Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So we can call a meeting to order.

This is the meeting of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review for Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026. Roll call. We do have quorum tonight. We have Mr. Brown, Ms. Srdynski, Ms. Marzullo, and myself. So we do have the required four members for quorum. I would now like to open it 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 close public comment move on to consent applications tonight we have one it is a 2, 6, dash, 9, 4, 0, 3, 5, 6, North Main Street and this is a roof replacement.

To approve the consent application.

Second all in favor by anybody opposed. We do not have quorum for all the business so we will move on to new business. First is 26-917-150 Aurora Street, and this is an accessory structure in the historic district.

Yes, I can give a brief project background here. This is for a detached garage within the historic district. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Staff comment A is a site plan requirement. The applicant did submit a revised site plan depicting the impervious surface area. CALCULATIONS. COMMENT B, SECTION 3 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS STATE THAT INCLUDES ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL INCORPORATE SOME ELEMENTS SIMILAR TO THE MAIN BODY. AND JUST QUESTION THE PROPOSED BORROW PANEL ON THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE MAIN MASS. COMMENT C, SUGGEST REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED REAR DORMER TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE. D THROUGH F WERE TO VERIFY PROPOSED FOUNDATIONAL MATERIAL THAT THE STRUCTURE IS NOT AN ADU AND THE PROPOSED ROOFING MATERIAL IS TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT SOME I can just read them into the record here. Like I said, comment A has been addressed. Comment D, the proposed brick to grade is to match the existing chimney. Comment E, the proposed structure is not an EDU, office and storage space for above and interior recreation and a gym on the first floor next to the garage. As well as comment F, the roofing material is to match the house. The applicant did submit a spec sheet verifying that. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name in relationship to the application.

Eric Kuchak with Sojourn Architects. Architects.

Would you like to address the comments B and C?

Is the BORL panel that's in question above the... So this was proposed as an alternative to the lap siding. There really isn't much of that smooth nickel gap on the existing house. However, it was proposed to break up the texture a bit, but we are fine with it just being the hardy siding. um and then see the head height for reducing the height of the proposed redormer was um i think what we're trying to do in that scenario is gain as much head height as possible um and bring that up to the ridge even and it it it's not really visible from the street um or anywhere around here so in the you know In the area, so I mean, I think what we're trying to do is just gain as much head height in there as possible. Moving it up to the ridge gains that, so I mean, we're at like a seven foot eight wall plate height there. And it would feel much more like usable space.

Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

No, I mean, as far as the nickel gaps, there is some on the main house. I don't feel, I mean, I feel like it's a gable end. And it's second material to accentuate a gable end. It doesn't bother me. Just right there, right in that one triangle with that.

Yeah, that's the only location.

I have no objection to that. I mean, I do think the dormer would look better if it was just down at, I mean, Similar to the main house. Because you have the same dormer, essentially, in the back of the house if it was down from the ridge. And I think that the ceiling right here is higher than the ceiling in the house. It is. I don't know if that's an exception or not. Personally, I think it would read better if it was down a few inches, but I don't know if the code forbids it.

no it's not it doesn't forbid it uh the dormer is allowed to be it can't be above the ridge height but it can be it can be even it's just in context with you know call it the neighborhood is is one of those you know is it you know we intentionally made the house uh reduce it down uh because of that you know thought process but you know it is an accessory structure so

down in the back and is it it it's bull it's the grades lower here right it's below the main house great at this does it slope away from it's well grade does slope but at the front facade where the garage is located it's relatively on plane I don't have like I said I It came down a few inches just to break it, but I wouldn't object.

Can you clarify on that? Because we do allow for a change of material in a dorm or a gable end. Is this the question really just the relation to the main structure? Yes.

Is that what the comment was? Okay. Yes. Yeah, you are allowed for different material in the gable ends, but staff just was calling this out as it is in the historic district just as a point to call out for the staff comment where the boral is on the rest of the house.

Yeah, I'm kind of like where you're at, where I can understand trying to do something a little bit different, but it might just make more sense being in the historic district to continue with the Hardy and that space. And same kind of comment on the dormer. Visually, I think it might look better just a little bit lower, but look at what the code sounds like. So that's all.

Yeah, with the gable and the borehole, I feel it should be the horizontal. I mean, if it was a smaller gable. or just a top part of it or something. But I think it's incongruous with the rest of the building materials on the house in here. So yeah, I would rather see it into the horizontal. And yes, I think that the dormer should come down just like the one in the house did, at least six or eight inches.

i agree uh i think that the dormer should come down at least just below the ridge cap uh and horizontal siding in the end on the gable end i think it's too you know in the dormers i i don't mind the flat panel it's so small there's no point in putting siding there but that's a big enough dormer or you know gable on that end it's that's an awful lot of uh of just flat and you just don't see it anywhere else I just think it's just odd.

As far as the dormer heights, bringing it down, when you said six or eight inches, is that?

I think just below the cap.

Just below the cap? An inch?

Well, the cap should be about three inches down here. Yeah, I guess so. It should be at least three inches, four inches down. Okay. It just brings that ridge. I mean, I know it's slight, but when you're looking at it from the other side, I think that's my opinion. I mean, I don't think it needs to come down a foot, but it just gives it where it's not teeing into that ridge.

I said six to eight inches. I think three inches is too small, but that's...

I mean, I think we are trying to match, I mean, the slopes of the existing gable in the house. I mean, using that as a building block for the design of the garage. And obviously the front door is matching those. And we're kind of limited on what we can do. So, I mean, if it's only four inches down, I think that's doable.

So six turned into four from three.

Well, I said I'd be okay with four. You know, just kind of below the cap. So you see a full ridge cap going across. I think that's enough variation in it. It brings it down, you know, it's slightly, but it just brings...

It's too far up there. Yeah. Visually.

Mr. Brown?

Like I said, I would prefer it. I guess it's just a matter of whether it's something we have to... I don't fully understand the requirement in terms of whether it's something we can require or something we can... I guess because it's the historic district. I mean, it is abnormal, I think, to have a dormer driving right into the main ridge of the house. That would be, if you can, and it doesn't create great hardship, I would, I mean, visually separating them, I think, would be much better. And I did want to ask, just briefly, I assume the forward-facing, street-facing garage doors, if it's a detached, it's fine, right?

Yeah, when it's detached, it's okay. I'm going to make a motion.

So I guess should I clarify? Are we both moving down and adding the Hardy board then to the? As far as the siting goes, yeah.

I mean, I just like to maximize as much head height. So I mean, if it is a four inch drop, then I think we're okay with that.

Okay. So, and you're okay with those changes to move to approve as it? Okay. Is there anything else we need to? i think all the other comments were addressed yeah okay so i'll move to approve as submitted with um reducing the height of the rear dormer um approximately four inches below the ridge line as well as um replacing the borough panel back to a hardy siding second i just want to note for the record just the language i was it would be approved as amended um that is submitted as amended

Okay. And we have a second from Ms. Ursula. Second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you.

So just resubmitting the drawings with those changes back to staff.

Okay. Thank you. 26-919-1405, Hinds Hill Road, and this is an addition.

yes staff notes the board saw this proposal informally at the last meeting this is for an addition of bedrooms bathroom laundry and a two-car garage just some brief staff comments here section four of the architectural design standards state that roofs and all wings must be the same shape as the main body just question the shed roof on the proposed addition as the main mass has a gable roof additionally staff notes that a metal roofing material is proposed while the main mass has a shingled roof Um, and comment B staff notes that portions of the submitted elevations do not depict lap siding just to have the applicant verify that these areas are representative of existing lap siding. That is to remain unchanged. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

State your name in relationship to the application.

Yeah, I'm Joseph from Peninsula architects where the architect on the project.

Do you want to say anything about the staff comments?

Sure, yeah. So there is a gable and across cable and then a small shed roof ports as part of the existing structure. And that is going to be a metal roof. And so that that kind of led us to the lower pitch metal shed roof off the back of the of the structure. So that was a move that let us gain the square footage. without getting a large mass. So that large shed off the back that you can see top right is totally in the back of the structure and allows us to get a lot of function in there for the garage and the bedroom without making the mass larger from the street. So that break pitch could certainly be a dimensional shingle at that pitch, but we just felt like a metal roof kind of fit with the shed at the front of the house on the porch. Same as the shed. Break pitch on the side entry, and it's the bottom left of that picture that you see. So, and then regarding the siding, everything is going to be replaced with. New Cedar siding if it's not. if the existing is in poor shape everything is on the existing structure is going to be placed with cedar siding and then the new structure is all going to be hardy siding of the same exposure of the original structure that addresses those uh items if not i'm happy to just because on the drawing it just it's just blank Right, that's existing to remain and repair, I guess, would be the note.

Yeah, there wasn't a note on it, so it was just a little confusing.

Existing to remain and repair.

Not that it was confusing, we just wanted to make sure. So, Mr. Brown, any questions or comments?

I mean, I agree with what you said, that the addition roofs below the bridge line of the building in front of it. I think a shed is appropriate back there.

I'm okay with it as well, so I don't think I have any concerns.

It's clarified, and I'm fine with it.

Okay. Motion.

I will move to approve as submitted and detailed. Second. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. 26-830-1280, Connecticut Woods Drive, and this is a new home?

Yes, I can give a brief orientation here. This is for a new single family dwelling. You have the staff comments in front of you. Comment A was a site plan just to, or elevation just to verify the grade is accurately depicted on the submitted elevations. Comment B, the land development code states that except for new residential development on lots fronting arterial roads, the front setback shall not differ by more than 10% from the average of the front yard setbacks. Staff notes the proposed home would be an approximate 500-foot setback from the adjacent home, and the adjacent home has a 200-foot setback. However, the board could consider the proposed setback based on the shape and size of the lot. Additionally, staff called out just some design conflicts with the proposed window grid pattern, as well as the transom windows on the left side elevation and how those relate to the main mass. staff notes that a metal roofing material is also proposed. Comment F, section three of the architectural design standards state that large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Staff comment was just a question if additional fenestration is needed on the left side elevation to better meet this requirement, as well as comment G, section three of the architectural design standards state that materials be applied consistently and to revise the elevations to depict a consistent foundational height and water table around the entire mass. comment H is a administrative just to submit the product spec sheets for all proposed exterior materials. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

State your name in relationship to the application, please.

I'm Chris Koblentz, the owner of Koblentz Homes.

Bill Markowski, project manager, Koblentz Homes.

So don't spend a lot of time on item B. Don't spend a lot of time on item B, about the setback. Okay. Don't spend a lot of time? No, that is not one to, we'll talk about it, but it's not something that I think we need to spend time on. But if you can go through the other ones, that would be great.

All right, yeah, well, just quickly on item B, the house to the north is 410 foot off the road. Just scaling it. Ours is a flag lot, so really it starts about 400 feet back. That one. See the standard body of this thread. Rise the window grids. I mean, the customer strongly wants it as it's drawn. But if the board objects, then we can either add them or take them off. Rather, just take them off all of the windows if that's what the board agrees to. It does take away from the character of the house, I think, with taking them off the front. They really have a beautiful lot, 16.8 acres. They have a beautiful view in the back. So I like to keep those windows up, you know. instructions in them. Both the south side and the west side of the house is pretty remote. So yeah, either way, whatever the board. Number D, transom windows on the side of the house. We have a couple on the side. See in other projects that it's pretty common in Hudson. So again, the customer would like to have those side transoms without having full windows. nightstands underneath there, so that's the reason for having them over there. Kind of breaks up that side, too. That's part of your... I think the expansive side on that left, it's between, yeah, right there, from there to that corner, it's 13.3 feet. Again, it's a pretty remote side of the house. We could add a second or a third transom on that side if the board wanted that, but they're fine adding one, but that is a closet, so we don't really want that. All right, item E is the metal roof, is it? Yes, I think even on the last submittal that just walked out here, they were at side. So I see lots of houses in Hudson with metal. roofs throughout and Would be that's what 12-foot expense there was another area on the back of the garage That was I think right borderline. We ended up flipping the laundry room. So You don't have that condition anymore right there and the garage is triple windows on the garage and We revised the plan so that laundry window on the right is about four or more feet closer to the... So it kind of breaks up that side a little nicer than what you see on the plan there. G is the water table, you know, doing what we call chair rail around the front. We are going to wrap it around that left side of the house along the primary bedroom closet bathroom and then return it into the wall. See that side there? We're going to wrap it. Down that side and then return it into that other. That's what.

So the foundation material has to stay level, like water table, all the way around the house. So if you set it at three feet, it's got to be three feet all the way around. So like on this elevation here, like it's, what is it, a foot maybe? But I think the other two sides, it's about three feet, thereabouts, something, you know, 30 inches. So you have to pick a height and get all the way around with it.

So if if we just took that off the 3 foot off of the areas that have it is that appropriate?

Yes, we get has just maintain that height you will you will have an issue on the front elevation here where it goes up with those windows on the right there yet right there. As of a foundation material now that I mean you know you've like just in this you have 3 different levels of what's basically the foundation material.

Yeah, I mean, I brought photos of houses under construction right now that have that condition. And I don't know if they were approved that way or.

You can have it going up a section as long as it ends in the inside corner. It just has to continue in that whole section. So you can have additional stone. For example, if you let the center and it goes in, that could still be all stone.

So that can't be partial stone.

Sorry, our minutes are done off of the recording, so you got to grab a microphone here. You should just have to tap it. Give it a good tap. There it goes.

So we were just going to take, you know, would it be appropriate to take this at three foot and then return it? This is a corner here. If you go to the rear elevation, which is up, you know, it would be this returning into this wall and then jogging down to go to grade stone.

No, so what Mr. Nitzke was saying was when you have a projection in the front, which is probably what you have photos of, you can use it as an accent material on a projection, but you have to apply it consistently around the entire mass. So the foundation material has to be the same height all the way around the mass, and you can do an accent material on a projection, but if you do it on the main mass like it is on the right there, that would be considered part of the main mass. You have to take it all the way around at that height. So...

This is a projection here. We could keep our three foot or plus or minus to the bottom of the windows on just this projection and drop down.

So the foundation has to be the same height all the way around. You can use the stone on a projection going up as an accent material. And it has to end on an inside corner. But if you put it on the main mass, it has to go all the way around the main mass at that height. It becomes your main mass material.

Here, take it.

So this house that's under construction is incorrect?

Yes. OK. No, those are projections. It's ending on the inside corner, and there are two projections. That's not the main mass.

Yeah, so if we, this is a projection here. Right. Can we have the stone on the whole thing on the whole thing?

You can use it. Yes, as an accent material.

So then that is done incorrectly on that photo.

That's exactly what's what we're proposing.

I mean, not proposing there, but okay, so you're not the what I was talking about was the part on the right hand side there that's on the main mass where you have the stone going up to the top of the windows.

This part? That part. Yeah.

Yes. You can't do that.

Okay.

It's either going to go all the way around, or you have to bring it down to the same, the water table. Because you have to apply it the same on that mass.

So if we drop this stone down to this height, you know, below the, what would be effectively this window line here, on this bump out, this bump out, and then it would follow along, that would be okay, right?

Yes, but it has to go all the way around the house like that. You have to set a foundation height and go all the way around the house with it.

What were you saying about it could end on an inside corner?

For example, take that far right projection. If you wanted to do stone in that whole face because it appears to both go into the inside corner, that whole face could be stone. Or, like, I think that one that's kind of in the middle there, too. This one here. To the left of it.

This one.

Yeah. Because that would go into it inside.

All the way up or not at all?

Yes. And your foundation must maintain the same height all the way around.

So the picture we showed you only has it going up three foot. Yeah. Okay. Well, we're okay with that.

and have a different projection?

It was on the projection. It does. It does. It comes up partially on the projection.

And it only, yeah.

It does come up partially. I can't say we, a final inspection hasn't been completed. So whether something was done not to plan or, or something that wasn't. We're just trying to get an idea.

Yeah, absolutely. Like we have metal roofs and then we see them all over the place. So, you know, we don't build here a lot.

So, so the metal roof is because the land development code gives four types of roofs and standing seam is not one of them. It is. always a comment when which is we have to call it out yes it is generally approved generally not always but it's generally approved uh but it is a comment because it's just not a material within the land development code

So in this elevation, if we ran the chair rail all the way around the house, we still would have to do full stone on those two gables, the garage gable and that stairwell gable, is what you're saying?

If you want that much stone.

You can't have variated.

Right.

Okay. All right. Got it. That's what we'll end up doing. We'll run a chair rail all the way around the whole house, and then we'll illuminate the stone on those three windows, and then we'll bring the stone all the way up on both of those. Yeah, we will.

I think that goes to... And then the only one that I just wanted to mention something about was on C. So generally, we allow for a change in the grid pattern on the rear of the house. That's not an uncommon thing. But the other three sides to have a consistent window pattern.

Okay. So if we did the two sides, we'd be okay.

Right. So the front and two sides having grids, the rear is less formal, out of the public view. And I know this house sits way back, but... Honestly, we make people put windows in sheds because of the 12 feet, even though they're way in the backyard. You know, it's just that fenestration and the consistency around there is just, it's one of those things that we don't really vary on too much. But yes, so three sides with grids and the rear being plain is something that has been allowed.

Okay.

All right, so...

Just to confirm for the record, just with staff review on this one, for this window here, would the board be requesting grids be added to this special window?

No, that is a special window. It wouldn't make sense to add grids, but I mean, we can discuss it as the board, but to me, it wouldn't make sense on a special window to add grids. I don't think it makes sense on that style window, but Mr. Brown, you're...

I agree with what you said. Any other questions or comments? So the standing seam metal is limited to the shed roofs, like the gables, the projections, everything else is shingle?

Yes, everything else is shingle. Well, the porch, shed, yeah, the shed roof over the triple windows on the second floor and the two dormers.

The triple windows in the back on the I assume the garage, does the garage have a, is the reason that that gang of three windows does not have the triangular windows above because the garage has a flat ceiling? Yeah. So all that space above the garage inside that big dormer is just a store attic?

Yeah. Unaccessible. Okay.

I guess for the windows on the, which side was that? The left side elevation that you were talking about where the closet and the shower is. I think we generally do. I mean, given that that's a bedroom, the furniture and the transom windows, they don't bother me.

My personal opinion is that 500 feet back and it's 13 feet, I'm okay with it as is. I mean, they're 500 feet back.

Yeah, I mean...

It's a should clause. It's not a shall. So there's some leeway there.

I don't think it substantially improves the elevation to require another little transom over there in the closet.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Mr. Denske?

on the windows the only just really the right side elevation we get the grids then correct just this one up here i guess it would be just the one yeah i didn't even realize that what about the door do we think the door has to match too then oh because the door kind of matches the garage doors yeah i know that's why i was yeah torn on that one So that's really the only window that would, I'm just trying to confirm that's the only one then. Because the transoms wouldn't have any grid. No, they wouldn't exist. And the special windows wouldn't have any grid.

we're just looking at one grid i guess all right so really just the stone that's the kind of the sticking point yeah i mean we we do have to discuss the exception for the the setback but i mean that's one of those it's a flag lot like if you don't allow the exception they can't build a house so i i that's why i want to spend a lot of time yeah and i don't have a big issue with the fenestration because you're only a foot off of that on that one i'm fine with it yeah that's it's pretty close okay

Is that it? Is that it?

Ms. Marzullo?

Yeah, I'm okay with the 13.4 on the right side, which is just that one window. Okay. Oh, and that special windows find no grids with the three cluster. And yes, we need, I would think we need to see a revision on with the water table and the stone. I don't know if I'd be okay with just approving.

I think if they move it to the three feet and go all the way around and then if staff thinks it's different from that, I would give staff the option, the ability to bring it back if they feel like it's not what we talked about. But I mean it's it's just keeping the water table going on just that there's a lot of stone going on.

I can mark up right, but it would with me and we can just submit that for the record.

Are you comfortable with with reviewing that administratively.

Yes, staff is staff is OK with that.

Do you want me to marker print now or do you? You can work with the staff.

Okay, so really the only, I think the only thing that we really have to add is the one grid, the foundation height, and then we do have to technically give the exception on the setback, which I think that it's a hardship because you wouldn't be able to build if you, how are you going to build on the flag lot without being back further? So I think that's a pretty obvious hardship for the applicant.

The original house was like 900 foot back. The health department just sees it as a rebuild. So, yeah.

I think if somebody's willing to attempt a motion.

Okay. I'll move to approve with the following change exceptions. The first being the setback exception due to the shape of the lot. Anything else on that? No. The grid added to the window on the right side elevation resubmitting to staff the stone changes with the consistent water table applied consistently throughout the house and with allowing the fenestration on the left side elevation.

Second all favor. Anybody opposed.

Thank you I think you have the next.

Other business. We have an informal to 6 dash 8, 7, 8, 2, 6, 3, North Main Street and this is a front porch repair in the historic district.

Yes, I can give a brief orientation here. This is for an alteration to 263 North Main Street. It is within the historic district. The OHI form is attached for the board's review for a front porch repair. Comment A here. Appendix 1 of the Secretary of Interior Standards to deteriorate historic fixtures shall be repaired rather than replaced where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature. The new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and where possible, materials. Comment B, staff suggests the applicant take this meeting to discuss the proposed project with the board and verify the proposed scope of work, as well as staff suggests the board utilize this meeting for questions for the applicant and to set a time for a site visit. Comment D is to just provide a scaled architectural elevation depicting all of the proposed changes, the scope of work, and the finished detail for the proposed porch renovation. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

If you just state your name.

Dave Schneer, Aristocraft Construction.

So, yeah, I guess my biggest confusion was what exactly is the scope of work? Because it kind of looked like it was, you know, it says proposed porch to be replaced. Well, it's the floor is getting replaced.

The floor, the handrails, the balustrades and the wraps around the current posts. They're all rotted. The end of the floors are wicked, checked and waned. The bottom of the posts where they sit on the floor are all rotted. The bottom of the handrails are rotted. Most of the top handrails are rotted where they meet the wraps around the posts. The floor has been repaired several times over the years and poorly. There's quarter inch gaps in some of it. There's some of it that's not even really fastened. So it's to the point where, in my opinion, of where you would just replace with similar materials. And that's why I provided the drawing of the sections of material. I mean, they're pretty common material.

What material were you thinking of for the flooring? For... The sizing of it? Pardon me? Were you doing the tongue and groove? Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Three and a quarter tongue and groove.

Mr. Brown, is there anything...

Um, no, I guess, I mean, I also, so the scope, you said the wraps on the column, so they, I assume they're, they're wood columns and it's just paneled. Yeah. Um, and then what, what happens at the top? You have a picture of the top where there's the, uh, like a bracket there.

everything from there down so it's just it's only the wrap yeah yeah all the pediments and decor above that everything is staying are the posts okay i mean are the the structural posts inside have you have you been able to there's no way to i mean i didn't want to start drilling holes and putting cameras and make a mess and then not get approval and then they have a bunch of holes in there

And then also, my only other comment was on, it looks like on the base, on the bottom rail, there's a between.

I think someone added that over time. But I find it hard to believe that it was done that way. But I mean, we can always add that lattice to the bottom rail.

The only other question was, it's hard to tell. I mean, above is any place. Does this is there a stair? Like, does this rail?

There's a stair. Well, I mean, coming off to the front porch right there on the right. Yes.

A lot of these questions are, you know. That are a site visit exactly what the what the scope is. I mean, I think I understand.

More cosmetic except for the floor. I mean, nothing's changing. We're using all the same material. The handrail and the balustrades and bottom rail would be all cedar. The wraps would be all cedar. And then the dog for for the flooring. think i have any other questions other than probably just in a safe visit did you mention the ceiling no the ceiling the ceiling does need attention but it's not rotted it's buckled it just needs refastened nothing's happening that we're not adding or taking anything out from the top of those wraps everything from there down is what we're concerned with

The only other question I had was on the flooring, were you going to follow the pattern? It looks like the one side, they went one direction with it.

Yeah, tearing bone kind of.

But yeah, but they really didn't. Were you going to miter that connection there? Yes. Were they tied together instead of how they kind of just end butted them?

It depends on the framing. I mean, it would look a lot better, but... I don't know what the framing condition of the framing is there either. I mean, that's a major weather point. And you can see from the shrinkage of the floor and the movement on everything. I would love to be able to, you know, pack that out and miter it and do it the right way. So it doesn't look like that.

It'd look great. Yeah. All right. So we should probably get a site visit set up. Agreed. Okay.

I think that's. You guys contact us about the site visit or?

OK. Do we have to do a motion with it being just informal now?

It's informal, so we don't have to do a motion. Are there more drawings required?

I don't think so, but I think the site visit's going to tell us.

Yeah, we could do one final verification on the site visit of the scope, and then we'll just work with you on, yeah, it'll likely be a series of photos with markups that we'd like to see. Okay.

Does it have to be an actual application to take a site visit?

No.

No, we've done site visits off of informals before.

No. No, you can request a site visit.

It saves him two weeks.

Yeah.

They come home Monday, so really any time after that. Or I could meet you over there early whenever.

It's outside. Yeah. Okay. So staff will contact you to set up a site visit.

All right. Thank you.

Sure. Next we have an informal for 86 Owen Brown. This is townhomes. Thank you.

Yes, I can give a brief introduction. This is for the townhome project at 86 Owen Brown Street. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions the board may have. There is a updated presentation on the screen that the applicant provided for the board to review. The applicant can answer any additional questions that the board may have. You have the staff comments in front of you and the applicant can orient you to the project.

If you just state your name and Bryce Hamel, Vice President of Design for Fairmount Properties, and I'm joined with... Suzanne Meltzer from RDL Architects. First of all, we just want to start by thanking you for your time. I think this is a number of conversations we've had with political comment, and all of our projects have ended up resulting better than we found them before. If I could ask an opinion, and maybe if we could switch to page three, I'm going to save the pretty pictures for our architects. Okay. Before we get started, I wanted to talk just about a couple of the modifications that we've made that I do think address some of some of the staff comments and public comments that have to do with massing and planning that we think from prior versions, this has sort of enabled the project to be a little bit more conducive to the neighborhood one of the things to point out is that when we first brought this project forward it was 22 town 22 town homes 16 of which were going to be three stories and six of those were going to be fronted along owen brown what we bring before you today is 18 town homes there are 10 three-story and only one along owen brown some of the other moves that we've made that you can see is in prior versions we had one pod of three and a pot of six units on each of the quadrants for each of the halves of the site. Since then, we've taken the six units and we've broken those into threes as well, which we think has done a nice job of reducing the overall mass of the development. What you'll also see is that it has allowed us to have both a north-south and an east-west pedestrian access point into that interior court, which we think is both nice for massing, for access, and also for fire life safety. One of the things that we've done, After this, I'll pass it along to Suzanne to walk us through sort of the individual architectural pieces is that our challenge to RDL was essentially to take a look at not only our site, but to take a look at each of the individual streetscapes, as well as our prior phase one town homes to the east. And to use this project as a means to sort of coordinate all of those architectures to express ourselves in a way that sort of is meaningful, both in mass and architectural character, not only to our project, but to the surrounding area. We think they've done a really nice job of that. And with that, I will pass it along to you.

Okay. You just go ahead and go to the next slide. We'll get to the pretty pictures in a bit. And actually, so this is the Owen Brown and the Clinton Street elevations. And what we tried to do here, what Bryce was saying, is that the way that we designed this was so that they would appear more like single family, especially along Owen Brown. So the way that the buildings were turned and connected gives us that opportunity. The one on the corner in particular, which is the one that looks truly single family, It's the one on the top, it's the left, or no, the right, and the one on the bottom, it's the left. And that one on the corner, because it's going to have two faces, we didn't want to have it look like it was the side of a building, either on Owen Brown or on Morse. So if you go back to the other slide right before this, the roof plan. We turned the roof so that if you point up to that far left upper corner, we turn that roof in a way that would allow us to have a gable on Owen Brown and on Clinton, and we have a side porch. We have that on both the front porch, I think, and the side porch that allows us to make it almost look like it's kind of two front elevations.

Is it the top right one?

The top both the top left and the top right top right? Yeah, they're both the same. Yeah, yeah. OK, you can go forward now. Go to the next slide so that on Morse Rd you can see this is what the black and white images on Morse Rd look like. We really look through the architectural standards and tried to ensure that you know no building. Really looked like another, even though the plans were the same. So we tried to do some variations in the bays variation in the reform and then variation in the material color or material. To really make them look different. And in particular, if you look at the 2 middle ones at the top. that are on the inside. Those are actually very similar floor plans, but we treated those elevations as very different because we wanted them to look like they were different. And then the stream side, again, we didn't want it to look like the side of a townhouse. So, you know, we tried to introduce bays with the chimneys and then we have the garages, which are only one story that we're actually using as decks for off the second floor of those particular units that help, you know, make, again, make it look more like it's single family. and look like, with the side porches, they look a little bit more like front elevations and not side elevations. So I'm going to the next one. And this is the interior courtyards that is in the very middle of the site. And you can go to the next. And these are just the floor plans. We put them in there just in case you were curious about them. This is just showing one of that typical corner and where we varied the bays. One of the things that we did was we treated these similar to what had been done on the townhouses prior. where we created a little bit of a notch, which you can see between B1 and A1, so that because the A1 is actually two stories and the B is three stories, so that we wouldn't have a clashing roof line that helps us break up the roof line in a much cleaner way. And you'll be able to see that in the perspectives.

One of the other important things to mention here is that all of the two stories do have first floor primary bedrooms, and all of the three stories will be fit out with elevator shafts.

Okay, you can go to the this is just showing the enlarged and we. We recognize that there's an architectural standard for window placement. And this is showing 1 of the side elevations and we know that we haven't quite met the 12 foot on 1 of the lower ones, but. some of these are they're only 11 feet apart and so we were thinking that maybe that's not as critical you know because you're going to be you know if you have a window you're looking at the side of another townhouse that's only 11 feet away maybe we don't want as many windows in that area but the ones that are visible we'd certainly would would try to meet that

That 11 foot condition only occurs in the area where we separated that pod of six into two pods of three to create that pedestrian laneway.

Right. uh and so you can go to the perspectives because i think they show it better than the elevations what the design is trending toward so you can see i think in this where we were trying to do the variations of the bays to really make it make them a little more distinct each one a little more distinct i know in the staff comments there was a comment about the um the bay sitting out further and being supported by the porch and There's a practical reason for that in that we wanted the porch to be usable if we were to bring, and we also want the living space to be usable. So we want to have the bay to differentiate the architecture, but also because we want the space in the bedroom. But we also want the porch to be livable, or to be usable. If we were to bring the bay all the way down, we'd only have a four-foot porch. We want a five-foot porch. And one of the thoughts that we had, and this is, it's actually kind of a common thing you see in some traditional design, like, I guess Cape Cod style does this a lot where they have the deeper porches than the second story. But we wanted to integrate that porch into the design a little bit more. So we're wrapping the porches and you'll see it in the colored images that we have. But we want the porch itself to kind of wrap around that bay and engage it. One of the thoughts we had was we could always do a pilaster column, you know, that's against the wall to, you know, if there was any real concern about that. But hopefully in the perspectives, maybe you can see how that engages it a little better. So you can go to the next. And again, this is just showing some of the perspectives and how the architecture looks as you turn each of the corners. And then we did just want to show what we were thinking. We're looking at where we use brick, doing more of a red brick. We've got some options there. We're thinking that we'll have kind of a lot of white, but that we might introduce some pop of color. And it'll be a little bit more muted, more gray, just because that's what we were seeing on Owen Brown. So we wanted to follow that. If you go to the next slide, actually, I think it's the next one after this. Go to this one. We showed this because we started off when we started the design looking at what's on Owen Brown and looking at what's on Clinton. And on Owen Brown, a lot of the houses, there's a simplicity to them that where they really focus on kind of like the nice trim work and trim around the windows. But the massing itself is somewhat simple. On Clinton, the town homes that were done before, they're a little bit more, for lack of a better word, fussy. So there's more bracketing, there's a little bit more differentiation of the style. And we think that works well with the downtown area, but we wanted to create a transition between the two. So what you see in the middle is our first step at really looking at what this truly could look like with the massing that we've established and the colors that we want to use. We do like the idea of using some white to break things up and keep it light. And obviously it works well with both Owen Brown and Clinton. We are looking at using either the gable roofs or the, I guess we call them kind of hip cables. They're gable roofs, but they have a hip that runs in front of them. Yeah, it's a hippocampal. It's a word we... Backbending. Yeah, backbending. I've used it for like 20 years now. But it's, you know, you see it on the Clinton townhomes that are there. You see some of those where it's the gable, but it has the hip form that goes in front of it. So we liked that. We were kind of getting away from the low-hipped roof that has almost like an Italianate look to it, just because that's kind of foreign to Owen Brown. So we stuck with either the gable or that hip cabal. So this is kind of the look then that we came up with. The other renderings, if you go to, I think it's the next slide. um was it oh we don't have it i think it was the one before this yeah so this is just showing before we added color but just gives you an idea of the what you see going down morris road so that corner that corner unit or townhome you see where we turn the ridge um of the roof and to allow and then we have that side porch so that even though the the front door is on Morris Road um on Clinton and on this would be the same design on Owen Brown would have the feel like it's somewhat you know a front elevation not a not the side of a townhome then for this we're still working on it a little bit but this is what you would see on owen brown so you know i i i'm hoping that you you sense that it's it does feel like it's single family as you come down there i mean the the two on the end are actually connected but they're connected by um the garage that's set back so you don't really see that We know that three stories could be a concern on Owen Brown, because most everything is two stories. But we like the idea of having the proportion of that three story bay that sits above the porch kind of match some of the proportion that's on owen brown and then having the same bay repeated in that um that first house kind of brings your eye down so it's a more more it's not a jarring you know transition from the two-story to the three-story that was our intent So there's, you know, this isn't a complete design, obviously, but we wanted to come and, um, meet with you to kind of get some, get some reactions.

Just recently. We don't have any, we don't have that.

This was just today. Yes.

Yeah. We just added them today. We wanted to make sure you could actually see things a little bit better. These reflect the elevations that we did provide.

So, Mr. Brown, any comments or questions?

Sure. I guess my first might be a staff comment. So, in terms of the number of stories and the... The definition of townhome that says two stories in the land development code, but it's unclear to me, I guess, where we versus the, say, planning board fall in terms of allowing a third, if that's within our perfect.

The land development code allows the height.

Yeah, because you're right under the height.

Right, right at the height there. So it's the general definition of the townhome within the architectural design standards that reflect that two-story.

I mean, it just seems a little vague to me when I read the line of development code.

I think you have to read the townhome type in that section 411 on the... in the design standards. So that reads, this type has a single mass main body and no subordinate wings, except for small wings that extend from the rear. It says the main body is two stories tall and divided into at least three structural bays by vertical common fire resistant walls. Each bay contains a single dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit has its own front and rear access. So, I mean, to me, having the three-story and the two-story directly contradicts that. And then I guess I don't understand what the single-story kind of between them is either.

That's just the garage with the deck.

I mean, the townhome type in the design standards doesn't allow for that. I mean, you have three different elevations, and that directly contradicts what a townhome is defined as in the design standard.

Right. Well, that's why we were recommending the Owen Brown units be two-story. And there is precedent for the existing development on Clinton Street for three-story. Not to blend three different heights.

It actually is the same. It's a mix of two- and three-story with a one-story garage in the back.

In the back.

In Clinton. So you can't see them from the street at all.

Right, it's not a corner.

Yeah, I think that's probably a little bit of the challenge there.

Yeah, I've never been behind those, so I don't.

It's like a courtyard, but you don't see it.

I'm sorry, Mr. Brown.

No, I mean, I wouldn't, I mean, my preference would be. And I think the only reference in the town that I can think of to three stories is the development on Clinton Street, which is also recent. not of the character of the rest of the town. I guess I wasn't around, I'm newer to Hudson, so I'm not sure why Three Stories was okay in that sense, in that instance, I guess. Assuming that the land development code at that time was, it just seems circular to me to justify Three Stories here to point at another recent development that also is Three Stories. I would generally, I think too, especially on Owen Brown, but I think then you get into questions given that your site plan is flipped and symmetrical and you can kind of walk all the way around it. Then now you have, I mean, if it would, open new challenges to you if the Owen Brown side had to meet some different standard. And I don't, I guess I don't see it. I mean, I see both sides of all of town being two stories, essentially. But again, I guess I'm not sure where, because the code is a little vague to me. I do want to comment, though, also on what you mentioned about the massing and the fussiness on Clinton Street. And I do agree. I mean, I think that in terms of land development code's intention that a development or a building doesn't repeat exactly but kind of changes as it goes, I think, or, you know, kind of riffs on a common design language. I like subtlety more. I mean, I think that's the nature of the architecture of this town. And less fussy is better.

much more but i think i think these informals often are best when we don't just kind of like take turns and then we're done but because yeah jamie might say something that makes me think so the truth comments that i think the staff wrote here that spoke to me the most were um trying to establish a clear architectural style because i do think there's a much bigger struggle with these to see that versus what is on clinton street so I think that could maybe help us going forward if you clearly look at this and say, oh, this is this style. And also the comment about the typical windows, because I think some of the atypical windows are also probably not speaking to a specific style. So I think one might help fix the other, I think.

Almost all the windows are the same. They're the same window. It's the trim around them that differs. So there are, except on the living floor where we have transom windows and we do a curved on one and a straight on another. But even where it's curved, like in this one in the middle, Those are it kind of shows it curved, but it's actually a straight window and it's the molding that curves. But it's this was AI, so we couldn't get it to behave to show exactly what it is. But that is the idea that it's just a straight window. So all of the windows are generally the same window. We have a special window that's a little bit smaller, but the same proportion as those bigger windows because those are in either a kitchen or a bathroom or where there's a stair and the levels change. So we use that smaller window for those circumstances, but all the other windows, some are mold, some are separated and punched, but they're all the same size. Or they're intending to be.

If they're not, we agree with you on that comment.

I was just kind of scrolling in, so it looks like there's... What was that?

Go to that.

It just looks like...

So the one... Oh, your elevations aren't going to be the same as what they have here.

Did those change from... No, these didn't change. I didn't think that. They look the same as we were going through it. Um, like you just even scrolling into some of these windows. So you have the top windows don't have transom. The second one does have transom. So there does seem to be a lot of variation in.

The transom for the two-story occurs on the first floor because that's where the living space is. On the three-story, the living space is on the second floor. The majority of the living space is on the second floor. So that's where the transom are because that's the higher ceiling. But it's the same window. It's just it occurs at the first floor in the two-story and on the second floor in the three-story.

I'm not sure that's something we'd normally, because it's not the same tech. I mean, yeah, there's a transom, but it just seems like that's kind of outside the norm of what we typically would approve. And it just drawing wise looks like you have some different sizing too. I'm not sure if that's the case or not, if it's just kind of how it looks on this. But I think normally, I mean, in any new build, we're usually trying to get those consistent size windows. throughout the build, with a few exceptions, if there's specialty spaces and things like that.

And our contractor wants that, too. So we've been told that. But they're intended to be the same. So if it has a transom, it's the same width, the same height. It might be mold. But it might be or it might be a single punched, but it's the same window. And as I said, it'll be consistent. It would be consistent on the second floor of the three story and the first floor of the two story.

From a styling perspective, what is the. What is the overall style that we're going?

Probably neocolonial. It's a little bit more like what's on Owen Brown was the idea with, you know, maybe looking at like a wider rake board at the peak and then the windows would have the brick mold around them and be a little bit higher in the on the head. the tram work. In the brick, we were looking at just doing soldier course in the brick.

I have for the moment.

I want to, while we have this up, I want to jump back to a massing question. So in this, where it says, you know, view from Clinton Street, what is considered the main mass?

Of which one?

So that is one townhome, right? They're all connected. So what is the main mass?

Well, the main mass, my understanding is they have to be treated as their own separate building, each townhome. So the main mass of the two-story is where the gable is. That's the main mass. The main mass of the three-story is that, again, that gable.

But then there's a connector in the middle of a single-story? Yeah.

Yeah, it just connects in between those two.

I guess that's what confuses me on the massing because it says, you know, wings may not be larger or taller than the main body of the structure, but they may be the same height. And the main body must be the largest visible mass.

Which would be the two-story, I mean the three-story is the largest of the townhome, of that particular townhome.

It's the tallest, but I would disagree that it's the largest. I would say that the structure on the left is larger. It's got a larger footprint. That's the massing issue that I'm having is it's technically one set of townhomes because they're all connected. Oh, so I a single story connector there, but your wing is taller than your main mass.

I see what you're saying. I was I was we were looking at them as each townhome how we determine the massing of each townhome that that each townhome separately has its own mass and then it's supporting wings off of it. And

Okay, I'm not reading the design standard that way. That, you know, because they're connected, that they're, I mean, that's, that this two-story would be your main mass, and then you have this, I guess, connector wing, whatever you want to call it, going to another wing. That's how I read that. Not as individual masses, because they're combined, they're connected. Okay. So they're not individual masses.

Wouldn't the town homes on 91 that are being constructed though follow this? Each unit is its own mass?

They're not different single story connector between masses, right?

But they're all the same. They're all like two story ones, right? Yeah. Yeah. They're all two story also. Yeah.

I think one of the things we attempted to do was not necessarily, I think one of the original designs we put forward had six equal townhomes, very traditional townhome development. And that mass was just too much for sort of this residential neighborhood. And so looking at this, yes, there's a single story connector there. but to really look at them as individual masses that sort of combine to create more of a residential feel in a mass totality.

Yeah, we were going for trying to, so that they would read almost as single family, that that single story is set back so much that as you go down the road, the main mass is a single family story.

so that it feels more residential i guess that contradicts the townhome type i mean that i guess that's my dilemma here yeah and and i think the problem with it is is that you know is is you know oh you know it says it's a two-story this is where I have a difficulty kind of starting to travel down this road because, you know, it's already being said, well, hey, there's three story ones that are already over there. So we should just allow three story, even though it says it's a two story type, not a three story. And so, you know, we allow this type of massing and that'll be the next one. Well, you allowed it over there. So now we want to do it over here. And we kind of keep, you know, that's what we hear very consistently on these when we kind of make these exceptions or kind of, I guess, interpretations that I think are outside of the design standard.

It's one of the areas where, you know, our original design, it was 22 with 16 or 18 three-story units. I think that's one of the things we tried to do when we'd start to take a look at transitioning between many different architectures is that we went from 16 to 18 three-story units down to 10. We reconfigured where those would be to be more situated in terms of how the community wanted three stories. Obviously we have a need for a certain level of density to be able to produce more a project of the character and quality that Fairmount Properties would like these to be, but that the goal was to transition between, even if those were previously approved, to transition between some of the character that was in the adjacent townhomes down into more of a, you know, more two-story compared to what we originally showed to be a little softer touch to that.

Yeah, my biggest issue is the basin.

Yeah, I think it's confusing. I understand what your philosophy is and how you're presenting, but it contradicts some of the land development. Or maybe there's another way we're supposed to be reading it that we haven't comprehended.

think there's a little push and pull with the planning commission process they did review the concept site plan and and that was the feedback um that they received was um to break up the massing so it does appear some of them do appear like single family homes and they're not a wall of of townhome units so that was kind of the get it but then what type is it it's not a townhome type it's

And again, I hate to go down the road of, okay, we're going to allow it because it'll get thrown back at us on some other project.

The comment was on the Brown Street one. I think it should be just the two-story because that three-story one kind of is just going to pop up and I think it should still have to just remain two-story on that street.

What if there was a way, like we sort of did a fake dormer third floor? You know, where you sort of, the front, the elevation, you'd bring the ridge down, but then you'd have dormer up behind it for that third floor.

See it? Well, you can't extend a dormer above the ridge, correct? A dormer can't exceed the ridge height.

I don't think that was the... Yeah, it wouldn't exceed it. It'd just be a lower slope. The dormer would be a lower slope, so it would be below the ridge. I mean, that's one thing we could take a look at for Owen Brown.

And then on the south elevation number three, where you have to the right with the brick veneer, and you have different... trim on that first story of the shoulder trim on that window on the left side of it of the porch, but the other portions just there's that's not anywhere else. It's kind of a number three south elevation and then going to the to the right of that line and with the brick veneer Three-story.

Oh, you mean the three-story one? Yeah.

Yeah. And that first floor window, you put a shoulder trim on the top of that one window there, and that's not presented anywhere else.

Yeah, I think we're actually looking at bringing that down. And then the one elevation, or the one rendering, we did bring it down. I think if you go down to the, I can't remember which one it was. I think it was the Owen Brown Street one. Yeah, see that we we're actually looking at bringing that down, so it's it would be then at the height of the porch, so then it would match that that line. If you go back to the elevation. It would be at the that height of the garage and come across and match the porch. Change that OK, yeah, change that one.

so i guess we have a high level questions i mean as far as what what are we allowed one thing quickly to point out is um the the one three story that remains on owen brown um it would need to be eliminated it could not go to a two-story just because of spatial concerns and where we're permitted to have curb cuts

So what you're saying, what you were saying about trying to do something else with the roof line, you're saying if it had to go to a true two story, it would have to be eliminated.

If we if you would accept sort of that dormer look, you know, if that was acceptable, then it would be okay. No, it won't fit. Yeah, if you go to the the site plan with the roof. It's actually the, if you see it, the go over to on the far side, keep going, keep going, keep going down to that. Nope. That one. So that one we, we don't have room to make that a two story and have a garage because of the tightness in the court. So we would lose that unit.

of presenting or proposing to kind of pull the eye and make it look like a two-story.

Well, we appreciate it. I think all of your comments, we go back. I think in reading most of the comments that were presented to us prior to this hearing, we agreed with All of them. I think, you know, obviously we've reduced density. We've reduced three stories as best that we saw possible up until this point. But certainly we'll go back and take a look at what we can do from an architectural perspective. And see you next time. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Next is 8756 and this is the Sierra Pacific Windows

Yes, this proposal, the applicant is requesting that the Sierra Pacific Window Westchester Window Series be considered for inclusion on the board's list of approved window products for replacement of historic materials within the historic district. Staff notes the applicant has provided documentation from the National Park Service for the board's consideration, as well as brought the sample window again for the board's viewing this evening. The applicant is here to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

We're not going to be here until 1030 tonight.

Thank you. Did we break a record that night?

No.

Oh, no. No.

Yeah, we've had some late nights. Maybe your record.

I thought it was kind of cool. I was like, all right. You know, I personally never stayed at one that late, so I thought it was kind of cool. Do you want me to use the microphone or am I loud enough?

If you're going to talk into the mics on the table, but you'd have to talk into a mic either way. Oh, okay.

Do you need an introduction again?

I think we're good, I think.

Okay.

You're the window guy.

Yeah.

Yep. So just to confirm that too, though, I'm the architectural consultant. for the company, so I'm actually a factory representative. I don't work for a dealer. I'm just going to pick on Pella because I used to work for them. Pella's done through Gutton, for example. I mean, it's not actually a Pella person, right? I pretended to be a Pella person, but I actually worked for Gutton. But in this case, I actually work for the factory. So my role is normally working with your architects that are usually in this room. in representing the company and getting them familiar with our product. And then we have a territory manager. I wanted him here tonight. because that's the person that's probably going to once in a while show up to meetings, work with the builders and the contractors, but just wanted to define my role, and Lauren and I had a little bit of that in the beginning, trying to figure out what's, you know what I'm talking about. But either way, it's a pleasure, and you guys were talked about on one of our national phone calls with people in my role, and what you guys do is um is admirable right I mean we all uh drive around and I have like three or four states I cover and we go through little towns and we shake our heads because we're in fenestration and we're passionate about it and we see you know spring line openings and arch head openings and you know all kinds of crazy stuff that's been done and uh you know without hounds like yours that are doing this, that just continues. So anyways, we do appreciate it. We know there's hoops to jump through, but it's worth it. Anyways, so just wanted to clarify my role with the company, because I think maybe the first time around, I might have made it seem like I was representing maybe somebody particular in the room or anything like that. But no, I've been asked by a few of the architects that do present to you quite often to get our window approved. So that was my only purpose.

Yeah, actually, I'm fine with it. I like the fact that the sample you gave us is actually from the park service that they find the window to be historically accurate. And I'm assuming the note where it says it will be installed as represented. It has to do with the facing, how far into the sill it was, would be my guess, which is something that we always battle with. How far do they come out compared to what the existing window was?

Correct. Yep. You can thank Lauren for getting me to get what you guys were looking for. So we all have to give her some credit there.

So, Mr. Brown, did you have questions or your thoughts on this window?

No, I think it's fine. I was going to just comment the National Park Service approval. They checked with the following conditions are met, and then you go down to the following conditions, and it references some e-mail. I'm just curious, like, you know, there's nothing in that email. No, I don't.

And again, forgive me, just my little 4-1 intro. I'm, you know, the Ohio... Michigan, Indiana, West Virginia, Pittsburgh rep, not the Oregon, but I knew what you guys were needing per Lawrence, so as far as that, I'm not going to try to answer that because I don't know.

It just references, it says, you know, you can approve it as is, you can approve it with a condition, you can deny it or whatever, and it says approved with below conditions, and you go to below conditions, and there's a sentence that says, as long as they do what they said they were going to do in the email.

It has to do with how they installed it, though. It has to do with the installation, not the window itself.

I think the window itself is.

Yeah.

No, no, but you're right. I mean, so jam depth and wall depth, those are always factors. And, you know, when I was not involved with this company and in a different role with some of the other companies I mentioned, you know, I would Well, I made a lot of ABRs happy because I retained the exterior trim and I retained the interior trim, okay? But we know that the window sat a little differently and I think we all came to agreement that we were okay with that. But in this case, no, we set the window historically where it needs to be. Yeah, where with replacement, you know, it's different because you're retaining that trim and you're building a smaller window to, which we do, you know, so keep that in the back of your mind.

But do you have any, I mean, I don't think so.

I mean, I think we discussed it last time pretty extensively. And I mean, looking at it, I have no further comment. I don't see why I don't think it meets our standards.

I mean, I think, you know, honestly, no offense, but, you know, you couldn't tell if it was a Pella Reserve or not or, you know what I mean, something in the sense of like just viewing from the street. I mean, I think it is a good representation of, you know, the historic window.

I agree, because I sold that window, right? I was a Pella guy for a long time, and I think Pella is still a fine product. I think Marvin is a fine product. I was a little surprised to see what this company was doing, and I was very impressed with the non-metal spacer, the powder coating. I can go on and on, but again, this is not a sales pitch here for the company, but they were just doing a lot of things that make the window even more historically correct. Even the fact that we don't use a normal screen like everyone else does with the channel, I mean, this actually almost looks to me like a blind stop, so I kind of love that. I mean, these are all little details that I used to live just in the historical space, but this role, I'm doing everything. I'm doing commercial, I'm doing multifamily, but yes, it's a beautiful... Mr. Rowe?

Mr. Ninsky?

No, I don't think I have any questions. Other...

So this particular window, this is the one that you would be proposing. What model or what is this called so that we don't get confused?

Yes, that was a very good clarification question right at the end of our last meeting. One of you guys asked that and it was a good question because for the historical areas, if they're going to use our window, it's got to be the Westchester. I think one of you guys said, well, do you guys have other windows?

And we do.

But to answer you directly, yes, this is the window, and it's called Westchester. So if it's going in a, I had this, can I share that little thing I had with you just a couple weeks ago? I talked to a builder, contractor, that does work here, and he goes, what are you talking about? I do vinyl windows in Hudson all the time. And I'm like, what? I said, in the historical areas? And he goes, yes. And he's like, as long as it's a double hung for a double hung, and six over six, and I think Lauren kind of helped me understand a little bit more about that. So, yeah, because we have other windows, but this is historically correct.

It's not like a Westchester II or something?

No, no, but I was, you know, I guess that person was so believable, I'm like, okay, so... don't understand how whatever anyways so we have another wood window I don't think we should I'm just gonna use the other company as an example that I represented so lifestyle Pella would not be considered historically correct how the reserve is we have a window called h3 it has its purpose It is really a nice replacement window. It is built so that you can just slide it in and not touch the trim outside, inside, and all that stuff. So anyways, but...

So you're saying the H3... Yeah, H3, but it's not...

It's better, but it's not historically approved and correct and all that good stuff. But it's darn close.

So the one we wanted to focus on is Westchester.

Yes, 100%.

I'm fine with it. I have no issue with it being added to the list.

Do we have a photo that shows...

Lauren, I think in that, I think what you guys have in there, I can get you whatever else you need, though. I mean, if there's some other drawing or dimension.

I didn't see anything. This actually should be in the packet.

It does specifically mention the Westchester in the packet.

If you don't mind, I'm going to take a picture.

I will throw out a couple other things, if you don't mind, on the historical side. If you ever need the window, let's say it's very pure historical project, right? And some of those won't even allow this, even though, you know, from the street, it looks like as good as the original. They want all wood. And if you guys want all wood, I can do all wood. And I could do it in six different species. because a lot of the architects and builders don't want pine, so they want walnut or mahogany or they want dug fir, they want white oak. I can do all those and all wood out and in, so it's 100% historical. Let's call this 90. So if you need all wood, the real replication, we can do that in non-pine. And then I don't know how many Victorian styles, you know how it's typically lap, cedar siding, and then you got your flat stock, and then you got your windows, right? The three colors. Some of those Victorians, the sashes were a different color, and then the grids were a different color. This is kind of unique. So on some of those historical projects throughout the nation, on those Victorians, that's required where the frame Oops, sorry, is one color and a sash is another color in the grid. We're the only ones that can do that. We can do that. So I can make the frame lavender, I can make the grids pink, and I can make the sash turquoise. okay but uh the those abrs that do require it we're the only ones that can do that so we can if you have a few of those historical victorian homes we can actually get the factory to do that okay so do we have to actually do a motion i mean it's it's technically informal yeah so how do we how do we move forward with that

I don't think it's technically under discussion and update that because it's more of an advisory report. It's not an official document. It's not codified or anything. Okay. That's fine. Yeah.

We can go ahead and do that. All right. So everybody's in general agreement that it would be appropriate to add this one.

Yes. Okay.

Oh, that's awesome. Uh-oh, you didn't go through my phone.

Running out of space now.

I just didn't want to go through my phone.

Can I ask a question on behalf of the trades and the architects? Will there be any notification to them that this has been added without me getting involved and me sharing in solicitation, that kind of thing? Is there any way they could know, hey, this company and their window's been added?

I don't know, we don't have like a mass email list.

It's more if somebody asks, really, right? If it comes up like where they're putting like lifestyle in, like, well, that's not, you know, usually the staff comment is, that's not normally one of them that we would use, and it would be more of the Marvin Ultimate or, yeah.

Could I make a request? Is there any way that you can mention this to one of your own architects in town?

You could look through our agendas and find those architects and contact them yourselves. They have their contact information on that. Okay.

But in the future, if they inquire, they will see that little kind of list that Marvin is on and Pella is on, and they'll see this. Can you mention something to Nate Bailey that it has been approved? How's that? Let's just get it out of the way. Yeah, this way. Because I represent the company. Good old Nate. Well, I represent the company, and then it takes me out of it, right? Because I'm neutral. I'm trying to be objective and whatnot, right? So this makes it where it has nothing to do with me, right? So it's the window. Okay, cool. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Nothing else? All right, cool. I hope you guys see the window quite often.

All right.

Thank you. So the last thing under other business is we have the approval of the July 8th minutes. I didn't see any corrections to them.

No, I looked at them and they're fine as far as I saw anybody else. Okay. Move to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 8th, 2026. Second.

All right. All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Do we need to, you automatically get moved to the next one? We don't have to do anything with that?

I think she should automatically get approved. Now this is meeting number three. Oh, you don't have a quorum? No.

Okay. What happened to John?

I don't know. I sent him a message. He didn't reply.

And Francois let you know she wasn't coming? She did, yeah.

whatever she out of the country or she didn't she didn't she just said she wasn't going to be here so that's the second she wasn't here last time either but it does automatically without quorum it automatically gets continued to the next meeting until there is quorum sorry it's fun i don't have to i don't have to start working on it i don't have to start working it's my wife who keeps showing up and has to leave so anything else from staff tonight I do not have anything else prepared this evening.

We both just came from the Clinton Crossing meeting, so sorry for double booking you all. We made the comment over this like twice in a row that Clinton didn't. Is it? Yeah. I flew in and took a picture. Okay. But there's three concept plans now. We've taken that from 15 concept plans. Those are on the website now. You can complete an online survey. Obviously you weren't able to attend that meeting tonight. So we're gonna take those survey results and the input tonight and drill that down into one plan. So exciting progress on that. And that'll be shown out to the community and we'll get some feedback on that as well.

So the people that waited online to talk, they actually, I saw one that had a lot of post-it ones on it.

Yeah, that's mirrored with the online survey. Yeah, and it's asking your preferred and likes and dislikes on each of the plans. So we're trying to take those individual components of the plans and see what stands out. And then we'll keep you updated on that. And then we did receive an appeal for the Kepner's door project. So that is going to go to BZBA next month.

They got it under the wire as far as their time limitation?

Yeah, they met those requirements, yeah.

When will they go?

August, the August meeting. The 20th.

Would we, just so I understand, the only other time that's happened since I've been here was the siding issue. And the EPA, I believe, said, we're not even going to discuss it. They sent it back to us because they said that our findings were... or incomplete right whatever but do you i mean will we will we see that again or does bz normally like would bzba just kind of rule on it and that's the end of it i mean it won't come back they have the ability that's called remanding they have the ability to remand it back and request additional information or findings and things like that but typically they would just review your findings and make a decision

we did that already right we did the findings for yeah yes i think there were like two revisions to it yeah yeah um sorry there was an appeal for stone creek and that that they upheld the artboard decision on that um Sorry, I'll explain more. The new house on Stone Creek. Oh, the one where the guy put the stone up? Yeah, they came back after it was approved and they had the piece of stone. So that was appealed and the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld our board decision. So that's in code enforcement now.

How long do they have to correct it?

Typical 30-day letter and we work with our solicitor moving forward on that.

I think it was on and on, like Edgar.

Barry's.

Yeah, it was just last week. I happened to drive by it, and it's not changed yet. That's it.

We're ready for a motion to adjourn.

Okay. I'll move to adjourn at 9.13 p.m. Second.

We are adjourned.