Planning Board - Regular Meeting

into. Thank you, Alicia. So, I know we're a couple minutes behind. This is the uh work session for the planning board meeting uh for today, June 23rd. I know we have a couple applications on the agenda uh both historic uh reviews for roof replacement and a roof repair. Um yeah, we do. And um so these two it's 117 work street and 116 street. So these properties um they came in uh very close in time sequence um and but they're completely different structures but essentially across the street from one another to the corner. Um and within the Court Street historic district and full for the first 117 at Fort Street is essentially a placement um for the primary structure and the uh accessory garage. Um and that would be um to replace existing asphalt shingles with um incline um like for

light shingles. Um, in addition to that, um, within the methods of the the replacement and materials being used, the applicant did indicate that they wanted to redo the chimney. Um, and so take the chimney out, fill the whole roof over it. Um, at the same time they're performing the re- roofing work. Uh we did hear back from Shipo right before our last meeting, the day of um our last meeting being scheduled. Um while the chimney wasn't um called out on a nomination form as a contributing detail to the historic character, Shipo has recognized it as such and he's requested that it be repaired and and kept in place. Do they know that? They do not. Um, unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to communicate that out to them. That's okay. So, this is the job that's already done. Jeremy Ward or Jeremiah Ward. Jeremiah Ward 117. I wasn't aware that. Yeah, that's probably match up in the first five building inspectors up. I believe it's all Okay. Okay, we'll find out. Okay. Can you repeat that part about Shipo's response? Yes. And you have a confessional letter in the very back of his um so um verbatim that the chimney is character is a character defining element of the historic house and should be remained. If necessary, the chimney should be retointed, capped, and appropriately

flashed at the blind. So, um stated words um they have no concerns with the proposed words and otherwise um and let's see there is a copy of the nomination form also um a couple stages before that. Yeah. blue sheet. Um, and on the form, the angle that the photo was taken of the house, this there's no evidence of the chimney and there's no indication um on the form. Um, that chimney that it is in existence or um that it's a contributing detail. when wouldn't be visible from that angle. Yeah. With the two photos that are in our packet. When were those taken in relationship to the application? Um if it's assumed that they were taken fairly recently. So in those photos there is a chimney. Agreed. So they took the photo at some time just before the work was done but then included it with the application. I think maybe potentially. I think maybe. Yeah. Not positive. Okay. So they had submitted So we think they submitted submitted the photos and then completed the job sometime in that time and they were flagged by the building inspector. I'm trying to remember what stage they were at. I don't know if they were just about done or done. Okay. I don't I

didn't recall that they had completed the work. So maybe that information just came in to you. Okay. Um No, when he first came No, when they first came, they came up and Yeah. So we were he was the only one on the agenda the last I was saying oh well it's already done anyway but I I don't know if they were all the way done by the time building inspector flagged it or if they were but they were already into it. right now sure what stage um and we have this isn't a a typical application that we would receive comments about one way or another they work with they had to have because they can't get their permit until they go through the historic seller duty it. Yeah, I knew the answer. My question being, did the homeowner do the work himself or did he um that um I believe we have estimates on file and on file. So, this looks like it was done by Thomas. at least prefer the other. I'd be curious as a comment from the building inspector's office if the contractors had been ticketed for working without a permit. So often, you know, it's easy and convenient to attack a property owner where all contractors and yes, think about the verification process where if

somebody would have gotten hurt, that contractor is the one carrying the insurance that covers the workings in the property. So the double jeopardy is that a property owner not only is going to be responsible for the work but also responsible for people that are working on the property. That that's a scary thought and it bothers you know because most people do get permits. Fortunately, we're seeing many people that are getting violated after the infractions been committed. And that holding of the liability really is the responsibility of that contractor. We don't know if they're registered. We don't know if they're insured. If you follow the process, the verification's done by the cities, right? Um and and that would be overseen by the domain spectrum. So it's not something that I've would necessarily be too. I I think maybe a conversation with Joe would be would be opposed if that you know the circumstance like this at war it's already happened and no other action even though a violation's been witted. I think it's appropriate to actually that process that we at least make note of it to in what to advocate that the fun factor is applied. more so that the if we're going to adhere to a process then the process

that includes penalty it's not up to us to impose a penalty but somehow the infraction has to be dealt with because if I recall correctly this is like the third or fourth one this year that we've seen right across the street we stop another one after the fact they come in and oh we have works all the time, right? We all go and got hurt. Yeah. You know, it at some point we have to step up and say, you know, who are we protecting here? So, so the one the one thing I will say in the past is I can think of at least one application I believe it was on Brinkerhoff where this board made a decision that once it it came to us after the fact we just rented no decision. Yeah, it wasn't our you know we decided that we should not be making a decision on an application after the fact. The work is done. Or do we are we going to be the enforcement board and say no? You know what I mean? I guess you could, but where does that leave where does that leave this applicant? Where does that leave the city? Does that mean it goes back to the building department and they now do an enforcement action for a roof that we didn't approve? M and exactly we we as a board decided we were just going to leave the action application in it's going to be a no action application going to vote on it. Yeah. And I hear what you guys are saying because you don't want to you don't want to have a lot of those stack up on you because then you're you're inadvertently sending a message that you know you can kind of do this and and there's not really going to be any consequences for you. So, if it's a one-off for a homeowner who didn't know, maybe the contractor didn't know either. These guys are at them

alone. I don't know if they know the process, if they work with the city very much. It's different for a one-off versus multiple violation. And uh yeah, you hate to penalize a homeowner for something like that, have somebody come in and tell them that they think they're doing everything right, and then say, "Well, they got to go back and undo their work now." And, you know, you guys have to sort that out amongst yourselves. I mean in in this one I will say unless unless I'm misunderstanding it or something different I mean we have an actual recommendation from Chipple that the chimney is to stay. Now if they remove the chimney we would never we would probably I mean I haven't seen it as a board where we've gone against a ship recommendation. So that was going to be my question is if we're we've done that or not. The timing is a little is not great for that either because these guys had applied last month, right? And they were going to come before us. The shipo had not gotten back to us until this week. No, no, no. They got back to us the day of last month's planning. Prior to last month's meeting. Okay. All right. I misunderstood that part. Make it right. And weren't they had a schedule? Okay. So, they had they would have heard about that prior to doing it. So, I guess it's worth digging into the timing of I think the work's done. This invoice is from September 2024, and they gave him a $9,000 deposit in March. Well, that's a quote. Yeah, but then they it says deposit of $9,000 in March. So, I feel like it's probably done. And his application was dated in April and I believe April 9th. So, I think or maybe not. But yeah, I think he said that it was pretty much all done or in So if it's all done, how are we going to

handle that and the chimney's gone? That's what we're talking about. in my opinion. Again, I can't think of an application where we've requested CHIPO with um guidance and went against that, you know, and if that means that the application has to be approved maintaining the chimney and repointing, then it goes back to the applicant accordingly. Now, how the city enforces that, I don't know. So our decision will be that they need to put the chimney back on. No, no, that's just my as far as Yeah. Let's have another intervention to that though. If this document is the document that Shipos based that decision on, it's not identified. All they did is they they saw it in a picture. Shipo doesn't just base their decision on that document, but um that is the basis of a property being added to the register, right? And records what the historic is, but so they've based their decision on all elements presented to them. They and they weren't aware that the work had been done either. But what did Chipo say to make their determin? And the reason I'm asking this question, this is a 1979 survey of a house that at the time was 100 years old, right? So, do they are they telling us that that's an original feature of the house that made it the architectural significantly uh valued? So, real real quick in their in their

Ario. Uh, it says, "We know that 117 Court Street is a contributing resource to the Court Street Historic District listed in the state and national register of historic practices. We have reviewed the project information submitted to our office on April 21st from 25. Based on this review, we have the following comments." So, whatever application material that was submitted on April 21st was evaluated. So we submit as full of the applications as we possibly can. So um and Barb provides those submitts to Shipo. So they received the application, the narrative, the photos. Um I forget what else. Chimney part the spec sheet. Um the spec sheets. Um the chimney was in it's in one of the photos that we we received in the in the application and was added to the request for shipo consultation. So ask I'll ask this question again. What does that picture show that that categorizes that chimney as a significant architectural feature of the I don't know that it does but I think what they typically like historic boards and chipo like they usually say if it's an element of the house like I've seen in other historic districts where they would require a homeowner to rebuild a chimney even if they were electrifying the house completely right you know so they just say hey it's an old house it's an all the roof. All the houses had chimneys. All your neighbors houses have chimneys. So, everybody has to keep their chimney because it's of time and place from when it was built. So, that seems like that actually the other the other thing that could be the other thing that could be done in this case, if this is the first time

that the property owner or the applicant is seeing this letter from ship, the board could allow the applicant to uh have a pause on their application consideration and let them coordinate with Shipo directly if they're looking for a different determination. My I guess what really bothers me and I agree with that but it takes it out of our court into theirs. The role of planning board is to protect what the process, the applicants, the participants. What is one protective role that we take you in making an action like this? And that's just an open question, you know, because nothing that we have says that it's historic other than we have a picture of an old house. That's that appears to be somewhat original, but we can't verify it. Neither can ship off from what they have. Yeah. And that's doesn't answer the question. Another element that the board may want to look at and open up conversation with the applicant is is there anything internally? Is is there still an attachment to this chimney? Are there additional internal members? Is there a fireplace still existing or is this just the remainder of that heating system? Many houses um internally have taken out wood burning stoves. Um I don't know what the situation in this house is. It is broken into two different apartments. real quickly. I know we have I'm sorry.

Sure. I know we we have five minutes left to get to the second one. The only the only question I have here is there police in this application where they say they want to remove the chimney in um in the narrative. I think it lives in the narrative where they discuss the methods. Okay, I see it now. Apologize. That's And that's why I missed it. I completely missed it until the shipo letter came in and I both okay. Okay. So that I just wanted to see why shipo tags that is their first comment. Yeah, that's okay. And then I I could see from a shipo perspective that these types of th chimneys go along with the period of the time. as we're defining features of of groups at time. Um, but it would come down to the board determination or and and discussions. So second application [Music] is a repair existing application. Second. Okay. Second application is 116 Port Street. Um this has Um it's a unique reference in that all of us memorize. It is a residential hospital. Um it has a nanther roof and a series of flat roofs. Uh so they're proposing

essentially roof rate affairs on I think it's 4,200 square feet of um the flat roof systems and then on approximately 2,000 square feet or 20 squares they're proposing to um wash and um refote the existing metal roof system. So um on one of the wings there is this metal system um in a bagel roof system. Um and um so they're using 60 mil membrane. um they will mechanically install it and then uh provide metal engines be secure further secured in place. So the majority of work you won't be seeing from the street you won't be able to see the membr on on the metal roofs or on the flat roof systems. Um and then the meadow route system will it will just be essentially refurbishing that. Um shipo had no issues with no concerns with the application. Um it's fairly straightforward. Any questions? I think so. Once this is 116. Yeah. So they talk about Uh there's a recommendation from Shipo about using a different roofing material on the Manser roof. I think that's if if if then when that Z comes and that was not part of this property. Is that like part of the part of this work? If there was

additional work to be done or sighting. Okay. That trims it. I see. Okay. That's it. That's if it was to be done. Not that it's proposed as the application, but if there's an opportunity that it was done that it be corrected at that. Yes, that's the way I understood that. Yeah. And I guess I'm So they're saying it's essentially out of bounds of the work that's being done at this time. That's the way I understood it. Okay. They would Yeah. But if that kind of work was going to be done in the future or incorporated into this project, Yeah. They request that um historic materials we use. Got it. Any other questions? Anybody at the board have any other questions before the regular meeting? you did receive staff reports on each one of these and then there are double resolutions essentially for both of these. Um and everything is almost identical but different and we can we can talk about any other business at the end of the regular. Yeah. Um and it looks like Jere Jeremiah Jeremiah is here with us. Um our second half of is not here yet. Okay. So hope you'll be here in time. Okay. We do have two more minutes.

And I guess the board can consider if the other applicant does not show. You know, in the past we have requested that applicants be present for the meeting or we'll have to decide on that if if and when for the second application. Our computer times are off. It's actually Are they? It's 6:02. I was going to say, yeah. Okay. My computer upstairs is like 9 minutes off, but this one's off by 3 minutes. In that case, we'll go by is real time. So, it is 602. Um, we still recording? Okay. Then, uh, called meeting to order planning board meeting for Monday, June 23rd, 2025. Uh, if we can all rise for the pledge of allegiance, it feels to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Jim Abdala, yes. Rick Perry, yes. Emily Reinhardt, yes. Tom Cosgro. Yes. Carly Larry. Yes. Thank you. So, we have two applications tonight. Um, we will start off with the first application. It's pling board application 25-03. This is for historic site review for 117 Court Street roof replacement for 2025. Presentations for both of the applications. Um starting with 117 Port Street. Um the

request it's a historic site review. Um the request is to replace an existing asphalt shingle shingled roof on the primary structure with an incline asphalt with shingle roof. The real property that is listed as a contributing historic structure on the national register uh for the Fort Street historic district located at 117 Fort Street. The parcel is zoned RH. The applicant is and property owners here and plan preparers with us this evening. Jeremiah Ward. Um here is an overview from um the inner county interactive GIS mapping systems to show the parcel location on fourth street. Here's a zoning overlay that is well within the RH and surrounded by the residential historic district. Um photos of the existing building frontage of the property, two different vantage points. So you do see an attached garage or detached garage in the rear of the property. Um applicant states that the roof has started to deteriorate and now needs to be replaced to avoid significant damage to the interior and structure. Um construction is estimated to take one week. Um here is an overview. Um, not all of these photos came out the best in in transferring them around, but they're to provide um examples of the areas of deterioration and need for replacement. Um, so some of the shingles are peeled up. There's moss growing. There's little

vegetation growing out as well. Um and then um a an a snapshot of the ventilation system um and the assess the assessment of the entire roofing system. So providing an argument to the word the need for replacement and then additional photos to show this was the best photo we could get for the garage in the rear. um that will also receive uh replacement u materials and then the the chimney that has um come up in the shipo uh review comments proposed replacement materials and methods. So true definition duration um shingles uh we the colors here are gray chosen um Removal and disposal of the old shingles. Deteriorate. Removal and disposal of deteriorating brick chimney to be minimize potential leaks. Install synthetic paper and substrate. Install new Sierra gray color on supporting treatment conditions as fall shingles. Um, also include ice and water shield in all valleys and bottom of the roof and install new wide face white drip edge and new rubber rubber boots. Um, the historical significance the structure was built about 1895 the time of the nomination. It the structure was in excellent condition and provided an example of extreme straight um

um demonstration of styles of architecture, the roofing material and the chimney were not noted on the nomination form. Um and then I apologize I left off features the two comments ended up getting married together. Notable additional notable features are called out. Um the nomination form that the board has um which include molded cornises returns on gable ends connected by bullseye panel decoration. Gable ends porch porches have vertical boarding and cut up cutout applied woodwork. Gable ends are decorated with scallops scallop shingles and stained glass windows in west elevation. Um And then this um shipo recommended that um the chimney has historic elements. So again um this these three notes come directly from the shipo uh comment letter stating that the chimney is a character defining element of this of the historic house and should be maintained if necessary. it should be repointed and appropriately flashed to the roof line and otherwise shipo does not have any other um issues with the proposed roof replacement. Uh do note that since this building is on the natural register that the owners also have the option to explore the historic homeowner rehabilitation tax credit. So, um there is a a web address um and

information to reach out if the owners would like to pursue an application and try to get a tax credit or some sort evaluation of precedent. Um there are two applications I I pulled out. 23-044102 Street is similar application for an inind replacement of an existing asphalt group and was approved by the planning board in August 2023. And then application 24-03 for 33 Hamilton Street is a similar notification. Um again from existing asphalt primary and accessory structures and this approved by boarding. Um I did not have any examples of an um a a proposed removal of and where the planning board has approved that or otherwise. Um summary of review comments. We did not receive any comments or concerns from um internal departments or primary call out to the 911 um addressing coordinator. Um the applicable USDOI standard would be rehabilitation which was identified um and with the rehabilitation standards of 2, three, five and six appearing to be most applicable um and would be would appear to be satisfied um if the result of tissue preference. Then I have a detailed evaluation that I have to go through all the

I think the board good where we are at the moment. Yeah. Yeah. Good. And that's all I ask for this presentation. Um and okay, Mr. Mr. Ward, you have the the podium. Any other items to offer in regards to the application or as the information presented? I thought it was well summarized. Uh I sorry needed for the YouTube or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. No, I can't really think of anything significant to add but for I believe uh the next door property 115 Court Street, they had a a chimney removed and went through the shipo process for much more substantial renovations and improvements because their chimney was falling over. Ours less so, but I think there is precedent to look at. But other than that, I can't think of anything to add unless there's questions. So, I guess we can the questions the board has in regards the application. I had a question on how you got here. Um, you hired a contractor to do work. Um, had the contractor applied for a building permit prior to your uh signing a contract with them and they at any point within the process did he apply to do this work? My understanding is yes and it was the building enforcement office that eventually got a hold of him and then me about the need

for shipo review and this process. Okay. Did he did he actually start the work prior to the issuance? He Yeah, he did start some of the like demo work. With regard to um the chimney, there's there's some dialogue in here about u work on the chimney um having it sealing the the roof over. Um had that work been completed? Yes. Okay. Yep. When was that completed out of curiosity? Was it after basically did they come in, do the work for a week, and then find out that the building inspector sort of found out about it? Just curious about the timeline. Not for your own sake. Yeah. Yeah. You're not like on trial. No. No. Trying to figure out the timeline internally. To be perfectly honest, the project was 60% done. Sure. Uh when I got a phone call from the contractor who had spoken with someone at the city. Yeah. Someone at the city and instantly went down. Got it. And yeah, intended to the paper. Yeah. March, April, somewhere in there. Okay. Makes sense. Your roof is leaking. You just want it fixed. Totally get it. Okay. I know it's not ideal. It's funny cuz I do this for a living like but not for individual residential projects. No, I got it. With respect to the chimney, um, you heard Shipo's interpretation. You probably read it yourself. What are your thoughts? Did do you want to uh still continue to roof over that space or did do you have any issue with rebuilding the chimney as ship thinks it should be? I would hope to not have to do that. I

feel like the uh benefits of removing the chimney is like it reduces points of failure. You can flash around a chimney, but it's just much more complex than just putting a plane over where the chimney was. And I just feel like operations and maintenance-wise, that's the more logical approach. And like it doesn't affect the form factor of the house too much in my opinion. the fact that it was wasn't I don't think it was noted on the original record back in the 80s when the district was created and the precedent of the next door property 115 Court Street hope would be enough but that's fireplaces inside the home. Are those all removed or are they sort of there cuz they're historic looking or is there basically is there was it part of an old heating system like fireplaces or was it part of an old boiler in the basement like it's all capped off everywhere? Yeah, we're pretty sure it was like a coal powered fireplace and we actually inside of our house uncovered a a wall that was sheetrocked over and like brought that like fireplace back to life and we're we love it. It's just Yeah. It doesn't you know it's non use. It's not used. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Have there been measures to um disallow use for it at the fireplace um itself? Is it sealed off on the inside of the float? Um I think it was like the I'm pretty sure there was still an opening and actually the tree that overhangs onto the roof would like occasionally like you know make its way like little needles, pine needles into our chimney. So, we could have capped and done measures like that. But I think the ideal long-term solution to preserve the integrity of the home is

to remove those points of failures because the heating element of that chimney is not needed. Yeah. My whole fear is that if the if the chimney is required to be put back in place that you you should take additional measures to make sure that nothing's going to be burned in there, right? Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. You rebuild a chimney and you look outside and say, "Well, there's a chimney and there's a fireplace here, but that where the two shall meet." Yeah. Right. Okay. Any other questions? So under normal circumstances and past applications where well I'll shout out even without shipo guidance typically if it's not any kind renovation uh you know the board has made some pretty formal decisions on changing any kind of character whether it be a chimney or windows. Windows are a common one. um siding. Uh with that said, in this case, we also have a ship of letter uh that you know based on the application submitted which includes the past the historical forms that the city had produced. They also made a determination that the chimney is a character defining element of the historic house. So, you know, you got the form which doesn't mention the chimney, but then you got the application that shows the chimney and triple made a determination. Um the board in the past and I'm only one member here but the board in the past

would have typically looked at a chimney of that nature and then without further detailing you know you know significant deterioration and overall plan that almost necessitates it removal. um probably would have made a similar determination to what Chipotle did here. With that said, um I do believe with past applicants, we have um allowed for the applicant, you know, once a determination like this was made to perform their own uh due diligence and correspondence with Shipo to see if there is sufficient information that you could provide to maybe gather a different determination. that yeah sound like a so once again I think the options are the board considers the application as presented with all the information and you know the board can determine what you feel we all can uh but I am indicating what a normal decision would involve or you know you can uh request for the application to be uh the appropriate uh tabled or the appropriate holding on a decision or you can post both poems for you to further explore this chimney determination. I believe that's I guess that's the question. Is it a recommendation or a it's it's it's a those are the two options I see. If anybody else from the board sees other options and no I mean Jim said it right.

The leveling with you the shipo letter ties the board's hands essentially. We've this board has not gone against shipo in the past. And so if the board were to vote on this, the board would be voting with the Shipo letter to, you know, I'll speak I can only speak for myself, but precedent has been that they would go with whatever the ship recommendation is. You're in a tough spot because the work has already been done. So Jim's recommendations are two twofold, I guess. One is to work directly with Shipo. Your point being that the original application from the 70s does not state that the chimney or the roof are a contributing factor to the house. So more likely than not, what Chipoa would be looking at is saying all of the exterior of the house writ large is part of the contributing factor to it. So if all of your neighbors houses had chimneys, your house would have had a chimney. And so keeping that look of the historic neighborhood, the chimney is an important part of that whether it's in use or not. So that's sort of the general guidance of kind of historic preservation place. The other recommendation would be essentially to, you know, withdraw or hold a vote or, you know, to hold off on a vote for something like this because it would be likely something that you would have to continue to work with Shipo on to adjust and maybe uh what's the word? What's the word that I'm looking for on this? Sort of like adjust the ruling or sort of reconsider. Yeah, have them reconsider and maybe put a different case forward for it to say, you know, if the neighboring house has had it rehabbed and done an inkind and removed a chimney, could that be, you know, again, Alicia said that that was looked at and she didn't find it. We could have to we would have to look at

it again and we might have to re-review it. And I'll give you the other side of the argument is the way that I see it because we took a a 1979 inventory sheet that identified significant architectural features. The chimney was not identified. Yeah, it may be consistent amongst other homes. And then we take and we say it's significant because we have a 2025 picture that says, "Hey, that looks like it could be original." To me, they haven't substantiated their argument or their or their position. Does it is it uh a time period where the chimney would would have been predominant and did it serve a functional use? We could summize that it does, but can they substantiate that that chimneys does have an architectural characteristic that uh is significant to the historic character of the building. That's where I have a problem with it. just because they say it. And I know they don't have on their own the authority to do anything other than remove your federal financing for your house, which I'm sure there's not any. So, they designate their authority to bodies such as this that do have authorative juris jurisdiction to go back and say, "No, you have to do it or you're breaking the city rules." I don't buy that at all. Okay. And I and I enforce those rules for 25 years. So I I look at it slightly different because if you're going to make a claim and

you're going to make people expend additional funds, you should substantiate your position. I don't see where Shipo did that. I had a 500 window property that I came before the board and the recommendation was go to a shipo consultant and we just wanted to replace windows with a light kai window. They said use the original materials. Well, when they're rotted and you have single pane glass, there's no energy efficiency. There's no structural character to that material. So there there are things that they can have an opinion on that can be substantiated nor can they prove the benefit to any historic significance or structural character of a property. Just my two cents. Those are appreciated two cents for sure. Well, yeah. If we're going to give you an, you know, an argument or a discussion, it should be thorough and complete. Yes. And that's I think what Tom and I are are doing. We're showing two sides of an issue that you know ultimately it'll be up to you if you want to challenge their interpretation as as Jim said, you know, we can postpone this meeting. I guess yeah I I mean if it's a matter of like I came into this meeting seeing that shipo response and will I was willing to part ways with that 20% tax credit. Sure. I I I can that's my my fault. I'll part ways with that. What I want to avoid doing is having to pay money to go back and install the chimney. So whatever seems like the most realistic path. like I'm willing to talk to Shifo and try you know if you think there is like a possible path there that then I'm willing to do that but

yeah so the the picture that you submitted does the property right next door to you they have a much higher but similar shaped chimney is that the one you're talking about has been removed No, it was more located towards the front, more prominent closer to Court Street. Pretty sure on the same house or on the same house. On the same house. They that all that chimney back there I think was taken down as well though. That chimney was taken down also under under application here. I Yeah, because it was part of a I would assume it was part of the same proposal to put a synthetic slate roof and do substantial complete rehabilitation to the exterior. Is this on the corner? Yeah, the one the one in the corner. Yeah, the large the large one that was the what? Aderonic Theater Group previously. Yeah, previously. Yeah, because we've seen them. Okay. Well, again, I'm one person on the board. My my my thought is is that we get this, you know, we give the applicant the opportunity to go back to the shipo and discuss this further based on again stuff that's not necessarily in the application today. Condition of the chimney, you know, the assume age of the chimney, not use. I mean, you're maybe your saving grace there is if 115 had it because they are also doing a re they are also doing a replacing kind. So, if you had asphalt shingles and a chimney, they had slate roof and a chimney which is why they went to the synthetic slate. That could be an argument as well if you're saying, "Hey, they have a they've been able to remove this, but I don't I don't remember if that house is trying to rebuild it or not, but I don't know if that's relevant." So,

but then also, you know, discussion of other areas you're Yeah. matching up with, I guess, adjacent neighbors who don't have chimneys now. That would be my that would be my my my personal thought. I don't know about the rest of the board. And you only had the one chimney in the front, not not a second one in the back or anything? Uh, there. No, there was a second one. There was two. Yeah. Were they both removed? Mhm. So, is it up to you? It be up to the if you would like to have us vote or not vote. Oh, man. We've we I also probably not vote against the Shipo recommendation. So, okay, then I guess I'll the Shipo because we don't want to set precedent of voting against Shipo. Yeah. And Jim, do you want to let them know what the process would be if you all voted against it moving forward? So if we voted against it forward, that would go as a a no vote to the building department, which would then be responsible for whatever the appropriate enforcement is. But as with any determination, it's the determination is appealable, right? So, but it's all up to end part of the process. Yeah. Um, so if if the board voted no and we informed the building inspector's office um and provided you

direction on how to move as potentially putting the the chimneys back and um adhering to the shipo comments um and you didn't agree with that, there would be a process for you to appeal this board's decision. Not that I'm encouraging that, but I think it's important to for all applicants to fully understand what what the due process is. And an appeal might involve, for example, saying that you're working with Shipo on an alternate or challenging that designation, for example. Yeah. That appeal would go to the zone, CPA. So you go through a different and have addition additional review piece. Yeah. Additional review applications. So yes. Um which there's no guarantee that your if you appeal that that would be granted either. Um but it's an an opportunity. I'll pass on the vote, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, in this case, there's no motion necessary. You would need to if you're tableling it, it would be a motion to table. Oh, but do we want to table? What happened last time we table? say decision we talked about we had talked about postpone in the premeating I don't know if that's and then if when the applicant comes back then it's still open right is that the difference

between them or keep it open the and we have not held a public hearing on us no because if we table it, we only have x amount of time to take it off the table. That's what happened last time. Remember? Correct. And I don't know how long his 90 days. I don't know how long it's going to take him. 62 days. Okay. Yeah. Say last time that was the exact problem. Tabled it and then have so much time before you have to take it off the table and stay there. Yeah. You vote on it. Okay. Yeah. Right. True. or the decision becomes say automatic after 62 days you don't need to worry about this part rules we're just trying to figure out the right way to do it if okay so just postpone so just postpone which is a no make a motion or a vote at this and postpone until Mr. The board has received additional communication returns with additional information. Oh, they should be going to Barb. Barb, does that sound? Say it again. I was kind of getting confused on whether we need to do we don't do the seeker or anything. Now, what what did you say? We're going to postpone postpone and just no vote further application until the additional information is provided uh by the applicant. Okay. Which is I've never done that before. So I'll just have to ask you how to put that on. It's yeah it's just verbatim as Jim is is stating and and if the board want to formalize it we technically could be the

application till further information is provided I guess that's one way of doing it sort of open had a motion deeming the application incomplete subject to additional information of the app. Yeah, I can make a motion. We'll postpone the review of the application uh pending the applicant's followup with shipo due to it being due to due to the application being incomplete at this time. I'll second that. Okay. So, Tom and Rick Perry. Okay. Jim Abdullah. Yes. Rick Perry. Yes. Emily Reinhardt. Yes. Tom Costro. Yes. Carly Liry. Yes. Follow outside of this meeting to ensure that you have Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Second application for tonight is plane board application 25-04 again historic site review 116 Court Street roof repairs 2025 have a brief presentation and then yeah that's not me parking Oh, wait. Ask him to introduce himself. So, you're

not in the right place. I'm not. No. Never mind. No. Did you not have a permit? Were you just No. Uh the county court. It says here at the Chamberlain office. No, you normally would pay if you were just coming in to pay, you normally would pay at the finance office. Downstairs, it's $15. Um, if some people get tickets mistakenly, they have a permit and it just hasn't been updated in the system or they might have entered in um the information from the license plate wrong. Um, if if any of that applies to you, you just didn't have a permit or you didn't pay at the kiosk and you got a ticket and it kiosk and so you needed to pay. Yeah. So, that you have to do between the hours of 8 and 4. If you felt there was a reason you shouldn't have gotten the ticket, then there is an appeal form that you can get online or I could provide to you that you would have to file at the police department parking enforcement office. But if it's straight up you didn't pay for the parking and you got a ticket, then you have to pay the $15 fine and that would be down one level in the finance office when you come in these doors. Yeah, I can't do that today. I can't. The office is closed at four. Sorry. I don't know if they don't think they have an option to pay online either. Okay. Um, it says they do. They do. Yeah. So, 8 to 4 in person or you can do it online. Gotcha. Okay. There are And where was it? The beach or in one of the city is in the beach. Okay. Um, are you a city resident? Yes. Okay. You get free parking. I can get you a beach pass for the season. Um, I can't now because we're in a meeting, but if you wanted to come see me tomorrow, um, if you're a city resident, we just enter in your information in the system, your license plate, and proof that you reside in the city, and a beach permit's free for you for the whole season. All

right. You want me to give you my phone number for tomorrow? Sure. I decided to pay online that all day, you know. Yeah, you could do that at any time. Yeah, that would be any time. Yeah. Okay. I'm up one flight of stairs, the very top floor on the Trinity Park side. Um, this goes directly to my phone. So yeah, you're city residents get the permits free, but you just do have to do it online and and all your Don't pay it until you get the permit because they can have tell your billboard you didn't know about the permit. Then would I have to come in for like anything after that or pay online? You probably could pay online get 15. Yeah. So that yeah, that'll take care of that'll take care of that ticket because they're not going to avoid it if you didn't have you commit. But we will get that commit done for you tomorrow. Well, I'm just sending back. Yeah. And then you won't have to You had to listen to us talk about roof replacement. Get involved in city government. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Okay. Good night. Have a good one. So, are we back online? I Okay, so we're still online. Yeah. So, plan board application 25-04. Is there anybody online? Nope. Wow. Um, super chisel here. Okay. So, in that case, uh, we have no one online. We do not have an applicant

here. Um, as we talked in the premeating, uh, the board in the past has, uh, insisted upon an applicant being represented by themselves, a representative. Um so with the 116 Court Street since no one is here need to make a decision on that and again could be the same similar to the last application that you know applicants not here application is incomplete without further information. Is that considered tabled or that postponed? I would I would consider it postponed as again incomplete due to you know we've not had the opportunity to give presentation or you know finalize any other information with the applicants. I'll make the motion to postpone 20 what is it 25-04 due to an incomplete application because they're not here. No representative. Okay, we have a second. I'll second it. Jim Abdala, yes. Rick Perry, yes. Emily Reinhardt, yes. Tom Cosco, yes. Carly Liry, yes. Thank you. So, that uh generally concludes the two applications we had on uh on the agenda tonight. Uh, we did not get to talk about other information, but I did have one item which I think now we've had a couple months with city email, which thank you for helping to facilitate. I don't know. Has everybody had the opportunity to

I have. Yeah. Okay. I need help with that. So, okay. I came in early to talk about it. Once once you get it set up and and if you have like an like a smartphone like seeing your email is actually pretty easy with the city's Gmail. He said she has an iPhone 16. I thought maybe one of you guys could help them set it up. Um okay. So we we got that. any other business? We do have a full meeting scheduled for tomorrow night at the zoning update process. So, um the public is welcome to um sit in and reset that isn't allowed to engage. Um, and we're getting really really close to having a full draft of zoning, but it all will remain to be seen exactly when that comes together. Do you have an idea of the general summary of topics for tomorrow's meeting? Um, that I don't have them all on the top of my list, but it was sent out an email and I did forward that email to your email because I noticed that I didn't go to those city emails. Um, your Gmail is listed on it. Um, and actually I I've got notes that I um so we're going to be looking at um the completed vignettes for the the various of the scripts. Um,

and then there was another um sketch that was created for the G Street properties. I think we'll be reviewing that. Um, potentially um the subdivision section I think is included. um standards for I think the standards for the J Street properties because that will be that's being proposed as an overlaid um with the storm water management guidelines also included in that I wasn't expecting them to um and I the the email that Matt sent out Matt Rogers sent out came through today so I didn't study it I wasn't wasn't expecting that they were going to be ready yet because we just essentially met on those. Y um he talked about um I think revisions to the gateway boundary. So he was going to try and have the GIS, the mapping revisions completed for the flight boundary shifts, go through those. Um and then the administrative section he's going to try to have that finalized present tomorrow. So I mean with the administrative section alone people on the board have time interesting to hear where the that planning is going. Yeah, that's and we will have all the public once we do get a full draft and has a chance to

sit through it. Do you have a do you have a link that you can reshare with the board? Um because that starts at on YouTube. It's on Yep. It's by Zoom actually. Okay. So, it's in webinar format. So, similar to how these meetings are structured, if um and if you've signed up for um the city event notifications, you'll get paid for for this. Um what time? And then it starts at 5. Um, and then if you go out to the city website, it's on the bottom right hand side of the homepage and the list of regular meetings or events. Good. Any other items? Nothing from my area really. Um, we've got um CDO has some projects that are moving forward. Um the city dunes beach restoration is going to have a kickoff meeting. Um a contractor was assigned to do a feasibility study for Sailor's Beach. That's pretty exciting. Um CDO is underway with all of its recreation calendar for the summer season. So, um they've been really busy and they just got their first come live with them. That was a huge success at Foxill Park. Everybody was there. Everybody I didn't get a chance to talk to. I was chasing two small children. Oh, yeah. I Yeah, it looks like everybody was in Jamaica. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Um, and I was there wearing

my climate task force chair hat. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, what else? Um, a lot of my projects I I'm working to close out climate action planning grant. um the the the project has been completed for for a bit, but we needed a grant extension and now it's just a final reporting and version of request. So, a lot of work back end, but none of the real fun work. Um none of the stuff you you'll get patted on the back for. Yeah. Boring stuff. And then I've got to um put out a revised resolution for the Sarinac River Trail, Sarinac River phase three trail um to move forward into final design. So, and then after final design be out for construction, hopefully go to construction in 2026. Remind me where phase three is. Is that the part that's through the college? No, that's phase one. Okay. Um phase two connects across the two pedestrian bridge bridges. Yep. Um and then phase three picks up where Riverwalk ends and then runs down bridge degree around to busy otherwise. A lot of different things. Okay. Any other questions? Very good. There is um a DWSP2 uh project that's underway. Um there

DWSP2 drinking water source protection source protection program. Thank you. Um and we're probably I would say we're about halfway through the planning process. modeling has been completed. Um goal setting has been ongoing um and revising the goals and um stakeholders involved and and honing in on the protection area. Um and that's ongoing. Um but I'm not leading that. I'm a participant in who's leading that. Um so I I always get confused on the organization. Newipic. What was that? New pick. Yes, I'm working on that with the health department. Okay. In the background. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um because is one of the um regular participants. Yeah. Um and but so that because all of our drinking water supply is in the town of Plasburg um we don't have direct control over the protection. Um so we're we're working on creating a plan to identify the resources and potential threats and ways to ensure protection through town. And then education outreach opportunities so everybody understands where their drinking water comes from and what the supplies look like. It's all the same area for both the city and the town. It's close. Yeah.

I don't know. Any other questions? I'm concerned why that apple can show up. Yeah. Do you I thought I believe I remember She responded thank you or something in the email. I sent it to Didn't she? I thought so. Yeah, we'll just have to follow up because I know they're really pushing to get this done. And do we know if they completed it too by any chance they about, you know, having their insurance removed if they don't get this done fast enough. So did make that. That's enough incentive, but All right. I I'm I'm not aware that they started anything, but I just know that they were really wanting to get it done. So, I'm shocked that here, but I do believe when I said they dropped off the packets with you right. Yeah. And then I sent the links to the folders and I believe they responded that was just last week saying, "Yeah, we'll see you then." So, I'm not sure what happened there, but somebody's going to be upset. They forget, right? Today, right? not going to be happy when they remember because it's Well, do you want face back since we're going to be looking at both of these again? Great idea. Yeah, thank you. I I would hold on to it, but I lose it. Mark, yeah, that's a lot of paper. sometimes you guys don't even really you know what I mean. Yeah. What's that? Yeah. Do motion to adjurnn. I'll make the motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I I can't really there. A deal.