Historic Preservation Commission, Regular Meeting

1. 12:23We're just waiting for >> Good morning all. We're just waiting for a quorum and we'll be starting on start with like the minutes and the Chief, Bill, >> Barrett, >> there are four in the room. We have one. >> Okay. Uh, it's 10:01. Okay. Uh, let's see. First up, we have the uh review and vote on the um draft minute for the March 13. >> Second question. >> So, can >> uh that's all and you all. >> Okay. Um and we have two C's of A uh votes.
2. 13:25Um the first one is for 27 Union Street. It's the uh replacement of a third floor window. >> That was the van window >> with a new larger window and replacement of the rear ground floor to approve. >> Sarah call a second. All in favor? I see approved. >> Okay. >> Get that posted and to go to the portment Monday. >> Okay. Uh, next up we have 307 Warren Street. Um, and this is for the replacement uh, shingles over the damaged portion of the building. It was in the uh, parking lot next to Magic Hill. >> It was damaged. >> Approve. All in favor? >> I uh, Betsy is approved. >> Okay. 307 approved call, please. Thank you. Uh, do you want to start with uh
3. 14:29continuations turn or >> what what's the new application? >> We have a new application for 612 Warren Street. >> That's a sign. >> Yes. >> Sign. Get that done in just >> Okay. Is someone here to speak for 612 Warren Street? 612 Warren Street online. 612 Warren Street. >> Going gone. >> No. >> Okay. So, let's move on. >> Okay. Uh so we have uh four continuations this morning. First up is 421 Warren Street. Our applicant and owner is here in person. >> Uh my understanding is to move. >> Yes. >> From one side of the building to the other. >> Yes. >> And there's a request for us to give more complete information on materiality of the window picks. >> Yes. >> Okay. So uh what I'm sharing right now online and uh for those here in person is the location of Hudson dry just
4. 15:34>> absolutely um stable again um the sign had been approved months ago. I'm just going to move this sign um on the sort of front fascia board um to closer to the residential entrance. It's also away from any residential neighbors. So >> um any light that is um emanating from the sun although minimal will not um you know be close to my to my room. >> Okay. >> Is that where the shoe sign was? >> It's it's closer to where the boob was. Yes. >> Motion. >> Uh and the window is just a completion of information that you provided. >> Exactly. Yes. All right. I think we're good here. I'm talking about the bracket though. >> No, part of the part of the approval was new bracket and new sign. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Everything is is new fabricated and the bracket will be um adhered into the new structural beams. So there'll be no guide wires or anything like that. So actually a cleaner look and more secure.
5. 16:37>> Oh, nice. >> Can we find the application complete? >> Yes. Yeah, Paul and Hugh are uh first and second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, >> we have a public hearing as the city attorney CFA Hugh and Paul again. Everybody, are there no objections >> for her and you're done? >> Thank you. >> And uh we will add this sheet to your application >> from the last one. >> Yes. And this is the spec. We had asked for the Okay. And uh just so you know, Commissioner Shoel is has joined us. >> Welcome. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Glad to be here. >> Next up, we have 453 >> East Allen Street. Our our architect is here in person. Okay. And
6. 17:44uh I believe this is open. Oh, clear. Okay. Get this online. Yep. Just one second. Okay. 453 East Allen Street. This is a continuation. This is the property we're talking about. >> Yeah. We discussed last time was a a energy retrofit that included window replacement, some interior insulation and u and a rear deck. Uh we've had some discussion. So those items have kind of changed here. The two items that the board brought up in the the first meeting were
7. 18:48the the roof replacements and stain glass window. So on the roof replacements, uh we we heard the board's feedback and while we did find some precedents for standing in metal, we did also want to explore some other options that may be more appropriate. So we found that that for our promise application and we're going to do some some sampling some budget examinations and then come back to you in a future meeting to >> it'll be a shingle roof going forward >> we're exploring some different shingle options >> y thinking maybe about a metal shingle or something but something potentially more in that in that shingle style. Okay, we'll we'll bring that back to you when once we explored that further. And then I think we we also have made a a suggestion here on
8. 19:55for the stain the lower stained glass window >> a little further down that we can we can look at it. Uh, so we we included some more imagery of the in current stained glass windows. And this the upper one here on on the left uh we believe is part of the original the original architecture and and the one on the right is seems to be of a different era. it it uh looks a little more arts and crafts and there are some different details, a little bit of a heavier frame. So So perhaps not original to the house and uh I think original we at the previous meeting wereing that kind of more of a typical window that we had throughout the house but would like to uh propose so hear the board's feedback. Um, we replacing this lower this lower window
9. 20:59with a a clear lead window that would have more of the details of the the upper window. So, kind of uh looking at some of those details and creating a bed glass windows metals that will carry more of a consistent uh historical uh detailing throughout the the house. So, just one more second, but both windows are currently there. >> Both windows are currently >> the window on on the left stays as And the arts and crafts window uh you're proposing changing that to let glass >> a clear lead glass window with some detailing of that upper that upper window. >> What else? Can can I ask a question please? So your evidence is for that the the squareer window is new is newer is is what just stylistic
10. 22:06>> stylistically? Yes. There's some different detailing. There's there's kind of a heavier interior frame that is is behind that window. There's kind of like a metal L bracket that that was installed and that is not consistent with what we're seeing in that larger window uh at the top of the stair there. >> We weren't able >> Yeah. No, I agree with you. I think that the um I think that's grass. It's a later window. It doesn't stylistically they're completely not connected. It would have been connected and I think your proposal is very elegant. Um and I think what you're thinking about doing for the roof sounds interesting too. >> Thumbs up from me. >> How much detail do we need on what to propose? Do we need a drawing of what the letter looks like or is the is the commission comfortable with >> is is the the penistration the opening
11. 23:09and all that jazz uh identical to uh is leaded glass going into the opening where the arts and crafts windows. >> Yes. >> And you're not changing that at all. >> Correct. >> And trim boards around etc. stay stay in place. >> Yes. >> So it's glass for glass. >> That's right. No, we're we're not voting on a lot, >> right? >> Actually, what what are we we're voting on >> the window discussion we had, right? Swapping out the arts and crafts for lead. And what else? >> Well, there was a bigger project. Those were just the two openings. Not everyone went the >> That's right. So replacements that we got. >> All right. >> And the deck on the rear >> and the commission had no issues with that last >> that 1980s.
12. 24:12>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So we'll go from this to this. Do do you all feel you have enough information, brothers and sisters? Miranda. Okay, cool. Uh motion to find the application complete. Uh anybody William, Cara, and Paul? Uh all in favor? >> I >> uh John, we can't see you, but shout out. >> Hi. >> Okay. A motion to wave the public hearing and request the city attorney to prepare CB. Um Cara and you. Uh all in favor, do we need a roll call? >> Yes. >> Uh let's do it by roll call. >> You a n I >> still I Miranda >> I. >> Paul Nate. >> I guess this a Nathan.
13. 25:14>> Yes or no? Yes. I mean, I think it's good. That's >> So that would be an I. >> Uh, Phil. I Jen Shoel, you said I think you said I >> He said I >> did. He said anything. >> Yeah, he did. >> Did he? >> We hear it. Yeah. First to go. Jan, am I correct? The eyes have it. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Good luck. Okay. Uh, next up is 309 311 Union Street. >> I know you guys uh sent that, right? >> Yep. It's attached to basically continuation. Okay.
14. 27:13>> Uh was that Here it is. Okay. All >> right. So, basically, we went through all the designs last time and a couple of items that you asked were about the setbacks of the front porch, creating more green space um in the front and also adding more windows on the east side. So basically, I had the architect pull out a lot of
15. 28:18the the roof line, the gutters, everything else to show a little bit clearer what was going on and made them verify that we're going to be 4 foot back from the property line. And that property line's also from what I can gauge off the survey map about a foot and a half foot 8 in. So, we're going to be almost 6 feet off the sidewalk of green space to the front porch, which is pretty much right where the existing porches, which I believe we agreed was sufficient. >> Um, the other thing is that we added the windows to the side here. Um, hopefully breaking that up to make it um, a little bit more cohesive to your liking. Uh, which is the new version or am I looking at? >> This is the new version. We originally had this one window here. We added a window opposite here. Okay. It's basically a den study/bedroom.
16. 29:23And this is um a window that is in the master now. Thank you. And this is the uh the new facing uh Union Street. >> Was there any discussion on the scale of the orchard that could cover unless we're all good? Okay. It was more about the setback. Yeah. Yeah. the setback I remember uh and there there was some question about the I think the accuracy of the dimensions in the drawing but >> yeah that >> I think that's addressed >> I think that was what we asked for >> so are you are you guys >> is there a reason why the side windows
17. 30:26are not in the same style as all the other windows in the Yes. >> Um just because it's on the ground floor there and the reason that I would put the windows there is to allow a little bit of light in. Um but being that we're I don't know 8 7 ft off the next neighbor's house, it's not like we're looking for a view. That was the reason for that. for one of those. >> No, actually the kitchen is right here and this is actually a living area and wanted to provide a place to put some furniture on there because the back wall is covered with the doors. It it's just also trying to create some wall space for furniture and just practicality. Okay, >> can we see that Miranda? And those are actually functioning windows. They're awning. So they would open up to allow some air in
18. 31:39>> Can I Is it appropriate? Can I say something? I don't know. I can't read the room. I can't see the room at all. >> I'm so sorry. And And if if this is premature, I'm I'm I'm just gonna say about the windows. And I know it was I who brought them up. I don't think that these that like a single upper story window and that small awning window is going to negate the enormity of that wall. So, you know, maybe if there was I don't want to get into designing cuz we're not that's not our role, but like maybe there should be a few more of those two over twos. Like even if there was just one two over two at the corner and another one right below it, it would mirror what I recall of the neighboring buildings that have that have similar similar things. Even if so, I don't think that small little window is is on the first floor is really what we want to try to accomplish here. >> So just so I understand what you're saying, John, if you could go back to that you can. Basically, if we could get um
19. 32:46trying to think how that would work with the layout. If I eliminated these two windows here and put u basically two windows on top of one another towards the porch, which actually would be closer to Union Street, you would you would be able to bounce a little bit more. >> I would think it's closer. I would think it's closer. I think this actually that type of window on the first floor isn't what we would see in a and I know we're not trying to replicate a historic house per se, but that's not the that's not the kind of window you would see on the first floor. So I think if you took a a a two over two and put one above another right on that corner and even were you feeling adventurous two two over twos one on the top two on the top floor two on the bottom on both sides when you're walking up Union Street and you see the house it's going to look more normal less suburban. >> Yeah I I agree with John. Um I think that the risk in general because we're replacing Sorry I should probably speak
20. 33:49louder. The risk in general because we're replacing the house is that um the devil's in the details and you know like how much any of the trim is pronounced off the windows all of that is like if it's flat it'll read extra suburban if it's you know punctuated it will be like it fits within the context and I think those windows do immediately suggest a suburban context which dumbs down the rest of what he done um within this context. I I think John's not disagreeing. >> Say again how many windows and where. So >> well too um two on the right. >> I I just agree that the two over is going to feel contextual in a way that those rectangular um windows do feel suburban and that that's what we'd like to protect the bathroom. What if we left it the way it was and we just made those awning windows 202 because we we have a layout that we're trying to work with. I don't I don't
21. 34:52want the windows to dictate a complete design on the interior of the house. Yeah. >> Um those locations fit with our layout. >> Um and I know you're not trying to get into design, but we have to consider that. Well, I think that one of the things um is that to me feels a little disjoint. I mean, I think you've done a hell of a job, right? I think it's an interesting test that you've been confronted with and that we've been with. Um and I think part of where preservation commission is looking at the texture and the like the the house you're replacing had more asymmetry. This is completely symmetrical. Um, and I feel like that maybe something that you could do is address the asymmetry on those side walls. And they don't have to be exactly the same on both, but it would at least give some um eccentricity. Right now, everything feels so like um like a conduct, you know, but I like but if you go to the screen and point
22. 35:57because I'm not I lost the Were you saying that four windows would be better? Is that what I'm hearing you? >> You show show that's what you are. >> That's what I'm hearing. John say I'm hearing you agree with him. >> I agree that the smaller rectangular windows feel off for the context of this house. >> What would make it feel right? >> I think the two over two would feel better for sure. So my question if I made those two over two >> and then I didn't feel like you were in agreement with that that that's not just what we're looking for here. You're looking for more. >> So you're saying that you're considering turning those two awning window. >> That's all it is. >> I mean I'm just we're looking at a neighbor's house. I I'm just trying to be smart about it. But I understand what you're saying. If it's a matter of just making that two by two over two, that's an easy fix. We can do that. It doesn't change the layout at all. But if you're you're having me start adding more
23. 37:00windows and moving windows, now it's getting into a little bit more involved. >> All right, let's let's start with that and see what's happening. So small windows now over two. >> Leave that to where it is. Now we have three two over twos on the on the side which is very common >> in these types of houses >> right >> yeah I think that works that will work fine for me >> or better yes >> or better >> that's fine if if he can do that just uh get that down we can uh still move forward >> yeah that's >> and have you submit a revision on that as a contingency for the CFA >> sure >> so it doesn't have to uh stop the process Yes. I just want to be sure we're in agreement. >> Cool. >> Yes. >> So, and the other issue was the set back and the green space and the front which you suggest. >> Yeah. That should be a little over 5T which actually I think you said that that's kind of where yours is.
24. 38:02>> To be clear, you're asking for two over two windows of the same size as the windows on the front. Great. Is that >> side? >> It's a good point. Um I think that should work. Okay. >> Okay. Uh ladies and gents, we come a long way. Uh is there a motion to find the application complete? Uh and I understand there's a contingency on the windows as discussed. >> Paul and Miranda. All in favor? Bye. John, are you in? >> Um, >> any opposed? >> I'm not I'm gonna I'm gonna wait to see for those that window. If it's just one window where that that little awning window is downstairs and one above, I doubt it's going to work, but I'm only one.
25. 39:05>> Have windows. >> Oh, they're going to be one above another. I'm sorry. It's very It is It's It's hard to do this by Zoom, truthfully. So, awning windows with two. >> We're replacing the lower windows with two larger windows the same size as on the front of the house >> on the lower floor and the upper floor stays the same. >> This is on the side of the house where there's only 7 ft between the two houses. So you're if you're walking along Union Street, you'll see a window that's similar to the windows on the front of the house. You see a window, but it would it I I I I think we looked at the neighbor and there's one above another. I can't recall perfectly, but it's I think it's strange to just have one on the lower floor and not have one above it. >> Understand? >> No, there. No, there's just one. You're right. Okay. Maybe it's that I that I misremember that. >> So, it mirrors that in that case. Fine. That's great. It mirrors that for me and that's good enough. We were uh in process of uh and Johnny you can come back in when we vote on the
26. 40:08CFA but I just want to close the vote. Is the application complete or not? And get that said yes. >> Good. Okay. Second step. Uh are we asking the city attorney to prepare a CFA for what's being presented with a contingency understood to be reflected in that state of A and uh obviously with the demo cuz this none of this goes forward otherwise and that was something we agreed that we would support would happen if we had an approved plan in the last meeting. So, uh, motion to request the city attorney to prepare a city. >> I have a question. Sorry, Phil. I don't know if you're taking from your colleagues prior to voting on the contingency of a demo, if there will be a public hearing before the demo. >> We already had a public hearing >> contingent upon the I believe the approval of the design.
27. 41:10>> That's right. and we're in the process of taking up with an argument from a number of members of the community if we will take that prior to voting. >> Uh I don't think so please. >> Sorry, please hold on. >> This is not a public hearing. >> I understand that. Would you be entertaining any comments from the community with concerns before pushing forward with allowing the demolition without hearing any of the data from? We have heard a lot of information. This is not a public hearing. >> I understand that. >> And uh I want the commissioners to concentrate on their vote. They are pretty much as aware as you are that that there's some controversy. Uh but we have to focus and I'm not taking public comment. >> Understood. But the they're moving forward with the data you're being presented with is a false narrative >> in your opinion. in my opinion and a number of other builders in town who have done exactly this before. There's nothing atypical about this basement.
28. 42:12$500,000 is a charade. >> Uh we're we're not necessarily voting on just that. If you remember, there's also an engineering report, >> correct? And I'm speaking report >> and the reserve view from uh code enforcement. Uh the engineering report was pretty clear. I'm not I'm not doing this. We're in the middle of >> Thank you. That's fair. I just want you to know the precedent you're setting with this cookie cutter Walmart design that is found at 213 State Street is over inflated by on every means is not built for quality of life. This is built for profit. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Don't you think don't I mean, Phil, let's just step back like why why do we need to why can't we have a public hearing on the design, >> right? like we've given our input. >> No, we gave we gave a public hearing on the Wasn't that on the de on whe on on the demo itself? >> Did people comment on this building? >> As I recall, >> it just changed. >> Guys, we're in the middle of a vote. I'm not doing this.
29. 43:15>> You could table it. >> I'm not going to table it. I want to vote see where we're at. >> Okay, >> we found the application completed. Am I correct? You did. Yes. >> Good. May I have a motion? >> I have wait motion to request preparation. Actually, I don't know if there was a vote on Oh, you have a motion to request preparation of CIA on the table. >> That's correct. I'd like to continue with that vote. Uh, let's do roll call. >> Well, you don't have a motion. >> I made a motion. Okay. Okay. So, f you stop thinking about it. >> I mean, I'll vote I'm voting no to waving a public hearing. >> Well, the the the motion would include W's public hearing. So, you're voting no,
30. 44:15>> right? So, I'm not voting for that. I'm voting nay to that. >> We're trying to do a roll call. I'll get you. >> Okay. >> What do we actually public hearing? Is that what we're talking about? >> No, it it's our usual motion going forward. We have had a public hearing on this project. The motion is to wave a public hearing, another public hearing, and request the city attorney to prepare a CFA. It's our standard motion. I >> I Miranda want to come back to my >> go wasn't intention What?
31. 45:22>> I don't know how we would do it if if in the other motion with the demolition we already approved construction. I don't think it would hurt if we could have a public hearing on the new construction. >> I don't think it'll roll that way. If we have a public hearing, people are going to raise whatever they want to raise. Well, that still allows them the opportunity to raise what they're discussing design. We've done the design part of this and the demo part of it in public hearing and pre I think HBC meeting. What are we not understanding about the project? I know that there are folks who are going to oppose this. We knew that going in. Well, we gave these folks every reason to believe that we would do fair consideration of what they were doing. They responded to every request that we've made. We agreed in a prior meeting on the facts of the matter,
32. 46:24which is the engineering report. Forget the dollars. This is not a hardship case. We agreed with the engineering board that there was a good probability that this building was not fixable. Uh and that was pretty much confirmed by code. So what are we missing? Anyway, can we continue to vote? I I Paul Again, my opinion would be to hold off and have a public hearing and what about the public voice there are opinions on what we think we've all agreed to today. >> Okay. Subtle differences from I understand what was a part of that you're >> Yes. Could I make a comment? Yeah. >> If just a question,
33. 47:29I agree with Phil that we can't if we open it up to a public hearing. The issue on the table is partially the design, but the major issue coming from the public is the demolition question. Is that off the table? We already decided we >> we agreed and voted that if we found an approved design, we would support the demo. I mean, I I am persuaded by the idea that this should be presented to the public again because it was to me listening that that we broke apart what was supposed to be one vote when during the public hearing and we agreed on the demolition, but we needed keep to come back with what the design was. And I feel like the gentleman who's voiced concern I I think we all share similar concerns about making sure the quality of the the house is great, right? So that it kind of matches histo. And if that hearing brings up some suggestions that could elevate it
34. 48:33because I I think everything he's done makes sense, but I still look at it and worry that Mr. our friend said that that it's generic and um I feel like there's some nuance that could get well remove the my like the my feelings about it. I just think it's what we said to the public. >> I think we said >> we were talking about the demolition that's like 90% of what we already voted on. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> No, no, no. I I would just say that the demolition was clear that we agreed on that 100%. So it to me though what what was separated was >> the new design >> the new design and they were connected like legally it was like you have to show us the new design to demolish and we didn't have the new design but we to accommodate him >> seeking to avoid a dead building. >> Yeah. And I just think that it's it's it's enough of public interest and the the design.
35. 49:38I'm not willing to hang my hat on the fact that it's going to look, you know, I think that we should have open up to the public, have that conversation. >> I mean, Phil, it is it is true that we were voting on the demolition contingent on the design. >> Right. >> So if there's >> So they have >> Okay, keep on going again. If there's concern from the community and within the commission itself, I think it leaves us no option. But >> how >> how much of a gauntlet do we put an applicant through? >> Yeah. >> Uh I think that's a legitimate question. We exist because there's a public interest. We held a public hearing because there was public interest. We've reviewed this design three times in an open meeting because there's a public interest in what goes up. Is there a legitimate end to the process
36. 50:41from the applicant's point of view? That was what I was saying. I'm not I wasn't finishing with my thought. I was saying that there is a legitimate interest from the public. Um the contingency of taking down a house based on the >> you did it. Uh the the other part of it is that we're not designers. You know, we're not here to design. You know, people are entitled to build a house. Certainly by no means ugly project. we're kind of getting down to, you know, materials and, you know, we, you know, which we've yet to really discuss in full. So, you know, it's a fine line like, you know, we're not going to say, okay, you got to do this porch light and this porch and this, you know, I don't know. I thought that's not what we're here for. So >> also wonder it isn't generally it's generally our job to approve or not approve a design. >> I don't think it's really the job of the
37. 51:46public to say well I'd like it better if there was a window over here or something like that. I mean um >> so I think they were getting it to us. >> Yeah. >> Frank, you know, practically speaking, >> if we open it up to a public hearing, the real issue is going to be demolition no matter how and if we believe that we voted on demolition and we're not going to take that up again. Yes. Then I don't think we should have a public hearing. So, can you confirm when it was published the public hearing of this the first time around it included both the demolition and the rebuild? >> It did not. >> Yes, >> Jen. >> I don't I don't know, but I'll find out because I think that's >> I don't believe it include I I'm I'm sorry to interrupt. It did not include the the rebuild. Right. So, we we said it'll be we said that the public hearing that the demolition was approved contingent on our approval of the rebuild, which is what we're doing right
38. 52:48now. >> Let's check two things. Uh what was supposed to do? Also, what do you have in the minutes? Uh Jim, >> uh which should be our our northstar in defining what was discussed and what was agreed. >> Okay. The minutes uh from Let me just see public hearing. Uh this is 309. Uh, the way we left it was they they didn't vote at this meeting. They voted at the next meeting. But >> Oh, can you just see how you had it on the agenda posted? What did the talk say that the public hearing was on
39. 53:51>> on this? >> Yeah. minutes. Well, sure. >> Or what was posted on the city website? What whatever we >> I think it was just public hearing on >> say public hearing to demolish. So, I just want to know how we how we >> uh Okay. I'm just trying to find the hearing notice. >> Sorry, >> Victoria. What what agenda >> the public hearing was invis >> right? Okay. >> Demolition new construction. >> Yeah. Um, I do I know that I do have the public hearing docs. I just
40. 55:01>> Sorry guys. Um, they were asking to find something that they weren't expecting. >> Should we come back to it? What what else we got to cover? We can we can come back to this discussion. We have to. Yeah, we could Phil, can I just say one thing and it was really it's really in response to what you said about the process and I do I do sympathize with the with the applicant and the owner, but this is not a this isn't uh something that we want to rush, right? And if we can get feedback that's useful to us and to the owner about the project from it from neighbors from the town and and and incorporated into coming with coming out with a better outcome, it's worth another session. >> Okay, here is the public hearing notice. But it doesn't >> uh 309 311 uh Union Street for a proposed demo of the existing buildings
41. 56:04and new construction. >> Okay. So, thank you for >> Okay. Uh you talking more or you want to go back to voting? I I think that there has to be some limit in the code or in practice where uh we don't uh simply put people through an unlimited gauntlet of opinion. We are not bound by public opinion. The public hearing is really useful uh for a bunch of reasons. There are very smart informed people in Hudson who have something to offer for sure. Uh there have been instances where the public brought us information uh that we might not have had or a piece of research or a bit of history about the property or uh an architectural
42. 57:11observation. Absolutely true. This is new construction. It is not quote unquote a 19th century house. There are a lot of ways to do new construction. If Cara and I had our way, we probably would be looking at something ultra modern in stainless steel with a swoop on the top. You know, I think it's ter and I do not have our way. The public hearing is not here to design the house, nor are we. All of our deliberations are is it appropriate? Right. And does it meet code? I believe there's no argument that is persuasive that this design is inappropriate.
43. 58:14If there are people who think from the public that they have are better architects or they have another idea and so on, that's great. But so what? How long does that go on? In in brief, there's nothing in the code that says the applicant is required to meet forum of community folks in their view of what constitutes good architecture. It just says the commission will decide is it appropriate, can it coexist in the neighborhood, etc. So, I think we're going off the ranch of putting this through the cycle again, but it's your all calls on one vote. I think it's a bad use of public hearings. It is not a plebite.
44. 59:17We are not if if if it is, then we should do a full count of 6,000 residents and see what they think. >> That's a good point. I think you changed my mind. I would like to uh recommend uh on requesting the city attorney to prepare a C of A and that C of A as we voted on in prior meeting will include demo and the new construction with window modification that the applicant just agreed to. With all that's been taken with all that's been taken into account and there's ballot points on both sides, >> I I I vote I
45. 1:00:21>> I vote I >> I >> I >> John. I'll be the dissenting nay. I think that it's that that the risk of having uh new construction that isn't as vetted as possible is a great risk. It's a great risk to this beautiful block. It's a great risk to our our collective patrimony which this is part of and um we'll see. So that's with that long explanation. I vote nay. >> Thank you very much, John. The eyes have it. You're approved. Thank you. I >> What's that? >> I have a someone with a hand raised. >> Okay. >> Am I recognized? >> No, you're not.
46. 1:01:24>> I am not. >> I'm not recognized. I know. I realize that this is not a public hearing. >> I would like to be able to make a comment. >> I I know, but you're not forbidden from allowing the public to speak regardless of whether or not it's a public hearing. You've been very generous in the past to speak >> as a member of the as a member of the public who has been in the public has been invoked in the course of this discussion to speak. >> You're asking me not to speak. That's correct. >> Okay. I I I object to this procedure. >> Take it to uh whomever you want to. >> Next station. >> Okay. Uh the last uh continuation is 30 Union Street. Is there someone online or uh in person to 30 Union Street? That's a I think this is the third continuation we've had. 30 Union Street. But
47. 1:02:26>> no show again. >> No show. >> The sound folks aren't here. 612. >> Uh is is anyone here to speak for 612 Warren Street? 612 Warren Street. That is our meeting. >> Okay. Motion to all in favor. uh commission. Uh chairman, can I there's one? >> All right. >> Okay.

Timestamps link to the corresponding moment on YouTube. Auto-transcribed, contains speech-recognition errors. Not an official record.