2026-11-03 - Historic District Commission

00:00Welcome to this uh edition, this special

00:02edition of the Natucket Historic

00:04District Commission. Um it is uh

00:08November 3rd voting day. Um and it's

00:13exactly 4:00.

00:15Present in the room today are myself,

00:19Angus Mloud, Abby Camp, and Connie

00:22Patton. On Zoom, we have Carrie

00:26Thornwell

00:27and Joe Paul.

00:30Hopefully I got all that right. And

00:31Steven Welch is supposed to be showing

00:34up sometime soon.

00:36>> And I'm here, Ray.

00:40>> Oh, did I did I not mention you? I'm

00:42sorry, Val. I knew.

00:43>> No, it's okay.

00:44>> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, you sound terrible. You

00:47sound terrible.

00:48>> I know.

00:48>> Okay. Um, thank you, Val.

00:52Uh, let's see. Can I have a motion to

00:56approve today's agenda? So moved.

00:59>> Thank you, Angus. Um, I'm gonna take

01:01everyone at the one, two,

01:05>> uh, all right, here we go. Um,

01:09on your motion. Angus,

01:11>> I.

01:11>> Good. Abby,

01:12>> I.

01:13>> Uh, Connie,

01:14>> I.

01:16>> Uh, Val Oliver,

01:19>> I.

01:20>> And I'm in favor. Okay, that's an

01:21approved agenda. Any commissioner

01:24comments at this point?

01:28Hearing none, I shall move on. Do we

01:31have any questions for Holly? And also

01:34Holly, what's your

01:36>> I'm here.

01:36>> Okay. Holly is here for the duration.

01:39So, you know, I I feel like it's always

01:42a more efficient use of time if we just

01:46uh you know, have Holly opine when she

01:49feels like she needs to on any of the

01:51applications at any given time. Um,

01:54thank you, Holly. Let's see. We've got a

01:56short consent agenda. Anybody need to

01:59recuse from that?

02:02Okay. Uh, can I have a motion from

02:05somebody?

02:08>> I'll make that motion, Mr. Chair.

02:11>> Okay. Val, thanks for the motion. On

02:13your motion.

02:14>> I.

02:15>> Okay. Abby,

02:17>> I.

02:17>> Angus.

02:18>> Hi,

02:19>> Connie.

02:19>> I.

02:20>> And I'm in favor. Okay, we got our few

02:25um consents taken care of. Let's see.

02:27Consent with conditions of which there

02:29is one. Uh same and the same board by

02:34the way.

02:34>> Motion to

02:38>> uh I believe Abby

02:40>> motion to approve the consent.

02:42>> We're going to try and save your your

02:43voice a little bit.

02:45>> Okay, I'm good with that.

02:47>> Okay. Okay. So Abby has just moved to

02:50approve the one consent item with

02:52conditions. On your motion, Abby

02:55>> I.

02:56>> Angus I.

02:57>> Connie

02:57>> I.

02:58>> Bal

02:59>> I.

02:59>> And I'm in favor. Old business of 1020.

03:05Angus is chairing this one and we are at

03:07Woodbury Lane. Um boy.

03:13Go ahead. Um, so the the the

03:18board the sitting board for this is

03:20myself, uh, Ray, Stephen, Carrie, and

03:24Joe.

03:26And so we've got Carrie and Joe. Do we

03:29do we have Stephen?

03:30>> Not yet.

03:31>> We have Connie.

03:32>> Well,

03:33>> um, and so we can take um,

03:37uh, so, uh, Val Ruse. So, uh, Connie,

03:42can can you join us for this one?

03:44your chair on for an alter. Yes. Um, do

03:47we have an applicant?

03:49>> Oh, yeah. Henry.

03:51>> Okay.

03:52>> Well, we got a board. [laughter]

03:57>> Hi, Seth. He's rejoining.

04:04>> Hello. I'm here to speak on 32 Woodbury.

04:07Uh, my name is Seth Grizzee. I'm a the

04:10project consultant with Renewal by

04:11Anderson.

04:13Good afternoon, Seth. Uh, feel free to

04:14present whenever you're ready.

04:18>> This is old business. I I I'm what what

04:21are

04:23I'm not quite sure what uh you're

04:25looking for.

04:30>> Um, so do you want to share your screen

04:33to present?

04:35I don't have anything to share with the

04:37we've kind of gone over this project a

04:40couple of times I believe in the

04:41meetings and [snorts] um I believe you

04:44wanted information

04:46on the insert style of replacement that

04:49we had and there were a couple things

04:51that came along with it with uh

04:54appearance and glass loss things along

04:55those lines. my dep my permitting

04:58department has sent some information

05:00over to you to try to answer those

05:02questions that you had for me the last

05:04meeting that we had concerning this

05:05project.

05:07>> Okay, thank you for that. Um Holly.

05:10>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. So for the

05:12record, this is a non-contributing

05:14structure 1993 infill within the old

05:17historic district, the Woodbury

05:19subdivision, which is a representative

05:21subdivision called out in our NHL

05:23update. um which means it has a high

05:25standard of of infill. Um

05:29so the macros that was provided in the

05:32the HTC survey shown in the application

05:34was actually for the previous structure

05:36that was there. So again it's not 1940.

05:39Um and if you look at the actual um

05:42application uh that comes from MAC, it

05:44does say it was demolished back in the

05:46day. So it's not that uh the example

05:49provided

05:50um was approved by I guess I think the

05:54commission had asked for if my um memory

05:57is correct for an example of where these

06:00type of windows were already approved

06:03within on the island. Um, and they

06:06provided an example that was approved by

06:08a like kind last year uh for a a 1998

06:13dwelling outside of the old historic

06:15district. And I think that is um

06:17something just to to represent that, you

06:20know, again um we're we're looking for

06:22window replacements within the old

06:24historic district. I bet a a

06:26non-contributing structure. And the

06:28commission did vote in September, the

06:31last time you all reviewed this, to hold

06:33for more information and a view of a

06:35sample window. And I don't believe um

06:39besides the photographs that are

06:40provided in your packet there was

06:42anything else that was submitted. Thank

06:44you, Mr. Chair.

06:45>> Um thank you for that, Holly. So, Seth,

06:47um, since our last meeting,

06:50>> um, requiring an example in the OD, uh,

06:54and of the window that you're going to

06:57that you're proposing to put here. Um,

07:00we didn't get a notice that it was

07:03available to view or an address or a a

07:07window. So, did did did

07:11you submit that or do you have yet to do

07:13that?

07:14I've got a permitting department that

07:16does this uh for me. Um so like I said,

07:20I I gave them an address of a customer

07:24that we had and I think the woman that

07:26was just on before mentioned that um it

07:30was an insert style of replacement.

07:32Again, it was the

07:34uh that and it wasn't in the old

07:36historic. It was outside of it. Um, I

07:38did give my permitting department that

07:40information and I again um not quite

07:43sure what they provided you for

07:45information.

07:47>> It sounds like we got um an example that

07:51was outside the OD. Um so if you can

07:56provide the office with a with an

07:58address within the OD

08:00um in time for us to view um then we can

08:04do that before the next time we meet.

08:07I'm not quite sure we've been permitted

08:08to do work inside the HOD um because of

08:11this. So I I I don't know if I've got an

08:13example to show you that is inside the

08:16HOD.

08:17>> Oh hey

08:18>> because again this is kind of the the

08:20the back and forth that we've been

08:22having is we don't have anything in

08:24inside this area I don't think right

08:26now.

08:27>> Make a suggestion.

08:29>> May I make a suggestion Mr. Chair?

08:31>> Uh Ray please go ahead. Well, earlier I

08:33had asked for the details. Uh I mean

08:37it's interesting there's about 30 copies

08:40of the same thing in our packets.

08:44Um and it shows like an Anderson

08:47representative drawing with the little

08:50hat and he's holding like what appears

08:53to be a replacement sash with the

08:55casing. And so my fear from the

08:58beginning on this particular thing is

09:00that we're dealing with a replacement

09:01sash that gets fitted into an existing

09:04jam that would basically make the

09:08overall window aperture smaller. Um the

09:12way of vetting this, you know, short of

09:14seeing something

09:17built on site is to see the window

09:20itself

09:23and or see the detail sheet of how the

09:26window is constructed. I think those

09:29pieces of information would be able to

09:31tell me at least um you know whether it

09:34was a replacement sash or whether it's a

09:37sash that's going into an existing uh

09:40jam without an additional jam. Those

09:44sorts of things. So that that was what I

09:47was after when

09:48>> it's a window going into an existing

09:50jam.

09:52>> It's not a full frame new construction

09:55replacement. It's an insert going into

09:57an existing jam.

09:59>> Just the sash. No casing. No, I mean no

10:02jam. No new jam. Just two pieces of

10:05sash.

10:07>> Window frame. The jam.

10:09>> A window frame is a jam, friend.

10:12>> Okay. Okay, friend. Um, the jam then

10:16it's going to have a new jam. It's going

10:17to be a whole operational window going

10:22inside the existing framework.

10:26>> So, uh what we would be looking for is a

10:29a section showing what that looks like

10:33in a unit um sort of spelling out

10:38u h how you're proposing this would go.

10:43The concern is that we just don't want

10:45to have that extra

10:48um you know the the the jam exposed and

10:52losing the amount of daylight in the

10:56window

10:58um

10:59>> and getting the next pled up. So just um

11:03if you could provide a section and an

11:06elevation showing what the the casing

11:09and the existing casing and the the

11:12proposed window would look like.

11:16Would would someone like to make a

11:18motion on this?

11:19>> Could I just ask a question through you?

11:21>> Of course, Carrie. I didn't mean to cut

11:23off the conversation. It seems like

11:25we're short of information.

11:26>> No worries. I'm just um thinking these

11:29don't exist in the old historic district

11:32because they're not appropriate. So, the

11:35fact that um this is an Anderson rep

11:39doesn't give the homeowner much of a

11:41choice to

11:43decide on another type of window um or

11:49setup. So, it seems like the last time

11:53we talked about this, Rey did a really

11:55good job of describing

11:57the look of this situation where you've

12:00got sort of a double jam. Um, and I'm

12:03just not sure.

12:06I mean, other than seeing an actual

12:08window with the actual setup, we we

12:11really can't

12:13approve it because it I mean, that's why

12:15they're not there's no examples for him

12:17to show us in the old historic district.

12:20So, I'm just a little bit confounded at

12:23this, but thanks. That's it.

12:25>> Thanks, Carrie. Um,

12:29does anyone have any other comments or

12:32questions? Otherwise, we could go to a

12:34motion.

12:35>> Can you please tell me exactly what you

12:37want?

12:40>> You want to see You want to see a sample

12:42whole window for one, correct?

12:46>> Yes. an example of what you're

12:49proposing.

12:50>> No, you want to see a sample of the

12:52window in person in in the you want me

12:54to bring it into the meeting? Would you

12:55like to see a whole window? Is is that

12:58what I'm hearing?

12:59>> I just want to make sure I can get this

13:01right for you.

13:03>> A drawing would help um is really what

13:07we're looking for. Showing

13:08>> a drawing. showing a a section and an

13:11elevation

13:13>> not just a drawing of the elevation a

13:15detail drawing all the details

13:18>> so this would be

13:18>> what what can you tell me what details

13:20please so that I can provide them for

13:22you

13:23>> in in the so we'll move this to a motion

13:26and I'll leave this to Ray if you want

13:29to make the motion and that way you

13:30could be specific about our request

13:34>> I move to either see the actual window

13:38here at the meeting.

13:40>> Okay, we'll leave it at that. Um, uh,

13:44that's my motion.

13:45>> On your motion, Ray.

13:46>> Right.

13:48>> Uh, thank you, Carrie.

13:50>> I,

13:51>> uh, Joe,

13:53>> I

13:56uh,

13:57and that leaves me. And I'm an I as

13:59well. Oh, Connie. Yeah.

14:01>> Hi.

14:02>> Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you, Seth.

14:05>> Okay. Thank you.

14:07Uh, back over to you, Ray. Thank you.

14:14>> Okay, next up is all business of 113.

14:18First item of which is 100 Maine.

14:22Um,

14:24Elizabeth. Do we have Elizabeth?

14:27Here comes Stephen. By the way, Stephen

14:29has just joined us.

14:32>> Yeah.

14:33>> Yeah.

14:36So, Elizabeth's online.

14:40>> Oh. Oh, okay. Yeah.

14:46>> Good afternoon. I'm Austin Bentley. I'll

14:48be representing Elizabeth Churchill

14:50today.

14:53>> Okay.

15:01>> Go ahead.

15:03Do you have a nice I'll

15:04>> be presenting revisions for the 100 main

15:07guest house on behalf of Elizabeth

15:08Churchill. Um sorry she couldn't be here

15:10today. She's in a knee surgery

15:12unfortunately. Um per the board's

15:14request.

15:15>> Are you going to screen share?

15:17>> Um could you share the the submission?

15:23>> Well, not me personally. Um but

15:28thank you Fiona.

15:35So per the board's request, we made the

15:37the following updates. The stone knee

15:40wall that was at the base of the

15:41building has been removed

15:45on the north elevation. We simplified it

15:48by removing the overhang over the French

15:50doors and those two small windows that

15:52were flanking the second floor window.

15:57Um, we showed the French doors on the

15:59elevation, which was asked, um, which

16:02will be the existing garage doors

16:04repurposed, um, as shutters to be closed

16:07over the French doors, um, during the

16:09winter.

16:12Additionally, we attached a photograph

16:13taken from the sidewalk that looking

16:16down the driveway to illustrate the the

16:18visibility um, prior to the construction

16:21of the fence that's already been

16:23approved.

16:29Okay, that it.

16:31>> That's all.

16:32>> Great. Thank you. Uh, I didn't announce

16:34the board, but I will right now. Myself,

16:37Angus, Abby, Stephen, Carrie.

16:41>> Okay.

16:42>> Can I interrupt Ray and ask Fiona to

16:44please scroll to the elevations?

17:03Good.

17:03>> Any others?

17:05>> There we go.

17:05>> And is is everyone uh ready to um speak

17:09on this?

17:11>> Is anyone ready to speak? Go

17:13>> ahead.

17:13>> Uh

17:14>> after

17:17>> I do have comments.

17:18>> Okay, go ahead.

17:19Um so the last go around the board had

17:23asked for simplification. Um so I

17:25appreciate the simplification of the

17:27facade to clabard matching the main

17:29house which is circa 1795 revival 5 bay

17:33within the OD. Um the proposed gable

17:37dormer isn't an atypical gable dormer.

17:40Both dormers front and rear don't comply

17:43with building with anti page 71 to 72.

17:46The paint configurations and sizes on

17:48the door on the west should be a simple

17:5112 light with kick panel to match the

17:52other doors. Um staff does have a

17:55concern with the proposed window

17:57manufacturer. Um didn't know if the

17:59commission was familiar with that one.

18:00Sierra Pacifica Westchester. While staff

18:03is not familiar with it. Um again want

18:06to make sure the commission is. I did

18:08attach with my staff comments the

18:10section of building with the ant in

18:12mind. Um, but I do think this is a

18:14better rendition from the previous.

18:17Thank you.

18:17>> Okay, Holly. Thank you. Okay, who's

18:21ready to begin?

18:23>> I have a question.

18:24>> Go ahead.

18:26>> Um, uh, through the to through the jar

18:30to Austin. Um, could you please tell me

18:32on like at the north elevation? I'm

18:35assuming that this is the the gable in

18:38that exists that has the garage doors in

18:40it now and it's just being raised up. Is

18:44that correct?

18:45>> Yeah, that's my understanding.

18:48>> Okay, thank you for that. I'm happy to

18:51go ahead and comment.

18:52>> Okay, great. Thanks, Angus.

18:53>> Um, so I appreciate the elimination of

18:55the uh the stone. This feels much calmer

18:59and more uh well closer to the existing

19:04structure. Um but the reason I ask about

19:07the existing gable is that it doesn't

19:09have these cut off ends that sort of

19:12makes it more um elaborate than uh than

19:17it needs to be. So I would be looking

19:19for the gable uh basically the trim to

19:23represent what is existing. It's uh

19:27there's an overhang uh on the the gable

19:30and eaves. The trim is a much smaller

19:33scale and uh for the gable to uh be a

19:38true gable down to the cornerboards as

19:41as it is existing as opposed to being

19:44cut off with a higher knee wall. Um, I

19:48agree with Holly's comments about the

19:51doors,

19:52um, wherever they're French doors that

19:54they would have a panel. It looks like

19:57they do.

19:59>> Yeah.

19:59>> Um, and I appreciate seeing the French

20:03uh, doors on the north elevation, but

20:06um, but the way I understand it is that

20:09that's what's behind the garage doors

20:11that would um, be there when they're

20:14when they're closed. Otherwise, they

20:16would just be open beside is uh through

20:18the chair. Is that correct, Austin?

20:22>> Yeah. So, in the in the winter, the

20:24existing garage doors will be closed um

20:26the carriage house. Look, and then in

20:28the summer, they'll be opened and you'll

20:30see the the glass French doors.

20:34>> Okay. But the doors won't be removed.

20:36They'll stay on there.

20:37>> They'll stay.

20:38>> Okay. Thank you. Those are my comments.

20:41>> Okay. Thanks, Angus. Who's next?

20:45>> I can go. Sorry. Uh, Stephen beat you to

20:48it.

20:49>> No worries.

20:50>> Thanks, Carrie. Uh, yes. So, appreciate

20:52the modifications. Uh, I think that this

20:55is appropriate and approvable subject to

20:58one change. And I'm not married to the

21:00change, but I think it would be more

21:01becoming. I would just add I think it's

21:04a little bit of flavor other than

21:05homogyny or otherwise vanilla um as is

21:10characteristic of town. Um I do agree

21:13with Holly just with respect to we I

21:16think we would set a performance

21:18standard versus get involved with the

21:20design of a particular window

21:22manufacturer and it would be that the

21:24windows would uh these are TDL

21:29>> or are they SDL true and through

21:34>> the application?

21:34>> I didn't see that in the comments.

21:36>> We can ask the applicant.

21:37>> Well, I probably a good thing to check

21:39the application.

21:48They're not jumping out at me. Double

21:50hung doesn't say. Um, now we'll ask the

21:53applicant through you, Mr. Chair. What

21:54are the windows anticipated to be or

21:56planned to be true divided light or

21:58SDLs?

22:02>> I believe they're SDLs for energy code,

22:05but I would have to double check on

22:07that.

22:08>> Okay, understood. Yeah, as an infill.

22:10Um, so we're going to uh my suggestion

22:13would be that it would conform to the

22:15muttons would conform the muttons the

22:17sill detail and the window casing

22:22would conform to historic norms.

22:26And um

22:29the only thing I would add I think is

22:31optional is I think more becoming this

22:33design is that your little pent roof

22:35would be a a three panel hip.

22:38Um, and you could maybe knock it down

22:43to a five and 12.

22:46Uh, other than that, I'm good with it.

22:48Thanks, Mr. Chair.

22:49>> Okay. Thanks, Stephen. Let's see. We

22:52have Carrie. I believe you were trying

22:54to get in there, right?

22:55>> Um, yeah, I just I agree with the other

22:57two, but um, Holly had mentioned the

23:00other dormer and I looked at it and

23:04according to the drawings, it's only two

23:06feet off the end wall. And I think we

23:08should just be consistent with the three

23:09feet off the end walls. Um the next

23:13elevation,

23:14this one, I think it says two feet and I

23:17just think [clears throat]

23:19three is our norm.

23:24>> Okay, that's it, Carrie.

23:26>> Y

23:27>> I'll just note too that the two feet as

23:29to mentioned is taken from the corner

23:32board to the outside edge of the rake,

23:34which is a somewhat of a deception.

23:37Anyway, um Abby, your turn.

23:41>> So, nothing really to add except that um

23:45you looking down the driveway, I I don't

23:47think you're going to see this. So, I I

23:50just But it it would be nice to to to

23:53make it conform historically. So, I

23:55agree with what's been said.

23:57>> Okay. Thanks. Um,

24:00so

24:02the important thing for me is that yes,

24:04this is going to be visible at quite a

24:07distance down the down the lane. So, the

24:10front of it is going to be what we're

24:12focused on. Um, and it's far enough away

24:16and enough in keeping with our

24:18guidelines that I don't really have a

24:20problem with anything, including the

24:22overhang of the dormer on the back, by

24:24the way. Um, so I'm okay if somebody

24:28would carry motion that would

24:30>> Can we see the site plan, please?

24:32>> Yeah, that's

24:36Have you seen the photo

24:37>> and the locust?

24:39>> Yes.

24:42>> What?

24:46Can somebody snap it up quick or I'll do

24:49it.

24:50I just want to make sure there's not a

24:52back street that

24:55I'm trying to think what's there that

24:56it's not far enough up

25:03>> five pleasant street by the first

25:06monument

25:07>> and you wouldn't see it from Newton.

25:09>> Yeah, Newton.

25:10>> No way.

25:10>> New was the one I was curious about.

25:12Okay. So, based on those uh those that I

25:15I well I agree with Carrie with respect

25:17to the three feet. I think this isn't

25:19visible.

25:20Um, so I'm not going to hold somebody to

25:22a standard that's outside our purview.

25:24And um, I also there's, you know, Union

25:28Street has dormers that are flush to the

25:30sides and um, Washington Street and

25:32stuff. So again, for me, I'm riding on

25:35the nonhomogyny

25:37uh, train on this one. Um, I would make

25:39a motion to approve. Does anyone uh

25:42given its location not going to worry

25:44about the pent roof? Uh I would make a

25:46motion to approve subject to

25:49uh traditional muttons

25:52uh certified through the uh uh staff.

25:57That's it.

25:58>> Okay. Thanks, Stephen. Uh on Steven's

26:01motion,

26:02>> I'm sorry. A traditional mutton profile,

26:04just to be clear.

26:05>> What did you say?

26:06>> Traditional muttons, which could be

26:07perceived to be or something else. Um,

26:11okay. Great. Thank you. Let's see. On

26:15Stephen's motion, Abby,

26:20>> I'm an I.

26:21>> Okay. Angus,

26:22>> I.

26:22>> Stephen,

26:23>> I.

26:24>> Harry?

26:25>> Yes. I

26:26>> And I'm in favor. So, that that carries.

26:28Thank you very much, sir. Let's see. Uh,

26:32now 19 Monoy.

26:35Do we have uh Oh, Ethan's repping this

26:38one. Ethan, do we have Ethan?

26:42>> Oh, okay. Fair enough.

26:47>> Um,

26:59>> good evening. Welcome to the ATC.

27:01Thanks. Thank you.

27:02>> Little filler here while we're waiting.

27:04Absolutely.

27:05>> Anyone know any good chils? Uh,

27:09No,

27:10>> let's see.

27:11>> Thank you.

27:11>> Oh, I think we I think you're you can

27:13feel free.

27:14>> All right. Um, so this recently appeared

27:16in front of the board. Uh, we have a

27:19previously approved porch with a

27:20previously approved uh railing on it.

27:23Um, and we're looking to update just the

27:24railing. Uh we previously came in with

27:28uh horizontal or vertical steel cable.

27:31>> Um horizontal and uh still looking to

27:34break up the monotony of that foul trade

27:36and we're hoping to do so with some

27:37crossbox.

27:39>> Um

27:41yeah,

27:42>> still with the steel there. Just

27:44>> steel for fall protection. However, the

27:45the crossbox

27:47>> is intended to be what you're you're

27:49really seeing from the Okay.

27:50>> public way.

27:52>> Thank you.

27:53Anybody

27:59>> just a qu can we do questions?

28:01>> Yeah, of course you can.

28:02>> Because I I haven't seen this

28:04combination before. I was wondering are

28:07the the wires I'm assuming are on the

28:09inside.

28:09>> They are so you wouldn't necessarily see

28:13them as much.

28:15>> And are the is it the

28:17So is that the cobweb crossbook? Does it

28:21have a little or is that a different

28:24Okay, they're regular crossbuckss

28:27and then there's

28:30Is there a square? I don't know.

28:33>> You mean the midpoint thing?

28:34>> Yeah. Is that Is that

28:35>> Yeah, it's there. Okay.

28:37>> If that's what your question seems to

28:39disappear.

28:40>> Oh, yeah. You can't see it very well

28:42there, but I can see it clearly on my

28:44screen.

28:45>> It is intended to have those clarified.

28:47>> Okay. All right. So, um, can we scroll

28:50down to the other alternatives and then

28:52I can I can go on the, uh, comments?

28:59>> Okay.

29:01All right. I I've went back and forth on

29:03this. Um, should I continue?

29:05>> Yeah, please, Mr.

29:06>> Chair. So, um I kind of think just the

29:10regular ballastrate in the end because

29:13it is such a simple house and I think

29:15the the crossbooks and the square in the

29:18middle and the wires are just um

29:22just it's it's almost like the only

29:25added detail on the house and maybe just

29:29the simp simple one is is better. Thank

29:32you.

29:33>> Okay, Abby. Thank you.

29:36I can go.

29:38>> Uh Carrie, go ahead.

29:39>> Um I agree with Abby. I also think you

29:42really wouldn't see cross on a second

29:44floor deck and because the wires would

29:48disappear, it just seems wrong somehow.

29:52Um so I do think the traditional

29:54ballasters would be best. Thanks.

29:58>> Okay,

29:59>> I'm happy to go.

30:00>> Uh

30:01sure, Angus.

30:02>> I agree with what's been said.

30:05>> Okay. Uh, Val Oliver,

30:12is she there?

30:12>> Hi. Yes, I am. Can you hear me?

30:16>> Yeah.

30:16>> Okay. I was on the other camp. I thought

30:20it was more simple. It's off the road

30:23and

30:25I was okay with it.

30:28>> Okay.

30:29Um, thanks Val. Um, I was feeling the

30:33same way. I mean, I think it's going to

30:36be visible, but at a distance, I wasn't

30:38in love, as the minutes would show with

30:43the just plain old steel. I think this

30:45is a

30:47fairly decent compromise, but uh it I

30:50think that we're outnumbered. So, would

30:53somebody else, one of the majority like

30:55to make a motion on this one?

30:58>> I could make a motion to hold for

31:01revisions as opposed to a denial. Do you

31:04want to come?

31:10>> Well, that's already approved.

31:11>> No. No. Okay. To be clear, you came in,

31:15your folks came in with the simple

31:18ballast straight.

31:19>> That was approved.

31:21>> That's been approved.

31:22>> That's been approved. And then

31:25last time this was heard, it came in and

31:27had the steel cable

31:30running between uh the newles. We we

31:34didn't like that one. So you came in now

31:37with the sort of Chip andale style

31:39crossbuck thing to sort of mitigate the

31:43impact visual impact of the steel rail.

31:46Right.

31:47>> Exactly. Yeah.

31:47>> So

31:49>> I I only say that to be clear because I

31:51think Abby, you were thinking that that

31:53like that was one of two choices that

31:55they're looking for an alternative to

31:58that

32:00approval.

32:01Okay. So, now that I've said all that,

32:04would somebody care to make a motion um

32:07on this?

32:09>> So, my motion is to hold for revisions.

32:15>> Okay. Want to sort of talk it over? Uh,

32:18okay. We'll stay with that. Um, Angus,

32:21thank you. On Angus's motion, Abby.

32:27[laughter]

32:34to just to make my vote um uh

32:38legitimate. Uh could I could I look at

32:39how far how visual this is from a public

32:43way? Like is it right on the road? It's

32:46back enough.

32:47>> We have some photos.

32:48>> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry to hold this up. We

32:51go. Um is there a site plan?

33:03Yeah.

33:04Yeah. Um

33:12>> yeah, I can go either way. I I'll say

33:14yes.

33:16>> Yes. To the motion to hold for visions,

33:19right?

33:20>> Yes.

33:20>> Okay. Thank you. Um, Angus on your

33:24motion.

33:24>> Hi.

33:26>> Uh,

33:28Carrie,

33:28>> I

33:29>> All right. Um, Val on that motion,

33:34>> I guess. So,

33:36that's an I.

33:38>> Okay.

33:39>> I think, you know, is it fair to say

33:42maybe there's a little bit of

33:43misunderstanding about this? No, never

33:46mind. Strike that. Um, okay. So, um,

33:51let's see if you can come up with some

33:53revisions. Okay.

33:54>> Thank you very much.

33:54>> All right. Thanks. Um, by the way, I did

33:58I I was, um,

34:02no, I'll just say I abstained on that

34:04one.

34:06Okay. Uh, 11 Adams, Ethan, they are all

34:11queued up. Uh, myself, Angus, Abby, Val,

34:14Carrie, same same board as before. 11

34:17Adams. Let's go.

34:19>> Okay. I made the revisions asked for

34:24basically you wanted to see the grade on

34:27the property because it was drawn as

34:29flat. So I showed

34:31the grade

34:33and I marked it on the elevations. Okay,

34:36>> the two feet difference which is in the

34:38back of the building is the shortest

34:40part is in front. If you go to the

34:42elevations, you'll see it.

34:55>> [clears throat]

34:57>> And there's the there's the the grade

35:00change marked on the elevations.

35:11I have a question. Let me get it. Go

35:13ahead. Angus. Um,

35:17yeah. So, I'm just kind of following the

35:19line from front to back. Uh, in I guess

35:24it would be the south elevation or the

35:27north elevation.

35:29And I'm seeing a shingle line that goes

35:33from the back all the way to the front,

35:34right? And the typical, let's call it 8

35:37in. and and then maybe another six

35:41inches below that is where the

35:46is where the grade

35:50is. So it's showing more of it's like 6

35:52in instead of 2 feet difference. So I

35:55it's I I guess I'm not understanding

35:59where the the twoft

36:02unless there's like a plateau in that

36:04area which isn't indicated in the topo.

36:10So I guess the question is uh

36:16>> no I actually understand what the

36:18question is.

36:19>> Yeah.

36:19>> Um

36:25>> because there's a little bit of a discon

36:29Oh, you know what,

36:36Ethan? There's one document in here that

36:38just shows the existing topo and that's

36:41kind of it. And from that it would look

36:44like that there was a almost a two foot

36:46of 2 ft of grade change along the length

36:49of the building.

36:49>> Is that the from the surveyor's one?

36:51>> It's uh let's see who produced it. It

36:53looks like a surveyor's drawing.

36:56However, however, up above that is

37:00another drawing that shows all these uh

37:02little retaining walls.

37:05And that one I believe is the one

37:07>> I don't Can you scroll to that uh site

37:09plan? I guess it's the surveyor's one

37:14>> cuz I'm going by that's the one I was

37:16using and then that's his. And where's

37:18the retaining walls?

37:23[clears throat]

37:27>> The retaining wall is here.

37:28>> Isn't that the septic system?

37:32>> There's septic here, but this looks like

37:34on top of walls.

37:36>> All I know is on the property there's no

37:37walls. It's just if you look at the

37:38photographs, it's just all dirt

37:46and I went by his I transosed those

37:49lines onto my drawing. I marked at the

37:52front of the house the lowest point. I

37:55measured back to where those numbers

37:57are, went down. That's the numbers I

38:00got. I mean, the building's kind of

38:02short to begin with.

38:06>> [sighs and gasps]

38:07>> Okay. All right. Um,

38:10Angus, do you have anything else that

38:12you want to comment on?

38:15>> No, it's just how that was going to

38:17>> work work out. I think that was what I

38:20was waiting for with this presentation.

38:22If we go to the next site plan, the one

38:24below this.

38:27>> So,

38:29this is just under the 12 ft and this is

38:32just under the 14 ft. And so I'm seeing

38:35two feet difference between there, but

38:37like a six inch difference in drawing,

38:40>> right?

38:40>> So there's another foot and a half to be

38:42accounted for.

38:43>> If you want Well, I'll draw it at

38:45another foot out of the ground. But

38:46that's not the way it is because if you

38:47I d that number there. I marked it on my

38:51elevation. Then I went down the length

38:53of the building, marked it again, drew a

38:57angled line, and that's what it that's

38:59what the computer came up with.

39:01I mean, if you want, we I'll raise the

39:03house. I'll drop it. I mean, I don't

39:05know how to do it, but I mean, at time

39:08of inspection, how you're not going to

39:09go back there anyway. So,

39:11>> yeah. [laughter]

39:12>> Um, through the chair, I I don't I I

39:16don't care [sighs] how you do it. I just

39:19wanted to see what you were proposing.

39:22>> Okay. Um,

39:26I'm going to leave it at that right now.

39:28I understand the concern about the

39:30grading. Who who wants to go next?

39:33>> Was that the only concern we had last

39:35time or was there anything

39:36architectural?

39:39>> I'll go if nobody else will.

39:41>> That's foul.

39:43>> Yeah.

39:46Can I go?

39:47>> Yeah.

39:48>> Okay. Um, this is the the d formerly the

39:51diamonds property and I know this

39:53property very well. You're not going to

39:56see a none of this to start off with and

40:00it isn't as dramatic as you see in those

40:04photos that the assessor took because

40:06those are old photos. It I think it's a

40:10non-issue and I am fine with this

40:12presentation.

40:14>> Okay, Val, thanks. Let's see here. Um,

40:19and by the way,

40:21>> okay, Carrie,

40:22>> I tend to agree with Val. I think the

40:24front of the building is where the

40:27foundation is sort of normal, so to

40:30speak, and the rear is where it's

40:32dropping. So, I don't have a problem

40:33with this either.

40:35>> Okay. Uh, let's see. We got Abby.

40:39>> Yeah, I I've got nothing to add.

40:41>> Okay. And Angus, do you have anything

40:44further you want to say?

40:47>> Um, I guess I misundererstood.

40:50The west elevation is what is facing the

40:54street and that is the part where

40:58there's just 8 in of grade shown. So if

41:01that is what we end up with I thought

41:05that I thought the hill was going

41:08up from you know lower on the west to

41:12higher on the east.

41:14So are the elevations

41:18flipped? I just didn't want to end up

41:20with a like, you know, a two- foot high

41:23deck and then a four pitch or whatever.

41:27The roof is really [snorts] close and

41:29sort of this tower that's up out of the

41:32ground. And so I as long as what is

41:36exhibited in the elevation is what we

41:39get, I I'm I'm okay with it.

41:42>> Okay.

41:44Uh thank you, Angus. And I'm sort of

41:46feeling the same way. I think you know

41:48uh although I agree you know there some

41:51seem to be some anomalies on the grade

41:54on the topo versus the elevations I I

41:58don't think it's consequential because

41:59the visibility of this thing is from the

42:01west

42:03also known as the narrow end of the

42:05building. So I'm not sure that you know

42:07we're going to see or appreciate the

42:09fact that there's a sloping grade going

42:12alongside of the two long sides. So I'm

42:15okay. Um, sounds like we might be able

42:18to move this.

42:20>> I I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair, to um

42:23approve as submitted.

42:26>> Okay, sounds good. Thanks, Val. On Val's

42:29motion, Abby,

42:31>> I'm an I.

42:32>> Angus,

42:32>> I.

42:33>> Carrie,

42:34>> I.

42:35>> Val,

42:36>> I.

42:37>> And I'm in favor. Okay, Ethan, thanks

42:39for hanging in there. Um,

42:43>> Mr. Trost, let's see. Six. Clifford.

42:47I'm chairing Angus Abby Val Joe. And

42:52this is two pieces of property. So we'll

42:55hear them together.

42:59>> Perfect. Thank you.

43:00>> Okay. Great. Um the home Allison Townsen

43:04the homeowner is here and if it's okay

43:05with you, she'd like to just say a

43:07couple words.

43:07>> Sure.

43:08>> Thank you.

43:12>> Good afternoon everybody.

43:13>> Hi. Thank you for giving me the

43:15opportunity to speak with you today. Um,

43:18I'm here to ask you to allow my family

43:20to retain the dear grates that we

43:22installed at the entrance of our

43:23driveways. I understand and respect the

43:27HDC's responsibility to preserve the

43:29historic character and beauty of

43:31Nantucket. This is something that we all

43:33care deeply about. But I would like to

43:36explain to you why these deer great are

43:38so important to me personally. Several

43:41years ago, our daughter contracted Lyme

43:44disease. She was seriously ill and the

43:46effects of that illness lasted for three

43:49long years. Watching our daughter go

43:52through that experience was extremely

43:54difficult for our family. It left me

43:57with a profound awareness of just how

43:59serious and debilitating tickorn

44:01diseases can be.

44:04I now have grandchildren who spend a lot

44:06of time at our Nantucket home and I'm

44:08deeply concerned about protecting them

44:10from the same experience. I know that no

44:13property can be made completely free of

44:15ticks and I certainly do not sug suggest

44:19that deer grates alone can prevent Lyme

44:21disease. However, deer carry a great

44:25many ticks and keeping deer off our

44:27property is one of the most reasonable

44:29measures we can take.

44:32Today we're also concerned about the

44:34growth of alpha gal on Nantucket. The

44:37deer grates do help protect my

44:39landscaping and flowers from damage, but

44:42this is secondary to my real concern

44:44about the health and safety of my

44:46children and grandchildren.

44:48We installed these grates not because we

44:50particularly wanted them, but because we

44:53needed a good and practical way of

44:55discouraging deer from entering our

44:57property, and it's worked really well.

45:00We've had no deer this summer. I

45:02appreciate the that the commission may

45:04have concerns about the appearance of

45:06the greats. I'm willing to work with you

45:08to find ways to make them less

45:10noticeable or more compatible with the

45:13surrounding landscape. But I

45:15respectfully ask you to weigh these

45:17aesthetic concerns against the very real

45:20health concerns that led us to install

45:22them. I'm not asking the commission to

45:24abandon its standards. I'm just asking

45:26for some understanding, flexibility, and

45:29a reasonable compromise. I would be

45:32deeply grateful if you allow us to

45:33retain these grates. Thank you for

45:35listening and considering my request.

45:38>> Okay. Thank you very much.

45:41>> Um, any questions for um David or anyone

45:49else?

45:50Or should we start right into it?

45:54And as I said before, um, let's let's

45:57just cover this all together, six and

46:00eight.

46:00>> All right.

46:01>> Do you want me to just quickly explain

46:03just the revisions that we're proposing?

46:06>> Oh, yeah. Sorry, Dave. I I didn't know

46:08that you No, that's okay.

46:09>> Okay. Yeah.

46:11>> So, you guys, a couple suggestions that

46:13came from the last meeting were that,

46:15you know, ideally if we could move the

46:17grates into the properties further, that

46:19would be good. And so one of the picture

46:22pages I've provided sort of shows you

46:25why that's

46:27almost impossible, really challenging to

46:30do because the the lot's not very wide.

46:34There's parking immediately inside the

46:36driveway entrances. So to move the

46:38grates, you know, it's not like we have

46:39this long driveway that we can move the

46:41grates into the property. Um, and even

46:46if we moved them in as far as the

46:47parking areas, they'd still be visible

46:49from the street. Um,

46:52and then the other main main revision

46:55that we're proposing is the change the

46:56change of the color of the grates. That

46:58was the big issue I think from the last

47:02meeting. So at that point we my proposal

47:08was to to paint them gray.

47:11>> But since then we've we've found

47:15somebody who's taken the painting of

47:17grates very seriously and gave us a

47:21sample of our new proposal which is this

47:24color

47:24>> down here

47:25>> or that color.

47:26>> This one. This one or this one? That's

47:28Yeah,

47:28>> you're very good.

47:30>> Yeah. Sure.

47:34>> It's sort of a sand sand kind of um sand

47:38color or more of a color of the of the

47:41road. The road is, you know, sandy,

47:44>> right?

47:45>> Um

47:46>> and the Belgian block, which is just

47:48dirty Belgian block. It's it's not even

47:50gray anymore.

47:52>> Um

47:53>> Okay,

47:54>> so that's our proposal.

47:58>> Great.

47:59Thank you, Dave. Um, anyone care to

48:03start on this one?

48:07>> I will. I went by there today.

48:10>> It's valid.

48:12>> Yep.

48:13>> Um, they're right on the street. There's

48:15no avoiding seeing these at all. Um, for

48:20me, it would have to be something that

48:23screens it like a gate.

48:25[cough]

48:26[clears throat] I appreciate the color

48:28change. I think that's helpful. But um

48:33yeah, I I don't understand these grates

48:37and everybody wants them. I know they

48:40deter cattle,

48:42but deer can jump right over them. So,

48:44I'm really mystified by the whole

48:46concept of them, although that's not in

48:49our purview. Um I think they need to be

48:53screened somehow other than color. So

48:57Val, um, are you able to see the sketch

49:01proposal that David put together with

49:02the little gates at at other entrance?

49:06>> Um, is that something that was in the

49:09packet?

49:11>> Uh, yeah, I'm looking at it now.

49:14>> Okay, I can look at it. When I looked at

49:17it earlier, I didn't see a gate

49:19>> screen in a moment.

49:20>> Are you looking at the screen,

49:22>> our screen or

49:24>> I'm looking on my computer. Okay. Um, if

49:28there is a gate that blocks these, like

49:31from where the end of the Belgian block

49:35apron is, then I think I'll I would be

49:39it would be acceptable.

49:43Uh,

49:46David, it's unclear to me if she just

49:50mentioned Bel Oh. Oh, I see. Belgian

49:52block extends past the grates by some

49:56number of feet. You're proposing having

49:59the grates right at the edge of the of

50:02the grates, right? The gates at the edge

50:05of the grates,

50:07>> right?

50:07>> That was of these gates. We think

50:09they're very ugly.

50:11>> Yeah. Those are just examples of bad.

50:14>> We don't like them. We think I

50:16personally I think a gate draws way too

50:18much attention to it.

50:20>> Okay. So, um, what I have to be careful

50:23of is you're going to have board members

50:26who are going to have opinions about

50:27this that may differ from your opinions.

50:29>> Got it.

50:29>> You know, about the the the worth of a

50:32gate or not. Um, so as I understood um

50:36Val's comment, she she wants something

50:39to screen it and was suggesting gates.

50:42Um, so

50:44>> because I think we need to be

50:46consistent, that's why. Thank you,

50:49>> Val. Thank you. Uh, let's see who's

50:51next. Um, Angus Abby Joe.

50:56>> I can go.

50:57>> Angus.

50:58>> Um,

51:02tickborn disease is a is an awful aspect

51:05of Nantucket, but that's not at all our

51:07purview. And I'm sorry that um your

51:10family has suffered as many have. Um uh

51:15to Ray's point, we do have to be

51:16consistent. And um we've denied these

51:20gates uh grates wherever they're

51:22visible. Um uh when they are visible,

51:26they they are around a bend or they are

51:31uh you know much further away. Each

51:34circumstance is uh is different, but

51:37this is right on the road. Um, and a a

51:42different color is certainly less

51:44obtrusive, but it's not um there's still

51:48this unusual slatting and shadows and uh

51:52everything that goes with a great that

51:55um that is just

51:58not part of the vernacular of Nantucket.

52:00Um nor are really the gates. Um those

52:04shouldn't be on the street either. So,

52:06um, as an idea for a gate to obstruct

52:09the view of the great, um, I, uh, I

52:16think that that is maybe viable, but it

52:19would probably be on the other side of

52:21the parking, um, than right at the

52:24street. So, for me, this isn't uh,

52:27approvable. Um, so that's all. Thank

52:30you.

52:31>> Okay, Angus. Thank you.

52:33Let's see.

52:35>> I could go. This is Joe speaking.

52:37>> Yes.

52:38>> Um I agree with um what Angus said

52:43regarding uh gate and gate location

52:47and I also agree with the the applicant

52:52regarding you know the general feel of a

52:54gate is you know stay out and you're not

52:58getting a a view into the property. So,

53:03as I'm not a fan visually of um cattle

53:07grates in general, and as stated by the

53:11previous members,

53:13we usually have them in a location far

53:15enough back that they're not visible.

53:17But um this is the first time I can

53:20recall where we've discussed

53:22color and um how it relates to the apron

53:29and to the driveway and to the road. And

53:33in this case, I I I I think that

53:38it's a preferable solution over the over

53:42having any kind of a gate. At least we

53:44can drive by and see into here and

53:47there's some continuity of of color and

53:53I think that could be finessed, you

53:55know, to work um with the existing

53:59conditions. So I'm um

54:03I guess that's a long way of saying that

54:05I think in this case I'm support the

54:10revisions to this application. I might

54:12be in the minority, but

54:15um and that's it. Thanks.

54:18>> Hey, Joe. Thank you, Abby. It's your

54:21turn.

54:22>> Well, um I think changing the color of

54:25the of the crate certainly makes a

54:27difference. Um, I don't really think

54:30it's you're going to keep the deer out

54:32because if you don't have fencing on

54:34either side, but but I don't want to get

54:36into that because because I' I've got my

54:39own problems at home with deer jumping

54:41all over the place and I've added more

54:43fence and they still get in. So, I I

54:47appreciate um the color change. um

54:53I would not be in favor of adding a

54:57fence uh a gate a wooden gate because

55:01that would gate would have to be open

55:03and so that that that really doesn't

55:06help us here. Um

55:09so um those are my thoughts. Thank you.

55:13>> Okay.

55:14Um,

55:17I'm actually okay with this. Uh,

55:22I've heard that these the cattle grates

55:25actually work. It appears, David, like

55:28you have two sections of it. And I guess

55:31that's because the deer will jump over a

55:33single section. Is that right?

55:36>> Yeah. They

55:37>> because they can't be shipped larger

55:39than a certain size.

55:41>> You have to put two together. You have

55:43to make it 12 feet deep.

55:46>> Yeah.

55:46>> And the deer can't

55:47>> We're looking at six foot widths.

55:49>> Yeah.

55:49>> Yeah.

55:50>> Exactly.

55:51>> Um look, I agree that adding the gates,

55:57there's nothing in our charter that

55:58would say that the gates need to be

56:00closed all the time, which you know,

56:03they really wouldn't be.

56:05And um you know this is rather unique

56:09circumstance where you've got very

56:10shallow lots and not a lot of room

56:13between the street and where you really

56:15need to turn to be able to park. So I'm

56:18okay with this. Uh assuming the gray of

56:20course and I'd go with the darker gray,

56:22frankly. Um so

56:26can I have a motion of some kind?

56:28>> Mr. Chair.

56:29>> Uh yes.

56:30>> I just Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want

56:32to remind the commission that these are

56:33as built. So whatever motion is made

56:37that it's very clear one way or another,

56:40you know, if if there was revisions, if

56:42not, there was a date certain on

56:44everything, even the changes that you're

56:46requesting. Thank you.

56:48>> Um, well, thank you for reminding me

56:51about the eyes. Are you talking about

56:52the the the fee

56:56>> just in in general? But yes, as well.

56:59>> Okay. All right. Um,

57:04>> can I just uh to your comments, were you

57:06in favor of a gate or not in favor?

57:08>> No, I'm I'm in favor of a gray and no

57:12gate because I really

57:13>> gate. Okay.

57:14>> Yeah, I think gate, you know, we we

57:16could mandate a gate and then the gate

57:18would remain open all the time, which

57:20really doesn't, you know, advance the

57:21ball at all.

57:23>> All right. I'll I'll try a motion.

57:25>> Okay.

57:25>> Um I I'll a motion to approve with the

57:29darker gray of the two. Um and and this

57:33is and this is a approval um I don't

57:37know why we're getting an approval but

57:39but to to also add the asbuilt fee to

57:43whatever

57:44>> okay

57:44>> it comes to to

57:46>> okay

57:48>> um so you've all heard Aby's motion

57:50let's give that a try see where it winds

57:52up um

57:55uh on Aby's motion Angus No

58:00a Val.

58:02>> No

58:04>> Joe.

58:06>> I

58:08>> Abby.

58:09>> I'm an I.

58:10>> And I'm an I. So that motion carries.

58:13Three in favor, two opposed.

58:16Thanks folks.

58:17>> Right up the street. We have to go to

58:19court about this.

58:21>> Well, I didn't want to introduce that,

58:22but there is there is that little fact.

58:26that that I that case I believe is

58:27pending but we really shouldn't be

58:29talking about it.

58:30>> Um thanks. Um okay so five bank

58:35>> Mr. Chair.

58:36>> Yes.

58:37>> Um you probably might excuse me you

58:40might want to make a motion or to about

58:43the other one that or that included both

58:45those

58:46>> Yeah. Okay. So, um, I should say that as

58:49part of Aby's motion, the motion was

58:52really for six and eight Clifford. Same

58:54language.

58:56>> Is that does that cut it?

58:58>> Okay.

58:59>> Also, Mr. Chair, what about the aspel

59:01fee? You said aspel fee, but

59:02>> yeah, I think that was included.

59:04>> That's that was in my motion.

59:06>> How much?

59:06>> Well, whatever it is the fee.

59:09>> Yeah. I don't know what the fee is. So,

59:10it's

59:11>> 10 times the amount.

59:13>> Yeah.

59:14Um,

59:17okay.

59:19>> How about No.

59:24>> 3,000.

59:24>> Yeah. Okay.

59:25>> That's a $3,000.

59:29>> Well, okay. Listen, I don't want to get

59:31philosophical, but the motion carried

59:34three to two. No. Um,

59:37so

59:39Five Bank, Linda Williams.

59:48Have you guys decided yet on the the

59:51penalties and stuff

59:53considering you raised the fees and

59:54stuff? We have penalties on the books um

59:58>> based on the old ones but

1:00:01>> no we we

1:00:02>> I thought you were going to meet again

1:00:04on

1:00:04>> I don't I don't

1:00:06discussion right now necessarily

1:00:08>> well some of us need to know

1:00:10>> um okay so five bank let me find out

1:00:14your board here myself Angus Abby Val

1:00:18Stephen

1:00:20there we are

1:00:22that's

1:00:25Hold on. You, Angus, Abby, Val, and who?

1:00:31>> Steve.

1:00:31>> Stephen.

1:00:32>> Got it.

1:00:35>> Everybody was supposed to go take a

1:00:36view. I don't know how many of you

1:00:38wandered out there. Aby's out there

1:00:39anyway, but didn't know if any of you

1:00:41wandered out there. Um, it was kind of

1:00:44critical that you actually take a few,

1:00:47but if you didn't, we gave you a lot of

1:00:49pictures in the previous file. I think

1:00:51there's some in the current one.

1:00:54You're going to go look to see if that

1:00:56railing was visible in the back. Um, we

1:00:59know that the roof underneath that

1:01:02railing is not from anywhere. And we had

1:01:06we did change the front porch which you

1:01:08asked to be more of a hip and we did

1:01:11that. You already approved the extension

1:01:13of the gable. He already approved the

1:01:15door moving over and he changed the

1:01:18pitch on the roof over the bathroom

1:01:22and how it intersected with the main

1:01:23ridge. So, I'm going to give it to

1:01:26Anton. And know that somebody's going to

1:01:28claim that these aren't accurate. The

1:01:31building, the whole building was

1:01:32scanned. So, we always scan these

1:01:35historic structures. So, any drawings

1:01:37that are made from the historic

1:01:38structures are absolutely accurate to

1:01:40the inth degree.

1:01:46Good evening, Mr. Chair, board members.

1:01:49>> Just your name for the record.

1:01:51>> Anton for the applicant. Um, so the

1:01:54board has an issue with the front porch.

1:01:57Um, and more particularly the the type

1:02:00of the roof that was a gable end. Now we

1:02:03switched it. We listened to the board

1:02:04and we went through a bunch of u

1:02:06iterations of that. We think the one

1:02:09that it's in front of you is the most

1:02:11successful and it also gave us the

1:02:14opportunity to bring back that picture

1:02:16gable end window which I think was a um

1:02:19a nice um recommendation. So, thank you

1:02:23very much for that. We also found a way

1:02:25to reduce the width of the handrail in

1:02:28the in the back of the viewing porch. Um

1:02:32thought that that way will minimize the

1:02:34impact of it. Um, and that's um pretty

1:02:38much

1:02:41>> the picture of the bathroom. I haven't

1:02:42changed since the last time. That was um

1:02:45um exists on the previous uh

1:02:47application. So um

1:02:50that's pretty much it. I hope you guys

1:02:53had the chance to view it and give us

1:02:56your opinion.

1:02:57>> Okay. Thank you.

1:03:00Uh

1:03:02Paulie, anything?

1:03:04>> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. share. So, for

1:03:06the record, this is a circa 1910 cottage

1:03:08in Cottfish Park. Little one, a cottage

1:03:10bungalow. There's a NPT history is a HDC

1:03:14survey, and you all approved a historic

1:03:16determination on this earlier this year.

1:03:19Um, staff is concerned with what the

1:03:22revised plan shows versus the previously

1:03:25approved. Maybe that means pre instead

1:03:27of maybe there's a typo. I I don't know

1:03:29because I have the Is that what that is?

1:03:31>> Yeah, that's okay. because the

1:03:33previously approved

1:03:36>> and and and I is not what was previously

1:03:39approved. I have actually included those

1:03:41within my um staff comments.

1:03:44>> And I think um what's important is that

1:03:46the west um that was previously approved

1:03:51um with the roof over the door as a hip

1:03:55was more appropriate as previously

1:03:57approved than what the board has

1:03:58requested the last meeting. Um, again,

1:04:01I've attached that to my staff comment.

1:04:03So, the previously approved plans are

1:04:06not correct. So, I'm glad to hear that

1:04:07that was a consensus from um Anton. If

1:04:11in fact the revisions are to to their

1:04:13previously approved and the plans need

1:04:15to be correctly to reflect that and the

1:04:16previously approved plans and what

1:04:18exactly is changing. So, um, always

1:04:22appreciate that Anton scans these

1:04:24historic structures. That's great. That

1:04:26should obviously should be the basis,

1:04:27but this is not just a new application

1:04:30before the commission. This is a

1:04:31revision to previously approved plans of

1:04:34an another agent. But at the same time,

1:04:37you all already have appine changes to

1:04:39this building, specifically this front

1:04:41elevation, and I think that's important

1:04:44moving forward. Um, I think that the

1:04:46previous elevation for the west, the

1:04:48facade, um, was more appropriate than

1:04:51what's proposed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:04:53To clarify, the only reason we shortened

1:04:54it is because it was in the setback and

1:04:56it cannot be in the setback. So, it was

1:04:58shortened

1:04:59>> and the door was moved back to its

1:05:01original location, which is where you

1:05:03see it now on the right. It had been u

1:05:05moved at one point to the middle of the

1:05:07structure. The original structure is not

1:05:09this structure. It's the back side of

1:05:11it. This was added on at some point um

1:05:13when they made it into an actual cottage

1:05:16instead of a shack. And so, the door

1:05:18moved over to the right. And so the

1:05:20porch roof is over the door to the

1:05:22right, but it cannot extend any further

1:05:24to the left.

1:05:27>> Okay,

1:05:29thank you, Linda. Um,

1:05:32>> I'll go,

1:05:33>> Stephen.

1:05:33>> Okay, a couple things. One, east west

1:05:36elevation that uh the tap, the fatacia

1:05:39fascia, the roof plane, all can be

1:05:42lowered by at least a foot, much more in

1:05:44keeping with the scale and nature of the

1:05:47structure. that height of that fascia

1:05:50beam is so out of character. Um,

1:05:54so I'd say that needs to be lowered such

1:05:56that the rear of the roof assembly,

1:06:01the rear bottom of the roof assembly is

1:06:03touching the just past the top case head

1:06:06casing of the door. It's much, again,

1:06:09I'm going to repeat myself, it's much

1:06:11more in keeping with the structure

1:06:12scale-wise. Um, I think, you know, I've

1:06:15been thinking about that outdoor shower.

1:06:16I just don't think it's appropriate on

1:06:17the front of the building. Um, in

1:06:20addition, I did the driveby that

1:06:25outside deck is so inappropriate that um

1:06:30there you go. There's a place on the

1:06:32rear of the structure for a very deep

1:06:34shower. Solves two problems uh with one

1:06:37solution.

1:06:39uh move the shower to the back, put it

1:06:41in the footprint of the covered deck,

1:06:43and [snorts] um eliminate the cover the

1:06:46second floor deck.

1:06:48>> We're not here for the shower, Steve,

1:06:50that was there.

1:06:51>> Oh, I'm just commenting.

1:06:52>> Be there.

1:06:53>> Um I don't believe that's the historic

1:06:56that for post with cap showers. I've had

1:06:58relatives who stayed in that home and

1:07:00I've got pictures of it and it wasn't

1:07:01there in the last few years.

1:07:05So if it's if that's there, it was an

1:07:07asbill and you guys need to come in and

1:07:09we'll address that then.

1:07:12>> Thank you.

1:07:12>> Okay, Stephen. Thank you. Um who's next?

1:07:17>> I can go.

1:07:18>> Angus.

1:07:19>> Uh thank you. Um

1:07:23so I agree about the scale uh from

1:07:26Steven's comments and um the drawings

1:07:29really need to be uh at least relabeled.

1:07:34uh

1:07:36of what's been previously approved

1:07:38because they're not accurate. Um and the

1:07:42deck I've gone out to see this a few

1:07:46times. Um and it's seen from Bank

1:07:50Street. It couldn't be more conspicuous

1:07:53from uh Front Street as you cut over

1:07:57from Broadway. Uh there's a a cutth

1:08:00through between

1:08:02uh houses that then is right in front of

1:08:05the stair that leads down to Codfish

1:08:08Park. And so it it frames this house. So

1:08:11it's a it it's highlighted and it just

1:08:15brings your eye to a feature that is

1:08:18unprecedented in uh Codfish Park. um

1:08:23going up and down the

1:08:26both streets there, Codfish Park and and

1:08:29Bank Street and Beach Street, there

1:08:32isn't anything that looks like this. Um

1:08:34so it is it's not appropriate. And I I

1:08:37don't know if because the the drawings

1:08:41aren't accurate, I don't know if there

1:08:42was ever

1:08:44a a porch that was approved in the back.

1:08:48Um whether there's a deck or not.

1:08:51>> We're here for that covered over patio

1:08:53that piece with or without the railing

1:08:55>> that needs to be addressed. Um those are

1:08:58my comments. Thanks.

1:09:00>> Okay, Angus. Thank you. Uh Abby Val.

1:09:06>> I can go Val if you want.

1:09:09Um so, um I was just out there this

1:09:12afternoon. Um I'll start at the back.

1:09:15Um, that's definitely an asbuilt. Um,

1:09:20and as it's I wouldn't uh myself approve

1:09:25a a deck back there because of its the

1:09:28historic nature of this building and the

1:09:30buildings around it are small and this

1:09:33obliterates the that whole gable from um

1:09:37is it is it called Codfish Park that

1:09:40goes along?

1:09:42>> No, no, that goes along. It's Codfish

1:09:44Park that comes in and then it goes up

1:09:46around Bank

1:09:46>> that has the playground on it. What's

1:09:48that called?

1:09:48>> That's Codfish Park.

1:09:50>> Yeah, the C That's what I thought.

1:09:51Codfish Park

1:09:53Road. Um so you can see it right looking

1:09:56down one of the driveways. You can see

1:09:59and the um ballastrade absolutely

1:10:01obliterates the the ga the small gable.

1:10:04So I wouldn't be in favor of that. But

1:10:06you already have like a some sort of

1:10:10squared off porch,

1:10:13>> just a roof over the patio.

1:10:15>> Well, you also and but you also have the

1:10:17you also put in the sort of the

1:10:20>> the frame for the the mockup.

1:10:22>> That was a mockup. Yeah.

1:10:23>> So, um that's going to take a hike. I I

1:10:26in in in my opinion. Um, as for the

1:10:30front of the building, um, yeah, I I

1:10:33agree with Stephen that if if there is

1:10:36going to be a porch that it be, um,

1:10:39lowered and that that little window in

1:10:43the gable, that's an opportunity to do

1:10:45one of those diamond windows that would

1:10:48that that you see a lot around the um

1:10:52the Codfish Park and and and around uh

1:10:55Front Street and so forth. We're just

1:10:57putting back the original window.

1:10:59>> Yeah, I I I realize that and I I

1:11:02appreciate that, but it's it's it's a

1:11:04painless window and it it just is seem

1:11:08it reads as very modern to me. So, um

1:11:11you can use it, use it somewhere else,

1:11:13but um I'm trying to make it a little

1:11:15bit more appropriate for Codfish Park

1:11:18and its history. And so, thank you.

1:11:21>> Okay, Abby, Val.

1:11:24Um,

1:11:25I think the front porch is in moving in

1:11:30the right direction and with some

1:11:32shortening as has been mentioned, it

1:11:34will be fine.

1:11:36And

1:11:38I concur with my colleagues. I think the

1:11:41rear deck, I understand why you would

1:11:43want a deck. Um, I get it. Uh, but there

1:11:48is nothing that I can think of anywhere.

1:11:50in Madak comes to mind because it has

1:11:52all these funky little incarnations of

1:11:55this and that, but

1:11:57um yeah, sorry. No.

1:12:02Okay, Val, thank you. Um so I forget who

1:12:08it was. I think it was a board member

1:12:11that proposed the idea of changing from

1:12:15this sort of open gable entry point

1:12:18>> to a hip

1:12:18>> to the hipped roof.

1:12:20>> Yeah.

1:12:20>> And I liked it in concept, but in

1:12:23execution it's not really what I had had

1:12:25in mind. I had a freestanding element

1:12:28that was not engaged with the existing

1:12:32gable roof coming down. So I think in

1:12:36combination what is with what has been

1:12:38said before about the roof coming down,

1:12:41the beam of the roof coming down, which

1:12:43it certainly can. I think that I would

1:12:46prefer to see something that was

1:12:49disengaged from the roof behind it, you

1:12:53know, that it read as an independent

1:12:55element that was applied rather than

1:12:57something that was just sort of, you

1:12:59know, part of the roof flowing down. Um,

1:13:03I hope I'm hope I'm making myself clear

1:13:05on that and I agree with the board on

1:13:08the visibility and um, uh, lack of

1:13:12appropriateness of the second floor deck

1:13:14appended to the back of the building.

1:13:16>> Yeah.

1:13:17>> So, those are my thoughts. Um, what

1:13:19would you guys like to do?

1:13:21>> Motion to hold for revisions.

1:13:22>> There we are. Okay. Thanks.

1:13:24>> Could I second that?

1:13:25>> Oh, sure. And just and also correction

1:13:28of the labeling so that's not Yeah.

1:13:31Okay. Okay. Um

1:13:34that are you gonna

1:13:36>> on the second

1:13:37>> you're gonna

1:13:38>> Yeah. Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna uh jump

1:13:40on the coattails of the second. I I

1:13:42think we need to give specific these are

1:13:44the modifications. I think there's

1:13:47enough consensus. I I know but I I don't

1:13:49want to spend more time on this and

1:13:51nothing on you guys. It's just we're

1:13:53getting off track with these, you know,

1:13:55non-conentable applications to begin

1:13:57with and having them back two sometimes

1:14:00three times. It's it's a waste of with

1:14:04respect of your time of our time and the

1:14:06public's time. So, I think if we say,

1:14:09yeah, consensus is this, this, and this.

1:14:11Let's

1:14:12>> I'll I'll revise.

1:14:13>> Thank you. Is that okay?

1:14:14>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I'll I'll I'll say I

1:14:17think it's there's a consensus to remove

1:14:19the the balcony in the back. Yeah, on

1:14:22the east. Um, and and I would modify

1:14:25that front porch

1:14:27>> and the covered portion of the deck in

1:14:30the back, right?

1:14:31>> Well, that's just a They can't see that

1:14:33once you take the railing off it.

1:14:35>> That's the as built.

1:14:36>> Yeah.

1:14:37>> Um,

1:14:38>> that needs to come in under a separate

1:14:39application. I would suggest

1:14:40>> we're holding this application. We asked

1:14:42for Hang on. Hang on.

1:14:44>> We asked for it this time.

1:14:46>> Go ahead, Abby. I'm sorry. Um, I think

1:14:49we can address that when when it comes

1:14:52back, but we're we're holding for

1:14:54revisions.

1:14:54>> Yeah.

1:14:55>> And the revisions are that you take the

1:14:57balcony off the east.

1:14:58>> Yep.

1:14:59>> Yep. And and you revise the front porch

1:15:02so that it's it's more

1:15:03>> by itself.

1:15:04>> Lower and and as Ray said, um

1:15:08>> Yeah. By itself

1:15:09>> independent and and correct the

1:15:11>> Yep. Correct the drawings.

1:15:12>> Yes.

1:15:13>> Yeah.

1:15:13>> Okay.

1:15:14>> I think you've got it.

1:15:15>> All right. There's there's the modified

1:15:17motion from Abby. Let's try this again.

1:15:19>> Can I second that?

1:15:20>> Yeah, but she hasn't made the motion the

1:15:23revised motion yet.

1:15:24>> I I just I just want to be clear. If

1:15:27we're not removing the asbuilt element,

1:15:30we're also not telegraphing the

1:15:32>> Do you mean

1:15:33>> by virtue of this motion, we feel that

1:15:35it's appropriate?

1:15:36>> No, I got that.

1:15:36>> Just want to be clear what our motion

1:15:38means. Do you the uh shower

1:15:41>> Well, the shower and the covered deck in

1:15:45the rear.

1:15:46>> That's okay.

1:15:48>> I think our motion may include that

1:15:50those come back as an asbill.

1:15:51>> Shower was already approved

1:15:53>> and we deal with the whole

1:15:54>> We need We need to see that it is.

1:15:57>> Oh, no.

1:15:58>> No, no, no, no. In the back.

1:15:59>> Abby, what would you think about having

1:16:01the shower in the front?

1:16:02>> Shower's already been approved. It's

1:16:04already been approved.

1:16:06>> Come back.

1:16:06>> I'm not moving time as an asbel.

1:16:08>> Well, no question. I'd like

1:16:12to we need to we need to um reel this

1:16:15in.

1:16:16>> We had to put screening in front of it.

1:16:17That's what Okay. Um so just let me rev

1:16:22>> Yeah. I'm not here for that show.

1:16:29>> So this is the previously approved

1:16:31plants that I was referring

1:16:33of the shower.

1:16:35>> It does have the shower. We're not here

1:16:37for that.

1:16:40That w that was that was a little bit of

1:16:41horse trading. I think we were hoping.

1:16:44Um but the re so the the mot the motion

1:16:48is

1:16:49>> that the balcony gets removed from the

1:16:52east. Uh

1:16:53>> correct

1:16:54>> that we are not okaying the uh other

1:16:57part of that structure on the east

1:16:59>> at this time.

1:17:00>> At this time that's good. We'll we'll

1:17:02we'll um talk about that when you come

1:17:05back with the revised plans. And that

1:17:07the front porch be um lowered and

1:17:11independent uh and not incorporated into

1:17:14the roof lines of the original

1:17:16structure.

1:17:17>> And fix the drawings.

1:17:18>> And fix the the Yes. the verbiage on the

1:17:20drawings. Yes. Okay. Hopefully

1:17:23everyone's happy with that on that

1:17:24motion. Stephen,

1:17:25>> I'm a no.

1:17:26>> You're a no. Okay. Um Abby,

1:17:29>> your motion. Uh Angus.

1:17:31>> Hi.

1:17:32>> Val Oliver.

1:17:33>> Hi.

1:17:34>> And I'm in favor. So that motion

1:17:36carries. Four in favor, one approved.

1:17:38>> Thank you.

1:17:38>> Thank you.

1:17:39>> Uh yeah. Thanks.

1:17:41>> Okay. Now, um

1:17:44>> Mr. Chair, I'm I'm going to recuse on

1:17:48this just because of my working

1:17:50experience and so forth with the

1:17:53applicant.

1:17:55Macy. So, I'm gonna step off for this

1:17:57one.

1:18:00Okay. Um,

1:18:05well, let's see. Uh,

1:18:16all right. So, Abby, you're chairing

1:18:18this one at 8 Macy

1:18:21and you you've lost a says acting chair.

1:18:27You've lost a board member and you have

1:18:30Connie, Joe, and Carrie. So, four person

1:18:34board. You may want to ask um

1:18:38>> Michelle.

1:18:38>> Yes, you might want to ask Michelle.

1:18:40>> You have a four person board. Is that Do

1:18:43you want to continue?

1:18:44>> I'm all right with that.

1:18:46>> Yes, I'm okay with that.

1:18:47>> You're okay with that? Okay, great. Um

1:18:52uh you can start when you're ready. So,

1:18:54this is um a resubmission of the

1:18:57heartscape and it's very very simple.

1:19:01I've eliminated the pickle ball court

1:19:03alto together and I've eliminated the um

1:19:08driveway apron. So, there's just one

1:19:11entry into the site and um basically

1:19:18everything else stays the same. whether

1:19:21I still have um would like to use the

1:19:25salvage gate painted gray, but I also

1:19:29have the alternate um gate proposal

1:19:34uh there. And that's it. And the

1:19:37perimeter would be turkey wire and not

1:19:40uh split rail. Originally, it was split

1:19:43rail all the way around. So, the split

1:19:46rail is just in the front.

1:19:49>> Okay.

1:19:50Thanks, Michelle.

1:19:51>> Thank you.

1:19:53>> Okay. Any questions for Michelle or me

1:19:56or anybody?

1:19:59>> Oh, your board.

1:20:03[clears throat]

1:20:04>> I do have a question.

1:20:05>> So, we have um Ang Where did Angus go?

1:20:09>> He's refused now.

1:20:10>> Oh,

1:20:12well then Well, we've got Connie and Joe

1:20:15and Carrie and myself. Okay. Um would

1:20:20anybody like to what are your thoughts?

1:20:24>> Um I have a question. Sorry it's Carrie.

1:20:28Um so the gate is E which is um the

1:20:33three rail with the diagonals coming

1:20:35down but I don't know that there's any

1:20:38gates in micate like this. But anyways

1:20:41okay that's all I had to ask. It's is

1:20:44that correct? the E eate.

1:20:47>> The the proposal is for the Egate, but

1:20:52the alternate is uh the alternate is the

1:20:56Egate. The pro the salvage gate is the

1:21:00proposal and there's the alternate gate.

1:21:03E

1:21:05that's an alternate.

1:21:07Okay,

1:21:09>> just to clarify that the it's E

1:21:12alternate. It's labeled fence, but it it

1:21:15showing a gate. Just I don't want to I

1:21:18know it seems

1:21:19>> gate. It's gate. Gate as opposed to

1:21:22fence. That's the gate.

1:21:24>> Okay.

1:21:24>> Alternate.

1:21:26>> Okay. Thank you.

1:21:29>> Okay. Joe, do you want to continue?

1:21:32>> Uh, sure. Um, well, appreciate there's

1:21:35the pickle ball court was removed. I was

1:21:38confused by that. Um,

1:21:44I think that uh well the gate is this

1:21:46this is a a dirt road, right? Um, it is

1:21:51a very rural spot. So I I think that

1:21:54this the salvage gate is pretty, but it

1:21:57feels very it's formal for this area and

1:22:01I don't think it's appropriate. Um the

1:22:04alternate gate um natural I could see

1:22:09that um in this location

1:22:14and I don't have any concerns with any

1:22:17of the other elements.

1:22:19Thanks

1:22:21>> Joe. Which which which gate are you okay

1:22:23with? Um well it it says e alternate

1:22:27fence but yeah that

1:22:30>> yeah that style which you see in rural

1:22:34areas I'm I'm okay with that as a as a

1:22:38gate. I I not the painted one, the

1:22:41arched one or the open one um that's

1:22:45labeled F. So

1:22:48does that make sense?

1:22:49>> Yep.

1:22:50>> Okay.

1:22:50>> Y thanks Joe. Um,

1:22:54Connie, are you ready? Or, um,

1:22:57>> Carrie, do you wanna?

1:22:58>> I can go.

1:22:59>> Okay.

1:23:00>> Um,

1:23:01I just I just cannot think of a gate in

1:23:04this neighborhood and I really would

1:23:06love to know if there are other ones.

1:23:09Um, it just it's not a gated

1:23:13neighborhood um in my mind. So, there's

1:23:17that. And the F salvage fence gray

1:23:23painted. Where is that? I don't see it

1:23:25on the plan. Did you remove that?

1:23:28>> The the gray painted fence.

1:23:30>> The gray. Yeah, the gray painted. F.

1:23:35>> That was on the plan somewhere before

1:23:38and now it's not. Is that correct?

1:23:41>> Correct.

1:23:43>> Okay. Um just can I just clarify on the

1:23:47gate? The main reason for the gate is

1:23:50that road is the Madak Beach Road and in

1:23:54the summer it is completely parked up

1:23:58and basically people are turning in the

1:24:02driveway and even parking in the

1:24:05driveway. It was my experience this

1:24:08summer there. That's the only reason for

1:24:11the gate. Thank you, Michelle. Um,

1:24:14Carrie, are you finished with your

1:24:17comments?

1:24:18>> I am. I'm I I'm still questioning the

1:24:21gates. Thank you.

1:24:23>> Thank you,

1:24:26Connie.

1:24:27Um, so, thank you for removing the

1:24:30pickle ball court. And I am confused

1:24:33about the gates. Um, there's only one

1:24:36gate. Correct.

1:24:37>> Correct. And your proposal is either the

1:24:42E salvage entrance fence, gray painted,

1:24:45>> correct,

1:24:46>> or the E alternate fence,

1:24:48>> correct?

1:24:48>> Okay. Um,

1:24:51>> I have to agree about the gates. Um, I

1:24:55understand

1:24:58the thought to have them to com, you

1:25:01know, to stop people from turning

1:25:02around, but again, there's really no

1:25:04gates. Um, so I'm really on the fence

1:25:07about the gates. Thank you.

1:25:14[clears throat]

1:25:14>> Okay. Um, so we heard Carrie, Joe,

1:25:17Connie. Uh, so yeah, I I've went out

1:25:22there and it's it's all open. I thank

1:25:24you for taking the pickle ball court off

1:25:27the application. Um,

1:25:30I I would I don't I can't

1:25:34bring in uh in my mind any gate in this

1:25:39little neighborhood. Um, that's that's

1:25:43so dirt roadish and so old-fashioned

1:25:46Nantucket. Um,

1:25:49I wanted to ask you, is the gate the

1:25:51only thing we're looking at or are we

1:25:53also looking at the driveway material or

1:25:55anything else? That I think was an issue

1:25:58the last time on the comments. It was

1:26:01the gate and the apron and the pickle

1:26:03ball court.

1:26:05>> So the apron is what material?

1:26:08>> It's just sand.

1:26:09>> It's just sand. Okay. So So it's just a

1:26:11and the and the driveway itself is

1:26:13>> is pravel.

1:26:14>> Pear gravel. Okay. Great. Okay.

1:26:16Terrific. All right. Um board, what

1:26:20shall we do with this?

1:26:27Well, I mean, either we hold for

1:26:29revisions or we just approve the the

1:26:32gravel and

1:26:34stepping stones. I think step the

1:26:36stepping stones are part of this because

1:26:38I'm not in favor of the gates. So, um

1:26:42>> is that your motion, Carrie?

1:26:43>> I guess motion to approve without the

1:26:46gates.

1:26:47>> All right. Thank you for that. Um on

1:26:50Car's motion, Connie

1:26:52>> I.

1:26:53>> Joe

1:26:55>> I

1:26:56>> and myself I

1:26:58thanks Michelle.

1:26:59>> Thank you.

1:27:02>> Thank you.

1:27:12>> Okay, Abby. Thank you. Uh next up, Matt.

1:27:23Hi,

1:27:24>> evening, Mr. Chair.

1:27:29>> Matt, for uh uh Oh, you actually have

1:27:32two things or two things at 118 and the

1:27:37boards are slightly different. For the

1:27:38Cabana, we have myself, Angus, Abby,

1:27:42Bal, Kerry. Okay, so why don't we start

1:27:45there? Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:27:49So,

1:27:52sorry, I'm just going to pull this up.

1:27:57So, uh, the commander, um, presented

1:28:00this to the board once before, and I

1:28:03think that the, um, request was just to

1:28:05see the, uh, landscape plan that is the

1:28:09next application, but this, uh, just

1:28:12hopefully should show you what the

1:28:14plantings are around the structure. And,

1:28:17um, again, it is a one-story structure.

1:28:19It's very low. And uh I think with the

1:28:23amount of vegetation that the board had

1:28:24requested around the uh rear of the

1:28:26property um I feel like it's going to be

1:28:29minimally visible in conjunction with

1:28:31the other structures especially. So

1:28:34happy to answer any questions you might

1:28:36have, Mr. Chair. Thanks.

1:28:38>> Great. Thank you, Matt. Um

1:28:41okay, who wants to begin?

1:28:47[clears throat]

1:28:49>> I'll go, Mr. Chair. It's Val.

1:28:51>> There's Val.

1:28:53>> Yep. Um, I appreciate the extra

1:28:57information on vegetation and whatnot. I

1:29:00didn't have a problem with it to start

1:29:02off with. So, as long as it's screened,

1:29:05I am okay with it.

1:29:08>> Okay, Val, thanks. Who's next? Oh,

1:29:11Mangus, you were going to go.

1:29:12>> Yeah, I was I turned off my mic. Um,

1:29:16thank you.

1:29:17So, um, yeah, I I'm just looking back at

1:29:21the minutes from the last meeting and my

1:29:25concern was just sort of the visibility

1:29:27from the Linda Luring and a section

1:29:30probably would show that. I just even

1:29:32though it's a low building, I just

1:29:33thought as it gets closer to what I

1:29:35remember as a very steep slope sloping

1:29:38up from the Lindaluring um and then a

1:29:42dis, you know, more distant view just

1:29:44how much screening there was going to

1:29:46be. So, um I appreciate the inclusion of

1:29:51the landscape plan. I don't see a

1:29:53section of how that translates to

1:29:57visibility. So, I'm kind of where I was

1:30:00before.

1:30:01>> Okay.

1:30:03Thank you, Angus. We have Carrie and

1:30:05Abby.

1:30:07>> I think the screening Oh, this is

1:30:08Carrie. I think the screening um makes

1:30:11the difference for me. Thank you.

1:30:13>> Okay. Thanks, Abby.

1:30:14>> I I think I'm okay with this. I just

1:30:16wanted to know um is that a retaining

1:30:19wall that's in closest to the main

1:30:22house?

1:30:22>> I I don't believe through you, Mr.

1:30:24Chair. I don't believe it is honestly,

1:30:27but the landscape plan is right after

1:30:29this, I believe. So, but I I'm not aware

1:30:31of a retaining wall.

1:30:33>> I I would I would be okay if if if the

1:30:37uh it's it's the cabana, right?

1:30:40>> Yes.

1:30:40>> Yeah. Was minimally uh viewable from the

1:30:44lender lowering. Um

1:30:52>> Oh.

1:30:53Oh, there's a an answered a person who

1:30:56can answer that question.

1:30:57>> Oh,

1:30:58>> yeah. There's no retaining walls on over

1:31:01there on the

1:31:02>> Okay. So, those are just um bushes

1:31:04around the the innermost

1:31:06>> Yes.

1:31:06>> screening. Okay. Uh thank you. Thank

1:31:09you.

1:31:10>> Okay.

1:31:12Yeah. Um

1:31:15Okay. My

1:31:18I was not particularly concerned about

1:31:20this building to begin with. We have

1:31:22additional vegetation. And I also noted

1:31:25that um isn't the trim color on this

1:31:28project green? Some

1:31:31>> gray.

1:31:32>> Gray.

1:31:32>> Gray.

1:31:33>> Okay. But not white.

1:31:35>> Correct.

1:31:36>> So

1:31:37that, you know, kind of like seals it up

1:31:40for me because, you know, with a gray

1:31:42building and the landscape out there, it

1:31:44really should not be terribly impactful,

1:31:47if that's a word. Um, sounds like we can

1:31:50approve this. Who would like to

1:31:52>> I'll make a motion.

1:31:53>> Okay. Aby's made a motion to approve as

1:31:56>> Yes.

1:31:56>> say that that that the cabana itself is

1:31:58minimally visible from the Linda Luring

1:32:02estate um

1:32:04>> in perpetuity.

1:32:06>> Can in perpetuity.

1:32:08>> Okay.

1:32:08>> And I second that just for

1:32:10clarification. Minimal 10%.

1:32:13>> Yeah. like just just the rooftop or some

1:32:16you know I think you we're just going to

1:32:18see it above the trees

1:32:21>> above your vegetation

1:32:22>> I would think so

1:32:24>> minimally

1:32:25>> yeah it's only

1:32:27>> all right um okay so we're going to put

1:32:30the you know sort of proviso in there

1:32:33minimally visible um

1:32:38uh at the time of inspection and

1:32:40thereafter that's your revised motion

1:32:43Yes.

1:32:45>> Okay. Yes. Let's try that out

1:32:48>> on your motion. I believe

1:32:50>> I'm an I.

1:32:51>> Very good. Um Angus

1:32:53>> I

1:32:54>> Val

1:32:55>> I

1:32:56>> Carrie

1:32:57>> I

1:32:58>> I'm in favor. Okay. There

1:33:01>> Matthew

1:33:05>> and um Oh man, excuse me.

1:33:11Next up, the landscape that we were just

1:33:14looking. Lindsay, you just want to

1:33:15continue on.

1:33:16>> Sure. Um, yeah. So, the concern on the

1:33:21board from the board about the uh

1:33:23driveway change was to just, you know,

1:33:27put a turn in it um like a switchback um

1:33:31to reduce visibility of the parking area

1:33:34and the house. So, uh that's what we

1:33:37did.

1:33:38>> Okay.

1:33:39Um, and to be clear, let's see, on this

1:33:41board, it's me, Angus, Abby, Val, and

1:33:46Stephen. Um, who would like to begin?

1:33:49>> I'm happy to start.

1:33:50>> Angus.

1:33:51>> Um, thanks so much for listening to the

1:33:54comments and your response, uh, makes me

1:33:57fine with it. So, okay.

1:33:59>> Thank you.

1:33:59>> Thank you. Um, next,

1:34:03>> I agree with Angus, Mr. Chair. It's Val.

1:34:06[snorts]

1:34:07>> Okay. Very good, Val. Thank you.

1:34:12Next.

1:34:15>> Sorry, I was just writing stuff.

1:34:17>> Uh, Stephen, are you are Oh, there's

1:34:19Stephen.

1:34:22>> Stephen, are you contemplating?

1:34:24>> Yeah.

1:34:27Um, yeah. Who's with us? Lindsay or

1:34:29Matt?

1:34:30>> Uh, it's Lindsay.

1:34:31>> Oh, hey Lindsay. Sorry. Uh what what's

1:34:35the larger plant material along Yelp

1:34:36Point Road going to be?

1:34:38>> Um we've got a mix of cedar, Japanese

1:34:42seed or no not Japanese cedar, eastern

1:34:44red cedars and pine trees and we have

1:34:48some maples mixed in there. We tried to

1:34:51stay on the native side. Um

1:34:54I think we have some spruces over there

1:34:56as well

1:34:58>> and a couple London planes.

1:34:59>> Thank you. And then topography, what's

1:35:01the height? What's the approximate

1:35:04height of the

1:35:07grade where the house is relative to the

1:35:09grade at the street? What's the

1:35:10difference? Positive, negative, by how

1:35:12much?

1:35:14>> Um,

1:35:18trying to think back of what we

1:35:19finalized the grade around the house on

1:35:21because this was this application was

1:35:22for the driveway. Um,

1:35:24>> within a couple feet, fine.

1:35:26>> Yeah, I think we were we were pretty

1:35:28close to where the existing grade was at

1:35:30the house anyway. like I think it was

1:35:32like 25

1:35:34is where the existing structure was. So

1:35:36I think that's what we have the main

1:35:38house at and then it tapers from there

1:35:40down to the

1:35:42>> road the roads at approximately what

1:35:44>> 23 it looks like. I mean looks like 23

1:35:47cuts through there and 22.

1:35:50>> All right.

1:35:51>> Um but that's how it was existing.

1:35:52That's that was the existing topography.

1:35:54We didn't really

1:35:56>> Okay. So I'm going to say something that

1:35:57I rarely say. I think the landscaping is

1:36:00too much along Yale Point Road. And what

1:36:01I mean by that is

1:36:04I'm I'm foreseeing a trend where we be

1:36:06we alle becomes a uh [clears throat] a

1:36:10living alley where we've got greenery on

1:36:13both sides much like the land around the

1:36:17on major roads were before

1:36:19two

1:36:21um master plan sessions ago back in the

1:36:26early 2000s where it came up that land

1:36:29conservation entities should perhaps

1:36:31consider clearing land so that the land

1:36:35that was cleared behind the border along

1:36:37the major streets could actually be seen

1:36:39the open space. This is to me looking

1:36:43like we're creating visibility borders

1:36:46that will make illpoint road um you know

1:36:50it will make the homes more private

1:36:52which is a wonderful thing but it will

1:36:53change the character and setting of that

1:36:55open uh rural area. So I'm concerned for

1:36:59that reason. I think the plant material

1:37:02in terms of the frequency of evergreen

1:37:05uh tall evergreen should be cut back by

1:37:08twothirds.

1:37:10>> So,

1:37:11hold on a sec. Hold on a sec. Such that

1:37:14instead of screening something, we're

1:37:17not screening something. Thank you.

1:37:21>> Okay.

1:37:21>> Can I say something just super quick?

1:37:23>> Yeah.

1:37:24>> Yeah. the the the the client and I would

1:37:27obviously rather not have a ton of

1:37:30plants screening this thing, but it was

1:37:32we were just doing that because that was

1:37:34one of the requests of the board um

1:37:36early on that we um kind of make it

1:37:40almost feel like the the house is like

1:37:43tucked in. They didn't want to see it

1:37:44from the road. Um we're totally open to

1:37:48reducing the number of evergreens along

1:37:50the road. Um, so we were we'll totally

1:37:54do that.

1:37:55>> I would only add, if I may, Mr. Chair, I

1:37:57I'm not necessarily suggesting it just

1:37:59be a wholesale reduction across the

1:38:02board. I think a three-dimensional

1:38:04review of the um proposed plant

1:38:08material, you would be able to create

1:38:12natural pockets of vegetation

1:38:14in contours and so on and so forth. that

1:38:17creates a visual view but also appears

1:38:20to be natural. It's not just okay remove

1:38:22every other plant. So I just wanted to

1:38:24be clear on that. Thank you.

1:38:25>> Sure.

1:38:26>> That's just my opinion.

1:38:28>> Okay.

1:38:30>> Uh thank you Stephen Abby.

1:38:34Well, I hate to agree with that, but um

1:38:38so

1:38:38>> why would you hate to

1:38:40>> Because we're, you know, we spend our

1:38:44all our time trying to screen, but um I

1:38:47I just I think our our main concern

1:38:49about the screening was from the Linda

1:38:51Luring Conservation Land. So, um it's if

1:38:56I bring up the whole of Eelp Point Road

1:38:58in my head, there's not that much

1:39:00vegetation. So I think reducing it, it

1:39:04just should be in context with what's on

1:39:06either side of it. I think and I think

1:39:09Lindsay would be able to figure that out

1:39:12that it that it

1:39:13>> that it it's appropriate and fits in.

1:39:16Thank you,

1:39:18>> Mr. Chair.

1:39:19>> Uh Val,

1:39:21>> I think from the beginning the issue was

1:39:25the house that was there, Mr. Um,

1:39:28Belleview's house was very tucked into

1:39:31the even if it was minimal vegetation,

1:39:34you didn't even really notice it was

1:39:36there. We're not trying to put up a

1:39:38swath of cedar trees all in a line,

1:39:41which is what everybody wants to do now.

1:39:44It the idea is to make it as natural as

1:39:46possible. That's a beach area.

1:39:50Um,

1:39:52I think that's what's important. it it

1:39:55shouldn't look anomalous to the rest of

1:39:57the neighborhood.

1:39:59And I don't know that we can qualify

1:40:01that by saying a percentage or what the

1:40:04B bushes should be, but I think that's

1:40:06important for the applicant to

1:40:08understand.

1:40:10>> Sure.

1:40:10>> You understood.

1:40:14>> Okay. So, um, thanks Val and

1:40:20I agree that

1:40:24it's an attractive building that we've

1:40:26approved here. It's an attractive large

1:40:29building that we've approved here. So, I

1:40:32wouldn't want to have this fully

1:40:34exposed. Uh, I'm not sure anyone on the

1:40:36board would. Having said that, I think

1:40:39that the point that Stephen has made is

1:40:42that if you sort of

1:40:45make a a you know very wholesale

1:40:48departure from the vegetation the way it

1:40:50is right now, it's going to look in

1:40:53congruous. So at a certain point, you

1:40:56know, I'm not sure the board can

1:40:58dictate. I I think that having sort of

1:41:01like random

1:41:03clusters of trees and shrubs that allow

1:41:06for

1:41:08uh you know periodic

1:41:10views of the house is fine as long as

1:41:13we're not looking at it straight across

1:41:15a big green lawn. Um again, I'm I'm not

1:41:19sure that anybody on the board would

1:41:20want to see that anyway. So

1:41:23>> is that your motion, Mr. Chair?

1:41:24>> Mr. Chair, can I add something to that?

1:41:27>> Yeah, you can. I mean is we're we're

1:41:28kind of

1:41:30>> Yes. Go ahead.

1:41:31>> It seems like during our reviews we

1:41:34describe the things we don't really want

1:41:36to see like this cabana. So

1:41:39strategically,

1:41:41>> you know, planting

1:41:43things to hide that. But the whole house

1:41:46doesn't have to be hidden. It's just the

1:41:48things that we've glmed on to. So, it's

1:41:50a matter of looking back at the minutes

1:41:52to see what the board was trying to

1:41:57hide. The pool obviously and some of the

1:42:00cabana, right? Could I add to that?

1:42:02>> Okay. And I'd like

1:42:03>> sort of agree with that, but like, okay,

1:42:06I like the design of the house as seen

1:42:08from Point Road, but I don't want to see

1:42:10all of it at once,

1:42:12>> right?

1:42:12>> You know, which I'm not trying to screen

1:42:14a particular part of it.

1:42:16>> Um, but okay. Just

1:42:19>> so Lindsay,

1:42:20>> I have a motion.

1:42:22>> Oh, okay. Stephen Steen has a motion. Go

1:42:24ahead. Go ahead.

1:42:26>> Well, the other thing that we were

1:42:27talking about was that that the driveway

1:42:30looks right at the the garage. So So we

1:42:32we've got to take that into

1:42:34consideration that we we do want to

1:42:36leave the the the screening around on

1:42:40either side of the driveway for sure.

1:42:42and then intermittently down Eel Point

1:42:45Road so that we get peekab-boo shots of

1:42:48the beautiful house.

1:42:50>> Yeah.

1:42:50>> Could I please add something from what's

1:42:52there?

1:42:54>> Um so, uh my comments were really

1:42:57limited to the switch back in the

1:42:59driveway with the understanding that the

1:43:02vegetation had already sort of been

1:43:05decided on from previous revision or

1:43:08reviews of the architecture. Um, and

1:43:12from Alliance Way, which is like the end

1:43:16of sort of the intense infilled

1:43:18development that's happened on Eelp

1:43:21Point Road over the decades, almost all

1:43:23the way to Madakut Harbor. Um, there

1:43:27pretty much all the development is on

1:43:30the north side of Eelp Point Road. uh

1:43:34with the exception of lint the

1:43:35lindaluring house and the previous

1:43:38structure that was on this lot that was

1:43:40sort of tucked into the pines as was

1:43:42mentioned before um there is sort of

1:43:45pretty much all of it is low brush and

1:43:48scrub oak yada yada but the um on this

1:43:52site was unusually kind of a a stand of

1:43:56taller pine trees and so um the my

1:44:01understanding was in all the reviews so

1:44:04far is that the landscaping really was

1:44:06just sort of enhancing that a little bit

1:44:08because this was a much larger

1:44:12um structure than is well it's really

1:44:15the only one of its sort on the south

1:44:18side of Eelp Point Road and it's

1:44:21surrounded on three sides by the

1:44:22Lindauring property. Um so my

1:44:26understanding was was that because of

1:44:28the existing

1:44:31uh taller trees um pines and limited

1:44:35visibility of the existing house that

1:44:37there would be somewhat limited

1:44:39visibility of this much larger estate.

1:44:43Um and so

1:44:46yeah that that's really my comment. It's

1:44:49in other words, it's there it's an area

1:44:52where there already is sort of a

1:44:54difference between the the rest of

1:44:56Epoint Road and this area because of the

1:45:00taller pines and the limited view of one

1:45:03of the only houses on the south side of

1:45:05Eilpoint Road. Thank you.

1:45:07>> Okay. Uh Stephen, were you going to make

1:45:10a motion?

1:45:11>> Yeah, I I just want to comment. I mean,

1:45:12not to disagree, but I I got to disagree

1:45:14with my interpretation of what was just

1:45:16said. The concept here is not to

1:45:19eliminate the grove sense, but to

1:45:22eliminate what will inevitably become uh

1:45:26Evergreen Alley. We'll be able to rename

1:45:29Eel Point Evergreen Alley. It'll be like

1:45:31going down New Town Road with the Cyprus

1:45:33on other side, just writ large. And I

1:45:36think it's something we we have the

1:45:38benefit of having identified and can

1:45:41address now and get the word out. Um it

1:45:45seems as though there's consensus that

1:45:47uh the plant material across the front

1:45:50say for the switchback would be lessened

1:45:53in a way that's consistent with the

1:45:55adjacent lots. I would say uh to limit

1:46:00it being arbitrary determination the

1:46:03three lots to either side an average. So

1:46:08based on that I would say with respect

1:46:09to visibility of the structure

1:46:12adjacent to the drive the switchback

1:46:14landscaping is approved. The density

1:46:17arrangement and type of plant material

1:46:19along the remainder of ill point shall

1:46:22be reasonably representative of the same

1:46:24elements of the three adjacent homes

1:46:28and um to each side.

1:46:32>> That's your motion. Right.

1:46:33>> That's my motion.

1:46:34>> Okay.

1:46:35Uh, and you'll write that up.

1:46:39>> I hope

1:46:40>> if it passes.

1:46:40>> Yeah, I like parts of that. I can help.

1:46:43>> Okay.

1:46:44>> All right. Let's put that to a vote.

1:46:46Thank you, Stephen. Um,

1:46:49uh Oh, is that Val?

1:46:51>> Sorry.

1:46:54>> Was that an I?

1:46:57>> Sure. An I.

1:46:58>> Okay. All right. Um, Abby,

1:47:01>> I'm an I.

1:47:02>> Okay, Angus.

1:47:03>> I.

1:47:04>> Very good. Stephen,

1:47:06>> I'm that is by the way an exhibit A.

1:47:08>> Yeah, exhibit A. Correct.

1:47:10>> Yeah.

1:47:11>> All right. And I'm in favor. Uh that

1:47:13passes. Thank you, Lindsay.

1:47:14>> All right. Thank you.

1:47:15>> I'll do the narrative.

1:47:16>> Okay. 56 center. Um that's back to you,

1:47:21Matthew.

1:47:26>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:47:30Share again.

1:47:37your board, sir. Um, myself, Angus,

1:47:41Abby, Val, Connie.

1:47:45>> There we are.

1:47:46>> Okay. With your permission, Mr. Chair,

1:47:47I'll begin.

1:47:48>> Mhm.

1:47:49>> Okay. So, um you uh this uh we have a

1:47:53mechanical equipment uh piece of

1:47:55mechanical equipment we need to add.

1:47:57It's a chiller, I believe. So, it's

1:47:59pretty good sized. We had come before

1:48:01you uh previously uh proposing to locate

1:48:04it towards the front of the building. Um

1:48:07if you can see my cursor, it was in this

1:48:09uh upper right hand quadrant. Um the

1:48:12fence enclosure detail and the size and

1:48:15scale of it were um not appropriate or

1:48:19there was requests to move it. So, we

1:48:21actually were able working with the HVAC

1:48:23contractor, we're able to move it around

1:48:26the corner as you can see where it's

1:48:28indicated on the site plan um back set

1:48:31back from uh the street. Uh board also

1:48:35suggested or asked if we could recess

1:48:38the uh equipment into the ground. Um,

1:48:41we've recessed it by about uh 16 uh to

1:48:4518 in, which is about as much as the

1:48:48manufacturer would want us to. Anything

1:48:50beyond that can affect the draw. Uh, but

1:48:53we were able to drop about 16 to 18 in

1:48:56of height from it. And then finally, uh,

1:48:59we changed the detailing of the

1:49:01enclosure. Um, it is, uh, the gaps. It's

1:49:05a picket. It's basically a taller

1:49:06picket, if you will, uh, with a

1:49:09traditional cap. Uh and we do have um

1:49:11inch and a half spacing between the

1:49:12pickets and that's for the required air

1:49:15flow. Uh we've also uh proposed to add

1:49:19uh columnar

1:49:21um vegetation. I think it's a boxwood uh

1:49:25which was one of the board's

1:49:26recommendations as well in terms of

1:49:28screening. So with that look forward to

1:49:31comes from the board. Mr. Chair, thank

1:49:32you.

1:49:32>> Okay. Paul, you got anything on this?

1:49:35>> I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so of

1:49:38course this is a contributing structure

1:49:39within the OD, the Harrison Grey Otis

1:49:41Dunham House, 1840 Federal, um, that we

1:49:44all know as a a great community

1:49:47resource. Appreciate the revised

1:49:49location for the mechanical fence/ fence

1:49:51off of the main block and away from the

1:49:53front elevation. I did have a question

1:49:55about um, does the fence have to be so

1:49:58large? Um, if there was a way, but I

1:50:01understand it needs to have root

1:50:02breathability. So if there's any way to

1:50:04reduce as much as possible the size um

1:50:07or there should be more columnar boxes

1:50:10boxwoods proposed I think if you're

1:50:13looking at the property I know there's a

1:50:15lot of vegetation in this site it's

1:50:16actually really really beautiful um um

1:50:20site to to be at. Um, but when you're

1:50:23go, you got the friendship stairs and at

1:50:25the end of the friendship stairs, if

1:50:26there was a way to add another one to

1:50:28kind of mitigate that and then I would

1:50:30recommend not having a cap, um, but just

1:50:33as as proposed without the cap detail,

1:50:36um, that would be my recommendation.

1:50:38Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:50:40>> Holly, thank you. Um,

1:50:43okay, folks,

1:50:45>> it's down to us.

1:50:46>> Mr. Chair, could I just add one quick

1:50:48thing? Oh, yeah. Paul's comment on

1:50:50drawing eight. It shows the um uh cut

1:50:54off section of the size and the height

1:50:56of the equipment. That's from the specs.

1:50:58So to what extent we could lower it? We

1:51:00certainly could lower it, but you might

1:51:01start to see the top of a piece of

1:51:03equipment.

1:51:04Thank you.

1:51:09[snorts]

1:51:09I have a question.

1:51:11>> It's Yep. Um Matt, on the site plan it

1:51:17says a six-foot fence and on your new um

1:51:22proposed with it dropped down it says

1:51:245'4.

1:51:26>> Yeah, that it's the section uh drawing

1:51:29four is the accurate height. I think the

1:51:32indication yeah the six foot is

1:51:34misleading but okay the actual height is

1:51:3654.

1:51:37>> Thank you. That that was all I needed

1:51:39was clarification. I appreciate moving

1:51:42it back.

1:51:44Uh while it is sort of an anomaly as a

1:51:48taller picket, um I think given where

1:51:52it's going backing up to the deck that's

1:51:55there and the railing that's there, I

1:51:57don't think it's going to be

1:52:02um sticking out like a sore thumb. I

1:52:04think it will integrate. Thank you. And

1:52:07thank you for the columner.

1:52:09Um, whatever they are.

1:52:12>> Foxwood.

1:52:14>> Yeah.

1:52:16>> Okay.

1:52:17>> I can go.

1:52:18>> Go ahead.

1:52:19>> Um,

1:52:20>> I thank you. I appreciate the uh the

1:52:23move further back uh on the building uh

1:52:28to reduce the visibility. Um, I've

1:52:31looked from Eastn Street up to Broad

1:52:33Street for any sort of high fence that

1:52:36looks like this. And I I uh I couldn't

1:52:40find one. I didn't see one. Um I know

1:52:44these things have to breathe. So I

1:52:47understand the um the separation uh

1:52:50between the the pickets. I I think I'd

1:52:54rather see a natural to weather vertical

1:52:57board fence with a simple uh cap uh

1:53:01rather than a painted fence that I think

1:53:04calls attention to something that we

1:53:06really want to have disappear. Um

1:53:09definitely not to have post caps. Um I

1:53:13think it could be a little bit lower

1:53:17um maybe the height of the unit that's

1:53:21proposed. Uh, I agree with Holly's

1:53:23comments about boxwood uh on the street

1:53:27side of this um proposed enclosure.

1:53:32I think the east and um north are the

1:53:35most visible parts of this. Um so it to

1:53:40mitigate the breathability

1:53:43um you know obviously the what faces the

1:53:46building and faces the the back or the

1:53:48west I think could be um a lot more open

1:53:53if need be. But um you know maybe not

1:53:57even fence at all but just you know the

1:53:59the columnar boxwoods. Um, but again, I

1:54:05appreciate the uh the move back and

1:54:08anything to sort of diminish this

1:54:11fencing, I think makes a a difference.

1:54:13Thank you.

1:54:14>> Okay, Angus. Thank you. Um, Abby and

1:54:17Connie,

1:54:21>> thank you, Matt, for moving it back. Um,

1:54:24I think

1:54:27I think as Angus stated in anything to

1:54:29kind of, you know, hide this would be

1:54:32preferable. And I don't know if you

1:54:34could um I think Holly proposed put two

1:54:37boxwoods in front. You have them on the

1:54:39side um just to kind of help diminish

1:54:42any type of visibility. I think that

1:54:44would be um would be appropriate. Thank

1:54:47you.

1:54:49>> Thank you, Connie. Uh, Abby,

1:54:53>> nothing to add. Thanks for moving it

1:54:56back.

1:54:57>> Yeah, Mr. Chair, can I just add one more

1:54:59thing about the putting the boxwoods in

1:55:01front of the structure?

1:55:03>> I was going to talk about it.

1:55:05>> Yeah.

1:55:07Uh, so I think what Matt was about to

1:55:09say is you got a friendship stair on the

1:55:12side of the building and if you put the

1:55:14boxwood

1:55:16on what would be the east side, also

1:55:20known as the front, you'd essentially be

1:55:22blocking the access up that stair.

1:55:26>> Oh, okay.

1:55:27>> So, as much as I'd want to do that, I

1:55:29don't think you can.

1:55:32>> Um,

1:55:33now, so let's see. Uh, did I get

1:55:38everyone completely?

1:55:40>> Yeah.

1:55:40>> Because I I I have just a couple of

1:55:42things I'd like to say. And that is

1:55:45even though you're you're talking about

1:55:486 foot high um uh boxwood planting, I

1:55:54don't really see the need for it. You

1:55:56know, it's like if if we're screening it

1:55:59with the

1:56:01how do I say this? Um, if if my fence is

1:56:06doing its job at 5'4

1:56:09and I chose some non-colar

1:56:14uh vegetation, evergreen vegetation, I

1:56:17think that would blend in a little bit

1:56:20better because my fear is that, you

1:56:24know, in a sea of sort of normal, you

1:56:27know, shrubbery, you've got these four

1:56:30sentinel columnar boxwoods that might

1:56:34call more attention to this little area

1:56:36than we want to.

1:56:38>> So, you know, aside I I appreciate

1:56:42you're moving it back. I appreciate

1:56:44you're dropping it into the ground, all

1:56:46that. Um, understand why you can't have

1:56:49the screening on the east side and the

1:56:52only thing I'd want to see is vegetation

1:56:54that was kind of no higher than the

1:56:57fence. That's all. Um, okay. So,

1:57:01uh, do would anyone like to try a motion

1:57:05on this one?

1:57:07>> Oh,

1:57:08uh, Mr. Jer, could I add one thing about

1:57:11>> Of course. Yeah,

1:57:12>> the idea about having growth on the east

1:57:14side. I I meant to mention that that

1:57:16maybe it doesn't make sense to have a

1:57:19stair going towards the the fence that's

1:57:23there like if that just the stair

1:57:27didn't go down on that, you know, west

1:57:30side because it's now headed to a fence

1:57:33as opposed to like the open garden that

1:57:35it was originally part of.

1:57:40I don't know if that would be an option.

1:57:42could I could respond to that, Mr.

1:57:44Chair, or I mean the other thing I was

1:57:46thinking is um as a means essence

1:57:54on the other side, it could potentially

1:57:56allow us to put the columnar

1:58:00>> woods. Yeah.

1:58:01>> And I'd hate to

1:58:03>> You're just saying leave this stair and

1:58:05just block it off.

1:58:06>> Yeah. I'd hate to remove part of the

1:58:08stair. I didn't have to.

1:58:12Mr. Chair, through you um Matthew, is

1:58:14there other screening material that

1:58:18>> um you know that's a great there is um

1:58:20Ivy which uh we've used it in a couple

1:58:23of different locations. Uh one is um

1:58:26sisterhip that whole

1:58:28>> patio area and that stuff's incredibly

1:58:30hardy and um grows really well. It takes

1:58:34a little bit of time to grow but it's

1:58:36it's pretty Yeah, you have to trim it

1:58:38otherwise it gets out of control. So, we

1:58:39could go we could do ivy

1:58:40>> bomb proof.

1:58:41>> Although I'm as I'm thinking about that,

1:58:43I'm sorry because I have it can reflect

1:58:47air flow if it's right up against if

1:58:50it's growing on the fence itself. So,

1:58:53again, happy to put the boxwoods on the

1:58:56uh east side.

1:58:59And I could also lower the height of the

1:59:02fence from 54 to five feet so it's right

1:59:06in line with the top of the chiller and

1:59:08remove the caps.

1:59:11>> Well, I think who would not be in favor

1:59:13of that? I I I you know was going to

1:59:17bring it up, but 4 in, you know, might

1:59:19make a difference.

1:59:22Um

1:59:22>> would anybody be so um just since we're

1:59:26we're going into discussion mode I was

1:59:29just wondering to me the the I I love

1:59:33that columnar boxwood but it is drawing

1:59:37attention to the fact that it's trying

1:59:40to screen something. I wonder what what

1:59:43if it was just privet you know just

1:59:47plain old privet going around that

1:59:50that's breathable. Yeah.

1:59:52>> And you could put vines on the east if

1:59:55you could add vines on the east if that

1:59:57was um if it turned out to be very uh

2:00:00visible from the from Center Street. I I

2:00:03I think this is

2:00:06most people are paying attention to the

2:00:07front of the building in in the in any

2:00:09case and now it's pushed to the back. I

2:00:12think uh if you change your screening to

2:00:14privet and add some vines as needed um

2:00:17on the east

2:00:20uh it might be a softer approach.

2:00:22>> Do you want to try a motion?

2:00:26>> Sure.

2:00:27Try try saying that again because I

2:00:29could try saying that

2:00:33a couple of times. Okay. So, um I'm

2:00:36proposing um uh just pre privet instead

2:00:40of um the

2:00:41>> boxwoods instead of the boxwoods and uh

2:00:44added ivy on that east side uh as

2:00:49needed.

2:00:50>> And how about we uh bring the fence down

2:00:53from 5'4 to five even

2:00:56>> and no caps.

2:00:57>> And no caps.

2:00:58>> And no caps.

2:00:59>> Okay, that's my motion.

2:01:00>> Okay, there it is. Um,

2:01:03okay. So, on um Aby's motion, Connie,

2:01:07>> I

2:01:07>> Angus,

2:01:08>> hi.

2:01:10>> Val,

2:01:11>> I

2:01:12>> uh Abby

2:01:13>> I.

2:01:14>> And I'm in favor. Okay, Matthew. Good.

2:01:16And now we're going to

2:01:19>> drive on down to 3C Street. Myself,

2:01:22Angus, Abby, Val, Stephen.

2:01:27>> Okay. With your permission, Miss Gerald,

2:01:30dive in. Yep.

2:01:31>> So, um the board has seen this uh and uh

2:01:37so the big feedback that we received was

2:01:41simpler, simpler, simpler. Uh and so

2:01:45that's what we've tried to do here uh by

2:01:47eliminating that center gable and just

2:01:50uh you know referencing the other two

2:01:52buildings that are uh on the site that

2:01:54are essentially full twotory E4 very

2:01:58simple structures. uh the building

2:02:00footprint is such where these um this

2:02:04gable on the right actually projects uh

2:02:06out a little bit. Um but really just

2:02:09tried to respond to your comments about

2:02:10simplifying the building um which I

2:02:13think it is much simpler. Um again we've

2:02:17got the updated uh streetscape and again

2:02:20the the view plan is parallel to the uh

2:02:23proposed building as opposed to parallel

2:02:25to the uh street. Um, and so I don't

2:02:30know, I hope that these changes are

2:02:32sufficient. And, uh, again, um, I also

2:02:36want to point out that, you know, the

2:02:37two buildings that are on the street are

2:02:39not yet raised. I don't know if they

2:02:41ever will be, honestly. But, you know,

2:02:43over time, I could anticipate that they

2:02:45would. And so, when that does happen,

2:02:47and comparatively in terms of their

2:02:49building, the building, our proposed

2:02:51building, it's probably about four and a

2:02:53half feet shorter than these two

2:02:55buildings that are on the street. Um,

2:02:58[clears throat] so with that, look

2:02:59forward to comments from the board, Mr.

2:03:00Chair. Thank you.

2:03:02>> Okay. Thanks, Matt.

2:03:06>> Holly.

2:03:07>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so this is an

2:03:08infill proposed within the OD um meeting

2:03:12our resilient Naka design guidelines. We

2:03:14do have an elevation certificate on

2:03:16file. Thank you for the uh streetscape

2:03:19from Sea Street. appreciate the change

2:03:21to the roof that you forward middle mass

2:03:24and reducing the secondary gable masses

2:03:26that flank it. Uh the streetscape from

2:03:29Sea Street. Uh it would be helpful to

2:03:32know what the um in will look like off

2:03:35of Northwater Street. Well, um Matt did

2:03:37provide the photo. I think it's photo C

2:03:40from that parking lot um on the back

2:03:43hand side because the visibility from

2:03:46that road through that parking lot um of

2:03:4811 North Water Street is important

2:03:52um as that west elevation is two stories

2:03:54tall versus the existing structure

2:03:56that's there that will be removed. I

2:03:58think that's a a a good point to to look

2:04:00at. So, as far as the um my

2:04:04recommendation would be if there's any

2:04:06type of uh se uh streetscape that could

2:04:09be provided for what that massing is

2:04:11going to look like from that vantage

2:04:13point. Yes, right there. Exactly. Thank

2:04:15you, Mr. Chair.

2:04:20>> Okay, Holly, thank you. Who would like

2:04:23to begin?

2:04:28>> I'm happy to start.

2:04:29>> Great. Angish. Thank you.

2:04:31>> Um, so

2:04:34I appreciate the the elimination of the

2:04:38gable in the center block, the main

2:04:40block. Um, that feels much calmer to

2:04:44have a just simple twotory.

2:04:47Um, it relates, I think, much more to

2:04:51the buildings that are in the

2:04:52foreground. Um, as seen along Sea

2:04:55Street. Um

2:04:58but then the flanking gables where it's

2:05:03already elevated,

2:05:06you know, more than h half a floor,

2:05:09about half a floor. Um and then and then

2:05:14it's two stories plus a a third story

2:05:18gable

2:05:20u and window on either side. um it

2:05:25competes with with that simple twotory

2:05:29central uh portion and especially with

2:05:33the um the one projecting gable that

2:05:37goes beyond the the facade and the porch

2:05:40towards sea street. Um, when I look at

2:05:44the site plan, it really I one of the

2:05:47things that I was looking for uh from

2:05:50the last meeting was to have some sort

2:05:53of room for um for screening from Sea

2:05:58Street just to s tone it down and and uh

2:06:03screen it a little bit and there hasn't

2:06:05been any move. Um it really uh when you

2:06:10look at the setbacks here, it looks like

2:06:13it's touching

2:06:15every setback line. Um it runs all along

2:06:19the west side and most of the south side

2:06:23and touches the north side and the east

2:06:25side. So it really is filling this lot

2:06:27in a way that is just overwhelming

2:06:31uh the density of this. And um I'm not

2:06:35saying that you couldn't have the

2:06:36footprint, but to have the footprint and

2:06:40the the two gables on either side of the

2:06:43twotory part seems like a lot. When I

2:06:45look at the back of this compared to the

2:06:47front, it feels much calmer. And I don't

2:06:50know if there's a way to achieve that on

2:06:52the front, but it seems much more in

2:06:56keeping with the simplicity of of

2:06:59things. I I mean without the all the

2:07:01balconies and decks, but um and porches,

2:07:06but just the roof lines and massing feel

2:07:09much calmer um and seem like they would

2:07:13work. It's I guess it's the gables

2:07:16um that are are making this feel awkward

2:07:20um and in congruous with the existing

2:07:27structures on Sea Street. Thank you.

2:07:29>> Okay, Angus. Thanks. Um,

2:07:33who's next?

2:07:36>> I'll go

2:07:37>> Stephen.

2:07:38Um, I largely agree with Angus. I think

2:07:40the gable forwards is is kind of a

2:07:42foreign concept for a double gable

2:07:45forward in downtown is a foreign

2:07:49concept. Um, by and large, twotory, so

2:07:53on and so forth. and then add the

2:07:55fenistration and it gets really

2:07:57complicated really quick. Um, in part

2:08:01given the elevation requirement. So, can

2:08:04we see the back Matt?

2:08:10Um, this really isn't much more typical.

2:08:17Um, I think it's less visually

2:08:20um, what's the right word? impactful.

2:08:24>> Yeah.

2:08:25>> Uh with the shed dormers, so that helps

2:08:28to tone it down, but I'm

2:08:32I'm not I'm not picturing not that I

2:08:34can, but I'm not getting a reference of

2:08:37another structure

2:08:39in

2:08:40>> this is the first one.

2:08:41>> Yeah,

2:08:42>> just kidding. Um

2:08:43>> and it's nicely, it's a handsome

2:08:44structure. I just think you're cutting

2:08:46new ground here in addition to the

2:08:49design your your typical lot to lot and

2:08:54so it's it's a big uh pill to swallow if

2:08:58through you Mr. chair. One of the things

2:08:59that we were considering was maybe

2:09:01changing the gables to uh hips to kind

2:09:04of soften because I I don't I see what

2:09:06you're saying that you know the accent

2:09:08window and the gable kind of draws your

2:09:10eye up where and so for creating more

2:09:12roof that might be a solution

2:09:15>> as well. So

2:09:17throw that out there.

2:09:18>> It maybe um and I have 110% confidence

2:09:22that you're going to bring it home. It

2:09:24just this might be one of those ones

2:09:25that takes a little while.

2:09:28Um but yeah, I think too impactful with

2:09:31respect to the massing. Uh too impact by

2:09:34too impactful I mean um

2:09:38it's

2:09:40a foreign concept in many regards to

2:09:44town architecture. Thank you.

2:09:46>> Okay, Stephen. Thanks. Um let's see. We

2:09:50got Val and Abby.

2:09:53>> I'll I'll go. Okay,

2:09:56>> Mr. Chair, it's Val.

2:09:58>> Yep.

2:09:59>> Um,

2:10:00I think Matt's moving in the right

2:10:02direction.

2:10:04I agree. Um, it's getting simpler, which

2:10:07is great.

2:10:09I think sometimes symmetry works against

2:10:13us. And I in the old part of town, it

2:10:16seems like

2:10:19maybe more asymmetrical

2:10:22massing, additive massing is going to

2:10:25work in your favor. But this is really

2:10:29going in the right direction. And I

2:10:30appreciate the changes in the roof

2:10:32pitches hugely moving the balconies to

2:10:36the back which are probably not really

2:10:41going to be even noticed as they back up

2:10:43to a tennis court for the yacht club.

2:10:47And um you know, I understand the the

2:10:51the size of the building on the site,

2:10:53but I'm looking at the locust map and it

2:10:56seems as though all of the buildings are

2:10:59sort of shoehorned in little sites and

2:11:02that seems to be town proper. So, um I

2:11:07say keep going, Matt. You got this. Um

2:11:12that's it.

2:11:13>> Okay, Abby.

2:11:15>> Yeah. So I I I find it still too large

2:11:18for the site and overwhelming. I think

2:11:21the back is it's actually going to be

2:11:24very visible from wh looking through the

2:11:27tennis courts from Whalers Lane. You're

2:11:30going to see the back of this. It's it's

2:11:31going to look like uh you know your

2:11:34stage for watching a Wimbledon match.

2:11:37And I think I think that's got to be

2:11:40sort of toned down. I think the back is

2:11:42is

2:11:44al equally

2:11:47um sort of dominating the the space. Um

2:11:52I'd like to see a reduction in the size

2:11:54of this building.

2:11:56Um it's a huge departure from what's

2:11:59there, that's for sure. Um

2:12:02so I I I think it's it's got to be

2:12:05whittleled down some more. Thank you.

2:12:10Thanks, Abby. Um, well, ever since the

2:12:13idea of changing the roof form to a hip

2:12:17was mentioned,

2:12:20I doesn't take too much imagination to

2:12:24look at this as as a hip structure and

2:12:27all the advantages that are going to

2:12:29come with that. You know, the length of

2:12:31the roof lines,

2:12:33um, [clears throat] you know, the

2:12:35homogenization of the building. I think

2:12:37it's like a seriously good thing to look

2:12:39at. Um, you know, right now we've got

2:12:42these two flanking gables that

2:12:45have been um

2:12:50described as atypical. You have got

2:12:53their little gable end windows. All that

2:12:55stuff would go to heaven and then you've

2:12:57you'd have these much shorter ridge

2:13:00lines. I I think that's a really great

2:13:03idea worth pursuing. And the other the

2:13:06only other thing I can add to that is

2:13:10towards that method of simplification if

2:13:12you remove these little hyphens that I

2:13:14don't really understand

2:13:17exactly what they're doing. Not sure

2:13:20they're necessary nec you know necessary

2:13:22to your program. Like

2:13:24>> if if those flanking things just took up

2:13:28occupied that space rather than have the

2:13:30rebate

2:13:32and then change it all to a hip. I could

2:13:33see that as like a really majestic, very

2:13:36simple structure. So we'll leave it at

2:13:39that. Um so motion from somebody.

2:13:44>> Motion to hold for revision.

2:13:45>> Thank you Stephen. Um Stephen on your

2:13:48motion.

2:13:48>> I

2:13:49>> thank you Abby.

2:13:50>> I.

2:13:50>> Very good. Uh Angus

2:13:52>> I.

2:13:52>> Uh Val.

2:13:54>> Hi.

2:13:55>> You got to get it back. It's

2:13:56>> getting worse.

2:13:57>> And I'm in favor now.

2:13:58>> Oh man. I can't believe sticking it out.

2:14:02Oh, and Val, you're you're chairing the

2:14:04next one. Huh? No, no, it's uh let's

2:14:07see. It's actually Angus's cherry.

2:14:11>> Oh,

2:14:12>> Derry Lane.

2:14:13>> Uh Derry Lane.

2:14:16>> Uh Matt.

2:14:18>> So, with your permission, Mr. Chair,

2:14:19I'll start.

2:14:20>> Feel free to start anytime.

2:14:21>> Okay. Thank you. Um so, we um the

2:14:26board's seen this uh twice before. Uh

2:14:30we've changed the color to gray which I

2:14:33think was a great suggestion. Um we've

2:14:37also adjusted the massing. Um we've also

2:14:41gotten our uh wetlands buffer and so we

2:14:44know exactly where that is. We've

2:14:46indicated that in the site plan. Uh this

2:14:48is somewhat of a um schematic site plan

2:14:50but I think it's pretty accurate in

2:14:51terms of how we handle the topography.

2:14:54Um uh but the other thing we were able

2:14:57to do is shift the building back uh even

2:15:00further uh which is indicated on the

2:15:02plan that should be on your screen now.

2:15:04Um shows the previous or actually shows

2:15:06the original uh footprint compared to

2:15:09what we're proposing today. Um the other

2:15:11thing is we uh I know there was a lot of

2:15:14discussion regarding the garage. Uh and

2:15:17so what we've done is uh by pushing the

2:15:19building back, it allowed us to uh

2:15:22separate the garage and the main house

2:15:24um by some distance. Uh we also reduced

2:15:28the size of the garage dramatically. Uh

2:15:31the the garage is not before you

2:15:33tonight, but we did uh will be coming

2:15:35before you. uh we eliminated the

2:15:37exterior stair and really just tried to

2:15:39make it a much smaller scale uh

2:15:42structure and pull it away from uh the

2:15:45proposed uh main dwelling. Um we also

2:15:50omitted the uh Koopa

2:15:52um which was something that a few of the

2:15:55board members had asked uh as well. Uh

2:15:58one other change here is again this is

2:16:01all part of the previous submission but

2:16:02we set back this massing. So uh move the

2:16:06Koopa move the building back

2:16:08dramatically uh analyze the site plan to

2:16:10shift the building back and create a

2:16:13greater distance between the garage and

2:16:15the um main dwelling. Um so these

2:16:18renderings do show the revised garage.

2:16:22Um, what we also try to do is add

2:16:25kind of a one-story element. Really drop

2:16:27the height of that garage as much as

2:16:29possible. Uh, so that there's no flush

2:16:31shed dormers uh on the side of the that

2:16:34faces the street, although that gable

2:16:36probably won't be overly visible from

2:16:37the street. That it is a a smaller scale

2:16:40one-story uh structure. Uh, we did add a

2:16:43covered parking area uh to the right of

2:16:46the two twocar garage, but we just

2:16:48wanted to show you that relationship. uh

2:16:51the distance between the two structures

2:16:53and the scale of that garage. I know

2:16:55that's not before you today, but um and

2:16:58I'll just finish by saying, you know, we

2:17:01intentionally

2:17:03um you know, obviously this lot has a

2:17:05ground cover ratio that allows this and

2:17:07and more, believe it or not. Um and but

2:17:10what we tried to really do is drop the

2:17:12eve heights throughout the entire

2:17:14building. So, this really reads mostly

2:17:16as roof with the exception of the quote

2:17:18unquote main mass that that gable. Uh,

2:17:21and that was all really by design. Uh,

2:17:23the dormers are all sheds to try and

2:17:25keep it really quiet and subdued. And

2:17:27again, I think the gray trim was a great

2:17:29suggestion because it it really feels

2:17:30like it blends into the landscape.

2:17:33So, with that, look forward to comments

2:17:34from the board. Mr. Chair, thank you.

2:17:36Uh, thank you for that, Matt. Uh, Holly,

2:17:39do you have comments?

2:17:40>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, this is

2:17:44replacing the 1969 ranch that was the

2:17:47home of the late Charles Gardner. Uh,

2:17:50appreciate changing the trim from white

2:17:52to grays. Um, I think there should have

2:17:55been some changes overall to on the size

2:17:58of the structure. Um, but appreciate the

2:18:00removal of the Koopa. I think John is

2:18:02nodding down from heaven and

2:18:04appreciating that. uh along with the

2:18:06stepping back the right side of the

2:18:08masting the overall length at 117 feet

2:18:12is excessive um as what of the existing

2:18:16vegetation shown in the photos will be

2:18:18kept I think that's something that um

2:18:20should be addressed uh the rendering

2:18:23site plans show lots of green but what

2:18:26is it versus you know what's existing

2:18:28versus proposed um commissioners had

2:18:31concerns with the hardscape landscaping

2:18:33showing um shown in the renderings and a

2:18:35competing garage. Um staff still

2:18:39recommends a streetscape off of Derry

2:18:41Lane with the existing structures and

2:18:43the proposed um the other structures. I

2:18:46know over in the area some of them have

2:18:49changed but um predominantly ranches

2:18:52exist. So I did want to also mention I

2:18:55did receive an email today from an

2:18:57abuter. I did forward to the commission.

2:18:59I understand it's not Monday but I

2:19:01received it and I forwarded along. Thank

2:19:03you.

2:19:04Uh, thank you for that Holly. Um, are

2:19:07there any question? Well, let me start

2:19:08with the board. So, it's myself, um,

2:19:11Val,

2:19:13um, Stephen and Joe.

2:19:18Um, does anyone have questions for the

2:19:22applicant? Otherwise, uh, feel free to

2:19:24go ahead and begin.

2:19:29Hearing

2:19:34no questions. Would someone like to

2:19:36comment? Joe, thank you.

2:19:38>> Oh, no. I don't have any questions. Um,

2:19:40sure. I can start. Sure. Um, I I have no

2:19:44concerns right now for with this

2:19:47structure. Um, and I would say that this

2:19:51presentation along with the shifting of

2:19:55the house and the garage changes, even

2:19:59though they're not being reviewed,

2:20:02makes it seem like there's more

2:20:04flexibility to

2:20:08adjust that structure where before it

2:20:10just seemed hemmed in. So, um I feel

2:20:14like the house placement is better um

2:20:19back from the road. And I think the

2:20:23architecture overall, there haven't been

2:20:25a lot of concerns. It's really been

2:20:27about how much driveway and

2:20:32um lack of greenery will there be out

2:20:35front. I like Holly's idea about a

2:20:37streetscape. Um that certainly I think

2:20:40would be critical for um the review of

2:20:44the garage in any um subsequent

2:20:47hardscape application. Um but the

2:20:50architecture of the structure I think um

2:20:54is appropriate. Thank you.

2:20:57>> Uh thank you for that Joe. Who would

2:20:59like to go next?

2:21:03>> Got Stephen and uh thank you Stephen.

2:21:08All right, let's see.

2:21:11Matt, uh, very handsome structure. Mr.

2:21:13Garden would be able to hold traffic

2:21:14court on the front porch

2:21:17and enjoy it. I could It's like a

2:21:18southern could see like a little

2:21:20southern scene onto it. Um, to me, I

2:21:24think the structure, the roof, the

2:21:26secondary roof masses, the pitch is a

2:21:28little too dramatic for the area. Um,

2:21:31and it, um, again, although it's

2:21:34handsome, I think it would hearken back

2:21:36to the ranch style. I'm not suggest

2:21:38suggesting an 812, but I think less

2:21:40steep on the secondary match masses

2:21:43would be appropriate. Um, it would

2:21:45eliminate that third floor window. Um,

2:21:48which creates a little bit more

2:21:53of a grandiose perception than is

2:21:56typical in the area is, I think, a

2:21:59subtle way of saying that. Thank you.

2:22:02>> Uh, thank you, Stephen.

2:22:05So,

2:22:06>> otherwise, I think it fits

2:22:08appropriately. It's just so there's

2:22:09there's a little bit little too much.

2:22:11So, I guess I had a little little sauce

2:22:13to add on the end there. Thank you.

2:22:17>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Val,

2:22:22>> um, give me one more second.

2:22:28Okay, I'm trying to scroll through it on

2:22:31my computer.

2:22:32>> Hey D, if

2:22:33>> you want to go if you want to go off

2:22:34camera and get a swig at nightquil, we

2:22:36we understand.

2:22:39>> Um,

2:22:41I still would like to see it broken up

2:22:43more as opposed to from side to side,

2:22:46more of an L, maybe a U.

2:22:50Um, I agree with Stephen about the

2:22:54higher roof pitches. That just makes

2:22:56more roof which makes the building seem

2:22:59more volume

2:23:03whatever. Um I appreciate getting rid of

2:23:06the Koopa. Thank you. And

2:23:10in terms of

2:23:12um I know the garage isn't before us

2:23:15right now, but I still have some

2:23:19reservations about the placement of the

2:23:22future garage being there. I would like

2:23:26to see it perhaps

2:23:28in another location or yeah um it just

2:23:34generally adds to the overall volume of

2:23:37this structure on the site in terms of

2:23:40the back. If it can't be seen I'm fine

2:23:43with it. I just don't know from that

2:23:47property behind it which is landbank or

2:23:49conservation or something. there's a an

2:23:52awful lot of fenestration. So,

2:23:56um you know, it's nothing that I don't

2:24:00say all the time. Simple is better.

2:24:04>> Thank you.

2:24:05>> Thank you though.

2:24:07Um so, I agree with some of the

2:24:10comments. There are things that are

2:24:12lingering from the last meeting. Um I I

2:24:17think there were at least a couple if

2:24:19not more uh looking for more telescoping

2:24:23back on the lot and a different

2:24:25configuration as was just mentioned with

2:24:28either an L or U or something so that

2:24:32there isn't the um the the coverage from

2:24:37really one side of the lot to the other

2:24:41um when you add on the garage. Um, I

2:24:44appreciate the house moving back. Um, if

2:24:49you took the just guesstimating from

2:24:53looking at the locust, if you took the

2:24:56uh existing ranch, if it's still there,

2:24:59um, it would be behind the house as as

2:25:03moved and proposed. Um, so it's still

2:25:07forward and imposing on the lane. Um

2:25:11it's going from a one-story ranch to,

2:25:14you know, that front gable is looking

2:25:16like it's presenting as three stories.

2:25:19Um so it it really is imposing both in

2:25:22height and width. Um, I would like I'm

2:25:27not sure if it was proposed last time,

2:25:29but um, Holly's suggestion uh, this time

2:25:32with having a streetscape showing

2:25:34adjacent properties, I think is going to

2:25:36be really telling about um, the

2:25:40appropriateness of the scale uh, volume

2:25:44and massing of the structure on this

2:25:46lane. Um,

2:25:50I appreciate the the uh gray color. I

2:25:55thought that was part of the

2:25:58part of the proposal last time we saw

2:26:00this. Um,

2:26:03and so I think um yeah, I I I think the

2:26:09the streetscape would be helpful both

2:26:11for vegetation but also just relating to

2:26:15what is existing.

2:26:17um or what will be existing uh after the

2:26:22the president house is gone. Um so could

2:26:27I just respond few points Mr. Chair?

2:26:29>> Oh yes of course Matt. Go ahead.

2:26:31>> So in terms of like the the telescoping

2:26:34um you know we do have um there is one

2:26:38whole section of the structure that is

2:26:39one story and that was you know

2:26:42intentional and by design. Um, you know,

2:26:44telescoping or taking portions of the

2:26:46program and trying to just slide them

2:26:48towards the back does require some

2:26:50fairly dramatic reworking. And we felt

2:26:53and still feel that that one-story

2:26:55addition to the right uh was a great,

2:26:58you know, addition um and a solution if

2:27:01you will to, you know, quoteunquote

2:27:03telescoping. We were able to shift that

2:27:04whole mass back. Um, you know, we can

2:27:08definitely look at trying to adjust the

2:27:10roof pitches to see if we can't drop the

2:27:12height um further, but I just

2:27:16probably not likely that I can do the

2:27:18the telescoping. Um, there's nothing. We

2:27:20did look at it. There's it's it's just

2:27:22not that easy. So, anyways, I just don't

2:27:24want you to think I'm ignoring you.

2:27:25We've we've looked at that and it's um

2:27:28you know, our solution was this one

2:27:29story additive piece. Um but um anyways,

2:27:33got a lot of great comments and and

2:27:35think I have some things that we can

2:27:37work on and come back to you with.

2:27:39>> Um thank you Matt. U commissioners, what

2:27:42would you like to do?

2:27:43>> I'll make a motion over provisions. I

2:27:44want to make one quick comment and I'm

2:27:45not disagreeing with comments that were

2:27:47made about modifications, but you will

2:27:51recall that we discussed and there was a

2:27:53lot of support for the concept of one

2:27:56story, you get additional ground

2:27:58coverage uh above and beyond even the

2:28:02concept of what's allowed at zoning. And

2:28:04so I think there's a lot to be said for

2:28:07maintaining that. And again, I'm not

2:28:09undermining anyone's point of view or

2:28:11giving Matt support, but um I would just

2:28:14keep that in mind when we look at a

2:28:16streetscape of an area and we look at

2:28:18what what the rights are under um

2:28:21zoning. Thank you.

2:28:24Uh with that, the motion was to

2:28:26revisions

2:28:26>> on your motion. Stephen

2:28:28>> I

2:28:29>> uh Val

2:28:32>> I

2:28:33>> Joe

2:28:35>> I

2:28:36>> I'm an I as well. Thank you, Matt.

2:28:38>> Thank you very much.

2:28:41>> And that brings us to Stone Alley and

2:28:44back over to you, Ray.

2:28:46>> Thank you. Then go,

2:28:48>> do you want me to

2:28:51>> What's that?

2:28:53>> Uh,

2:28:54>> I've got drawings

2:28:57for

2:29:01>> Okay. Uh me, Stephen, Abby, Val,

2:29:06Angus.

2:29:12>> I don't know.

2:29:18>> Is this different from what

2:29:26Steve?

2:29:27>> Oh, you betcha.

2:29:39you ask for options.

2:29:45>> I'm sorry, I'm laughing because they all

2:29:47look the same.

2:29:48>> They're actually not. You'll see on the

2:29:50bottom it says um

2:29:52>> A, B, and C. Yes,

2:29:58>> that's why I took out everything else

2:30:00and just gave you A, B, and C and

2:30:02nothing else because you know the

2:30:04building. No great surprise there.

2:30:08>> I think there's something wrong with

2:30:10mine.

2:30:12>> They all look the same just from

2:30:14different

2:30:15>> M. The first one is A and then the

2:30:18perspective for A. The second one I

2:30:21circle is B and then the perspective for

2:30:24B. And then the third one is C with it

2:30:28perspective for C. The third one is

2:30:31closer to receive to what you suggested

2:30:33about um giving it sort of a hip roof

2:30:36and hiding it more.

2:30:43Second one is a slightly different. The

2:30:45first one is close to what we submitted

2:30:47the last time.

2:30:49and he said just change the type of roof

2:30:51that was around it which we did on

2:30:53option C. So we did an angled roof

2:30:57around option C which is what was

2:30:59requested.

2:31:03So where do you want to go from here?

2:31:09If I could through you Mr. Chair just

2:31:10add one more thing. I think the

2:31:12difference between option A and B is

2:31:15it's a the railing height is

2:31:18>> reduced if you will. It's a really

2:31:21subtle change.

2:31:23>> Yeah, they're subtle. I would agree.

2:31:25It's kind of like a where's wall thing.

2:31:28>> Well, there's not a railing is a railing

2:31:29is a railing. So, we just had to change

2:31:31what how high it was and what was around

2:31:33it. But C is closer, Steve, to what you

2:31:36asked us to give you an option for.

2:31:39>> Okay.

2:31:44Holly.

2:31:46>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two Stone Alley,

2:31:48individually significant. Liza Cod,

2:31:50House from a Barn 18581 1871.

2:31:54Um, appreciate the options provided as

2:31:57requested by the commission. Although I

2:31:59will say it's difficult to see the

2:32:00differences without dimensions. That

2:32:02said, um, if any railing is added, it

2:32:05should be as simple, ballastrade, and

2:32:08short as possible. Um the amount of

2:32:11white uh is of concern. I think I'm

2:32:14echoing uh Chair P's concern from last

2:32:17time. So again, short ballastrade and

2:32:20maybe in natural the weather. Thank you.

2:32:23>> The railing on the building is already

2:32:25white and it it's almost attached to it

2:32:27and the one below it is white.

2:32:29>> The one on the left on the second floor

2:32:30is white and the one going up to the

2:32:32second floor is white. I'm just saying

2:32:34it's white. Yep. Yep.

2:32:35>> And there's no way around. Okay.

2:32:37>> Folks, you have any questions for Linda?

2:32:39Did she say that it's white?

2:32:42>> Yeah. Did I say it was white? Yeah, it's

2:32:44white. Just checking.

2:32:45>> Just checking.

2:32:48>> And if there are no questions,

2:32:50>> I'll go.

2:32:50>> Oh, Abby, please.

2:32:52>> Um, I

2:32:54am in favor of option A. I think it's

2:32:57the simplest

2:33:00um without the the added, you know, um

2:33:04detail of the ins and outs above the

2:33:08porch. Um,

2:33:11I I understand that it's going to be

2:33:15white, but I think adding like gray in

2:33:19between the columns or might bring more

2:33:22attention. I I is I think it's just it

2:33:25is what it is. It's a it's an a a later

2:33:28addition. It's a you know, we we've see

2:33:31them up and down Orange Street. I think

2:33:34a is the simplest. So, um, that's what I

2:33:37think is the most improp appropriate.

2:33:39Thank you.

2:33:40>> Okay.

2:33:40>> Thank you.

2:33:40>> Thanks, Abby. Next,

2:33:43>> uh, I can go.

2:33:45>> Yeah, Angus.

2:33:47So, um,

2:33:50to Aby's point, uh, yeah, out of the

2:33:54three of these that are barely

2:33:55distinguishable,

2:33:57um, A is probably, you know, the best

2:34:00because of the shortest railing or the

2:34:03simplest. Um, but I just because we're

2:34:07given three options, uh, doesn't mean

2:34:10that we have to choose one. Um, I don't

2:34:13think that any of them are appropriate.

2:34:16Uh the railing hits the gable window in

2:34:20an awkward way. Um if you look at the

2:34:24perspective, I think it's the easiest

2:34:26sort of to read the volume of it. This

2:34:29is already an anomaly to this structure

2:34:32that has been dramatically changed. Um

2:34:36the it's a a big white cube. Um and to

2:34:41add anything on top of this just I think

2:34:44makes it um even worse. Uh the

2:34:50um I I think the last meeting what was

2:34:52requested was a a a parapit as in like

2:34:56you know a roof that goes in three or

2:34:58four feet or five whatever. Um, so that

2:35:02you're not really looking at a all this

2:35:06molding and sophet and detail and gutter

2:35:09and stuff above a and then a rail on

2:35:12top. Um, and so uh to me none of this is

2:35:18appropriate. Thank you.

2:35:20>> Okay, Angus. Thanks. Let's see.

2:35:23>> I'll go

2:35:24>> Stephen. So I I actually one element for

2:35:28certain that Angus mentioned Matt um

2:35:30through Mr. Chair that concept of the

2:35:33railing up there. It it is in dying into

2:35:36the window area. I know it'll just be a

2:35:37post. It's obviously not going to

2:35:39connect to the window sill and the sash,

2:35:41but it is such an awkward detail that

2:35:45when those cyprress that were planted

2:35:47there um

2:35:51rather well we won't get into that. um

2:35:54when those fail, which they inevitably

2:35:57will from the ground up um due to

2:36:01shading and improper shearing because

2:36:03people don't seem to understand how to

2:36:05do it. Um that one element is going to

2:36:07be visible. So I would ask again through

2:36:11you Mr. chair. Excuse the fuzz in my

2:36:13mouth. That um Matt, you consider I know

2:36:17it's a finished house, but

2:36:20either downsizing those windows or

2:36:22raising them or something because it's

2:36:25it it's probably the most objectionable

2:36:28thing I find at this point.

2:36:29>> Yeah. Now, the other elements are um I

2:36:32think the narrative of this is going to

2:36:34be a grandous home down the street on

2:36:37Orange Street was moving this off or

2:36:40demoing it and this less grandiose home

2:36:44uh appended it on the rear. Um because

2:36:47otherwise there's nothing that makes

2:36:48sense. Uh I do note that it is

2:36:51sufficiently different that it meets the

2:36:52interior secretary this the secretary of

2:36:55the interior standards that the

2:36:57structure additions to um significant

2:37:01structures uh be distinguishable from

2:37:05the original structure. So I think

2:37:07you've accomplished that. Uh it's

2:37:11all that said I'm wrestling with the

2:37:14white. It's a lot of white paint on the

2:37:17back of the structure.

2:37:19Um I think the visual mitigation needs

2:37:22to be that

2:37:24um

2:37:26there will be a hedge there in pergreen

2:37:30hedge in perpetuity along stone alley

2:37:33maintained

2:37:35at a certain height but not higher

2:37:38because the other thing is we're you

2:37:40know we are stewards of the character

2:37:41and setting and the character and

2:37:43setting of the structure is Stone Alley.

2:37:45it's immediately adjacent and heavily

2:37:47traveled. So, I feel comfortable saying

2:37:49we need to put some restrictions on

2:37:51that. Um, all that said, I think

2:37:56I think option A is probably the

2:37:59simplest um subject to decreasing the um

2:38:06successive overhangs of the fascia the

2:38:10capital effect

2:38:12by I don't know half each

2:38:15so that it's not as uh each extension

2:38:18say they're two inches they're one

2:38:20inches they go up success success. Yes.

2:38:23>> Steve, do you want to take the gutter

2:38:24out or that is a gutter about?

2:38:26>> Well, the gutter if the if each of the

2:38:29uh subordinates

2:38:31if the the mo if the lowest facial were

2:38:33brought in an inch, everything else

2:38:35could be brought in again inch including

2:38:37the gutter and the the shadow board

2:38:40above it. And I think that every inch

2:38:42here is going to make a difference. It's

2:38:44just going to make that look simpler as

2:38:46opposed to having a such a proud

2:38:48profile. I'm just worried because it's

2:38:50an integrated gutter already.

2:38:51>> Yeah. No, you're going to be fine.

2:38:52That's just a miter. So, you know, Matt,

2:38:55you get what I'm what I'm laying down

2:38:57there.

2:38:57>> Yeah. So,

2:38:58>> so I think that those are um I think

2:39:01I've seen this so much that it's

2:39:03familiar to me now and it's like, oh

2:39:04gee, what did we argue about?

2:39:06>> I'm not giving you any more pictures.

2:39:08>> Um so, I'm for a subject to modification

2:39:12of the trim detail.

2:39:13>> Okay. uh modification of the windows

2:39:17or some other solution

2:39:20as of yet determined and um a

2:39:23restriction on the vegetation

2:39:26maintenance and height

2:39:28>> on Stone Alley side.

2:39:32>> Thanks Stephen.

2:39:34>> Okay, Val, if you still have it in you,

2:39:40>> you're on mute.

2:39:46Bal,

2:39:47>> she's working on it.

2:39:48>> Okay,

2:39:50we see you waving. Take your time. Val,

2:39:54>> sorry. Um, I

2:39:57had a suggestion about just wrapping

2:40:00instead of all this white trim from the

2:40:05eve

2:40:07up. Put some roof there to mitigate all

2:40:12of the white. There can be a little

2:40:14railing sticking up. I just sent it to

2:40:16Matt with my quick sketches. Um, so he

2:40:20understands what I'm saying and I think

2:40:24that would solve the problem,

2:40:27[clears throat]

2:40:28but I don't know how to show it to you

2:40:29on the screen. So,

2:40:31>> Val, take a look at option C.

2:40:34>> No, option C is Matt has I just sent it

2:40:38to him, Linda.

2:40:38>> Okay, I can pull it.

2:40:40>> Um,

2:40:41Val,

2:40:42>> yeah.

2:40:43>> Have you finished? Yeah.

2:40:45>> Okay. So, I was independently arriving

2:40:48at the same thing that Val has arrived

2:40:52at. So, like Stephen, I'm

2:40:58not loving the fact that the railing is

2:41:00just crashing into the middle of that

2:41:03double window. I thought, okay, well,

2:41:05what if the rail moves in such that it's

2:41:08in line with the mullion of the between

2:41:11the two windows? Now, if that happens,

2:41:14then you put in like a 9 and 12 roof

2:41:18pitch that accounts for the difference

2:41:21between the gutter and the little fascia

2:41:24board that's running around the deck.

2:41:26And what you have is a nice band that

2:41:29wraps around above the gutter of roofing

2:41:33that differentiates clearly between the

2:41:36deck above and the sun room below

2:41:40instead of it being a white box. Because

2:41:42you know, Matt, you did an absolutely

2:41:44terrific job with the rendering,

2:41:47but the rendering is telling me like, oh

2:41:49yeah, it's a white box. And so having

2:41:54the railing above in a different plane

2:41:59than the wall below it, I think is good.

2:42:03Having the sloped roof differentiating

2:42:06the two elephants, sun room,

2:42:08>> bless you,

2:42:08>> deck, bless you, is good. and then

2:42:11having that little band of color that

2:42:14like breaks up the huge expanse of

2:42:17white. So, you know, I mean

2:42:19>> that's the picture.

2:42:20>> I don't know how Val was able to put

2:42:22that together so quickly, but

2:42:24>> yeah, but the question Ray, just answer

2:42:25one question. Would you have to

2:42:27>> Okay. Well, yeah, that's a quick sketch,

2:42:29but that definitely tells the story.

2:42:31>> Would you have to pull it in the same

2:42:32distance on the left and that's how you

2:42:34get to

2:42:35>> go all the way around? So, your access

2:42:37from the staircase is going to get a

2:42:39little narrower. I get that, but it

2:42:41still looks like it would be three feet.

2:42:44>> I just don't guess that would be the

2:42:46only thing on that. May I interrupt?

2:42:48Yeah, on that side that's not visible.

2:42:50If you truncate that hip and you do a

2:42:53rail, you know,

2:42:54>> I don't even concern

2:42:55>> that that I actually not that concerned

2:42:57about, but I I think that is a a very

2:43:00good solution.

2:43:01>> Um, may I just add on that, Mr. Chair?

2:43:03Did you go yet? You did.

2:43:05>> Yes. Um I I think that your your

2:43:07Envail's independently reached um

2:43:09suggestions are marvelously appropriate

2:43:12and um I would ask that we hold for a

2:43:15revision to show that and if Matt you

2:43:18find there's some kind of a problem to

2:43:22the solution. Yeah.

2:43:23>> And you want to present a slight

2:43:26modification, we could see that at the

2:43:28same time. Okay.

2:43:28>> I think we get the point because I you

2:43:30asked for that type of thing the last

2:43:32time.

2:43:32>> Yeah. I just

2:43:33>> took took a little while.

2:43:35>> Yeah.

2:43:36>> Black.

2:43:37>> Well, whatever the roofing is on the

2:43:39rest of the house, you know.

2:43:41>> It's wood, isn't it?

2:43:42>> That would be

2:43:43>> Yeah. I think it's cedar.

2:43:45>> I think it's cedar.

2:43:46>> Yeah,

2:43:46>> cedar.

2:43:47>> He had a version of that hip, I think,

2:43:49very early on. And it wasn't well

2:43:52received, but um

2:43:53>> we'll visit it again.

2:43:55>> Yeah.

2:43:57sometimes just

2:44:00down until they finally just say a

2:44:03little velvet hammering.

2:44:05>> So, uh, let's see. I think I think we're

2:44:07nearly there, but I do need to hold for

2:44:09some revisions.

2:44:12>> Uh, that I'm going to take Angus.

2:44:16>> Angus's motion to hold for revisions on

2:44:18that motion. Angus.

2:44:20>> Very good. Abby,

2:44:21>> I

2:44:22>> Stephen

2:44:24>> I.

2:44:24>> Very good. Val

2:44:26>> I

2:44:27>> and I'm in

2:44:28>> creeping towards it.

2:44:29>> Good. We're getting close close. Uh

2:44:33>> chair.

2:44:34>> What?

2:44:35>> Mr. Chair, that was the last one I'm on.

2:44:38So, I'm going to bid you guys good

2:44:40night.

2:44:40>> Oh, thank God.

2:44:42Just listening to you.

2:44:44>> Go rest.

2:44:45>> Feel better, Val.

2:44:47>> Bye.

2:44:48>> Night night.

2:44:49>> My goodness. What a trooper. What

2:44:52dedication HBC commission has all

2:44:55>> my nose is running and listening for.

2:45:01>> So Stephen, you're chairing this.

2:45:03>> Oh goodness.

2:45:04>> Yeah.

2:45:04>> All right. 14 New Mill Street.

2:45:07>> Uh Scott, good evening. Uh let's go

2:45:09easy. Let's go easy on the commission.

2:45:11Um we're wrapping up pretty soon. We

2:45:13want to have you present something that

2:45:16we want to approve. I hope that's the

2:45:18case. Thank you. Go ahead.

2:45:20>> Thank you. I feel the same way. Thank

2:45:21you, Mr. Chair. Um, so we have been hard

2:45:24at work and it's taken a bit of time,

2:45:25but that's because we wanted to get this

2:45:27right. And we've really appreciated the

2:45:29board's feedback,

2:45:31>> uh, time and attention that they've

2:45:32spent on this. And I think ultimately,

2:45:35um, Mr. Ellis has come to us with a with

2:45:37a problem, and we've presented a

2:45:39sustainable solution. Hopefully, the

2:45:41most recent version is going to be in

2:45:43line with the, uh, with the board's

2:45:45recommendations. So, hopefully you can

2:45:47see my screen. I have tried sharing it.

2:45:51Do you see the picture of that window?

2:45:54>> Yes.

2:45:54>> Yep.

2:45:55>> Okay. So, um the most recent meeting

2:45:58that we had the the feedback was that

2:46:01the there should be a uh reveal from the

2:46:04casing to the sash. There should be an

2:46:06additional uh portion of the frame

2:46:08that's exposed. So, this is the latest

2:46:11and greatest uh option that we've

2:46:14basically come up with. And like I said,

2:46:15we we are hopeful that this is going to

2:46:17be the uh the final boss of window

2:46:19approvals for for this project.

2:46:24>> Okay, fair enough. Okay. Does anyone

2:46:27have any questions for Mr. Chase?

2:46:31>> I have some comments.

2:46:33>> Okay. Well, don't make me chase

2:46:35questions. Does anyone have any?

2:46:37>> Okay. Well, Ray, why don't you begin?

2:46:40>> Okay. Um, first of all, putting aside

2:46:44the beautiful pastoral setting that you

2:46:46see windows, [laughter]

2:46:49>> I just want to go up and hug this

2:46:51window.

2:46:53>> So, this is much closer. I think you

2:46:57know when this was reviewed initially,

2:47:00I'm kind of scrolling back. You you had

2:47:03this sort of small window with a very,

2:47:06very large white casing on it. And this

2:47:10window that you're showing us now has

2:47:12the appropriately sized. And if I could

2:47:14just ask, do you know offhand how wide

2:47:19the side casing is on that particular

2:47:21unit?

2:47:22>> I believe it's 4 in.

2:47:24>> Four inches. Okay. That's the that's the

2:47:27magic number. So the other one was I'm

2:47:29sure you know six or more. Um I like the

2:47:33cap that you've placed on it. Um I think

2:47:35the mutton design is appropriate. the

2:47:38sill is good. And then I take this um

2:47:42you know this window out of its pastoral

2:47:45setting and I place it into one of your

2:47:47window openings on the house. And you

2:47:49know I'm very content with with that

2:47:54whole package. And I think

2:47:56uh there are probably going to be some

2:47:59questions about the vintage of the

2:48:02existing windows etc. But I I would say

2:48:05that as the windows go, um, this is very

2:48:09appropriate and thank you.

2:48:12>> Thank you, Ray. Who's next? Um, let

2:48:14Yeah, let me back up a moment. U, Scott,

2:48:17your board is myself, Ray, Angus,

2:48:20Carrie, Carrie, and no alternates.

2:48:25>> Thank you,

2:48:27>> Connie.

2:48:32>> Terry and Connie. I'll go.

2:48:35>> Oh, I got I pegged Connie. You're next.

2:48:37>> Okay. Sorry. Thanks.

2:48:38>> No, you're fine.

2:48:39>> Oh, no. Um I don't really have um

2:48:42anything to add. I agree with what Rey

2:48:45just

2:48:47said. Thank you.

2:48:48>> Thank you, Carrie.

2:48:51>> I think the fact that this is all one

2:48:54color block helps because I think if the

2:48:58sash were a different color than the um

2:49:01trim, it might be a little different.

2:49:02But um yeah, I'm okay with this as well.

2:49:05Thanks.

2:49:06>> Thank you, Angus.

2:49:08>> Um I was curious u what Holly had to say

2:49:12about this. But

2:49:14>> guys, we have staff comments. It's 10 to

2:49:177. Um I would ask that we uh if we have

2:49:20comments on staff comments, we make

2:49:21them, but we don't ask for them to be

2:49:23reiterated. Nothing on Holly.

2:49:27>> Yeah. Unfortunately, I and I I don't

2:49:31think everyone reads them every time.

2:49:33>> That's but that's not the that's not our

2:49:35role this evening. Our role is looking

2:49:36at an application

2:49:37>> information. Um

2:49:39>> so if you scroll to page 68

2:49:45um

2:49:46it shows the existing window and it goes

2:49:50from casing to sash and there isn't that

2:49:53extra line that's there. I don't if you

2:49:57can like zoom in to any of the well yeah

2:50:01the bottom photos. Um

2:50:04but you know when you compare this with

2:50:08what's proposed there's a whole another

2:50:10element that changes the character. Um

2:50:14but uh more than the the window not

2:50:19matching what is existing. Um my concern

2:50:23is is that the windows are from 1900.

2:50:27Um and that's a a loss of a lot of um

2:50:33historic material and detail. Um that is

2:50:37for me is character defining the the

2:50:40profiles, the details, the glass um all

2:50:44of it. And um there are photos and

2:50:48there's a form um but there is zero

2:50:53evidence that these windows are not uh

2:50:56restorable or salvageable. Um and the um

2:51:01the the last

2:51:03um option when something is deteriorated

2:51:07to the inth degree is to get rid of it.

2:51:10and there's just no evidence of these

2:51:13being on the verge of needing to be

2:51:15thrown out. Um, so those are my

2:51:19comments. Thank you.

2:51:20>> Thank you. Um, let's see. Was there

2:51:22anyone else? Well, hold on. Hold on. Was

2:51:25there anyone else? I think we covered

2:51:26everyone.

2:51:27>> Um, I think there's two things looking

2:51:29at these image. What show what uh

2:51:36stands out the most to me is just the

2:51:37relative size. the sample window is much

2:51:39smaller than the than the actual window.

2:51:43Um, other than that, I think this is

2:51:45dramatically similar. Um, the uh side

2:51:49casing has a 38 inch appears to be about

2:51:52a 38 inch reveal, which is typical of

2:51:55construction for the last since the

2:51:581930s or before.

2:52:02uh where you have your side a portion of

2:52:04your side jam showing um and it uh the

2:52:09overlap of the side casings and the head

2:52:11casing is approximately 38 inch to

2:52:13create a shadow line. It also provides a

2:52:16location for a storm window uh or andor

2:52:20screen which is not atypical.

2:52:25Um I think that uh you've done a

2:52:28remarkable job. I mean, this is like a

2:52:30plank frame window setup that got

2:52:33dressed up with a ed casing trim for

2:52:36Saturday night. Um, I'm not

2:52:40I think it's acceptable. Uh, I think it

2:52:43would look more it's going to look more

2:52:44appropriate at the replacement size.

2:52:48Um, the what was the other element? I

2:52:51agree. Carrie's comment was very astute.

2:52:54Um, I would want to see this window.

2:52:57I don't know that it would be

2:52:58dramatically different, but in certain

2:53:00circumstances, it could be very

2:53:01different if it were a different color

2:53:04sash and a trim.

2:53:06So, um I would caution Scott if you guys

2:53:09are doing work in the future to keep

2:53:11that in mind. Um what else?

2:53:17I'm not going to speak on the I I think

2:53:19that the concept of retaining windows is

2:53:21an important one. Um but at some point

2:53:26if

2:53:28a window can be put in this isn't not

2:53:32excuse me this is not an individually

2:53:34significant structure correct.

2:53:39Yeah. Um so there are there's a

2:53:43gradation of levels of of um

2:53:45preservation that come into play in my

2:53:48mind. Um, and um, I think that this is

2:53:53approvable. Do I would I prefer to have

2:53:55the windows stay and be restored and add

2:53:58a a storm window that is architecturally

2:54:02uh, aesthetically pleasing? Yes. But

2:54:04typically what happens is a triple track

2:54:05window goes up and you lose the

2:54:07aesthetic of the historic window and it

2:54:09it looks you know like something that

2:54:12was made in

2:54:14um a regional area uh industrial setting

2:54:17which is an aluminum triple track. So um

2:54:21I'm I'm okay with this. Thank you. Can

2:54:24>> I just add Yeah, please you know as I

2:54:27think more about this. So, um, you know,

2:54:30the original casing was

2:54:34where the casing was actually serving as

2:54:38the stop for the outermost sash.

2:54:42>> Mhm.

2:54:44>> And the jam set back from that. Now,

2:54:48when you have a situation like that, the

2:54:50storm screen can only go one place. It

2:54:54has to get mounted on the outside of the

2:54:56casing and project off of that plane.

2:54:59There's only one place for it to go like

2:55:02that. So that that's screwed into the

2:55:05casing. Now, I've noticed around the

2:55:08this house that some of your windows are

2:55:12screwed into the casing. And I'm

2:55:14assuming the reason that they're done

2:55:16that way is because of the nature of the

2:55:19construction of the window, as Angus

2:55:21pointed out. And then I'm noticing that

2:55:23a lot of other windows, the storm

2:55:26screens are set back in and they're

2:55:28mounted on the stop, which is the little

2:55:31piece that's inside the casing that the

2:55:33new windows have. All that's to say, um,

2:55:38are you planning on using storm screens

2:55:40on these?

2:55:41>> No. These these windows have a screen

2:55:47that when you open the window, the

2:55:50screens up. And so no storms

2:55:54and the storms that are on the house now

2:55:57are you know ugly,

2:55:59>> right?

2:55:59>> And uh and responding to the point about

2:56:04how functional the windows are

2:56:07after buying the house

2:56:11four or five years ago. you know, we

2:56:14spent a fair amount of money, a fair

2:56:16amount of money with painters and

2:56:19people, you know, doing a lot of things

2:56:22to the windows with the the weights and

2:56:24this and that. And, you know, the

2:56:27problem is that

2:56:30uh I'm 77. My hands are not perfect. The

2:56:35screens are very hard to move. Uh the

2:56:40windows are difficult. many have the uh

2:56:43will slam down and are dangerous in that

2:56:48and you know therefore I'm running the

2:56:50air conditioner uh in the summer because

2:56:54I can't open many of the windows that

2:56:56are on the first floor. So, you know,

2:56:59this is affecting my life. And, you

2:57:02know, I I I

2:57:05think that I deserve windows that I can

2:57:07open and close. And, you know, we've

2:57:10attempted to to fix them. And I think

2:57:13these will look much better than what I

2:57:16have now, which is ugly storms.

2:57:18>> Yeah. I'd stick just for our perview as

2:57:21stick to the aesthetic aspect of it. you

2:57:23know, understand and compassionate to

2:57:25your situation and circumstances. But,

2:57:28um, all right. I think we're we've

2:57:30established uh what they look like that

2:57:32they will not have the triple track. We

2:57:35can see what the existing windows look

2:57:36like with the triple track and I think

2:57:39we have enough information to make a

2:57:41determination.

2:57:42>> Yes.

2:57:43>> Agree.

2:57:45>> All right.

2:57:49>> Oh, your chair.

2:57:50>> Yeah.

2:57:50>> Oh, yeah.

2:57:51>> I I just was asked to Yeah. Okay. So, I

2:57:54would make a motion to approve the

2:57:56windows as uh submitted

2:57:59>> as revised

2:58:00>> as revised per the information submitted

2:58:03for this meeting

2:58:04>> and specifically the image presented.

2:58:06>> Correct.

2:58:07>> And no triple tracks

2:58:08>> and no trip.

2:58:09>> Is that okay?

2:58:10>> It's fine with actually sounds like it'd

2:58:13be fine with you too.

2:58:14>> Yeah. Um, please.

2:58:15>> So, uh,

2:58:17>> okay.

2:58:18>> On your motion.

2:58:18>> Motion. Uh, I

2:58:21>> uh Abby.

2:58:23>> Oh, no.

2:58:24>> Oh, I'm sorry. Let me look at my list

2:58:26here. I'm I'm I'm new at this chair

2:58:28thing. Um, Ray Angus,

2:58:31>> no.

2:58:32>> Carrie,

2:58:33>> I.

2:58:34>> Connie,

2:58:34>> I

2:58:35>> and I um for the record, four one

2:58:38opposed Angus and um Aby's not sitting

2:58:41on this.

2:58:42>> Yeah.

2:58:43>> Okay. With that, I'll pass the chair

2:58:44back.

2:58:45>> We'd like to appreciate the

2:58:47>> the board's help on this because I think

2:58:50that the cooperation between the board

2:58:53and the manufacturer coming up with a

2:58:56better solution than we had a year or

2:58:58two ago. I appreciate that.

2:59:00>> Thank you. I think it's going to have a

2:59:01meaningful effect on uh these windows in

2:59:03the future.

2:59:04>> Thank you all very much.

2:59:06>> Okay, folks. Uh thanks. Um let's see.

2:59:10Hello, Sauna.

2:59:11>> Hello. Um, I was looking through and I

2:59:14see a lot of bubbles. Not a lot of

2:59:16description, but I'm sure you're going

2:59:17to tell us what it is.

2:59:19>> So, it's me, Angus, Abby, Stephen, and

2:59:22Joseph.

2:59:24>> Okay.

2:59:25>> So, um, we have removed two feet from

2:59:28the east and west side and shrunk the

2:59:30building. Um, we've added the evergreen

2:59:33that was suggested.

2:59:35>> Can I stop you right there?

2:59:37>> One foot off of each. So, a total of two

2:59:40feet in reduction. Okay. Thank you.

2:59:42>> Um, so we have we're six feet off the

2:59:45property line on one side and 7 feet on

2:59:47the other. Um, 7 feet on the east and

2:59:49six on the west. Um, we've added the

2:59:52evergreen from and you can see in the

2:59:54rendering from the front of the office

2:59:57building by the parking all the way to

2:59:59the front of the duplex. And then we've

3:00:01decided that there was a lot of concern

3:00:03about not having enough room to walk

3:00:06because of vegetation. So, we are

3:00:08suggesting a six foot vertical board

3:00:10fence the length of the duplex. Um, and

3:00:14then trees in the back as well. Um,

3:00:18and that's it. Like the renderings, one

3:00:20is with a dormer and one is without. Um,

3:00:23we

3:00:25do have the drawings as without a

3:00:26dormer, but again, we'd like to

3:00:30request that we have the option to come

3:00:32back for a dormer during construction.

3:00:35Okay, everybody get it?

3:00:39>> Yes question.

3:00:40>> Yes, go ahead.

3:00:41>> So, um I was trying to understand this.

3:00:44Um do the elevations are they corrected

3:00:48with the with the footage taken?

3:00:50>> Yes.

3:00:50>> Out of it?

3:00:51>> Yes.

3:00:51>> So, okay. So, that is the the the um the

3:00:56gable and the sides.

3:00:58>> Yes.

3:00:58>> Okay. Thank you. Just a question. I

3:01:01Okay.

3:01:02>> I have a question too through Mr. Chair.

3:01:03Can we go? Sorry. Uh, Fiona, can we go

3:01:05to the elevations?

3:01:07SA, did you address the I think Joe

3:01:09brought this up last time astutely that

3:01:12it looked like a mud fill. Was that a

3:01:14drafting or was that an intention?

3:01:17>> That's the intention.

3:01:18>> Okay. And then how much did you take out

3:01:20of the height?

3:01:21>> Um, we brought the height down um nine

3:01:24inches.

3:01:27>> Hoping for more.

3:01:29Um, can we go to the site plan? Well, if

3:01:32anyone else has questions, I'll hold

3:01:34comments.

3:01:37>> Okay.

3:01:38>> So, could I just ask one more question?

3:01:41>> So, when you took off the footage on the

3:01:43side, is does that show up on the site

3:01:45plan the building?

3:01:47>> It is does show up. Okay. Thank you.

3:01:51>> Okay. Uh I think, you know, I appreciate

3:01:54the change. I have to ask why why one

3:01:56side's six and the other seven? Why not

3:01:58six and a half, six and a half?

3:02:00Um because the front doors are on the

3:02:03east side so it was giving them more

3:02:05room to

3:02:05>> Okay.

3:02:06>> come in. Makes sense.

3:02:07>> As an entrance.

3:02:08>> I mean there's a rationale there. I was

3:02:09just curious what it was.

3:02:10>> Yeah.

3:02:11>> Um I mean I you my comments were made

3:02:14and this is an improvement. I would

3:02:16still prefer to see another 3 to six

3:02:18inches taken out of the overall height

3:02:20of the duplex. um the the taller mass.

3:02:26Um

3:02:29and I think given its location, are you

3:02:32going to lose anything?

3:02:35You're if you don't have the dormers,

3:02:38right?

3:02:38>> Mhm.

3:02:40>> You're not going to have the space up

3:02:41there for head space anyways. If you

3:02:43have the dormies, you're going to have

3:02:44it. But if you lose an inch on the pitch

3:02:47>> or a half an inch per 12 inch on the

3:02:50pitch, you're What's the width of the

3:02:52overall building?

3:02:54>> The width of overall uh 30 and a half

3:02:57>> 30 on the gable end.

3:02:59>> Yeah.

3:02:59>> 30. So that's a dramatic decrease in the

3:03:03height if you were to lower it by a one

3:03:05in one inch rise over the the run.

3:03:10>> Yeah. I mean that would meaningfully

3:03:13change the perception of the mass of

3:03:15that rear structure acknowledging that

3:03:19much of it will be hidden by uh

3:03:21vegetation.

3:03:23Um but still I think it's an important

3:03:26concession for the the neighborhood and

3:03:30um I'm I'm not sold on simply a fence.

3:03:35Um

3:03:37the I'm not suggesting you're selling

3:03:39anything, but you're trying to address a

3:03:41concern, but there's plenty of trees

3:03:42where you can walk under. We've walked

3:03:44under them. Um a columnar planting a

3:03:46columnar tree can be 3 feet in diameter

3:03:50and above head height, and it there's

3:03:53nothing that impacts your ability to

3:03:54walk up and down either side of the

3:03:55structure. So, I would suggest that uh

3:03:58at the very least there would be one of

3:04:00those uh per section of fence much as we

3:04:04do the ivy.

3:04:06>> And um that will probably be beneficial

3:04:08to the applicants in the future when

3:04:10neighboring homes are put up and they're

3:04:12of similar proximity uh because then we

3:04:15can have the neighbor plant the uh the

3:04:17opposite alternating panel and all of a

3:04:19sudden you get a a tree hedro. So those

3:04:22are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:04:24Thank you, Stephen. Who's who wants to

3:04:27go next?

3:04:36Hey, Sona.

3:04:37>> Yeah.

3:04:39>> On the site plan, I can't really read

3:04:44what the dimensions are from the

3:04:46property lines

3:04:48to the building.

3:04:49>> So, it's it's 7 foot on the east.

3:04:52>> Uhhuh. and six foot on the west.

3:04:54>> Okay. Yeah, I could sort of kind of make

3:04:58that out. Thank you.

3:05:00Um,

3:05:02who's next?

3:05:08I could go. This is Joe.

3:05:09>> Joe. Yeah.

3:05:11>> Um, [clears throat] I appreciate all the

3:05:13changes that have been made uh to date

3:05:16and the reduction of the of the width,

3:05:19which therefore reduced the height. Um,

3:05:23and it might seem nitpicky, but I'm I'm

3:05:26in the camp with um Steve that if it

3:05:29were to come down another six to 8 in

3:05:35and be under 29 ft,

3:05:38um, I think that would be I think that

3:05:41would be helpful. And if it's as simple

3:05:44as adjusting the pitch, great. Or going

3:05:47to 30 ft wide instead of 30 foot6.

3:05:50Um

3:05:52I it just I think having this under 29

3:05:57ft given that there's a mudsill

3:05:59I in a tight lot,

3:06:02I think we want to make sure it's as low

3:06:04as possible. Um I don't have any other

3:06:07comments on the on the architecture. Um,

3:06:11I I agree with Stephen about the his

3:06:16tree comments, but um I wouldn't object

3:06:19to a offense, which would be a separate

3:06:22application anyway. Um, and that that's

3:06:25it. Thanks.

3:06:27>> Okay, Joe. Thank you. Let's see. We

3:06:29still have Angus and Abby.

3:06:34>> I I I can go fast. Um I I it's still um

3:06:40too much building for me compared to the

3:06:43lot. Um and and as I look at there are

3:06:47three more of these coming. I I I just I

3:06:50can't imagine what this is going to look

3:06:52like in this neighborhood. So I I

3:06:54appreciate the reduction in in size. I

3:06:57really do. And and the height um I just

3:07:00but I can't imagine

3:07:02um

3:07:04this on that site.

3:07:06Thank you.

3:07:09Thank you, Abby. Angus.

3:07:11>> Oh, thank you. I think that this has

3:07:13come a long way. I'm still having a hard

3:07:17time believing that anything's going to

3:07:20grow in the amount of space that there

3:07:22is to to have it, but um I appreciate

3:07:26the um

3:07:28the reduction in width and height and

3:07:31definitely the third floor dormer. I

3:07:33think that makes a a big difference with

3:07:36its presentation.

3:07:38Um,

3:07:40you know, right now looking at the west

3:07:42elevation, I'm only looking at the east

3:07:44elevation because that's the only one

3:07:45that's rendered like this with the fence

3:07:47and I know the fence isn't part of the

3:07:49application, but um I'm just imagining

3:07:52what it's going to be on the other side.

3:07:55Um, and it it feels a little stockadish,

3:07:58but I guess that would, you know, we

3:08:00would deal with that when the time comes

3:08:02with

3:08:03planting or whatever um to to go on the

3:08:07fence. But um as presented with the uh

3:08:11the comments that um have already been

3:08:14said about reducing the height a little

3:08:16bit more and there not being the third

3:08:18floor dormer, I think um

3:08:22I think I'm good with it. Thanks.

3:08:25>> Thank you, Maggus. Okay, so I'm pretty

3:08:29good with this, but I'm I know that

3:08:30there are some people who are still for

3:08:32concessions. What's Are all the roof

3:08:35pitches the same pitch?

3:08:37>> Yes.

3:08:38>> And what is it?

3:08:40>> 10.

3:08:40>> I think it's a 9 and a half over 12.

3:08:43>> Nine and a half.

3:08:44>> Yes.

3:08:46>> Okay. So, you know, there are people on

3:08:48this board that would be tremendously

3:08:50happy if this went to a nine.

3:08:53>> Okay. which wouldn't be a huge

3:08:55concession for you, but it would it

3:08:57would mean around four or five inches in

3:09:01height reduction.

3:09:03>> Um,

3:09:05plus it's easier to frame.

3:09:07>> Yeah,

3:09:08>> you don't have to adjust your your

3:09:10square.

3:09:11>> Um,

3:09:11>> and with a lower height, if I may, Mr.

3:09:13Sure. I think it might be easier to

3:09:15present dormers because

3:09:17>> Yeah, I would need the dormers to be

3:09:19able to get up to the present staircase

3:09:22and the mass is going to present

3:09:24>> as less mass.

3:09:26>> Yeah.

3:09:26>> With the even 4 in is going to make a

3:09:28difference.

3:09:29>> Yeah. But I think also if you look on

3:09:31the renderings, the the mass on the one

3:09:34without the dormer, the roof does look

3:09:36so much bigger than with the dormer.

3:09:39>> No,

3:09:39>> the dormer definitely breaks.

3:09:40>> One more comment if I may.

3:09:41>> Yep. Please. Sorry. Um ju just I would

3:09:44suggest do a quick study and look at it.

3:09:46If you can go to an eight

3:09:49>> with dormers put in that the difference

3:09:52between an eight and a nine could be the

3:09:54difference between getting the dormers

3:09:55and not getting the dormers and you

3:09:57might even put the eight in and come

3:10:00back

3:10:02with the dormers just a separate

3:10:03application like right away even before

3:10:06it gets built because it's going to be a

3:10:07significant drop in the height.

3:10:09>> Yeah. and it's going to make to at least

3:10:11in my mind it's going to make a big

3:10:12difference with respect to the

3:10:13presentation of the overall mass. Um

3:10:16other than that I agree the landscaping

3:10:18and I would suggest um that uh perhaps a

3:10:21motion is in order. The motion being to

3:10:24approve

3:10:26um subject to the roof pitch the roof

3:10:31main roof pitches being reduced to a 9

3:10:33and 12s

3:10:34uh at minimum reduction and a screening

3:10:40uh hardscape and landscape plan

3:10:43uh at a later date.

3:10:45>> Okay,

3:10:46>> which is to say in simpler terms, we're

3:10:48going to look at the fence and the

3:10:49trees, but we're going to look at them

3:10:51later. But so if we go to the eight

3:10:53pitch with the dormers, that would be a

3:10:54whole new application.

3:10:55>> I would suggest unless you guys want to

3:10:57rate around and I'm only suggesting

3:10:58those comments for myself. I don't know

3:11:00how the other members of the board feel.

3:11:02I'm not looking to introduce that in the

3:11:0311th inning. If you guys got to get a

3:11:05house in order in

3:11:06>> Yeah, I'd rather do revisions than come

3:11:08back and

3:11:09>> Well, maybe you want to pull the board

3:11:10and see what they think

3:11:12>> and then bring the option of doing the

3:11:14eight with the dormers. Well, what I was

3:11:17going to suggest,

3:11:18>> yes,

3:11:19>> if you're okay with the nine, just

3:11:22I got a feeling you're going to get an

3:11:24approval and you can walk away with it.

3:11:27>> Now, whether you know, in order to to

3:11:30Stephen's point, if you want to

3:11:33>> Well, I don't say if you want to come

3:11:35back with the dormers, we know you're

3:11:37going to come back with the dormers.

3:11:39>> So, investigate the possibility of an

3:11:41eight. And then of course you're going

3:11:43to put a 4 and 12 shed dormer on top of

3:11:46that and see all that works out.

3:11:48>> So

3:11:49>> So my only question is if I come back

3:11:52with a new HDC application to change it

3:11:55to an A pitch and it and with dormers.

3:11:57>> Yeah.

3:11:58>> Then I have to pay the whole fee again

3:11:59which is like $1,800 or something for

3:12:02this.

3:12:03>> There's the benefit of having a board

3:12:04that's already sat on the rest of it. So

3:12:06it's going to be up to you guys.

3:12:07>> Yeah. But if you want to caucus for a

3:12:10moment, maybe the chair will entertain

3:12:12it.

3:12:12>> Yeah, I'm happy to weigh in on my

3:12:14opinion there. Um,

3:12:17>> I I would support

3:12:19if the next time, let's just say this

3:12:21was held for revisions. If you had a

3:12:23version that was a nine pitch and then a

3:12:25version that was eight with dormers, I'

3:12:28the whole reason why we talked about

3:12:30eliminating dormers was that this thing

3:12:32was at 30 feet high. Um, if with an

3:12:35eight pitch in dormers, I think you're

3:12:37talking about a a a much different

3:12:40feeling. So, I'd be very open to it. Um,

3:12:44and you'd also keep the same board, by

3:12:47the way, if it's held for revisions. If

3:12:49you submit a new application, your board

3:12:52makeup would be slightly different

3:12:54potentially.

3:12:56>> We would prefer to hold revisions with

3:12:58option A and B.

3:12:59>> Motion to hold for revisions. Uh,

3:13:00present a couple options and we'll wrap

3:13:02this up. Perfect.

3:13:03>> Okay, great. Lively discussion. Thank

3:13:06you everyone. Um, okay. So, Steven's

3:13:08made a motion to hold for revisions on

3:13:10that motion. Angus,

3:13:12>> hi.

3:13:12>> Abby,

3:13:13>> I.

3:13:14>> Stephen,

3:13:14>> hi.

3:13:15>> Joe,

3:13:16>> I

3:13:16>> and I'm in favor. Guess what time it is,

3:13:19folks?

3:13:20>> 7:15.

3:13:20>> Oh, actually, we were going to discuss

3:13:24uh the building with Nantucket in mind

3:13:27priorities. Can we bump that, folks?

3:13:29because I want to get to the uh the

3:13:32polling place.

3:13:33>> Jesus.

3:13:34>> Well, please.

3:13:36>> With that in mind, I will make a motion

3:13:38to adjourn.

3:13:38>> Okay. Thank you, Stephen. Let's see

3:13:40everyone at the table. All those in

3:13:42favor? I.

3:13:43>> Any opposed? Thank you all so much.

3:13:48>> Have a nice night.

```*