Historic Preservation Board reviews stained glass removal for Thomas Street church conversion

[3:38] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, we're ready to go. It's five now, we're ready to go, but I was expecting the member batted, yes, so I don't know if you want to wait a second you [3:55] Speaker B (unidentified): have no message [3:56] Speaker C (unidentified): You don't do this. Oh my god, let me put out the table phone. Yeah. [4:04] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm just doing it now. Oh god. [4:07] Speaker A (unidentified): You're gonna get blamed, you know, sometimes to take that home and wash it. Those are my cat's a bear dog. [4:15] Speaker E (unidentified): Remember the four factors with the bring it home [4:18] Speaker F (unidentified): and wash it? Right, and they use the wrong term. [4:21] Speaker A (unidentified): I think we get reimbursed for that. [4:26] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, we'll go ahead and get started with basketball. [4:30] Speaker D (unidentified): We have a moment of silence. [4:31] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't know if we'll be able to have one tonight. There you go. [4:36] Speaker D (unidentified): I didn't worry. I got totally, over by the way. [4:41] Speaker G (unidentified): It made the wrong time to die. Yeah. [4:54] Speaker A (unidentified): I just closed the door. [5:06] Speaker E (unidentified): Are we live and recording? [5:08] Speaker A (unidentified): We are recording and live streaming and all the things. Great. This [5:15] Speaker E (unidentified): way in the order. This is the Historic Preservation Board for the city of Fort Maine. Today is Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026. Six we will begin first with a roll call and declaration quorum checkers yes mr chair hillary [5:31] Speaker A (unidentified): Bassett here that's a party here kemp this air here michael hudson here member whitman had reported he would be absent valerie piglin gould here and brad miller here we have a quorum okay [5:43] Speaker E (unidentified): Thank you, I remember two on the agenda as a report of attendance at the meeting held on August 5th. First was a public hearing review of alterations at 279 Congress Street. Members Bassett, Carty, Deseris, Miller, Pickham, Gould, and Witt were present. Member Hutchins was absent. And the workshop was for review of the construction at 43 St. Lawrence Street. Members Bassett, Carty, Deseris, Miller, Pickham, Gould, and Witt were present. And Member Hutchins was absent. Any changes to the reported attendance? All right, hearing none. Item number three is reports of decisions from that meeting held on August 5th, 2026, which was only one for the public hearing, which is review of alterations at 279 Congress Street. Excuse me, the board voted six in favor to conditionally approve the application. Any changes to the reports of [Speaker C (unidentified): decisions right] to check where are there any communication or reports none this evening [6:52] Speaker A (unidentified): We did that last week when you weren't here [6:56] Speaker E (unidentified): Should we go to those who were absent? There are no public hearings tonight, which means we'll move on to our last item on the agenda, which is the workshop. This is for review of Alterations at 32 Thomas Street. I do want to first begin, since one member had already raised a question about this, if any members would like to disclose any ties to the applicant or any discussions around the project. So to disclose those and we can discuss them as a group. [7:40] Speaker F (unidentified): So years ago I worked on this project. It was for the previous owner, the Magella Group, and I believe they're no longer affiliated, and so this was also at a previous company that I worked at. So I actually worked on the renovation of the Parrot House into the condominiums. So it's been many years. I have no connection to the current owner or to the project at all, but I just wanted to disclose that to everybody just to see if everyone was comfortable with me moving forward, because I am, I feel like I don't have any ties, financial ties or business ties to it, and can [8:21] Speaker E (unidentified): look at it objectively anyone have any thoughts generally that's plenty of kind of for this no current connections so if you give later okay no I know but are there other connections to this property in the past were you were [8:48] Speaker A (unidentified): previously tied to an application where you're not an architect? I don't think so. You were in the recording, I don't even remember. Okay, that speaks to the, it was in 2022 or 2022. Yeah, where is this recording? So maybe it's just this project has been before the board of the past. The current architect was involved with that project under a separate company, and I see you were still, I was recently re-watching the recording and I saw your face. Oh shoot, I'm sorry. I mean, it must have been a very small role. Yeah, I mean, maybe we could just clarify that you were affiliated with a firm that worked on this project, but maybe you didn't really have a lot of involvement in itself. Yes, is that accurate? Very accurate, nor any memory. Okay, great. [9:50] Speaker E (unidentified): Anything else? [9:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Any other members of this list like this question? Great. [9:58] Speaker E (unidentified): Are that clear things for us to move forward? So should I click to provide an introduction to the application? Yes, just very quickly. [10:09] Speaker A (unidentified): So before you this evening is a workshop for alterations to 32 Thomas Street. The location is there indicated on an aerial of Portland with that star, and then here is a map of West End Historic District showing the location at the corner of Thomas and Carroll Street. So the property is a landmark within the West End Historic District. It was historically a church and has had a number of previous redevelopment proposals that have not really gone anywhere, and the building has been sitting vacant for a number of years. I have some photos, I won't actually flip through them just because I know the applicant also has extensive photos, but if we if we need them, you know, we can reference these as well. I have some views of most of the elevations, I think. So the main I also just sort of for the board's benefit in guiding conversation, the main kind of topic of discussion and the purpose for the workshop is to discuss the approach to the stained glass windows. And with that, I think I will turn it over to the applicant to present the project. [Speaker C (unidentified): Also,] Ginny, we don't, it doesn't look like we have your client online, do you know if he's having any issues? No, he's good. Okay. Just [11:35] Speaker H (unidentified): wanted to make sure. Hi, I'm Ginny, can you get a picture? So, we are working on the Hillisland West Church, transforming this into a four-room movement. Exterior, we're removing some stained glass windows and adding storm windows on any stained glass windows that are remaining and changing some of the look of the doors. Otherwise, we're not really having some skylight at the top. And mechanical... mechanical... mechanical... mechanical... But, otherwise, we're not really touching this. Here are some 3D images of the basement. Really doing many things except adding some On the first floor, here you can see the wide area will be the common area, close to the common corridor. Each unit has two entrances into the buildings. I read we indicated the locations where we like to eliminate the same glass. Currently, if you're in the building, it's pretty dark, so it's great for a church, but not for a residential unit. [14:38] Speaker C (unidentified): it so you can still use it yeah sorry okay this [14:52] Speaker H (unidentified): is the go back this step added. So we're really going to use these green stained glass windows and replacing them with clear glass. This currently is just a burnt up opening. We're proposing to add a clear glazing back in, glazing black injury. This door, we're helping to modernize it a little bit, and there's another face page. This is the back of the building, the parking lot. It isn't too visible from the street. We're replacing two windows here, and the other shed. So here you see it again, the four windows and then the two doors were closing. and then the front entrance heading back some way into the existing doors. And then placing the, placing the bucket. In the details where you're using universal windows, the same film, but they're aluminum windows. They have the shape of the, of the window. And here you see the elevations again,, they'll look up that and [Speaker G (unidentified): they'll] look at the area of use for the things that they've been raised in, which ones are appropriate with this. And that was for the board with another architecture office, what was it, six years ago or something? [18:24] Speaker A (unidentified): That was in 2022. [18:29] Speaker H (unidentified): At that point. We requested more and that pretty much was approved for more windows being replaced and we had a meeting with Evan on site and went through all the windows and did some recommendations. So we actually eliminated or we kept stained glass windows that we were previously okay and [19:05] Speaker E (unidentified): i've got no questions maybe could you go back to the proposed changes to the doors and just explain yeah the what's there well just propose this [19:34] Speaker H (unidentified): is currently the window kind of back here it's on the parish house so that's actually rob off the door and so we're kind of thinking of doing something similar but maybe do what they said [Speaker C (unidentified): so staying] with the look of the current store basically and the [20:11] Speaker E (unidentified): existing doors that they would replace are i have do you have a photo of the This [20:39] Speaker H (unidentified): door is a front door. We're hoping to add a few windows to this door just to get light and that's nice and this is for example one of these doors so we would have a three-foot door with a side light. [21:01] Speaker A (unidentified): The existing doors are just vertical tongue and groove boards. Before [21:19] Speaker E (unidentified): we jump into questions, I just want to give you the, is that the end of the presentation? Yeah. Okay. Yes. We'll move. Next 10 to clarify. [21:30] Speaker H (unidentified): No, I can actually go. I forgot to mention the- Yeah. Up the roof. Okay. So we're proposing this is like this courtyard. It's kind of there off the street to add the electrical panels in this location to the next year. Okay. And then do two of the men's and women's in the back. [21:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Where's the main street from that in that view? [21:59] Speaker H (unidentified): It's on the bottom. [22:02] Speaker D (unidentified): It's on the bottom. Okay. [22:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Carol is on the right. [22:05] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay. Thank you. [22:10] Speaker H (unidentified): These two will serve these two units. And then we have [Speaker G (unidentified): electrical,] electrical, water heaters, I don't know what you're sensing. The owner was fine with using, recirculating those rooms. What are those again? [22:44] Speaker D (unidentified): What about bath fans? Same, yeah. [22:47] Speaker H (unidentified): We'll go through the ERB, and the ERBs are kind of inside the units and sensing off the roof. [22:59] Speaker A (unidentified): The roof is, the sloped parts of the roof that are visible are slate, but there's a large flat area that kind of didn't fit. [23:20] Speaker E (unidentified): Well we'll just order operations we'll now before we're going to plan to find questions from the board better understand the proposal then we'll open it to public comment and then so you might this is just a workshop vote but we would then move into deliberations just to provide feedback for the applicant so [23:44] Speaker C (unidentified): So they can return [23:49] Speaker E (unidentified): to their client and work through the next iteration. So with that, questions to members of the team? [23:56] Speaker G (unidentified): I have a question for Evan, actually. [24:00] Speaker F (unidentified): The application. I know she had said that the application was approved previously, but it sounded like it was. [24:07] Speaker H (unidentified): No, it was just kind of the first workshop. OK, so then they, I think, during that workshop, they kind of, but it was never officially like. [24:20] Speaker A (unidentified): No, my vote was ever taken. It only had that one workshop. And yeah, I think I would, I did rewatch that. I would say some members were positive. Some had questions. I think, remember, Beth, that you were on the board at the time. [24:37] Speaker I (unidentified): I was there, but I don't remember it. I didn't look at the notes. Well, I remember we did it. I didn't remember that there was a conversation Because it was always a challenge to how you reuse that building once a church moved and emerged. [24:51] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, and I didn't, maybe we could have brought that up just as like FYI, but I didn't belabor it just because it was, it's a long expired application that was never pursued. And because no decision was made, it felt cleaner to just say, let's look at this question now. [25:13] Speaker I (unidentified): Questions which was on the larger stained glass panels, was there any opportunity to save part of that other than, I think that one on facing Tom Street, the one central, the larger scale window above the door that, yeah, we have an upper part that's being saved, yeah, on this one we are. [25:39] Speaker H (unidentified): We are kind of keeping this portion, we worked with Evan here, it was first talked about kind of keeping this little, there's just like this little v-shape, but we were working with the window manufacturer and they're just like, we can't, we can't make this work. [26:11] Speaker I (unidentified): Being in the top that where it makes it goes around, yeah, again we just keep that same box. [26:17] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, and then we decided to not illuminate these two windows and that's kind of, it doesn't look like, well since you're not putting that in these two places. [26:31] Speaker A (unidentified): And it sounded like there was a big technical challenge, so you should propose what you want and suggested keeping the side lanterns on the transepts there, yes, those two are proposed to remain as is, the round above it, maybe the elevations that have the red will like help. [26:54] Speaker I (unidentified): Clarify that, because if one elevation has almost all the windows, so what's. [27:01] Speaker B (unidentified): The count of the number that are staying versus the agreement did. [27:26] Speaker A (unidentified): It correct, I. [27:49] Speaker H (unidentified): Think let's assume that always like. [27:53] Speaker A (unidentified): If you keep having trouble, I can try. [28:04] Speaker G (unidentified): We're patient to. [28:09] Speaker C (unidentified): A point then. [28:17] Speaker H (unidentified): It's also the larger one, oh. [28:20] Speaker A (unidentified): Like the file, yeah. [28:30] Speaker C (unidentified): Remember the clear ones too, so. [28:35] Speaker I (unidentified): Those are all, those are all like, no this is not all. [29:04] Speaker B (unidentified): I'll just ask another question. But the shape is staying the same in every case. Yeah. It's just to get more light in. Yeah. [29:17] Speaker E (unidentified): Do you think the question still. [29:19] Speaker C (unidentified): So I'm. [29:26] Speaker F (unidentified): On page 8.51, is that a big place to switch from? [29:55] Speaker H (unidentified): We're hoping some pieces will. OK, that's good. 8. [30:30] Speaker F (unidentified):.51, the complete window schedule replacement? Yes. off by five one, I. [30:47] Speaker H (unidentified): Think the probably the interior one is probably all the windows, you know there's. [30:54] Speaker A (unidentified): 47 windows total, 76 steered, 13. [31:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Roughly a third of the windows here is a window being replaced. [31:12] Speaker A (unidentified): 13. yeah, one of which is a partial replacement, the one line, yes, the majority of the majority are saying yes they're, you know, they aren't quite varied in size, oh yeah, it might sound right, so how many square inches are getting removed last. [31:30] Speaker D (unidentified): So what are the plans for the stained glass windows that are getting removed, I don't know. Yeah, because I know that's often done, take a few representative samples and put them up in the corridors. You know, they're glass, so maybe they should go higher so people don't, I mean, these are. [31:59] Speaker B (unidentified): Conduits. I don't think that's working. It'd be nice to preserve them. [32:05] Speaker I (unidentified): And there was one that looks like, in fact it's illustrated on this one, in memoriam of Clark, one who had founded that religious movement, the youth movement. There is a big plaque on the building as well, so it seemed like, again I don't know which window it is, it might already be preserved, but it just happened to be one that was picked [32:28] Speaker H (unidentified): up here right here these three windows we're like oh no we definitely can't remove these those [32:40] Speaker I (unidentified): Right and that's a good question we're not touching this okay [32:49] Speaker C (unidentified): I've got a couple of questions [32:51] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah can I ask some questions yes [32:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Has the condition of the exterior been surveyed no the mortar so there's no repointing part of this no plans to do that has the roof condition been surveyed to the slate as well as the EPDM is there any plans to replace the flat [33:26] Speaker H (unidentified): roofing? The slates won't be replaced. The chips, EPDM, I don't know. We haven't reviewed it. [33:40] Speaker D (unidentified): So I noticed from the pictures that the windows I believe have like, the sashes are painted white and it's like cracking and flaking off. I'm assuming you're going to repaint all the existing windows? Right, so are you going to keep that color, the white, or are you going to go with a different color? Have you talked about that at all? [34:03] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, we're kind of keeping things the way they are. [34:08] Speaker D (unidentified): Still like light or white. And then so the new, the universal windows, which are aluminum, those are going to come in white to match the existing? [Speaker G (unidentified): Thing? Yeah. Are] all the new windows going to be double hung or are you going to introduce any hopper style or any kind of casement or anything like that? No, we kind of talked about doing [34:43] Speaker G (unidentified): double hung in units. I guess they'd be single hung really, right? Yeah, single hung. Yeah, [34:49] Speaker H (unidentified): okay. Just a little pressure even in certain locations where they're currently armed. [35:02] Speaker D (unidentified): And then are the skylights even part of our purview since they're kind of not really visible [35:06] Speaker A (unidentified): Not really yeah they're pretty well centered on the flat route I guess we haven't seen an exact detail but I'm imagining they're a low profile yeah so I suspect they won't have any [35:18] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah and but the purpose behind those is to bring light down to the second [35:22] Speaker G (unidentified): second floors of these spaces right because yeah basically into the units because they [35:27] Speaker H (unidentified): like the second floor is only partial so exactly the whole unit is open to the whole [35:36] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah just trying [35:43] Speaker D (unidentified): To think of any exterior work that isn't anticipated but that will likely have to be done as a as part of the construction. So I guess other than the windows and those the doors, that's it. And then the doors, they're brown now. Are they staying brown? [36:07] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, that's what we're looking for. Similar to that front door. [36:13] Speaker D (unidentified): So to the pedestrian on the sidewalk, it's really just going to look like this historic church had a few of its stained glass windows taken out and replaced with clear glass. [36:27] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, and we are going to be, we're putting storm windows on, for example, these same plants, so it is going to be, yeah, just to preserve, because, you know, currently in some of the locations, there's plexiglass and, oh, there is, okay, so, it, I think, it, like, these will be actually moved better. [36:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Actually, I think the store windows probably will have, will they have to have a bar across the middle? [37:00] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, we will pick up [37:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Try to find, line it up with where that, yeah, that would be Weird, those don't look like they're white unless all the paint came off them. Yeah, I'm wondering if the white is like somebody repainted them You know just to [37:25] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, so maybe Yeah much yeah like yeah so here it's like white yeah white i like the brown there i [37:37] Speaker H (unidentified): don't know i haven't been doing anything like look at the historic photos to kind of get their color rich [37:41] Speaker A (unidentified): or you don't review color yeah i mean you know you could you could do some study to maybe buy that but you can do whatever color we don't regulate i think i [37:58] Speaker D (unidentified): do i think ben more as a whole line of historic paint colors. [38:01] Speaker E (unidentified): We could get into a whole conversation about the [38:04] Speaker A (unidentified): philosophy of paint color review if you want, but yeah. Other questions? No, that covers all the [38:10] Speaker I (unidentified): questions. I just wanted to clarify that all the like in this building is here with the angled double graphic central window and that lower left photo here. Just cut it off, but the shapes will remain in the wood detail. In other words, the one where it has a double gothic window with a- [38:34] Speaker H (unidentified): And this is actually a shop drawing from the Unilock. [38:39] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, so those shapes will be there. [38:41] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, they came out in a building based on- Right. They picked one building. Yeah, they picked one window that's up there for us. [38:51] Speaker A (unidentified): But yeah, the window is- Double one. So if you go to the transect window, the central one that is on Carroll. Yeah, Carroll Street. Yeah, that's central. Bottom left image. Oh, yeah. So like the replacement you're proposing will still retain that tracery. Tracery. Yeah, but it would just all be clear glass. And then the one on Thomas Street is a little different. I don't know if you want to go to that photo. Photo, maybe the top left image or the top middle image. So that has those [39:31] Speaker I (unidentified): round shapes. It would just be a straight window, is that what you're where you keep that below that, there's sort of a, well, yeah, they'll keep that, but I, yeah, but it may be set [39:47] Speaker H (unidentified): back, yeah, and I think it might at least kind of just be a part, yeah, is that like [39:52] Speaker A (unidentified): proud of the window, or is that part of the window, that's the frame, it's shaped like [39:56] Speaker I (unidentified): that, oh, well, Reno's actually like this, and he did that, I think, yeah, so in other words, it would keep that, but then behind it would be a custom window, as he had shown [40:08] Speaker C (unidentified): with the drawing and [40:12] Speaker I (unidentified): then the top would be have a storm panel on it the question is why I just had another question just in my mind the new clear glass will not have any mountains with that other than one bar across paper they're showing the drawing I've got the one [40:46] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, for example, here we're doing the single room, so it won't have any, [40:54] Speaker I (unidentified): yeah, just looking at the parish hall, seeing how those, you know, that lower level has, but those are [41:01] Speaker C (unidentified): more traditional in this. [41:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Do these windows open at all? [41:06] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, you know, it's like a hopper, right, so they open the bottom [41:12] Speaker I (unidentified): part of them when you could slip out what is it yeah because it showed with that block tackle and [41:21] Speaker B (unidentified): from the bottom part of the bottom part on some of them [41:27] Speaker H (unidentified): we're using the same you know locks windows but these are actually so they would [41:46] Speaker I (unidentified): potentially open the upper part would open this one because it's normal No, just the bottom part, I'll bring it up a little bit. Because the top part's fixed. [41:57] Speaker A (unidentified): Universal provided a section, right, in their shop. Do you want to show that? [42:21] Speaker H (unidentified): Any final questions? [42:41] Speaker C (unidentified): I see you asking that. OK. [42:46] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, we'll move next to the comment phase of the workshop. There's no one here in person. Let's check if there's anyone attending online. [42:59] Speaker A (unidentified): Yes, so if you're attending remotely, everyone who's here is already raising their hand. So I'm just trying to get my timer ready to go here. So I will call on you and invite you to speak. You'll be allowed to unmute. If you can please begin with your name and address. I'll give you three minutes to speak. I'll try and give you a 30-second warning. We'll start with Ann Pringle. You should be able to unmute. Okay, thank you. [43:28] Ann Pringle: Ready? Okay, my name is Ann Pringle. I lived at 44 Neal Street for 51 years, right around the corner from Williston West, and I am president of the Western Prom-Navid Association. I'm here tonight to listen and learn about this proposal, but I must respond to George Roe's nasty, submitted comment that our neighborhood had a nimby reaction to the conditional rezoning proposal a decade ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a new board, so I want you to understand that. I had a two-hour phone call at 3 a.m. a decade ago because of the time difference with Frank Monsoor, the Australian developer, urging him to meet with neighbors to explain his project, hear their comments, and answer their questions. He refused. He instead pressured me for two hours to sell the project to my neighbors. That is not my job. Faced with this obstruction, we did our homework on the city's comprehensive plan and zoning. Following significant neighborhood input, the WP&A decided that the conditional rezoning was not consistent with the comprehensive plan and opposed the project. When the council approved the rezoning, some abutters filed suit, not the WPNA, as those abutters were entitled to do. The Superior Court ruled in their favor, but was overturned by the Maine Law Court. Monsoor later violated the terms of the Conditional Zone Agreement and proposed to use the parish house not for the office he proposed for his business and to house his family for condominiums. I will not go on with further history,, but I wanted to rebut that nasty comment by George Rowe. I will submit further history to rebut the comment that our opposition was not grounded and not in my backyard. I want you all to understand that. We're very proud that we do our homework, we take responsible positions, and I think our neighborhood association is respected for that. We want to see a successful conversion of the sanctuary, which is part of an entire project. The sanctuary is clearly It's clearly the most challenging of all the buildings, and we want to see it succeed. And we look forward to hearing more of your comments as this process moves forward. Thank you for your attention. [45:44] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you for your comments. And now we have Greater Portland Landmarks. Allison [45:57] Speaker K (unidentified): Frazee, I'm Director of Advocacy at Greater Portland Landmarks. We're glad to see progress being made toward our new future for this historic church building, sometimes in order to find viable new uses for older buildings and ensure they continue to contribute to our communities we must make compromises for residential use we understand and support the selective removal of certain stained-glass windows especially those depicting religious iconography and with the understanding that many of these windows are not original we encourage the board to carefully review these selections to ensure that all windows that can be retained without compromising the successful reuse of the building are kept in place and restored as appropriate. It seems likely that buyers of condos and a historic church might actually appreciate historic church artwork and these windows could be considered unique assets. For those that are removed we encourage the applicant to carefully salvage the windows and find places in the building such as hallways or common spaces to hang them as art. It's also possible that some of the new residents might like to have them in their units as art. Windows not retained on site should be donated or sold for reuse elsewhere we would also encourage documentation with high resolution photos before any windows are removed and or after if they are removed if that's a better way to capture their details gpl would be happy to provide guidance and assistance as needed thank you very much thank [47:21] Speaker A (unidentified): you for your comments those are the only two people we have attending. Okay. [47:32] Speaker I (unidentified): I didn't hear any of that. [47:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay. Right. Is that ever going to get on the record? [47:36] Speaker A (unidentified): It was recorded. No,. Would you like to invite that speaker to offer the comment again and see if we can address their microphone? [47:49] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, Allison, your microphone was barely audible. I don't know if she's still there, but... [47:54] Speaker E (unidentified): We can try that, if not... [47:57] Speaker K (unidentified): I'm still here, sir. You can hear me. [48:00] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, barely. It's like you're really, maybe if you're using a microphone, move it closer to your mouth, or can you hear me now? [48:08] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, a little bit better, or [48:14] Speaker A (unidentified): make sure your microphone is plugged in, if it's something that's external, it's just a laptop. [48:22] Speaker K (unidentified): Do you want me to try it again? Or I can email comments then writing. [48:29] Speaker A (unidentified): I mean, yes, we accept public comment on every item, but I mean, is it loud enough now that you'd be able to hear? Yeah, [48:37] Speaker G (unidentified): I can hear it now. Can you hear me now? Is it a little loud? Historically, it's, it's [48:44] Speaker A (unidentified): not notice, please, it's still very hard. Yeah, it's hard to hear. Are [48:53] Speaker E (unidentified): you able to call him on the [48:55] Speaker K (unidentified): phone? Yeah, I can try my phone. Hold on one sec. Okay, you can hold off for that opportunity. I'm [49:08] Speaker E (unidentified): not sure it's never really happened. No, I mean, I mean, obviously it's like external things. Yeah, the [49:13] Speaker A (unidentified): first comment was audible. Did you turn the blame down from 100? I did, because now I'm worried that something's going to stay. No, yeah, I also don't, this didn't seem to have any. Yeah, right, but when it does, right, we don't need to blow anyone's socks off. Doesn't see it phone call. [49:51] Speaker C (unidentified): There's no transcript provided. [49:55] Speaker K (unidentified): Allison, are you there? Yeah, can you hear me better now? Yes. Okay, I'm so sorry about that. Thank you. I appreciate your patience. So let's try again. So I'm Allison Frazee, Director of Advocacy at Greater Portland Landmarks, and we are glad that progress is being made toward a new future for this historic site. Sometimes in order to find viable new uses for older buildings and ensure they continue to contribute to our communities, we must make compromises. For residential use, we understand and support the selective removal of certain stained glass windows, especially those depicting religious iconography, and with the understanding that many of these windows are not original. We encourage the board to carefully review these selections to ensure that all windows that can be retained without compromising the successful reuse of the building are kept in place and restored as appropriate. It seems likely that buyers of condos in a historic church might actually appreciate historic church artwork, and these windows could be considered unique assets. For those that are removed, we encourage the applicant to carefully salvage the windows and find places in the building such as hallways or common spaces to hang them as art. It's also possible that some of the new residents might like to have them in their units as art. Windows not retained on site should be donated or sold for reuse elsewhere. We would also encourage documentation with high resolution photos before any windows are removed and or after they are removed, if that's a better way to capture their details. GPL would be happy to provide guidance and assist with anything as needed. Thank you and sorry about the microphone issues. Thank [51:28] Speaker A (unidentified): you for your comment. Just confirming there's no notice. We have no other members of the public in attendance that [51:39] Speaker C (unidentified): then concludes the public [51:41] Speaker E (unidentified): the comment period for the workshop. I'll move into deliberations of the board and everyone, this is a workshop, so please provide all your input, provide input to the applicants so that you can move the project forward. Some things I think to frame the discussion, staff, if you've reviewed the staff memo. There are several guidelines that we're tasked with making our decisions based upon. Staff has called out a few for discussion. Standard A is around compatible use. B, retention of historic features. E, retention of historic distinctive features. Standard F, which relates to instances of repairing rather than replacing. And then what guides the terms of replacement and standard I, which speaks to the differentiation [52:46] Speaker C (unidentified): of additions and alterations to the building. [52:50] Speaker E (unidentified): I also think it's important to just discuss, since it's been brought up a couple of times, that our purview is over the building and if the windows were to be removed, that really have no ability to say what happens to the windows after the remove, nor do we have any, is there anything within the ordinance that allows mandates documentation of those things. So that would be on the applicant and any other person who would like to support that effort, that would be up to them to decide. With that, I would open the floor for discussion. question? [53:33] Speaker F (unidentified): I'd just like to start with these windows. I feel are absolutely character defining features and all should be preserved. They are not just a character defining feature but they're a major character defining feature and I've seen some of these church conversions to condos and they're absolutely stunning. There's one particular one in Somerville and Union Square on Bow Street and the apartments just have all the original glass windows. They're absolutely beautiful, and then what they've done was creatively designed open stairways, and then added key skylights on the flat and on the pitched, so they're operable so you can get fresh air, but also allow light to go from the second level to the first level. So I feel that all these windows should be retained, and then some creative design to bring more natural light from above. I know that we do have slate roofs on the pitched, but I feel like maintaining the windows would be imperative. And maybe allowing some penetrations through that in the areas to let natural light would be a good way to be able to utilize the building for these apartments, where they are four fairly large units, you will have that opportunity to space plan and use that creative design together. [55:01] Speaker E (unidentified): That brings up an important point I should have also added, that I think there is an initial discussion that our guidelines very much are driven by first defining what is as a character-to-body feature or distinctive feature, which then frames how we should approach a proposed change or alteration. [55:26] Speaker C (unidentified): So Member Picklen-Gould stated that she believes that the [55:32] Speaker E (unidentified): windows are a historic feature. I think that is an important thing to add for those members [55:39] Speaker F (unidentified): who'd like to speak to it. And I'd just like to add one thing, too, is once those windows come out there's there's no guarantee of preserving them and they could [55:48] Speaker G (unidentified): be lost forever that's [55:54] Speaker E (unidentified): for other members of the board we also want to talk about the doors too [56:03] Speaker G (unidentified): if you have any comments on the approach to the doors as far as adding lights to them [56:12] Speaker F (unidentified): I don't have any objection to that because they're just flat panel wooden doors. Or, especially if it has to be modified for an appropriate size door for access. But I don't see any detailing or trim on there that seems like it would need to be preserved or anything. But if it was like a subtle add of the windows, like that was shown with the sidelight, it retains that original shape, but it doesn't really affect the look of it. [56:53] Speaker I (unidentified): Or that's it just gonna say I feel like the form of the building form of the windows enough stained glass windows to get the message across to me is what I would call you know so what the most character defining to me is the gothic features of those windows. I was thinking we just looked at the gothic building on Congress Street and said there was some proposed modifications that dealt with safety where the gothic arches were to be altered. That's a national landmark with our national register property so that one there was some modifications made to some of the forms for stability of the building and also for safety concerns. So I guess when I was looking, this is, I'm throwing this out for discussion, I felt that the Thomas Street elevation is quite successful in terms of maintaining that view of stained glass, retaining the stained glass, and then with that central window, I was, I could live with taking out some of the stained glass there, which is that the majority of the stained glass and in light of the larger purposes, which is to get this property back into public use and to be a vital part of the community. I had a little bit more reservations about the Carroll Street side because so many of the larger stained glass windows were removed on that elevation. I have much less concern over the backside or which is not, which is facing the old school,, which is now condos, and the inboard courtyard, which is the parking, there's parking on two sides, there's parking facing the old McClellan School and then there's the parking facing Parish House. So I wondered if there was, and then looking at the floor plans, thinking about how might, how those spaces and you know how do those windows work within those spaces now I haven't got the professional expertise to really understand all that was just trying to think if there could be more salvage I guess sort of just mainly my overall things The absolute must keep the form of the building and the window configurations more comfortable with on the street and have some reservations about the street because all of the large windows are down the street. And I don't have reservations about the elevations that are less public, where you've got the back of the property facing the fallen school or inborn tracing she got the whole people get it we'll get it, but it's been a church, there's no, there's no doubt about that. And obviously if there's any state warrants, right, but I like community overriding consideration would be the, you know, the window moldings and the actual shapes, which look like they are being preserved. [1:00:30] Speaker H (unidentified): On Carroll Street, we're essentially removing one window that is right on the street, and the other ones are off this portrait. [1:00:42] Speaker I (unidentified): On the Carroll Street side. [1:00:46] Speaker E (unidentified): And so just sort of the autonomous is the east elevation, carol is the south elevation, the [1:00:52] Speaker A (unidentified): thomas is the east and carol is the north [1:01:00] Speaker I (unidentified): and then there's a tower on the right, the other elevation is the tower, and then central nave, the church, the main, and then it's facing you, and that there are two iterations of that church. I'm thinking historically too, was there a John Howard Stevens edition, so remember, [1:01:20] Speaker A (unidentified): exactly that the portico was added, the Paris parliament, but the portico is actually also an [1:01:25] Speaker H (unidentified): early 19th century, 20th century edition, yeah, so after we're replacing this [1:01:34] Speaker B (unidentified): already converted to something else, yes, that's already converted to residential [1:01:39] Speaker C (unidentified): eventually far [1:01:44] Speaker H (unidentified): back, so once you're on this one, we're leaving all these, this one, this one, this one, we're leaving, we're leaving this or placing this one, the [1:02:34] Speaker C (unidentified): doors, [1:02:39] Speaker I (unidentified): the doors, yeah, basically comfortable, simple than looking at the one you showed, which was a more contemporary interpretation of that one, the one that has the side. But it's also not as prominent, really. So I have the two windows in the front, and the door on Commerce Street to allow the light. It's very minimalist, like [1:03:27] Speaker B (unidentified): to comment, yeah, I'm a mixed mind, but I mean it still obviously looks like a church, and it's not, but it's not, it's not going to be a church, it's going to be something else, so I think some conversion of some of the elements of it is accepted up, especially since the basic shape of the window is retained, so that look is retained, just trusting that you're making the decision based upon what's really necessary to get adequate light in there and not be moving in there, it's not necessary for that purpose, yeah, even like [1:04:16] Speaker H (unidentified): The skylights with the colors brought up, like, there's, like, if you see our second floor, so yeah, we're proposing these skylights, but, you know, they're like, this is your living room, this is your second floor, so it's kind of shining, you know, here it's going like, only maybe here we can get some light from the skylights into this living room, but here there's just no light and it's really dark in this building. Like, you have to bring a flashlight on. [1:05:03] Speaker I (unidentified): It's a soft and blue. [1:05:31] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, here you see that if we, if we add skylights here, you know, it's not gonna reach all the way to like the living area and also use out the next floor units to be able to see what kind of weather it is. Cells. [1:06:15] Speaker D (unidentified): Do we know what the cell height is? Oh, what's in my hand, correct? Yeah, no, you're fine. Look on the main, on the first floor. Does it vary? [1:06:34] Speaker H (unidentified): No, they're pretty much all the same. There are those, so you have a chair room, so they're about this big, level, almost. [1:06:43] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that sounds about right. [1:06:46] Speaker A (unidentified): The large lancet windows are pretty consistent. [1:06:49] Speaker H (unidentified): It's similar. It's slightly higher than this. Okay. [1:06:56] Speaker D (unidentified): So I, my brain's been going nuts because when I got here, I was, I guess what Valerie said has really made me think that, like, to me, when it comes to stained glass windows, they're really made for the people inside the church, not so much for the people outside the church. Like, this photo is a great example of that. They just look pretty much black. But if you were inside, I'm sure you'd see all these colors. So I don't necessarily agree with the board's approach that you can, once you pull off a historic element of a building, that we have no say what happens to it. We have no, it's beyond our, it's still a historic piece of architecture. [1:07:59] Speaker B (unidentified): It's not an enforcement mechanism. [1:08:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, is that something that we can talk about? [Speaker E (unidentified): Not an ordinance.] It's not in the ordinance, I know, but the rules are always evolving with the times, right? [1:08:14] Speaker E (unidentified): i mean by city council yeah i mean it 's never really been like envisioned in that way that [1:08:23] Speaker A (unidentified): That like we would have that sort of like ongoing authority over elements of the building once they're removed, it [1:08:32] Speaker D (unidentified): Just gets tricky once it's removed. It's it's it's not nothing now, right? If you take a statue out of town square, if you remove it, that shouldn't be nothing. That still is something, and it means something, and it meant something to people. So while I understand psychologically to any future inhabitants of this building that, you know, bright sunlight is really kind of, I see it as like a basic element of, you know, living within a residential building. You need to have some kind of like not just ambient light from above, but I feel like you really need and you do need to be able to see what's going on in your neighborhood. [Speaker B (unidentified): So] but I don't think that should trump the historic nature of these character defining stained glass windows. So I think that they're, these windows appear to be divided, there's like a simply a leaded piece that divides them into some of them into three, some of them into two. So I was asking about the sill height because I was questioning whether or not that small from the sill to that first horizontal band could be switched out with glass, clear insulated glass, so that the person can see inside, but the majority of the window remains, and maybe the piece that you take out stays with it. Now I know this isn't, I'm not supposed to say this can stay within each unit showing that, oh, this piece went there. Telling the story. [1:10:23] Speaker F (unidentified): But you're also cutting [1:10:25] Speaker H (unidentified): off the stained glass, right? There's like a religious figure on there, and now you're going to cut off the stains. [1:10:33] Speaker D (unidentified): But it's not a tragedy. Yeah, but [1:10:37] Speaker H (unidentified): you'd rather have like a nice, full stained glass window somewhere else than like anywhere in the world versus [Speaker I (unidentified): one that] I don't know, just cut up like yeah. [1:10:53] Speaker D (unidentified): I do, I think if you took this church and you took every stained glass window out and replaced them all with clear glass, I think that would like change the character of the building. It's hard to look at any church of stained glass and not notice that it's essentially artwork. It's artwork work in the fenestration. So I feel like to disregard that is kind of doing a disservice to the history of the building, the building itself, and like, you know, I understand the [Speaker C (unidentified): that] this building has been unoccupied for a long time, and I would love to see it become housing. I think a lot of people would, but maybe there's a better, a more effective way to use to retain more of the stained glass while giving, I mean, why does a 10 foot tall window, why does, why does all 10 feet of it have to be ripped out and replaced with 10 feet of clear glass? [1:12:20] Speaker H (unidentified): You want to have operable windows in here because, you know, you want fresh air for these residences, right? So a lot of these are fixed panels, you know, so you can't open them. But even like, how do you, have to spend so much money on modifying these windows to make them, like, clear at the bottom, operable, and then, you know, and then kind of making, now you're going to have a pretty heavy seal between the clear glass and the stained glass. Glass that is not in line at all with the way the building looks right now, and then you're also talking about, yeah, the same glasses for the people inside. So I feel like the historic board is kind of looking at the exterior of the building, so as you see, like, you hardly, you can tell that these are stained glass from the exterior. Well, I think as elections was [1:13:28] Speaker E (unidentified): pointing to potentially, or would prompt more discussion around the standard, a compatible use, which I think is kind of a key component of our discussion. So when the use of our properties change, which is what's proposed, every reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the alteration. [1:13:44] Speaker D (unidentified): That's what you're, I don't usually like it when you put words into my mouth, but you're exactly [1:13:49] Speaker E (unidentified): right this time. Just connecting what you said to the standard. What we're being asked to decide is, to what extent are the alterations being minimized to allow for this change in use? That's always the first standard in every review we do. It's just we don't have this big of a change of use. [1:14:08] Speaker D (unidentified): Can we see an exterior of one of the largest windows that you're proposing to replace? Like a close-up, but this looks too far away. Do you have something there? For example, this one. So [1:14:22] Speaker H (unidentified): you know, here this plexiglass fell down. So here you kind of see the stained glass. Here we're going to remove it. It's also up high, and but this is pretty much on the, on the left side is kind of what the building looks like with all these stained glass elements. [1:14:56] Speaker D (unidentified): So I think it's pretty easy to tell that stained glass. So when you remove that clear glass there, that's good. I [1:15:05] Speaker E (unidentified): think maybe for the sake of the conversation, are there any members of the board who think that these are not [1:15:10] Speaker C (unidentified): character-defined? But if you zoom in here. [1:15:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Let me suggest that question first. Are any members of the board think that these are not character-defined? [1:15:20] Speaker C (unidentified): So that's kind of at this point. [1:15:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, I mean, Hillary pretty much alluded to it. [1:15:24] Speaker I (unidentified): I mean, I was saying that I was comfortable with the, that for me, the window opening in the form and the Gothic shape and the window mold, wooden shapes around it are visually the most impactful. And while I think that the stained glass, ideally, it would be great to keep all of it, but in order to, the standard of reasonableness, what's reasonable to ask, and that's where we get to the how many question. You know, what's reasonable to ask in order to support this new use. That's where I'm kind of coming from. That's, you know, how can you minimize the removal? And I think you made a pretty good case for Thomas Street in my book. Carroll Street, I was a little bit more concerned about, but when actually walking that street, it's at least in the summer months, it's not as prominent because there's lots of there are trees there's a courtyard set back there's a large shrub you know i mean those could change obviously in the future so i think it's probably that prominent one that's facing up which you just that one and then on the rear elevations i'm calling the parking sides the two sides i feel that those are really not You're you know, I was felt like I was trespassing. Why can't I be Carol's Doug McClellan? They have big signs all about a private do not enter and the other is private parking So, you know, I had a property at that point. So, you know, I'm thinking even though those are visible There are to me less prominent in terms of the park That's the one kind of in that middle ground Question of what's reasonable to get this building back into use I feel like their use is, especially with the only four units, I mean, I hate to see somebody try to cram more, you know, a few, not very many units using that space, I think provides a benefit in terms of getting the building back into use, and for its survival, really, you know, that to me is a broader driving thing for me, and I also thank you in terms of applying skylights to that ton of street facade to a slate i would think would be more intrusive in my mind to go home and it's just simple and there we go and so just to do [1:18:09] Speaker E (unidentified): any other members feel that they're not character defining or a single feature i think the shape of [1:18:16] Speaker B (unidentified): the windows is character defining distinctive thing well [1:18:21] Speaker E (unidentified): the definition of a distinctive feature finishes and construction techniques or examples of skilled craftsmanship which [1:18:29] Speaker B (unidentified): characterize the domain well they are definitely fit that character but that definition yes but [Speaker E (unidentified): here's that if] If they're primarily viewed from the inside and they are taken off and displayed inside, I know we can't control what happens to the windows, but if that happens, they're still part of the experience of being in that building. If they, I don't know if we can, I guess we can't do this, but I mean, if you can make it conditional that they are taken care of and then they're displayed inside the building, those that absolutely have to be removed, more than that I would feel more comfortable about. I feel the exact same way as you do like [1:19:26] Speaker D (unidentified): it I would be much more inclined to green light this if I knew for sure that those windows were not destroyed. Yeah I and furthermore really kind of incorporated into the interior where they could be out of the weather and reserved. I know that's not what we can do but that would I [1:19:50] Speaker B (unidentified): think satisfy me a lot especially the one that if there is one window that honors a particular individual that by itself is a distinctive feature. I think if that's the case then what [1:20:04] Speaker E (unidentified): the guidelines say is that this board has the authority to say it needs to stay and so it's kind of a cut and dry yes no. What do you mean can you it but you can also I'm sorry one second you know what I mean no I don't can you clarify that what you mean. So this board through these guidelines which we're tasked with interpreting for the applicant is if a distinct if it's a distinctive feature it's saying it shall be retained and preserved so if it should be should be retained and preserved then it should stay where it's been whereas [1:20:42] Speaker B (unidentified): if we if we suggest [1:20:43] Speaker E (unidentified): that it needs to stay in the building we have no ability to enforce that so it's kind of either you think it's distinctive that should stay or it should be completely it can go well it depends [1:20:54] Speaker B (unidentified): on where you preserve it right but you know there's again there's no precedent preserved [1:21:00] Speaker E (unidentified): there's no precedent in the city of being able to dictate have purview or enforce something that's that's been removed from the building and so I think it's the who just has a board to provide concrete feedback to the applicant things that we can actually do as a board so that they can move forward with the proposal. So it seems like most members of the board think that they are characterifying features, and that they should be retained and preserved. Then there's the next question of, OK, to what extent, which is standard A, are we made to minimize the alteration of the character-defying features in volume? [1:21:47] Speaker D (unidentified): That's why I brought up that horizontal leaded piece or metal piece. Using the existing language of the window, you could, going back to what Hillary said, you could, you know, how much of something, because I really do see the stained, any stained glass in a historic church, I really think that's character defining. Like, I think we, you know, we're torn, like, does this building want to get reused or can it not because of all the rules that we put in place? And we're not, it's not up to us to just, we have to just look at the building itself, not what the owner or architect wants to do, because I feel strongly about these windows. So I guess my guidance to the applicant would be, if you could, if next time you come back, maybe you could have an alternate plan or two for treating the windows that might kind of thread the needle between what you're proposing and what it seems like the board wants for these windows. That's not fair, I [1:23:34] Speaker H (unidentified): feel like, you know, I feel like this is, I don't know, I feel like this, the new study board has gotten in the really rigid room, like this is the second project now, you know, if the owner can't even put in clear windows, you know, this might not happen, this building has been empty for so long. So I'm also kind of like, you know, as a board, do you want to be exaggerated that projects don't happen and now this beautiful building is just gonna deteriorate over time because I just, I just wanted to be realistic too, you know, like as a resident of these units, they're going to be amazing units, you know, you want some sunlight to come into your space and, you know, you want to be able to open the window. So if we're at the preserve, every single stained glass window, you know, this project [1:24:33] Speaker B (unidentified): might not happen. But it's not up to us. [1:24:37] Speaker D (unidentified): We can't talk about whether or not a project can happen or not, that's not [1:24:40] Speaker E (unidentified): our task is to look at what's presented, apply the guidelines and say if it's meets the guidance or not. Essentially, I think if I'm to provide my input, I think that the guidelines provide the latitude in my reading, typically standard B, the second part, movable alteration of any historic material that distinctive architectural feature should be avoided when possible. I think that there is a reasonable approach to minimizing their removal of stained glass. I think that there could be a re-evaluation of trying to allow some natural light through one window in each unit. I think that would be a helpful re-evaluation to look at that. I think it would be helpful in the floor plans to know which windows are proposed for replacement so can get a sense of how light is being provided inside. That's good, that's a good one. I think that, I think I agree with labor basket that the two corner sides require the most scrutiny, street facing sides. The back sides I think are generally out of public or more out of public view and that provides more flexibility. And I do have concern around, or not concerned, but if we are to look at each window unit that then you are then alter, if you're to keep like a frame you'd be altering a distinctive feature in an inappropriate way and starting to get to other standards around alteration of a distinctive feature. That's why I think it's like per window in my view, it's like per window unit opening, it's like either looking at those instead of trying to break them up further. Okay, but there's again those are my thoughts and the column, the guidelines do allow for that approach. I [1:26:43] Speaker H (unidentified): just wonder like you know before there didn't seem to be, you know we even proposed more windows to be replaced and there wasn't an issue with the board. You know it's a new board, this board is like so hung up on it like it just, you know [1:27:02] Speaker D (unidentified): well you know we've seen things, this board has made rulings and then been overruled by the city council and historic buildings have been demolished. So we're like the, we're the final arbiter between whether or not these things are around for future generations or not. But I do [1:27:33] Speaker E (unidentified): want to keep focused on this application. If other members want to provide any input or further input on, the proposal, you know there's been discussion from some around full retention, re-evaluating all of the windows proposed for removal. Is there any way to narrow that? I don't know if there's any other thoughts from other members. [1:28:01] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I think the wording of both standards A and B allow for us to use our judgment on what's reasonable. Standard A talks about every reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the alteration, as CNOB talks about, should be avoided when possible. So I think if the applicant had more information about, to justify why some of these are like absolutely required to be removed, then we should be able to judge that is agreeable and that's a reasonable effort and therefore that the windows should be able to be removed. So I think just more information about the background on why, like how light comes into the certain rooms of the certain units, could be helpful. [1:29:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, no, that's that's a good point and I like the idea of coming back with a proposal that says this is exactly the ones we want to take out and this is the reason why. I like the idea that maybe you know one per unit to get the license to that unit or however it can be justified, so like justifying each one each one at a time kind of thing in terms of where there needs to be, like so that stained glass windows not be removed out of a hallway, for instance, where there's not a residence. So it's just to make a better case for that. [1:30:02] Speaker I (unidentified): I guess I wanted to say, too, I think I might be the only person that was at that first. So in effect, this is kind of a new review with a whole new group of people. And I didn't, I knew we'd done it, but I didn't remember it. And I guess I was thinking about the public comment and really getting back to what this speaker from Landmark said, that selected approval for a Windows to have this bill that survived, supported by the flexibility allowed standards, what reasonable approaches, you know, I could support removal of a number of the stained glass windows with the justification in terms of plans and think what you all are saying is we need more information how this actually plays out within the buildings. I was trying to figure it out myself. Yeah, which would be, and again, as I said before, I really feel like the window openings and the solids and voids of the building itself are absolutely critical, enough stained glass to get the point across. Viability of the building is crucial because that's a dance before history, and the purpose of our regulatory system is to promote the system, promote that these buildings are on what I think Michael was talking about where there's in terms of any windows that are removed, it would be amazing to keep them in the basement or out where that can happen because there's always that could it ever, might never, but the buildings would still be retained in the church even though you know rather than Having dispersed or broken up, or, you know, I'm again thinking sometimes when people remove existing windows in residential properties, I'm thinking about the visitor center, the from what it is now at the corner of Damp Forest. This whole building was the visitor center from the 1930s, which became a youth facility for Spurwink, and they made a case that they could not retain the windows because the client of Spurwink would destroy the windows. So they took out the old windows and stored all the windows itself in order to promote the reuse of that structure. So I feel like we have a precedent, this one, where if windows were to be removed and were to be retained within the building itself, you could make a case that should the building ever, or would there ever be an opportunity to place them or rethink the use one more time, that the building, that the windows would still be there, just as with the 1930s building, where the windows were all removed for the use of the building, which didn't come down to the plane base. [1:33:27] Speaker H (unidentified): Frankly, just walking through the building, there are a lot of stained glass windows sitting in the building. They were probably taken out of the Marist house, so I think, yeah, at this point, they're [1:33:41] Speaker I (unidentified): still... So there's a window storage area somewhere in the building. [1:33:45] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah. I mean, that, I [1:33:48] Speaker I (unidentified): think, might address some of the concerns where, you know, these windows get dispersed, and the documents, and also Landmark's talked about the documentation of anything that were to be removed. [1:34:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I guess so. I do think there's some precedent for requiring documentation that has been requested and that is also then something that can be delivered to the city to hold on to. I think there's no binding, the documentation would be no, but if they violate it within the documentation there's no recall, but that the documentation itself is the thing that is required of take photographs and measurements, whatever, and then those photographs and measurements are given to us as a record that we can Then hold on to, or, you know, provide to the historical society, or whoever, right, like that. I think is enforceable in that we could require that prior to removal, or something like that. Anything else, just, I would have to talk to corporation council. My understanding has been we have absolutely no regulatory authority over interiors of buildings. So like, if someone takes something and moves it into the interior, you've approved the removal from the exterior, and now it's the interior where we no longer have authority. Retaining things on site, I think just gets like, again, I don't really think that there's, I mean, I can look into that case you brought up, but I think it's like a difficult precedent. Precedent. It's also just frankly a nightmare of enforceability. Like, do we now have to conduct an annual inspection of the windows to make sure they're still there? What happens if they aren't there? Like, what are the repercussions? And then again, kind of to the comment that the chair made at one point of like, there's that key question of like, if it's that important, should you be approving, you know, the removal or the alteration, again coloring that with that question that the standards do incorporate flexibility, and that's like why the board is here, is to like interrogate those questions of like, you know, minimizing change, what is reasonable, what is required. So I would just reiterate that I think the standards absolutely do incorporate flexibility in weighing these things. [1:36:08] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I, and I didn't mean to. It dismissed. That suggestion of retention, I think. It's, it would be great to do. I just don't. I personally don't think it would be. And it's important or effective to use it as justification for a decision. No, the guidelines should. Retention or not, or removal, should be the decision, right? I think that, I think that's a key too [1:36:41] Speaker A (unidentified): that, you know, well, they'll keep it, so it's fine, you know, like there should be other considerations given at as a starting point, but again, I will follow up with corporation council and sort of others in the department to sort of understand if there's precedents I'm not aware of, or if there are other sort of cases we could look to, what are the sort of limits of the board's ability to apply conditions. I think I would also say that, you know, it gets tricky because I don't think it should then be the grounding for the board's decision, but like there's nothing stopping the applicant from also like pursuing other sorts of agreements around, you know, writing in that certain windows that are maybe really historically significant will be retained and displayed at the interior and that's a part of the condo dock or something, like perhaps things like that could be offered that might generally to be to the public good but may not necessarily be, you know, exactly within the board's purview, right, like. You can make a recommendation that, right, forcible, yeah, because just as another example there was a property, private, you know, single-family home where there was a stained glass window, beautiful piece of that craft, it was on the rear facade, it had absolutely no visibility from the street, and in that case, you know, there was nothing, there was no way at all to stop, you know, that owner from removing that. The owner, you know, said, well, we'll box it up and store it in the attic, and the board was very encouraging of that, but it's just like it's [1:38:23] Speaker E (unidentified): it's unenforceable, right, to like hold them to that, so I think maybe asking Stat, do you have an idea of where we're at, to see if we, if we can, I can try and summarize [1:38:42] Speaker D (unidentified): thoughts of the board. One more tidbit before you summarize, I feel like none of us really know what it's like to be in that space and see how much that stained glass does or does not bring light into those spaces, right, so no matter what it would be guesswork, it would be, right, like we could take the applicant's word that if you want to visit the building, that's what I was wondering, is that a possibility, or no, I can look into it, because I'm seeing pictures here of the inside of the church, and if they're unaltered, it looks like enough light comes into those that with the addition of artificial lighting inside would give you plenty of lighting. I [1:39:38] Speaker E (unidentified): think to add to maybe provide an action item for that, it's up to the applicant to provide the evidence of why they're proposing them, [1:39:55] Speaker C (unidentified): which could include showing the impact of the stain. [1:40:02] Speaker E (unidentified): It could be a tour too, am I? [1:40:05] Speaker D (unidentified): Another thing is like, these stained glass windows aren't made in all one piece. They're made in segments, correct? Yeah. So is it possible to take a segment and make it openable to get some fresh air in there? It's real light. Can you leave the stained glass, make one you know take it out bring it somewhere to a window dude put some hinges on it and make it openable some way so that you can look out you have fresh air but you could also close it is that a possibility i feel like we haven't looked at all the different possibilities [1:40:40] Speaker G (unidentified): yeah an awning sheds [1:40:46] Speaker D (unidentified): water if it's raining but it can still be open i 'm throwing all the stuff out there because like then you get the character then you get the opportunity to open the window and see what's going on a nice day leave it open. [1:41:03] Speaker H (unidentified): I also want to point out that this developer is barely proposing to do anything with the exterior of the building like I've seen proposals of this building with parking coming in from the side going into the basement in previous scheme we worked on like this whole stack parking system inside the building like you know this developer is not proposing to do any of that so the exterior modifications are super minimal compared to anything that has been proposed in the past i'm sorry i think it's [1:41:51] Speaker E (unidentified): I think it's up to what's presented to us for us to evaluate where to come to a public hearing. Certainly, I have seen operable stained glass windows, but this is an aside. side. So I think to try and summarize, so that staff has, or staff, do you feel like there's been any guidance that you've been able to write down? I think the key comments were [1:42:28] Speaker A (unidentified): providing some additional drawings that help the board understand how the scope of removal relates to the interior programming so that they can assess that question of the minimizing and like you know determining what's reasonable so there's some sort of additional drawings in that regard and then i think other commentary was general consensus that the stained glass windows are character defining of the building some members voiced comfort with the degree of removal proposed along thomas street i think it sounded like most people had reservations about the removal the amount of removal along carroll there was some acknowledgement from a number of members that like the area over the adjacent parking lot has a very minimal visibility and so there weren't necessarily concerns about their post there so i think it's it's largely a matter of the african kind of sitting down and doing some of that further study as always we're happy to participate in that and try to be of help in Weighing that, but I think there was also, there were also suggestions about, yeah, partial replacement or partial removal. I mean, that might be something where providing some images of what that might look like, or if you can show some investigation of that, again, may also help inform the reasonableness kind of question. So I feel like those were the, otherwise it sounded like there was general comfort with the changes to the door, the doors, and then otherwise I think, I don't think anyone took issue with the fact that very little other alterations proposed opposed to the building essentially done. So that seemed to be a fair summary of the discussion. Yeah. [1:44:32] Speaker E (unidentified): I do think a feature of stained glasses is that it is opaque. Right. Making it clear it isn't changed. Right,. OK, are there any questions for us? [1:44:52] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, just coming back, I need to [1:45:01] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, just looking at interior photographs or yeah, I guess that's another thing I can like, you know, people in the building, yeah, it would require public notice because [1:45:20] Speaker C (unidentified): this, it would be there together. Yeah. There's the question. [1:45:24] Speaker A (unidentified): I will. So things on my to-do list are to talk about, I'll investigate on our side of the tour. It has happened in the past. It is quite an ordeal and it has to be made. Like if the board is coming to look in person, it has to be open to the public. So, you know, we'll have to discuss that. There could be other ways of photographic documentation or other things. And then I will also look into the kind of conditions question as far as like how far can conditions be taken, what is really conditionable. So those are on my to-do list of things to follow up on, and I'll, you know, keep you in the loop on that, and we can talk about it if there are next steps with that. Yeah. Okay. [1:46:23] Speaker C (unidentified): Sounds like a conclusion. That was the last item on the agenda for tonight. [1:46:36] Speaker E (unidentified): Next, we have scheduled for September 16th. [1:46:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Mr. Sheckler, is that... [1:46:42] Speaker A (unidentified): September 16th....applications? I believe, yes. We'll have one item in. I will. [1:46:55] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. if anyone knows they'll have either please let me know [Speaker H (unidentified): any] box business here a motion for the charity [1:47:17] Speaker C (unidentified): second means thank you thank you everyone