[00:00:01]
I'M READY IF YOU ARE.[1. Opening of Meeting with Roll Call]
BEING THE APPOINTED HOUR, I HEREBY CALL THIS, UH, REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO ORDER.UM, MATT, IF YOU WOULD, UH, CONDUCT A ROLL CALL.
UH, CHAIR JIM BISBY IS ABSENT OR EXCUSED.
AND I, I DIDN'T SEE ANY MINUTES IN THE FOLDER.
[3. Adjustments to the Agenda]
LET'S SEE.I I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE ADJUSTMENT TO THE AGENDA.
I HAVE, UH, HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF CUZ I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
UM, I'D, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT TO THE END, UH, OF OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND THANK YOU DEAN FOR ALLOWING ME TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT MAY SIMPLIFY A FEW THINGS TONIGHT FOR ME.
UM, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IS A PUBLIC COMMISSION.
UM, TR YOU'LL NEED TO, UM, VOTE ON ADJUSTING THE AGENDA.
OH, I BELIEVE, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO, YEAH, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE.
WE AMEND THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING TO MOVE APPLICATION C AFTER APPLICATION D THEN SHOWN ON THE AGENDA DISTRIBUTED.
SO IT WILL, IT WILL BE THE FINAL HEARING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THANK, THANK YOU, MATT, FOR KEEPING ME STRAIGHT.
[4.A. Hearings: Introduction, Swearing-In, Summary of Process - Introduction of Hearings and Rules of Procedure - Swearing-In of Speakers - Summary of the Hearing Process]
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IS A PUBLIC COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF NEW BURNS BOARD OF ALDERMAN.IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING AND SAFEGUARDING NEW BURNS, LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UM, BEING DOWNTOWN AND RIVERSIDE, UM, USING US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, STATE STATUTES, CITY ORDINANCES, AND NEW BURNS HISTORIC, UM, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS.
TWO OF THE MAJOR TASKS OF THE HPC INCLUDE APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND PREVENTING DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES DUE TO NEGLECT THE, THE HBC HOLDS QUASI-JUDICIAL, UH, HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
HEY, CANDACE, THE COMMISSION HEARS SWORN TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, BY PARTIES WHO RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE HEARING AND BY OTHERS WHO CAN JUSTIFY THAT THEY HAVE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION.
THE COMMISSION CANNOT CONSIDER COMMENTS BASED ON PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, HEARSAY OR PERSONAL OPINION, THAT CANNOT BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO SPECIFIC HISTORIC, UM, GUIDELINES.
LIKEWISE, COMMISSIONERS SHALL REFRAIN FROM STATING PERSONAL OPINION, PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, OR HEARSAY DURING THE HEARING.
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ON AN APPLICATION IS BASED SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, UM, AT THE HEARING, UH, THAT DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES.
UM, AT THIS POINT, MATT, LET'S SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO WILL BE, UH, PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO ME.
SO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING, UH, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PLEASE SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BEST.
[00:05:59]
OKAY.NOW THAT EVERYBODY'S SIGNED IN, I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE, UH, HEARING PROCESS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS.
UM, THE HPC ADMINISTRATOR, UH, PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT, UM, PRESENTS THE APPLICATION PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS WHO RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE HEARING OR HAVE STANDING CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE.
UM, THEN WE'LL HAVE A REBUTTAL PERIOD, UH, FOR BOTH OPPONENTS AND PROPONENTS.
UH, IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE OTHERS WHO DO NOT HAVE STANDING WHO CAN JUSTIFY THEY HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT, UM, DIRECTLY AFFECTS, UH, THE APPLICATION.
UH, THE HPC ADMINISTRATOR WILL ULTIMATELY PRESENT THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, THEN THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE FINAL COMMENTS.
UH, THEN WE, THE COMMISSIONERS WILL, UH, DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND, UH, POSE QUESTIONS AS RELATED THERE TOO.
UM, ULTIMATELY AFTER THAT DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY, UM, THE APPLICATION WITH STATED FINDINGS OF FACT.
UH, A MOTION WILL BE CRAFTED AND, UH, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT APPROPRIATELY.
SO WITH THAT IN PLACE, I BELIEVE, MATT, WE BEGIN
[4.B. 305 North Ave. – to include demolition of a contributing structure and construction of a 2-story infill house.]
WITH, UH, ITEM B ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.SO THIS IS THE, UH, APPLICATION FOR 3 0 5, UM, UH, NORTH AVENUE.
AND YOU CAN SEE HERE, UH, THEY'VE, UH, FILLED IN ALL VARIOUS BITS OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION.
AND THEN, UH, SIGNED AND DATED, UH, THE APPLICATION.
UH, AND I THINK WE HAVE THIS IN HERE TWICE.
SO, UH, THE NEXT SHEET HERE IS THE, UM, EXISTING SITE PLAN, UH, WHICH INCLUDES, UH, THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING, UM, ON THE SITE, BUT PRIMARILY THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UH, AND IT ALSO INCLUDES ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF 7.88 ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
UH, AND THE GROUND ELEVATION IS 5.1 FEET.
SO, UM, JUST TO NOTE, UH, THERE IS A DASH LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE, WHICH DENOTES, UH, PLUS THE NUMBERS 16 AND 15.
UH, THAT DENOTE THAT THIS LOT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY TWO, TWO, UH, LOTS THAT WERE, UM, JOINED TOGETHER AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST.
SO, UM, UH, ALSO I SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS, UM, UH, REGULAR MEETING.
AND SO WHERE WE PRESENTED, UH, MOST OF THIS INFORMATION BEFORE, BUT WE'LL BE PRESENTING IT HERE AGAIN ANYWAY, THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE HERE, THE YELLOW ONE HERE IN THIS VIEW, AND IN THE OTHER VIEWS AS WELL.
UM, SOME PHOTOS FROM SEPTEMBER, 2020 AND THEN THE APPLICANT, UH, PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF THEIR OWN HERE, BUILT IN 1940, UH, ET CETERA.
AND DURING FLORENCE, ABOUT FOUR FEET OF WATER INUNDATED THE HOUSE AND NO REPAIRS BEEN CARRIED OUT SINCE 2018.
UH, SO WE'LL SEE SOME OF THOSE PICTURES AS WELL.
THIS ONE, I BELIEVE IS FROM, UH, GOOGLE STREET VIEW FROM PROBABLY 2012 ISH AROUND
[00:10:01]
THERE.UH, THIS IS A, UH, AN ILLUSTRATION SHOWING THE FLOODPLAIN, UH, IN BLUE SURROUNDING THE B THE HOUSE WHICH IS OUTLINED IN THE LIGHT BLUE AND HAS THE YELLOW MARKER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
UH, BUT ALSO SHOWING THE FLOOD PLAIN AROUND ALL THE ADJACENT, UH, STRUCTURES AS WELL, WHICH ARE SHOWN AS THE GRAY BLOCKS.
AND ALSO THIS SHOWS THAT THE, UH, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, IT SHOWS BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS NINE FEET FOR THAT HOUSE.
UM, THIS WAS A PREVIOUSLY, UH, SUBMITTED, UH, DESIGNED FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NO LONGER RELEVANT, UM, BUT, UH, WAS, UH, PROVIDED TO SHOWS A POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
UH, AGAIN, THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET.
ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT HERE.
NONE OF THESE ARE, NONE OF THESE ARE NONE OF THESE.
AND THEN, UH, HERE WE HAVE, I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS, UH, PAGE SIZE HERE FOR US.
THIS IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER, UH, PLANNED VIEW WHERE, UH, THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROPOSED, UH, TO ACTUALLY SPLIT THE PROPERTY, UH, ALONG THE PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUS PARCEL LINES.
UH, AND, UH, THEREBY CREATE TWO LOTS, UH, UH, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE ONE STRUCTURE ON EACH LOT, UH, WITH A CAR PATH DOWN THE MIDDLE.
UM, AND THIS WAS THEN ANOTHER SKETCH OF, UH, BUILDING PLAN AT THE TIME.
AND THEN THEY ALSO, OOPS, SORRY.
AND THEN THIS WAS A SKETCH THAT THEY PROVIDED SHOW THE PROBLEM IS IT'S WAY AT THE BO EDGE.
SO AT THE BOTTOM EDGE HERE, WE SEE FOUR, UH, LOOKS LIKE HOUSES.
UH, THE TWO, THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT THEY HAVE IT, UM, IS IN THE MIDDLE AND INDICATED BY WITH 15 AND 16, UH, THE CIRCLES, UH, FOR THE TWO LOTS.
AND AT THE TIME, THEY WERE PROPOSING ON THE LEFT HAND LOT, UH, THE STRUCTURE SHOWN HERE ON THE LEFT, AND THEN JUST A PLACEHOLDER FOR A STRUCTURE ON THE RIGHT.
UH, BUT THEY WERE ALSO KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, UH, OF THE STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT, THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT AND THE, UH, NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT.
UM, THIS IS THE, UH, DOCUMENT THAT WAS MENTIONED, UH, REGARDING THE, UH, NOVEMBER 1ST DEADLINE FOR THEM TO EITHER REPAIR OR DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOUSE.
INCLUDING THIS PAGE, WHICH IS AN EXCERPT OUT OF THE GUIDELINES AND THIS ONE.
SO THEN, UH, THEY HAVE, UH, NOW THE MOST, THE MOST RECENT, UH, SURVEY, UH, WHICH SHOWS THEN, UH, AGAIN, THE EXISTING BUILDING ON NOW, UH, A LOT DIVIDED DOWN THE MIDDLE, UH, THAT HAS YET TO BE APPROVED.
UH, BUT, UH, IT MAY END UP BEING APPROVED BASED ON A CONTINGENCY THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL BE DEMOLISHED.
SO THE APPLICANTS ARE IN A BIT OF A PICKLE TRYING TO GET ONE THING DONE WHILE THE OTHER'S HAPPENING.
SO, UH, THEY RECENTLY PROVIDED THIS CROSS SECTION THROUGH THEIR PROPOSED, UH, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UH, SHOWING THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, THE, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU CAN SEE IT SAYS B F E UNDER THE WORD PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR.
AND THEY'RE SHOWING THAT THEY'RE, UH, PROPOSING TO BUILD, UH, THEIR NEW STRUCTURE ABOVE THE B F E.
UM, SO ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT SPECIFY HOW FAR IN THIS SKETCH, UM, UNLESS YOU CALCULATE, UH, THE CURRENT GRADE IS 5.1 PLUS EIGHT.
[00:15:01]
SKETCH OF THE, UH, KIND OF PROJECT THAT THEY WOULD, THEY WILL BE PROPOSING.AND HERE THEY SHOW IT'S 26 FEET WIDE BY 40 FEET LONG WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FRONT PORCH.
AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD, UM, HAVE THIS KIND OF CONFIGURATION WITH THIS IS THE PORCH ROOF SHOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
SO, UH, GIVEN ALL THAT, UM, WE HAVE THE ZONING AND INSPECTION REVIEW FORM HERE, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A BIGGER, AND IT INCLUDES ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION WITH THE NOTATION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT, UH, IT MUST MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, HEIGHT, AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UH, AND THAT'S REGARDING THE NEW, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN FOR THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, HE NOTES THAT A DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL BE NEEDED.
SO AFTER THAT, WE ARE PREPARED TO PROVIDE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND, UH, THE APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS? NO, I'D BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY.
YOU'LL NEED TO COME UP FRONT, COME UP TO, YEAH, WE'RE ON TV, SO TV WORLD CAN'T HEAR US IF YOU NOT AT THE MICROPHONE.
UH, I'D BE HAPPY TO, UM, TRY TO EXPLAIN OR ELABORATE ON ANY OF THE DETAILS OF DRAWINGS.
UM, IT'S CONCEPTUAL BECAUSE WE REALLY HAVEN'T NAILED DOWN THE FINAL, UH, PRODUCT YET.
BUT WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST, UM, MEETING, UM, THAT I ADDRESSED IN THE ONE, UH, SIDE ELEVATION CUTAWAY, EXCUSE ME, WAS HOW WE WOULD PULL OFF COMING IN AT ALMOST THE SAME LEVEL AS THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES.
IT STILL COMPLY WITH FEMA HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IS PROPOSED A, UH, FOYER, IF YOU WILL, IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF, UH, OTHER HOUSES IN THE RIVERSIDE DISTRICT.
UM, BUT ITS UNCONDITIONED SPACE.
IT WOULD, UH, PROVIDE A PATHWAY TO THE LIVABLE, HABITABLE AREAS, BUT IT WOULD BE, UM, A FO FRONT, IF YOU WILL.
UM, BUT IT, IT SHOULD RESEMBLE IN THE MATERIALS AND THE, THE CHARACTER, UH, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND, UH, THE ONE ILLUSTRATION THAT I SENT FROM THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES WAS I FOUND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
THE BUNGALOW CRAFTSMAN STYLE AND, UM, WE, WE KIND OF GET OUR COMPLIANCE IN THE HOUSE WE BOUGHT AS WELL AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS HERE SHORTLY.
IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT TONIGHT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, UH, THIS APPLICATION AND, AND SEEING NONE? UM, I THINK MATT, WE'RE PROBABLY READY FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
CAN, CAN I ASK A QUESTION FIRST, MR. SHE, IS THE APPLICATION COMPLETE? WELL, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT.
UM, WOULD YOU RATHER DISCUSS IT BEFORE OR AFTER THE RECORD? I THINK BEFORE THE RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, IN THAT CASE, UH, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION? WELL, FIRST, UH, RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, THE MATERIAL SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEW.
WHEN I HEARING THE SCHEDULE, THEY ARE NOT, UH, THERE IS NOT ANY DETAIL IN THE DRAWING FOR US TO REVIEW.
AND THIRD, UH, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THIS FOUR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
UM, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MATERIAL WE ARE TO EVEN SAID, LOOK AT THE WINDOW, WHAT ARE THE WINDOWS? LIKE, WHAT'S THE MATERIAL OR THE SIDING? WHAT'S THE MATERIAL FOR THE WINDOWS? IT'S JUST NOT COMPLETE.
THE DEMOLITION PART, NO CONCERNS AT ALL.
BUT THE, THE INTERNAL HOUSE, I THINK IT'S NOT COMPLETE.
AND THA THANK YOU FOR VERBALIZING THAT.
UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, ARE THERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO EITHER AGREE OR DO NOT AGREE? I AGREE.
WELL, AND WE, WE, YOU KNOW, WE, THE, THE INTENTION OF THE WAY WE PUT THIS TOGETHER IS IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS.
WE LOOK AT DEMOLITION, NOT WHAT'S GOING TO GO BACK, MAKE A DECISION ON DEMOLITION AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THE DEMOLITION IS APPROVED, WHAT'S GONNA GO BACK.
[00:20:01]
I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO PROCESS THAT PART.UH, THE INFILL PART, I THINK ONCE WE GET DONE WITH THE DEMOLITION, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS AND SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INFILL PARTY.
AND ARE THOSE QUESTIONS MORE APPROPRIATE IN A HEARING OR IN A DESIGN REVIEW? UH, THEY, BECAUSE WE, WE SHOULD HELP THE APPLICANT.
GIVE US A GOOD A SO, SO HERE IS WHERE I WAS GOING AFTER WE HEARD THE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WAS I WAS GOING TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THIS IS A DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT, UM, APPLICATION.
SO IT IS A TWO-STEP APPROVAL PROCESS, UM, AGREEING WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION TO HEAR THE DEMOLITION PIECE.
MR. PALM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ACT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT PIECE.
UM, THAT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM.
JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE PROCEED THAT WAY, IT, WE TAKE A STEP FORWARD, BUT IT DOESN'T GET YOU MUCH CLOSER TO WHERE YOU NEED TO BE TO HAVE, UM, ACTIONABLE PAPERWORK TO, UH, PROCEED WITH THE DEMOLITION.
SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL NEED THE REDEVELOPMENT APPROVAL B BEFORE YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DEMOLITION PIECE, IN OTHER WORDS.
AND, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TONIGHT, I BELIEVE, JUST BASED ON THE COMMENTS YOU'VE HEARD.
SO THAT SAID, DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE? AND, AND IS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WHEN MOVING FORWARD WITH JUST THE DEMOLITION SURE.
ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD THAT THEN WITH THAT SAID, UM, MATT, IF YOU COULD GIVE US THE, UH, STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE, FOR DELIBERATION.
SO THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FOR PAUL AND KAREN FREEMAN.
UH, AT, FOR THE PROJECT AT 3 0 5 NORTH AVENUE IN NEWBURN, THE HISTORIC PROPERTY NAME IS HOUSE AND THE DATE IS CIRCA 1928.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION, UH, FROM 1988, AND IT DESCRIBES IT AS THIS ONE STORY GABLE FRONT BUNGALOW APPEARS TO BE OF SOMEWHAT LATER CONSTRUCTION THAN ITS NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTHEAST, WHICH IS 3 0 3 NORTH AVENUE.
THE PORCH SHELTERING ITS THREE BAY FACADE HAS BEEN SCREENED AND THE MAIN BLOCK OF THE HOUSE IS SHE LIVED AS BEST SIDING.
WINDOWS ARE SIX OVER SIX SASH FOR THE SANDECK, UH, BOOK.
UH, THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION OF THE HOUSE IN THERE.
SO FOR 3 0 5 NORTH AVENUE, THE APPLICANT APPLICATION IS TO INCLUDE DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING HOUSE AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TWO-STORY INFILL HOUSE.
SO STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING, HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO DELIBERATIONS, DE DEMOLITION, AND NEW INFILL.
AND I WILL JUST READ THE DELIBERATION ONE.
DEMOLITION AT THE MOMENT, DEMOLITION 6.4 0.2, 6.4 0.3 6.4 0.4, AND 6.4 0.5.
IN ADDITION, THE GUIDELINES STIPULATE IN RENDERING A DECISION ON A DEMOLITION COA.
THE HPC SHOULD ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING.
THREE, STOP THAT FOLLOWING THREE CONSIDERATIONS, CONSIDERATION ONE, TO ADDRESS THE HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.
IS IT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? STAFF BELIEVES YES, AS INDICATED IN THE INVENTORY IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE RIVERSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SECOND, IS IT A SIGNIF? IS IT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORIC USE AND EVENT? A PERSON OR BUILDER OR ARCHITECT STAFF SAYS, NO, NONE IS INDICATED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE RIVERSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, NOR IS ANYTHING OR ANYONE OTHERWISE KNOWN TO STAFF.
THIRDLY, IS IT THE LAST OR THE OLDEST EXAMPLE OF A CERTAIN BUILDING TYPE? ACCORDING STAFF, THIS IS NOT INDICATED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER REGISTRATION FORM FOR THE RIVERSIDE DISTRICT, NOR IS THIS OTHERWISE KNOWN TO STAFF CONSIDERATION.
ADDRESS THE INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE.
WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF FOUNDATIONS? FLOORS, WALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS AND ROOFS MOVE DOWN.
STAFF THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED
[00:25:01]
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE BEYOND THE STATE, WHEREBY REPAIRS WILL BE POSSIBLE OR REASONABLE.SECONDLY, IS IT A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE STAFF? IN 2012, THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICER HAS ISSUED AN ORDER THAT THE DWELLING WAS UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION DUE TO DETERIORATION AND DEFECTS, INCREASING THE HAZARD OF FIRE ACCIDENTS OR OTHER CALAMITIES.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE STRUCTURE IS AT LEAST OCCASIONALLY USED BY TRESPASSERS CONSIDERATION.
ADDRESS ATTEMPTED PRESERVATION EFFORTS.
FIRST, HAVE OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION BEEN EXPLORED WITH PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS STAFF? NO EXPLAN EXPLORATIONS OF OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATION WITH PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS ARE KNOWN TO THE STAFF.
SECOND HAS THE APPLICA, HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN SEEKING ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION STAFF? THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED SUCH TO THE STAFF.
THIRDLY, HAVE ALTERNATIVES FOR STRUCTURE, RELOCATION AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY BEEN PURSUED? STAFF THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED SUCH TO THE STAFF.
SO, STATEMENTS A REASON BASED ON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND STAFF'S JUDGMENT ARE ONE, THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.
TWO, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW HOUSE FOR THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THE DESIGN OF WHICH WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE HPC THREE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND FOUR, THE PROJECT IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
SO FOR THE MOTION FOR DELIBERATION, ONE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION APPROVE THIS APP, APPROVE THIS APPLICATION TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, THE COA SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AT THIS TIME, AND THE DEMOLITION MAY NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE DESIGN OF THE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE IS APPROVED BY THE HPC AND A COA ISSUED FOR THE REPLACEMENT.
THEN THE COA FOR THE DEMOLITION CAN BE APPROVED BY THE HPC TO BE ISSUED.
UH, SO MR. MS. FREEMAN, ANY FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR DELIBERATIONS? VERY GOOD.
SO, UH, BOARD MEMBERS STAFF'S ALREADY GIVEN US A A PRETTY GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED.
WOULD A BOARD MEMBER LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE BEFORE US THAT, UM, SUPPORTS DEMOLITION, IF ANY? WELL, WE HAD SIGNIFICANT PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE DETERIORATED STRUCTURE.
IT'S A SHAME IT'S TAKEN 11 YEARS OF, OF BEING IN A CONDEMNED CONDITION, UH, TO BE RESOLVED.
SO THANK YOU FOR PURCHASING IT AND STARTING THIS PROCESS.
UH, SO I THINK THAT THE, THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN, AND THE CITY HAS SHOWN THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT A SUBJECT FOR REHABILITATION.
AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO ME THAT MOST OF THE MATERIALS ARE ITEMS FOR PRESERVATION.
I I'VE BEEN IN THE STRUCTURE AND AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU CAN SEE HALFWAY UP THE WALLS WHERE THE, AND I THINK THAT'S IN SOME OF THE PICTURES WHERE THE WATER LINE HAS GOTTEN IN THERE.
UM, THERE'S BATHROOMS IN THERE THAT ONE OF THE, UH, TOILETS LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA FALL THROUGH THE FLOOR AT, AT ANY TIME.
UM, THE CEILINGS, UM, YOU CAN SEE WHERE MOLD IS PRESENT AND THE CEILINGS ARE FALLING IN.
AND SO, UM, UNFORTUNATELY IT A SAT TOO LONG.
WELL, THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UH, FOR THE RIVERSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DISTRICT, UH, AS A WHOLE.
UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THIS, UH, STRUCTURE, UH, HAS A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR CULTURAL REASONS.
UH, HAVING, HAVING DEALT WITH HISTORIC STRUCTURES, UM, IN THE PAST, I JUST, I DON'T EVEN THINK IT'S PRACTICAL THAT THIS COULD BE REHABED MUCH LESS MOVED.
UH, IT'S JUST, IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THAT HAS GOTTEN AWAY FROM US MM-HMM.
[00:30:01]
IS JUST COMPLETELY COST PROHIBITIVE AT, YOU KNOW, AT EVERY LEVEL.JUST IT'S NOT, IT IS NOT PRACTICAL.
AGAIN, UNFORTUNATE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETIMES THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.
AND FLORENCE CERTAINLY DID NOT HELP.
YOU CAN SEE THE WATER LINE IN THERE AND YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU WALK SO YOU DON'T END UP ON THE GROUND.
HAVE YOU BEEN, HAVE YOU BEEN INSIDE OF IT? I HAVEN'T BEEN INSIDE.
I HAVE ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I, I LIVE IN RIVERSIDE, SO I'M WELL AWARE OF WHAT GOT FLOODED AFTER FLORENCE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SO I THINK WE'VE, UM, ADDRESSED CONSIDERATION ONE, UM, ALTHOUGH IT'S A, A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE LAST OR OLDEST EXAMPLE OF A BUILDING TYPE.
UM, AND IT'S NOT, UH, HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE OF A HISTORIC USE OF INTERPERSON OR BUILDER.
UM, THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE, UH, WHICH HAS MOSTLY BEEN SPOKEN TO THIS EVENING, ADDRESSES CONSIDERATION TOO.
AND IT SOUNDS TO ME CONSIDERATION THREE DEALING WITH PRESERVATION EFFORTS IS THAT THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH HISTORICAL MATERIAL REMAINING THAT HAS INTEGRITY, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THOSE ALTERNATIVES.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR ARE WE READY TO PERHAPS MAKE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, I MOVE.
WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR A DEMOLITION OF PROPERTY AT 3 0 5 NORTH AVENUE TO BE NOT INCO IN CONGRESS WITH NEW BURNS.
CODE OF IS SECTION 15 4 11 TO 15 4 29.
AND I'LL ASK MATT TO CHECK, IS THERE A DIFFERENT SECTION FOR DEMOLITION? PLEASE CHECK.
UH, ANN NEWBURN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS.
IN FACT, THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED, LEMME BACK UP, EXCUSE ME.
THE BOARD HAS DELIBERATED THE DEMOLITION GUIDELINES, 6.4 0.2 6.4 0.3 6.4 0.4, AND 6.4 0.5 AND DISCUSS CONSIDERATION ONE AS WELL AS CONSIDERATION TWO, FINDING NO REASONABLE, UH, UM, PATH TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPERTY AND, AND CONSIDERATION.
NUMBER THREE, FINDING NO PRACTICAL PATH TO, UH, PRESERVE THE PROPERTY.
SO, STATEMENTS OF REASON THAT THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW HOUSE FOR THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THE DESIGN OF WHICH WILL BE NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE H HP C.
AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
THE PROJECT IS NOT IN CONGRESS WITH THE GUIDELINES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
ANY DISCUSSION? DO, DO WE NEED TO ADD THE BID AT THE BOTTOM ABOUT, UM, THAT IT CANNOT PROCEED UNTIL THE DESIGN OF THE REPLACEMENT? DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT AS A CAUTION? UM, IF, IF WE FEEL THAT'S NECESSARY, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT HURT, IN MY OPINION.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S A TWO-PART PROCESS AND YOU, YOU CAN'T BE COMPLETE UNTIL YOU HAVE BOTH PARTS.
WOULD THAT MAKE US FEEL BETTER TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION? IT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER.
YOU OKAY WITH THAT? FR IF YOU WANNA VERBALIZE IT, GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, SO I WOULD GO, I WOULD START WITH, UH, AFTER THE COMMA UNDER, UH, MOTION FOR DELIBERATION ONE.
HOWEVER, THE COA SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AT THIS TIME, AND THE DEMOLITION MAY NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE DESIGN OF THE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE IS APPROVED BY THE H HP C AND A C O A ISSUED FOR THE REPLACEMENT.
THEN THE C O A FOR THE DEMOLITION CAN BE APPROVED BY THE H HPC TO BE ISSUED.
DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
IS MR. MORRISON WOULD LIKE TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT CONDITION THAT THE AMENDMENT OKAY.
[00:35:01]
TWO PART.I THOUGHT WE PUT, WE'RE GONNA PROCEED WITH THE DEMOLITION, THEN HAVE TO COME BACK TO HBC FOR, FOR REBUILT NOW.
WELL, WE'RE GIVING THE APPROVAL FOR THE FIRST, FIRST PART FOR DEMOLITION IN THIS AMENDMENT AS IT'S CURRENTLY AMENDED.
BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE REDEVELOPMENT PIECE APPROVED BEFORE YOU CAN ISSUE THE COA, AND THAT ULTIMATELY ALLOWS FOR THE DEMOLITION TO PROCEED.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE PROCESS OF, UM, HOW, HOW THIS WORKS.
AND PROCEDURALLY, MR. CHAIR, UH, I THINK THE MR. THOMPSON WHO MADE THE SECOND TO THE MOTION WOULD NEED TO SECOND THE AMENDED MOTION.
WELL, SO LET ME, LET ME, UH, THROW OUT SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UH, WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW INFORMALLY.
UH, WE, WE'VE GOT A SITUATION HERE THAT, UH, I FIND UNIQUE.
WE'VE GOT A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN IN A DELICT CONDITION SINCE 2012.
IS THAT RIGHT? SINCE IRENE, UH, IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA BE REHAB.
WE, I THINK WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CERTAINLY HEADED DOWN THE PATH OF DEMOLITION, UH, WITH THIS AMENDMENT THEN WE ARE PRETTY MUCH, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH WORKING OURSELVES INTO A, A, A CORNER WHERE IT, IT, IT CAN'T BE DEMOLISHED UNTIL THE PLANS COME BACK.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT, THE INTENT OF THESE TWO DIFFERENT PIECES WAS SO THAT WE WOULDN'T END UP WITH A BUNCH OF, UM, EMPTY LINES WHERE SOMEONE WOULD DEMOLISH SOMETHING AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE END UP WITH AN EMPTY LOT AND NOTHING EVER GETS BUILT.
SO PART OF THIS IS TRUST TO START WITH.
UH, I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE, UM, FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
BUT ON, UH, PAGE FIVE OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT ALSO SAYS THAT THERE WILL OCCASIONALLY BE EXCEPTIONS IN STEPS AND ACTIONS THAT VARY FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURES.
BUT IN GENERAL, THESE RULES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AS CONSISTENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
BUT THAT ALSO SAYS UNDER EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS STORM DAMAGE OR FLOODING.
AND I DON'T THINK WE, SO, SO WHY WOULD WE NEED TO MAKE AN AS EXCEPTION FOR THIS? WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS SO SPECIAL TO YOU THAT WE WOULD MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR THIS? UH, IT'S, IT, IT IS CERTAINLY AN EYESORE TO, YOU KNOW, TO, TO THE NEIGHBORS ON THAT STREET, UH, IF NOT A SAFETY ISSUE AS THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS INDICATED.
AND I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT.
UH, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF GOING AHEAD AND ALLOWING THE DEMO ON THIS SINCE IT IS A UNIQUE AND UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION? I, I SUPPORT TO GET RID OF THE EYESORE I SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE IN OUR RULES AND GUIDELINES, THE ABILITY TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS.
AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE AS GOOD AS ANYBODY.
AND THIS WOULD BE ONE, THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE WE CERTAINLY WANT TO DOCUMENT WHY WE HAVE, WHY WE HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, MEANDERED, MEANDERED A BIT FROM THE WAY WE NORMALLY DO THIS.
BUT IF, IF THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN THIS CONDITION FOR 10 YEARS, IT'S NOT HELPING THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT HELPING, UH, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN GENERAL.
BUT THIS HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I MEAN, MEAN, I I I, I DISAGREE WITH YOU CUZ I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE NEED TO VARY FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THEY'VE GOT TILL, IS IT NOVEMBER? CORRECT.
SO ALL THEY HAVE TO DO, WHICH THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO DO, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES, IS BRING US THE DRAWINGS FOR THE HOUSE AND WE NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION THAN THE WHAT THEY BOUGHT.
I MEAN, THAT CAN BE DONE VERY QUICKLY.
THIS TO ME, THIS IS NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.
I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT COULD BE RESOLVED NEXT MONTH.
I MEAN, THIS COULD BE RESOLVED NEXT MONTH.
WHY WOULD WE NEED, SO HERE'S WHAT I'M GONNA SUGGEST.
ONE, I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN USING THE CITED RULES OF PROCEDURE TO ADJUST A PROCEDURE THAT'S STIPULATED IN OUR GUIDELINES.
SO, UM, WE STILL NEED A, UM, YOUR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT ON THE SECOND, TIM, IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, IN THE MEANTIME, IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS A VERY NICE BUILDING SECTION THAT ANSWERED MOST OF OUR QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, THE, THE PREVIOUS, UH, FENESTRATION WORK THAT'S IN YOUR APPLICATION.
WE ASKED IT TO BE ADJUSTED ABOVE, UH, FLOOD PLANE, AND YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
SO IT'S FAIRLY EASY TO DO THE, THE
[00:40:01]
FOUR ELEVATIONS.AND PERHAPS THAT COULD COME TO US AS SOON AS NEXT MONTH.
THAT'LL GIVE US TIME TO LOOK AT THE LEGALITIES OF, UH, ALTERING THE PROCEDURE AS WE SUGGEST, UH, AS AN EMERGENCY FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT IS.
UM, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I'D LIKE US TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION ON, UM, THE, UH, MOTION ON THE TABLE IF WE COULD.
AND IF WE DECIDE TO, UM, ALTER THOSE RULES AS SUGGESTED, UH, BY TIM, WE CAN DO THAT NEXT MEETING.
SO AS WE CAN MOVE UP, MOVING AROUND AND UP AND DOWN WITH THIS FOR MANY MONTHS.
SO MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION, RIGHT? YOU MADE A MOTION? WE DO.
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE A AMEND MOTION AND WE NEED A SECOND TO THE AMEND MOTION.
AND NOW WE NEED A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT MOTION.
RIGHT? ONLY, IT'S ONLY MOVING FORWARD FOR, WELL, FOR PEOPLE.
I MEAN, IT'S MOVING FORWARD EITHER WAY.
IT'S JUST WHICH WAY YOU CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND JAMIE, UH, JAMIE SAID THAT SINCE I SECONDED THE MOTION, I NEED TO SECOND THE AMENDMENT, UH, JUST TO KEEP THINGS MOVING.
AND PROCEDURALLY, SINCE WE NOW HAVE A SECOND, IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH ANY DISCUSSION OR DEBATE, YOU CAN DO SO AT THAT, AT THIS POINT.
CONTINUE DOING WHAT IF, IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OH, DISCUSSION, YOU CAN DO SO AFTER THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECOND.
AND, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION FROM SOME TIME AGO.
DOES EVERYBODY, IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON, ON THE MOTION AS IT STANDS? AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WE'D LIKE TO HAVE? NO.
SO, UH, WITH THAT SAID, UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UM, TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION AS STATED, SAY, AYE.
THAT WAS A LITTLE SAUSAGE MAKING, BUT I THINK WE MADE DIDN'T, UH, COVER SOME GROUND TODAY.
THERE, THERE IS NO COA OR, UH, TO BE ISSUED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THAT WILL COME LATER.
AND, UH, WE HOPE, HOPE TO SEE YOU SOON AND, AND MAYBE IT'LL BECOME A MOOT POINT AND WE'LL HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AND GET YOUR DEMOLITION GOING AS SOON AS NEXT MONTH.
I MEAN, I WANT TO SEE YOU APPROVED, BUT I THINK WE COULD REALLY HELP YOU WITH A DESIGN REVIEW.
I'LL ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT INFLUENCE.
GET WITH MATT ABOUT WHAT OTHER INFORMATION YOU WE NEED AND FOR DESIGN REVIEW.
AND LET'S GO THROUGH THAT AS WE HAVE BEFORE DESIGN REVIEW AND THEN BRING US THIS NEXT WEEK AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON.
SO MR. PAUL LOOKED LIKE HE HAD A QUESTION OR SOMETHING.
I HAVE A QUESTION THAT IT, IT'S A, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT RESULTS IN THIS BEING, UM, TWO LOTS ULTIMATELY MM-HMM.
OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD GO WITH A WIDER HOUSE DESIGN IF IT WAS ONE LOT.
I I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE IMPACT IS ON GETTING THE APPROVAL OF THAT.
UM, UNDOING THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO LOTS.
UM, WHERE, WHERE DOES TONIGHT'S, UH, ACTION LEAD US AS FAR AS ASK CONCERNED? I, I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION CAUSE IT'S MORE OF A ZONING ITEM, BUT SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION IS A FAIRLY COMMON THING THAT'S DONE PRETTY EASILY.
AND I THINK STAFF HAS SOME IDEAS, UM, THAT, THAT HE MAY, UM, SHARE WITH OUR ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT, THAT MAY ENABLE YOU TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO IT'S A HOLY SEPARATE, UH, ISSUE.
THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO CLARIFY THEN.
BUT, UM, BUT MATT CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT TOO.
SO, UH, WELL, HE'S BEEN GREAT SO FAR.
AND, AND SO IF YOU, TWO OF YOU WOULD TALK AND, UM, GET A GAME PLAN FOR, UH, PERHAPS NEXT DESIGN REVIEW.
WE, WE COULD GET THIS ON DOWN THE ROAD, UH, NEXT MONTH PLAN TO DO.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
YEAH, MR. CHAIR, IS IT YOUR, YOUR INCLINATION TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TABLE THE PORTION OF THE COA APPLICATION RELATED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL? I, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA GIVEN, UH, YOU'RE REMINDING ME WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS.
SO CAN, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION, UM, TO TABLE? TABLE TABLE TYPICALLY MEANS THAT, UH, MATT HAS TO, UH, NOT REIFY AGAIN.
[00:45:01]
CONTINUE, I GUESS HOW, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE LEFT, MATT, DO YOU RECALL? BECAUSE WE CONTINUE LAST MONTH FOR SURE.WELL, UM, IF YOU HAVE, UH, THE CONSENT OF THE APPLICANT, YOU, UM, CAN CONTINUE IT AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO CONSENT.
BUT THERE IS GENERALLY A SIX MONTH, UH, TIME LIMIT.
WE, THE APPLICATION WAS JANUARY, JANUARY, JANUARY.
SO WE HAVE, SO YOU HAVE, SO WE'VE GOT SOME TIME.
SO IF, IF WE'D RATHER CONTINUE IT, BUT WE, WE CAN ENTERTAIN THAT TOO IF WE HAVE A MOTION MAKER.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE, UH, THE HEARING FOR 3 0 5 NORTH AVENUE UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
UH, MARCH, DON'T HAVE MARCH 15TH UNTIL, UH, OUR REGULAR MEETING ON MARCH 15TH.
YOU SAY WHAT? YOU GOTTA SAY WE'RE, UH, TIME OUR REGULAR MEETING IN CITY HALL.
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK AT THE DESIGN REVIEW WITH, UM, NECESSARY INFORMATION RELATED TO, UH, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE STRUCTURE OR RESTRUCTURES.
SECOND, UH, ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THAT'S ME,
AND SO WITH OUR, UH, ADJUSTMENT OF THE AGENDA,
[4.D. 301 Hancock St. – to include modifications to the two-level porch in the Secondary AVC]
I BELIEVE 3 0 1 HANCOCK STREET IS NEXT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.WELL, YOU WON'T NEED TO STAND UP YET.
IF YOU WANT US JUST REST A LITTLE BIT.
AND SO BEFORE MATT GETS STARTED, UM, I, I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR, UH, SHARE THAT, THAT I'VE HAD SOME EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. ANN HILLER.
UM, THE NATURE OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS WERE, UH, SUGGESTING HOW SHE COULD FORMULATE AN APPLICATION AND APPROACH TO COME TO THE HEARING.
UM, I'VE ALSO HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH RICHARD PARSONS.
HE IS THE, UM, PRESIDENT OF THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION.
AND, UH, THERE, THERE WERE SOME EFFORTS THAT CAME OUT OF DESIGN REVIEW, UM, REGARDING THE HANDLING OF SOME HISTORIC MATERIAL, UM, WHICH, UH, MAY OR MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TONIGHT.
BUT REGARDLESS, I I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY OF THIS COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BIAS IN MY OPINION ON HOW TO HANDLE THIS APPLICATION.
AND JUST ALSO FOR THE RECORD, UM, THE NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION, UH, MADE AN ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY BACK IN, WHEN, WHEN DID SCOTTY BUY IT? 2000? YES.
I WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE, UM, NEWBURN PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AT THE TIME.
UH, BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE DESIGN REVIEW, UH, I DID CONTACT RICHARD PARSONS, PRESIDENT AND THE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION JUST TO LET HIM KNOW THAT HERE'S A SITUATION THAT, UH, THE FOUNDATION, UM, MAY WANT TO, TO TRY TO HELP SORT OUT.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT WAS.
SO, UH, THOSE ARE THE NATURES OF THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IF ANY COMMISSIONER FEELS THAT.
OTHERWISE, IF WE WOULD BE BIASED AND UNABLE TO HEAR THIS APPLICATION, UM, PLEASE MAKE A MOTION TO EXCUSE ONE OR BOTH OF US.
JUST FOR CLARITY OF THE RECORD.
MR. THOMPSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY BELIEF THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU PARTICIPATED IN WOULD BIAS YOUR, UM, OPINIONS OR, OR ABLE ABILITY TO DELIBERATE THIS EVENING? NO.
AGAIN, I, I'VE, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION.
UH, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.
AND AS FAR AS WHAT WE CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CONSIDER AND WE VOTE ON WHAT'S PUT IN FRONT OF US, NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YEAH.
WHAT OTHER, WHAT THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE.
IT'S WHAT'S PUT IN FRONT OF US.
[00:50:01]
RIGHT.WE GOOD TO MOVE ON? COMMISSIONERS? YES.
AND HESITATE TO ASK ANY OTHER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
ARE, ARE ANY BOARD MEMBERS CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UH, COMPLETENESS OF THE ADMONITION? ALL RIGHT.
SO, UH, UH, WITH THAT, MATT, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN YOU ARE READY.
UH, SO HERE WE SEE, UH, THE APPLICATION FOR 3 0 1 HANCOCK STREET FOR CATHERINE HILLER, OR I'M SORRY, FOR ANNE HILLER.
AND ANNE HILLER IS, UH, HER APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE, UH, HERE THIS EVENING.
AND YOU CAN SEE, OOPS, ALWAYS DO THAT.
CAN SEE, UH, THIS, UH, THESE SECTIONS ARE, UM, UH, COMPLETED.
AND THAT, UH, HERE IS THE AUTHORIZATION FORM TO ALLOW ANN HILLER TO REPRESENT CATHERINE HILLER.
SORRY, I KEEP GETTING THEM CONFUSED.
UH, THEN WE HAVE PHOTOS BY THE STAFF FROM, UH, SEPTEMBER OF 2022.
UH, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THE, UH, AREA WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, UH, THE TWO, THE TWO STORY, UM, PORCHES THERE.
AND THIS IS THE, LIKE I SAID, THE SEPTEMBER CONDITION.
AND HERE WE SEE SOME NEW WOODWORK ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE, AND NEW FLOORING FOR THE UPPER PORTION OF THE, UH, THE UPPER STORY OF THE PORCHES.
AND HERE IS THE, ESSENTIALLY THE, UH, FIRST FLOOR PORCH FLOOR.
AND THEN FROM THE SIDE, THE PUBLIC STREET, UH, IS TO THE LEFT.
UH, AND THIS PARKING AREA IS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UH, SO YOU CAN SEE, UH, SOME NEW WOODWORK HERE, BUT ALSO SOME TYVEC.
UM, AND THEN THE TWO PORCHES, THE TWO-STORY PORCH AREA THAT, UM, WILL BE DISCUSSED, PRIMARILY DISCUSSED IS ON THE LEFT THERE ABOVE THOSE GENTLEMEN STANDING THERE.
UM, SO A LITTLE BIT OF RECENT HISTORY ON APRIL, 2019.
THIS IS WHAT THE, UH, PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE BEFORE BEING PURCHASED BY THE CURRENT OWNERS.
AND, UH, OF NOTE, UH, IS, UH, ON THIS FIRST FLOOR, YOU CAN BARELY SEE, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A BLOW UP HERE, BUT THERE IS A, UM, UH, STAIRWAY BALLAST SPRAY HERE.
THERE'S THE BLOW UP, UM, SHOWING THE NEWELL POST, THE HANDRAIL AND SOME BALLISTERS.
AND SO, UM, THIS IS AN EMAIL THAT, UM, MS. HILLER PROVIDED TO MR. YOUR AND I, UH, REGARDING HER INTENSE INTENTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
SHE WROTE THIS BACK IN JANUARY 17TH.
UM, AND, UH, MY PLANS FOR THE EXTERIOR TO BOTH KEEP IT AS ORIGINAL AS POSSIBLE AND IN ONE SECTION TO RETURN IT TO ORIGINAL THE SIDE PORCH STAIRS, WHICH IS WHAT THESE TWO, UM, THAT STAIRWAY WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WERE TAKEN DOWN OVER LIABILITY CONCERN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ROTTEN AND THERE WAS NOTHING PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM AS ACCESSING THEM FROM THE STREET, I'M HAPPY TO REPLACE THEM, ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY, AS ORNAMENTAL, BUT AS AN EXACT REPLICA.
UH, FOR THIS REASON, I RETAINED ALL RELEVANT PIECES REGARDING THE P*****K STREET SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THAT WOULD BE THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
UM, UH, SHE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THOSE, UH, ELEMENTS THERE THAT, UH, BELIEVE ARE NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION AT THIS POINT.
CAN I GO BACK UP? I MAY HAVE MISSED SOMETHING.
UH, SHE WOULD LIKE SOME HELP THAT NEWBURN PRESERVATION CAN GIVE IN SOURCING THE DOORS OF BROKEN TRANSOM GLASS, ET CETERA.
I'M NOT SURE IF SHE, UH, CONFUSED US.
THE, THE NEWBURN PRES, UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
[00:55:01]
WITH NEWBURN PRESERVATION.UM, AND SHE WOULD, THAT WOULD BE TREMENDOUSLY APPRECIATED.
I'M ALSO ANXIOUS TO COVER THE EXPOSED TYVEC WITH SIDING, AND IT WILL EXACTLY MATCH THE SIDING ALREADY ON THE ENCLOSED PORCHES.
AGAIN, THE WOOD WAS ROTTEN AND REMOVED.
UM, AS FOR THE REST OF THE HOUSE, RAILING SHUTTERS, MOLDINGS HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING ANY OF THE DESIGN.
SIMPLY WANT TO REPAIR, REPAIR WITH APPROPRIATE MATERIAL AND REFRESH THE EXTERIOR.
SO, UH, THAT WAS JANUARY 17TH.
THEN, UH, YESTERDAY WE RECEIVED ANOTHER EMAIL, UH, AND WITH SOME MORE EXPLANATION ON HER APPLICATION, UH, WRITING WITH, IN REGARDS TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, MY PURCHASE OF 3 0 1 HANCOCK STREET WAS MADE WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PORCHES BEING PARTIALLY ENCLOSED AND VIABLE LIVING SPACE.
SHE'S REFERRING TO THE BACK PORTIONS OF THE, UM, OF THE, UM, OF THE HOUSE, OF THE HOUSE BEHIND, UH, THE BEHIND THE, UH, THE DOORWAY SHOWN HERE IN THE BOTTOM AND IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS EARLIER, UH, ON BOTH THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR.
SO THAT'S THE PARTIALLY ENCLOSED AREA SHE'S TALKING, TALKING ABOUT.
ALTHOUGH THE ENCLOSURES DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL, THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY IN PLACE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND I CERTAINLY HAD NO REASON TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THEIR EXISTENCE.
I'VE ATTACHED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE AUCTION WEBSITE FROM WHERE I PURCHASED THE HOUSE IN 2020, ALONG WITH MY OWN PERSONAL PICTURES TAKEN DURING THAT SAME TIME PERIOD BEFORE.
AND SINCE MY PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE IN 2020, THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF TIME, UH, FOR SOMEONE TO SHOW SOME DISCONTENT WITH THOSE ENCLOSURES.
UH, SHE HAS NO INTEREST IN MODIFYING THE PORCHES OR ENCLOSED AREAS.
SO, UH, MY GOAL IS, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO SIMPLY REPAIR THE DAMAGED AREAS AND RESTORE THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE HAS PURCHASED TO A BEAUTIFUL LIVING BILLABLE HOME.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH.
THIS ONE ACTUALLY SHOWS, UH, QUITE A, UM, GOOD PHOTOGRAPH, LEAST STRAIGHT ON OF THE STAIRWAY.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE, UH, PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DOOR, WHICH STILL, I BELIEVE STILL EXISTS TODAY.
AND THIS, UH, PHOTOGRAPH IS, UH, FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE, UH, BEHIND THAT DOOR, SO TO SAY, UH, THE DOWNSTAIRS INTERIOR PORCH ENCLOSURE.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THE ENCLOSED PORCH AREA.
UM, AND THIS IS EVIDENCE BY THE FACT THAT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE WE HAVE BRICK WALL MM-HMM.
AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE HAVE, UM, UH, WOOD STUD WALLS WITH WOOD SIDING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THOSE.
SO, UM, CLEARLY THIS WAS AT ONE POINT A, UH, A PORCH THAT HAD, WAS A LONG TIME AGO ENCLOSED.
SO AGAIN, THAT SAME PHOTOGRAPH.
UM, AND THEN, OH, WOW, THAT'S WEIRD.
UH, THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON THE TOP HERE IS THEN THE DOOR THAT'S NOW OPEN SHOWING INTO THAT SAME SPACE WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT.
BUT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, IT INCLUDES, UH, SHOWS THAT THE AREA UNDERNEATH THE STAIRWAY WAS ALSO UNCLOSED, UH, WHEN SHE PURCHASED THE HOUSE.
SO, UH, NORMALLY IF THERE WAS A SIDE DOOR INTO THAT SPACE, IT WOULD, YOU WOULD PROBABLY SEE IT RIGHT HERE BECAUSE THE HEIGHT NEEDED FOR A DOORWAY.
SO IT'S ASSUMED THAT THE ACTUAL DOORWAY INTO THAT SPACE IS FROM INSIDE.
AND THEN, UH, SECOND LAST PHOTO HERE IS A PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN IN 2020 OF THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT WE LOOKED AT.
AND OF COURSE, WITHOUT THE TIE BACK.
AND THEN WHO ASKED LEE, SHE JUST WANTED TO THEN REITERATE THE FACT THAT THIS, THAT ALL THAT WAS CLEARLY, UH, A PORCH EDITION.
SO LOOKING AT THE VERY BACK OF THE HOUSE WHERE THAT PORCH EDITION ATTACHES ON THE RIGHT TO THAT BRICK WALL.
UH, AND THE, THE OVERGROWTH, UM, SHOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE.
SO, UM, AFTER THAT WE HAVE BEEN THE ZONING AND INSPECTIONS AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SAYS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
AND OOPS, THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR SAYS IT WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO AFTER THAT, THEN I'M READY FOR MY RECOMMENDATIONS WHENEVER YOU ARE.
MS. ANN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS POINT?
[01:00:01]
NO, UH, JUST, UM, WHATEVER YOU WANT HER TO DO.WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN'T MAKE A LITTLE HEADWAY.
UM, THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT IN THE AUDIENCE, BUT IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION? I SEE A LOT OF HEAD AND SHAKING IN THE NEGATIVE, SO, UH, SO WITH THAT SAID, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO THESE ARE THE REC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION FOR CATHERINE HILLER AND ANNE HILLER FOR THE PROJECT AT 3 0 1 HANCOCK STREET.
UH, THE PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TWO LEVEL PORCH IN THE SECONDARY ABC.
SO THE HISTORIC PROPERTY NAME IS THE EDWARD R. STANLEY OFFICE IN QUARTERS, AND THE DATE IS CIRCA 1850, UH, WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS AROUND 1870.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.
AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER INVENTORY DESCRIPTION OF 2003 DESCRIBES IT AS TWO STORIES, BRICK, TWO BAYS WIDE, DOUBLE STORY PORCH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE AND LOW PITCHED HIP ROOF FOR THE SANDECK BOOK.
THERE'S QUITE A MUCH LARGER, UH, RENDITION, UH, WHICH I HAVE EXCERPTED, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, CONSIDERABLY.
UM, SO OF THE VERY FEW BREAKOUT BUILDINGS AND DEPENDENCIES STILL SURVIVING IN NEW BERN IN 1988, THIS TWO-STORY COMBINED OFFICE AND QUARTERS IS THE MOST CHARMING AND WELL PRESERVED.
IT WAS PROBABLY BUILT 1850 FOR EDWARD R. STANLEY.
SHORTLY AFTER HIS ADJACENT FINE BRICK RESIDENCE HAD BEEN COMPLETED.
STANLEY, AN ACTIVE BUSINESSMAN AND MANUFACTURER, UTILIZED THE WELL FINISHED FRONT ROOM OF THIS BUILDING FOR HIS OFFICE.
THE SIMPLER FINISHES OF THE REAR AND SECOND FLOOR ROOMS TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE BACK DOOR OPENING INTO THE SERVICE YARD BEHIND THE MAIN HOUSE SUGGESTS THAT THE REST OF THE BUILDING HAS SLAVE OR SERVANT QUARTERS AND VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD SERVICE ACTIVITIES.
THE SIMPLE ITALIANATE DETAILING OF THE STANLEY DEPENDENCY IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THAT OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
THE ATTRACTIVE TWO STORY SIDE PORCH APPEARS TO DATE FROM THE 1870S.
ITS PICTURESQUE SAWN WORK, BRACKETS AND RAILING ADD MUCH TO THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING, SHELTERED UNDER THE PORCH AS A SURPRISINGLY ELABORATE VICTORIAN STARE WITH A HEAVY TURN MUL AND TURNED BALLISTERS.
THIS REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED THE ORIGINAL, BUT NOW REMOVED INTERIOR STAIRWAY.
SO STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING.
HISTORIC GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATIONS 3.2, 0.2, THREE, AND FOUR FOR WOOD, 5.2 0.1, AND TWO FOR PAINT, 5.4 0.1 AND TWO, 5.4 0.3, AND 5.4 0.4.
AND THEN FOR WOOD MAINTENANCE, 6.1, 0.56 AND SEVEN FOR PAINT MAINTENANCE, 6.1 POINT 11 AND 12.
FOR STATEMENTS OF REASON, BASED ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION IN STAFF'S JUDGMENT.
R ONE, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DENSE FABRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE PROPOSAL IS REMOVAL OF A VICTORIAN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY, BANISTER AND SECOND FLOOR.
SECOND FLOOR STAIRWAY OPENING RAILINGS PLUS MODIFICATIONS TO CLOSE IN THE STAIRWAY OPENING, AND TO REPAIR AND REPLACE DETERIORATED MATERIALS FOR THE FIRST FLOOR.
PORCH FLOORING, THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH FLOORING, A FEW SECOND FLOOR SONG WORK, PORCH RAILING BALLISTERS, AND SECOND FLOOR SIDING.
THE VICTORIAN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY IS NOTED AND DESCRIBED IN THE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE OF NEW BERN AND CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BY PETER SANDECK FOR DUE TO FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF GUIDELINES 3.1, 3.2 0.2 3.2 0.35, 0.2 0.1, SECTION 6.1, AND GUIDELINES 6.1 0.5.
THE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE VICTORIAN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY, BARRISTER AND RAILINGS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
FIVE, THE PROPOSED DESIGN COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS THAT THE REPLACEMENT PORCH DECKING AND THE HOUSE SIDING PORTION OF THE APPLICATION TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
SIX, THE REZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND COMMENTED ACCORDINGLY.
AND SEVEN, THE STAIRWAY REMOVAL PORTION OF THE APPLICATION IS INC.
IS INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES AND THE FOR DECKING PORTION OF THE APPLICATION IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
[01:05:01]
THERE.THEREFORE, FOR MOTION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE PORTION OF THIS APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO REPAIR AND REPLACE DETERIORATIVE MATERIALS FOR THE FIRST FLOOR, PORCH FLOORING, THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH FLOORING, A FEW SECOND FLOOR SONG WORK, PORCH RAILING BALLISTERS, AND SECOND FLOOR SIDING IN THE SECONDARY ABC.
AND TO DENY THE PORTION REGARDING REMOVAL OF THE VICTORIAN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY, BANISTER AND SECOND FLOOR STAIRWAY OPENING RAILINGS PLUS MODIFICATIONS TO CLOSE IN THE STAIRWAY OPENING IN THE SECONDARY ABC.
UH, MS. ANN, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? UM, WE DO, WE WENT IN AND WE FOUND THE STAIRWAY.
WE HAVE MOST OF THE TREADS THAT WEREN'T DISPOSABLE, AND WE HAVE THE NEWER POST AND A LOT OF THE, THE STAY.
SO THAT'S, YEAH, WE, WE HAVE THE, WE CAN REPLACE THE STAIRWAY.
SO I'M GOING TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
IT MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS TO THOSE WHO ARE NEW TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION THAT SOME WORK HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE A CERTIFICATE FOR APPROPRIATENESS HAD, UM, BEEN ISSUED.
AND SO WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT ALL THAT, UM, IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER TONIGHT.
AND, AND SO MS. ANNE, THE, THE ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO DO IS JUST RECAP WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TONIGHT.
THAT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO DELIBERATE.
AND, AND SO I, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING US TO REMOVE THE STAIR AND BALLAST, RIGHT? THAT'D BE YOUR PREFERENCE TO REMOVE THE STAIR AND BALANCE STRAIGHT.
IT'S ALL, THAT'S HER PREFERENCE, BUT SHE'S VERY, AND, AND SO HAPPY TO PUT IT BACK.
BUT YOU'VE GOTTA, WE HAVE TO HAVE A FIXED APPLICATION TO ACT UPON TO GET THIS DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, AND BY DOING SO, THERE WAS A STORAGE AREA UNDERNEATH THE STAIR THAT WOULD ALSO, YOU'RE ASKING APPROVAL FOR REMOVAL.
UM, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE, UM, SLIGHT MODIFICATION OF THE PORCH STRUCTURE AND THE NEW DECKING, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS THERE, BUT MAYBE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF ITS, UH, DIMENSIONAL MATERIALS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THAT LOOKED LIKE THE SAME, SAME SIZE TO ME, BUT
OH YEAH, DEFINITELY DOWNSTAIRS.
AND YOU'RE ALSO, THEY COULD BE REPLICATED VERY EASILY.
AND, AND I THINK YOU'RE ALSO ASKING FOR SOME SECOND FLOOR SIDING TO BE COMPLETED WITH WOOD SIDING.
THEY STOPPED, THEY STOPPED US.
A ANYTHING ELSE THAT I HAVEN'T COVERED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION? I, I THINK I GOT IT ALL, BUT, UM, LET ME, LET ME LOOK OVER THOSE THINGS.
YOU ARE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE NEED TO REPLACE THE STAIR, UH, THE STAIRWAY? WELL, WE, WE, WE, SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE.
WELL, UM, BUT TO, TO DECIDE, I I HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC ASK, YOU KNOW, FROM YOU, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT, THAT WE COULD TO SALVAGE IT, TO SAVE IT, WE COULD USE IT INSIDE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WELL, I, I THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE.
BUT BEFORE WE CAN, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO BE PART OF YOUR ASK? IS IT JUST IF YOU USE IT INSIDE? YEAH.
UM, CAUSE WE, WE CAN'T DO OPTIONS AT THIS POINT.
OH, YOU CAN'T DO OPTIONS? NO, MA'AM.
BETTER THAN I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT CHANGES ANYTHING.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT CHANGES YOUR POSITION WHETHER OR NOT THE STAIRWAYS REUSED ON THE INSIDE CUZ WE DON'T HAVE ANY PURVIEW.
BUT IT CERTAINLY MIGHT MAKE SOME OF THESE MEMBERS FEEL BETTER.
I'M, I'M SURE WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT.
AND, AND WOULD YOU LIKE US TO INCLUDE THAT AS WELL AS PART OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? AND AGAIN, WE, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE PURVIEW OVER IT.
WELL, IT, IT'S WHAT I CALL A DEPOSIT IN THE EMOTIONAL BANK ACCOUNT.
SO IS YOUR APPLICATION TO REPLACE THE STAIR ON THE OUTSIDE LIKE IT WAS NO, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE, BUT I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE
WELL, THAT MAKES THINGS EASIER.
I WELL, I PRESUME THAT WILL MAKE THINGS EASIER.
WE OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T DELIBERATED.
[01:10:01]
I OUTLINED EARLIER IS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO REBUILD THE STAIR ON THE OUTSIDE AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT, THAT WE ARE MISSING THE PIECES THAT ARE MISSING, UH, WE'LL REPLICATE SURE.AND, AND SO I, I HAVE TO ASK, JUST CAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN DESIGN REVIEW, WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE OPENING AND THE FLOOR ON THE SECOND DECK? I GUESS IT WILL.
AND I, I DIDN'T MEAN TO MAKE THAT TORTUROUS FOR YOU.
I, SO COMMISSIONERS, DO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ASK IS FOR THE APPLICATION AT THIS POINT? SO, SO IT APPEARS IT'S, IT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE APPLICATION FOR NUMBER ONE, REPLACE THE EXTERIOR STAIRS TO ORIGINAL FUNCTIONING STAIRWAY.
I'M SORRY, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND.
IN, IN YOUR APPLICATION, UH, ITEM ONE, PROVIDE DETAILED DESCRIPTION.
NUMBER ONE UNDER THAT IS REPLACE THE EXTERIOR STAIRS TO THE ORIGINAL FUNCTIONING STAIRWAY.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE CLEAR ON THE CONTENT UPON WHICH WE WILL DELIBERATE.
UM, AND, AND GOING FORWARD, WE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS IN DESIGN REVIEW AS TO HOW BEST RESOLVE THIS SITUATION.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING REUSING HISTORIC MATERIAL IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
AND IN FACT, THAT WAS HOW RICHARD PARSONS AND THE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION, UM, EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON MY PART CAME TO BE.
UM, RICHARD WENT AND EXPLORED THAT, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, I, I THINK TO HELP US FORWARD, WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT OF MAKING A MOTION IN MY MIND AS I, UH, SUMMARIZE AND DESIGN REVIEW, I THINK IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHETHER THE MOTION MAKER BELIEVES THAT THE STAIR NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AS IT WAS, OR WHETHER IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED.
AND ONCE THAT DECISION IS MADE WITHIN THE MOTION, THEN EVERYTHING ELSE FALLS INTO PLACE.
UH, CERTAINLY THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO, TO, TO GET THIS RESOLVED.
UM, AND WITH THAT SAID, I'VE DONE A WHOLE BUNCH OF TALKING AND I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE.
SO, UH, SO ARE WE OPENING UP? SO WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION AND LET'S, UH, TAKE THE CONVERSATION WHERE THE BOARD CARES TOO.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION.
BASED ON OUR LAST APPLICANT, WHAT MAKES IT SO SPECIAL THAT WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE THE STAIRS TO BE REPLACED? NOTHING.
AND THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU ALL THAT THE STAIRS BE REPLACED, THAT THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN TAKEN DOWN BE DENIED, RIGHT? YEAH.
ESSENTIALLY THEY WERE REMOVED WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THINGS WOULDN'T HAVE FOLLOWED, WE ADMIT TO THAT SHE DIDN'T AND, AND THEY'RE VERY APOLOGETIC, BUT, UM, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT WAS THROWN OUT AS A, A TEST FOR FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES AND SO IT, IT WOULD BE A TEST FOR ANYTHING THAT WE DECIDED ON.
WELL, CANDACE, I THINK THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IF THEY WOULD'VE FILED AN APPLICATION AND ASKED FOR IT TO BE REMOTE, AND THIS BOARD WOULD'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS OKAY.
BUT SHE'S SAYING THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO PUT IT BACK UP THERE.
SHE REALLY DOESN'T WANT TO, BUT SHE SAID, I WILL BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO GET ON WITH THIS.
DOES THAT, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I MEAN, THAT'S THE DILEMMA.
THIS IS KIND OF A BIG MESS PROCEDURALLY FOR US.
UM, SO ARE THERE COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD BE COMFORTABLE? UH, DO WE, IS THIS A TWO PART, I GUESS, IS IT, IS THERE, ARE THERE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT NOT BEING THERE? THERE AREN'T MANY BUILDINGS THAT MENTIONED IT.
EDWARD STAN LEE OR, OR, YOU KNOW, THAT REFERENCE RIGHT? THE HEART OF NEWBURN AND, AND THE FOCUS AND THE RIGHT SANDECK BOOK.
IT'S PRETTY HARD TO GET AROUND THAT BEING A SIGNIFICANT FEATURE.
OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE, NOT OF THE INSIDE.
AND SO WHEN TRIP WERE, YOU WERE SAYING TO ME EARLIER THAT HAD THE WORK BEEN, HAD THAT APPLICANT COME BEFORE THE WORK WAS DONE? IF IT HAD COME TO US ORIGINALLY, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE APPROVED THAT TO BE REMOVED.
BUT, WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S A MIC KNOT.
SO, SO HERE, HERE WE, THE HOUSE, WE, LET ME TRY TO HELP US A LITTLE BIT.
SO IN DESIGN REVIEW, WE DESPERATELY WANTED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A BINDING DECISION AND DESIGN REVIEW.
SO WITHOUT ANSWERING IT, WE WERE FLOUNDERING IN CIRCLES AS TO, YOU
[01:15:01]
KNOW, DIFFERENT WAYS TO CHOMP AT THE PROBLEM, NONE OF WHICH COULD BE RESOLVED.AND, AND, AND SO TONIGHT, ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN, IN MY OPINION, I THINK WE HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE MOTION MAKER WHO BELIEVES THE STAIR NEEDS TO BE, UM, RECONSTRUCTED AS IT WAS, THAT'S GREAT.
AND ALL THE PIECES FALL INTO PLACE ACCORDINGLY.
UM, WE, BUT WE MAY HAVE A MOTION, I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IN DETAIL THAT SAYS, I'M OKAY WITH THE STAIRS BEING GONE AND, AND THEN ALL THE PIECES FALL INTO PLACE AND WE VOTE AND WE'LL KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING EITHER WAY.
WEREN'T THE STAIRS MOVED ONCE BEFORE FROM THE INTERIOR TO THE EXTERIOR WHEN THERE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, DIDN'T THEY? YES, THEY WERE.
SO IT WAS INSIDE IN THE FRONT.
UH, I MEAN, I READ IT, I READ IT THAT THE STAIRS WERE ONCE MOVED IN THE EARLY, THEY'VE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.
ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT AT ONE TIME THERE WAS NO, IF YOU LOOK YOU IN, IN THE, UH, FRONT ROOM, UH, ON THE WALL FACING, UH, BACKING UP TO THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, THE, UM, BOARD IS THERE.
NO, THE, THE LOVE ONE IS THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL EM.
AND THE STAIRWAY, UH, WENT UP THAT WAY.
SO, SO PERHAPS IT, WE, I JUST FOUND THAT OUT.
PERHAPS IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT IS TRUE, BUT ALSO IT HAS BEEN DONE SO LONG AGO THAT IT, UM, WELL, RICHARD CAN, IT HAS GAINED SIGNIFICANT IN ITS OWN RIGHT.
I MEAN, IT'S ALMOST, UH, OR A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, I THINK, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WHEN THAT, AND AS, AS JIM SAID, YOU KNOW, WE PUT, WE PUT QUITE A BIT OF WEIGHT ON, UH, PETER SAND BECK'S BOOK ON THE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE OF NEWTON CRAVEN COUNTY, UH, IN ONE OF, ONE OF OUR, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR, UH, HOPES IS THAT WHAT IS IN PETER'S BOOK STAYS IN PLACE.
UH, THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL I DON'T THINK IS IN THE DOWNTOWN INVENTORY, BUT CERTAINLY PETER'S BOOK HAS A, A BIG SWAY OVER, UM, YOU KNOW, OVER THE, OVER WHAT WE'RE DECIDING HERE.
SO YES, IT, THE STAIR, THE STAIRWAY IS OBVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN PETER'S BOOK.
IT IS SIGNIFICANT JUST CAUSE OF THAT.
AND I THINK IF WE START SAYING YOU CAN MOVE SOMETHING INSIDE, WHERE DOES THAT STOP? WELL, I, IT'S BEYOND OUR PURVIEW.
AGAIN, IT'S JUST TO MAKE YOU, IF, IF ONE WERE SO INCLINED AND, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WOULD BE, UH, SOME ADVANTAGE TO, UH, PRESERVING HISTORIC MATERIAL.
THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME ARGUMENT MADE FOR THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO OUR GUIDELINES.
WELL, AND AND PLUS THAT'S NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
SO CAN WE MAKE UP, CAN WE HAVE A RECORD? DAVID, YOU WANNA DO NO, I'M NOT LOOKING AT YOU.
SO I'M WAITING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO, AND THEN I'M GOING TO ADD ON THERE THE STUFF AT THE BOTTOM, LIKE WE DID BEFORE.
OKAY, MR. SHERMAN, I'M WAITING ON HIM.
IS THAT THE MAIN THING THAT SHE NEEDS TO DO,
SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN, LET ME SEE IF I CAN DO THIS.
UM, SINCE THIS, THIS HAS A LOT OF, HOLD ON, I'VE GOT SOME PIECES TO IT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FIND THE APPLICATION FOR 3 0 1 HANCOCK STREET, UH, UH, TO BE, UH, NOT IN, IN, NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH NEWMAN'S CODE OF ORDINANCE 15 4 11 15 TO 15 4 29, AND NEWMAN'S HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES, UH, BASED ON SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS OF FACT.
NOW, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THIS.
SO THE APPLICABLE GUIDELINES, UM, TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS 3.2 0.2 3.2 0.3 3.2 0.4 UNDER WOOD, 5.2 0.1 5.2 0.2, PAINT, 5.4 0.1 5.4
[01:20:01]
0.2 5.4 0.3 5.4 0.4.MAINTENANCE OF MATERIALS IN PARTICULAR, UH, WOOD MAINTENANCE, UH, 6.1 0.5, 6.1 0.6, 6.1 0.7 6.1 POINT 11, UH, THAT PAINT MAINTENANCE, 6.10 POINT 11 6.1 POINT 12.
FINDINGS OF FACT, UH, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DENSE FABRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UH, THE, THE, THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE, UH, WE'RE ASKED TO CONSIDER, UH, THE STAIRWAY AND, AND, UH, YOU GUYS HELP ME OUT WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE CONSIDERING THE STAIRWAY, THE PORCH DECKING THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED, UH, WITHOUT A COA.
THE, UH, WOOD SIDING, UM, WHERE THE TYVEC IS EXPOSED, AND THE, UH, STAIRWAY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STAIRWAY NEEDS TO BE FUNCTIONAL OR NOT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT AS THE FINDINGS OF FACT, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, PROPOSE THAT THE STAIRWAY, UH, NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH ANY ORIGINAL EXISTING MATERIAL HANDRAILS, BALLADE, SO FORTH.
UM, THE DECKING NEEDS TO, UH, BE REPLACED AS IT WAS, UH, BEFORE BEING REMOVED.
UH, WASN'T PART OF THIS TO REPLACE THE DOCUMENT.
WELL, IT'S, YEAH, IT'S BEEN REPLACED.
A AS YOU SEE FIT IN YOUR MOTION.
UH, THE, UH, THE FOLLOWING, THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES UNDER CONSIDERATION, UM, THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES OF 3.2, 0.2, 3.2 0.35, 0.2 0.1, AND 6.1 0.5.
WHAT ARE ALL OF THOSE THAT SERVE ON HERE? AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH MO UH, 3.2 0.2, UH, THAT HAS NOT BEEN MET.
MODIFICATIONS TO A STRUCTURE SHALL NOT CONCEAL DAMAGE OR REMOVE SIGNIFICANT DESIGN COMPONENTS OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
UH, REPLACE HISTORIC DESIGN COMPONENTS ONLY IF THEY ARE DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR.
REPLACEMENT FOR CONVENIENCE IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
USE MATERIALS AND DETAILS THAT MATCH THE ORIGINAL, UH, 5.2 0.1, ADHERE TO PRESERVATION GUIDELINES FOR RETENTION OF HISTORIC FABRIC WHEN ALTERING WOOD MATERIALS.
AND THEN 6.1 0.5 AND PRESERVE SIDING, FENESTRATION, TRIM, AND ORNAMENTATION, MAINTAIN WOOD FEATURES, UH, SUCH AS BEADED AND SHAPED EDGES, LATHE TURN PROFILES, AND DECORATIVE SURFACES THAT HAVE BEEN MILLED, JOINED OR ROUTED.
SO FAIR TO MEET THE GUIDELINES.
3.2, 0.2 3.2 0.35, 0.2 0.1, AND 6.1 0.5, UH, MAINLY HAVE TO DO WITH THE EXTERIOR STAIRWAY THAT WAS REMOVED.
UM, THE, THE PORCH DECKING THAT, UH, IS IN PLACE, UH, DOES NOT MEET, UM, DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES IN THE SENSE OF, OF REPLACING DECKING SCALE PROPORTION, SO FORTH WITH, UH, DECKING THAT, THAT MATCHES WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE? YOU MEAN JUST TO TAKE THE DECKING UP?
[01:25:02]
IT'S, IT'S EXACTLY LIKE, IT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE IT WAS SAND.LET'S LET TIM GET TO THE END OF HIS MOTION.
WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT IN A SECOND.
SO, UH, TO SUMMARIZE, UH, THE STAIRWAY, UM, NEEDS TO BE PUT BACK.
A FUNCTIONAL STAIRWAY, UH, UM, WOOD PUTTING IN THE WOOD SIDING, UH, MEETS THE GUIDELINES, UH, WHERE THE TYVEC IS EXPOSED.
UH, THE DECKING, THE, THE PORCH DECKING, UH, NEEDS TO BE PUT BACK IN, UH, THE PREEXISTING CONFIGURATION.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO FOR TONIGHT.
IF, IF WE COULD HAVE A SECOND, THEN I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
SO, TIM, YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE SECOND FLOOR BALLISTERS, BUT I PRESUME, UH, THAT THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY REPLACEMENT, REPLACEMENT, REPLACEMENT AND KIND IN THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, RAILING BALL STREET.
AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION ON MY LIST WAS THERE WAS A LITTLE STORAGE ROOM UNDERNEATH THE STAIRS, WHETHER THAT'S TO, TO, TO RETURN OR NOT.
THE, UH, THE, THE WALL AND THE DOOR IS STILL THERE.
THE EXTERIOR WALL AND DOOR IS STILL THERE? NO.
THIS PHOTO HERE? NO, THIS ENCLOSURE UNDERNEATH THE OUTDOOR TO THE LEFT BELT STREET.
I'M SORRY, ON THE LEFT TO THE LEFT IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
OH, PROBABLY SOME STORE STORAGE CLOSET UP TO THE LEFT IS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS UNDER THE CORRECT STAIRS YES.
SO THAT, SO, UH, THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AS WELL AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY.
SO I'M GONNA STOP US RIGHT THERE.
AND SINCE WE HAVE COUNSEL, MY MOTION MAKER ESSENTIALLY AMENDED HIS MOTION, IS THERE A CERTAIN WAY YOU'D LIKE US TO HANDLE THIS TONIGHT? SO LONG AS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE AMENDMENT, WHOEVER MADE THE SECOND CAN SECOND THE AMENDED MOTION.
AND SO, MAY I SAY ONE THING A MINUTE? JUST HOLD ON.
AMENDMENT AND SARU, I THINK YOU MADE THE SECOND.
AND SO YOU OKAY WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS? YES, I AM.
I'M, UH, YES, MS. SAM, THAT STORAGE UNIT, UN STORAGE PLACE UNDER THE STAIRS HAD NO DOOR FROM THE OUTSIDE, OPENED FROM THE INSIDE OF THE ADDITION.
AND, AND I THINK WHILE WE'RE TALKING, UM, THE, THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE, UH, PORCH DECKING, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S, UH, DIMENSIONAL LUMBER TWO BY SIX PROBABLY.
AND, UM, I, I THINK WHAT, UH, THE PREVIOUS MATERIAL WAS PROBABLY A FOUR INCH TONGUE AND GROOVE THAT WAS CLOSER TO OH THREE QUARTERS TO AN ENGINE THICKNESS.
AND, UM, SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, TIM, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S THERE.
UH, WE, WE'VE GOT A MOTION, WE'VE GOT A SECOND.
WE'VE, UM, ACCEPTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHERE WE ARE? DID WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK WHAT WE'VE DONE IS IF THIS HAD COME BEFORE US, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN THE CONCLUSION.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT TO MAKE.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN LEFT LIKE IT WAS.
RIGHT? IF IT HAD BEEN UNTOUCHED, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN WHAT WE WOULD'VE, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE.
WHAT WAS ALWAYS BEEN FOR, WE WOULD'VE KEPT THE STAIRWAY.
WE WOULD'VE TRIED TO KEEP THE FLOORING TO THE, OR REPLACE IN KIND AND ARCHITECTURAL AS IT WAS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IT'S, IT'S SAD REALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN EFFORTS MADE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S OUR, IT'S OUR JOB TO KEEP, TO, TO KEEP THE GUIDELINES IN PLACE.
AND IF SHE'S WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, DO THIS, WHICH I THINK YOU INDICATED EARLIER, THEN I THINK PROBABLY SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT.
[01:30:01]
A LOT OF, I DON'T KNOW.I'LL TALK TO HER TONIGHT AND TELL HER, YEAH.
THIS IS, THIS IS WHY WE, I PARTICULARLY WITH A, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH A IMPORTANT HISTORIC STRUCTURE, WHICH, I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW DEPENDENCIES THAT STILL REMAINS, UH, DOWNTOWN.
I MEAN, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY WE DO EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN TO ENCOURAGE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS, PARTICULARLY NEW PROPERTY OWNERS, TO REACH OUT TO, UH, TO MATT AND TO THE H B C, UH, BEFORE MAKING ANY, ANY CHANGES.
AND THIS IS SO CRITICAL, AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BE A PAINT IN THE BUTT, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO, AS, AS CANDACE SAID, WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF, UM, OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
AND I, I JUST, IF IT'S JUST SO IMPORTANT THAT APPLICANTS, UH, ENGAGE THE HPC SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE AND IT'S NOT A DO-OVER, UM, I AGREE WITH WHAT CANDACE SAID, AND TIM SAID, UM, IT IS SAD THAT YOU, YOU STARTED THIS PROJECT, YOU DIDN'T COME TO US FIRST, AND YOU'VE SPENT SOME GOOD MONEY AND YOU HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS.
I JUST WONDER IF THERE ISN'T A COMPROMISE, WE COULD OFFER A BRANCH TO ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THE FLOORING AND THEN, UM, PUT IN THE STAIRCASE AND OPEN IT UP AND MAKE IT A FUNCTIONAL STAIRCASE, BUT ALLOW 'EM TO KEEP THE, UH, DECKING, UM, FOR THE WORK THEY'VE ALREADY DONE.
I, I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU ENCOURAGEMENT TO CONTINUE YOUR RENOVATION AND NOT STOP ON THE TRACK, CUZ IT'S BEEN A VACANT PROPERTY FOR A WHILE, AND YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE WILLING TO PUT THE MONEY INTO THE PROJECT, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU CONTINUE WITH THE PROJECT WITHOUT GUIDELINES GOING FORWARD.
THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION.
SO A BIT UNCONVENTIONAL, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
AND, UH, WELL, I, I THINK OUR MOTION MAKER HAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF HIS MOTION OR NOT.
WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
DON'T WE HAVE TO, YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE, WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
THE GENTLEMAN WHO MADE THE MOTION CAN AMEND HIS MOTION IF HE'S SO INCLINED.
IF THERE IS NO AMENDMENT, THEN THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD PROCEED.
BUT THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.
MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SINCE YOU'VE BEEN OUT OF THE PROPERTY RECENTLY? IT'S, UH, JUST IRREGULAR DECK DECK ON THE SECOND, ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR.
YEAH, IT'S JUST RECORD OF BOARDS, SO YOU CAN'T SEE THE ENDS THERE, BUT, UM, I'M PRETTY, PRETTY CERTAIN MM-HMM.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT TONGUE AND GROOVE AND IT'S WIDER THAN WHAT WE'D NORMALLY EXPECT.
AGAIN, IF WE WERE APPROVING THIS IN THE BEGINNING, WE HAVE DICTATED FOR SURE RIGHT? IF THERE WAS DAMAGE.
SO NOT, NOT TO PUT THE TALKER ON YOU, BUT, UH,
AND, AND ALSO IF, UM, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON WAS INCLINED TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A FINDING, UM, THAT THE FLOORING AS IT EXISTS IS NOT INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GUIDELINES.
THAT'S THE HURDLE THAT, SO REPLACEMENT AND KIND IS REPLACEMENT AND KIND.
I, I AGREE WITH I'D LIKE TO HELP YOU, BUT I CAN'T.
SO WHERE ARE WE NOW WAITING FOR THEM TO SAY YES OR NO? UH, I MEAN THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS REPLACEMENT IN KIND.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE UNFORTUNATE SITUATION IS THAT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, UH, THE MODIFICATION MODIFICATIONS MADE TO A SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC STRUCTURE HERE, UH, WITHOUT A COA.
SO THERE WAS NO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY OKAY.
SO SOME WILL ACCEPT THAT AS A NO.
SO I APPRECIATE, YEAH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT GREGORY SUGGESTION IS, BUT AGAIN,
[01:35:01]
REPLACEMENT IN COTTON IS REPLACEMENT IN COTTON.AND SO I FEEL THE NEED TO PUT THIS TO REST BEFORE IT CAN SPIRAL FURTHER OUT OF CONTROL.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, UM, AS AMENDED INITIALLY, BUT NOT AFTER THE FACT, PLEASE SAY AYE.
SO MS. ANNE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE? I UNDERSTAND MOST OF IT.
MAY I HAVE, COULD I GET A COPY OF THIS? MM-HMM.
I THINK MATT CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.
AND, UH, WE'LL GIVE YOU A COPY.
WOULD YOU SEND A COPY? I, I, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO THAT.
I, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR, UM, BEING SO OPEN ABOUT HAVING GONE ASTRAY UNINTENTIONALLY.
UM, THAT'S VERY VIRTUOUS IN MY OPINION.
AND, AND IT CERTAINLY MADE IT, UM, E EASIER TO WORK WITH YOU DESPITE THE FACT THAT, UH, WELL, I APPRECIATE IT.
I, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE HAPPY UP HERE EITHER.
BUT, UM, UM, IT, IT'S JUST A, UNFORTUNATELY AN AWKWARD SITUATION AND, AND WE, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE CAN DEAL WITH YOU,
WELL, AND IF IT HELPS YOU ANY, EITHER THERE'S BEEN OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR SITUATION AS WELL.
WE GOT A, UNLESS IT'S BEEN DEALT WITH, WE GOT A ROOF DOWN HERE, RIGHT? ON A HOUSE.
WELL, YEAH, SO THAT'S ANOTHER, NEVERTHELESS, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
I WILL SAY, UM, BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE ME SOME TIME TO PRODUCE THE ACTUAL WRITTEN DOCUMENT.
UH, THIS VIDEO IS AVAILABLE ONLINE WITHIN A FEW DAYS, UM, UNDER THE TV THREE, CTV THREE, CTV THREE, UM, ON THE, UM, WEBSITE, ON THE CITY WEBSITE.
HOW, HOW DO I SEE, CLICK ON THE HOW DO I SECTION AND THEN UNDER THERE IS THE TV THREE.
DID WE DO THAT? AND THEN THERE IS SECTIONS FOR THE ALDERMAN'S MEETINGS AND OTHER MEETINGS, BUT YOU WOULDN'T OF COURSE GO TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING.
I'LL TALK TO HER AND THERE'S A LINK THERE FOR THE VIDEO.
DO WE NEED A, UH, COA? YES, SIR.
KEEP KEEPING ME STRAIGHT TONIGHT.
UH, SO WE'VE HAD OUR, OUR, UH, INITIAL VOTE ON THE, UH, MOTION.
UH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO ISSUE A C A, SO VOTE SECOND AND SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THANK, THANK YOU TIM AND RUTH FOR MM-HMM.
[4.C. 100 Middle St. (Doubletree Hotel) – to include reconstruction of the deck in the Tertiary AVC.]
AGENDA IS, UH, 100 MIDDLE STREET.TO RECAP WHERE WE STARTED THE MEETING, UM, I WILL NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF.
UM, THE APPLICATION IS FOR THE DOUBLETREE, UM, HOTEL PROPERTY, AND, UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT AND OUR OFFICE IS WORKING FOR THE DEVELOPER.
UM, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO WORK ON A, UH, UH, THE COVERED BAR AREA THAT WOULD BE ON THE, UM, DECKING THAT THE BOARD WILL BE REVIEWING TONIGHT.
UM, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION TONIGHT, AND SO, UH, THAT, THAT IS A REASON FOR MY CONFLICT, UM, THAT BEING THE CASE.
UH, YOU ALSO KNOW THAT OUR CHAIR IS NOT HERE TONIGHT.
AND, UH, BEING THE VICE CHAIR, UH, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A SUCCESSION ORDER BEYOND THAT.
SO THE, WHAT WE NEED IS A, UM, MOTION TO, UH, APPOINT A TEMPORARY CHAIR, I'LL CALL IT, TO, UH, PRESIDE OVER THIS APPLICATION.
OH, MR. CHAIRMAN, DON'T WE FIRST NEED A MOTION TO RECUSE YOU OTHERWISE, UNLESS YOU'RE STILL A CHAIR? WELL, I THINK ONCE WE, IF, IF WE CAN GET PAST THAT HURDLE IN MY THINKING, THAT WOULD BE THE, UM, TEMPORARY CHAIRS, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESSES TO, UM, FAIR ENOUGH.
SO, UH, SO WE DO, WE HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS, VOLUNTEERS, SOMEBODY JUST WANT TO APPOINT SOMEBODY.
HOW DO WE WANT TO DO THIS? WE GOT TWO EXPERIENCED PEOPLE, ONE ON EITHER SIDE, SO, WELL, WE HAVE NO SHORTAGE OF PREVIOUS CHAIRS.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION, ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARY OR NECESSARILY BY ME.
BUT, UH, LET, LET'S HURRY UP, PICK SOMEBODY SO WE CAN GO HOME.
SO MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN PUT THAT IN MOTION FORM FOR ME SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG.
COX, UH, CHAIR OF THE FOLLOWING HEARING OF 100 MINISTER.
GOT A MOTION? WE HAVE A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[01:40:01]
NEED TO ASK THE BOARD IF I MAY BE RECUSED.SO WE NEED TO RECUSE OUR CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DO THAT? MOTION TO RECUSE, UH, UH, TRI YOUR, SINCE HE IS WORKING ON THE PROJECT, UH, SOME PART OF THE PROJECT WITH THE HOTEL.
ALL THE THOSE IN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
SO IF YOU CAN, YEP, I WILL DISMISS MYSELF.
WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER WE'LL HAVE, I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH DECISION.
SO, SIR, CAN WE HAVE INFORMATION FROM YOU? CERTAINLY ON THE DOUBLE TRUTH.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE DOUBLETREE? YES.
IT MUST BE THIS GENTLEMAN, THEN.
NOW YOU HAVE A SEAT, BUT AS YOU, YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON LEFT.
SO IF YOU GIVE US THE INFORMATION ON THE DOUBLETREE.
SO HERE WE SEE THE, UH, APPLICATION FOR 100 MIDDLE STREET, AKA THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND THE APPLICANT'S NAME IS DEAN
AND DEAN IS DULY AUTHORIZED BY, UH, THE FORM WE WILL SEE IN A SECOND.
SO AT, AT THE, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE APPLICATION HAVE BEEN FILLED OUT AND CHECKED OFF, AND, UH, SIGNED BY MR. CAIR AT, WITH THIS BEING HIS, UH, AUTHORIZATION HERE BY MR. HARSON, WHO IS THE OWNER.
SO, UM, THESE, THIS IS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE DOUBLE TREE SHOWN HERE IN THE CROSS-HATCHING.
AND THEN BELOW THAT IS A POOL AND GAZEBO AND A WOODEN PATIO.
AND I'LL MAKE THAT QUITE A BIT LARGER CAUSE IT'S VERY TINY.
SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I MEAN, MOST PEOPLE DO KNOW, UH, SO HERE ON THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE HOTEL.
SO HERE WE HAVE THE POOL GAZEBO AND A WOODEN PATIO.
ALSO TO NOTE IS THAT THERE IS A DASH LINE DOWN HERE, WHICH IS THE, UH, CITY OF NEWBURN LAND.
AND THEY, AND THE HOTEL DOES CURRENTLY HAVE A, UM, A LICENSE AGREEMENT SHOWN HERE ON THE RIGHT, POINTING TO THAT AREA HERE, WHICH IS WHERE THE CURRENT, CURRENTLY, WHERE THE WOODEN PATIO IS EXTENDING OUT BEYOND THEIR PROPERTY LINE.
UH, AND YOU CAN ALSO EVEN SEE THE KIND OF RECTANGULAR CUTOUT AREA WHERE THE TREE IS LOCATED TO GIVE YOU SOME REFERENCE FOR LATER.
SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO IS IS NOT THE, WHERE IS EXTENDING THEIR POST ON THEIR POST BACK THERE AND THEN IT'S EXTENDING OUT HERE? IT'S NOT WHERE THE POSTS ARE, RIGHT? HOLDING UP THE PATIO, UH, I BELIEVE THERE ARE CORNER POSTS, UH, ALONG AND, UH, POSTS ALONG THE FRONT EDGE OF THIS, UH, WOODEN PATIO, RIGHT? PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE HAVE THIS DASHED LINE AND THEN AROUND HERE THAT I GUESS REPRESENTS WHERE IT'S WOOD AS OPPOSED TO NON-WOOD.
UH, BUT, UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT IS BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS THE SOLID BLACK LINE.
SO THOSE POSTS ARE ON THE CITY OF NEWBURN PROPERTY, THAT'S RIGHT INSIDE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT AREA.
SO THE, UH, HOTEL OR SOME FORM OR PROPERTY OWNER, UH, ARRANGED WITH THE CITY TO LICENSE, UH, THAT PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY, UH, APPARENTLY TO, UH, CONTAIN OR YOU HAVE THIS WOODEN PATIO IN THAT AREA.
MORE DETAILS, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INDEED.
OKAY, SO NOW BACK TO NORMAL SIGN.
UM, SO THIS IS ANOTHER SITE PLAN, WHICH IS, UH, BASICALLY OF THE SAME AREA, BUT IT ALSO CONTAINS AN ENLARGEMENT ON THE LEFT, UH, SHOWING A NEW RETAINING WALL, AND THEN THE BUMP, THE BUMP IN FOR THE, UH, TREE, AND THEN EXTENDING BACK AROUND TO THE EXISTING, UH, WALL ON EACH END.
SO, UH, SO THIS NEW RETAINING WALL IS TO BE
[01:45:01]
CONSTRUCTED, UH, WITH THIS CROSS SECTION HERE.UH, AND WE'LL SEE A CUT SHEET OF THE MATERIAL IN A MINUTE, BUT IT'S, UH, ESSENTIALLY EXTENDS FOUR FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AND ONE FOOT BELOW GROUND LEVEL.
SO WE HAVE A SERIES OF RENDERINGS TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT THIS IS TO LOOK LIKE AND BE LIKE.
SO, UM, ALL OF THE NEW AREA WILL BE, UH, PAVED MATERIAL.
THERE WOULD BE NO, UH, WOOD DECK ANYMORE.
AND THAT RETAINING WALL YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THE LIGHT GRAY AREA.
AND THEN HERE'S THE TREE, OF COURSE, I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE, UH, BUMP IN, UH, TO ALLOW, UH, IT TO CONTINUE GROWING THERE IN THE GROUND.
UM, OKAY, UH, HERE'S A FROM THE, ANOTHER ANGLE AND FROM A LOWER POINT OF VIEW, AND THEN FROM THE OTHER END, LOOKING BACK, AND AT THIS POINT, UM, I MAY OR MAY NOT COME UP, BUT THE, ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE HERE, JUST IN FRONT OF THE TREE IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A SECTION THAT IS, UH, FOOT OR TWO HIGHER THAN THE REST OF THE DECK OR THE REST OF THE PATIO.
AND THIS HAPPENS TO BE, UH, RENDERING FROM INSIDE THE HOTEL, LOOKING OUT, AND AGAIN, BASICALLY FROM ONE OF THE ROOMS, UH, LOOKING OUT INTO THE DECK PATIO AREA ACROSS THE RIVER WITHOUT, UH, MARINA, AND THEN AGAIN HERE A NIGHTTIME VIEW.
AND HERE A LITTLE FARTHER OVER AND NIGHT FROM ABOVE.
SO THIS IS THE CUT SHEET I WAS REFERRING TO, TO TELL YOU, OR TO SHOW YOU THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH OR OF WHICH THE RETAINING WALL WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.
UH, IT WOULD NOT BE STAIR STEPPING UP LIKE THIS.
IT IS JUST FLAT TOP AND FOUR FEET HIGH ABOVE GROUND, UM, AND CONTINUE DOWN.
AND THEN THIS IS A RENDITION OF THE PAVING MATERIAL THAT WOULD BE USED ACROSS, THROUGHOUT THIS PATIO AREA WITH ONE OF THOSE COLORS.
AND THEN THIS, UH, IMAGE, I'LL HAVE TO MAKE A LITTLE SMALLER IS OF THE PROPOSED RAILING.
AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS FROM BELOW.
UM, IT'S A COMBINATION OF METAL, UH, SQUARE POSTS AND, UH, ROUND THESE ROUND HORIZONTAL MEMBERS AT MID-SECTION AND AT THE TOP.
AND AT THE VERY TOP IS ACTUALLY A CONSTRUCTION FOR A SMALL COUNTERTOP, WHICH YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE CHAIRS FACING A SMALL COUNTERTOP, UH, THERE.
BUT THIS COUNTERTOP IS NOW BASICALLY EXTENDING OUT OVER THE BACK OF THE RAILING.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RAILING FROM THE BACK.
ALL RIGHT, AND HERE'S A BETTER VIEW OF THE RAILING FROM THE FRONT, SHOWING THAT COUNTERTOP CONSTRUCTED ON THE TOP RAIL WITH A BACK SPLASH OF SORTS.
UM, AND IT'S BASICALLY A WOOD PLANK HELD ONTO ANGLES.
AND THEN THIS IS THE BOTTOM, THE REST OF THE, OF THE, UH, RAILING.
OKAY, SO THIS IS THE ZONING AND INSPECTIONS REVIEW FOR 100 MIDDLE STREET, THE DOUBLETREE HUB HOT
UM, AND, UH, IT, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATES THAT IT NEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAND USE ORDINANCE AND ANY ACCESS EASEMENTS REQUIRED MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION.
AND THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR SAYS IT WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND THEN I'M READY WITH MY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALL RIGHT, SIR, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD AT THIS TIME? WELL, JUST ONE PART OF IT IS THE, WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF, UH, NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING A NEW ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT.
THAT WILL BE A NEW WHAT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THE PROJECT SPILLS OVER ONTO THE CITY'S, UH, UH, PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THE, UH, EXISTING ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S THERE.
SO OBVIOUSLY THE PROJECT IS PENDING, UM,
[01:50:01]
THE, THE FINALIZATION OF, OF THAT AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL, UH, GO BEFORE THE ALDERMAN'S.THAT'S THE ONLY ADDITION I HAVE.
AND, AND MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY A BIT, UM, THE, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT IS INDICATED ON THE, THE MAP THAT MR. SHELLEY DISPLAYED BEFORE YOU WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE CITY.
SO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN APPROVED AN AGREEMENT MANY, MANY YEARS AGO TO ALLOW THE OVERHANG ONTO THE CITY'S PROPERTY.
I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IS THAT A NEW AGREEMENT WOULD NEED TO BE ADOPTED TO ALLOW THIS, THIS PROJECT TO GO FORWARD AS IT'S BEING DEPICTED.
SO CURRENTLY, UM, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT THIS PROPER, THIS PROJECT, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP ON THE CITY'S PROPERTY.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE CAN REVIEW IT OR WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL HE HAS PERMISSION? I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A LEGAL THEORY THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ISSUE A COA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PROJECT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
WELL, WE, THE WAY WE'VE HANDLED THINGS LIKE THIS IN THE PAST IS IF SOMEONE COMES IN FRONT OF US, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN APPROVE, DENY WHAT THEY'RE, IT'S A, IT'S A CONDITION WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AS A CONDITION THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GET THE OTHER THING, WHATEVER THAT THING IS SORTED OUT.
THE, THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE WITH THAT, THAT PROCEDURE IS THIS PROPERTY, THIS, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE ALL THEIR ENTITLEMENTS.
SO ONE EXAMPLE THAT, THAT I'VE HEARD THROWN AROUND WAS IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BUILD PERHAPS A BASEBALL STADIUM IN DOWNTOWN NEWBURN, AND LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT ALL THE DESIGN COMPONENTS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES, AND THIS COMMISSION WERE TO ISSUE A COA FOR THE BASEBALL STADIUM, PROVIDED YOU GET THE APPROPRIATE CITY APPROVALS.
WELL, THAT LEAVES THE APPLICANT WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY BUILD THE BASEBALL STADIUM WHEN IN FACT THAT'S A LEGAL FICTION.
SO CURRENTLY, BECAUSE THIS, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE ALL THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THEY NEED, INCLUDING A CONDITION THAT'S ILLEGAL, COULD BE A LEGAL FICTION, WE DON'T KNOW OR NOT, UM, COULD CREATE SOME, SOME DIFFICULTIES VERSUS PERHAPS CONTINUING THE APPLICATION TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO GET THE ENTITLEMENTS IF HE'S ABLE TO DO SO.
AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY CONDITIONS IN THE FUTURE UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST SUGGESTION NEED A CONDITION.
SO WOULD WE NEED A MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF THE PROPOSAL? THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, MA'AM.
CAN, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? WELL, MA'AM, MADAM CHAIR, MAYBE, MAYBE ONE, ONE QUESTION TO ASK THE APPLICANT IS, CONSIDERING, CONSIDERING THIS, YOU KNOW, IS, IS THE CONTINUATION ACCEPTABLE TO, TO YOU? I, I, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND JAMIE'S POINT, BUT JUST AS, AS OUT OF COURTESY, UH, ANY ISSUES WITH US CONTINUING THIS UNTIL YOU GET THE REPORTS WINDOW DOUBT.
UM, I CONSENT TO A CON A CONTINUATION.
YOU, YOU UNDER, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE'S SAYING? YES.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOUR A QUESTION WHEN HE WAS GOING THROUGH THERE.
CAUSE I, I MEAN, I REALIZE WHAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BEFORE, SO, OKAY.
AND I AND YOU CAN BRING, YOU CAN BRING THIS BACK TO US.
SO IF WE DO, IF WE DO A CONTINUATION, UM, IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR THAT? DO WE HAVE TO PUT A TIMELINE IN THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CONTINUATION? YES, MA'AM.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE, UH, THIS APPLICATION TO DATE CERTAIN, I WILL SAY THAT THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN MEETS BIMONTHLY.
SO EVERY OTHER WEEK, THEY JUST MET YESTERDAY.
UM, SO THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO MEET, TO CONSIDER ANYTHING WOULD BE FEBRUARY 28TH, IF THAT GIVES YOU SOME TIMEFRAME.
NOT TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD TAKE UP THIS PARTIC PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT THAT JUST GIVES YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOARD'S PACING.
SO WE, IN, IN, IN THE CONTINUATION, WOULD WE SAY THAT IT WOULD BE CONTINUED FOR, COULD WE SAY FOR FOUR MONTHS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU COULD, YOU WOULD NEED TO GIVE A DATE, CERTAIN DATE, TIME, PLACE.
WELL, MY SUGGESTION IS, IS THAT WE CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE IT AGAIN, UH, THAT WAY IT'S, IF YOU GO OUT TOO FAR, WE HAVE A SIX MONTH ISSUE WHERE IT GETS APPROVED.
WELL I KNOW IN THE PAST WE, WE'VE HAD ISSUES AROUND HOW LONG THINGS CAN BE CONTINUED.
I I THINK COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
YOU COULD CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO THE MARCH REGULAR MEETING, WHATEVER THAT DATE IS.
UM, AND, AND THEN YOU COULD ASSESS AT THAT POINT IT MAY BE THAT ALL THE LEGALITIES HAVE BEEN IRONED OUT AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER DELAY.
[01:55:01]
CERTAINLY CAN CONTINUE IT WITH THE, THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT.AND JUST, JUST SO THAT WE, WE HAVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, UH, WHERE ARE WE IN THE 180 DAYS ON THIS? WHEN WAS THE APPLICATION? JANUARY 26TH.
SO WE'VE, WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT SOME TIME.
IT'S NOT, AND THAT'D BE JUST FOR EDUCATION CAUSE WE DON'T OFTEN GET THE CHANCE TO FIND OUT.
BUT SO IT WOULD BE, AREN'T, WE DO A LOT OF CONDITIONS? SO A CONDITION THAT PERHAPS THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD CURE OR THAT WAS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS PERHAPS SOMETHING WE COULD PUT ON A COA, BUT ONCE WE GO BEYOND OUR OWN PURVIEW AND, AND RELY ON THE ALDERMAN, WE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING? I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THIS WAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER MORRISON, IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR A PROJECT WHEN THE APPLICANT DOESN'T OWN THE PROPERTY.
SO I, I'D LIKE TO KEEP MY ANALYSIS NARROW TO THAT, EXCEPT SURE.
THAT, THAT PARTICULAR FACTUAL SCENARIO, BUT IN ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UM, WHETHER THOSE CONDITIONS FALSE RARELY WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW OR NOT.
OKAY, SO WE GO, SO CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? SO I, I MOVE, WE CONTINUE THE HEARING ON 100 MIDDLE STREET TO THE MARCH 15TH HBC MEETING AT 5:30 PM IN THIS COURTROOM OF THE CITY HALL SECOND FLOOR.
ANYMORE DISCUSSION? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
IT PASSES AND THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
ALRIGHT SIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY JUST WAITING ON YOU.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU'VE GOT YOUR INFORMATION HERE FOR US TO LOOK AT.
SO WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR YOU TO GET OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.
I UNDERSTAND, OH, MAYBE OWNERSHIP'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT PERMISSION TO USE THE PROPERTY.
WE, AND, AND WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY SET THAT INTO MOTION.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH BY NOT, SO IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD BE IN COMMUNICATION, UH, WITH MATT OVER THERE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING YES MA'AM.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO BRING OUR MEMBER BACK OR DO WE JUST WANNA LEAVE HIM OUT THERE? SO WHAT'S THE HEARING IS OVER.
WE HAVE A SECOND OF THE MOTION.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WHO WAS THE SECOND ACTUALLY ON THE, UH, CONTINUING? SAY THAT AGAIN? WHO DID THE SECOND ON THE CONTINUATION? TIM.
I BELIEVE THAT BRINGS US TO, UH, CONCLUDES OUR HEARINGS AND BRINGS US TO OLD BUSINESS, OF WHICH WE HAVE NONE.
SO I'LL QUICKLY MOVE TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
I GET A NOD NO FROM OUR ONE MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE.
ONE PERSON, UH, NEW, NO NEW BUSINESS.
[8. HPC Administrator’s Report]
THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ABOUT, UH, APPROVALS THAT YOU NEED TO HIGHLIGHT? UM, LET'S SEE.I BELIEVE ONLY TO POINT OUT, UH, THE, THE FIVE THAT WE APPROVED LAST TIME, UH, HAVE ALL BEEN ISSUED.
UH, AND WE HAD FIVE OTHER MINORS THAT WERE ISSUED WITH ABOUT 15 PENDING AT THAT POINT, UH, LAST WEEK.
UH, MANY MORE, MANY HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF IN THE LAST FEW DAYS.
SO IT'S AT LEAST A LOWER NUMBER NOW.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, UH, DAY AND COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT FERMENT FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS? SO, UM, I DO HAVE, UM, UH, ONE OTHER ITEM THOUGH.
AND THAT IS TO REMIND PEOPLE OF THE, UM, RESILIENCY WORKING, UM, UH, PUBLIC SESSION TOMORROW, UH, AT THE OMEGA CENTER FROM 10 UNTIL TWO.
UH, AND THAT IS BASICALLY AN OPEN HOUSE, UH, KIND OF FORMAT, UH, TO INTRODUCE YOU AND, UH, TO THE RESILIENCY PLAN,
[02:00:01]
AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO, UM, PROVIDE SOME NEW INPUT FOR THE PLAN.UH, AND SECONDLY, UH, TWICE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, UH, WE'LL DO ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR, UH, SLIDE PRESENTATION, UM, TO DESCRIBE THE PLAN, UM, IN, IN QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL.
UH, I KNOW JIM MORRISON'S BEEN, UH, ONE OF THE VICTIMS OF ONE OF THESE.
UM, ANYONE ELSE BEEN THERE AT ONE OF THESE? OH YEAH, IT'S INTERESTING.
SO MATT, WHEN, WHEN DO YOU THINK THE SLIDE PRESENTATION WILL HAPPEN? YOU SAID THERE'S TWO CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING AND CLOSE TO THE END.
OKAY, SO, UH, ALSO I WOULD, I WOULD REQUEST, UM, THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HPC THERE, UM, SOMEONE FROM, UH, RALEIGH, UH, UH, ONE OF THE STATE AGENCIES THERE THAT'S BEEN WORKING WITH US TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THAT RESILIENCY PLAN.
UH, UH, IS ALSO ON AN HPC COMMISSION, OR HIS WIFE IS ON AN HPC COMMISSION UP THERE.
AND THEY'RE VERY, THEY'RE COMING TOMORROW TO THAT AROUND 10 O'CLOCK.
AND THEY WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO SOMEONE.
I UNFORTUNATELY WILL BE OUT OF TOWN TOMORROW, SO I WOULD'VE DONE THAT.
BUT, UM, I JUST AM REQUESTING THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE THERE FROM THE HPC TO GREET HIM AND HIS WIFE AND TALK TO THEM.
THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW THINGS WORK HERE.
SO IF SOMEONE CAN PLEASE SHOW UP AROUND 10, 10 15 TOMORROW MORNING THERE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I CAN, I CAN VOLUNTEER TO DO, DO THAT.
ANYONE ELSE? MR. THOMPSON'S GONNA BAIL YOU OUT.
UM, AND ALSO I WANNA REMIND EVERYONE THAT FOR THE NEXT MEETING AT THE DESIGN REVIEW MEETING, WE DO HAVE, UM, A TRAINING SESSION LINED UP FOR THAT.
SO WE'LL PROBABLY ASK YOU IF YOU CAN PLEASE, UH, SET ASIDE SOME TIME BEFORE THE MEETING STARTING AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK.
UH, AND WE'LL RUN AN HOUR'S WORTH OF THAT VIDEO.
UM, UH, AND THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS THAT VERY INTERESTING VIDEO I WAS TALKING ABOUT AT THE LAST DESIGN REVIEW MEETING.
SO, BUT JUST A REMINDER TO YEAH, BLOCK THAT TIME OUT FOR YOURSELF.
YOU, YOU PROBABLY BETTER SEND AN EMAIL TO I WILL, I WILL.
BUT YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE NEED TWO WEEKS.
UH, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, DO WE HAVE ANY OF THOSE? LET EVENING EVERYBODY HAD ENOUGH? I SEE.
WELL I BELIEVE THAT WE ADJOURN.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND COUNT A SECOND.