this photo correct yes sir so the bulk of the changes here just just so I'm on the same page with everyone it looks like we're adding a new porch right off the kitchen right yes and then the existing wraparound porch is effectively getting a roof the existing wraparound porch already has a roof okay and that roof is staying exactly the way it is um but planning to close the or nothing's happening on that the side porch is going to be fully enclosed okay so there's two different porches on this house one is in the set back in the yard that's the porch that we are going to be creating an addition on and it would be helpful if you would identify Windsor versus North and I think you're talking about Windsor now right yes yes thank you for that appreciate that so this is all in relation to the Windsor side uh Side Porch the wraparound porch is beautiful and is going to stay for a long long time and it's just really not so much in addition as in closing an existing structure yeah staying in the same footprint we're also staying in the same footprint that's not changing so essentially all the the the substantial portion of the changes are the comparison between zp 51 and zp 81 The Windsor Street front elevation correct yes that is correct flip back and forth between those two you can see I think I think it's best visualized if you look at the photos of existing and or the structure on the right and then compare that to the proposed elevation you can really see in in real time real life how bad it looks compared to the elevations that the architect has drawn of existing and how much the disparity it's going to be how much of a change it's going to be from what's there now until what's proposed I quick question for you the garage that's hidden back here is that the garage that's depicted on that's that's staying okay okay so the garage is actually hidden behind the vehicle that's there okay okay I didn't know yeah you were removing thank you it's they said orinal it's not clear to me what's going on here this just going to take a bit of expertise this this took me a long time to to navigate this and I actually wrote down 13 different items that I wanted to have addressed um five of them are taken off the table now because we're not looking at zp4 and five so that leaves eight things for me to ask you about okay glad do you get to go first apologies for the confusion that's all right it's okay um there there first of all we're going to need to see cut sheets so so you You' you're applying for final and what we don't have are cut sheets of any of the doors or windows that you're proposing we'll need to see those the windows were already approved previously we we did approve the we in preliminary review I I come oh in the conceptual review um I think I will with you three gentlemen this is new business so I will be the same windows so here's here's what's occurring every single window we were able to keep we kept good um we have tried or he has tried and has completed every single window yeah that we can keep is being kept and then the ones that he submitted for an addition yes for the change the col be's that was specked and what was approved previously approved by whom by you probably UNC conceptual review uh a couple months ago when we say approved we're talking the style not for the addition I don't want to confuse the addition or or the renovation part that we haven't started we're looking for approval compared to the windows that we were replacing that we had to replace that you folks had already approved the Colby was that an informal meeting corre so uh morning yeah did you put put an application in front of that committee to make any notes on or no so John's point is well in review what what what happens in review is you guys make a proposal and you're checking in informally with us to see if we are in if we believe that it is in compliance with our standards and we give you an indication yes we think it is but it's still needs to be part of your application so the part of and the reason why just so you guys understand is we have a field officer who goes out into the field to ensure that what's being constructed matches what was approved by this board therefore we need to have physical documentation of those cut sheets so that our field officer can look at those and say oh that's what's there fair enough right yes sir so that's that's the first thing is just we need to see cut sheets of the wood doors and windows as well as question for you on the material checklist the part that says Windows kby w Windows you just want that cut sheet the two-page cut sheet for that so there there's two issues really with the windows one is that since this is a contributing structure the windows need to be fullwood windows that are not clad on the exterior and that's usually where a stumbling block happens as folks don't understand that yep just means painted primed the cut sheet the cut sheet will we'll depict we'll depict that same thing with same thing with the divided lights they need to be simulated divided lights as opposed to snap in girls and I believe that's what we're proposing I I I I do too just we need to have that documentation understood okay and that goes also with the rest of the materials as well okay like the roof shingles and the siding and all that all right um so what I don't understand is in the elevations and particularly elevation number four on zp8 I don't believe you can actually build it this way and the reason why is the ridge so see what I color coded in Orange here that Ridge right there the ridge beam is going to dye into the eve of the existing house which means that it would interrupt The Gutter and the structure there it needs to either be higher or lower so that it right so and I suspect that you might want to make it a little lower because this is a very sort of awkward form here and that end elevation you could really clean that up if you just made it a simple Gable I understand why you're doing it this way but on the other hand I think you're the Builder I I would love to sit down and have a beverage and discuss this but it would appear to me that' be much easier for you if it were just a simple trust the whole width of that of that L-shaped addition yep understood does that make sense to yeah what about you guys yeah okay yeah it it won't dis won't disrupt here it goes I got to see what the pitch of that is and we can adjust it as long as there's enough pitch so I think what would really help um all of us and when I looked at this I this this took me a long time today to try and figure out exactly what was going on a roof plan would be incredibly helpful okay is that way we could see exactly where the ridges are and where the valleys are right and in this case if you do what I just said it looks like the addition piece off the back of the main house would basically be one simple gabled rectangle as opposed to being essentially right now two or three pieces does that make sense sense to you guys yeah I want to can I come see can I approach see what you're talking yeah is there a reason the architect is in here let let let let John work with them then see this right here way that intersects this Eve that that's never going to work because that Framing and that to be almost impossible um this this is really very enlightening but may I just ask this an application that is um first of all it's unsigned in front of me I'm suggesting that we table this but I don't think we can continue with this um we we have an architect plan that doesn't know architect um it's not clear what you want to do and John I appreciate your comments and I'm sure they're correct but but at the end of the day we're going to need a plan that we can approve and then you build I would suggest we table this um until we have well other than the roof line is there anything else in the plan that we don't have well well you don't have an architect here to answer for a final and so that's not going to happen because now we're changing the plan and we're changing the plan on the fly so I don't know how the building the Construction office is going to follow this or our compliance officer so I I'm not being critical of what it is you're trying to accomplish it's just we're going to spend a whole lot of time time and at the end of it we won't have a plan so there are two other issues though that let's let John unburden himself so you guys were around earlier today when we were talking about the whole shutter issue so I can't most of the shutters that you're showing here are too small that they're they're smaller than half the exposed window wind so if you're going to put shutters on we need to make sure that the shutters are this structure are at least or are half the width of the window sash yeah right that's easy enough okay um the other thing is the uh the the chimney that's being removed so that chimney is there correct no no it's not there now no because it shows up in the historical report and I think it shows up in the photographs but that's so we we made application to this one right here it was approved to be to be removed yes so do we have documentation that this is confusing to me it has to be some it has to be in the demo per I'm not sure the demo per yes it we definitely have it who who approved it yeah the HPC uh we have an email from um Miss Judy that approved it no but you know that is a characteristic of that type of a building at that period so I mean it's important well you know if we're going to we're going to table this we obviously can have time to look and see was done but but um I just don't have why don't we get through the questions and and it sounds like this is eventually going to be tabled you guys can consider all this stuff as you re you know so I agree with Warren I I was going to suggest it be tabled as well because there's just so much confusing documentation here and so it really comes down to what we need clarification are the the materials cut sheets the door and window cut sheets uh clarification on the chimney uh revision of the shutters a roof plan that actually shows how this could possibly be constructed because right now I would offer that it can't in any reasonable way um and I think that is going to require a a clearer description of the specific proposed work because right now that what's being described in your narrative is so overgeneral it just says revisions to the to the rear it doesn't say exactly what you're planning and that's part of the confusion so if if your architect would be able to make those design Provisions I would suggest coming before the Review Committee next Tuesday and bringing those so that we can at that point we will have done our homework to find out whether there was a conceptual review that approved any of this because I don't recall it at all um no I don't either so and it wouldn't necessarily be next Tuesday but a Tuesday a so as soon as you can so can we get through the list that you discussed or was at just so we can make any of the revisions that you require so those those are my issues okay I'm done with them you want to relive them make sure we have okay so we got the cut sheets for the doors and the windows the roof plan for you and maybe changing this roof plan um the shutters are too small we got to talk about the chimney and get you the uh documentation on who approved that um more more detailed description of what we're doing um is there a specific item in here other than him being very ambiguous in his in his draw in his writing is there anything specific you want for us to be specific about so any any other elements on the outside like exterior lighting and things like that should also be presented on cut sheets okay uh and more information about the windows although you said it was discussed and approved so in here with a cut sheet of that kind of so so when you for example you start off with our materials checklist for each of the items and areas that material's checklist is then backed up by cut sheets that show the things you've chosen so full list of materials followed by cut sheet collection which then references to each of the materials you're going to use so for example right now this application there are you know over 20 different check boxes for all the different components that you'll be changing right now the only thing to check is other that doesn't really tell us anything yeah so that John's backed up to the face of the application you start off by put checking the boxes that that cover the scope of the work when you move to materials you list all the materials with specificity so we can see they comply with contributing uh structure materials and then you go to the cut sheets with respect to those materials showing us in detail exactly what you're talking about we were under the impression that you were given cut sheets so we apologize this is an unbelievable situation even I think we understand some of that I think we understand your situation yeah right and we're Sye we we' I'm going to start crying don't worry we'll come back it's okay we're going to get through this okay okay I just wanted one clarification now I mean I live a couple blocks away and I walk that area a lot I noticed there's been a lot of construction going on there for some time now yes the work that's being done has that all been BR in front of the HPC and it looked like there's been some roofing material put on there may I approach you I want to make sure we're doing the right thing sir anything anything that we've done we as I said you know I never I've never never seen the only thing we've done is U I've spoken with the construction officials and everything we've done um and i' we've talked about we talked about the this is only to replace the existing windows we had talked about all that new stuff it's existing Windows not new windows that's why we if you've noticed if you live there you've noticed we've paused it for quite some time now too got up to the point where we don't have that's I'm specifically I'm thinking about like the roofing material are they mat that has that's all that's been the problem that this is being it's really hard for us yes I apologize I get it why Mrs pel were you at was this group at those prior meetings or was it somebody else for I I have been there he's we haven't been at the full we've been in review a good can just make a can I just make a motion to table now and we can before you do I would like to make one other comment what you've what it appears you're trying to accomplish with this house seems not inappropriate it's just it's so confusing we can't really get a full grasp of everything that it is you're proposing and it has to be documented so that we can verify it in the field but conceptually from my from my perspective there's nothing you're doing here that would be inappropriate that I can see other than that roof configuration and I think that's that's probably in a general sense um both an improvement and a consistent improvement with the contributing structure so it's not like you're going down the wrong path but it's a path we can't go further on without further details from you Mrs Patel we we meet every month too so you don't you're not able to get through with this I know we've just been trying for yeah a couple years I we we'll just wait a little longer it's okay 45 days so so we've been trying to come before you for over a year this is not um and this is no fault of the HPC um but when we when we it doesn't matter Mr you it's not you know it's it's potentially being tabled not being denied tonight we have some comments that you know you guys need to digest come back with a more complete picture and we can consider it then well I I see this if if we table this and you come back with an application um that would be I'd say marked up for final approval with all the things we've asked you to do that would be action at the next meeting you presented it at so so I'm going to make a motion to table this application subject to to the 45-day uh period being waved I do have a quick question I'm sorry uh somebody had mentioned Mr test I believe it was not signed um at least my copy has like no signature on it it is it is not okay um my question is and this is up to Mr Mr Patel I don't know how much weight it holds to have the architect here and or who signs it what can can you lay in on whether we I'd rather have the applicant sign the application okay but what the Board needs to see is a complete plan with those comments so some a professional needs to prepare those and whether you're here um I think it's good that you're here and just so you understand the process too and you may already know this been through it but there's really only two ways to get through this board and informal conversations can happen at the Review Committee but that doesn't necessarily mean that approval came of that because there's there can be all call it spitballing about materials and that kind of thing minor work can potentially be approved through that but if it's something major like a redo of this building that's got to come through this board and I'm not we're not here to investigate that or whatever what happened previously we're reviewing an application that's before us there's not enough information now but you can come back with a revision and we can consider it then but in order to do that and to not leave here with the denial the board's considering tabling it so that you can it can be retooled thank you we ask that the applicant wave the 45-day decision rule which means if you want a decision with 45 days you can kind of see the writing on the wall about that but if you want to wave that we'll keep it alive and it gives you the opportunity to retool it and come back okay so do we will wave that okay thank you all right so I made a motion to table second council's explained it it's been seconded motion by Mr Testa seconded by Mr Becker Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes thank you Mr Stevenson sorry Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson strick yes Mr Johnson yes so I closing remark here we're very sympathetic to your situation I think we understand it I would like to invite you guys to whenever you're prepared to to come on a Tuesday morning with these revisions that we've requested we could probably talk it through and help you prepare for your submission for the next meeting okay yeah okay would you let Judy know if you're going to yeah and bring your uh previous uh approvals I think you have too I'm pretty sure yes thank thank you thanks okay next order of business is Peter 930 Washington Street block 1093 lot 9 this a non-contributing demolition Order in the Court here uh where did I put my Scott you want to yes you want to introduce who you are I do uh good evening board Scott Peter applicant here tonight for 930 Washington Street for the record block 1093 lot 9 here tonight seeking approvals for demolition for an existing non-contributing non-historic structure uh for a building to be cons considered for demolition it must meet the demolition criteria I'd like to uh take a moment and kind of run through the uh checklist of the criteria with everyone just be before we get started Warren I believe I have to recuse myself from this property I don't know if if it's right to do it now but I just want to call it out that I'm most likely within 200 feet of the property so Mr Johnson is going to recuse himself for that reason just you kind of beat us to it getting started here Mr Peter no worries thank you and also again I'd like to application I'm sorry this application this is pretty straightforward so you got nine points correct um so you like me go for the record chairman yes okay quickly yep I will uh item number one is historic architectural cultural or aesthetic significance none as we previously said it's non-contributing and the current potential for its current potential use for those purposes currently permitted by the chapter or for the use proposed none again non-contributing its importance to the municipality and the extent to which it historical or architectural value is such that its removal will be detrimental to the Integrity of the historic property or district and the public interest again non-contributing item four the extent to which of its old unusual uncommon design craftsmanship texture or material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty no unusual Craftsman Design here item five the extent to which its retention would increase property values promote business create new positions attract tourists students writers historians artists Artisans attract new residences encourage study interest in American history stimulate interest and study in architectural and design educate citizens in American culture and Heritage or make the municipality a more attractive and desirable place to which to live again none item six the impact of the removal upon the historic district none as I said non-contributing item seven the structural soundness and integrity of the building and the E economic feasibility of restoring the re rehabilitating the structure as to comply with the requirements of the applicable building codes none I believe items eight and nine would not be applicable as it seems to be for relocation that kind of concludes the uh the criteria for demolition I respectfully request the approval as I said it's a non-contributing non-historic structure do I have a motion uh Mo so move the application be approved for demolition um believing that PNC Bank will never return turn do I have a second I'll second but before we vote I have a question so normally and in general when we an approval for a demolition is typically um disassociated with an application for whatever is going to replace what was demolished on the lot on the remaining lot in this case I I I'm loath to approve demolition without understanding what is going to be on the lot mainly because it is such a prominent Corner in this town uh John if I if I could interrupt the they're separate and distinct uh functions to approve a demolition doesn't mean we're agreeing to approve anything on the a lot he's got to come applicants got to come forward make a presentation what he's going to put on there so the a demolition is uh approval is separate and distinct and I I think if if he may if he carries his burden John regardless of what you think might go there it's it's it's required that we approve well no I totally agree that it's that it's a totally separate process however what I'm concerned about is if the demolition of this property Pro proceeds quickly and that particular lot in such an important location at Madison and Washington is left vacant with a bunch of debris on it all summer as our town is being visited by 30 40,000 people um I would find that a problem I completely concur as you know um you know it's overseen by code enforcement and Construction office that will not be the case and this is a a property and a project that you guys can control the destiny so you guys get the you know option to control what goes on there and how it goes and what gets built so as chairman Carol Copeland said I'll absolutely back in front of you guys again to see you know what what's going to go there and have a lot of input on what happens on that site but I can assure you when that demolition does take place um as you know these properties now are very very costly so you can't sit on them very long it will not be a very long time that I'll be sitting on that or it'll be a vacant land okay that's concern let me uh ask you in terms of you understand we have a demolition moratorium in the city of Kate may I do um what are your what are your plans if approved what are your plans in relation to that moratorium is it a fall demolition or what it'll be a fall demolition yes so this will give me an opportunity to come back again through that process to go for conceptual for the new project on that side in other words if this is approved tonight it's not going to be uh it won't be demolished this season okay this summer season the moratoriums up this week I I believe great well I think I made a motion I don't remember being seconded but yes I this is moving awful fast uh I have a lot of feelings with along with John that uh he wouldn't be doing this if he didn't have some idea what we're going to well I'm sure he can discuss that with you Tom but but he has a burden to make under those criteria if he's made it okay what okay for my education what can happen on that property as per the zoning is it total totally residential and this is a it's non-conforming use to the zoning ordinance that that that that that is accurate if I may help I know but it's not relevant the issue is he's got nine points we have a building um he's made the nine points we should well I don't agree with those nine points it's like there's nothing that could be Tom Tom it's the law it's the law he's got to make a burden to prove to us that he his opinion there's no well you you cannot accept it I mean that's that's your prerogative are you are you arguing that we shouldn't approve that you're not going to approve the tear down I'm feeling that way right now well I don't I don't think let me just add something to this I don't think it's entirely um irrelevant although I think the the board's consistent practice has been to bifurcate these things but one of the second criteria is current and potential use for those purposes currently permitted by this chapter for the use proposed I mean the applicant can certainly make a profer to the board about you know the potential uses or if there's a Planned application for it I it it may probably has limited relevance in the context of whether you grant this permit or not but um I don't think it's completely irrelevant let me put it that way it's right there in the standard so I mean I tend to agree that you know hopefully you will we can anticipate that you're going to respect the historic nature of the neighborhood whatever goes in there I I have no choice as we said this this cannot be heard again I can't put a shovel on the ground without coming to see you guys respect you know you're going to you know you're going to see him again he's going to make an applic you guys can control the destiny of what happens on that site there not many you know applications and sites that that anded that he's made a number of points you may think that he's made them strongly or weakly but if you decide that he's he's made his burden here I think it's Our obligation to grant them the permit well I don't think he's really me the burden okay well your J exactly is allowed in that zoning District So based on the small due diligence that I've done it can only be residential um uh so it could be anything from single family to possibly town houses things like that the max you could do is up to four units um and it can be up to I think two or three single families so it it must be residential it cannot be commercial and I can assure you anything goes on that slot anything that goes on that parcel is going to be far better than a bank a bank is not in any way historic nature I mean you have a a parking lot out front and a drive-thru with I think it's like the last time I checked like 60 cars in addition the coverage alone I mean we're talking landscape right now it's a maximum coverage I think of like 85% so the coverages now are like 40 or 50 so anything that goes there is going to be a huge Improvement specifically talking from a historic standpoint I mean a bank was not what it was you know from historic days I mean we got a drivethru two I think it's a two Bay drive-through so it's again it be in front of you guys to decide what you feel and that well I agree with you whatever goes there is going to be huge and I think we're going to end up with a incredible fight over our new standards that talk about streetscape if somebody wants to fill that to the total you know I know we're going to hear you say this again and you're going to you're going to you're going to be very strict with respect to whatever we have to approve but I made a motion I don't think was it seconded if it was I'd like to call the question vote on this motion by Mr Testa seconded by Miss Wilson Str would call the question for a vote we have a motion we have a second yes Judy Mr copelan yes Mr Carol no Mr Becker yes I want to say I fully support the demolition of this my only concern is timing that's all Mr Stevenson yes Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson strick yes thank you thank you Bo thank you next order of business The Painted Lady Condominium Association 11 North Street block 1022 lot 20 portch reconstruction sidewalk remove the front wall and a light fixture good evening Mr chair members of the commission my name is Kevin srino I'm the architect and the owner and the president of the Painted Lady Condo Association so wow many hats this evening um we um um our property is at 11 North Street um uh with me is my wife uh Rita Rita and I both own s andrino Architects um so we've owned this property for about 20 years or so we own half of the building uh units one and unit two of a four unit Condominium Association um a few months ago we've had some substantive storm damage um and it's manifested itself with regard to um some on the porch uh some failing uh uh posts and some balls uh that have come down uh on the sidewalk we've since uh had our contractor do some uh temporary Shoring and bracing um and um we have some uh substantive uh structural repairs that need to be made and I want to go through those with you to make certain that we're in keeping with the HPC standards um and of course to make the uh the porch structurally more uh uh substantive in nature so this the submission that we've given to you I would refer you back uh to I'm going to start at the at the back uh at the a-301 if you go all the way to the back sheet you'll see the uh you'll see the current um current condition photos in the in the lower the low right hand Corner uh you're going to see uh this substantive storm damage with regard to uh post and bals and rails uh that were a result of the storm damage and primarily uh primarily multiple post um that were attached to the current um uh the current framing of the deck itself uh multiple post connections had rotted out and uh after a good wind they just they took them right down um luckily it was uh during a time where the building was unoccupied we do drain the water uh in the uh in the winter month so the building was unoccupied uh but I'm going I'm going to bring your attention to two items item number one is the the post that I just mentioned that uh that had failed item number two if you look at the photo in the lower right hand corner you'll see a sight cast uh masonry wall that is Bo out toward the public sidewalk not particularly the best thing to happen right so so we've done two things in the interim uh number one we've done some temporar temporary Shoring and bracing on the second floor of the porch number number two we've done some temporary Shoring with regard to the sitecast masonry wall so that does not fail towards the public sidewalk so that's what we have in place right now um so what so what what is what is our approach um if you look at the uh the next page -300 you'll see some earlier photos of the Painted Lady um uh there was some minor storm damage this the photo that we just showed you was some substantive storm damage and you'll see surrounding streetscapes I believe uh 12 North Street was here just a moment ago uh so we're we're across from 12 um so uh and you'll and you'll see that masonry that masonry wall that masonry wall is substantively failing um and we do need to replace that however um we want to touch this as lightly as possible number one number two we want to make certain that uh our touches to this are in keeping with the requirements from uh HPC uh and we want to make the uh the uh the porches more structurally sound what does that so so let me uh let me let me start let me start at um page T t-100 which shows the scope of work in the existing ports you go to the front page you'll see the architectural site plan you'll see the existing wood deck uh Dimensions approximately uh 14 ft deep uh we are are we do not propose to change the size of the existing deck structure that means the deck itself the joists the perimeter of the structure will not change we do not want to change the deck itself at all however we do need to rebuild the posts we need to add posts we need to uh match all the balls and we need to rebuild all the structure below the porch joists okay so I want to let you know what we're touching and what we're not touching so I I I won't trouble you with the with the Demolition plans uh but if you if you look at d-100 you'll see that um that we are proposing to to demolish all of the structure below the the the porch the the deck itself which means the five quarter deck structure the uh the porch uh joists and the porch beams so imagine if you will that that porch is now uh now needs to be resupport by new structure below that all right uh and again that does a sitecast masonry wall it may look like a CMU wall it is sitecast and as you it is it is failing it's not a scenario that it can be saved or anything of that nature right so so that I want you to understand that is the only demolition that we are doing here is all structure all current structure below so if you turn to page D- uh 200 what you'll what's important to note is uh on uh drawing one on d-200 on the left hand side of this drawing you'll see a vertical line existing to remain and scope of new work so it's important to understand that where that line is all your existing to remain work stays as is um with the exception of new post new balls to match existing and new rails and all the structure below sitecast masonry wall That's failing will be um removed okay so so before I continue just want to make sure I want to make see that there's any questions with regard to what we're keeping and what we're replacing right again we want to touch this as lightly as possible we need to make it structurally sound right um let me move your attention to page a-100 okay so -100 uh will show uh will show uh CMU and uh masonry veneer piers on the perimeter we're going to show you an elevation in a moment okay so any of the any of the this the spacing is about n and a half ft on Center uh to match the existing beams which you're are keeping and the existing posts um so we have um new uh CMU peers with a full masonry veneer around the pier so any of the peers that you can see will have a masonry veneer any of the Interior peers for structure are just CMU peers no veneer right there'll be new uh new shallow foundations 36 in below finished grade um and uh so everything that you see that's dark will be new uh new uh spread footings new CMU peers uh filled solid exterior peers that you can see will be uh brick veneer okay um let's see I suggest um it might be helpful to to get to the point and save some time if we look at A200 yes sir um A200 um reflects the end product of what you're trying to accomplish the removal of the masonry wall um and the the prior information is important for the Construction office but for the HBC the the finished product is what we're yes sir U looking at and so um if if you want to talk to that a little bit it's it seems like a a significant Improvement and and is uh building appropriate to me so uh yes sir thank you uh so a-200 which is the main front elevation uh you'll you'll uh you'll see that all the brick veneer peers have manifested themselves with regard to anything that you can see um these peers are more in keeping with HPC uh guidelines and criteria than the the failing masonry wall that's there you'll see um you'll see lattice uh lattice painted wood lattice um between uh all the peers which is one of the two options that HPC uh does permit um you'll see a new um access door we've relocated that we've tried to keep that door on Center with the windows above uh which it wasn't before a little tough to look at so we placed that new door now on Center with one of the windows um we are rebuilding that stair to match existing and the and the and this and the structure below it but again the deck will remain in place the other thing that's important to note is that the uh all the all the existing columns are uh existing 5/4 in Hollow column with they 5/4 inch board right it's like a like a box foot like a vertical box beam which there's no 6X six there's nothing inside so you have a five you have five quarters by five quarters supporting the weight I I yes I got so all the posts with the exception of the post in the second second floor uper right hand side all those posts are 54 inch uh uh five 54 inch um vertical box beams if you will nothing nothing inside which was concerning to me is I had my cont do some selective demolition uh I don't see nothing inside inside the which concerning to me right so so what we're going to do is a couple things we're rebuilding the structure below number one number two uh where all the all the columns are 9 and 1 12 ft on Center uh we're maintaining that but we're the problem is you can't SP wood doesn't span N9 and 1 12 fet without uh without support so we're cutting the span of the balls in half so you'll see a new Post in between every existing in post so that's important to understand that happens on the second floor and it happens on the first floor and that gives me a span that's reasonable in terms of the wood Uh Wood ballister um you know the the the span uh and the post and the balls will match existing we've actually already had them cut um so that that's that's of no no concern so you'll see double the amount of posts it increases the uh the structural capacity of of the uh of the rail system um and all the posts all the posts that are 5 quter in board we're going to maintain that we're going to slip inside of it with look at the end of the day we're going to take those five quarter boards off we're going to put uh on the first floor first floor is a um is a a 66 uh uh treated uh post inside of the five quarter board to be painted second floor is a four four 4x4 post inside of the five quarter board to be painted say that again please so um when you look at the first floor um the dimensions of the first floor posts they're slightly uh columns they're slightly larger than the second floor right but they're still wrapped in existing five quter board so we're going to remove that five quter board we're going to put in a structural uh uh treated post right I'll have a positive connection between the post and the CMU Pier uh below the uh below the deck um and then I'm going to rewrap it back in the five quarter 5 quter board and paint it so that you're saying your second your second second floor supports are going to be smaller than your first floor supports uh they're going to match they're going to match the exact dimensions that are there now I'm just which which just to say they're smaller uh if you're going to go if you're going to go from from 6X six and then 4x4 is you're you got a smaller oh no no just talking about the post size itself I'm saying to you I'm not finish post dimension on the first floor is going to be seven inch plus finish the finished post dimension on the first and second floor will match the existing post mention correct what I think Jim's pointing out is the second floor ones are now little B but all we're doing is we're adding play with regard to the railing that's why we're asking I'm just adding some structure got it sense I can't sleep at night with them I can't unsee it but it's a typical construction I mean you you have a 4x4 um and then you're going to wrap it and in this case you're wrap it with five quarter yes sir so um that well we're we're going to put back you you you won't notice there won't be any difference aesthetically with regard to the first and second floor post but for the fact that we've add a structure post interior to that all right is there any indication that you had brackets on the first floor originally brackets uh no the brackets I mean we've owned this property for about 20 years and the brackets were only on the second floor they were never on the first floor because every other double decker house in the town uh has brackets and when you look at those columns that are there on the first floor they actually have a little cap just like the second floor is where the bracket would have started you uh you may you may be uh correct and if that's a scenario where you would like us to add those brackets back uh to uh below the second floor of framing we're happy to do it um if you would like but again we've owned it for 20 years haven't haven't seen it there well I I think we would have expected to see brackets um not the bracket that's there that looks like something you mean on the second second floor second floor is a fairly ornate yeah but it's I'm looking at this um which is it's probably not a origional to the house although the house would have had brackets the house was renovated prior to our purchase in 1988 and prior to that I believe it was originally yeah so there are no brackets on that there no brackets on that uh that photo from the property report have you checked for old pictures postcards things like that we did um I guess I would just say in keeping with other houses in town that are double decker like that you know the some The Columns can be different things like that if you look at the one called the delce on Columbia Avenue they have a serpentine columns on the on the second floor made of steel and wood but they have brackets on all levels so I think it it would look more appropriate if it had bra it looks this looks very bare I mean we would we would be happy to either leave them out or place them in at the uh direction of the HBC not not an issue it it seems brackets would be appropriate true um I'm not sure the brackets that are there uh are original they on the second floor yeah they they've actually been repaired multiple times um at least since we've owned it well uh so car carry on I I I think brackets are appropriate I don't I'm not but we're we're happy to place them on the uh on that first level if the HPC would like well we'll see whatever when we get to the vote I would say yes well I I think we generally would prefer to see the increase in Brackets from the first and second floor sure now the design of the brackets I I you know but but definitely first and second floor understood so are you done with your presentation uh I believe so thank you so I really only have one concern sure and I'd like to refer to a21 least yes so typically speaking if you want a wooden Rail and the posts are 4x4 you can go six feet with the railing pretty easily you're eight and a half clear no way yeah we're nine and a half on Center well not but eight and a half roughly clear Dimension right now you can go 8 feet if you have a a good 6x6 post well in this case you don't have either so adding the on the elevation on D200 I'm sorry not on D200 adding the intermediate post across the front makes sense to me at the midpoint of the columns however when you get to d201 there are so many posts here I think it's way Overkill in fact I think the only ones you would need is on the left elevation porch is the one on the first floor between the post and the um the one that's actually labeled number nine okay and the other the other two posts I don't think you need at all because that's only five staircase well first on the left elevation let's try that one first CU your span is only 5' 4 in so you I don't think you need those posts understood similarly the same thing in the right elevation porch I don't think you need the one on the second floor or the first floor and I think you only need one in the same I guess that's an 8ot Dimension from the post out to the front face of the porch and one inter mediate one on the diagonal of the Stringer of the stair right so in other words I I think very easily you could eliminate 1 two 3 four from these two elevations seven posts but of course um John we recognize your expertise but this is the HPC and the Construction office is gon to well but I think this is an HPC issue because I think that those spans are we're only talking I understand what you're saying John and and we it's sometimes a little difficult to follow you but but I think what you're saying is you don't believe as many of them are necessary as a not only are they not necessary I think that I think aesthetically they're they really detract because you're talking only two and a half fet 30 inches between post I'm I'm happy to agree with you again the the reduction span was based on 9 and half ft uh Center to center from uh from beam to beam and I have to maintain those um so we can so essentially what what you're requesting concern a -200 we can add those additional posts to reduce the 9 and 1/2t span yeah you've already shown that somewhere right it's the previous elevation and a-201 on the sides of the porches we would eliminate those additional posts correct I think you only need to to maintain the same scale of Dimension between the post you would only need one intermediate on the diagonal of the stair as opposed to three intermediates and then the one directly above that on the um from the post Port to the front porch along the sidewalk that would be about the same Dimension y right but all the others can go 1 2 3 four uh five six got it yep see we'd only need two posts on the right elevation porch and only one post on the left elevation happy to do it right make sense that's great comment otherwise I think that the proportions are going to really be skewed and inappropriate yeah so it's not just structural this is aesthetic I'm H I'm happy to make that modification save some money yeah we just paid for your brackets but uh but that that's that's the nature of the presentation this is a you know this is a a repair and I want to make sure that structurally correct and historically correct as well ah the only other comment is with regard to the uh the lattice you're using yeah I don't think anywhere it actually says that it's wood but I think you need to make sure that it does say that it's would an a privacy last and it has to be privacy yeah yes sir the material list doesn't say it's privacy okay we're happy to do that yeah so privacy wood lattice is what we're and and you ought to be putting that on your materials checklist the yes sir underneath the front porch is that all going to be closed in under that no lce over top of black painted plywood or anything or is it going to be open for breathing no it's going to be open we do need uh we do need um to cross ventilation there so it will be open there will be nothing behind it um there is no slab there's no no slab uh below the below the porch so this is presumably why you're doing the small footings this the small footings to get your new columns in say that again please presumably that's why you're doing the small footings to get the columns in there's no there's no slab or anything uh there is no slab um I very much doubt that the site cast wall has any kind of substantive which which is why it's yeah this um yes my my My overall view of this is that it is um U consistent with maintaining the values in this contributory structure I think the removal of the wall which might fall down anyway and its substitution with um brick clad peers and lattice is is really a very nice look to to to add to the facade of the of the building so um you know other than the redesign of the number of of uh posts on the on the railings um I I think this is a really nice nice job thank you do I have a motion oh I'm sorry are there any other questions observations on this I just I want to be clear about the post discussion before we move on to a motion if that's all right so I'm looking at I heard on a201 there we're looking at the left side the one that's a nine is pointing to that that's going to be eliminated uh no actually the one that we're nine is poed to that will remain it's the other Chris maybe since John is uh needs to remain this one got the details these two are the only ones that need to remain here and this one's the only one that needs remain all right those are gone everything else is gone yeah so that stays okay that stays and that stays the rest of them are gone got it all right and then what about on a 200 they all 8200 they all stay the everything that's on there's 8200 they all all new post stay because the span was n and half feet got it okay so no no no modifications no of that so I I'd like to make a motion that we Grant final approval to the application um but the approval will be conditioned on um the submission of revised plans that show the elimination of the posts um whose exact number I can't remember right now uh but uh which Council has noted down I'll find a way to describe it Mr Tes and that and and that would be my motion inclusion of brackets on the first floor oh I'm sorry an inclusion of brackets all around first floor you guys when were those diamond shaped Windows put on the front I mean obviously they're not I I I they're definitely not original interestingly enough the point of the diamond is exactly at the uh support for the beam I I don't understand how that work what what a great Improvement getting uh not really it it's got to go I can't fix it so I have a motion the only other amendment to your motion I think is that making sure that it's privacy lattice yes sir we'll uh we'll we'll we'll note that in the so privacy lattice as an additional condition lattice must be privacy lattice would in privacy I'll second the motion if somebody else hasn't no it's Mr Stevens second okay motion by Mr Tesa seconded by Mr Stevenson Mr copelan yes Mr Carrol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson strk yes Mr Johnson yes thank you thank you thank you chairman thank you very much have a great evening thank you thanks um we're open to the public there's no public present um but the phone is available is that correct no no public present um so we're going to close it to the public um move to uh a discussion points we have um payment of the bills does that require any discussion there were no bills this month I make a motion we pay all our bills but there are no bills but no bills are submitted so I think we can move on parking beneath residential buildings this is a project that we started a long long time ago um we continue to try to get this done who is offering that presentation tonight I can I can give a a background I think um one of the things that good night was discussed um when I first came aboard was the concept of taking some of the principles that are in the design standards about parking and seeing if there's an opportunity to expand that outside of the HPC um and they the I guess the policy goal behind that just before you get to the details of what the ordinance would look like or you know a code amendment is I think as Mr Becker pointed out tonight that that application we had with the cascading landscaping and and orienting the parking even if there's a garage in a way that is not visible from the streetscape and then you end up with you're not seeing the garage you have a long driveway and then parking is oriented inside the building or at least out of sight as much as possible now there are unique property conditions that may prevent that in a particular case but as a zoning and planning goal to end up with that M product I think is um and if you look at examples from some of our short Town neighbors like maybe Ocean City and sea you have a lot of parking in the front of the the building and and you end up with just a row of cars on each Street um with the house on stilt situation so um and every town can design it the way that they want but um so the the ordinance the potential ordinance um there's two options and and Mr Becker and I had spoken and and um I I I can't um I I'll let him uh present uh you know his proposal and and what I tried to do is just offer with fresh set of eyes an an alternative um and one that might be um not getting everything that we want out of The Proposal but leaving open uh the possibility for expanding the concept without entirely taking it um to to the level that maybe we see in this board before before John begins his eloquent statement I just wanted to say that that the purpose that I saw of this was we have a large historic district and we have the rest of the city and the approach here was to try and produce something as a recommendation to council that would make the rest of the city become more like what we impose in the historic district that's the overall goal here but it seems like the HPC should be proposing this and other things to city council does that does that mean we're actually going to draft uh an ordinance or it seems that he has waren he has the there are two options as I see them and they're both in the form of proposed language the council could use covered by a memorandum which explains what we think is the right thing to do so so I mean I would agree with being not to write the ordinance but simply provide a communication to city council these documents actually do both there are two options and what Chris has done I think really quite elegantly and beautifully is give give a background and policy statement why we're proposing this so one is is more stringent than the other so the one that would be most stringent is that we're simply saying that parking beneath structures um is not going to be permitted anywhere except for in the R5 district and NC District which is right up at uh Texas and Yacht Avenue yacht Avenue and and the reason for that is so that um we don't have all these homes that are a full story above grade when you're at the first floor to start looking like all these other Shore towns that are not like C May however with that said if that is in a zoning ordinance applying for a variant such as that house tonight that I think we could approve because they did an extremely I thought thoughtful job of being able to hide the parking but park underneath the house but that's a really unusual ual case I don't think we'll see that very often had a lot of land you had a lot of land the backup position though in case city council thinks that's too stringent which Chris has written as option b is very simply to extend what's already in our design standards for the historic district to the entire town and that really has three parts to it one is that the no parking can be permitted past the front facade of the house the second is that the doors to garages cannot face the street and the third is that there again the exceptions in those two districts over on yacht Avenue those are the two proposals the the the difference between a and b or one and two being that in the first more strict um you really have an underst structure correct prohibition correct so so if you're going to look at the difference in in number one you can't park under a structure correct except except in one of those zones or your one of the accepted multiple I think we recognize that that there are businesses and structures that have to have parking underneath them and we've talked about those before yeah th those are out of that r five but the second proposal seems to be what we had talked about well the second proposal is a no-brainer because all it does is extend what we are what we're already doing in the historic district to the whole town the first proposal though is being quite a bit more strict and saying we don't want parking under structures I I know but you you're got it seems to me except for hotels like so I mean there's it's it's none and then it's except for those places that are needed and in a district where we felt it was needed I have to say outside excuse me for I you're making you you we have a proposal we don't but one of the proposals is it's going to be more strict in outside of the historic district than it is inside the no I don't think so that's not true what we're saying is that we would the more strict one would be again for the entire town because it would be in the zoning ordin it would be both in the historic district and not in the when the council passes this the expectation was it's Citywide correct in and outside the district I must admit I the second seems to be a more reasonable approach and one that we could likely um get approved I think the first one is I well we would have to rewrite our design standards to for the first one correct no no I don't think so I I I mean I I I disagree with you in the sense that I believe we should apply the stricter rule but I'm able to support both of them because they're both in Improvement well one of one of the things that the reason I'll give the reason why the second one option b is drafted in the way it is and it's to recognize that in order for this to make its way and and become an ordinance like how does a bill become a law well an ordinance has to go to the planning board specifically development ordinances for master plan consistency review Council we approve it we send it over there they write a report chop it up run it through the meat grinder send back comments and then we get we get not only master plan consistency review but in many cases we get you know what does the planning board think about this from a policy standpoint and what this second option attempts to account for is the very real push back that when reviewing this pursuant to the master plan which is loaded with comments and concerns about parking and that shortage and that has to be counterbalanced with our need for preservation too so that's we're here for preservation the planning board is going to be very concerned about well how is this eliminating opportunities for parking and what this does is I I don't see it necessarily as trying to eliminate parking but kind of oriented to areas of the site that we we would prefer and but it does you know it does strict more than is the case now obviously I there's no there's no doubt about that and and and I think option b if you're looking at it for an expediency purpose option b is easier to put over with a board easier to put it over with Council um allows for something that we haven't particularly liked which is parking under structures but it's easier to do it's easier to defend it it keeps parking from being seen from the street it it makes makes it hidden but it still allows it under structures but then from an HBC standpoint you know we're also increasing the massing in the buildings particularly with height and people you know instead of just going with the minimum level for for the flood they're jacking all these places up and it's a first floor I I agree Jake I think that's one of the reasons that I'm we're proposing if you're going to allow parking under a structure you're going to incentivize people to do it where they can and to do it you can't go as low as if you so we but I recall in the past that we you had to access the garage through the rear of the property or from the sides or well I mean but in most cases yes but I've seen some recently where it's a corner property and on the side of the the side street there's garage doors now it doesn't necessarily affect the homeowner but someone that lives across the street it is affecting their street skate and that you have garage doors ready across from their house so just to be clear what the what the more stringent one is requiring is no parking beneath structures that have um five if it's a multif family dwelling five units or less so if it's more than that like a hotel or six unit then yes you can do it but other than that not under church and there was that and there was the one yach Avenue District where where that wouldn't apply but but I mean it's a it's a step to say that um it's it's not our policy to encourage parking under structures um mostly because it it's more difficult to hide but it also leads to an increase in the height of the structures and it's and it's you know it's it's just a balancing act I I just think it's I would I would argue for the stricter rule simply because I think that's where we ought to start and if we wind our we just approved one tonight that doesn't meet the strict rules well but there but that that that isn't that's why I said that that was an anomalous case so we could I mean all they that person would need to do is go before City Council for a variance in that case to allow for that and they did a really nice job which it's actually the first time I've ever seen somebody do a nice job we have we have board we have approved uh parking under structures when you couldn't see the garage doors Chris not in the back but on the side right where there the door is kicked in so so there's no doubt but but but do bear in mind that if you do put parking under structures they're going to go higher yep there's just no doubt in my mind that it will encourage increases to extent that it wouldn't happen if they weren't allowed to park under the building what I'm seeing the most of is these small houses at the North End that you know a really small lot the people that are demolishing them want to build a house where an entrance sidewalk and on one side a garage and that's what's really going up all over town so we would be making that illegal not under under instruct attach and attached and a detached garage are still fine yeah that's not that's not affect space above the detached garage just you can't live above it right well they are going on with with living space above them because the lots are so small and our ordinance does allow I I think the zoning board might get overloaded with requests for parking in a sense where they're putting it in a garage and the house is up and over the grind and done right down on I I would I I agree with the points that are being said I I just don't believe that expediency ought to be the reason we go forward chis your was your proposal focused on expediency or was it more focused on having an idea of a level of success the goal of drafting that was to was to anticipate the feedback that inevitably is going to come correct I mean my reaction is that I think in this room we would all like to have a higher level of control as far as parking under these structures I I just don't know if it's reasonable to think that we'll get that and in an iterative step might be Chris's proposal which is you know applying our standards and Steve though you don't you don't know until you go forward and and and and and I you know I sometimes when they're headwinds you have to back up yeah and if we want to make a stand as the HC to and and I and I would like I would like the chance for us to persuade the reviewing board and the city council if it gets past the reviewing board that that's what we think is best for the city as a whole they can decide or they can tell us no go if if you if we have parking all over the place now we have limited parking availability if you propose an ordinance that that screens the garage doors from the front or side yards then then it would be mission accomplished it would be tenfold better than what we're doing it's an improvement I I don't think anybody's arguing with you about that but we are saying can't do that excuse me they can't get it on the side you know they just don't have enough land to bring well I think what Warren's saying is that's too bad in the sense he's if I understand the chair's position it is that as long as we accomplish the removal of seeing the parking the cars are are garaged with side-facing backsides garage doors that's something you think is a reasonable thing to pursue throughout the city I think there's a higher likelihood of of success I I do too but I I don't think I'd want to I don't want to shoot low when I when I can shoot High I mean that's just my nature I'm sorry is if you shoot too high you've lost the audience well why don't we have option b you don't like that we got this one I wouldn't I certainly wouldn't encourage it's like oh I don't think so no I don't I well mainly because we already have it in the in the standards for the historic district option b all we're doing for option b is extending it to the rest of the time yeah I'd like to see iterative change as opposed to no change MH a lot of these people would end up having to park on the street it which used to be something a lot of people did but now with more and more and more cars coming in a lot of people can't even find a space on you know that's I mean buy their space on I don't know that that's really empirically determinable at this point so the issue real the issue I think Jake you nailed it and that is that if we allow parking under these homes basically they're going to be you know eight nine 10 feet higher than they need to be yeah and and then you're going to find the people coming in saying my God you've just allowed a 50 foot house right next to my smaller dwelling and it's not just it's not just the size it's the aesthetic correct because these homes were all built the historic homes were all built on the ground and the living rooms and the kitchens and everything were always on the first floor so the more we have these elevated structures where you have a better view of the ocean you're looking over your neighbors you have room for gazillion bathrooms we're we're moving away from our historic character and that's what we're seeing again and again and again anyway now the problem of parking being that I pay for two on street parking spots and my family we were used to parking in jaip and walking to our home because we love being here and we didn't care you don't need a car in K May that's the way we think we have a neighbor who feels sorry for us that we have to do all this walking and they wanted they they parked their cars over the sidewalk in the front they wanted a variance to park it across the driveway and that's the way people are thinking so the problem is really a huge parking problem that has to do with a lot more than preserving our historic character it has to do with accomodating the love affair with the automobile and trying to rekindle A Love Affair for a streetcape and and how do we persuade and I I think going for broke and having a a proposal that Planning and Zoning thingss were nuts on I don't think there is not the way to go okay I I don't think we think we're nuts I think it may it may a policy decision but I I would say that remember we're talking about this being applied to the city as a whole and while I'm sympathetic to what Tom says about small Lots um a lot of the city doesn't have the smallest lots that exist in in the core of the city so so when you go outside the historic district to the rest of the city you are going to places where it is likely to cause less hardship to put a detached garage less hardship to make parking available that's not under a structure I I just I just think that it is and I don't think they're going to think we're nuts they may think we're we're we're we're biting off too much you know I Al also think that you know we one of the big problems we're having and the cause of it is that we're starting to get people who have four bedroom house they come in they add three bedrooms they tell us that it's going to be my primary residence right 3 weeks later it's on vbo and you're getting four or five families in there and they're bringing four or five cars and if you go to a place like sea is they have the parking underneath but the streets are still the sidewalks are loaded with cars and it's because the change we're seeing with large group rentals not regular rentals but five families come into a place and that's what happens in SE can I ask a question question would this be um because we have plan a and plan B would this be something that we should put on our agenda a council for discussion um I I understand everybody's you know kind of concern here but it really you know I don't know if it's anything I mean both of them are drafted at this point um I I would suggest maybe because the way that I would see this going is a recommendation a policy change comes from HPC would go to planning get it review and then by the time it gets to council it's it's had it's had a lot of eyes on it yeah yeah and Council will have the benefit of both boards weighing in on it and think okay you know this this isn't going to go um without an explanation which is why we have a drafted memorandum um and and uh and that memorandum ought to argue for for the reasons for whatever it is it's being suggested uh and and and I think that's a good thing to do and then if you want to read it and disagree and and say that that's wrong and they and they don't agree with it and they won't vote for it or support it it's up to them but I think we should take the stand we think is best I I I just don't I I just don't see a likelihood of the extreme being accepted and I think it may in fact jeopardize Plan B parking is a problem in Kate may as we know and as soon as you go to planning and say we have a plan to eliminate some parking spots I I I I mean I just don't think I I don't think that's I mean there is a possibility that public parking will suffer with a few more cars going to the street that's that's not no one's no one's done that as an empirical matter to know that the Lots on which these would be imposed wouldn't permit parking on the Lots in a separate Garage in a driveway there's there's no there's way no way to really know that but there is a way to know that if you continue to permit parking under structures they will get higher right I don't think that's there's a doubt about that but also this board has mean this commission has also said that in in many times that we have never approved parking under a building before and I mean it's been put out there many times well certainly not a historic building well yeah so so it strikes me I know where we're at it's not really a valid argument to say we shouldn't submit it because we don't they're going to buy it I think we should submit it based on what we think's the right thing to do right I I must admit I'm I guess I'm the odd person out I well just because you want to be practical eliminating parking under under the buildings is dramatic you you yourself have argued with contributing structures there shouldn't be parking underneath them even new structures I think if you force people to to accommodate that parking by putting garage doors that are not visible from the front or the sidey yards putting it in the back all kinds of restrictions like Plan B I think that that makes sense and it's and is likely but just a cart blunch say no parking under um living areas a residential structure throughout the whole city I I just don't think you're going to get anywhere with that I okay but again we have to be careful what Visions the applicant makes I know there's one place on on the beach front that it was a contributing structure and they had lattice skates that hide the garage doors unfortunately most of the time they're open and you see these garage doors so it would have to be on the side and hidden and I I agree that if we present something that is SE as unreasonable by our you know other boards that that might be the only shot that we get um Steve I I think if we're told that we're overreached we will under reach as a result of that I don't think we lose credibility uh if we if I think it's an over I think Plan B is is bordering on overreach I think it's dramatic well obviously we can we can agree to disagree but I think you I think you present your arguments and you try to make the best argument for what you think is the right thing to do so in some ways we're having a fact- free conversation because we haven't floated either of these ideas before the people were already projecting are going to have a response so why not have this conversation with them and find out what they think having a fact free conversation it's really frustrating for me well we're going to present it to people who would probably like to get reelected when their term comes up and I think they're going to be thinking an awful lot about people that want you know want a parking spot in a garage I have to tell you I I think you I think you do what you think is best and right for the city as a whole um I can support as I said before either one of these Alternatives because I think B is an improvement because it takes it takes our policy that we've been working on and it applies it to the whole city is it an improvement absolutely does it does it do the things that we think are all right to I think it does not but maybe it's a step at a time so and and in drafting B it was not drafted with the expectation that that that's somehow going to sail to adoption either um they're both pretty tough and and it's it as Warren says it takes something out of the HPC land and puts it in everywhere land which might give some people some Whiplash in decision-making roles now sure but if the if the if the historic district were a tiny little piece I could understand that but given its size applying something out of the district to the rest of the town is not as big a step no and and well what I was getting to is to say that the presentation of that at least I I would say is not necessarily intended to be anti- parking but Pro streetscape taking an element that we think is an improvement from Aesthetics those long driveways parking out of site to the extent a site can accommodate that is a net positive for the entire city it is because and that's where it's that's where it's coming from not not to be torture parking REM it removes the obvious effects of having garage doors facing forward people having parking that's visible from the street that's an improvement but it raises the structures it makes them as high as you can get them to get a car underneath them if that's your approach well it leaves it leaves open the possibility in non-pc uh territories that that could happen but what it what if you end up with say option b you still end up with parking oriented away from you know no doubt about it no so that that's why you see it as a benefit and it it kind of recognizes The Proposal was coming from the HPC and would be applied elsewhere where maybe they're not so concerned about streetscape and where parking goes just as long as there's sufficient parking property values in K may all new construction almost all new construction is going to go to the maximum elevation to the 35 ft or whatever I I don't think and where they and where possible they'll put a car underneath it can I can I make us to Shield them but my point was you're going to have the height anyway so guys we're not this this conversation is not changing anybody's mind so I'm wondering if procedurally what we need to do if we want to move forward is to is to propose a motion that we propose this so that's what I was just I was going to try and reel in the procedural element of this what the HPC has the following options as I see it there's four you can abandon this concept altogether you can pick vote make a motion in favor of One Versus the other or you could say we we're okay with either and send it up the ladder and the next step would be the planning board to say here's what we're proposing what do you think I would like to make a motion for the third option joh just a secondo it is possible for us to to phrase this the same way we've seen the drafts which is in the alternative we like these two yeah pick one we favor one but but but tick two if you think that's better that's what that's what Chris was just proposing as option number three and that's that's the motion I'd like to make and I misunderstood but that's the motion I'd like to that's that's how what I meant yep yep fine that's that's good with me if we propose so you want to second the motion uh second your motion right so the the just to be clear on what this what I would do Judy and I would do next is yeah I just want to hear what the motion is sure so the motion would be we' take the policy statement and the two drafts the very same packet that was distributed to the members tonight for review and that will be transmitted to the planning board for master plan consistency review and any other comments they may have with the idea of which option do they prefer and they the outcome of that may be they prefer neither but but with the statement that the more stringent one is the one we would prefer correct good well I I would okay so let's vote yeah can can you put how many people voted for each one would would would that be a good idea when you're negotiating with someone the the mo the way the motion's phrased we'd be uh preferring option A over option b so we it would be delivered with the idea that L it's kind of academic because this is a public meeting and people will see how we're voting anyway so they're going to know and you're going to know right away because you're right here well rather rather than presenting it to the planning board as we Geniuses here have come up with the perfect thing for the city I would like to say here is an idea that would really help to protect the beauty and uniqueness of our community and we'd like to know what you think about it and that that is part of the reason the policy statement precedes that yes and I didn't say it doesn't say it as eloquently as you just did so I might just change it to a sentence but that's that's what that is intended to say hey look this is why we're thinking about about this it's not to torture everybody it's because we think this is a worthwhile concept we know we're Geniuses okay I I'd like to suggest that that well John's made a motion we may have to vote on it but but if if it does pass I'd like to have the support memo beefed up with the with the at least the introduction that you just talked about and Tom just talked about Chris okay that all right so motion by Mr Becca Becker Sorry seconded by Mr Tesa Mr copelan no Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes Mr Tesa yes M Wilson strick yes Mr Johnson yes thank you next item on the agenda and in the no Club next item on the agenda yeah next next item on the agenda what is going on kind kindly remove me as the commenter on this thing okay okay if everybody likes it we'll put Jim's name back on it here it's clear nobody's going to like it boat and trailer parking so uh this is another ordinance uh provision I spoke with uh Jake and and we see dis ordinance a lot you had experience of that with in North wild did a great job of cleaning it up and making it very understandable so this uh I don't necessarily see this actually as a development ordinance it's more in the nature of parking regulations and police power uh for the city um given it's coming from the plant or from the HPC um may be something we want to send through to the plan board to let them know because there is some setback uh Provisions in here but essentially what this would do is we already have regulations for parking of trailers and things like that on the street but what this does is it it deals with that on on private property and it sets some parameters for that in terms of sidey yard rear yard distances from the right of way um the length the number it it puts uh a range of regulations in place that we just don't have at this point and in the and this would be a Citywide provision not just an HPC thing but it's coming from the stand stand point of maintaining the streetcape and and making sure that things aren't being left around in sight when we'd rather have them out of site so and actually this is not something that's an alien concept there's this these types of things show up in other Municipal uh Municipal Code books we just don't have anything on the books for it now so that's where it's coming from and and Chris remind me when we defined the assets that are covered under this it included boats trailers RVs did do we have a full kind of listing of all the what might be able to be right yeah motor homes campers trailers boats watercraft of any kind on a trailer and boat trailers without boats okay um you know that covers a bron range to the types of things you see in the street and in driveways yeah it's it's a pretty comprehensive list of the Uglies yep that's why there's boat yards just just one in in um paragraph D the word the or I'm sorry the word b should be after May it's corrected thank you yep should it be one word maybe that's that's John's first typo correction of the evening I move we make motion for this yeah so the motion could be to uh with the correction we just discuss to send this up the same ladder we just talked about I think Jake you should make the motion yeah do we I'm sorry did I miss do do we have a a piece in here where U that the thing has to move like every year or something well I think there was a provision that if you're going to do maintenance you allowed a certain amount of time to provide maintenance but then you had to get it off your property wasn't it Chris I think cuz we we don't want so I'm thinking mostly votes are being put in the back and left there what this accepts it gives you a basically a safety zone where you where you can put these things with the idea that they' be out of sight or or minimally visible the exceptions are though you can park uh may be parked on private property temporarily for a period of not exceeding 24 hours so but for anybody that's doing that they still have to comply with the section so it gives you you know look if you're going to I'm taking my boat and moving it somewhere else or I'm taking the trailer I need it here for a limited period of time there's some flexibility there but it does contemplate that unless you comply with the other sections of this that it's not going to be a lasting thing yeah well I I wasn't clear but if you if you have a boat and you put it in the backyard on a trailer is there any time limit can it stay there 10 years um if yes if if it complies with according to this yes yes but if it starts to deteriorate or there's a another condition that may give rise to en there's Property Maintenance Provisions too my neighbor parked in their 12 years now Warren Warren is waiting for the flood to to to arrive it's good to have a boat handy you know these these things if they if they get enacted ultimately result in some pressure on enforcement to actually over achieve the compliance but I don't think that's our worry right now so the the motion is to send it to the planning board for review this draft yes okay and we have we need a second Jake I'll I'll second Jake's motion yes motion by Mr Stevenson seconded by Mr Testa Mr copelan yes Mr Carol yes Mr Becker yes Mr Stevenson yes you can vote on your own Mr Tesa yes Miss Wilson strick yes Mr Johnson yes thank you thank you all are we done now Tom I think so you know pay the bill at one point Carl McIntyre was thinking about building a a replica of the AR it doesn't surprise me are we adjourned did you motion to adjourn I move that we adjourn yeah we enj all righty thank another good job