The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-09-11 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes �; N: � e �� I� � �TC�I�.I� P"FF�E� � �V�TI�� '� ��.I �� S I�� .� .� c�T� �� . HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2025, 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 73 HARLOW STREET MEETING MINUTES Commission Members Present: Edmund Chernesky Nathaniel King Rebecca Krupke Anne Marie Quin Liam Riordan Citv Staff Present: Matthew Altiero, Planning Analyst Anne Krieg, Development Director Mike Pullen, HPC Consultant Chair Chernesky called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Old Business: 1. Meetinq Minutes —August 14, 2025 Vice Chair Riordan noted that his name was misspelled in the meeting minutes — Development Director Anne Krieg confirmed that this will be corrected. Riordan moved to approve the August 14th meeting minutes. Commissioner Quin seconded. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. � Adoption of Findinqs & Decisions for 18 West Broadwav and 120 Park Street Commissioner Quin moved to adopt the Findings & Decisions for 18 West Broadway and 120 Park Street. Commissioner King seconded. Roll call vote conducted -- all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. New Business: 3. Certificate of Appropriateness — 42 West Broadwav — Map-Lot 022-053 —Whitnev Park Historic District —Applicant/Owner: Steven Thomason -Approval requested for Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing slate roof and replace with slate- like asphalt roofing. The property is located at Map-Lot 022-053, in the Whitney Park Historic District. 73 I IA�.L�C3'W' STF�EET. �,Af�1C_,��, �vtE s�41C�1. ,.1"EL�C'1:9C)N�. (�C}7) �)�2-4��Q FA.�: (�C37� `745-��"� t�'V'W W.��A N�;C��f�h.��N E.C�C7 V Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes September iit", 2025 Chair Chernesky introduced the agenda item. Applicant Steven Thomason presented to the podium and provided an overview of the application. Thomason invited his contractor to the podium to provide additional details on the proposed roofing material to the Commission. HPC Consultant Mike Pullen provided an overview of his written memo on this application. Chair Chernesky asked Commissioners for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Riordan asked about the color of the proposed roofing material —Applicant Thomason responded and clarified why this color was chosen. Also noted that there is asphalt roofing on many other nearby homes. Riordan also asked about the cut of the proposed shingles —Thomason responded and clarified why this was cut pattern was chosen. Chair Chernesky asked if the applicant was intending to mimic the distressed look of the existing roof—Thomason confirmed this and noted that he would like to use the proposed roofing material on the garage, as well, if approval received from the Commission. Commissioner Krupke asked if the applicant had any of the other roofing material options available for the Commissioners to look at—Applicant Thomason confirmed that he did and provided pictures to the Commission. Vice Chair Riordan asked if the roofing contractors repair slate roofing or not—they confirmed that they do not. Riordan asked if there are other roofing materials available that would more closely mimic the appearance of the existing roof—the contractors responded that there may be other materials on the market, but not they work with. HPC Consultant Pullen provided a list of slate roofing contractors in the area—Applicant Thomason confirmed that all of these contractors had been contacted and one was retired, one reported that they were booking two years out just for a quote, and the others did not respond to his inquiries. Commissioner Krupke expressed a feeling that the proposed roofing material looks more distressed than the existing roof. Vice Chair Riordan asked to clarify the portion of the application addressing how the work will be performed —Applicant Thomason responded and confirmed that the proposal is to have the existing roof removed and replaced with the proposed roofing material. Chair Chernesky opened the public comments. Member of the public Justin Cartier presented to the podium and expressed support for the applicant's proposal — referenced the Comprehensive Plan and the challenges in securing a slate roof contractor as concerns to keep in mind when reviewing requests to replace slate roof with alternative materials. Discussed at length with HPC Consultant Pullen and Applicants Steven & Angela Thomason. The applicant's contractors also presented to the podium to provide additional evidence in support of alternative roofing materials, and provided additional context regarding Cartier's concerns over securing slate roof contractors. Applicant Steven Thomason presented to the podium and provided additional context for his proposal, and expressed additional concern over the challenges already discussed. Chair Chernesky closed the public comments. Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes September iit", 2025 Vice Chair Riordan expressed a feeling that the slate roof is a defining feature of the applicant's home, but also that the applicant appears to have made a good-faith effort to pursue repair of their existing slate roofing. Expressed support for the applicant's proposal. Commissioner King expressed agreement with Vice Chair Riordan, and also mentioned that these types of issues should be addressed in reviewing the Historic Preservation section of the City's Code of Ordinances. Commissioner Krupke encouraged the Commission to consider the shortage of slate roof contractors in reviewing these types of applications. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that the application was deemed complete on September 11, 2025. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Commissioner King moved that the Commission find that the applicant paid all applicable fees. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Commissioner King moved that the Commission find that the proposed project is a Certificate of Appropriateness. Seconded by Vice Chair Riordan. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-8, the application satisfied Historic Preservation Code §148-9A requiring that any alteration, construction, movement, or demolition will preserve or enhance its historical and architectural character. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —3 in favor, 2 (Vice Chair Riordan and Chair Chernesky) opposed. Motion failed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-8, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code § 148-9B(2)(b) requiring that rehabilitation work does not destroy the distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure and its environment and that the removal or alteration of any unique architectural features is avoided wherever possible. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted — 3 in favor, 2 (Vice Chair Riordan and Chair Chernesky) opposed. Motion failed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds/does not find that, based on Exhibits 2-8, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code § 148-9B(2)(c) requiring that, while repair is preferable to replacement, in the event that replacement of deteriorated architectural features is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and finish. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —3 in favor, 2 (Commissioners Krupke and Quin) opposed. Motion failed. Vice Chair Riordan asked if individual motions on the review standards could pass with only 3 affirmative votes, even though 4 affirmative votes are needed for the final decision. Development Director Anne Krieg confirmed that that 4 affirmative votes are needed for the individual motions on the review standards, as well. Commissioner Krupke discussed the last review standard that the Commission moved on (regarding repair vs. replacement) with the rest of the Commission at length. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-8, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code § 148-9B(2)(d) requiring that distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structures is not damaged or destroyed, Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes September iit", 2025 wherever possible. Seconded by Commissioner King. Commissioner Krupke commented on the phrase "wherever possible" — noted that this could pertain to the shortage of slate roof contractors. Roll call vote conducted —4 in favor, 1 (Vice Chair Riordan) opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that Historic Preservation Code § 148-9B(2)(e), requiring that the changes which have taken place in the course of time have acquired historic significance in their own right are retained and preserved wherever possible, is not applicable to this application. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-8, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code § 148-9B(2)(i) requiring that, wherever possible, all alterations to structures are to be done in such a manner that if they were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Riordan also asked HPC Consultant Pullen if the existing slate roof would be original to the home— Pullen confirmed that it likely is. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —4 in favor, 1 (Vice Chair Riordan) opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-3 and 8-11, the property cannot yield a reasonable economic return or the owner cannot make any reasonable use of the property. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-3 and 8-11, the plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances and not to the general applicability of this chapter. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted — all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan asked for clarification regarding the language of the next review standard regarding exceptional circumstances — Development Director Krieg responded and clarified. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-3 and 8-11, the conditions or circumstances which constitute the hardship were not caused or created by the property owner after an amendment to Chapter 148-5 by which the property became subject to said chapter. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission finds that, based on the findings made in Part 3 of Section IV of this document, the failure to issue the Certificate of Appropriateness would result in undue hardship to the owner of the property and therefore the Commission grants a Certificate of Appropriateness permit for the proposed Project. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. � Other Business Chair Chernesky asked that the Commission schedule an additional meeting to discuss the Historic Preservation section of the City's Code of Ordinances. Discussed with Commissioners and Development Director Anne Krieg. Commissioner King moved that the Historic Preservation Commission hold a meeting at 6:00 PM on Wednesday, October 1. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes September iit", 2025 5. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Maquillan Development Assistant Planning Division