Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

I think Jim, turn your microphone on. Thank you about that all better. Well, it actually is only 629, so that's it. Okay, let's call the meeting to order. Madam Secretary, could you please call the roll?

Thank you, Chair. Jim Madsen.

Here.

Brooke Richter. Here. Kelly Moran, I'm here. Frank Bala.

Here.

Ray Goddard.

Here.

Jen D'Entremont. Here. And Ben Willett.

Here.

Okay, thank you. I confirm that we have a quorum. We don't have anyone missing, so that's good. Do we have any Commissioners that were not here last meeting. No, everybody was here last meeting, so we don't have anyone to swear in. Okay. I would like to note that all of the applications today have a findings of fact provided by the preservation planner, and I would like to make a motion to request the findings of fact be also represented by our findings of fact as a commission.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Approved. Opposed? Approved. Okay. All right. Everyone's been provided the minutes from the last meeting on August 11th. Are there any additions, modifications, changes, deletions to those minutes based upon what you read in the meeting last week?

No. No. Okay.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the August 11th meeting.

So moved.

Second.

Opposed? All in favor, excuse me.

Aye.

Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, the meetings have been approved. Okay. I'd also like to acknowledge we have the City Solicitor Kevin Gavin from the City Solicitor's Office here with us, and he'll be attending the meeting as he typically does. Welcome, Councillor.

Okay.

Okay, do we have any correspondence? I believe we do not. However, we do have. Uh, some action items, so. Madam vice chair, could you please read.

Yes, this is, um, uh, action item a 1. Of 75, uh, Brenton, LLC, 75, Brevin road, 43, lock for 24, contributing, requesting an additional 1 year extension for permission to construct a on the upper Tara.

Any comments, questions? Okay. I would like to make a motion that we approve the extension for one year for 75 Brent Point, Flat 43, Lot 24 for an extension of one year. Similarly, we have action item two, Vice Chair, can you please read that one?

I think we have to move on the action item first.

Do you on that action item? So moved. Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? None. That passes. Okay.

This is item A2, the application of 7 Red Cross Avenue, LLC, 7 Red Cross Avenue, Platt 26, Lot 44, contributing for permission to extend previously approved certificate of appropriateness for two years for the construction of a new detached garage, cabana, and pool.

Any questions, comments for this two-year extension?

No. No. No.

Hearing none, I request a motion to approve the action item No. 247 Red Cross Avenue, Platte 26, Lot 44.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, approved.

This is a matter a three application of john the sense of nine cherry street plat twelve lot thirty three non contributing for permission to modify a previously approved plan.

I want to hear from nine cherry street. Please come forward. Okay, appreciate that.

Exhibit a would yes, can we have a motion.

Make a motion to accept or. Exhibit a, which is for the H. C. C. medium 9 cherry street.

These move second. Second, I just wanted to ask if there's anything in here that we don't already have.

You should already have it. Okay. We've already received this.

Okay, so it's still an exhibit.

So it's not really, it's not really an exhibit. Okay. Right. Yeah.

Okay. Uh, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or help you God? I do. Please state and spell your name, please.

John Vince, J-O-E-N, Boston Vince is Victor, I-N-C-Z-E.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we saw this application a number of months ago, a few months ago. Yeah, probably January. You're right. So can you tell us what's changed since then?

Well, a couple of things. We had an architect change right in the midst of all of that. So just after you approved it, my architect no longer had the time to do it. So I put it to running on my own a little bit. I do have a local architect now from Newport, Dan. Getting back here, but he's sort of helping us fill in right as I go through this. Kind of my general contractor homeowner, we are kind of forever home. So, right. Okay.

Okay, and I believe we approved everything at the last application in a summary approval. So, but. Can you tell us what's different, right? So what have you been doing since we saw this application last?

I think how I landed here is I did not understand exactly how the certificate of appropriateness worked, and I selected a vinyl-based product for siding, thinking that that was okay in a non-contributing home. That was wrong. It was pointed out. And we immediately ripped it off and we've gone to a cedar clobbered drill, which I have sample here. Pretty standard stuff. It's going to be painted, but what you see there in the photograph is a Just a prime coat right now. It's going to be painted a dark blue sort of traditional with many of the other colors. White trick. That's the first big change. While I ended up here, it was in there. And we corrected it. Worked with Jillian to find out what was going to be approved and what was appropriate. Made that change. And as you can see in the photo, it's mostly like that. That's thing one. You've got more data here, but the history of this house, we're happy we bought it, but it was a crappy little house built in 1971 as a project for the high school students. We're trying to make it, if you will, cuter and a nicer house that fits more into the neighborhood and expand it a little bit. We're doing it in two phases. Phase one is to renovate the existing structure, open it up, add a little of what I call the doodads, or the wings on the roof line, so it would make it more of like Stan Brell's style, look proper. And then phase two is an addition on the back, which again was approved in January in concept, but that's a couple of smalls. It takes it from approximately 1,200 feet to almost 1,200 feet. Change one we talked about, inappropriate, Ronald. Change two was we could not get The original architect had put in Marvin Ultimate Windows through spline chain constraints, whatever. We were not able to get Marvin Ultimate with those in the timeline we needed. So we went with the Anderson Architectural Series, selected those, and we selected those. The original drawings were two over two. We selected and installed six over one. we made that decision walking around the neighborhood seeing what sort of most everybody else had we want to match kind of the commitment that i made to jillian in the beginning not being an expert in this we want to do the right thing we want to be good neighbors we wanted it to fit in because it does so we're fixing that so that was change two um change three is more of a HAB-Terry Palmos- clarification, I noticed, I got a typo change clarification to it should be three but. HAB-Terry Palmos- they're always want to build as part of foundation 1971 basement bulkhead access. HAB-Terry Palmos- It may or may not have shown up in the plans that you guys saw in January there we didn't add to it, we are changing it and changing it from the traditional bill code door which is angled. Not very good looking right to a flush custom door, which will provide access to the same. Okay. That will be on grade. That's probably why elevation. And so let me stop there. Those are sort of the big items.

Well, I guess first I'd like to ask the commissioners whether they think this is too much of a change in application to here as an action item or should we look for a resubmission of an application or are you comfortable with what we have here to go forward?

I'm not concerned about it. I just want to make sure that there's one additional thing on here, and it's regarding your decking and railing. I'm going to get to that. OK.

I wanted to pause and sort of go through the first. OK.

So we were just.

OK. If everyone's comfortable with that, we can do that.

Sorry. Since we're pausing, Jillian, have you had a chance to weigh in on the 6 over 1 versus the 2 over 2?

Yes. So I called that out originally because it was not what was in the plans. both you know, two over two is really indicative of the 1970s. So six over one is appropriate. I was mainly concerned about the materials, the material of the window. Anderson architectural series does meet the standard for non contributing buildings. However, it was just not in the plan. So I think six over one would be appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay, well, working backwards, are we good? Everybody good with the window selection for the non-contributing building? Everybody's good there? Okay, going back to one, right? The vinyl siding, you've removed it and put on the clapboard, which was there originally, wasn't it?

It was original clapboard.

It was clapboard.

It's actually two layers, so the clapboard shingled and everything. Okay. But it's now gone back to the original.

Okay.

And it was originally painted.

Okay. Everybody's good with that.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Are you okay with the bulkhead?

Yeah.

Chair, there's been a statement that the Anderson windows are in alignment with our guidelines.

For non-contributing buildings, a clad window that's double-paned is in line with our guidelines.

I thought our guidelines refer to having a metal cladding opposed to a non-metal.

I believe the material is fibrous, which is composite cladding. Right. So I would still say that it meets the standards for non-contributing buildings.

Agreed. Any other questions relative to the windows, the siding, or the bulkhead door? Okay, you can proceed.

Thank you. A change request. The original plans are a little loose on what was drawn and what those side stairs are going to be, whether they were stone, wood, whatever. So we've had a chance to define that now and bring it to this group. We want to put in wood stairs, the wood railings painted white to match the neighborhood character. The only change we're asking for is we'd like to use a composite-type product like this wolf one or another one that Julian suggested to be an erratus. I know I'm saying it wrong, but the only reason we wanted the decking to be something different is the ease of shoveling snow and long-lasting. So it doesn't need to be a... The rest of it is...

It'll have a lattice front on it, more of the vertical...

tight lattice, again, painted to match the foundation.

Okay. We typically would prefer, obviously, a wood material versus the composite materials and pressure-treated lumbers, you know, et cetera, the composite decking. Again, being non-contributing, I don't think I have much say over that, but I understand your reasoning. Any questions on that concerns anyone?

If I could ask Jill for her comment on that.

So it appears that you are just asking for a composite tread versus the whole thing be composite, meaning just the top portion of the deck.

The treads, the stairs, and then the top. The deck.

Yes. Okay. So we have approved on non-contributing buildings composite materials before. The proximity to the street, this building is a little bit closer to the street. However, I don't think it's...

It doesn't get a lot of traffic.

Right.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would agree with that. But the handrails and the balustrades, they're all wood, correct? They're going to be wood. Okay. All right. No problems with that. And a chimney. Okay.

And then the chimneys is the same product. I brought it. I think somebody got to see it. Her side of the product was in the original pilot wrapping the chimney from the ground. Didn't exist before it does now all the way up to the very top. Here. Mm. Hmm. Right. Yeah, I'm familiar with it. Thank you.

I have a thought, maybe the preservation planner wants to weigh in. Do you guys wanna say this? As far as a veneer on a chimney, chimneys, regardless of whether it's a contributing or non-contributing building, generally are built out of brick. And something like this would be appropriate maybe for a foundation. Are we getting too far from appropriate materials, whether they be faux or not, for a chimney by using this kind of a veneer?

Yeah, like a stacked stone chimney such as this would not typically be seen. There are stone chimneys in Newport, however, they are of a much larger course. So I would agree with you that a brick veneer may be a more appropriate material.

That would be my opinion that if you're going to put a veneer on the chimney that I'd like to see something a little more appropriate, which would be a brick finish personally.

Would that be? Would you be agreeable to that? Because I would prefer that you don't see a lot of that on a chimney and that blatantly out.

Well, we already own it, the starters, because we put it in an initial order. Oh, I see filing in January. And we thought that this would look more like dry sack ledge style on it look better than just fighting it with flat board or something like that. We see a lot of that.

Where other locations have you used this veneer? Is this on the stone wall?

Or is the plan the wall? which is, again, was included in the genuine thing, and that's it. We don't want to build with this point. We're not considering building a cold steel wall.

So that's this wall right here you're talking about? Yeah. That's going to be the same material.

That's not the right color. That's just an example. The color we're using is more of a traditional grayer

Was that material approved previously?

I believe this was.

Yeah, because we basically summary the entire. Application, so we didn't really pick into the materials too much. Uh, so this part of the application regarding the chimney, what is. Changing or why was it bringing it in and show it to you? I see. Okay. So is it even possible that we ask for any amendments on that? I would advise against it.

Okay.

I think that says it all. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Okay.

Okay. I request a motion to approve the action item for 9 Cherry Street, flat 12, lot 033. It's a non-contributing structure as presented.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Good to go. Thank you. Okay, so we did not have any re sequencing to the agenda. Today, so I would ask that the vice chair, please read the 1st application.

Summaries oh, shit.

I'm sorry.

Yeah. Okay. Yep.

The commission can convene in our standard pre-meeting immediately prior to this evening's meeting. Based on our view of tonight's agenda, we'll be making a, excuse me, based on pre-meeting, the commission was made aware of applications that we view as summaries, which means we don't have any questions. We view them as complete. And the first one of those we have is, is, and, It's not N5.

C1. N5.

Oh, N5. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Is N5 for 4 1⁄2 K Street? It's a non-contributing structure. Do we have anyone here that would like to make a public comment regarding 4 1⁄2 K Street? Okay.

Kay Terrace.

Kate Terrace. Okay. A long day. Okay. I would like to make a motion then to approve the application for 4.5 Kate Terrace as presented for summary approval.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Citing Newport Standards 17-TAC-80-TAC-060-B1-2.

B1 through 2 for non-contributing properties. You're right. Okay. All right. So, N6 was also for summary. Do we have anyone here for N6, which is 25 Ocean Road?

Ocean Heights.

Ocean Heights Road. Nope.

Okay.

All right. I request a motion to approve the application of 25 Ocean Heights Road as presented, flat 41, lot 238.

So moved. Citing Newport standards.

Oh, yeah. Citing Newport standards 17.80.060B1 through 2. So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Okay.

All right.

Similarly, in this evening, we only have the one, right? Three?

One and three.

One and three. Okay.

Uh, similarly in this, uh, evenings Pre meeting, we identified the following applications for abbreviated summary approval, which means it's got minor clarifications. We would like to ask, uh, rather than go through the entire application. So, uh. And a vice chair, can you please, uh.

Yes, this is item N1, the application of Ricky Moulton of 34 Sherman Street, Flat 21, Lot 109, contributing for permission to replace existing front step with bluestone cap and stone veneer.

Okay, do we have anyone from?

Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Tyler Johnson, I'm representing Ricky Moulton.

Okay, have you been, is he on the record to be as the representative?

Yeah, yes, he's an authorized representative. May I have your name again, please?

Tyler Johnson. Okay.

Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you. Please state your name and spell your name for the record, please.

Tyler Johnson, T-Y-L-E-R-J-O-H-N-S-O-N. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. And I think, Ray, you had a question?

I did. If you could bring the application up so I can just point it out. So if we look at the original, we see that it's bluestone slab that's there. And then if we go to the image of what is a likeness of what's proposed, it shows a different type of material. Not there, no, surrounding the stairs.

Yes, we're not touching that, sir.

So you're just leaving the blue stone?

We just want to add a blue stone cap to the existing stairs.

So you're basically just chopping what you got there down and put the cap on it and leaving the blue stone on the deck there? I'm fine. I'm okay.

You're good?

That was my question.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I request a motion to approve the application for 34 Sherman Street as presented. citing applicable Newport standards 17.80.0608137 for contributing properties.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? None. Thank you. It carries.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I think that's the end of the abbreviation. End three. End three? Mm-hmm. Oh, that's right. Okay, we have one other abbreviated summary for N3.

This is the application of John Stutter of 401 Bellevue Avenue, Unit 120, Platte 35, Lot 275, non-contributing for permission to construct staircase on rear exterior of unit.

Do we have anyone from 401 Bellevue?

Phillip Whalen?

Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

Thank you.

Please state your name and spell it for the record.

Philip Whalen, E-H-I-L-I-P-W-H-A-L-E-N. Great.

Thank you. And I believe who had a question here? Frank?

Yeah, the concept is clear of what you want to do here, but there was no specific materials with this application. I would be in favor if you understood the guidelines that we have, what the materials should be, and that you submit them to the planner for approval, final approval.

Yeah, most of what we do is via paint and cedar.

Great.

Two by four, one by four, and five quarter by four.

Great sounds good. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. I would like to make a motion to approve the application of excuse me. 41, 401 Bellevue Avenue, 120 as presented. So moved. In accordance with, I'm sorry, citing in the application for Newport standards 17.80-060A1-7 for contributing properties.

And subject to the preservation planner's approval of the material. Yes.

It's actually going to be B1. It's B1 through N2, 17.80.060B1. So moved. Second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We have to continue. We've got to continue.

So we have first continued application.

This is item C1, the application of Thomas Wohl of 77 K Street, Plat 22, Lot 99, contributing for permission to convert existing garage to an accessory dwelling unit.

Okay. Okay. Raise your right hand, please. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Yes. I can get the microphone to work.

Okay.

I need a wrench. Please state your name and spell it for the record.

Sure. John D'Souza, D-E-S-O-U-S-A, North Carolina group.

I would like to note that Commissioner Ray Goddard had to recuse himself and we do not have a alternate to put in his place. So, why don't you give us an update as to what's changed since last time and kind of where we were? I think we were getting pretty close on this 1. so.

Yeah, so the prior hearing that I was here was back in July. I couldn't make the August here that had a conflict. I had another hearing in another town at that point. So, we have made changes to the plans to incorporate some of false garage doors up on the front at that time. I also explained to the commission that we had to raise the move. We had to raise it approximately 3 courses of block coming up. Due to the soil on the back side the right rear corner of the garage was underneath the current soil That's out there. So the ground is actually eaten at the back end of the garage The walls are very unstable Termites cotton pants You name it? or beetles everything's there whatever it is, it's there if a We got vegetation coming through the walls. So in order to meet the criteria within the building code, we have to raise the bottom of the structure up. We have to bring in three courses of a block that we have to rebuild the foundation and then reset the walls up on top of that. The three courses will allow also for us to have an eight-inch exposure, which is required under the building code. Since the backside does not meet the current code for the drainage, we have to do a small swale on the backside to divert water from keeping hidden the foundation from the neighbors of our property. So what that in turn will do is it will raise the roof by approximately 32 inches, as I had previously stated at the hearing.

Mm-hmm.

So the other question that was brought at the last hearing was whether or not we can salvage the windows. The windows right now that are currently out there, they're so old, they're weathered, they're worn. There's a gap of about three eighths of an inch. So you can't even put the jams together to keep the formation of a window or the glazing in the window. I'm actually surprised the glazing is still in the windows. It hasn't fallen out. The rot that's around the wood and everything else, there's really nothing there we can salvage on. The slate roof right now, it currently has a slate roof. We're going to try to see what we can do to save it. There is some moss growing up on the roof. And there's some of the vegetation that has seeped through on the seams as well. But we are going to try to do what we can to maintain this slate. We'll keep it, clean it, and see what happens.

Any questions?

I do. Right. You stated that you're putting three courses of CMU and you're setting the existing building on that. I think that changes as we commented last meeting where you weren't here. I think that changes the proportion and scale of the existing garage to the detriment of I'm wondering if you take 32 inches out of the existing building, build it with CMU and then place the built the remaining building on that. So the plate height, the roof height, everything is the same as it is now. It addresses the CMU that you need to for drainage and etc. But it doesn't change the scale of the building.

So you say it to raise this slab elevation as well?

No, I'm saying build like a pony wall above your slab of the three courses of CMU. So pour the slab, three courses of CMU building, the rest of the building, instead of adding 32 inches to the height of the building.

Well, if you're raising the walls, you're going to raise the height of those walls by 32 inches regardless because of the current rate condition that's out there.

What I'm saying is that you peel 32 inches off the bottom of this building as it stands right now. So you take a hypothetical saw and you cut off 32 inches of the bottom of the building. You build your 32-inch... CMU wall set the building that remains on that. So the current height of the building remains the same.

So you're saying to remove 32 inches from the vertical height of the walls that are currently out there. We, we could try to see if we could do that. The problem is a lot of the wall studs right now, they're so far gone that, I mean, they're really not being held together by much other than some moisture. You go to touch it, it crumbles. So we may have to actually rebuild the walls. So I understand what you're saying. So if we do the 32 inches up off of there, and then we go from that point up to the top plate,

And say, the top play is a fee. Yeah, it remains right. And also what this also does is you could remove 32 inches from each and every stud in the plate that's rotten and maybe you're in good framing and you set that on the, or as you say, maybe you've got to replace all the framing. i just think it's important to keep the scale of the building the same as it is particularly since you're going through the effort of putting similar looking carriage house doors on the front slate roof i think it's important to keep things proportionate

Right. And also, I just want to make mention, the windows that we have shown on the character style doors, those are actually real windows. So they're going into the ADU as glazing.

Excellent.

It will do two things. It will enhance the character and also bring in light. But yeah, I don't have an issue in doing that. But if we do run into issues with the construction on the studs and everything, and we have to knock or rebuild walls, we will let the commission know that we have to do that.

Yeah, that is then classified as a demo. Yes. And sometimes that spurs zoning criteria. Yeah. If you're in setbacks, all of those things are a little sensitive.

Right. So, I mean, right now, the way it stands, I'm actually surprised that it hasn't collapsed because of the weight of the sling. Yeah. It's an imminent health risk right now.

Well, I think you're doing a great job with your intentions on the building. I just think it's important to do a little financing of financing of the plan and I'd be fine with the application. Yeah.

So I, I don't have no issue by us keeping the, uh, the top plate at the same height. Yeah. I don't have an issue with that. That's fine.

Good.

Is that going to require him to get a demo permit?

Um, I believe you have to check with Nick.

Because I would totally, you might not be able to rebuild it.

Well, you have to check with Nick, but usually there's a percentage of the building that can be demoed.

I'm thinking setbacks, and it looks like it's on the property line and everything like that.

If it is a full demo, then you are subject to building in the setbacks. That's why I think.

That's why we don't do it.

I would be.

We know how that works.

That's why, yeah.

How visible is this from the street?

Not very. You may end up seeing just a small portion of the front doors where the roof line is at.

I don't think 32 inches affects the scale or massing of this property.

It won't be. It won't be going up.

I don't think the 32 inch increase makes any difference to the scale or massing.

It changes the character of the building. If you look at the building now where the plate height is, the height of the roof, the distance between the top of the windows.

I walk past this street, this house every day, and I barely notice a garage in the back.

I mean, the way it sits on the backside with a tree up in the front of 32 inches, it gets lost in the visibility very easily.

I'd like to also point out, this is a contributing structure. So there is criteria to look at as size, scale, and massing.

So just for some clarification, I think some of the concern is regarding the relationship between the roof and fenestration versus the actual kind of height going up. It's kind of maintaining the roof and the windows at that height.

relationship between that versus going up right expanded right and this does that this helps for that correct because you're not going to be doing that it's going to just come up there with 32 inches and take 32 inches off the original and

And I'll call it today. As long as that window is within a 48-inch of the slab, we need egress requirements. So that's the only thing we care about from an engineering standpoint of view.

Okay. And then the windows that you're expecting to have to replace those? Is that right?

Yeah. So we're going to be looking to replace the windows, yes. And we're going to try to match what is out there. Forget if it's like a 4 over 1 or a 6 over 1. 6 over 1. So we're going to replace the muttons. It will still be the 6 over 1.

Just double check with the planner before you place your order to make sure the one is in line.

He's next on the list, trust me.

I meant this planner, historic planner. Okay. Thanks.

So I have a question regarding the windows. You are not just replacing them, but you are putting them in totally new locations.

Yes.

How many are being removed?

So there's one, two, three, four. I believe a total of four.

Okay. And they're going to be moved. I'm assuming there's one on each side and two on the back.

Yeah, so one, two, three, four, and then there's none going to be on the back, and then it's going to be just on the other side.

On the side. And I know that you said that they're old and not salvageable, but generally we ask for a window evaluation so that we can better understand what windows you have there and the condition of them. I know it's a garage. but it is a contributing building, and I have a little bit of a problem with the windows being removed and moved as well. I may be the only person concerned about this, but I wanted to ask if there's any possibility of utilizing those four existing windows and putting them in the location that you're planning on.

Absolutely none. It's a safety hazard at this point. There are three-inch gaps in between your jams. There's no way that you can make glazing work at all.

So, yeah, so the sashes are independent of the jams, especially if you're going to be moving them and changing them. And, again, we don't really have photos to fully understand the condition of those windows.

Actually, there was a photo that showed a three-inch gap.

Yeah, I can see that. I can't speak to it from a zoomed-in photo, per se, but that's why.

I mean, if you look at that right there, there's nothing on that window that you can save.

That's not the sash, though, is it? That's the framing of the window? I'm talking specifically about saving the sashes and reusing them.

Yeah, so even the sashes on that, they're all open split. There's so much water damage on them. There's nothing you can do with them.

That's why we asked for the window evaluation, because really it's difficult for us to tell from, you know, and this is one window that we're talking about, not representative of all of them.

I believe we took photos of the festival now.

Okay. I'm Again, I think that's why we asked for an evaluation so we can better see. I mean, we're removing historic material from the building. It becomes waste and it can never be, you know, it's gone forever at that point. It is something that contributes to the character of the building, in my opinion. It is something that should be repaired before replaced, if at all possible. And that's craftsmanship that cannot be replaced or duplicated. So I have a problem with just eliminating them entirely without some kind of effort to evaluate the condition of them and possibly reuse them. I know that that asks a lot of you.

Oh, I mean, the evaluation of the window is going to cost more than purchasing all the windows. That's the problem. You're looking at a window that's well over 100 years old. It will never meet.

Exactly.

will never meet a HERS rating, ever. It will fail the HERS rating.

That window has lasted, if it is indeed over 100 years old, it's lasted and outlasted many modern windows. And I have a problem with old growth wood that was handcrafted by someone at the era of this building that it be removed and disposed of.

But the gaps are way too large. You can't even repair it. any of the window portion itself.

That's what we can't speak to without a window evaluation.

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. From the standpoint that I've been doing this for 41 years, that's absolutely wrong.

And I've seen a lot of windows that were supposedly not salvageable be repaired. Again, I know that this is a garage and And it doesn't seem worth saving, but this is a contributing building, and I personally would like to see some better understanding of the condition and an effort to save them.

I presented to this commission everything that we can save, we have saved. Correct? I've also presented new carriage doors for the front as well to make it like it used to be. Appreciate that. Thank you. If it was, we would save it. And that is prominent by everything that I've spoken to on this project already with the commission. I'm not here to look to throw anything out. I'm not a believer in that. My house that I live in was made in the 1880s. I actually rebuilt windows from scratch myself because that's how I am. But there is nothing that is worth saving on that window right now. And the amount of money that my client would have to spend to get an evaluation of those windows would fire away everything else. So I've tried to save everything I could on this building already. I mean, right now, from an engineering standpoint of view, this building is a nightmare. I see you have your work cut out.

Yes.

I could call the building department tomorrow and say, from an engineering standpoint of view, I need for you to condemn this and we're going to rip it down. That's how much of a safety hazard it's at right now.

But then rebuilding would become a problem for you. Listen, respectfully, I understand. We hear this a lot that things are irreparable. I understand that everyone has their own opinion on those things. I can't speak to it without seeing the windows myself or having a window evaluation. And again, I may be the only person speaking. standing on this right now, but I see this as a contributing building. I see this as historic craftsmanship that will never be duplicated or replaced. And I that is the only part of the application at this point, aside from what we've already negotiated and discussed that I personally have a problem with and I would be opposed.

Anyone else with a comment on Windows?

Could we Could we request you to split this application for everything that we've discussed successively and then come back for a second opinion on the Windows so you can move forward on the work, but the Windows will be something you'll have to come back to?

Let's wait, let's wait, sorry if I may before we take that step, I would love to hear the preservation planners perspective on the windows in light of the fact that it is a converted garage back of a property 2 windows. In the back 2 on the sides.

I would have to agree with Kelly that typically a window evaluation is necessary. We did specify that at the last meeting that we would like to see more information on the windows versus just, you know, one photo. So I do think due diligence there would be a good idea. If they are beyond repair, then I would like to know the specification of the new window that you would be proposing.

Thank you.

Any comment on the window.

They're not. Visible from the street correct.

Correct.

They look in terrible condition to me.

I'm okay with changing out the windows deal as well so. Okay.

Yeah, I'm also changing out the windows. but knowing what materials, you know. Okay.

It's just against our standards, and we hold other people accountable for the same expectations, and I feel that we're just not doing that on this one.

I agree.

Okay. Do we have consensus to go forward, or do we want to split and leave the windows out and come back?

I believe there is consensus to move forward on the application as presented.

Okay. Any other comment?

You just need clarification on the window specs, correct?

Yeah. It would like a condition that the window specifications be presented to the preservation planner.

Sure. We're probably going to end up utilizing the Anderson 400 window.

The Anderson 400 windows do not meet the standard for contributing structures, but we'll connect about windows that will meet the standard.

We can go through that and get an email. whatever you feel comfortable with and we'll utilize it.

Thank you.

And will we be voting on the 32 inch adjustment in the height of the building as Mr. Balabarta?

Yes. Okay, I think we're probably ready. I would like to request a motion to approve the application for 77 K Street as presented with the following changes. We'll be removing the bottom 32 inches of the existing structure and replacing it with CMU block and putting the balance of that structure back on top of that block so the top plate shall remain at the same height. Right. Okay. uh the slate roof will remain and should it need any other replacement or repair you would bring it back to the preservation planner yep and any replacement windows will also be wood and they will also be presented to and approved by the preservation planner yes those are the changes so i request a motion to approve the application as stated in alignment with Newport standards 17.80.060 A1 through 7 for contributing properties.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. I would say standards A1, A4, and A7.

And I am citing A1, 4, 5, and 7.

OK. Motion carries.

You're good. Thank you.

Okay. Madam Vice Chair, please read the next application.

This is item C2, the application of Nancy Flynn of 59 Bridge Street, Platte 16, Lot 57, contributing for permission to expand a rear addition.

Okay. Councilor?

Good evening, board members. Michael Monti of Sayregan and Thayer on behalf of the applicants and owners, Nancy and Edward Flynn. So this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness to expand a rear addition to the Martha pitman house. Which was constructed in 1758 in the corner of bridge street and 3rd street in the early 19 seventies. The property has been owned by the plans since 2019. First, I'll provide a very brief overview of the proposal and the evidence that's in the record, which evidence demonstrates that a COA is appropriate in this case. And second, you will hear from our two witnesses, Mr. Flynn and the project architect, Daniel Perkinrother. So first I want to emphasize that the proposal is styled as an expansion to a rear addition because the owners previously petitioned this commission for a COA in 2020 to add a 165 square foot addition and that extends westward from the original structure. The proposal before you tonight is presented as 2 alternatives. So you can see on plan set a, which is. the one we're looking at on the screen right now, this maintains the existing size saline massing of the 2020 edition. So it's a sort of a clean extension further backward. That's approximately, excuse me, that's 176 square foot expansion. The ridge line and the proportionality is all the same. It's around 11 feet in height. The second alternative, which is mindset B, if we could toggle to that. creates a slight differentiation. So there's a little bit of a bump out, a higher ridge line that's just over 12 feet, and this is slightly larger. It's 224 square feet. In both instances, the area is intended to serve as an additional bedroom with an en suite bathroom to accommodate members of the Flynn family. In the record we uploaded last week, which I hope you've all seen, is a report from Professor Onorato, who has testified before the sport before and previously been recognized as an expert in the historic architecture of the city. Unfortunately, the professor is recovering from heart surgery, so he's not able to be here tonight. But has the commission seen that report? Okay, so I just want to emphasize, because he's not here, a couple of the salient points from it. And I think the photographs are really important. So if I may, this is already in the record, but I can, I think it's important that you have the handout so you can move back and forth if I may.

Thank you.

So in this report that you have before you, which largely speaks for itself, the professor opines primarily on three points. One, that the historic character of the original structure is retained because the surface detailing and additive mass are compatible with the main block of the house. The edition's mass is negligible, and the expansion is connected to the 2020 edition rather than the original structure. In the professor's opinion, as set forth in the report, He believes that the proposed edition avoids conjecture because the expansion is an obvious extension of the 2020 edition. And three, it preserves the character of the original structure because the expansion does not alter the original structure's overall mass roofline wall, surface, entryway, or other defining details. In that report, and if you'll look at beginning at page four, you'll see figure one, and then two, three, and four on pages five through seven, you'll see that there are other examples within the point neighborhood of similar or even greater additions that, you know, are larger and more prominent than that which is being proposed this evening. So most prominently, you can see the Pittshead Tavern and the Christopher Townsend House are noteworthy examples of this, where you have fairly substantial L additions that we think are consistent with the proposal before you this evening. So that's a high-level overview of the project and the evidence that's already in the record. Now I'll ask the project architect to come up. He'll testify as to the particular architecture, and then you'll hear briefly from Mr. Flynn, unless there are any questions from me at the outset.

I actually do have just a question regarding Dr. Orinato's comments yes and one you're putting up a lot of precedents and i guess as a commission we look at each application that has to stand on its own we don't look at precedents right so what's happening in a wanton lyman house totally different than what's happening here So I don't look at that, nor do we look at decisions that we make or approvals that we make are setting precedence for anything else. So what everybody else is doing in the point or around town, I think we look at this individually. So that's kind of my comment there. And then when I look at just saying that it's a small addition to an addition, Right? And I guess you have to define small, right? So now you've got two additions that are going to be, you know, if you're looking at the original home, it's 920 square foot footprint. And now we've got 165 and 225. So that's what? 43% of the same size. So that doesn't sound like a tiny addition to me. It's nearly 50%. So explain that. Because he says it's a small, tiny addition.

Well, I don't think he uses the word look at the two together. I don't think he uses the word tiny. But if you look at figure one on page four, you get a good idea of, you know, where this will be cited. And you can also see that on both plan sets A and plan set B in terms of its scope and being an extension of what's there. Obviously, all things are relative, but it's our position certainly that this extension to the addition is modest, would not detract from the historic nature of the contributing structure and is consistent with how the ordinance has been applied by this commission. And that's the evidence we're presenting before you this evening.

Mr. Hurton. Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you swear? Excuse me to say tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I hope you got. Yes, I do. State your name and spell it for the record, please.

Daniel Herkenrother. That's H-E-R-C-H-E-N-R-O-E-C-H-E-R.

Everyone does.

We know the rest of it.

If I may, I'll, I'll refer you to Sam. Did you walk the commission through each of the thematic sets beginning a and then the alternative B.

Yeah, I mean, to save time, I was just going to focus on B because we had a little bit more of a positive review having the new edition be a little higher than the existing edition so you could see the difference. So I was just going to spend time on that one for now, but we can circle back. But just to kind of rehash, we were back here, or we were on Zoom in 2020, and they got the original 14 by 16 bedroom approved. The idea was this guy was to make it as small as possible. The use of this is for a first level bedroom, so for aging in place. And we tried to keep it as small as possible. So if you look at the proposed addition, for the option B, which is the large of the two, it ends up being 14 feet by 16 feet. And that fits a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. So that's pretty much as small as you can get up and that I would know of. You can kind of see there's not really much more space. So we really went as far as we possibly could to make it as small as possible. I think we were successful in that aspect that we didn't waste any extra square footage. The big goal was to keep it narrow. So The 14 feet keeps the roof line low. The goal of the original addition in 2020 and the goal of this addition is to make sure it's about one third the total height, which keeps it subservient to the main structure of the house. And we probably can just look at the size of both those additions together, which, as you mentioned, is 389 square feet. If you were to compare that to both floors of the main house, you'd be less than 20% of the total size.

We don't typically do that. We look at a similar footprint. How much of the lot does it take up is the way I was looking at it, not so much the height.

Correct. But I think scale amassing also reflects the total height because you could also have a two-story structure that would be much more intimidating to the street level here. So I think it's important to look at it both ways. I think you make a good point. But I think you also need to think about it's the two floors of the main house is about eighteen hundred and forty square feet. And this is three hundred and eighty nine square feet. So with those numbers, it's definitely going to be a very modest addition to the house. And one thing that we don't show in the drawings but the photograph shows is there's a fence and there's screening there. And that's going to remain. So when this is built and you're on the street, it's going to be the same view. You can see the top of those trees are about the top of the chimney. So the proposed height of the ridgeline will still be below the top of the trees. So I don't think there's any way to see it unless you're in the backyard. The house that's there. So it just talked about a lot of scale of massing was reduced enough to track from the original structure. The proposed addition was intended to really read as a further expansion to the existing rather than the original Yeah, and the screen of the trees. So I think that's mostly what I had already personal questions.

Okay, questions? Yeah, I mean, you, in the application, there's two options. And as you stated, you wanted to focus on B. I'm inclined to rather look at A.

Okay, let's dive in. Yeah, well, that's why we gave you both. So it doesn't matter on our end. If there's a certain option that makes the board happier, then

Well, I can't speak with the board, but I can speak. So if we could look at the plan as relative to the streetscape site plan.

You want to look at the site plan? Yes, please. It should be like the second sheet. Yeah. And those spur footages for this one's going to be smaller, so it'll help with our ratio.

So that, for number's sake, and we're looking at option A there, correct?

We are looking at option A now.

Right.

Okay.

I think that's about 350 square feet, I believe, as opposed to 359 square feet.

So my thoughts on that would be that, you know, I believe the professor is correct in his assessment that the original edition itself reads as something that was not original. I mean, you know, the original edition is not original. part of the original structure itself. Then further differentiating an addition to an addition is, in my mind, you know, a step too far. So I would be more inclined to look favorably on option A, but I'd like to hear the rest of the testimony soon as well.

Yes.

I guess I am leaning towards option B. The reason why is I think this small existing addition, if it was before me, As a standalone today, I would say it's too much conjecture. It looks like the rest of the building. The windows are the same. It looks like something that could have been there, but it's there. So I disagree with the professor's comments that this little existing addition reads as an addition. I don't think it does. With that being said, I think your plan B changes the proportion of the thing you're sticking on to the main house. And it reads, delineates as, hey, this is different. It's not meant to be an extension of the roof. it's not an extension of the walls it's a whole new thing the only comment i would have is that maybe change the material the siding so it physically reads i see you're changing the way the it joins the building so there's a brake line so i would be in support of b okay okay dan do you have any comments questions

No, nothing further. I think I'm in support of that. And I agree with Mr. Bell about that. The B plan is more appropriate in my estimation. Same reason stated.

I support the application. I personally like the look of a better and that it's smaller. but I understand Commissioner Bala's point that the original addition could be looked at as original. So I do like B to avoid conjecture.

And I guess when I look at that based upon Frank's comment, and I do agree that it does look like it's been there, so it is providing some conjecture that it was always there, the small L that's existing. Based on that, you know, just extending it, I don't think, you know, adds, you know, anything. And typically, we would make it subservient to that structure. If that was an original structure, we'd make it smaller, not bigger. So, quite honestly, I wouldn't be in favor of either one of these. I think they're too close to the street. You know, we don't know those trees are always going to be there, you know, so I would not be supportive of AORB. So...

I mean, I'd have to agree. I'm struggling with either option. I just think it's such a long appendage to this property that we're not even really able to fully grasp from looking at the elevations and the theoreticals here. Uh, it is extremely close to the street and now we're going to be adding, uh, another addition to an addition that's going to have elements that are not. Really cohesive with the, with the building itself. I understand it's supposed to stand out on its own, but. Uh, I, I'm struggling with this in general for a number of different reasons and, um. I just think that it's starting to with this with the length of it specifically, it's really starting to, um, take away from the original structure.

Did you have another speaker by the way? Yes, we have 1, uh, other witness.

But I ask a question to Dan. Is there any zoning variance to put this addition where it's, so it's allowed by zoning?

Correct, yeah.

So this is allowed by zoning?

Whether it's allowed by the building official is another story, but that's not for this commission to know.

Right, right. No, I was just saying that its position on the site is within city standards.

That's correct.

And our lot coverage, we're still 5% below fax coverage. So thank you.

Just out of curiosity, what are the setbacks on? I mean, that's a dense neighborhood. Is it three feet, five feet?

It's actually on on that line. It's a zero front setback because both neighbors are on the street. So we're three and a half feet from the street, but you could be as far as close to zero.

Three and a half feet. So the trees that are existing, you're just going to build right up next to them?

I'm sure that they'll be replaced because there's about a three foot over dig for a foundation.

Okay, so we're losing the trees and we're going to have three feet to essentially put them back. Now we don't have the trees for screening. Yeah.

Well, the trees are going back in for screening.

And the fence is going to disappear? I mean, I'm just thinking, how do you even? So it's all still going to be within three feet, you're going to have arborvitaes and a fence? Oh, yeah. Wow. Thanks. I'll say.

Thank you. And when the owner testifies, we can perhaps clarify some of those points.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Thank you. Thank you.

i did just before the gentleman speaks i did just want to weigh in because i haven't said anything that um i'm um generally in support of the plan um item b for the reasons that mr bala has stated

Raise your right hand, please. All right. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God?

I do.

State your name and spell it for the record, please.

Edward Flynn, E-B-W-A-R-D-F-L-Y-N-N.

Thank you and welcome.

Thank you.

Could you just tell the board a little bit about yourself first and then we can get into these particulars?

I grew up in Boston. We've been summering in Newport since 1980. We purchased a home during COVID. moved here and we're taking care of my mother-in-law who's 85. That's the reason we're building the bedroom. And we live here only in the summer. It's not a rental, it's in a trust, it's our family home. We're more inclined to do option B. As far as the screening goes, the trees are staying. They're not going to, they're gonna be very close to the overhang, but they're not being removed. The fence is not being removed. The foundation is being hand dug from the backyard. I'm a licensed builder. I grew up in downtown Boston, renovated over 100 homes in Boston. I now reside in Savannah, Georgia. I live in a historic home. All of our homes that we stay in are historic homes. And the reason we only wanted to do a single level was to keep the scale and mass down. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Any questions for Mr. Flynn? Thank you.

Thank you.

So that's all we have this evening. We believe that the proposal clearly meets the standard for a certificate of appropriateness under the city ordinance. In particular, the proposal retains the historic character of the original structure because it does not impact the original structure as a modest extension to a previously allowed addition. It avoids conjecture by being a quite straightforward extension, obvious if you will, of the addition. It does not read as original or as pretending to be original. And it preserves the character of the original structure because it does not impact the original structure's overall mass, roofline, wall, surface, entry, or other details. And it is also consistent with other applications by this commission to similar and like projects in recent times. That's all we have. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I guess we're ready. So I request a motion to approve the application for, excuse me, 59 Bridge 3, Platte 16, Lot 57 as presented.

With option.

Yeah, we're going to have to state A or B. Right, yeah.

So I can't support B, but I can support A.

So let's vote on A and then vote on B.

Right and then so, if you get both approved, then what. I don't know, I guess you decide.

Well, okay. What 1 suggestion is that you only present. Item B, because I'm not sure that you have the votes for plan a.

if I might suggest perhaps we could take a vote on B and see where that lands and then if B is approved we won't request a vote on item a fair enough well that makes sense thank you okay I would like to make a motion for the application for 59 Bridge Street plat 16 lot 57 Version B, right, citing the application applicable Newport standards 17.80.06081 through 7 for contributing properties.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Aye. You have? 4-3. 4-3. It passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Do you want to set your standards, Ray?

C1 and C3. Yeah, C1 and C3.

C1, C2, and C3.

So we had cited standards A1 through 7 for the... It's A, so it's A. I said it, yeah. You did, yes.

Okay.

Great. But since it was new construction, I think we had a little confusion.

Okay, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I would like everyone to cite the standards in which they denied. I feel like it's important to have on the record.

Yes, I would absolutely do that. And I am citing. Newport standard 17.80.060 a 1 and 8. 2 1 and 2, I'm saying Newport standards a 4 and 7 for my opposition.

And Ray. You would just cite your standards for opposition?

I would cite C1 and C3.

We're on A, though.

A1, A3.

A1 and A3? This is new construction.

It's in addition to a contributing structure. Therefore, we evaluate under contributing structures versus new construction.

Okay. I would say A1. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Madam Vice Chair, can you please read the next application?

This is item C3, application of Carbon View Limited, LLC, of 562 Bellevue Avenue, Point 2, Platte 37, Lot 12, contributing for permission to replace doors and windows.

Thank you. Do we have someone here from 562 Bellevue Avenue? Okay, bring it on.

Good evening, uh, Peter Regan from say, are we going to, they're representing, uh, probably be limited LLC along with. Here's some more of the market.

Yeah.

Can we get everybody sworn in here when you get a chance there? Okay, breaks your right hand. Okay, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Speak your name and spell it.

All people problems. Pearson Boer, P-I-E-R-S-O-N-B-O-O-H-E-R. Welcome. Thank you. That's a regent.

Thank you. So we're back here. We were here with you last month on this application, which is part of the project to restore 562 Bellevue Avenue, which was originally constructed in 1953. Last month, you approved the application covering the tennis court, restoration of the large bay window, replacement railings in the Juliet balcony, as well as replacing the chimney caps and architectural louvers on the roof. At that meeting, we also sought approval to replace the existing windows and doors, as our position was the majority of them were either non-original replacement windows or 1950s original windows that were no longer salvageable. Since then, we have had a meeting with Brad Ward, the city building official, to discuss the issue of whether state building code requirements for impact glass in coastal areas impact this property and Mr. Ward confirmed that they do impact this property and generally in three ways. First, any new openings, we'd have several because of demolition of one of the non-original additions. Any new openings require impact glass. Also, any existing openings requiring reframing will get into that, also require impact glass. And third, any openings larger than eight feet also are required to have. As you're going to see that those three categories cover the great majority of the window and door openings on this property. But what I'm going to do is turn things over to Justin and have him walk you through each of those categories. Okay.

All of us are trying, failing to get this out. Maybe if I get it back. Okay.

Can you hear me? Peter, hold it for you. Got some duct tape.

There you go. All right. So, um, I realized after we met last month, I have not presented to several of you. So I just wanted to go through my expert witness qualifications. 1st. Um, I qualify as a national park service, um, professional, uh, meeting the standards for professional qualification under 36 CFR part 61. As both, um, architects and for historic architecture. In addition to my architecture degree, I also have a master's degree in historic preservation from the University of Pennsylvania. I serve as a commissioner on the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Heritage Commission. I sit in the architect position that is outlined in the state constitution. I'm a member of the Rhode Island State Preservation Grants Review Panel, and I'm a trustee and a president-elect of the Providence Preservation Society.

That's it? So we're preaching to the choir.

So as Peter mentioned, we have the continuation from last month where we had requested in-kind replacement of the existing wood windows. As you can see here, we've done a show and tell. We've brought samples of what we are proposing if we are approved to replace. What we are requesting is approval of replacing with a new in-kind custom wood window with insulated impact-resistant glazing. with simulated divided light, as we discussed last month. And afterwards, we can talk about this more. Sorry about that, Peter. So in our estimation, we qualify under two criteria, as Peter mentioned. The first is based on the existing conditions. So as we discussed last month, only 12 of the 70 total openings in the building are original from the 1950s and were classified as being in fair or good condition. So that represents approximately 17%. now according to standard number six of the secretary of interior standards rehabilitation deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced as you guys well know 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 this would be representative of that to an extent The second criteria we feel we match is, as Peter mentioned, based on our conversation with Brad Ward, is based on the code requirements. So for the section cited above in the state building code, new fenestration at this existing single family residence, which falls under risk category two, requires one foreign debris protection. So the National Park Service has an article titled Evaluating Historic Windows for Repair and Replacement. I just want to highlight the portion of the text here. Mandates such as impact resistance may make it impossible for a building to have any compliant occupancy with the historic windows in place. And I have a handout of this. And then further, there's a similar article on replacement windows that keep the standards. Mutton's reproduced as simulated divided lights consisting of a three-dimensional exterior grid between the glass spacers and an interior grid may provide an adequate match when the dimensions of profile of the exterior grid are equivalent to the historic mutton and the grid is permanently affixed tight to the glass. So we haven't added it illustrative. I just want to walk you through that. It goes through the various criteria we reviewed with Mr. Ward.

Can you hold on one quick second? We just need to accept this as Exhibit A into the record. I'd like to make a motion to accept the National Park Service Historic Preservation Report into the record. So moved. Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Just to note the guidance on

So, as I mentioned, this is an additive illustrative here for the various criteria. So the first, as Peter mentioned, any openings that are greater than eight feet in either width or height. If we were to restore the windows, we would be required to add storm windows to them. However, for the code, storm windows would not be advisable or permitted in these types of situations, therefore triggering the code to replace the windows. Criteria two, where we are converting any existing openings, as we discussed last month, we have non-original bay windows, non-original doors that we are converting back to windows. Those would trigger the code for replacement. 3 where we have the existing brick roll lock sills that were not properly flash watered getting into the exterior wall assembly. We need to take those roll lock sills out. We are going to salvage them and reinstall them. However, in order to perform that work, we would need to remove the existing sessions and frames, which would trigger the code. Criteria four, where we have to see openings where the framing needs to be modified or replaced. For example, we have steel lintels that are severely corroded and displaced, causing distress to the masonry and to the frames. We need to replace those and add new fleshings to create a weather-tight building enclosure. That would trigger the code for replacement. And then what we're left with are three openings, the front door and two French doors, none of which are original to the building. So what we are requesting, obviously, is replacement with this window. This is a sample from the page. This is obviously just priming. This would not be the color we're going to be painting it. And then we also have corner samples of the doors, as well as the simulated lights down here. And say that he simulated divided lights plus profiles that are included in here profiles, the sight lines will match as closely as possible to what exists. So there will not be reduction in the glaze opening does in conformance with our HP HCN. Yes. Any questions.

That's an all wood then window with a single pane, but to simulate it.

Correct. So they are fabricated of naturally decay resistant species in this case mahogany. So that they would be stained on the interior and painted on the exterior.

Tim. So this window, the existing window and sash and jam will be removed. And this window will be sitting in the existing rough opening, not the jam openings. Correct. Yeah. Very good.

This would not be a jam.

Extra points. Yeah.

That's one of the reasons why we have to replace them is because most of those frames have to be removed and reframed, which is one of the main criteria under the new code. And it's interesting, you know, you look at your policy and building those environments with it. However, you know, the first two words of that policy are whenever possible. This is a good example. It's not possible as the state code requirements for building safety, which we will provide that policy requirements.

And I also think, you know, we have National Park Service backing up this procedure. And, yeah, I think we're in...

It's something that, you know... Exactly.

If you have not done so already, I would like to see as part of your application a typical or set of typical, you know, recorded jam profiles and, you know, sash profiles, uh, any pertinent thing that I realized these were all 1950 era windows, but, with a side-by-side comparison of what your new simulated divided light is going to be. So we have it in record, which is part of what we asked for in the guidance. Yeah. Okay, great. You've done it.

So that is in the record we've given it to children.

Extra points.

All right.

This guy wrote the book.

Yeah.

I just like to say you guys had some wonderful comments last month, and we really took it to heart and spent a lot of time doing our homework to make sure we could come back. So thank you.

Could I ask the historic planner? For clarification on where the authority of the building inspector... and the HTC collide in this case here, right?

Yeah.

And because in our policy, in our recommendations, right, there's a conflict between impact glass and single-pane windows, right? And so moving forward, right, if this is going to be precedent for the future, then any window that comes before us that single-pane glass can no longer be saved?

So this is due to the level at which repair is needed. And so if they were able to repair in place, then my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you would not need to replace with impact glass.

That's correct. And part of the reason why these have to be replaced is because of the water infiltration that's been coming into all of these openings for quite some time and has required the replacement of the frame itself. If the frames were sound, then at least with regard to those existing window openings that aren't new or aren't being modified or enlarged for the ones that are larger than eight feet, then the impact class.

So we're talking eight feet, not square feet here, right?

We're talking eight feet. Eight feet in either height or width.

So my understanding then is if long is the, we're replacing the framing of the window, the structural framing at that point, that triggers the new code. However, if there is a window that, existing that doesn't meet impact but can be repaired and that doesn't need a new frame, then our policy or our recommendation still stands.

That's my understanding and you may also have buildings in different parts of town that might not have the same proximity to the ocean as well.

Well, it's important to the commission because with this recent change, the majority of Newport, if not all of Newport, is now in that zone, right? So we need clarification moving forward, you know, how we approach this, which is why you guys had to come back, I guess, because the last time we didn't have that clarification. No, and

appreciate this you know we didn't we weren't oh yeah yeah exactly i don't think we were probably appointed at the time so that i think this is an interesting issue

I also think the scope of work per project, you know, there may be an application that is doing, you know, $300, $100,000 worth of window work, which doesn't tip them into.

Yeah, no, I recognize that. But I'm concerned that there's a lot of gray area here. And, you know, how, you know, Probably the majority of things that we look here at here in the commission have windows as part of the application. So we need solid clarification moving forward. How this works. Modify step over take a look at that window by the way. Sure.

Yeah, I would encourage you all to look at the window. It's pretty nice.

Yes. The page is nice.

How expensive are they compared to the.

Add it to my collection.

How expensive are these windows as compared to a typical Anderson wood?

So that's a good question. Not that it matters to the client, by the way.

In the market, I can give you a rep's number.

So if we were to take, let's say, Ella and Anderson, cluster them, this is slightly above it. So they have standard products. We're going with the slightly custom version, but it's not a new knives and robots. It's just slightly

Okay.

I think it's just a light up.

I think that's the ballistic part.

Or the impact. The reflected. So when you see them,

They're just like, they're just like, it's like masking tape.

So different, right? Yeah.

Oh, that's what it is. Right.

Okay, any other questions, comments, anything from your side.

We're good. Okay, we'll wait for to get back.

He's faster.

Almost done. Okay, I would. Really, Frank? Yes. Okay. I request a motion to approve the application for 562 Bellevue Ave. Part of what?

Part 2.

Okay. Flat 37, lot 12. As presented, citing the applicable Newport standard 17.80.060A1-7 for contributing properties from the 1950s. So moved. 2nd, all in favor. All right. Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Yep, we got one more. Okay, Madam Vice Chair, please read the next application.

This is application N2 of JBCV construction of 35 Pelham Street, Platt 27, Lock 7, contributing for permission to replace 23 wood windows with Anderson 400 series wood right.

Okay, please step forward. Please raise your right hands. Okay. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I sure do.

State your name and spell it for the record.

Deborah Amaral, D-E-B-O-R-A-H-A-M-A-R-A-L. Thank you. And I'm with JBCV Consulting.

And you, sir?

First of all, my name is Ronald Garrity, R-O-N-A-L-D-G-E-R-A-G-H-T-Y.

Okay. And you're the homeowner?

I am one of the homeowners. It's a six-unit condominium.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. These windows, we did have Heritage come by, and they did have their credentials here written. And Ron spoke to him through Zoom. He had told us that, yes, these windows could be replaced. There's a lot. They're from 18, what? 1816. 1816.

What he had told me was that they're not original, that they're retrofits in an old plank frame. And even if they were fully restored and repaired, they would still have a lot of problems. They don't have any balusters. They're non-functionable. They're held up by a stick. So they're in dire need of replacement.

So in the three units, the women... The two women, she has these wooden shutters that go over. But when she opens the window, she has to have a stick. Those windows are pretty heavy because the balance is in this. So, I mean, it's become a danger to her too. But I did, what I did was I had priced windows, first of all, through right down here in Newport. And... They were modern windows here out of Newport. And then I also priced the Anderson windows and they were the 400, which I'm just hearing tonight that I believe they're not approved here. So if we could possibly get what Anderson windows are approved and we can price them up because it's either repair or replace. So that way we could get this project in the move before maybe mid-week.

Well, it's repair before replace. Right, repair before replace. Right, okay.

Great.

The conversation I had with Rob Canetta, Heritage Restoration, was that they are not the original windows, that they go all the way back to they were replaced in 1860. The house was constructed and erected in 1804. And even if they were fully repaired, they would still have several deficiencies. So that's why we're requesting that we can replace them if that would be okay.

Questions? How were these windows meant to operate? Were they on pulleys? On ropes?

Some of these balances aren't working.

I don't even know if there were balances ever there. I purchased the unit in 2017 and ever since I've owned the unit I've had to open the bottom sash and place a stick there in order to hold them up. And in the wintertime, I have to put plastic, you know, the ones that you blow with the hairdryer to keep the cold out.

Yeah, I understand. I know how old those can be. I'm trying to understand how they operate and how they would stay up because a rope pulley system is actually very easy to repair. And if you open the pockets of your, if you open the window up, you may actually find that the weight is sitting inside of the pocket.

According to Mr. Canetta, he said there's no ballast system in the.

There's nothing in there. negative okay but there is a pocket that they should have been sitting in not to my knowledge there's only the frame and the sash that the window goes up and down on okay okay so there weren't weights and pulleys there there were never um ropes there are no no uh wheels at the top of your windows Okay, so they probably did operate on either friction or some other means, but... Stick. A stick. So... They do look like they would have been on weights and ropes. It's just hard to tell. This...

is the one that one woman that has the shutter that you can see where they are, she puts a D in there, she puts whatever she can during the window during the winter, and she even made a new sash on the bottom.

I'm just looking again at the at the window evaluation. I mean, my concern here is that you have a number of 1860s windows. And it appears that the whole building still really has them in place and intact, and that many of them have even been somewhat preserved over time with your storm windows in place.

Storm windows, from what he told me, are not worth anything. They shouldn't even be there.

Sure. But those do have a timeline and perhaps could also be replaced to preserve the windows that are now approaching 200 years old. Did Heritage give you any options on what could be done to hold the windows open aside from sticks?

No, he did not. He just said that they were in dire need of replacement because they're non-functionable and they're not original and they're retrofits in a plank frame.

They may not be original, so 1880s kind of historic, right?

Civilian was erected in 1804. He said they were replaced in the 1860s.

Yeah, so there's still historic windows that we need to protect, right, if we can.

Right. Can I just get some clarification? Because as I recall this window survey, it reflected that most were operable.

operable in what respect that they they have to hold they they don't open up when you open them up if you let them go you can lose your finger you have to put a stick as you're holding it up you have to hold it up with one hand and put a stick there in order to keep it in place to keep it open i realize that that's what you're saying but when i read the the window survey that's not what the document was saying um

We were going to turn it over to them, and they returned it back. So what it is here is retrofit single track into an original plank frame. And there was quite a few. They had no operating systems. There was aluminum jams, Corrado Window Company. That was an older window. No potting strips. Upper historic side and a lower replacement. That was on that one. vinyl jam, liner damage, storms detail, well the storms were, I couldn't do that. Those are different. Reference by the inspector only. Only original sashing group uses sticks, uses sticks, wood construction, I mean that, and that, but he talked to Ron because he wanted to keep going with the try to replace the windows, especially during the winter. I mean, he's just trying to get that because when these windows go in, they get all new insulation around them. They'll have to be put back in.

And he did stress that even if they were repaired, they would still have several deficiencies. So I'm just looking to have them replaced for quality of life issue because it's very cold in the apartment in the wintertime.

So I'm looking at the window report here, and it does say, despite widespread operational deficiencies and aging finishes, many windows do remain structurally serviceable. The building retains a substantial amount of historic window material, though much of it exists in modified or retrofitted form. So obviously it's seen many adjustments over time. Perhaps Heritage has something that they can do to help