Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Review for July 8th, 2026. We'll start with roll call. We have Mr. Brown, Mr. Dinsky, Ms. Marzullo, and myself here. So we do have quorum tonight. We have the requisite four members. We'd now like to open this to public comment. This is when anybody may address the board regarding anything that is or is not on the agenda. We ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. Is there any public comment tonight? Seeing none, we will move on, and consent applications, we have none tonight, so we will open new, sorry, old business. First is 26-747-248 North Main Street, and this is a siding replacement in the historic district.

Yes, I can give a brief orientation. Staff knows that this application was heard at the June 24th, the 2026 meeting. A site visit did take place on June 30th, 2026. The staff comment here is just the secretary of the interior standards state that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Staff notes that hardy board is proposed as a replacement material for the wood siding as well as ASEC trim material. Staff suggests a wood replacement based on the high level of visibility to the house on the corner lot. Additionally, a wood replacement would also result in consistent materials being applied around the 1840 structure. The applicant has provided spec sheets for you. It's the large packet of papers that you have in front of you for review and he is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Can you just state your name in relationship to the application?

Good evening, Tom Bellish. I'm the owner of 248 North Main Street.

So if we just, I think, start with the board and the site visit.

I was not there.

You were not there. Ms. Serdinski, you were there.

I was there. I was not at the last meeting, but I was at the site visit.

Okay. So having been at the site visit, any comments or questions? Your thoughts after being on site?

I mean, it definitely shows the deterioration. I think some of the concern is that it's only being proposed for the one side versus the full structure. So I think that's probably one of the issues that's at hand with what the commentary here is on the sheet as well as obviously trying to preserve the wood structures when possible.

Mr. Zulig, you were there.

Yeah, I have similar concerns. The AZEC that you're proposing for this to represent the shingles are coming.

The Hardy board, yes. I have a sample if they want to take a look.

What's on there now are individual cedar shingles.

So currently, yes, individual cedar shingles, and these come in panels at random widths.

Do these match sizing-wise otherwise?

Yes, height, thickness. And then the randomness range is the same as well.

So my concern about it is that you have three sides that are actual wood and then one side that's going to be a composite material. And I just don't know how well those are going to blend. We've never allowed that. I don't believe in any of the structures to not match. the type of material.

Sometimes it may have been on a back addition and continue, but this is right on Main Street, and this south side is totally exposed right there at Owen Brown. So that's our concern.

Yeah, and that's why I'd love to fix it because it's so visible. I don't think what's there now is really acceptable. So we just asked the one side just because I didn't know whether that material was even accepted. That was really a question, not necessarily we had to do one side. So if the board's okay with the material, then we can do, have the option to do the whole thing, well then we'd like that option.

I will say the South side is deteriorated considerably and I don't disagree with replacing the South side. We didn't really look at the other side. The problem is that you're supposed to repair rather than replace. And when you replace, you're supposed to replace in kind. That becomes the difficulty of doing just one side or doing the other three that don't need to be done. So now we're removing historic materials for the convenience of one side. It's a tough spot there.

Yeah, we've done individual pieces and done that in the past, just replaced. It just seems like the wood today is not the hardwood that they probably used back then, which was much more stable. It's very flimsy, light material that just doesn't keep this paint on very well.

Mr. Brown, do you have any thoughts?

What's the extent, and I apologize since I wasn't at the last meeting or the site visit, so I'm, what's the extent of the trim replacement? Are the corner boards in place?

Yeah, so we have samples of those as well.

But are they, but Only the – all the trim on this face is being replaced and none of the trim on the other faces? So I'm just wondering, like, I mean, where they come together? Because there's corner – like, are the corner boards being – And the – I mean, above the upper windows? I'm just wondering how you handle that at the corner where there's, you know, if there's a second.

Yeah. At this point, I didn't think it was deteriorated at the corners. We could leave the wood and paint that and just do around the windows. That side, um, just deteriorate so much faster than the other three sides. Uh, so we have, um, sample of that, the window sill. and the trim, and there is a backer board as well. I don't have that sample, but we do have those.

I guess my thought is if, I mean, they are relatively wide. I mean, they look like, what, 10 or 12-inch corner boards? I mean, there's some separation between the material on the two sides of the building. If that stayed the same, I guess I kind of agree with what you said. I'd hate to lose the three sides of shake in good condition in order to meet a requirement that we don't mix materials, but if it's financially unfeasible to replace the entire thing with new shakes, and if at the site visit you determined that the existing shakes are not, can't be individually kind of filled in.

I think you'd be replacing 70% to 80% of the shake to try to do individual pieces. I mean, they're cupped. And even the window trim, the same thing. You're probably going to be replacing 70% to 80% of the window trim. It makes sense to do all of it at that point.

Yeah. I guess I would add, I mean, just from a practical perspective, the other three sides, are they, you know, in the next 10 years? I mean, what general condition are they? They're in pretty good shape overall. So they might not need replacement for some time.

For a considerable amount of time. This is the south face with nothing buffering it.

Yeah. I guess that would be my preference, would be to... I don't know if we'd be waiving a requirement, but having different materials in order to save the, this ASEC, or not the ASEC, the Hardy panels, that's a material that's been approved in the historic district for replacement.

Yes, it's an acceptable replacement. Yeah.

Staff just does want to know, for the record, it's atypical on a structure of this age that's this public-facing. Typically, it would be required for a like-like replacement of existing wood siding.

There was another recently, a structure, I think it was on Hudson Aurora, close to downtown, where it was, I don't know if it was the shutters or the siding or the trim, but it was the proximity to the sidewalk was something that was discussed. And I know you mentioned, Alan, that there's a difference between kind of replacing siding that's kind of maybe visible or concealed by some trees and something that's so close to the sidewalk you could practically reach out and touch it. I could talk a lot more, but I don't know that I'm getting anywhere except to say that I'm sympathetic. I feel like replacing 70% seems like not feasible. And so I guess I would ask, what has the board done in the past in situations like this?

This one's unusual, I think.

I don't know if we had, if we recently, that I can remember, had a full siding, full exposure replacement that wasn't exactly like for like. I'm thinking of one on Owen Brown. I think they did one side, but they did it, same material, they did it in wood shake. I don't think we've been asked to do one side as synthetic while the other three are.

Yeah. I would not be in favor of replacing it with the hardy board plank because they're in panels because they're very different they look like synthetic and this is just so it's right on the sidewalk it's very important bill is what is it 1840 or so yes yeah 1840 and the other sides are fine I would not be in favor of doing it with the synthetic because of the exposure, because of the other sides that are in good condition. It's going to look totally different and it's just going to be screaming that I'm not wood. I agree that that it has deteriorated and it is a certain would you have you considered and you know I mean this is just for after the fact to put plant some trees I don't know if that's a city thing because it's on the tree lawn there to give some protection for future yeah I asked about that we had a water issue there a few years ago and I was told not to plant in that tree lawn yeah

One, there's a water line right underneath that tree line for one. And then two is for visibility for people coming down North Main Street turning right on Owen Brown to have the visibility. That was another reason they told me not to plant. Because there was a big maple tree there at one time. But we had a water issue right underneath that tree. It had to come out. So we're stuck. So a couple of things I would want to do to blend it in, if we could, was to paint the other three sides the same. Either paint all four sides at once and just put this up primed and paint all four sides at once. That's one way. blend in better, and then to put in wood shutters on this side to help blend it in as well. So there's a couple of things that I did want to do to see if we could get that to blend in as much as possible.

I'm not familiar with the technicality of that, but that Rhino finish, is that what it's called? It's a paint finish. There's a house on the corner that with the white picket fence, they put that on there. And I don't know if it's, I think it's just paint over whatever you have, whether it's wood or synthetic or anything. It's supposed to be a long lasting, and it's really not something that we would recommend. I'm just saying you might want to look into that for a longer lasting finish. And I don't know if it ends up looking synthetic. But I just think there's too much of difference between replacing with shake, actual individual cedar shake and these panels that are synthetic and they're just, you're gonna see that line. It's just so exposed and in such a, you know, an historic building right smack in front of your face. It's just too much to ask. If it was, this was, you know, down towards the back of something, you know, I wouldn't have, have the issue, but it's the location, the exposure, and the difference on how it's going to look with the other three sides that I can't say yes. And the trim that you gave us too, that was, it's just, again, it's just so different. Even the profile is going to be different than what's here. Anyway, that's how I...

I don't disagree. If the other three sides needed to be done also, and doing the whole thing in the Hardy would make sense, but the other three sides don't need to be done, so I think it needs to stay wood and match the other three sides. Zirinski?

I mean, I agree. I am sympathetic to the fact that that is getting a lot of sun there, but I agree that it is so visible and historic of a property to put a different side is, I think it's hard to justify that, even with the challenge of the sun there.

Brad. I agree.

I agree with what everybody's saying.

I don't know what the... I really have nothing more to add.

Okay. So I think the board's in general agreement that a like-for-like wood replacement would be approved, but doing one side synthetic will not get through.

Would it be possible as a second option to do the entire thing in Hardy Board?

because then we'd be removing historic materials that don't need to be removed. It's always repair rather than replace, and 75% of the structure doesn't need to be replaced. Counting the other three sides, right?

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, so you have one side that I do agree needs replacement, but that replacement needs to be like for like. I see.

Okay.

So we can, that still has to get approved. We could approve a like for like, you know, wood for wood replacement tonight. I think that would be the only motion that would get through. Sure. Okay.

I think the other thing you did mention, it's not, I don't think this was on the submittal, was shutters. So, because if you would add shutters, it would, we really usually want them to be They have to be all the way around. Yeah, placed throughout.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yes, yes. Okay. Oh, for sure.

Because you mentioned the one side, so I just wanted to make sure.

Are you requesting for a shutter? Well, we need to see the shutters. You'd have to come back for shutters. Yeah, that would need to be a separate application. Yeah, we'd have to see what shutters you're proposing.

Mm-hmm.

So. Okay. So somebody's willing to make a motion on a like-for-like replacement.

So is it an approval or...

to be an approval for like replacement on the south side.

Approval for the amended request of like for like replacement of the shake cedar siding.

So I will move to make a motion to approve with an amended request to use like for like wood material on the shake siding. Second.

All in favor? Anybody opposed? Okay.

Okay, could I just grab the samples board?

Yeah, it's all right down here.

And the same for the trim. It would have to be with the same profile.

Next is 26-744-333 Boston Mills Road, and this is Historic Landmark Gazebo.

Good evening. Kurt Kroger. On behalf of 333 Boston Mills Road and the Gazebo, my wife and I are the only ones. I'm just going to introduce it really quick.

Okay, I'll be quick. This is just staff notes. This application was heard at the June 24th, 2026 meeting. A site visit took place on June 30th, 2026. Staff knows the applicant is proposing to wrap the bottom of the proposed 4x4 treated post with ASEC material and just to question the proposed finish and how it would relate to the existing structure. The board was on site, saw the condition of the structure, and you also have the ASEC trim profile in front of you. That's the other printout that you have from the contractor. It says casing profiles at the top. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

All right. If you would just state your name and relationship to the application.

Hi. Kurt Kroger. My wife and I are owners of the house. I filed the application.

All right.

Thank you.

So, Mr. Zinzke, you were at the site visit. If you want to give your thoughts.

Yeah, we walked that. There was definitely deterioration on the posts. So, it sounded like you're trying to keep as much of the original structure Interior and as much of the exterior as possible.

Yeah.

As is. So...

Not as is the bottom 18 inches, but where it's all rotted. There's nine different materials it's composed of and five or six different styles out of the eight columns. But in general, yes, that's the goal is to have a minimum impact on, preserve everything as much as possible, but just replace what I refer to as the gangrene area of the rotted out areas of each of the columns. It's not a safe structure in its current condition. and it's either got to get repaired that way or it's got to come down or something.

Yeah, so I think that, I mean, really the question was just also just how it will finish off, I think, on the, so I don't know if you have any more commentary on just the overall finish once that's,

My understanding, we want to use a material like Azac because it is at a water line, it gets a lot of rain exposure, snow piles up there, so that's why it's rotted out, as the other gentleman was presenting before. This was built over 100 and some years ago, you got real redwood and things like that back in those days and thick pieces and everything. That's why it's held up as long as it has. When we bought the property, it was already in this state. I have no idea when it was approved in like 2000 or 2002 what conditions the bottoms were at were like because there has been significant damage at some point in time and they aren't regular properties. Our goal is to make them all look the same, have a design that'll hold up over time. The ASAC and the blend between the ASAC material, which hopefully will only be the bottom foot or something of each column, and it's just a facade. The main posts will be internal as they are now. Well, they're gone now, some of them, but... It'll blend in. It's going to get painted over. It'll look the same. The structure, unlike the prior example, which is right on Main Street, we're 100 feet off Boston Mills Road. We still don't have a sidewalk in front of the house. It's the Amazon delivery people that get to see it more than anybody. We also have to do it cost effectively. This is not going to be cheap. And it requires this phase and then this huge, significant paint job. And it also was wired. before so it's going to add up and it could become cost prohibitive but we would like to save it and keep it as much historic as possible but the blend and the look should be the same and anybody coming up it'll look a hundred times better than since we've ever owned it if they're all just a uniform new intact looking you know bottom foot or 18 inches of each one i mean i again as you mentioned it is very far off the road you're trying to keep

I think fairly minimal impact to the structure. I don't have a big issue with Azac being used as long as it's consistent and blends in nicely.

It's just a facade material. It'll look the same as what I've been told. It paints up. It's insect-proof. There was birds. I don't think it's as tasty to the birds. You saw a couple woodpecker holes there.

You were at the site visit.

Yeah, it's a special structure, and as you said, there used to be two, and it has a history of the former property owner from way back in early 1900s. His daughter got married in it, so it's wonderful that it's been preserved to this point. And I would like, even in the interior, the ceiling of the interior is- It's marvelous. So, and thankfully that's in pretty good shape. As long as now your contractor was there when we were at the site visit.

We haven't finalized our relationship yet. Financially, we're trying to. He gave me a contract that afternoon, and he's out of town, so I can't have him here. But, yes, he or somebody similar I would get that would do it the same approach. I've talked to several contractors, and that seems to be the only approach, and they've all recommended the combination of, you know, Getting past the rot area getting it supported and then covering it in a manner Uniformly, so they look as consistent as possible, but also it blends right into the old wood areas north of it And were they all pretty consistent on how far up they needed would need to go. Oh, it's though. This is a mystery project We started the contracts when I've had them come out they started peeling things away and After two or three of them, as you can see, the front ones there, in the interest of safety and not having it come down, I don't know what's holding it up, how rotten all the other ones are. You saw some of the around the other. There are several of them. I'm betting they're all rotten. But I think everybody is in a constant opinion that the rot's only probably going to go up, whether it's a foot or 18 inches. The one thing we really want to preserve, because otherwise it would become totally cost prohibitive, is all the fencing around it, the, I don't know, what that's called, the lattice type fencing, yeah. And so we want to make sure we preserve all that and as much of the column wood as possible so we don't disturb that. It's just merely, yeah, hopefully the bottom foot, maybe 18 inches, yeah.

Yeah, because it sits right on the stone. I would just be cautious, and if once they, whoever you select, and they actually investigate further because they are the contractor of choice, if it is that there is much more rot further than the 12 or 18 inches that you're talking about on the base, then I would... I probably would not be comfortable with doing Azek all the way, wrapping around all the post. I would still want to see wood and then just the base of it where you're, the bottom part.

I'd be fine with that. I'm just trying to deal with the fact, the snow level, the whatever, that's going to rot it out, insects, all of those things. But no, to me, the less we have to replace, the better.

Right, okay.

And I agree, I mean, it obviously needs the work done to it. Uh, I think that the. The casing profile that's circled here on the sheet, uh, was the closest to what seemed to be the kind of original, uh, trim on the, on the. You know, the top there, uh, just the, the cap on that base piece. So, uh. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it being an ASAC. I think that's going to actually keep the structure.

Longer.

Yes, much longer than trying to go back with a different material. So I'm fine with it. Mr. Brown?

I guess my only question, it's not 100% clear to me, and it sounds like you're not really certain yet the extent of the work. So I would just ask what it is where, I mean, if we were to approve something, how we would word that approval. I mean, this piece of molding is less than two inches high. And so it looks like there's a, what, like an eight inch flat stock that goes around and then there's a cap on top of that. So, I mean, if we would only be approving that that bottom piece of flat stock and then this cap go on it. But to get at the rot behind it, I mean, it looks like there's these built up panels above that would probably have to come off in order to address the structure or even see what the structure is.

we're going to have to just approach it as we're trying to save it, and there's no guarantees we can. Because if we're limited, I don't want to sink several thousand dollars in all of a sudden I'm hitting above an 18 inch line and then I can't have the flexibility to get the thing done the right way. My wife would rather just have it gone than, and if somebody wants to come take it away or do something, then we're open to having somebody do that if that's necessary. But we'd like to, I in particular would like to save it But at the same time, I'm not gonna invest five or $6,000 and all of a sudden be not able to save the patient because I'm using Azac. It's gonna blend in as best as possible. We don't wanna have Azac go up high. We can use wood. Again, it's facade stuff outside. It's the internal part that we're hoping we can just not have to tear everything apart up high. And I'm fairly confident it will hit Solid wood at you know above a foot or something like that or around a foot But so far it's not looking good at the bottom six inches, and that's what really matters

Again, I wasn't there, but it looks in the pictures like you could possibly take, it might be possible you could take off that base and then take off the built-up panels, expose the interior, repair the structural posts, put those panels back, scrape them, paint them, and then put the ASIC on the base where it's touching. That's the goal. which I would be totally comfortable with, I mean, not having seen it, but I just want to kind of be, I guess, clear and understand that it's not kind of like, I don't think that we're able to say that because we like this and, you know, this profile and the base and stuff, then you kind of, I don't think we can just say, is X an acceptable material? Go as far as you need to. You know what I mean? I think you'd have to come back or say it like that.

Well, I guess the, I've got to have the latitude to save the patient or put it out of its misery.

So I would recommend that we approve the ASEC for the bottom flat stock and the cap piece. And then, which gives you 10, almost 12 inches, really. Because I believe it was a two, almost a two-inch cap. I think so. The cap piece was almost two inches. And it is an eight or 10-inch piece. So, you know, that gets you a foot off the ground of synthetic material. And then if there's something above that, it gets replaced in wood.

Yeah, well, that would be... I'm not a carpenter. I'm not a pro. So to me... with another piece of material. So you're gonna have the old solid part, then you're gonna have a little chunk of real wood just to avoid Azac, and then you're gonna have the Azac, and this is all facade material. It's gonna be harder to paint, I don't know, from my bad painting experience, we're gonna have blend lines, and it's gonna show and look different where you have those, whenever you've got two pieces meeting, there's always a chance that they'll expand and contract at different rates and so on and so forth. I think this is either a good faith effort, you gotta believe we want what is best for it, and I'm not trying to go any higher. Again, I think the higher I go, I think the more it's gonna cost us, so that's not in our interest economically. We want it to look good, but if you don't have faith in that, then I really, my wife would prefer it's gone.

I just don't mean looking at it, and again, I wasn't there, so I could be... You're welcome to come out. ...misunderstanding it, but I don't see another point above the base molding until you get to the crown where you would stop, where you would join two materials. It almost looks to me like you go up 10 inches with what you've shown here, or you take it all the way up to the... don't see any other breaks third now I would agree with what John said I think is the best probably that we can that I would be comfortable doing the same you know go for it with this and then if you know come back and if it's not gonna work you know or you take it apart and discover something new then you know we'd have to

what a little better what is what what the extent of the replacement is needed yeah that's I'm really you know getting contractors to come out and stay out and get a job done and taking them putting them on a job but getting their equipment set up doing whatever and then coming back and saying oh I'm going to delay this project for another investigation is going to make it cost prohibitive How much do you think I should spend on this? Do I have to spend $15,000? Do I have to spend $20,000 or something like that? We're retired. And there's not going to be an ROI on this. I can tell you that. I call the house the money pit. And our investments in it so far will... not be making large capital gains on it when we sell it this is going to be the dollars we lose uh i can look at every time i go out there it's going to cost me i'm going to sit down and get out a couple hundred dollar bills for the amount of time we use it literally i mean it's just not used we don't have a need for we've got a deck out back that we use regularly so it is we You know, I don't know that I can be comfortable, and my wife will be comfortable with being handcuffed, being like, okay, we've got to delay the contractor, inflate the cost of this whole project, and whatever, and nobody's going to give me a fixed bid when it's exploratory surgery.

And I have to tell you, that is the disadvantage to owning a historic landmark.

Well, can't we just take it down then? No, it's a historic landmark. it's gonna fall down on its own. You're gonna compel me to have to spend $30,000 or something to fix this?

The cost can be considered in decisions, but we don't know that cost.

But I'd have to enter into a contract where I'm gonna be liable for the cost that if they inflate, and then I've got sunk costs, I don't find that's acceptable. I'm sorry. I think we're this close on the mines, and we're all guessing. And it's because it's a mystery what's hidden there. And if I start taking it down, it's going to fall down. And, you know, I mean, we all want the least amount done on the bottom, have some of it protected by ASAC so it repels the weather. I don't have a desire to go all the way up, but it may be the best solution. It also, for all I know, could turn out to be the most cost effective one. But those are all things out of my control, but I just can't get into an open-ended cost plus contract that's gonna expose my wife and I to $20,000, $30,000 worth of damage for something that, like I said, for every use and, yeah.

But we can approve an ASEC base and then any additional replacement needs to, above that, needs to be in wood. I guess I don't understand why that's a problem.

That's fine. Generally, I'm fine with that, then. If that's what you're saying, it's going to be, I don't know that's going to be the wisest solution. Like I said, I see that being more your problem that you're pointing, Mr. Brown, that there's no material changes, so we're going to add another layer of transition in there. instead of one from the base but you know i i would be okay with approving an added piece of trim that you know is that like the railing line so that way you have at least up to there yeah i'm comfortable that we will be below the railing line you can put a break in it with another piece of trim going around right around it that's i've thought of that yeah that i would do i would be okay with that You gotta get an outside shot a little bit more. There you go.

Right where the yellow caution tape is, you could trim in two pieces. Mr. Brown, if we allowed a trim piece there at the rail line, and that way it gives them that three feet.

And the reality is, to me, ASAC is not the greatest support material. I have a belief that it will be wood that will be facaded with ASAC to protect it. For the bottom parts. So the wood may actually go, even if it's only 15 inches or 18 inches, it'll be a piece of wood. And then the ASAC will be a facade piece over in front of it.

ASAC is trim.

Yeah.

At grade.

Yeah. That's the goal. So, I mean, I think we're on the same page.

But I think that would give you. some room to stop if you needed to at the base or if you needed to continue up to a predefined stopping point. But I just don't think there's a kind of mechanism for the board to just kind of

not provide a defined scope of what the work is for something like this if as long as it's and it's not an issue as long as it's a reasonable probability of height that i have to work with like i said i just don't want to be if it goes if it's a 16 inch or an 18 inch and then i have to go 19 inches it's not a gamble i want to take let's allow a piece of trim let's allow a trim

similar to the molding that he's proposed for the calf. And that way he has a place that he can split material.

So we're saying that ASAC on the base, and then if he needs to replace wood, go up as far as the rail line and put a piece of trim there to... So it would still be wood from after the base?

It'll be old wood from the railing line up at worst case scenario.

But then below the railing line to the...

It's going to be wood till it's wood facaded with ASAC.

Wood and then the ASAC goes on the bottom is the bottom cap.

Yeah, just the bottom cap.

Yeah, the bottom cap.

But between the rail line and the cap, it would be wood?

Yes.

Okay. I want to be clear. Okay.

I'm just trying to figure who's going to make the motion. Because I don't want it to be me.

Okay. All right. I move to approve the use of AZEC with the molding mimicking what's there. I think that inside, that interior one was the most likely being controlled. Yeah. Do I need to give a number or something? Anyway, the shingle mold AZEC. So the base would replicate the most original molding, and then above that, if it was necessary, and it needed wood replacement on the actual post, that would be wood above that up to the rail line, and you could trim to cover the seam line. Does that make sense? Okay, I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay.

Thank you, I truly appreciate the discussion and thanks for the approval.

This is 26-7386761 Pheasants Ridge and this is an addition.

Okay, just a brief project background here. Staff knows this application was heard at the June 24th meeting. At the meeting, the board requested additional design options be studied to lessen the overall impact of the proposed addition in relation to the primary structure. Staff knows the applicant has submitted a revised site plan and elevations to accurately depict the existing garage structure. The applicants can speak more to that this evening. There was a discrepancy with the site plan and the actual protrusion of the existing garage in relation to the main mass. And additionally, just the comment states, section four of the architectural design standards state that the front face of the main body must sit forward at least 18 inches from the front face of the wings. Staff knows the existing wing sits forward of the main mass. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Hi, Bridget Tipton, architect for the owner. Many of you were at the last meeting, I was not. Bill Gotts kindly covered for me while I was on vacation, so if I could kind of rehash a little bit, there's some clarity in context that I think is relevant. The video of that last meeting wasn't posted before the deadline for this resubmission, but I have watched it since, so I can kind of address some of the ideas that were brought up at that meeting that I wasn't able to be at, and also some of the rationale for why those weren't reflected in the first design. So just some project context. This home sits extremely far back from the road. So when we're talking about anything that relates maybe to like neighborhood character or anything like that, it's not visible from any roadway or any other house. And so one of the items that the homeowner asked me to bring up is that as you kind of approach this home, truly the only people who encounter it are people who are coming to the house. The discrepancy that staff remarked on, the key plan was correct, but the site plan was not for the previous submission. The key plan was really small, and it had a lot more detail, and the site plan, we did not do a survey because we were not changing the footprint, so we kind of did a diagrammatic site plan to show that, and that was, it lacked some of the accuracy that was necessary, but the key plan has it. And in the new set, the key plan is much bigger, so we can see. But the main body of the house to the hyphen is 11 and a half brick lengths and the garage body to the hyphen is 12 and a half brick widths. So while the garage does not sit back from the main house, it does only protrude one brick. So it's different than what the site plan showed, which was a much more dramatic not meeting the code. So we do have that depth difference with that hyphen and connector piece between the two masses that we're talking about. A couple other kind of like context things that are not obvious. Well, this part is. This is over a garage. So I know that one of the comments that got a lot of discussion at the last meeting was about setting back the front or side facades or both. One of the challenges of that, you can kind of see that with this addition, we are impeding on one of the usable garage bays because we are adding a staircase up. if we had to step back that front facade, I think that that clear span would have to go. And so we would have a post in the only usable parking space left in that garage, which would not be desirable, of course, because we do very much want to maintain This house is brick, and so we do want to maintain that. So to be able to have a brick wall suspended over a parking bay, we're going to need a mid-span support more than likely, or a really oversized structural beam that could also impinge on maybe head height of a larger vehicle and things like that. So that's one reason why that was not considered nor taken into account here for today. Just the usability of that garage is pretty important. They're looking to add extra space, but they can't give up the usefulness of the entire garage in the process. So on A2 and the resubmission packet, I outlined a lot of characteristic details according to the style of the home. Some of this I did, to be honest, intuitively, like the original proposal was simple. meeting the client's objectives, what was structurally feasible and complementing and really continuing as many style elements of the home onto this addition. And so in post rationalizing it according to the historic style of a Georgian home, they traditionally develop in this way, with this kind of sprawling estate style, where it could be large mass hyphen large mass. I know that the Hudson standards say that this has to be subordinate, but in a Georgian style, it typically wouldn't, or it wouldn't necessarily have to be. So some of the comments at the last meeting when I watched the video, we would absolutely be open to reducing the slope of the pitch of the roof on this addition. Again, so much of the work I've done here has been about consistency, both on this project and all the other ones I've come here for. So trying not to shake things up at all and make things exactly the same as much as possible has kind of been what has worked in the past. So that is what I tried here. So even with the roof pitch. The owner definitely wanted me to mention that they're willing to invest a great deal in the landscaping So of course the black and white line drawing Shows that as looking pretty prominent, but they have really mature landscaping that they would They want to make sure you know that they would be open to softening that to whatever degree You would like it like to see so even the image and that The AI image of the addition shows how much mature landscaping they already have, which again reads very differently than that flat black and white drawing which I provided. One more piece of context, sorry. The garage bearing height is something that we're trying to maintain. It is quite high, so there is a little bit of room in the project to bring that down potentially. Structurally, it gets a little bit messy, but that is one of the reasons that this addition is so tall or that that second floor fits on top of the existing bearing height of the garage as it is now. And then the last, which I do know was mentioned at the last meeting, we're trying really hard not to have a clumsy detail at the ridge of the hyphen. So keeping this facade or the soffit and garage or gutter Higher than that Ridge allows the dental molding to be clean that that distinct massing the box approach is Stylistically aligned with a Georgian like sprawling estate style home So I know we could we've talked about maybe lowering that Eve height and it would pretty much automatically guarantee that there's part of that hyphen ridge roof that's laying down partially over some gutters, and the dental molding. And that was what we were working to avoid, just so it looked intentional, pure, true to style, clean, like that box massing is typical of the Georgian style. I think that's all for now. But there's a lot of context that was into it that, of course, Bill Gotts, the contractor, didn't have, but he was trying to do us all a favor by attending in my place.

So you've been at the last meeting. Really, my issue with it was that it was, I think, five, according to the plan. Yeah, the bad drawing. It was five or six feet forward of the main mass, which then, when you put a second story on it, accentuates the fact that it's really proud of the main mass. The fact that it's only like eight inches proud is a world of difference. So I'm actually fine with it as is. I talked too long. Sorry. Mr. Brown.

I don't think I have anything else. I wasn't at the last meeting either, so I was just kind of.

Yeah, a lot of the discussion was around the fact that it was portrayed to be, was it five feet or six feet?

I would have to double check, but it was definitely a substantial talking point.

Much more than a brick.

Yes. Much more than a brick. It is fairly schematic here, the drawings and the renderings and everything, but in terms of detail, like the dental moldings, the windows, the... I mean, everything's the same. Yeah, so... To match the existing house.

Yes, and that is where, like, if we've... I was prepared to make all kinds of concessions, but one of... I would like them all to be consistent, yes. That is the short answer. But if we felt that a lower level of detail indicated that this is subordinate, I'd be open to talking about what you would like to see. But in general, like, I think consistency is what we'd like to see here, usually. Okay. So the AI image has a ton more detail. It has the keystone, the shutters, the dental molding, the coins all the way to the top, like all that stuff. So yeah, it would, I would like it to feel, the owner was like, you just sent me a picture of my house. I don't understand what you're showing me. I said, no, it has the edition on it. And they're like, oh, right. It looks great. Okay, thanks.

But the wing as it is has the same detailing.

It does already, yes. Yeah, those garage windows have the keystone and the dental molding.

So I don't think there's a, it makes no sense to me to then kind of impose like a requirement to reduce the level of detail from what's there now. I don't see why.

Well, I think at the last meeting, the subordinate thought was really more around the fact that it was so proud of the front of the house, of the front of the main mass, that you're now creating this focal point that's a two-story garage, basically. That was the concern. But it's the drawing error. It's not nearly as far forward as it was portrayed.

reality is better than the bad drawing that you got yeah which is great and especially too with the way that the hyphen drops back you it's a lot harder to see that it is forward because you get that big you know that multiple feet relief between the two masses because the height is what was the it's quite a bit lower a couple feet at least lower

See the line. I don't see it.

Yeah, it's, I would say, about two feet, but I don't have it dimensioned. That top left elevation on page A4 shows the height of the existing hip. Because it's a more narrow proportion, it can't rise higher. And if, like, we could even bring that slope down as low as possible, like... three or four to 12, because we do want the shingle roof because we want it to match. We could get that as low as possible just so it truly is subordinate. But really getting that eave height to be the same to avoid that really messy detail at the ridge is really what set the height of the whole thing. But even as it's drawn, it is lower.

Yeah, I see what you mean about if you lowered it, it would go into the roofing area of the hyphen section.

It's not my favorite. We would do it, but that's what we're working to avoid.

When you call that out, you can see it's pretty close and it will look a little tight. And I don't think you mentioned it, but I know we talked about, I think it was a suggestion on me, of adding a dormer in the hyphen to kind of blend them together and make some sort of future.

I did hear that on the video. One of the, what I found when kind of post-rationalizing this design, that to see a distinct design elements across the different portions is typical in Georgian and to have the dormers be on the main mass further reinforces that that is the predominant form and to kind of carry over some of the dormers starts to put those in equal hierarchy to the main mass rather than allowing that to be distinctive. And then that hyphen portion in particular, that is not a vaulted ceiling or anything. So that would be decorative only to the exterior. It wouldn't actually allow light into the space. It's a completely finished, it's their kitchen and it's not a raised ceiling. So if we needed to do it, we could, but it would not necessarily lend benefit to their interior use or things like that. Yeah.

I understand your rationale and now that we know that it's not proud of the main, I think I'm fine with it as is. I move to, did you have more?

One quick one. On the back, on the first floor of the window, so there's a bathroom all the way in the corner, like a powder room, but then I'm not sure what the interior use is for the other, kind of the space outside the powder room that has kind of like a stem wall coming out, but I'm just wondering, you know, that one, does that meet the 12-foot, like that window that's kind of, it's just the one window centered below the two.

and rather than yeah so that is all existing space that little um kind of like interior space to the garage is already complete that isn't part of the project that's true that's all existing where the location of that window and the door is existing is all existing second floor is what they're so they put two windows up there so you're not rearranging anything no it's their laundry it's relatively recently updated but i didn't do that work Yeah, it's already there.

Just for the record, I was able to scale it. It's 11 feet approximately. It's close. Yeah, the fenestration expands.

Yeah, but is it on the existing first floor elevation? It is. It is existing.

And two, I know we are looking just like at the elevation, but there's like a pergola and whatever. It's not part of this project. It already complies. I'll stop talking.

Okay, so I think you were going to make a motion.

Yeah. I move to approve as revised and stated on the question of now not being proud of an error or mistake on the earlier site plan.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you.

Thanks, sorry I gave you a bad drawing. I'll do it again.

26-656-5248 Preserve Lane. And this is a new home.

Yes, I can give a brief project orientation. Staff notes this application was heard at the June 24th meeting. Staff notes the applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration depicting a revised front elevation and roof line. Comment C is administrative. Comment D, question the proposed rear gable roofs as the main mass is a hip roof. The board had some discussion on this last time, but the comment still remains. And additionally, comment E suggests revising the rear elevation to incorporate additional architectural detail to be applied in the proposed rear gables to better meet the fenestration requirement. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

State your name.

Tony Lenardi with LDA Builders.

So yeah, you changed the front.

Yeah, we changed the front, eliminating the three smaller peaks and just putting like a large hip coming out. We made the front porch larger, so the front porch goes all the way across that center section now where before it was just in the middle. So we made that wider, added two more columns, and then, like I said, changed. Change the three small peaks to a big hip and then put that dorm around there with the windows in order because it's a One large hip reverse hip whatever you want to call it We had a decrease the pitch of the roof a little bit to get that so that it's below the main roof And then we actually had to increase the front to back Roof pitch to make it a little higher so the roof pitches did change and That's about it, though. That center part where the porch is now is raised up a foot higher than the main body of the house, and then it comes out five feet in front of the main body. I think that's about it. It's been a while since...

You lowered the stone in the front, which I appreciate.

Yeah, we eliminated that stone on the front.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, and then we just have the batten board siding on that center section, which returns into the inside corners on both sides, and then the whole dormer would be also covered with the board and batten siding.

Mr. Brown, do you have any questions or comments?

No, I mean, it's the reason that the... Staff's comment about the gables in the back rather than hips, is that just to accommodate the cathedral ceiling?

Well, it's to accommodate a cathedral ceiling in that screened-in porch back there. That's why that's a gable. The garage, I guess technically that could be a hip roof. There's no reason why we really did that.

We have generally been on, again, the code states that the roof should all match in shape and that. On the rear of the home, we have been a little more lax on that because sometimes the gable just actually makes more sense than a hip. And again, yeah, with a cathedral ceiling, obviously you'd be really tough.

No, it makes perfect sense to me where the porch is, for sure. I mean, the garage, it seems like it could

either way it doesn't serve a purpose although i don't have any huge objection to it being i'd just rather see something in the gable just to you know like a yeah something in the gable yeah i had vents in there in the last drawing i did um when i decreased the roof pitch it made the peaks a little smaller so i didn't think you know there was quite as much siding there i didn't know if it was really necessary to have those up there or not but i

I just think especially with the garage one where you have one window, I just think having a little treatment in that gable just breaks that up a little bit.

Was the comment specific to the gable, the staff comment?

Yes.

Okay. Because otherwise it's what, about 11 feet on each side, is that right?

It's close, but it meets.

Okay.

yeah so yeah we can add something in the peak there and i don't know if you would do both peaks or just the one in the garage you do both just to keep consistency probably yeah yeah uh other than that comment no i don't think everything else

Yeah, I appreciate the adjustments revising the issues in the front and I do agree about the vent in the two gables in the rear and I think that was all. Okay. I move to approve the submission with the revisions and with the exception to add gable fencing in both gables of the rear area. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

That is all for old business. First on new business is 26-120-5840 Darrow Road, and this is a sign.

okay yes uh this is for a wall sign um at 5840 darrow road section five the architectural design standards state that signs should be fabricated on on and materials that are permanent quality good durability and are complementary to the building of which they become a part just one staff comment for you here question if the proposed aluminum composite wall sign material is compatible with the surrounding signs and additionally to suggest raised lettering to complement the existing signs within that plaza. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Thank you.

Can you state your name in relationship to the application?

I'm Melissa Frontino. I'm the owner of Sculpt House.

Did you get a chance to go over the staff comments?

Yes.

Okay. Address those.

Well, I think the biggest thing from what I read and to understand was the raised lettering on the signage. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes. Okay. So I would agree my preference would be to do raised lettering on the signage. However, the budget of that is kind of prohibiting me from making that decision at this point. The signage at that size with raised lettering would be around $5,000. So the reason I went with a flatter image was because it was around 600, fitting the budget that I have at this time, like opening the business. But the signage itself does mirror the material of all the rest of the signs. The only difference is the lettering not being raised. And I utilize the same sign material and company that Lucia's on Main Street and Uptown and Downtown 140 use. So I've seen them in person, like the qualities there. I obviously don't want to use something that's like janky either. I want my business to do well and look well. So that was really the reasoning behind the lettering was a financial restraint at this time.

Does this have a sign plan?

It does have a sign plan.

The same thing doesn't require raised lettering, correct?

It does not.

Okay. Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

It's two feet. Is that the same? It's the same height as the other side. Yeah.

And actually the signage, you can tell where the old, it was a pizza hut, I believe right before me, but you can tell where the old signage was. So we just mirrored the exact like location of where this, the sign was not up when I took over the location, but you can tell where it was and that's the measurement light.

Are you keeping those two lights?

I am open to whatever the board would require there. I don't know that they actually will be working. So they are there. They can be taken down. They can be left up. I have no personal preference on that. So if there's any preference there, I'm happy to keep them or I'm happy to take them down.

The only reason I ask is it looks, I mean, without getting up there with the tape measure, it looks like they would be. It depends on where they mount. Like, if all the signs, like, align.

Like, none of the other signs have that. So it is, like, a bit odd, in my opinion.

It would be lower than the other signs.

Yeah, it would sit... It actually looks like, from our measurements and, like, renders, it sits, like, kind of, like, right under flush with those lights because there's a bit of a lip where the light sits on. So, again, if I were to take those lights out, I guess my request would be that we could go a little taller with the sign to cover that gap where the, you know... possibly, I would say, maybe a half of a, it'd be probably 2.5 versus the two feet. They're not very large lights.

It looks like the salon to the left has a larger sign.

Yeah, it's a bit taller because they don't have the lights.

Signed to your right, the health care.

Yeah, it's a PT office.

Or maybe it's just mounted low. I mean, I guess all that is to say I think your sign looks fine, and it's in the ballpark of the other signs, and the other signs don't even look like they perfectly align. I mean, it would be something that I think we would kind of recommend is that, you know, you try to line up maybe the top with the other signs, and if those lights are in the way. I have no issue with that.

I don't have any further questions or comments.

I think that the lighting, I think Pizza Hut must have been the anchor of this strip here. And that's why they got the gable and the lights. I guess it's up to the property owner if they would allow you to take them out. If you want to do that, I don't know. But it's still, as long as it doesn't block the signage, it's probably better just to leave them. But depending on how it would illuminate your sign positively or negatively, you'll have to kind of take that into consideration. But as far as the sign itself, I'm okay with what you proposed. Okay. I move to approve the proposed signage as presented.

Second.

I think we have a second from Mr. Brown. All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate you.

26-545-6754 Stowe Road, and this is a vinyl fence.

Okay, this is for a four-foot vinyl fence along the southern property line and along the front property line. Just one staff comment for you here. Section three of the architectural design standards state that fence height and material shall be compatible with their site location and surrounding development. Fences in the front yard shall be more formal in design and lower in height when sited close to the street or sidewalk. Staff does note that the rail fence is proposed along the front property line. However, the property is approximately four acres and would be similar in design to the neighboring fence and Other multiple fences within this neighborhood. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name relationship to the application.

Hi, I'm Jason Cope. I reside there. It's our family house.

So Mr. Brown, any issues with the. 4 foot vinyl fence. It's a pretty typical fence that we see.

Yeah, I only have 1 question on the. It's 3 rails, 4 feet. Yes. But in one of the pictures, it says proposed fence six inches from property line with four, not three rails.

We decided to go with three rails because the neighbor has three rails and because cramming four rails into 48 inches. Initially, we wanted to go 60. We weren't aware of the 48 inches. It's all going to be three rails. It's all going to be three rails all across, so match our neighbors perfectly to the north.

So that is essentially a relic or a typo or whatever. Yeah. The fence is all the same. That was my only question.

Swinsky?

I don't have anything.

Okay.

Ms. Marzullo?

Thanks for making that clarity on that. I'm fine with the three rail. I move to approve as presented as a three rail vinyl.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. Thanks. Have a good night, everybody. 26-74015 Baldwin Street. This is door replacement in the historic district.

Yes, this is for three doors to be replaced within the historic district. I apologize, I thought we had a site plan included within this packet for you guys here.

There were pictures of all the existing windows and doors submitted. I'm Dennis Petroski with Gunton Pella Corporation.

Yes, I can find that for you guys. I can bring it up on the screen. But this is for three existing doors to be replaced. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Appendix one of the interior rehabilitation states that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Additionally, verify the existing door material and verify the like for like replacement.

Stick your name and relationship to the application.

Dennis Petroski, Gunton Pella Corp. We're the contractor involved with the homeowner.

So what are the current doors that are there?

The door, there is one door existing that is a Pella door circa 1988. It is an in-swing double door. We're going to replace that with the 2026 version of same. There are two sliding glass doors, one that faces the south side, which would face the street, but it is significantly back and obscured from the street. It is a two-panel door. sliding glass door with no grids in it it was once a brown exterior we're going to replace that like for like and then on the west wall adjacent by the corner to that one is a little bit wider same door aluminum clad exterior formerly brown that is now faded with aluminum clad exterior no grids in the glass On the double in-swing French door, there are grid pattern. We're going to match that like for like.

Mr. Brown, do you have questions or comments? All the trim will remain.

We're going to replace the exterior cedar trim with like cedar trim, rough sawn, painted to match.

For all three?

Yes.

Mr. Insky?

Any questions for me?

yeah I drove past and I could see it's not obscured that side one that faces south you can see it okay immediately but I don't know when that was approved or what it's a shame that it's not doesn't have at least a simulated light and not a slider I don't know it's a shame that everything else looks appropriate for that

Well, that door has been there for at least three decades based on the aesthetics of it.

But it's not obscured. I mean, if you want to plant something there that you think is obscured, but I saw it just as driving by. So that's my only disappointment. It's too bad.

I'll move to approve the doors being replaced for like-for-like materials. Okay.

Do we have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. This is 26-5, 3133 Middleton Road, and this is a detached garage.

I guess I can give a brief staff update while this packet loads. Yes, this is for a detached accessory structure at 3133 Middleton Road. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that all facades, including the rear over 12 feet long, shall have at least one window or door opening. And staff's comment was to suggest additional fenestration on the rear elevation to better meet this requirement. Additionally, to question the proposed slider windows and how they relate to the existing house. Comment C was to verify that the proposed garage will not be any taller than the existing house. D is to verify the proposed foundation material and if it would match the existing house. E, verify the proposed size of the treated wood posts and if they would be wrapped in any additional material. And as well as verify the proposed shingles would match the existing house. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

State your name in relationship to the application.

Gary Cox. I'm the owner. My contractor couldn't be here, so I'm going to do my best.

You get to wing it, huh?

I get to wing it.

All right.

I did go on the chat GPT. I tried to do an AI drawing to kind of give you a better look at what I'm trying to get at with my house. So my house, I don't know if you want to see this. It's not the scale, and it cut me off before I could get the windows and doors quite right.

Make sure if you want to, yeah, we can pass it along here.

OK, so just go through the questions first here. The facade on the back of the garage already has two windows on it. If you needed more windows, I could add it. But my house is kind of set back from the road. And where the garage is, it's kind of back in the woods. And behind that is 480. I live right off the highway there. Like I said, there's two windows to it, so I'm not sure how many windows is required.

The general on the windows is every 12 feet.

Every 12 feet?

Yeah. Okay.

I was just trying to save some money on this. So is that something that you would require? We're discussing. Okay. Let's see. The horizontal sliding windows, that was actually a mistake. They should have been vertical to match the house. They're going to be the white vinyl to match on that. The garage will not be taller than the house. It will be either the same size or a little bit smaller. The contractor, I went over it with him, and he verified everything with us. Let's see. As far as the foundation... They said there should only be about four to five inches of concrete showing on it. My house has cinder block on it. If required, I could stencil something on it. But it's going to go, you know, the exposed concrete is only going to be up four or five inches. Let's see here. And the posts on the side, they will be six by six treated posts, and I'm going to wrap them in cedar to kind of help match the front of my house to tie that together. And the shingles on the house is going to be the same dimensional shingles, exact ones I have in my current house.

You hit all the staff comments there, so we can run through and talk about the... Windows on the backside, any other comments? So Mr. Brown, do you have any questions or comments? Your thoughts on the backside with just two windows?

I would imagine if the question would be the distance between them.

I mean. Is that the?

I don't know what that actually comes to.

Do we have any idea?

How close they are?

How big is the total? It was 38 feet, I believe.

Was it 48 on one side and 24 on the other?

Because it looks like it's about 12 feet between them now. Yeah, they were just the standard. I'm just misreading the... It's close. Yeah, it's really close. It's close. So, I mean... I don't have a huge problem with it, but if it's a matter of... slide them together. There's no, we don't have a plan, but it's garage in there, right? So it doesn't affect, there's not like a wall or a bathroom or some reason that they can't be six inches closer to meet the code.

It's 12 foot eight. It's 12 foot eight?

Very, very close. I think that's close enough. Yeah. Without having to move it.

The trucker on 480 is not going to know it.

Is the side, that one visibly looks more, but I don't know if it is. Because... Or I can scale it real quick. Just give me one second. The one below it, or no, the first.

Yeah, it's actually the one below what you have up. That one, which is the side that faces 480, I believe.

No, sorry.

Well, it's one up. The first one.

There you go. Yeah.

Right, that's the side that faces 480?

Is that the 480?

I think, based on the site plan, it looked like it.

That's not the back of the house. That is the back of the house right there, or the garage. The porch will run down the side of Middleton.

That was closer to 15 or 16 feet, maybe.

Can those be adjusted to be a little closer together so there's a little less wall space there? Mm-hmm.

1510 on that one. Okay.

Yeah, if you can adjust that a little bit, I think.

On the back side of it?

Yeah, just bring them in like a foot each. I mean, I can add another one if it's just, I mean, no one's really going to see it. It's facing 480. It's literally the side overlooking 480.

Yeah, I'm just not sure whether I'm saying rear or what is it?

Oh, it would be, would that be the west side?

That would be the rear facing 480 right there.

so that's where this side is what we're looking at because middleton really runs east and west that'll be the west side yeah it would be the west side because the new gravel driveway is on the east side of it well i'm assuming yeah north is up so we're going to pull in the windows on the west so yeah i i i have another question unrelated that porch or the the kind of where where it come the front view i mean i can see that the doors the garage doors match the you know the overhead doors match the overhead not 100 sure what clear what's happening with the little gable roof over the kind of man door and the side there it looks like it's like the gable is partly filled in um it just doesn't look like the drawing is fully developed as to what exactly it's going to be there i was working with my contractor

Our house is mid-century, so I was trying to tie it into like a mid-century gable, maybe use some cedar. So, yeah, that is not correct right there. Because there would be some beams and some trim.

Is this more accurate or the drawing more accurate?

That's probably more accurate right there. Yeah, I'm trying to do something with that, and that's kind of where we're landing on with the cedar part of it.

And when you say the cedar, it looks like the garage has a different – On your house, there's a different siding material.

It's cedar.

That's the cedar you mean? So that would be kind of an accent material around that little covered porch?

Yeah, I was just trying to tie it in to match the garage to the house.

I don't have any other real comment other than it looks like an early version that hasn't been fully resolved yet. So I'm not sure how...

So this is more of what? That's more of what we're trying to get at here.

In terms of an approval, I don't know what we can say. We can attach this with it. Approve based on rendering? Some kind of detailed trust work or something.

Yeah.

Okay. That was really my only other.

I think I addressed all my questions during his time.

Yeah, because I think my only question was actually about that gable, because it wasn't centered on the door. But then in your rendering here, it looks like it is. Yeah, that was just because it was kind of odd that it was left over the door center. Yeah. Normally, it would be centered over the door. Yeah, that's what it needs to be centered on. Okay, okay. So we're going to do that. That was my only. So, Ms. Marzullo, do you have anything?

Yeah, that was the same thing. So you need to revise your drawings when you submit.

Okay. Okay. yeah you work with staff for getting here we'll pass these down so that you have so yeah I think you have a motion that has that on the west side we're gonna pull the windows in a little bit the posts are gonna be wrapped in cedar the windows are going to match the windows on the house and the gable above the the front door is gonna be centered on the door and worked with the timber look I guess we call it okay Yes, you said the height was at or below. Okay. It was not going to be above.

okay I will move to approve with the following conditions we're going to have the porch match the rendering versus the drawing the windows will be vertical to match the house we'll be moving the fenestration the windows on the back to Inward so that they'll meet the fenestration requirements. And is there anything else?

Wrap the post and cedar.

Wrap the post and cedar to match the house. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. This next is 26-358-2933 Hudson Road, and this is an accessory structure.

Yes, this is a proposal for a detached garage at 2933 Hudson Aurora Road. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section three of the architectural design standard state that includes accessory building shall incorporate some elements similar to the main body. I question how the proposed window type and metal awning, how they would relate to the main mass. Section three of the architectural design standard state that all facades including the rear over 12 feet shall have at least one window or a door opening to suggest additional fenestration on the left, right, and rear elevations to better meet this requirement. Comment C was to verify the proposed garage will not be taller than the existing home and to verify the proposed foundational material and if it would match the existing house. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

How are we doing folks here with Platinum Garages and Electrical? My name is Joe Lumpkin. So as far as what we've got here, Mr. Santoli does not have a garage. He's looking to add one to the home. One of the main concerns that we knew that was going to be brought to attention and Mr. Santoli is aware is the absent window in the design. He is willing and going to be adding another window to that side. Now, in terms of location, that's one of the things that are kind of up in the air right now. There will be the man door, but this is a 32 deep garage. So he's really open to where that would go to give you guys what you would want for the approval. Now, one other thing that's in question is the awning that's over the garage right now on the bay window on the home. He has a standing seam roof and he kind of wants to tie in that roof kind of with the home. As far as the overall Eve height, it is a 10 foot ceilings going in with the 412 pitch, which will keep you guys underneath 15 feet. The home is relative as far as the Eve height is right around the same height. So they should sit within a foot of each other. I believe that we're actually going to be a little bit lower than what the house currently is. Outside of that, let's see. I think that pretty much obviously siding is going to match the home. So we're going in with a white clapboard roof to match as well the black asphalt roof.

Okay, so real quick on the left elevation. So the standard really is not more than 12 feet. Right.

doesn't matter where the window goes right as long as you keep it within that 12 feet sure sure and now i guess uh is that's in terms of from the door to the corner so somewhere in between counts as kind of a window okay right so penetration perfect so i mean we do have the space and he's open to it i think we may have the photo in there where they wrote it out on graph paper So he's definitely open to the location as long as it meets up with the requirements.

And then as far as the height, the height does need to be, it can't be about less. Right, right. I believe it's less. It needs to be lower. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I know that was something that they spoke about previously. If you look at the front elevation of the home, their eaves are actually relatively large. I'm sorry, the ceiling height, especially if you're looking at the truck that's right next to it. Now, there's also a couple of courses of block going in to tie in the bottom side of the home as well. And majority of the windows are actually four foot wide. So even though there's only going to be two, they're relatively large as well.

Mr. Brown, do you have any questions or comments?

No. I mean, I think that... I guess my only comment would be the wide sliders versus the double longs on the house. I appreciate the siding's the same and the standing seam roof over the doors that matches the bay window there.

I think the goal in that was to not have too many windows, right, because if we're 24 inches wide, well, now we're probably dealing with twice as many windows to be able to meet up with space. But also, if you look at one of these side pictures of the home, the majority of the houses, they do have sliders, but it's just the ones on the front that are the double hung.

This is the proportions of them, the squat and wide sliders. I understand. So I don't know. I mean, I guess the way I read the code is that the accessory structures are supposed to incorporate some of the characteristics. Every element does not have to be a perfect match. Correct.

It does not have to be matching. It's just that we have something that ties the two together that they at least somewhat complement each other.

The siding and the roofing does that, I guess, even though they're not my favorite windows.

Swinski?

Windows were my only comment as well.

Ms. Arzula?

This is really more of a curiosity question. The front elevation, what is that angle on the far left?

Oh, let me take a look at the photo. The far left.

What's in there? Is that a storage closet or something? I just don't get it. You mean here?

Oh, you know, I honestly think that's a wall, and it's more decorative than anything. You walk around the backside, and it's literally flat. Decorative? Okay. there that's interesting okay yeah is there like a patio there or something uh there must be something because it is a roof space but it's it's a very very small area so i'm not exactly sure what's on the interior not something we normally see it's an atypical design yes it's definitely different atypical okay so i think we're ready for a motion i think everybody's generally okay

Can I just, just verifying, the foundation is going to match? Absolutely. The house, okay. Yes, he did say block.

Okay, thank you.

Was the only thing the additional window then?

Yes.

Okay, so I move to approve as submitted with the addition of a window on the left elevation to meet the fenestration requirement. I second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you. I appreciate you guys. Take her now. So Lauren, how do we handle the next one? Because we don't have quorum.

I think that family just can't. If you miss two, then you just can't go through your audition.

If you don't have quorum, it automatically, no.

Is it automatically approved since it was applied for?

If you don't have quorum, it automatically goes to the next meeting. So there's no, it automatically goes to, no, it automatically gets continued. Because you can't, there's no quorum to move. There's no quorum, yeah. But it automatically, it's in your admin rules. So it'll go to the next meeting.

I thought it was automatic approval.

Slight misunderstanding.

All right. So that is all for new business. Under other business, we have 8765, which is the findings of fact for 26-644, the property on Elm Street.

Yes. Before you, you have the findings of fact that were drafted based off of the board's decision at the last meeting regarding the demolition of the house at 179 Elm Street. Staff does note that Ms. Marzullo pointed out that there was a typo in one of the years listed in here. It says 2016. That's a staff mistake. I apologize. I must have just hit the wrong key. It is 2011, and that has been corrected in the official copy.

And I'm fine with it. Anybody have any issues with the findings of fact? Okay. So if we can have a motion to adopt that or to approve it. Do we adopt it or approve it or whatever?

Approve as amended.

Okay. Okay.

I move to approve as amended of the... Historic Board review findings for fact number case 26-644 at 179 Elm Street for the demolition.

Second.

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. And then the approval of the minutes from June 24th. Can we?

Two of us weren't there.

No, we talked about this. You're allowed to as long as you reviewed them and did not find any, right? That's what the solicitor had said? Yes. Yeah. Because otherwise the one set of minutes we'd never be able to get approved. Yeah, that's right.

Yes, staff does note there was one mistake within the minutes that Ms. Marzulla let staff know about. So that has been changed in the official copy.

To approve as amended.

I move to approve the minutes of June 24th, 2026 as amended.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Ms. Coffin, anything from staff?

I don't have anything for you this evening. Other than we'll be back in our regular meeting space next time. I appreciate everyone's flexibility in the last minute change.

It didn't work out too bad. At least it was a short agenda too.

I wonder, was there a camera on the podium here? Yes. Yep. Because I've seen other meetings here and you hear a voice and there's no talking. Behind your head.

Oh, is it? Yeah, it should have missed. It was all set up by HCTV earlier this afternoon to record the same as it would if it was a town hall.

Anybody else has anything? I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn.

I'll move to adjourn at 9.05 p.m.

We're adjourned.