Started to live. Let us know when we can start, please.
Yes, ma'am. Good evening, everyone. I am now starting all recording devices.
Mr. Chairman, we're all set and ready to go.
Thank you.
Welcome to the August 2020-26 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, which is in person and on Zoom.
Ms. Davis, can I have a roll call, please?
Yes, Ms. Rossin.
Here.
Mr. Wright.
Here.
Councilwoman Jones.
Here.
Ms. Marlowe.
Here.
And Ms. LeVine.
Here.
We have a quorum.
Thank you.
Adequate notice of this meeting
had been provided to the press
in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act,
NJSA 10-4-6.
In addition, notice of this meeting
was posted in Village Hall
on the village's website and it's been filed in the office the village clerk
official action may be taken approval of the minutes that he sent out the
minutes from the June and July meetings which seem to be accurate and
adequate to me does anybody have any comments on the minutes okay can I
I have a motion to accept the minutes.
I make a motion to accept the minutes.
Okay, second.
Second.
Okay, all in favor.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Nay.
And we also put on the record
that Ms. Crawford has joined us.
I'm so sorry.
Bravo.
It's okay.
We just started.
We just started the meeting.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair was the minutes for both sets. Yes. Okay. Thank you
Okay, now we can move on to HPC case
2026-3
Harlem Gunness
block 903 block 22
20 Elm Court
Applicant is proposing an ADU attached to the existing single-family house
Okay, whatever you're gonna come up with.
Thanks, Brian.
Perfect.
Okay.
Brian, if you want to pull up the slide, please.
Yes, ma'am.
Pulling it up now.
Thank you.
Can you please state your names for the record?
Yes.
John Loughran, a homeowner at 20 Ohm Court.
Harlem Gunn is homeowner as well.
20 Ohm Court.
Let me just get spelling of your names and then I'll swear you.
Sure.
John, J-O-H-N, Lachran, L-O-U-G-H-R-A-N.
L-U-G-H-R-A-N.
L-O-U-G-H-R-A-N.
Thank you.
Okay, you were?
Harlem, like Harlem, New York, H-A-R-L-E-M.
And Guinness, like Guinness, without the I-G-U-N-N-N-N-S-S.
All right, Mr. Laughlin and Mr. Guinness,
do you surrender the testimony
or provide the seating?
Is the truth or the whole truth?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
So we're proposing to add on an accessory dwelling unit
behind our home at 20 Elm Court.
You can go to the next slide.
We're located on 20 Elm Court
between University Court and South Orange Avenue.
We're in a RE-60 zone, I guess you go to the next slide.
So we comply with the zoning,
except for a minimum lot width,
but we're a non-conforming pre-existing use.
All of the other requirements for the zoning. We do comply with
I said the
Minimum lot with we're pre-existing additions. We don't comply with that, but all the other conditions for the zoning we do comply with
No, we do not because it's already non-conforming. It's all all ready non-conforming. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure whether we were here for
So we're existing one family home we're proposing accessory drilling unit in the rear yard
Let's see. It's approximately a 14 foot by 35 foot addition in the back. If you go to
the next slide.
So you can see the addition is in the back off the right-hand side of
the house in the back of the property. It's set 10 feet off the property line. Once again
it comes back about 35 feet. It is a one-story addition of 480 square feet. That will be
the accessory drilling unit. To construct the accessory drilling unit we are, there's
an existing screened-in porch in that location that would be removed to put the accessory
drilling unit addition on. And we can see photos of that if we go to the next slide.
Oh sorry, next slide is the plan. So you can see, let's see once again it's about
35 feet straight back. I just want to note to you that off the side elevation the
The addition is recessed back two feet to give it a break from the existing mass and existing facade.
You can see that it's a one bedroom, one bath addition, 480 square feet.
So next slide, please.
Okay, so this is a view of the existing house.
You on the left is with the front of the house.
On the right is the rear house.
Rear of the house, you can see the existing through the porch that would be removed to add the new dwelling unit.
unit. The new dwelling unit matches the existing roof pitch.
I'm getting a little out of order
here.
Okay. So, yes, you know the next slide. So, yes, you can see that screened in porch.
Once again, that's removed. So, the new addition is set back two feet from side to side. The
next slide. And these are the homes to the left of us, the homes to the right of
The addition would be in the back of the house
so it wouldn't be visible from the street.
So it wouldn't be changing the look from the street at all.
This is the rear facade on the left.
So once again, we matched the roof pitch
on that existing porch.
It matches that existing breakfast room to the right
so that pitch stays the same.
We went with a very simple structure
so that it is subordinate to the main structure
and the main house.
So you can still read the main house
even though it has an addition.
As far as materials, we're proposing party plank siding
A simple clapboard siding that would be the same contour and section as the existing house.
The new siding does not come in contact with the existing wood siding except for that inside
corner on the right-hand side because the first floor is brick where the two touch, where
the two meet each other, so very different.
The fenestrations are intended to match the proportions of the existing.
existing. Those windows on the right-hand side elevation, for instance, are taller windows
that match our dining room windows. Same similar to those. Once again, materials would be an
asphalt roof that matches the existing. The hardy plank, simple clapboard sign that matches
the existing sliding on the house. Let's see what's my note.
And if you go to the
next slide, this would be the view from the south side, which is actually the
side or our neighbor's driveway side.
And once again, the intent was that it matches the same
window proportion existing house.
It is clearly an accessory to the main dwelling unit.
And you can't tell from here, but once again,
the existing house that it touches up against is bricks.
You'll never see the two different materials
come together, the hardened plank
versus the original wood side.
We're using, I
think that's my last slide.
Any questions on that?
How much how much how many feet beyond the I know I understand it's being removed
But how many feet beyond the existing screened-in porch will this extend about
Existing through important is eight feet or so so
27 26 so that's pretty long. Yeah. Yeah
What's the setback from the rear property line
rear setback is 79 feet
Oh, so you have a deep, you have a deep here.
Yeah, it's a, it's a trapezoidal shape plot,
yes, so it's very deep.
Okay.
And then the side yard is set back 10 feet
from the side closest to the neighbor's yard.
And that's actually less than...
Yes.
No, the current porch is set back seven feet,
so this is, it's two additional feet
from the existing porch set back.
Nine feet, yeah.
Yes, two additional feet.
So this is set back further from the side yard than the porch was.
Now from your pictures, you said that the roof lines are the same.
The roof line is the same as the porch.
The roof line on the addition.
You meant the roof line of the existing screened in porch.
The pitch, yes.
The roof pitch, sorry, yes.
The roof pitch.
Can I see if you had an elevation just of that side so that the neighbor on that side, what that view would be?
Yeah, if you go back, couple slides, go back, no, sorry, go back one slide, yeah, so that's
the existing side elevation, and if you go forward two slides, it's two, yeah, one more
slide,
yeah, so that is the proposed elevation.
So you don't have like a view so you can see in scale to the whole house?
No, we don't have that.
Okay, no is is the extension longer than the current depth of the house?
Yes, it is.
Yeah, you can probably see that on slide two or three
Yes, this slide. Yeah, it's much longer and
then inside with the two windows raised
Those are ones facing the interior of your yard. Correct. Yes. Yeah, that's the north elevation. Mm-hmm
Does the property behind you, does that bound on south on Javen?
The property behind us is on, I always forget the name of that road.
What's the name of that road?
Yeah.
Can you read it up there?
Warren Court.
Okay.
And that's a residential building also?
Correct, yes.
Okay.
And they were all noticed for this, correct?
Everybody, there's no notice for this?
Okay.
Yes.
All right.
Okay.
Thank you.
That was a very good presentation.
Does anybody have any more questions?
I don't because I don't believe that you can see it from the road.
And I think that this really is a zoning.
A zoning they don't have to worry about.
Yeah.
So I have no issues with it.
Do we have any public that has questions?
No?
Anybody online?
I'm not seeing any hands raised.
Okay, thank you.
That was a very good presentation.
See, we're not horrible.
You
have one second.
We're going to do that now.
Okay.
So can I have a...
So what would be a certificate of appropriateness?
Yeah.
I have a motion.
I'll make a motion for certificate of Appropriateness for 12 Elm Court, yes, 12 Elm, 20 Elm.
Okay.
Anybody second?
I'll second it.
Okay.
All in favor?
Can I have a roll call?
Okay, Mr. Wright.
Yes.
Ms. Crawford.
Yes.
Ms. Rosson.
Here.
That will be it.
Oh, yes.
Ms. Marlowe.
Yes.
And Ms. Levine.
Yes.
Washington, Canada.
Congratulations.
I'll prepare a certificate, a resolution,
and then, like that, you can take that resolution
to the bill.
You have an email address, don't you?
What's it mean?
I'll email it to Ruchi.
Perfect.
OK.
Thank you.
you're welcome thank you thank you yeah
we can do that or find out who they are and do the rest first
and then we can do them first okay okay and congratulations Lynn that was your first look
Okay, so now we're going to move on to our local landmark designations
22. We're removing
324 Scotland Road from consideration at this point. We're going to add them to the list
at the end of structures that have been modified and have them re-reviewed at the end.
So that leads us 22 from the people who are online and in the audience are you
here which property are you here for I think it's only 21 we took we took one
of them off because it was already designated there's 21 we talked about
324 Scotland Road. Yeah. Because there's some question about recent modifications. Yeah,
but there was another one that we took off before we sent it out. Because it was already
designated. It was a key contributing property. Is that what it was on this list? Yes, and
I don't remember which one it is. Oh, okay. Well, maybe by the time we get to a vote,
you need to figure out which one it was. Well, the one on this list is on this list.
It won't be on that list, Karen.
There was also one that was on the previous list
that we took off.
I think it's only like 18 or 19, actually.
Oh, okay.
The list you sent me has 22 when we took off the one.
I know that one we did on our previous list
and then the one we just took off
and then the one that was already designated.
I've got 22 that we're still doing.
I'll have to go back to my emails to see.
Oh, you took that from that.
22, right? Yeah, but this should have one less than that.
This is a new process for us, so I'm sorry about that. We still haven't gotten it all down yet. This one, this is 22. Yeah. And the last one we took off.
All right. Minus the one. I'm actually saying there's another one.
112 Raymond is the one, so it would be 20. So 112 Raymond has already been designated.
Already designated, okay. Got it.
All right, now we're down to 21.
No, it was designated on our last group.
which
was the one that was a key contributing and I can probably look
it up
yes yes yeah well I was going to just adjust councilman that we put
together a presentation and I know there's only a couple people here but
it's important to them so I thought that we did and I figured this is probably
something that we're going to do you know before we get you know with new
people right so could you Brian could you put up that that presentation yes sir
doing it now can make
that any bigger
that's not really readable from here I
guess I'll have to make it Brian can you make that any bigger yes
sir let's see
if I could try something else by
the way I have copies what
was your address
We only have one Scotland on the list, so that's what it's like.
Okay, great, thank you.
Okay, so this is something that I expect that we will do for each of the presentations.
We made the effort to put this together because a lot of people don't know how this process works
or what the potential designation consequences are.
So I think that this is hopefully will address
some concerns and questions that might come up
as we go through these hearings.
So the historic preservation regulation
is based upon the municipal land use law
and a local ordinance that was adopted here
first in 2012 and that amended in 2024.
Our jurisdiction is that designated local landmarks
are potentially subject to review by this commission.
Any project that is on one of these properties
that requires a zoning board of adjustment approval
for variances, that's one specific process
and that's why you heard me ask the question
in the last group about whether or not
they needed a variance because if your project involves
having to go to the zoning board of adjustment,
then what happens is the zoning board of adjustment
sends that application here and we provide advice.
It's not a decision, we provide advice to the zoning board,
just like the environmental commission or somebody else,
as an advisory decision.
Now, if it doesn't require a variance,
like the one we just heard,
then they're here for something,
but they need a construction permit,
then the building official tells them to come here
for a certificate of appropriateness.
The first thing we have to figure out
is the project exempt.
So, I think this is important
because there are a number of things that once we determine what it is, it doesn't have to
need any review at all. These ordinances do not regulate any interior work at all. Anything
you're doing in the interior is near business. It also exempts exterior painting of existing
painted surface, repairs to less than 25% of existing shingles, siding, roofing, etc.,
the same style of materials and repair of existing doors and windows of then kind material.
All that is an example. If it's not exempt, then we look to see whether or not it qualifies
as minor work. And minor work is replacement of a roof using material compatible with
architectural design, replacement of over 25% of shingles, siding, etc. while maintaining
in the integrity, replacement of windows and doors, minor work, and painting a previously
unpainted exterior surface like brick or stone.
So if you're paving over brick or stone, you need to come here for minor work.
If you're paving over existing paving, you don't come here at all.
If it's a minor work, you don't actually have to come to one of these meetings.
If we deem it to be minor work, we have a subcommittee that visits and determines
if the work will harm the historic character and integrity of the structure.
And if it won't, then the subcommittee issues a minor work permit.
If it's not minor work, then it's major work.
And that means you have to come here for a hearing like you just heard.
We take testimony and we decide whether to grant the certificate of appropriateness.
You must obtain a certificate before the construction official can issue the permit.
The standards for the certificate and the minor work review, they're in the ordinance.
I'm not going to repeat them all now, but generally speaking, will the OR project negatively
impact the historic and architectural significance of the property or the historic district?
And that's really the test.
That's really what we're here to do.
Now what are we doing here now?
This is designation because one of the things that the ordinance directs us to do is to
recommend to the council properties that are worthy of historic designation.
Right now, properties that are located in the Montrose Park Historic District.
If you go over this survey and look at any of it, there are properties in there that are called key contributing, contributing, non-contributing.
If you are key contributing, you're already regulated.
We're not going to be designating you because you're already regulated.
In 2024, the ordinance expanded the potential designation to properties identified as contributing also.
And all of this comes from a cultural survey of Essex County that was done in 1986, which
looked at each one of the properties and identified, by the way, I should mention that there were
other criteria by which, under the federal rules, that a property can be considered
to be historic in a landmark.
For example, if an important person lived there, if an important event happened there,
things like that.
that we as sitting here, I don't believe we're aware of any properties in this district
that qualify for that.
That could change as we go along, but we're not aware of any of that.
So that means that the only criterion of the Department of Interior standard that applies
here is the one related to the architecture of the structure.
And that's why the survey has a paragraph or so that explains what the historical
character of the property is and identifies it in all the cases that we're here
for tonight, identified as contributing on that basis.
So the focus of this hearing, really, is whether or not the home continues to maintain what
the consultant said was historic character in 1986.
With all respect, this is not a hearing to discuss whether or not historic property
should be regulated or property rights, et cetera.
That's kind of already in the audience.
What we're here to decide is whether or not the property in its current format continues
to be historically important because of its architecture.
Next steps, we recommend to the Council that the zoning ordinance should be amended to
include whatever properties we recommend as designated landmarks.
The Council then proposes an ordinance amendment to designate them.
That ordinance, like any other zoning ordinance amendment, is referred to the Planning Board
for review for consistency with the master plan,
but it's important to realize that's really going
to be a perfunctory step because all of the properties
that we're going to talk about here
and in future meetings are already identified
in the master plan is potentially worthy of designation
but still subject to this process.
So that's going to be pretty routine.
And so then it goes back to the council.
The council holds a public hearing
and adopts the ordinance designating what properties
the council chooses to designate.
that's it that's what we're doing and of course the homeowner would have an
opportunity to speak tonight and and in front of the council when it's on when
they have the public hearing on the ordinance okay you're the one sitting
here so do you have anything to say okay
Okay, fabulous.
Chief Vapaba, who's online?
So Michael, are you objecting to your house being put on?
Oh, okay.
Great, thank you.
Michael is a longtime member of the zoning board of Adjustment.
Oh, I did not.
When I first went on.
So you knew all about the zoning warden,
so you didn't have, I didn't need to tell you that part.
Okay, I'm sorry about that.
No, you're right.
I represent the planning board, not the zoning board.
Okay.
Is there anybody online?
We
have one attendee online,
Maria, please raise your hand.
Chatter your mic is off.
Sorry.
We have one attendee online, Maria.
If you would like to speak, Maria, please raise your hand so we can elevate you.
Okay, Brian, please elevate Maria.
Yes, ma'am, Maria, you have been elevated.
Please unmute your mic and turn on your camera.
Maria
is now joining hi
Maria what what property are you my address is 274
Charlton Avenue you know what's your last name Maria
I don't have any questions. I just wanted to just say that I'm online and I'm participating.
I'm sorry. I missed it.
M what?
M E N.
E I L L Y.
Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.
I don't have any questions.
I just wanted to just say that I'm online and I'm participating.
Thank you. Do you object to us designating your house?
I do not. Oh, okay, great.
In that case, we can just read all these things.
Yeah, I think that we don't need to read the descriptions. I think we can read the problems.
So let's make clear what it is that, so the record is clear about what it is that we're relying upon.
So, the document that I have in front of me, that you have in front of me, are the sections
Of the 1986 Essex County Cultural Survey for the properties that are on the agenda this evening. Is that right?
Yes. Okay. And so the, those, that document includes the address, the block and lot number, a description of the property in some cases,
This is, in some cases, not only including the architectural character of the property,
but also some information in some cases about prior ownership, et cetera, and then it includes
the names of the current owner.
So what you'll be voting on here eventually, after I just read the addresses, is based
based upon this document, whether or not you were recommending that these properties be recommended to the Council for designation as local owners.
Okay. All right. So the properties are 127 Ralston Avenue, 130 Ralston Avenue, 137 Ralston Avenue, 144 Ralston Avenue, 147 Ralston Avenue, 158 Raymond Avenue, 228 Raymond Avenue,
111 Terrell Avenue, 134 Terrell Avenue, 135 Terrell Avenue, 139 Terrell Avenue, 147 Terrell
Avenue, 155 Terrell Avenue, 262 Charlton Avenue, 273 Charleston Avenue.
Are you ready to know what he's down?
I'll give this to you later.
273 Charleston Avenue, 274 Charleston Avenue, 274 Charleston Avenue, 274 Charleston
186 Charlton Avenue 136 Irving Avenue 151 Irving Avenue and that's it I would also for 142 Irving
Erving Avenue, I would also like to read into the record a statement
of the owner who asked
for some clarification on what the ordinance was and then said, we have reviewed and support
the designation of our property at 142 Erving Avenue as a local landmark, we will not attend
the hearing due to travel, but please add our support to the public, many thanks.
that's Mr. Mariel and Ms. Miller correct correct I think you're ready for a
motion that case can I have a motion to designate denoted properties as local
landmarks I'll make a motion I have a second second I have a roll call please
check yes mr. Wright yes miss Rosson yes miss Crawford yes miss Marlowe yes
Yes, and Mr. Levine.
Yes.
Real phone.
I mean, motion carries.
Thank you.
Okay.
So that takes us out of new business.
I'll leave you a message.
I know.
Okay.
Old business, we don't have any.
Discussions follow up.
Is there a village council report?
I have two items.
Thank you so much.
Can we talk about the next steps?
because now we're at a group of, I guess it's 28 plus the 10, 8 from before 10?
No, I think it's 6.
So now we're almost at 30, so I guess the next step, we'll go to the Village Council,
so we'll find a date.
Do we send an email?
Are you sending an email or a letter to all of the people that say you're now moving
on and you need a date from the Council?
What's the next step and what that process will be?
Yeah, I don't know that we figured that out.
I don't know that that's in the ordinance, I didn't look honestly, but I would think
that once you have a date, then we should notify them.
Okay, yeah, I'll send an email out to the council
to find out when in the fall we would do those homes.
And if we can have a solid list of the ones from today,
plus I can pour that, if you could put it on one,
that would be helpful.
Sure.
Number two, I did ask Mr. Grinchy,
if the process is in place for demolitions,
because a number of years ago we had said anytime
that there was a home being demolished,
that we would know, just so we can capture pictures.
So that process is still in place.
But there was an ordinance for 99 boats that you guys,
which is the one that's next to the post office.
That is not being demolished,
but if you look at the council resolutions,
There was a turning off of the sewer for that which my assumption is in the future something's gonna happen
I don't know when it could be like 10 years. Yeah, it's insignificant as repair. It is. Yeah
I know they're having a hard time
So I just want to make sure that you guys were aware that the process for mr.
Grinchy is still in place where he will notify us if there are demolitions coming up
No, what we have said is
is, he would tell us of any building that was being demolished so that we could take
a picture of it, not necessarily in the mattress. So that was, I think that was about three years
ago that we had that discussion.
Is there anything we can do for that property to prevent it from just demolition by neglect,
which is essentially what seems to be happening?
Well, your ordinance that we did in 2024 has a demolition by neglect provision in
right? And if I recall correctly, they either really on anybody's initiative but
certainly on your initiative you could communicate to the building department
that there are obviously code violations there and they should take those
steps necessary to address them. Sounds like he's kind of doing it already but
I could be wrong. I think it's been happening for two years now. So if it's
So my goal is not to call out bad property in general, it's just more of a larger look
at outside of it.
Right, no, I totally understand that.
But I don't want the property owner to have it.
That's continuing.
I haven't driven by there recently, but I did take some photos actually of it even a year
plus ago when I was sort of concerned.
I know it's a sale, so.
I walked by.
Yes, I know someone made an offer on it and it was turned down from what I heard
And it sounds based on the condition of the building like it was a fair offer
Well, it's up to you. I mean if it's the it's the will of the Commission
I can write a simple letter to mr. Grinchy that says we're concerned about the conditions on this property and under them
it appears to be demolition by neglect and
We'd you know hope that you will take steps necessary to enforce the code. I
Would be in favor of that. Okay
You see the address again?
I'm sorry?
99 votes.
What was that happening?
Okay.
I would also like to know that Mr.
Linser who is filling in for Ms.
Petrus is also discussing changing the definition of
demolition.
I know.
No.
Just demolition, period.
because it was specific to a house on Prospect Street,
which was, they said they were renovating the house,
they knocked it all down, except one little corner piece,
and then they built the whole big giant house around it,
and then knocked that down,
and they pulled out the whole,
this absolutely-
That's that beautiful one that I saw online.
I just happened to be online,
and I said, where did this house on Prospect come from?
Because it's definitely out of character.
It's completely out of character.
It's they replaced a 2,000 square foot house with a it's I think it's going to be 6,700 square feet
It has forward-facing garages, which is the only the only one on process on process at 331
Garth over by Garfield, okay, interesting
And the guy built it
but apparently this guy builds the shell and then tries to sell it before he finishes it.
Yeah, that's not what it looks like. That's the AI version of what it's going to be when it's finished.
So it's a non-conforming lot. It's not wide enough.
It's going to be tough, but...
So Ms. Patras is going to look
at the demolition...
Well, I think Mr. Grinch is
pretty keen on just pushing it
through, and I don't think on
this one that it's going to be
reversed, but going forward, I
think we need to look at what
they called demolition, because
like I said, they pulled out
the whole foundation, put in a
whole new foundation.
There's nothing left of the
old house. You could argue that it was existing, non-compliant, but it's still the intensity
is certainly a lot different from when it was a smaller house to what it is right now.
It just kind of got pushed through by the building department even after it was pointed
out that it shouldn't be.
There was nothing anybody has
something that was in discussion.
Yeah.
I'm from a council perspective. I don't have anything else on this. Do you want to talk about the
The subcommittee meeting with the two vendors the two I was gonna leave that up to when you guys get to it
Oh, you have to do it. Sorry. Mr. Right. Sorry. He got it from here. I did my email
Okay, before we do that, let's just go through the other ones on the subcommittee stuff
So, 257 Warwick Avenue, minor work involving repairing, replacing elements of the existing
wraparound porch.
David and I did an inspection.
We met with the contractor and they did a beautiful job on it, and we gave them the
okay to go ahead with that.
351 Terrell put in a request for minor work, they're replacing the existing entry
door and a side door. I got back to the, I guess it's a company that does permitting
for the window and door company and said I needed more information because they gave us a whole
bunch of pictures of what's there now but absolutely no information on what they're
putting in. So they said they were going to follow up and give us some more information
on that they haven't done that yet so inspection or
that brings us to the
prospect street surveying process. David do you want to? Well council member
Jones has very kindly proposed a process to to get the ball rolling on this
survey and initial stage would be consultation with a couple of historical
survey firms that are doing work in our neighborhood, neighboring towns, and she
circulated this proposal a couple days ago and I can't add much to it at this
point but I can see our next action will be to figure out some scheduling so we
can get our town administrators and delegation from this commission in informal meetings
with these consultants to help us craft our own proposal, our own RFP for going ahead with
I'd like to just interject a question.
We have also been addressing the subject of the 1985-86 county cultural survey.
I understand that some of that information is 40 years old and therefore out of date
and we also are facing a process to update that information.
Am I right about that?
Well, what we're doing is, when I select the houses,
I'm looking for ones that match the descriptions.
And then at the end of that, anything that's been altered,
then we'll have whoever we choose to come in
and do a new report on those.
Okay, so you will be identifying some properties
So a mismatch with their description in the old survey.
I just won't select them for designation
and then we'll leave them till the end.
Right.
Should we have this on our mind
as we're talking to these consulting firms
about the Prospect Street, which is a new survey.
I think the question is whether or not the scope of work.
We'll have both kinds of,
We'll have those two processes going and we'll figure out how to structure that one week.
Yeah, I would suggest that if you're, that, so you don't have to do it twice.
Yeah.
That the scope of work for, for the RFP would include this review of properties that need
to have a second look because the potential changes since 1986.
I hope we just add that to the scruffle work.
Can I also, I know our focus, our next focus is prospect, and then Montress would
have her homes, but I think if there's, I think whenever you look at this book you're
going to look at like a group of homes. If there's others that fall outside of
those two neighborhoods that you think should be looked at as well, I would
include those. So it should say you're gonna give them a list of this many
places. You're gonna have a set list of homes that they're gonna look at, but
that doesn't necessarily have to be all of Prospect.
Because I think you guys have designated homes in mind
that you wanted to look at again, right?
It's not everywhere.
Well, I think what we're gonna do is
we're gonna do the mantras with the ones,
these guys will have to look at some of them,
not many of them, and then Prospect Street.
Outside of those districts,
I don't think we've decided what we're doing yet.
So, for example, there's a proposed Clark Street, but I think, do we have to, do they
have to have like a vote to decide whether they want to be a historic district or something?
I saw that for some other time, 50% or more had to agree to.
But we could designate individual homes.
But keep in mind that if the district or the homes are not in the master plan then you
have to either amend the master plan or the council can vote, a majority vote to approve
and will not withstand the fact that it's not in the master plan.
There are some mid-century houses I think that we should probably also be including.
Yeah, but I think it's just order and we're doing, we're doing mantros, then we're going to do prospects.
Yeah, just if anyone knows of any to sort of start working on a, you know, a tentative list so that we don't have to track them all down.
It might, it might be just from your common knowledge that there were properties that, you know, they have to be designated first before you can regulate them.
So if there's one that's coming down next week, it's too late, right?
But if there are particularly important properties that you think should be designated to protect them in the future
so we don't have a situation like we had over on Ridge Road, Ridgewood Road,
then you probably start making that list.
For purposes of informal consultation with these survey firms,
should we try and at least have an idea of the number of properties that they might be dealing with
so that they have a sense of whether this is a big project or...
I think we'd have that number for the Prospect Street Historic District Town.
I think I have to find out if they're going to do them like, you know, dollars per house
or did we get a quantity discount or what? I don't know.
Yeah, well, that's definitely part of it and we have to know what it's gonna cost
Jacob, I think you're right. I think that was
That number was in my memo
I
just want to bring up the 99 boats again. That is not in Montrose
No, it is the 99 both Street is not in Montrose. So it's it's not part of the Montrose Park district
So then it's not regulated. Yeah
And I think it's also, I don't know,
is that a commercial building?
I believe so.
So it would not go to the Port of Adjustment either
for changes to it or go to the plan?
Well, I can't write them a letter
about demolition by neglect of a house that's not regulated.
Right, it's not, I don't think it is.
All right, everyone.
The reason I looked it up because the demolition
by neglect says that in a district,
a historic, an officially designated historic landmark
or contributing structure within a historic district
shall not be allowed to be deteriorated by neglect.
So I wanted to see if
it was contributing
and it's-
It's not in the role.
Yeah, it's not in the district, yep.
Okay, anybody else have anything for the subcommittee?
No?
Public comment?
I just want to mention,
those of you that weren't here,
you're going to get a memo from me
about proposed federal regulations that will significantly curtail gut of the Section 106
process that the administration has proposed, and there'll be an opportunity.
It hasn't gone to the Federal Register yet, but when it does, there'll be a great human
cry across the country, so you might want to maybe even participate in that comment.
I'm sending it out to, you know, all the people I represent.
So now I have another question for you, William.
So now we've done what we need to do for the houses that we've done.
Do I have to, if I come up with another list, and I guess I can do another 20,
because obviously it wasn't that bad, do I have to wait and give that to the
commission first
And say this is what I want to designate and then notice or can I come up with a list to give it to Jetty?
It's a can you notice?
I mean, I'm just picking. I mean you you want to give
Chairman's discretion to pick the next list or do you want to see the list first?
I think the committee had to approve doesn't the committee have to the Commission have to approve?
I mean we're doing an action. Yeah, but I mean we're doing all of them. It's just the order in which we're doing that I
I mean, would that require a vote in a meeting or is this something we can just do in an email?
I was thinking that too.
I was like, maybe what we do is give them to Jettie.
Jettie sends out an email to a group, you know, just don't communicate between each other on it, right?
But what I would do is we can work on this.
But in the email to say, if you have any concerns about any property on this list, you know, let Jettie know, let me know, and we can do it.
I would have come up with a list but I figured this would be such a long and tiresome meeting
that I wanted to see how it went before I did it and nobody had any complaints.
Thank you.
Right.
I just feel like we should say we're going to designate all other contributing properties
at the next meeting and how everybody comes.
I would wait on that because it'll be interesting to see who shows up at the council meeting.
I mean they can always go to the council because there's public comment at the council for the second reading. Yeah, I'm playing.
I thought we put that in the letter.
No, you can't deny them their right to speak before the council.
Oh, actually it's like a court. You don't go to if you don't show up the court, you can't go to the appeals court and say, well, I don't agree with what they said.
Except that this is not an appeals court. This is this is a de novo review.
I will not be here next month.
I need some surgery, which you can talk about while flying.
But so I will, I'm actually encouraged by what happened here tonight
because if somebody else is going to fill in for me,
maybe it's not going to be as traumatic as we thought it would be,
but we'll figure out.
One of my other associates who does these questions for me.
I mean, in the beginning, I'm trying to pick houses
that there's no way that somebody can come back
and say, hey, that's not architecturally significant.
OK.
Motion to adjourn.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
OK.
Here goes the gavel.