WASHINGTON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Scheduled Meeting - Agenda Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:00 PM  -  -  I. II.  Opening of the meeting Invocation III. Roll call  IV. Old Business = Major Works  1. A request has been made by Ms. Patricia Lewis for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 6' privacy fence in her backyard located at 409  E. Second Street.  V. Certificate of Appropniateness  A. Major Works  1. Ar request has been made by Ms. Sarah Ninan for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a cedar tree in the front lawn of the property 2. Arequest has been made by Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Diane Lewis for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install gates and fencing to enclose the existing fence on the property located at 227 E. Second Street.  located at 621 W. Main Street.  B. Minor Works  1. Ar request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 401 N. Market Street to replace the HVAC 2. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 101 N. Bridge Street to install vinyl signs on the building. A 4'x8' sign will be located on the north side of the building while a2'x16' sign will be placed on the west side of the building. 3. A request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 221-225 West Main Street to repair loose brick at the peak of the front façade of the structure. The owner will stabilize the damaged brick by wrapping it with aluminum. Aluminum will match other  unit in the same location on the property.  features on the façade.    VI. Other Business  1. Design Guidelines - Masonry  VII. Approval of Minutes - November 3rd, 2015  VIII. Adjourn  2    OLD  BUSINESS    409 E. Second ST.  Installation of a privacy  fence on a tertiary  elevation    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Street Address of Property: Historic Property/Name (if applicable):  Please use Black Ink  H09E, and Street  Owner's Name: Lot Size:  Ratricia Lewis/lori taree  feet by  feet.  (width)  (depth)  Have barn origiral to,  Brief Description of Work to be Done:  howse yat AE suiky  Instoll 28 livanfuc priay fugtr photo atlachoh, We would Vike 4 YokcL W najarly ol hck yard- Steppel li 50l notpun Ama  Abit el hous br Sopuniky and  Rud  pri/apeg  t hake Sparg for MA4 angte be butsido wikhaat  worryjng about him a Pwo dout waict fo lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  3n YRe 4 meetingMide E NC27889 7Zipc Code)  Preservation Commission  must be submitted by 5:00  on the 15th of the  p.m.  month prior to the Lori Hardee Washin gbn  Lwish to attend; otherwise consideration will be  delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incompleteot  Office Use Only (Date Received) Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval  Patlewis (Name of7 Applicant -1 type or print) HD9 E,an St. (Mailing Address) (Date) Aat (Signature of Applicant)  (Initials)  ACTION  352-417-4534 Lwis  (Daytime Phone Number) BbnBgo  (Date)  (Authorized  Signature)  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes a Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor Works Certificate of Appropriateness. It is valid until  Issuance of a Minor  to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    Proposal WHITEHURST and SON'S FENCE CO, INC. P.O. BOX6083 GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27835 PHONE (252) 752-2736 NC 1-800-682-6555 FAX(252)7 752-7894 ATFN:  PROPOSAL SUBMITTED1 TO Pat Lewis 4091 E. 2nd. St. CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE Washington, NC 27889 Estimator Bob Kennedy Weh herabys submt specifications ande estimatesf for: 2)2x4 4 Back Rails 3)1x6 Dog Eared Pickets  DATE 8/26/2015  JOBI NAME &. JOBL LOCATION PHONE 917-4534 FAX pawiwiss@omallcom  Install 278 L.F. of Pressure Treated Pine Privacy Fence  1)6x6 Double Gate Posts/4 x4 Singie Gate-Fence Posts-French Gothic Top  4) One(1) 10' Wide Double Gate On Aluminum Frame 5) Two(2) 4' Wide Single Gates On Aluminum Frames TERMS: 50% Deposit/Balance On Completion  Total Labor and Materials:  WEF PROPOSE herebyt tot fumish material: and labor- to completei ina accordance with aboves specifications, fort thes sum of:  As Above Paymentt tob ber made: asf follows: As Above Authorized Signature_  NOTE: This proposal may! bey withdrawn by usi ifnota accepted within 15 days. Acceptance of Proposal The above prices specifications and conditions are satisfactory anda arel hereby accepted. You: are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Should payment noth be paid as agreed, any cost of collection including interest and attomey's fees, etc. shall  Signature. Signature_  bep paid byt the customer. Date of Acceptance:        I            NS'  6  Too) 7 Sies  24  Rs  2E09  1ab  l26  agE    w  Poube  ESpmdse    10/28/2015  BeaufortPropertyl Photos  Beaufort County Property Photos  PIN: 01017628  Photo: 01017628.Jpg  Copyright 2015 by Mobile311,LLC  mp.wetsmohidilcmmbatriPdimiyasasppn-0io7ea  1/1    Printed October: 28, See Belowf for Disclaimer  E HOSTING  CONNEGIGIS  2015  Parceis  Propeny Land Owners interier Tract Unes Centeriines &wuw County Lne (Selld) State  pseFeet    wIM )999 PIN LONG 585-07-2387 AILING ADDRESS 191 EAST 2ND STREET TATE C CRES BRE BLDG LDGVAL 78631 BHD CDE JB DESC AND USE IBL 5850992 RBUILT 371 BR BATHS ENSUS BLOCK BR HALF BATHS  Las 01017628 OWNER NAME HARDEE LORI CLARECE MAILING ADDRESS2  as 5685-07-2387 OWNER NAME2 LEWIS PATRICIA WILLIAMS CITY WASHINGTON PROPERTY ADDRESS 2ND: STREET MAP SHEET 568509 LAND VAL 50000 TOT VAL 228631 SUBC CDE SALE PRICE 111000 PROP DESC 1LOT409E2 2ND STREET ROAD TYPE P NBR BED 4 EXEMPT PROP NBR STORIES 3 ZONE RHD  ZIP 27889 ACCT NBR 921915 DEED BOOK and PAGE 1876/0028 DEFR VAL 0 NBHD DESC HISTORICAL STAMPS 222 DISTRICT 1 EXEMPT AMT SOFI 3016 EFFYR 1991 FLOOD PLAIN DATE 06/29/2015  ufort County online map access is provided asap publics service, asi is, as available and without warranties, expressed ori implied. Content published on this websitei is informational purposes only andi is not intended to constitute al legal record nor should it be substituted for the advice or services ofi industry professionals. Thel unty of Beaufort and thel Website Provider disclaim allr responsibility andl legall liability fort the content published ont this website." The user agreest that Beaufort County  lits Assigns shall be! held harmless froma alla actions, claims, damages orj judgments arising out oft the use of County data.    Staff Report  409 East Second Street  The application for the propertyl located at 409 East Second Street is requesting approval toi installa6 6 The applicant would like to install a 278 linear foot privacy fence. The fence will enclose the majority of the backyard, including the original barn. The perimeter willl be: stepped in a few feet from the outer  foot privacy fence on the tertiary elevation oft the property.  edge oft the house sO not be as noticeable from the streetscape. The Design Guidelines states in Chapter 4.61 Fences and Walls:  Chapter 4.6.6 "New fences and walls should be ofa design thati is appropriate to the Chapter 4.6.8 "Privacy fencing shall only be allowed in the rear yard. Ifa majority ofa a privacy fence is visible from the publici right-of-way, al landscape buffer shall bei included. Not fence,  architectural style and period of the historic structure." including a privacy fence, shall exceed six (6) feeti in height."    Adjacent Property Owners = 409 East 2nd Street  Donald Perkins 605 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 George Nemecz 2225 Dungiven Ct. Garner, NC 27592 Tim Crompton 421 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Virgil Carroll Jenkins Jr 412 East Main Street Washington, NC 27889 Attila Nemecz 415 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 John Baugher 414 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Daniel Mallison PO Box 2005 Washington, NC 27889 Rita Buck PO Box 808 Chocowinity, NC 27817 First Christian Church 401 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889    C  City  CITY OF WASHINGTON  Washington  NORTH CAROLENZ DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT 01 HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Subject: Certificate of Appropratenes-4O9EZ" Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted in the Washington Historic District all property owners within 100 feet oft the proposed construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington. According to the application submitted by the City of Washington, your propety is located within 100 feet of the above referenced property.  A request has been made by the owner to install a 6f foot high wooden privacy fence  to enclose the rear propertyy yard.  You are welcomed and encouraged to attend the reularly scheduled meeting oft the Washington  Historic Commission. Please note thei following date, time, and place:  Date: Tuesday November 3, 2015  Place: City Hall- Municipal building, 102 East Second Street. Enter from the Market  Street side oft the building and goi to the second floor.  Time: 7:00 PM  Int the meantime, should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  Omilgy Ohebert Emily Rebert Community Development Planner Historic Preservation rehettahnasntsw 252.946.0897    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION  To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Emily Rebert, Planning & Development Re: 409 East Second Street- Construction ofa at fence  A request has been made by Ms. Pat Lewis fora Certificate of Appropriateness to add a six foot high wooden fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 409 East Second. Street. Please review the Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter40Streetscpe and Site Design To grant such a request, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings of fact, which are included int the sample motions below. Any conditions the Commission feels  Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.  appropriate may be attached to the motion.  Possible. Actions  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Pat Lewis to add a six foot high wooden privacy fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 409 East Second Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application iscongruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter  4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and' Walls.  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission, grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Pat Lewis to add a six foot high wooden privacy fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 409 East Second Street. This motion is based on the following findings ofi fact: the application isc congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls. further move that the Historic  Preservation Commission place thet following conditions on the approval:  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Pat Lewis to add a six foot high wooden privacy fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 409 East Second Street. This motion is based on thet following findings of fact: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically  Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.    MAJOR  WORKS    621W.Main ST.  Removal of cedar tree in  front yard    APPLICATION FOR. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Street Address of Property: Historic Property/Name (ifa applicable): Owner's Name: Barah Ninan  Please use Black Ink  621 w9Mau Bsf  Lot Size:  feet by  feet.  (width)  (depth)  Brief Description of Work tol be Done:  Roparty Ouner wovld. lke. ho Nnoue a Cudar hoA. iutw fod yard, TGRo. sB obstruchicn to tua. uakadyaaTa i larur HARN loluckas in dinglaeu.ia. E . isuot hiskovic.  understand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by the Historic Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. ont the 15th of the month prior to the meeting lwish to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. Anincomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  Office Use Only (Date Received) Approved Approved with Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval (Date)  Barah Ninan (Name of7 Applicant- type or print) (o&1 W.Haingt. (Mailing Address) (Date)  (Initials)  ACTION Conditions  37632 Code) (Zip  290coarRGI5 C.252-72l-0112  (Daytime Phone Number)  (Authorized Signature)  sgnaure of amarz 4  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomesa Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor Works Certificate of Appropriateness. Iti is valid until  Issuance of a Minor  other  any  to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work. Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.            Beaufort County Property Photos  PIN: 01029565  Photo: 01029565.jpg  Copyright 2015 by Mobile311,LLC    Sea  CONNEÇTGIS  Prinsad November. 19. See Below for Discla  WES HOSTING 45679664226.  Parcels  5675-59-2256;  Property Land Owners  5675:6906f, 3675.601030 67.602915 89 5.675:B8:2877 15675:68:5803  SA  GPIN  Interior Tract Lines Centerlines County Line County Line (Solid)  5676-69-0066  State  58-9965  5673-69.1030  567568:3927  5675-60-2917  5675:682877  1:47 Feet    OBJECTID 6524 GPINLONG 5675-69-1030 MAILING ADDRESS 621 W MAIN! ST STATE NC ACRES o NBR BLDG 2 BLDGVAL 236855 NBHD CDE WSMW SUB DESC LAND USE MBL 567500195 VR BURLI 1922 NBR BATHS 2 CENSUS BLOCK NBR HALF BATHS  PIN 01029565 OWNERNAME NINAN SARAHG MAILING ADDRESS2  GPIN 5675-69-1030 OWNERNAME2 NINAN PHILPT CITY WASHINGTON PROPERIV/ADDRESS 621 W MAIN ST MAP SHEET 567500 LAND VAL 341453 TOTVAL 578308 SUBCDE SALEPRICE PROP DESC 1LOT WEST MAIN STREET ROAD TYPE P NBRI BED 4 EXEMPT PROP NER STORIES 3 ZONE R8  ZIP 27889 ACCT NBR 903851 DEED BOOK and PAGE 1764/0843 DEFRVAL 0 NBHD DESC STAMPS DISTRICT 1 EXEMPT AMT SQFI 7544 EFFYR 1971 FLOODPLAIN DATE 10/19/2011  WEST SIDE MAIN WATERFRONT  Beaufor County online map access is provided as a public: service. asi is. as avalable and without warrantes. expressed or implied. Content published on ths weoste - ori informational purposes only andj is no: intended to constinute a legal record nor should i be substituted for the adve or serviges ofi industry profersiona's Thel ccunty ofBeaufon and: the Website Provider disclaim all responsibilicy andi legalk labiity for the contenz published ont this website The user agrees that Bea.forCount,  andis Assiges shalbe held harmless from all actions claims damages orj judgments ansingo.tofthe use of County data.    Adjoining Property Owners: James and Judy Chestnutt 627 West Main! ST Washington NC 27889 Adele Randall 626 West Main ST Washington NC27889 Crawford and Karen Mann 624 West Main ST Washington NC: 27889 Philip Broome 612 West Main! ST Washington NC 27889 Ashley and Susan Futrell POBOX1788 Washington NC27889    DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT & HISTORIC PRESERVATION  City.  Washindton  NORTH CAROLINA  November 23, 2015  Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness - 621 West Main Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted in the Washington Historic District all property owners within 100 feet of the proposed construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington. According to the application submitted by the City of Washington, your property is  located within 100 feet of the above referenced property.  Ar request has been made by the owner of 621 West Main Street to remove a cedar tree  in the front yard of the property.  Ifyou would like to see plans for this work, please visit the City Planning Office prior to the meeting. You are welcomed and encouraged to attend the reularly scheduled meeting of the Washington  Additionally, the full application is available on the city website. Historic Commission. Please note the following date, time, and place:  Date: Tuesday December1, 2014  Place: City Hall - Municipal building, 102 East Second Street. Enter from the Market Street  side of the building and go to the second floor.  Time: 7:00 PM  In the meantime, should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  Community Development Planner Historic Preservation 252-946-0897 reber@washngomnegox  T    Staff Report  621 West Main Street  The application for the property located at 621 West Main Street is requesting approval to remove: a The pine tree'sroot system is beginning to! break up the driveway and causing damage. The tree stands on the front corner of the property, against the sidewalk. The sidewalk has already had repair done asa result of the root system breaking the concrete. The tree appearsawkward, because itr requires hard The Design Guidelines discusses tree removal in Section 4.1.8 and 4.1.9. It states the removal of significant trees should be done ifi it has a disease, storm damage, or isa as safety hazard to historic structures. Once the tree is removed, thel home owner has sixty days to replace it with another suitable  cedar treei int the front yard of the property.  pruning to keepi it off the right-of-way of the sidewalk.  species.    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION  To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Emily Rebert, Planning & Development  Re: The owner of 621 West Main Street has submitted a request to remove: a cedar tree in the front yard  of the property.  Arequest has been made by Ms. Sarah Nina to remove a cedar tree in the front yard of the property located at 621 West Main Street. To grant such a request, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings off fact, which are included in the sample motions below. Any conditions the Commission feels appropriate may be attached to the motion.  Possible. Actions  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission; grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Ninan to remove a cedar tree located in the front yard of the property! located at 621 West Main Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 4.1 Landscaping.  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Ninan to remove a cedar tree located in thet front yard of the property located at 621 West Main Street. This motion is based on the following findings off fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 4.1 Landscaping. I further move that the Historic Preservation Commission place the following conditions on the  approval:  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission denya a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Ninan to remove a cedar tree located in the front yard of the property located at 621 West Main Street. This motion is based on thet following findings off fact: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 4.1  Landscaping.    227E. - Second ST.  Installation of gates and  fencing to enclose  standing fence    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889  Please use Black Ink  Street Address of Property: 227E2 st Historic Property/Name (if applicable): Tows Larwnn Howsc  Owner's Name: Lot Size:  Ambrosr anh fiane Lewis  1o6 (width)  feet by  200 (depth)  feet.  Brief Description of Work to be Done: Tailalkti  Kgites to enclose  Existiy privey A wire Fncing in  biek yack  lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropniateness that require review by the Historic Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 15th of the month prior to the meeting Iwish to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  Office Use Only (Date Received) Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval (Date)  Lewis  (Name Applicant-type or print)  Aakri  (Initials)  ACTION  227E2 s7 27889 10-29-15 (252)4-1405  (Mailing Address) (Date) -  (Zipo Code) Phone Number)  (Authorized Signature)  (Signature of Applicant)  a  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes a Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor' Works Certificate of Appropriateness. It is valid until  Issuance of a Minor  tot the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    COATO INSTALL NEW FENCING AT 227E2"D STREET  COATO INSTALL NEW FENCING AT 227 E2ND STREET  ARPG  PARKINA BEIAAHER  21 -PARKIAS  BAR  A27EARSRI  RARKIAA  ERRE  EABY and BTRERT  9  SITE PLAN KEYED TO REFERENCE NOTESITHRUONF FOLLOWING PAGES  SITE PLAN KEYED TO REFERENCE NOTES1THRU70N. FOLLOWING PAGES    REFERENCE NOTES:  1 New 6' high privacy fence toi include 12' double gate with 6' gates. Proposed fence to bei installed from SE corner of carport to within 6" of the East property line (approx. 30'). Ab boundary survey for lots 227 and 331 was performed in August 2015 and has been  registered at the courthouse.  Existing view of proposed newi fence location  Proposed new fence, style to match existing  2 New 4' high picket fence toi include a 4' gate. Proposed fence to bei installed between  front of garage and the rear deck (approx. 8').  Existing view of proposed newi fence location  Proposed new fence, style to match existing  3 New 4' high picket fence to includea4 4' gate. Proposed fence to be installed between  rear of garage tot the SW corner of carport (approx. 12').  Existing view of proposed new fence location  Proposed new fence, style to match existing    4 New 4' high picket fence to include a 4' gate. Proposed fence tol be installed between rear SW corner of house tot the adjacent existing privacy fence (approx. 8').  Existing view of proposed new fence location  Proposed newi fence, style to match existing  New 6' high privacy fence to include 4' gate. Proposed fence to bei installed from side of house (approx. 17' from rear corner of house) to the existing adjacent 6' privacyt fence (approx. 8'). Guidelines variance requested for security of family dog, this location is not  easily visible from street but it is accessible to passersby..  Existing view of proposed new fence location  Proposed new fence, style to match existing  5 Redo existing unfinished picket fence to closely match the existing white picketfence (same height, style andi finish) that borders the front of the property' West to East.  AAAAN    Existing view of proposed fence modification location  7 New 6' high, privacy fence style, double gate with one 4' gate and one 8' gate. Proposed fence to be installed between rear of garage and the SE corner of carport  (approx. 12').  Existing view of proposed new fence location  Proposed new fence, style to match existing  8 New 4' high picket fence. Proposed fence tol be installed between East corner of the proposed privacyfence in Note 1 and the SE corner of the 331 lot (approx. 100' due  South).  Willustbo, vujurold  Ws.Peury.  Proposed new fence, style to match existing  GENERAL NOTES:  a. The COA property actually encompasses two lots that are identified as 227 and 331 East b. All new fencing will be pressure treated wood and will need to curet through the end There is an existing six foot privacy fence along the Westernmost property line that we are trying to match in style and the neighbor directly South of us has a similar privacy d. The site plan on thet first page was clipped from a landscaping master plan wish list that the property owners hope to achieve over time and as such much of the vegetation  Second Street  Summer 2016 before anyf finish coating can be applied.  fence.  indicated does not yet exist.    ESECONDST 6 SITE MAINST VENTYMPMOTTOSGAD) SIDEWIALK 1EP! FLU  TRMATASANEMYC: AAESTING! PARGEL ORPARCELSOF LANDA ANDIGES NOT GREATEA WSIETCIA, ANE EXISTONGS STREET  - 5257  EAST SECOND STREET SFRIGHT-GF-WAY AMESTALENST 1337  NBV 23828 1REP 388R8 BURO2 BURDS $82'3341"E 29.73  352488E-  5247  $5234M43E 1EP FLU  PORCH  PARMINS  TWOSTORY WOODFRAME RESIDENCE  EASTERNS 1210113 PUNGOTCN  R CROEY De1 1760 PG280 PGG358  DECK  NF. MOORING DB1708 PG3 MAPDB853 PG338  PARKING SARAGE  SEAL L3397  WESTERN 12LOT13: PUNGO1 TOWN  AREA. 028AC. 11,211SF  MA. OZSAS 11445SF.  COMBNEDA AREA 051AS. 22,2565F. REFERENCE A-081 1847 PG24 B-D81 1847 P027 MB16PG4 3"EIP EXPG.S NF. D8777 INGALIS PG638  POSSESION/ APPEARS1 10 AUMWATHFENCE. N823048W N/F CONNARD 304 0B1 1758 PG868  MERB BURGS 62.71, $28"4047W 14PEPBUROS  12EP DOTSON DB5091 PG106 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"m2V 20 30 40 SURVEYEOR. AMBROSE! B.. LEWS AND CIYOFY WABHINGION BEAUFORT COUNTY HORACAOLINA AUGUST18, 2015 JMES ALBERA. PMOFESSICAAL! LAND BURVEYORIL339I 5321381 HAVENROAD RATH. NG. 27808 PHONE NUMBER (252) 904-2192  N622732W 5096 EXPOS NF MAYBEFVDENCEOFOAP NF BOWEN D81 1852 PG222 LEGEND EPEMSTING MONPPE ERBHEKISTNG EBAR E: CVEEADUINTES PCKSTFENGE : WATER) METER NF= MOWORPCMEY GURB TALL WCOOFENGE DMAPDATEDW VRE PENGE BuR: BURNO. EXPSEKPOBED LAISGAPE TMBERS  LN JAMESJ ALBERA. CERTIFVI THAT1 THIS! PLATWAS DRAMN UNDERA MYS SUPERMISIONFROMA AMACTUAL SURVEYMADE UNDER MYS SUPERMISIONE USING RECORDED! DEEDA ANDI PIATF REFERENCES UNRECORDED MAPSI IF ANV, ANDEVIDENCEL FOUNDUPONT TME LAND, ALLA ASGHANHEREDN THAT THE! BOUNDARESNOT SURVEYED, IF ANY, AKE CLEARLY MDICATEDASBEN DRAWNFROMI MFORMATIONS SPECHFIGALIYE REFEHEMGED HEREON THAT THE RATIOOF PHECISICNA ASGALCULATED 1S1:1 10.0804 ANDI THATT THISPIAT! WAS PREPAREDIN/ ACCDADANCE WIHGS. 47-30AS AMMENDED. WINEBSA MY ORGINAL SMNATURE, REGISTRATON NMBERPNDS,ALT THiS 1a OF AUGUST. 2015. AMETTS   ORMTAL PRPERIYLME DANEM, EWS  3937    Beaufort County Property Photos  PIN: 01003859  Photo: 01003859.pg 01-003859  mm  Copyright 2015 by Mobile311,LLC    11/19/2015  ConnectGIS! Featurel Report  Beaufort  CONNEÇIGIS  Printed November 19, 2015 See Belowf for Disclaimer  wEs HOATINO 5676 601  6675906070 Parcels  Land Owners  597384 3675.9717  GETOAT  Property GFIN  97473  5675-974538) 36709757E3 12694557597 90 5679-97360  Interior Tract Lines Centerlines Counly Line County Line (Solid) State  5675:973880  5875:97-4730  6675974786  5675:97-5726,  5675:97-2694  5675-07:5757, 3675:975754 1:36Feet  642  W  5675:97:36909  5675:97-453B  mtplpea.tortomectys.mbouniaafieaiasx.sR.meparass,OAAotERPT2RAATS-pinte  1/2    11/19/2015 OBJECTID 7121 GPINLONG 5675-97-4738 MAILING ADDRESS 227 E2 2ND STREET STATE NC ACRES o NBR BLDG 1 BLDG VAL 192647 NBHD CDE H SUB DESC LAND USE MBL 567508182 YR BUILT 1880 NBR BATHS CENSUS BLOCK NBR HALF BATHS 0  ConnectGIS Featurel Report  PIN 01003859 OWNER NAME LEWIS AMBROSE B MAILING ADDRESS2  GPIN 5675-97-4738 OWNER NAME2 LEWIS DIANE M CITY WASHINGTON PROPERTY, ADDRESS 227E2NDST MAP SHEET 567508 LAND VAL 55650 TOT VAL 248297 SUB CDE SALE PRICE PROP DESC ROADTYPE P NBR BED 5 EXEMPT PROP NBR STORIES 3 ZONE RHD  ZIP 27889 ACCT NBR 920253 DEED BOOK and PAGE 1847/0024 DEFR VAL 0 NBHD DESC HISTORICAL STAMPS DISTRICT 1 EXEMPT/ AMT SQFT 4296 EFFYR 1979 FLOOD PLAIN DATE 06/06/2014  1LOT227E2ND: ST(W1/2LOT 13)  Beaufort County. online map access isp provided as a public service, as is, as available and without warranties, expressed ori implied. Content published on this websitei is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute al legal record. nor should it be substituted for the advice or services ofi industry professionals. Thel County ofE Beaufort andt the Website Provider disclaim all responsibility and legall liabilityf for the content published ont this website. The user agreest that Beaufort County  andi its Assigns shall bel held! harmless from alla actions, claims, damages ori judgments arising out oft the usec of County data.  aplpeauortcomedys.omDomaafieai.s.magarass,AoHHIT2ARATE-pinio  2/2    Adjoining Property Owners: Kenneth Mooring 221 East2"St Washington NC 27889 Jose Gonzalez 228 East2"ST Washington NC: 27889 Joshua Stiles 232 East2"ST Washington NC27889 Kenneth Crowley 605 Deluth ST Durham NC: 27705 Tony Bowen 228 East Main ST Washington NC 27889 David and Susan Connard 226 East Main ST Washington NC2 27889 Paul and Lillian Arnold 222 East 2ndST Washington NC 27889    DOWNIOWN DEVELOPMENT &H HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Citys  Washington  NORTH CAROLINA  November 23, 2015  Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness - 227 East 2nd Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted in the Washington Historic District all property owners within 100 feet of the proposed construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington. Açcording to the application submitted by the City of Washington, your property is  located within 100 feet of the above referenced property.  A request has been made by the owner of 227 East 2nd Street to install gates and fencing to enclose the existing privacy fence on the back side of the property.  Ifyou would like to see plans for this work, please visit the City Planning Office prior to the meeting. You are welcomed and encouraged to attend the reularly scheduled meeting of the Washington  Additionally, the full application is available on the city website. Historic Commission. Pleasei note the following date, time, and place:  Date: Tuesday December 1, 2014  Place: City Hall- Municipal building, 102 East Second Street. Enter from the Market Street  side of the building and go to the second floor.  Time: 7:00 PM  In the meantime, should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  Emily Rebert Community Development Planner Historic Preservation 252-946-0897 erebert@washingtonnc.gov    Staff Report  227E. Second Street  The application for the property located at 227 East Second Street is requesting approval to installgates Applicants are looking to unifya and enclose the existing fence int their back yard. They will be matching the current fence. The COA property actually encompasses two lots that are identified as 227 and 331 East Second Street. All new fencing will be pressure treated wood and will need to cure through the end summer 2016 before any finish coating can be applied. There is an existing six foot privacy fence along the Western most property line that they are trying to match in style and the neighbor directly south of them has a similar privacy fence. The site plan on the first page was clipped from al landscaping master plan wish list that the property owners hope to achieve over time and as such much of the vegetation indicated does not yet exist.  and fencing to enclose the standing fence on the property.  The Design Guidelines states in Chapter 4.6 Fences and Walls:  Chapter 4.6.8 "Privacy fencing shall only be allowed in the rear yard. Ifa majority of a privacy fence is visible from the public right-of-way, al landscape buffer shall be included. Not fence,  indludingaprivacyt fence, shall exceed six (6) feet in height."    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION  To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Emily Rebert, Planning & Development Re: 227 East Second Street- Construction of ai fence  Arequest has been made by Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Diane Lewis for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install gates and fencing to enclose the rear property yard located at 227 East Second Street. Please review the Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter4.0Streetscope To grant such a request, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings of fact, which are included in the sample motions below. Any conditions the Commission feels  and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.  appropriate may be attaçhed to the motion.  Possible Actions  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission; grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Diane Lewis to install gates and fencing to enclose the existing fence on the propertyl located at 227 E. Second Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Diane Lewis to install gates and fencing to enclose the existing fence on the propertyl located at 227 E.S Second Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the applicationi is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation Commission place the following conditions on the  approval:  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Diane Lewis to install gates andi fencing to enclose the existing fence on the property located at 227 E. Second Street. This motion is based on the following findings off fact: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site Design! Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.    MINOR  WORKS    APPLICATION FOR. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Street Address of Property: Historic Property/Name (if applicable):  Please use Black Ink  46/ AHanht  Owner's Name: Lot Size:  Larer Soivanen  feet by  feet.  (width)  (depth)  Brief Description of Work to be Done: pemove oleR AZC Rogse ocator  ssetodp Reaze  lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by the Historic Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 15th of the month prior to the meeting Iwishi to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  Office Use Only (Date Received) a Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval (Date)  DxentestA C (Name of Applicant-type or print) 704 River Rd wash  (Initials)  ACTION  22889 (Zip Code) 946 6498 Phone Number)  (Mailing Address) 17275 (Date) fo (Signature Applicant)  (Daytime plbor  (Authorized Signature)  of  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes a Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor Works Certificate of Appropriateness. It is valid until  Issuance of al Minor  to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting ofthe Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889  Please use Black Ink  7  Street Address of Property: /dIN Brcge 8f  Historic Property/Name (if applicable):  Owner's Name: Wnyhz (Noalao  Lot Size:  feet by  feet.  (width)  (depth)  Brief Description of Work to be Done:  Signs (ZAIFaN/4xEF) 6n dhe bls 4X8 0h Aach So Ond 2x16 Isob Nst 51  t  Focing Bregt ST  lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by the Historic Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 15th of the month prior to the meeting lwish to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  Office Use Only (Date Received)  Approved ) Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval (Date)  efA Morlck (wameoppicant - type or print) Ahacke (Mailing Address) Svis (Date) oml  (Initials)  ACTION  sh. IA0S.N21689 $y8-1414 (Daytime Phone Number)  (Zip Code)  (Authorized  Signature) 75gnature of7 Applicant)  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes a Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor Works Certificate of Appropnateness. It is valid until  Issuance of al Minor  toi the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Street Address of Property: Historic Property/Name (if applicable):  Please use Black Ink  22/-225 WITMAN S  Owner's Name: Lot Size:  STrONG SHcO AopakieE  /9 (width)  feet by  119 (depth)  feet.  Brief Description of Work tol be Done:  fecer drc Bri'ch Ar-e HINEE 70 Ak ANA.  AS/ AW AUNNUA PANB 70 IoCpVEATE he BeCIES  AVEA 7D Makc ecure  lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by the Historic Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 15th oft the month prior to the meeting wish to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  Office Use Only (Date Received) Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval (Date)  Thi/ M. Aor78irc (Name of Applicant-type or print) YKY SEwNt Aricarg  (Initials) 122  ACTION  278PP (Zip Code) 2270  (Mailing Address) E  252-4K N (Daytime Phone Number)  (Authorized Signature)  Upon being signed and dated below by the Plannipg Department or designee, this application becomes a Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor Works Certificate of Appropriateness.  Itis valid until  Issuance of a Minor  to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work. Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    OTHER  BUSINESS    Washington's Design  Guidelines  Proposal to update  Masonry guidelines    Mashington. NC- Hisioric District Design.Cuidelines  Masonry  Masonry Guidelines  Various types of masonry construction are stucco, and concrete. Buildings in the downtown commercial area are primarily of brick construction while there are also several examples of brick residential structures. Just like with wood, masonry historic character in its texture, color, size and scale, and detailing. architectural detailing includes subtle elements like variations in bond patterns brick cornices, quoins, etc.  found in the district including brick, stone, 3.2.6 Preserve and protect character-  defining masonry architectural features including corbelling, cornices, sills, quoins, foundations  and walls.  construction contributes to a building's 3.2.7 Routinely inspect masonry  features for cracks, loose bricks, and signs of weather damage  This  particular attention to  paying mortar joints.  to more prominent detailing like corbelling, 3.2.8 Caulk may be used around doors  and windows to prevent water penetration. Caulk is not an appropriate material for repointing 3.2.9 Deteriorated masonry units should be repaired rather than replaced using materials that match the original in size, texture, color, and overall appearance. Synthetic materials are prohibited on historic structures for the wholesale covering of a structure.  joints.  Masonry must be property maintained in 3.2.10 Do not apply paint to masonry  order to prevent deterioration. Typical masonry maintenance issues include deteriorated mortar joints, broken or this deterioration is due to the effects of weather as well as improper maintenance  surfaces that were historically not  painted.  chipped bricks, and loose bricks. Much of 3.2.11 Removal of paint from a masonry  structure is encouraged when the underlying masonry units are character defining and are in good condition, and only if safe and proper paint removal procedures are used resulting in no damage  and cleaning.  tot the masonry.  3.2.12 When cleaning is necessary,  proper techniques shouid be used. Use the gentlest means possible including low-pressure washing with detergent and natural soft bristle brushes.  20    Washington, NC Historica District Design Coidelines  Test the cleaning method on a to waterproof masonry as a substitute for small area first because older repointing or repair, water  repellent  brick can be damaged by even coatings low-pressure washing Use caution when utilizing prohibited. chemical cleaners. Testas small area first to determine that no  are permitted as they  do not trap moisture. Sealants are  Metal  damaging effects will occur. Architectural metals are frequently found Run-off from chemical cleaning int the historic district on both residential must be controlled and and non-residential construction. Cast authorized by the City of iron columns, metal roofs, and wrought Washington prior to the iron details are typical metal treatments in Do not use sandblasting or Common maintenance and deterioration high-pressure water blasting to issues include corrosion, rust, and peeling  Washington and are important character- defining elements of historic architecture. paint. Corrosion and rust are particularly deterioration of metal as long as it is  cleaning process. clean historic masonry.  3.2.13 When repair to mortar joints is problematic as they will continue to cause  needed due to cracks, missing and crumbling mortar, and loose exposed. bricks, use proper techniques for Remove deteriorated mortar by hand raking rather than using electric saws and hammers than can damage the brick Match the original texture, strength, composition, color, width, and profile of the historic mortar joints. Repointing with mortar that is as Portland cement, can cause briçk to, crack, break or spall. AT lime based mortar IS recommended for historic brick. In repointing mortar PSI should be used.  repointing.  Metai Guidelines  stronger than the original, such 3.2.14 Preserve and protect character-  defining metal features including cast iron columns, metal roofs, gutters, architectural details, fences, gates, and hardware. for peeling paint, corrosion, and 3.2.16 Deteriorated metal should be repaired rather than replaced. Should the level of deterioration warrant replacement, the element shall match the original in design, color, detail, and material.  joints, mortar ofappropriate 3.2.15 Routinely inspect metal features  rust.  o  3.2.14 A stone strengthener, water repellent or a combination or both may sometimes be used to preserve soft brick, sandstone and porous masonry. lt is not recommended  21    10/22/2015  Preservation Brief 1:Assessing Chamrgaawaa.alst Treatments for Historicl Masonry Buildings  be consulted prior to beginning a cleaning project, especially ifi iti involves anything more than plain water washing. This advance planning will ensure that the cleaning effluent or run-off, which is the combination of the cleaning agent and the substance removed from the masonry, is handled and disposed of in an environmentally sound and legal manner. Some alkaline and acidic cleaners can be neutralized so that they can be: safely discharged into storm sewers. However, most solvent-based cleaners cannot be neutralized and are categorized as pollutants, and must be disposed of by a licensed transport, storage and disposal facility. Thus, itis always advisable to consult with the appropriate agencies before starting to clean to ensure that the project progresses smoothly and is not interrupted by a stop-work order because a required Vinyl guttering or polyethylene-lined trougyhs placed around the perimeter of the base of the building can serve to catch chemical cleaning waste as iti is rinsed off the building. This will reduce the amount of chemicals entering and polluting the soil, and also will keep the cleaning waste contained until it can be removed safely. Some patented cleaning systems have Concern over the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air has resulted in the manufacture of new, more environmentally responsible cleaners and palnt removers, while some materiais traditionally used In cleaning may no longer be available for these same reasons, Other health and: safety concerns have created additional deaning challenges, such as  permit was not obtained in advance.  developed special equipment to facilitate the containment and later disposal of cleaning waste.  lead paint removal, which is likelyt to require special removal and disposal techniques. Cleaning can also cause damage to non-masonry materials on a building, including glass, metal and wood, Thus, iti is usually necessary to cover windows and doors, and other features that may be vulnerable to chemical cleaners. They should be covered with plastic or polyethylene, ora masking agent that is applied as a liquid which dries tof form at thin protective film on glass, and is easily peeled off after the cleaning is finished. Wind drift, for example, can also damage other property by carrying cleaning chemicals onto nearby automoblles, resulting in etching of the glass or spotting of the paint finish. Similarly, airborne dust can enter surrounding buildings, Possible health dangers of each method selected for the cleaning project must be considered precautions must be taken. The precautions listed in Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) that and alkaline chemical cleaners in both liquid and vapor forms can also cause serious injury to passers-by. It may be necessary to schedule cleaning at night or weekends ift the building is  and excess water can collect in nearby yards and basements.  Safety Considerations  before selecting a cleaning method to avoid harm to the deaning applicators, and the necessary Thel lowert floors oft this historic are provided with chemical products should always bet followed. Protective clothing, respirators, covered during chemical hearing and face shields, and gloves must be provided to workers to be worn at all times. Acidic and vehicular traffic from located in a busy urban area to reduce the potential danger of chemical overspray to pedestrians. Cleaning during non- business hours will allow HVAC systems to be turned off and vents to be covered to prevent dangerous chemical fumes from entering the building which will aiso ensure the safety of the bulldingis occupants, Abrasive and mechanical methods produce dust which can pose a serious health hazard, particularly ift the abrasive or the masonry contains silica. Water-Repellent Coatings and Waterproof Coatings To begin with, iti is important to understand that waterproof coatings and water-repellent coatings are not the same. Although these terms are frequently interchanged and commonly confused with one another, they are completely different materials. Water-repellent coatings-often referred toi incorrectly as' "sealers", but which do not or should not' "seal"-are intended to keep liquid water from penetrating the surface but to allow water vapor to enter and leave, or pass through, the surface of the masonry, Water-repellent coatings are, generally transparent, or clear, although once applied some may darken or discolor certaln types of masonry while others may give ita glossy or shiny appearance. Waterproof coatings seal the surface from liquid water and from water vapor. They are usually opaque, or pigmented, and include bituminous Water-repellent coatings are formulated to be vapor permeable, or breathable". They do not seal the surface completely to water vapor so it can enter the masonry wall as well as leave the wall. While the first water-repellent coatings to be developed were primarily acrylic or silicone resins in organic solvents, now most water-repellent coatings are water-based and formulated from modified siloxanes, silanes and other akoxysilanes, or metallic stearates. While some of these products are shipped from the factory ready to use, other water-borne water repellents must be diluted at the job site. Unlike earlier water-repellent coatings which tended to form a "film" on the masonry surface, modern water-repellent coatings actually penetrate into the masonry substrate slightly and, generally, are almost invisible if properly applied to the masonry, They are also more vapor permeable than the old coatings, yet they still reduce the vapor permeability of the masonry. Once inside the wall, water vapor can condense at cold spots producing liquid water which, unlike water vapor, cannot escape  brick and architectural terra- cottat building have been deaning to protect pedestrians Photo: potentially NPS harmful files, overspray.  coatings and some elastomeric paints and coatings. Water-Repellent Coatings  tplwww.rps.gowipslhow-Dgpreservebriés/idearingwaaler-repelent.htm  8/11    - 10/22/2015  Preservation! Brief 1:A Assessing Charrgamdwar-Regalet Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings  through a water-repellent coating. The liquid water within the wall, whether from condensation, leaking gutters, or other  sources, can cause considerable damage,  Water-repellent coatings are not consolidants. Although modern water-repellents may penetrate slightly beneath the masonry surface, instead ofj just' "sitting" on top ofi it, they do not perform the: same function as a consolidant which is to' "consolidate" and replace lost binder to strengthen deteriorating masonry. Even after many years of laboratory study and testing, few consolidants have proven very effective. The composition of fired products such as brick and architectural terra cotta, as well as many types of building stone, does not lend itself to consolidation. Some modern water-repellent coatings which contain al binder intended to replace the natural binders in stone that have been lost through weathering and natural erosion are described in product literature as both a water repellent and a consolidant The fact that the newer water- repellent coatings penetrate beneath the masonry surface instead ofj just forming al layer on top oft the: surface may indeed convey at least some consolidating properties to certain stones. However, a water-repellent coating cannot be considered a consolldant. In some instances, a water-repellent or' preservative" coating, if applied to already damaged or spalling stone, may form a: surface crust which, ifl It fails, may exacerbate the deterioration by pulling off even more  This dear coating hast falled andi is pulling off pleces of the stonez asi itp peels, Photo: NPS files  of the stone.  Is a Water-Repellent Treatment Necessary?  Water-repellent coatings are frequently applied to historic masonry buildings for the wrong reason. They also are often applied without an understanding of what they are and what they arei intended to do. And these coatings can be very difficult, if not impossible, to remove from the masonry ift they fail or become discolored. Most importantly, the application of Most historic masonry buildings, unless they are painted, have survived for decades without a water-repellent coating and, thus, probably do not need one now. Water penetration to the interior of a masonry building is seldom due to porous masonry, but results from poor or deferred maintenance. Leaking roofs, clogged or deteriorated gutters and downspouts, missing mortar, or cracks and open joints around door and window openings are almost always the cause of moisture- related problems in al historic masonry. building If historic masonry buitdings are ept watartiahkana 1 19 Rising damp (capillary moisture pulled up fromt the ground), or condensation can also be a source of excess moisture in masonry buildings. A water-repellent coating will not solve this problem either and, in fact, may be likely to exacerbate it. Furthermore, a water-repellent coating should never be applied to a damp wall. Moisture in the wall would reduce the ability ofac coating to adhere tot the masonry and to penetrate below the surface. But, ifi ito did adhere, itv would hold the moisture inside the masonry because, although a water-repellent coating is permeable to water vapor, liquid water cannot pass through it. In the case of rising damp, a coating may force the moisture to go even higher in the wall because it can slow Excessive moisture in masonry walls may carry waterborne soluble salts from the masonry units themseives or from the mortar through the walls. If the water Is permitted to come tot the surface, the salts may appear on the masonry surface as efflorescence (a whitish powder) upon evaporation. However, the salts can be potentially dangerous if they remain in the masonry and crystallize beneath the: surface as subflorescence. Subflorescence eventually may cause the surface of the masonry tos spali, particularly if a water-repellent coating has been applied which tends to reduce the fiow of moisture out from the subsurface of the masonry, Although many of the newer water-repellent products are more breathable than their predecessors, they can be especially damaging if applied to masonry that contains salts, because they limit the flow of There are some instances when a water-repellent coating may be considered appropriate to use on al historic masonry neglected for a long period of time, necessary repairs may be required in order to make it watertight. If, following a reasonable period of time after the building has been made watertight and has dried out completely, moisture appears actually to be penetrating through the repointed and repaired masonry walls, then the application ofa a water-repellent coating may be considered in selected areas only, This decision should be made in consultation with an architectural conservator. And, if such a treatment is undertaken, it should not be applied tot the entire exterior of the building. Anti-graffiti or barrier coatings are another type of dear coating--although barrier coatings can also be pigmented--that may be applied to exterior masonry, but they are not formulated primarily as water repellents. The purpose oft these coatings is tor make ith harder for graffiti tos stick to a masonry surface and, thus, easier to clean, But, lke water-repellent coatings, in  water-repellent coatings tol historic masonry is usually unnecessary.  repair; water-repellent coetings shouid spt be necessaly,  down evaporation, and thereby retain the moisture in the wall.  moisture through masonry. building. Soi, IhcoNvi  When a Water-Repellent Coating May be Appropriate  to  When a masonry building has been  plh.yagoyarowbgeangenandar-repalerimn  9/11    10/22/2015  Preservation Brief1 Assessing ClearingandWaar-RepalentTreaimnents: for Historic! Masonry Buildings  most cases the application of anti-graffiti coatings is generally not recommended for historic masonry buildings. These coatings are often quite shiny which can greatly alter the appearance of al historic masonry surface, and they are not always effective. Generally, other ways of discouraging graffiti, such as improved lighting, can be more effective than a coating. However, the application of anti-graffiti coatings may be appropriate in some instances on vulnerable areas of historic masonry buildings which are frequent targets of graffiti that are located in out-of-the-way places where constant surveillance is not  possible.  been Improper responsible cleaning fort methods thef formation may have of Some water-repellent coatings are recommended by product manufacturers as a means of efflorescence on this brick, Phobo: NPS keeping dirt and pollutants or blological growth from collecting on the surface of masonry Generally, the application of a water-repellent coating is not recommended on a historic masonry building as a means of preventing biological growth. Some water-repellent coatings may actually encourage biological growth on a masonry wall. Biological growth on masonry buildings has traditionally been kept at bay through regularly-scheduled cleaning as part ofa maintenance plan. Simple cleaning oft ther masonry with low-pressure water using a natural- or synthetic-bristied scrub brush can be very effective if done on a regular basis. Commercial products are also available which can be sprayed on In most instances, a water-repellent coating is not necessary if al building is watertight. Tha  files.  buildings and; thus, reducing the need for frequent cleaning. While this att times may be true, in: some cases a coating may actually retain dirt more than uncoated masonry.  masonry to remove biological growth.  u ss l pat a recama AN OENC natn iuiy  iey a snecific orobian  prblerosews Uu Ppushhebuhw REMVLAiPUNN un  Extreme exposures such as parapets, for example, or portions of the building subject to driving rain can be  treated more effectively and less expensively than the entire building. Water-repellent coatings are not permanent and must be reapplied periodically although, if they are truly invisible, it can be difficuit tol know when they are no longer providing Testing a water-repellent coating by applying it In one: small area may not be helpful in determining its suitability for the building because al limited test area does not allow an adequate evaluation of at treatment. Since water may enter and leave through the surrounding untreated areas, therei is no way to tell ift the coated test area is' breathable." But trying a coating inas small area may help to determine whether the coating is visible on the surface ori if it will otherwise change the  the intended protection,  appearance of the masonry. Waterproof Coatings  Int theory, waterproof coatings usually do not cause problems as long as tney exclude all water from the masonry. -fie  be  MAN During cold weather this water in the wall can freeze causing serious mechanical disruption, In addition, the water eventually will get out by the path of least resistance. If this path is toward the interior, damage to interior finishes can result; ifiti is toward the exterior, it can lead to damage to the masonry caused by built-up water inmestinstancesiawaterproot: cmatings.sbenid: nnt he applieny bo hicturie masonry Thep possible exception to this might be the application of a waterproof coating to below-grade exterior foundation walls as al last resort to stop water infiltration on interior basement walls. Gopenally, loweve,watcpreeicoaunysp" icirdudculestourap2D, Awell-planned cleaning project is an essential step in preserving, rehabilitating or restoring a historic masonry building. Proper cleaning methods and coating treatments, when determined necessary for the preservation of the masonry, can enhance the aesthetic character as well as the structural. stability of a historic building. Removing years of accumulated dirt, pollutant crusts, stains, graffiti or paint, if done with appropriate caution, can extend the life and longevity of the historic resource, Cleaning that is carelessly or insensitively prescribed or carried out by inexperienced workers can have the opposite of thei intended effect, It may scar the masonry permanenty, and may actually result in hastening deterioration by introducing harmful residual chemicals and salts into the masonry or causing surface loss. Using the wrong cleaning method orusing the right method incorrecty, applying the wrong kind of coating or applying a coating that is not needed can result ins serious damage, both physically and aesthetically, to a historic masonry building. Cleaning a historic masonry building should always be done using the gentlest means possible that will clean, but not damage the building. It should always be taken into consideration before applying a water-repellent coating or a waterproof coating to a historic masonry building  d - - woRE ce gunG on f the inside Rfe buildinss  cars  N tes danege badt  such as spalling. pressure.  should almast never be appliedaboveyraue tlisteste-masonmyebuildinmgs.  Summary and References  whether iti is really necessary and whether iti is in the best interest of preserving the building.  p.wyagoyarowipeemabnidennrgwaer-repaler.nm  10/11    10/22/2015  The Secretary oft thel Interior's Standards for Rehablitation& llustraledGudalinesi for Rehabiltating Historc Buldings-Masony,  Using methods of removing paint which are destructive to masonry, such as sandblasting, application of caustic solutions, or high pressure waterblasting. Failing to follow manufacturers' product and application instructions when Using new paint colors that are inappropriate to the historic building and district. Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the protection of masonry  repainting masonry.  features. Repair  Masonry recommended..  Repairing masonry walls and other masonry features by repointing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration such as disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks, damp walis, or damaged  plasterwork.  Removing deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints to avoid damaging the masonry. pupiicaling old mortar in strerch tompesilion, colot and tasture Duplicating old mortar joints in width and inj joint profile. Repairing stucco by removing the damaged material and patching with new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition, color, and Using mud plaster as a surface coating over unfired, unstabilized adobe because the mud plaster will bond to Cutting damaged concrete back to remove the source of deterioration  texture.  the adobe.  Preparation ior stucco repair.  (often corrosion on metal reinforcement bars). The new patch must be applied carefully so it will bond satisfactorily with, and match, the historic  concrete.  Repairing masonry features by patching, piecing- in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized preservation methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind-or with compatible substitute material-of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry features when there are surviving prototypes such as terra-cotta brackets or stone  balusters.  Replacement: stones tooledto  pNwwrpagowtyasiercrenoisatnedirem  4/6    10/22/2015  Thes Secretaryofthel Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation &I llustrated Guidelines for RenabiltaingHisoricBuidings-Masony  match original. penstration, preblen  Appyig A 9r none  such as water-rppelient cosiingo to monry enly  after repointing and unty i masenry repairs have falied to arreat wetar.  ndfiecowniended  Removing nondeteriorated mortar from sound joints, then repointing the entire  building to achieve a uniform appearance.  Using electric saws and hammers rather than hand toois to remove deteriorated mortar from joints priori to repointing. Repointing with mortar of high portland cement content (unless it is the content of the historic mortar). This can often create a bond that is stronger than the historic material and can cause damage as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar. Repointng with ai aynthetia cauldss Using a' "scrub" coating technique to repoint instead of traditional repointing Changing the width or joint profile when  methods. repointing.  Loss of the historic character due to insensitive repointing.  Removing sound stucco; or with new stucco that is stronger than the  repairing  historic material or does not convey the same visual appearance. Applying cement stucco to unfired, unstabilized adobe. Because the cement stucco will not bond properly, moisture can become entrapped between materials, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the adobe. Patching concrete without removing the source of deterioration.  Replacing an entire masonry feature such as a cornice or balustrade when repair of the masonry and limited replacement of deteriorated of missing parts are Using a substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the masonry feature or that is Applying waterproof, water repellent, or non-historic coatings such as stucco to masonry as a substitute for repointing and masonry repairs, Coatings are frequently unnecessary, expensive, and may change the appearance of historic  appropriate.  physically or chemically incompatible,  masonry as well as accelerate its deterioration.  y.Mpwarpagpwiyasanartareaisonerenabmasoryoinm  5/6    10/21/2015  file  Newe  EXTERIOR CHANGESTOHISTORICBUIDING  to remove more stubbom surface stains. Such chemical applications, however, should never be undertaken until tested in an inconspicuous location on the building in order to determine if any masonry discoloration or damage occurs. More abrasive cleaning techniques such 25 sandblasting or high pressure water blasting are prohibited due to their tendency to damage the protective sur- face of historic masonry and accelerate its deterioration. Likewise, watesi sepelleuats ad' sealeis-o brick are prohibited Suchpoduetsofter bap meistateintbel haick ade cause spalling Failure of masonry mortari is perhaps the most common problem associated with brick and other masonry construction. Mortar joints slowly deteriorate over time due to exposure to weath- er. This deterioration results in moisture penetration in brick walls and foundations. To correct the problem, repointingi is necessary. AIl loose and deteriorated mortar must be raked out of the joint by hand and new mortar inserted. Old moitar shouid generally be remored to a minimum depth of !" to ensure: an: adequate bond. Catemustl lei taken tacheese amoitas: mmite that matches thex origiaal in tems of composition, colesytesmre,t strengthy and uppesanee. Care must also. be taken to match the joint width and profile of the tinished joint. Fosolletsole brick,amestar mistue must be padés comsistentmith: shel histssieasear. Please contact thel Res- toration Specialist in the Eastern Office of Archives and History for additional information and Painting brick and other masonry features of historic buildings that historically were not coated is prohibited. Exceptions may be made based on the condition of the brick and the sesthet- ici impact of the paint application on the character of the building and district 25 a whcle. Ifbrickis tol be painted, latex paint is recommended. Its allows the brick tol breathe and will: not peel 25 quick- lyas oil paints, prorided the surface is properly prepared prior to painting. Removal of paint from  guidance.  masonry surfaces is not reçommended unless the brickis of high quality and was originall intended not to be painted. When paint removal is undertaken, use only chemical strippers that are specifically recommended for masonry. Always test the product in an inconspicuous location to determine if damage oI discoloration occurs. Brick & Other. Masonry Materials  Guidelines  1. Retain and preserve orginal masonry walls, founda- 2. Preserve: masonry construction features that help to define the character of historic buildings such as chimneys, decorative corbelling, comices, arches, belt courses, foundations, window sills andi hoods, 3. Monitor brick and other masonry materials regularly for signs of vegetation growth, dirt build up, mois- 4. Eliminate lichen, ivy, and other forms of vegetation  tions, and roofs.  and cornices. ture damage, or cracking.  As sarie gfmarern ailing amaeriak and dvalis ae esident in: thal Doyntouw. Hicterir dlatic.  Nr BHistorze Dish Dis G  38  ntps.Mww.drpbosiasiccomsustclawasaascriplexemaipdise072achebMewer-ikOkOsS.himt  43/157    fdeiton  Exterior Changes  Design Guidelines for Building Materials and Details  1) Maintain and preserve historic building materials and details that contribute to the character oft the 2) Repair historic building materials and details in-kind matching the original in regard to size, shape, design, scale, color, texture, and material. Cracked or missing masonry mortar joints should be care- fully repginted using materials, methods, and finishing methods that match the original as closely as possible in regard to çolor, texture, and finish. Itis important to use the same strength mortar as the original or softer. Using mortar or brick that is stronger than the original can: result in serious and more rapid deterioration. Contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for additional in- 3) Ifhistoric building materials and details must be replaced due to deterioration, replace only the detail or element with materials similar to the original material ins size, shape, design, scale, color, and mate- 4) Ifa detail is missing, replace it based on existing details or documentary evidence such as photo- graphs. Replace with materials similar in size, shape, design, scale, color, and material as the original. 5) Itis not: appropriate to clean historic building materials using damaging methods such as sandblast- ing, power washing, or propane or butane torches. The gentlest means possible for cleaning should bet used. Contact the Planning Office or SHPO for approved methods of cleaning. Consult the Ap- 6) Paint wooden and metal architectural elements. Itis inappropriate to remove paint to replace with 7) Itisi inappropriate to paint unpainted masonry elements. Repaint previously painted masonry ele- 8) Itisi inappropriate to paint or coat historic terra cotta. Clean and repair using accepted ptesetvation techniques. Consult the Appendices for thel Preservation Brief website address. 9) Itisi inappropriate to replace sound historic building materials with new: materials to create a "new or 10) Itisi inappropriate to use contemporary substitute materials such as vinyl, aluminum, masonite, or cementitious board to cover or replace historic building materials. 11) Itisi inappropriate to repair or patch metal toofing and flashing with tar or asphalt.  building and the significance oft the district as a whole.  formation.  rial, Contt the SHPO for additional information. Contact the SHPO for additional information.  pendices for the Preservation Briefwebsite: address.  stain.  ments in colors compatible with thel historic district.  smooth appearance."  12) Iti isi inappropriate to apply ornamental architectural details and features that replicate a historic detail to a historic building without documentary evidence. Itis also inappropriate to use details to create a  false sense of history (Ex. Dentil moldings to a mill village house)  Edenton Historir Distrid Design Gwidelines  44    Building Changes  Masonry/Stone  Wsigkort  Ine early Wilmington, where fire was a constant threat, brick was used for warehouses and commercial buildings beginning in the late eighteenth century. Brick was also used fors street paving, for building structural and decorative walls, and for underpinnings, pathways and driveways within the historic districts. Stone ballast from overseas supplied the foundations for early houses, Beginning int the late nineteenth century, many oft the commer- cial buildings had a stucco finish often with terra cotta details. Sandstone appears as trim and as applied ornament. Granite curbing is common  throughout all thel historic districts. Suggested Repair and Maintenance chimney. Surfaces should be  A's steep retaining wall on Orange Street, near Chandler's Wharfi in the Residential Historic District (HD-R).  Ensure that water does not collect at the base ofa masonry foundation or damage, deteriorated mortar joints and cracking. Cleaning is not recom- mended to reduce the effects of weathering but is acceptable to reduce accumulative deposits of "dirt." Heavily soiled masonry should be cleaned with low pressure water washing (500 pounds per sq. inch) and soft natural brushes. Care should be taken when cleaning sandstone or soft brick. If detergent is necessary check composition before use. Chemical cleaners are acceptable provided a spot test demonstrates the masonry material will not be adversely affected. Sandblasting should not be employed to clean masonry. It can heavily damage the hard fired exterior surface ofl bricks and the Mortar joints that deteriorate over time can allow the penetration of moisture to thei interior ofthe structure. Repointing is necessary to correct thej prob- lem. All loose and deteriorated mortar needs tol bei raked out ofthej joint by hand and new mortar inserted. Old mortar should generally bei removed to a minimum depth of one and one half times the width oft the joint to ensure an adequate bond. Care must be taken tochoose a mortar mix that matchesthe original interms of compositionl, color. texture. strength, tooling width and appearance., Repointing with a mortar composed of a high Portland Cement mix is not recommended as this will often create ai mortar that is stronger than the existing mortar and may cause the brick to spall. Repointolder bricks With ar mortar 10 harder oT softerthan the original. Color match should be achieved with proper selection of sand, not color additives. The new mortar joint should: match the original in appearance and profile. Astone strengthener, Water repellant or a combination oft both may somc- times be used toj preserve soft brick, sandstone and porous masomy.  dirt  inspected regularly for build-up, moisture  calcified mortar joints.  Early brickwork in the Downtown Commercial. Historic District (HDO).  46    sonry and Stone  MasonrylStone: Guidelines 1 Retain and and pediments.  Wisgioyt  preserve original and orl historic. masonry walls, foundations,  and construction features including chimneys, arches, quoins, cornices, Ifreplacement of deteriorated material is necessary, match the new materials to the original materials in composition, size, shape, color, pattern, and texture. Iti is not appropriate to use new masonry materials which were unavailable when the building was constructed. 3 Eliminate any forms of vegetation that may cause structural damage or Itis not appropriate to apply paint or other coatings to unpainted masonry elements that are: inferior quality and were never painted. Itisr not recommended to waterproof masonry as a substitute for repointing or repair. Water repellent coatings are permitted as they do Removal ofj paint from masonry surfaces is only recommended ifthe surface was notl historically painted. Undertake removal only with a chemical paint remover specifically formulated for masonry. Always test the remover on an inconspicuous area or a test panel first. 7 Itisi not appropriate to use high-pressure cleaning methods such as sandblasting and waterblasting on historic masonry surfaces. Such cleaning techniques permanently damage thei masonry surface and  prevent surface drainage.  Painted brick deteriorates rapidly.  not trapmoisture. Sealants are prohibited.  Sandstone facing, Masonic Building 17-21 North Front Street.  accelerate deterioration.  47    MINUTES    WASHINGTON HSTORICPRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Scheduled Meeting - Minutes Tuesday, November 3, 2015 7:00PM Members Present Geraldine McKinley EdH Hodges Seth Shoneman Monica Ferrari Members Absent Mary Pat Musselman Others Present John Rodman, Director Emily Rebert, Historic Planner Jessica Green, Administrative Support  Judi Hickson  Opening of the meeting The Chairman called the meeting to order. Invocation Amoment of silence was taken. III. Roll Call A silent roll call was taken by staff.  II.  Seth Shoneman made ar motion to accept the agenda. His motion was seconded by. Judi Hickson. All  voted in favor.  IV. Old Business-I Major Works  1. Reconsideration of application which have been denied. Pat Griffin has asked that the Historic Preservation Commission reconsider his applications for Certificate of Appropriateness for vinyl windows on thei front façade of the structure located at 315 & 319 West 2"d Street. Ed Hodge read Rule 20 from the Washington Historic Preservation Commission Rules of Procedure. Mr. Rodman explained that thei first thing that needed tol happen was for a commission member to make a motion to allow Mr. Griffin to come forward and present new evidence. He explained that he can only present new evidence; he cannot rehash some of the  1    points that have already been discussed. Once he has done that the Commission must decide if Seth Shoneman made a motion to allow Mr. Griffin to present new evidence in support of his request for reconsideration. His motion was seconded by Judi Hickson. All voted in favor. Mr. Griffin came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Rodman explained that Mr. Griffini is only asking the Commission to reconsider the windows, not the siding. Mr. Griffin explained that he isa asking the Commission to reconsider the windows because they have approved the windows in previous years. Mr. Griffin listed off dates and addresses from the Commission's meeting minutes where the Commission had approved vinyl windows in the past. He stated that he would like to be treated the same way as they treated these cases in the past. Ed Hodges stated that he did not recall all of the addresses that Mr. Griffin listed but he did address the cases that her remembered. He: stated thati in most case the applicant came with pictures showing the disrepair oft the windows. Mr. Hodges stated that ift the windows were not repairable then the Commission had allowed replacement windows int the past. Mr. Hodges asked Mr. Griffini if he had pictures of his windows showing the condition. Mr. Griffin stated that he did not. Ms. Hickson asked if the windows were replaced on the other three sides. Mr. Griffin stated that Geraldine McKinley made ar motion to rehear the application based on the new evidence with the stipulation that he uses the outside grids on the windows. Seth Shoneman seconded the  the new evidence is substantial enough to warrantar new hearing.  they had been replaced.  motion and all voted in favor. The Chairman opened the floor.  Don Stroud came forward and stated that he opposed this matter. Mr. Stroud also gave some explanation as to why the replacement windows were allowed that the addresses Mr. Griffin listed. Mr: Stroud stated that if they Commission allowed the request then they might as well take out the entire provision from the guidelines. Mr. Stroud stated that windows are significant architectural features of their homes and it is not the wood that they care sO much about, iti is the glass thati is so important. He stated that windows need to be preserved and he felt that there was no new evidence presented that should change their decision. Dee Congleton came forward and was sworn in. Ms. Congleton stated that. John' Wood from the SHIPPO office once stated that 95% ofa all wood windows can be repaired. She: stated that she went and looked at the windows and they look repairable to her. She stated that the request Jerry Creech came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Creech stated that he himself had repaired and rebuilt windows for his ownl home. He explained that there is nothing about a wood window that cannot repaired. He stated that he does not like to see windows destroyed and  should be denied.  2    they are 90% better than any vinyl window you can buy. He stated that if the Commission gives The Chairman closed thei floor and the Commission discussed the request further. Ms. McKinley stated that her struggle is that there wasi no opposition when the windows were replaced that the otherl homes Mr. Griffin referred to. Seth Shoneman stated that over 80% of the windows have been replaced on each house. He stated that hei is all about preserving historic! homes, but hei felt the ship had: sailed on these two houses. He stated that hei isi int favor ofa allowing Mr. Griffin to replace the windows on the front just for consistency. He stated that if the Commission wanted to make ar mark and say they wouldn'tallow replacement windows have a certain date he would be okay with that as well. Mr. Hodges stated that originally the Commission told him that he could not replace the front windows, so he has known that from Seth Shoneman made a motion to allow Mr. Griffin to replace the windows on the front façade of the two homes at 315 and 319 West 2nd Street with the muttons on the exterior oft the glass to match the windows already installed. Geraldine McKinley seconded the motion. The motion failed with at 2t to 3v vote with Ed Hodges, Judi Hickson, and Monica Ferrarivoting against the Monica Ferrari made a motion to deny Mr. Griffin'sr request to replace the front façade windows with vinyl at 315 and 319V West 2nd Street. Her motion was seconded by. Judi Hickson and the motion carried with a majprilyotdl3to2win: Seth! Shoneman and Geraldine McKinley  the okay to this request and set the precedent tonight, it will all be over.  the get go.  motion.  voting in opposition. Certificate of Appropriateness A. MajorWorks  V.  1.A Arequest has been made by Mr. Richard Dwayne Godley for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a porchr roof over the approved front porch on the front façade of the structure Mr. Gene Godley, representing Mr. Richard Godley, came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Godley stated that they would like to build a roof over the porch that was approved last month at the Commission meeting. Ms. Ferrari asked what color the metal roof would be. Mr. Griffin stated that they would like to match it with the existing roof that is brown and the columns will Judi Hickson made the following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Richard Godley to construct a porch roof on the front façade, located at 323 North Bonner Street. This motion is based on the following findings  located at 323 North Bonner Street.  be painted to match the railings.  3    off fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.6 Porches and Entryways. Her motion was seconded by 2. Ar request has been made by Mr. Glenn Williams for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing transom and awning with copper material on the front façade of the  Monica Ferrari. All voted inf favor and the motion carried.  structure located at 201 West Main Street.  Mr. Glen' Williams came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Williams stated that the current façade is in disrepair and the awning needs tol be repair. He stated that he did not felt that either one of thei items had any! historic significance. He stated that they would like to use something that isr more water proof and longer lasting than wood. He stated that they wanted to replace the façade with 12" vertical copper panels that will have a similar design as the wood. He explained that they plan to coat iti in order to maintain the copper color. Andi to compliment that they want to take the existing awning down and replace it with a copper awning of a similar size. He Seth Shoneman made the following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Glenn Williams to renovate the front façade of the structure located at 201 West Main! Street. This motion is based on thei following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.75 Storefronts. The motion was seconded by Geraldine McKinley. All voted  explained that the new awning would be more rectangular in shape.  int favor.  3. Arequest has been made by Patricia Lewis and Lori Hardee for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install 278' of privacy fence in a majority of the rear yard oft the structure located at 409 East 2nd Street. The fence will stepped in as to not be seen from the front of the Patricial Lewis came forward and was sworn in. Ms. Lewis explained her request for a privacy fence in her back yard. She explained that it will be stepped in sO that it would not be visible from the street. She explained that she would like the fence for security and privacy and to have a space for her dog. Judi Hickson asked if there was a reason why thet fence needed to 6' and not! 5. Ms. Lewis stated that she would like it tol be 6' so that no one could look over the fence and a 6' high fence is harder to scale. Monica Ferrari stated that she did not see a site plan or scaled elevation drawing submitted with the request. She stated that in the guidelinesit states that these elements must be submitted with the application and an incomplete application will notl be accepted. Mr. Hodges explained the location of the fence. Ms. Ferrari stated that in her option it was an incomplete application according to the guidelines. Monica Ferrari madei the following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Pat Lewis to add a six foot high wooden privacy  house.  4    fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 409 East Second Street. This motion is based on thet following findings of act: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls. Her motion was seconded by. Judi Hickson. The motion failed witha2to3 vote with Geraldine McKinley, Ed Hodges, and Seth Shoneman votingi in opposition.  The Chairman opened the floor.  Dee Congleton came forward and stated that the Commission cannot approve the request without a site plan. She stated that it states in the guidelines that a site plan isrequired. Don Stroud came forward and stated that he agreed with Ms. Congleton. He stated that those rules arei there for a purpose. He stated that the Commission needs to follow their guidelines, Monica Ferrari made ar motion to continue the request with a complete site plan to next month. Judi Hickson seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 4. Ar request has been made by Mr. Calvin McLean for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install wood railings and spindles to the wheel chair ramp and landing on the structure located at 121 Mr. McLean and Mona Pinner came forward and were sworn in. Ms. Pinner explained that the wheelchair ramp has probably been therei for 10 years already and they just want to continue the work and make it safe and meet all the ADA requirements soi it can be usable in thei future. She explained thati the railings would match the railings in thet front on the house. She stated that the steps would also have railingsi identical to the railings in the front. She explained that they are required to have a 3%i inch gap between the rails. Monica Ferrari asked if the ramp was on the east side or the west side oft the house. Ms. Pinner stated that it is on the west side of the house and goes to the back side of the house. She explained that there is about 151 ft. on the west side, but most is on the back oft the house. Ed Hodges stated that they are just trying Judi Hickson made the following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Calvin McLean to install a wood railing and spindles tot the wheel chair ramp on the western side of the structure located at 121 East Second Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous' with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.5 Additions. Her Mr. McLean and Ms. Pinner then discussed their request for the condensing units listed under minor works. They stated that they doi intend to put the condensing units on the east side on  so that their decisions do not have a reason to be challenged.  East 2nds Street.  to comply with the ADA regulations for the wheelchair ramp.  motion was seconded by Seth Shoneman.. All voted ini favor.  5    the house so that they are not visible from the street. Mr. McLean explained the reasoning why Mr. Stroud stated that applicants can not present amended application to the Commission without the adjourning property owners being contacted. He stated that the units should be placed on the west side or at the rear of the property. He stated that they should not be Ed Hodges asked if the application was being amended or if they arel being asked to approve anything that has not been approved by staff. Mr. Rodman stated that there was some confusion and he thought that they had decided to change the location, but Mr. McLean stated that they! have not and plan to put the units on the east side.. Monica Ferrari asked why the units couldn't be place in the rear. Mr. McLean stated that 8 years ago these same two units were approved for the same location. Mr. Hodges stated that what was approved 8 years ago is irrelevant. Mr. McLean then explained why putting the units at the rear would not work due to the line set that provides the refrigerate. He explained that these units are brand new units and are whisper quiet units. Mr. McLean stated that ift they put the units on the west side they would bei fully exposed to the parking lot and thel line sets wouid have to be longer which causes Ed Hodges stated that the application has not been changed and the Commission is not being asked to approve anything that has not already been approved by staff sO there is no reason for any other conversation. Monica Ferrari quoted guideline 3.14.3 "Mechanical systems including utility meters and heating and air-conditioning equipment shall be located at the rear ofa structure ifi feasible. Mechanical equipment which can be seen from the street must be screened with shrubbery or appropriate fencing. " She stated that according to the guidelines he has two options the rear or the west side and: screen it with shrubbery. Ed Hodges stated that Mr. McLean explained the reason why het felti it wasn't feasible to put them in the rear. The Commission then discussed the issue. Mr. McLean stated that he would screen the units and there is also existing shrubbery there. He again stated that the units if placed on the east side would not be visible from the street. Ms. McKinley stated that the Commission cannot start going through every HVAC unit request and stating that it can't be beside this house or it can't be beside that house. Mr. Hodges stated that he agreed with Monica but as much as he hated it 5. Ar request has been made by Mr. Chris McLendon fora a Certifiçate of Appropriateness to renovate the damage to the front office façade using 3'x6' white fiberglass and a 6'x6 6' picture window with simulated grilles glass on the structure located at 131 North Market Street. The Don Stroud representing Mr. McLendon came forward and explained the request. He stated that he asked Mr. McLendon about a window with exterior muttons and Mr. McLendon stated  acondensing unit could not be installed at the rear of the structure.  allowed to put them on the residential side (east side) of the house.  less efficiency.  the application is in compliance.  renovation will match the building at 248 West Main Street.  6    that the windows have already been ordered and have arrived with the muttons on thei interior oft the glass like Gary Wilson's building and others downtown, which was okayed by. John Rodman. Ed Hodges stated that thisi is al large window and regardless of the muttons anything will look better than what was there before. Mr. Stroud stated that the Commission has always treated first floor commercial windows differently than residential and upper stories. Judi Hickson made thei following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Chris McLendon to renovate the front façade oft the structure located at 131 North Market Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines,  specifically Chapter 3.4 Windows and Doors.  B. Minor' Works  1. A Arequest has been made approved bys stafff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Teriann Scarantino to remove: a dead and decaying Pecan tree located in the rear yard of 216 Fleming 2. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness: for Mr. Leland Hill representing the First Christian Church to add small landscaping and repair the front porch railing with like material on the structure located at 120 North Academy Street. 3. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Mr. William Cochran to repair and replace windows with like materials and replace siding with same 4. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Metropolitan AME: Zion Church to remove and replace the existing sign located at the front of 5. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Mr. Don Perkins to add anew gutters to thei front porch on the house located at 402 East 2"d Street. 6. Arequest! has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Beaufort County to: 1) wash and clean the exterior brick 2) repoint damaged brick and replace mortar rand 3) use waterproof: sealer on the buildings located at 210 North Market Street  Street.  material on the structure located at 218 North Bonner Street.  the church at 102 West Marin Luther King. Jr. Drive.  (Sheriff's Dept.)  7. Ar request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Mr. Calvin McLean to add 2 condensing units on the east side of the house located at 121 East 2nd  Street. The units are not visible from the street.  7    Geraldine McKinley made a motion to approve all the minor works. Seth Shoneman seconded the motion. The motion passed with a majority vote with Monica Ferrarivoting against the  request and. Judi Hickson abstaining.  VI. Other Business  Judi Hickson stated that she would like the Commission to revisit the Fence guideline vote from last month. She stated that she would like to see the agreed upon fence guidelines passed onto the City Judi Hickson made a motion that the current fence guidelines bes sent to the City Council for their consideration. Monica Ferrari seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.  Council. She stated that shei feelsi it deserves al hearing.  1. Design Guidelines--Masonry Products  Emily Rebert came forward and presented some updates that shet felt should be made to the design guidelines in reference to masonry products specifically Chapter 35 Section 2. It was decided that the Commission review the information and make a decision att their next month'smeeting.  VII. Approval of Minutes- October 6, 2015  Monica Ferrari made a motion to approve the minutes. Her motion was seconded by Seth Shoneman.  All voted in favor. VIII. Adjourn  There being no other business the meeting was adjourned.  8