Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION November 9, 2017 THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 9:00 A.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL BUILDING NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BY 12:00 NOON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2017 514-4060 RANDY HICKS CHAIRMAN PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, November 9, 2017 9:00 a.m. I. Call to Order: Chairman II. Roll Call III. Approval of the Minutes IV. New Business 1. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-017, submitted by Dwight Graves, property owner, for after-the-fact replacement of the roof and windows, and installation of brick skirting at 217 Pearl Street, Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcel 172. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. 2. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-019, submitted by David Strauss, agent for J Eure Properties, Inc., property owner, for the repair of a collapsed portion of a structure and the removal of an existing garage door on property located at 104 Pine Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block A, Parcels 155. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. V. Staff Reports A. Enforcement Update B. Administrative Approvals VI. Adjournment 2  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION September 14, 2017 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, September 14, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 442 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: Susan Coley Claire Jones, Comprehensive Planning Manager Merritt Draper Karla Carter, Deputy City Attorney Randy Hicks Amy Thurston, Planner I Oliver Hobbs Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner Edward King Vivian Turner Mary Austin Darden MEMBERS ABSENT: Walter Boyette The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hicks. The roll was called by Ms. Jones and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as presented. 3 REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2017-00014, submitted by Jeffrey Townsend, property owner, for exterior alterations and construction of a flat roof at property located at 178 East Washington Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G18, Block (6), Parcel 5, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by report by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated that the application is for a request for exterior alterations and construction of a new flat roof at property located at 178 East Washington Street. The subject property is located on East Washington Street between Commerce Street and Franklin Street, thus it is part of the East Washington Street Historic District. According to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, the subject property is a contributing one-story commercial building that was constructed between 1926 and 1940. This building is described as having a stretcher bond brick structural system and a flat roof with simple parapet. The property has been boarded up and the original storefront is not visible. Two property maintenance inspections were conducted in 2015 which found that the building was deteriorated and falling pieces of the structure were posing a hazard to the sidewalk. The applicant provided a condition statement from Suffolk Glass and Aluminum, which states that the wooden windows, door, and trim are deteriorated beyond repair. Ms. Thurston stated that it is evident that there are no structural elements of the roof that can be repaired, thus a completely new roof must be constructed. Ms. Thurston stated that the roof is missing and noted that there are few remnants of the original windows and it is believed that they were two-over-one double- hung wood windows; however, due to the condition of the remaining material, it is difficult to 4 determine. Ms. Thurston stated that the applicant proposes to construct a new flat roof with TPO membrane in the same location and similar orientation to the preexisting flat roof, which is appropriate for commercial buildings in the East Washington Street Historic District under the Historic Guidelines and consistent with commercial buildings that are located either adjacent to or in close proximity to the subject property. TPO membranes (thermoplastic polyolefin) have traditionally been approved as an appropriate material for replacing flat roofs in the Historic District when hidden by a parapet as in this case. The applicant also requests to replace with metal coping on the front façade which is permitted by Chapter 4, Section G of the Guidelines. Overall, the new flat roof is appropriate for this property and the surrounding area; it will also rehabilitate this historic structure as a whole. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a new aluminum storefront system on the front façade in place of the preexisting wooden windows, trim, and entry door. This does not include altering the existing vinyl siding, which is a nonconforming material. The new storefront system would consist of six (6) new aluminum-framed windows and one (1) aluminum-framed glass door with a small aluminum transom window above. The applicant proposes to maintain the original window and door pattern, which complies with Chapter 4, Section C.3 of the Guidelines. Below the new windows, architectural stone skirting is proposed to match the stone skirting used at 180 East Washington Street which is immediately adjacent to the right of the subject building. Numerous other commercial storefronts feature aluminum windows, aluminum doors, and stone skirting. Since the proposed materials are compatible with the Guidelines and other properties in 5 the Historic District, these changes are considered appropriate. On the rear building wall, the applicant requests to remove the existing black paint to reveal the original red brick and repoint the brick where necessary. All new mortar shall match the old in strength, composition, color, and texture, as stated in Chapter 4, Section F. In addition, the applicant proposes to install two (2) one-over-one, double-hung, white vinyl clad windows. As described previously, it appears that the original windows may have consisted of two-over-one wooden windows; however, the condition of the remaining material makes it difficult to determine. Where the preexisting rear door was located, a solid aluminum door is proposed. The proposed windows and doors are consistent with the style of other windows and doors utilized on the rear of commercial buildings in the Historic District. Lastly, a new metal gutter and downspout are proposed in order to allow proper drainage of the new roof. Overall, the above stated materials are commonly used on the facades of other historic properties, therefore they are compatible. Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HC-2017-00014, with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened and there no being no speakers in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed. After discussion by the Commission in regard to the materials used on the building façade and retention of the nonconforming vinyl siding, which was not included as part of the application, a motion was made by Commissioner Draper to approve staff’s recommendation as presented. The 6 motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs and passed by a recorded vote of 7-0. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-001, submitted by Mylan Nguyen, property owner, for exterior repairs and roof replacement at property located at 112 Linden Avenue. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17, Block A, Parcel 271, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium, zoning district, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by a staff report by Amy Thurston, Planner I. Ms. Thurston stated that the subject property is located on the 100 block of Linden Avenue and is part of the West End Historic District, which is primarily composed of single-family dwellings. The subject property is a contributing Queen Anne/Colonial Revival home that was constructed circa 1905. This property is noted as having a center gable with paired windows and cornice returns. It is symmetrically fenestrated and features a central entry and wrap-around porch supported by Ionic columns. Ms. Thurston stated that prior to the property being nominated to the Historic District in 2004, the building was reclad in vinyl siding, storm windows were installed, and the wooden cornice was wrapped in metal. In 2006, the subject property was granted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), HC-2006-08AD, to replace a shed and no other COAs are on file. The application is a request for an after-the-fact Certificate of Appropriateness. Prior to submission of this application, the original standing seam metal roof was removed entirely and replaced with architectural roof shingles. The preexisting roof material over the front porch, which consisted of rubber roofing according to the applicant, was also removed and replaced with architectural shingles. In addition, some of the gutters were removed and the applicant had begun replacing sections of damaged or rotten wooden fascia boards. 7 The details of this request include: • Replace the original standing seam metal roof with Mystique 42 gray architectural roof shingles throughout. • Replace damaged and/or rotten wooden fascia boards and wrapping them in metal which is utilized on the rest of the fascia. • Install white metal gutters and downspouts. • Repair damaged vinyl siding, windows, and a door on the rear of the home in-kind. • Repaint front porch columns, window trim, and front door with the same colors. The applicant was unable to provide many pictures of the exterior of the structure prior to the work commencing; however, they did provide images showing the fallen gutter and metal wrapping, and interior water damage as well as the condition of the rear exterior door. In analyzing the appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed architectural shingle roof, guidance is provided by Chapters 4 and 5 of the Historic District Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Historic Guidelines state that roof designs are one of the key character-defining elements of the style of the house. Metal is the preferred material in areas where metal roofs are prevalent, as is the case on Linden Avenue. Ms. Thurston stated that the regulations further specify that original materials be matched as closely as possible when replacing historic roof materials. Standing seam metal is still produced and many applicants have used this material for other renovations to properties in the Historic District. Lastly, the Guidelines state that roofs need to relate to neighboring historic buildings in type, level of complexity, and materials. Ms. Thurston stated that the Historic Landmarks Commission has typically allowed architectural shingles to replace asphalt shingle roofs and roofing materials that are no longer available or roofs not visible from the right-of-way. The replacement architectural 8 shingle roof at the subject property has altered the appearance and historical integrity of the structure. Being that this home was reclad in vinyl siding and the original wooden cornices were wrapped in metal prior to the nomination, this structure now consists almost entirely of modern construction materials that are substantially different from those used in the early twentieth century. Overall, the proposed change from standing seam metal to architectural shingles is inconsistent and inharmonious with the surrounding area and it does not comply with the Historic Guidelines. With regard to the proposed alterations to the windows, rear door, gutters, fascia, and siding, these repairs are all in-kind or considered routine maintenance, which is supported by the Historic Guidelines. It is important to note that the current materials for the siding and fascia have been in place since at least 2004. Vinyl siding and metal fascia are not permitted in the Historic District, thus they are considered nonconforming. The Historic Landmarks Commission has traditionally allowed nonconforming materials to be individually repaired; however, removal of the entire element and full replacement would not be permitted. Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of HLC2017-001 with the conditions noted in the staff report. The recommended conditions specify that the roof shall utilize silver standing seam metal instead of architectural shingles in order to restore it back to its historic appearance. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor was Mr. Yom Tran, friend and contractor of property owner. Mr. Tran stated that Ms. Nguyen did not know the house was located in the 9 historic district until she received the stop work order notice on the property. Mr. Tran stated that the home was purchased for Ms. Nguyen’s parents and removing the roof would be a financial burden on her. Mr. Tran asked the Board to consider approving the architectural shingles on the structure, noting that many other homes in the area also have architectural shingles. Mr. Tran stated that he will comply with all of the other recommended conditions as required. There being no speakers in favor or opposition, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Hicks stated that a precedent had been set forth that allowed other structures in the district to have the architectural shingles. Commissioner Hobbs stated that the Guidelines are in place to guide Board decisions in what is allowed and what is not allowed in the district, and that those rules should be followed. Chairman Hicks stated that the Board tries to be fair and consistent with all issues in the historic district and any decision could be overturned by the City Council. Commissioner Draper stated concern for the cost to the applicant since the roof has already been replaced. Commissioner Darden stated that, after looking up the property, the public description for the structure is described as a beautiful historic home and also stated it is the buyer’s responsibility to do the research. After discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Hobbs made a motion to approve the application with staff recommendations; seconded by Commissioner King and approved by a recorded vote of 6-1 with Commissioner Draper voting in opposition. 10 REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC-2017-003, submitted by Edwin Coval, agent for McDonalds Corporation, McDonalds USA, LLC, and Franchise Realty Interstate, property owners, for the installation of a new illuminated sign and for site additions and modifications on property located at 601 N. Main Street, Zoning Map 34G11, Block A, Parcels 1, 2, and 3, and Zoning Map 35G5, Block A, Parcel 3. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. The next item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by report by Kevin Wyne, Principal Planner. Mr. Wyne stated that the subject property is situated at the northern end of the Historic Conservation Overlay District but just outside the North Main Street Extension (1998) of the Original Suffolk National Register Historic District, which ends on the south side of East Constance Road at the former Courthouse. The subject property is located in the North Main Street Entry Corridor, which is significant as the place where the City was founded and contains prominent and early buildings. The subject property serves as a fast food restaurant, and is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing menu board at the facility’s drive thru with a new, 29.5 square foot digital menu board with a charcoal colored cabinet. The new menu with its approximately 1.5 foot tall base will stand 7.39 feet above grade. The applicant also seeks to replace a small area of existing tiled concrete at the front of the restaurant with new concrete and connect a pedestrian crosswalk in the restaurant’s parking area to an existing sidewalk on the north side of Constance Road. Mr. Wyne stated that the applicant plans to remove the existing asphalt and install concrete where the existing handicap parking stalls are located and to restripe the parking lot area to include striped crosswalks and accessible paths to comply with the 11 Americans with Disabilities Act provisions. The building was constructed in 1989 and does not contribute to the district. However, the property is prominently located at a key intersection within the northern Historic Entry Corridor and is located in close proximity to two (2) prominent structures and one (1) prominent site. The prominent historical sites include Riddick’s Folly, the former Nansemond County Courthouse, and Constant’s Wharf, the site of first settlement in Suffolk. Chapter 6, Section A.2, identifies the “Installation of enhancements to the pedestrian environment” as a goal in preserving the character of the Historic Entry Corridor. Proposed concrete will be placed in the appropriate areas and while the pedestrian improvements are minor, they will offer an improvement to the existing pedestrian connectivity without detracting from the character of the district and are appropriate for the site. Signs are strictly regulated in the Historic Conservation Overlay District; however, the HLC does have the authority to consider signage proposals that exceeds that of the guidelines on a case by case basis. The new menu board is smaller in area than the current menu board and is well screened by the restaurant from North Main Street and is not a visibly prominent feature from West Constance Road. Menu boards are essential for the operation of fast food establishments and the location of the proposed sign does not detract from some of the more prominent structures in the area. As such, the replacement of the existing menu board would be appropriate. Mr. Wyne stated that after evaluation, staff believes that the criteria of the Historic District Design Guidelines can be met. Therefore, based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of HC2017-12 with the noted 12 conditions. The public hearing was opened and speaking in favor was Mr. Edwin Covall, contractor. Mr. Covall stated that McDonald’s new 20/20 vision is to update all McDonald restaurants across the country to more current standards. However, he stated that his intention is to preserve the architectural integrity of this site in its current state instead of coming to the Board with the new standards. Mr. Covall noted the prominent importance of the site to the city and recommended to his client to just update to the ADA compliance and the menu board and leave the site as it is. Mr. Covall asked that the Board approve the application as presented. There being no other speakers in favor or opposition, the public hearing was closed. After discussion by the Commission of the unique characteristics of this McDonald’s and its use as a navigational landmark, a motion was made by Commissioner King to approve staff’s recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs and passed by a recorded vote of 7-0. New Business: Enforcement Update Donald Bennett, (Planning & Community Development) reported on the following properties: 210 Bank Street – Property granted extension until September 30, 2017 221 Bank Street – Property maintenance violation, court case continued until October 5, 2017 118 Pinner Street – Re-Issue Notice of Violation for property maintenance code violation 215 Grace Street – Court case continued until October 5, 2017 121 Pinner Street – Re-Issue Notice of Violation for property maintenance code violations 13 221 Pinner Street – Court case continued until November 2, 2017 209 Pearl Street – Granted extension until September 30, 2017 New Business: Zoning Update Matthew Levy, (Planning & Community Development) reported on the following properties: 181 N. Main Street – Board of Zoning appeal 222 Pinner Street – Judgement found against property owner 302 Bank Street – Judgement found against property owner 200 E. Washington Street – Notice of Violation has been issued 156 W. Washington Street – Case been referred to court on October 5, 2017 447 W. Washington Street – Notice of Violation has been issued 216 Grace Street – Notice of Violation has been issued 137 W. Washington – Notice of Violation has been issued 430 N. Main Street - Property maintenance violations has been addressed There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 14  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: Motion: Motion: To Approve To Approve To Approve Application Application Application 1st: Draper 1st: Hobbs 1st: King September 14, 2017 2nd: Hobbs 2nd: King 2nd: Hobbs ATTENDANCE HC-2017-00014 HLC-2017-001 HC-2017-003 VOTE: 7 - 0 VOTE: 6 - 1 VOTE: 7 - 0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO YES NO Boyette, Walter: Vice- X Chairman Coley, Susan M. X X X X Darden Mary Austin, X X X X Draper, Merritt X X X X Hicks, Randy: Chairman X X X X Hobbs, Oliver X X X X King, Edward L. X X X X Turner, Vivian X X X X 15  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W. WASHINGTON STREET, P.O. BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning To: Historic Landmarks Commission From: Amy Thurston, Planner I Date: November 9, 2017 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC2017-017, submitted by Dwight Graves, property owner, for after-the-fact replacement of the roof and windows, and installation of brick skirting at 217 Pearl Street, Zoning Map 34G18, Block A, Parcel 172. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned RM, Residential Medium, and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is located within the Original Suffolk Historic District, which was created in 1987. Pearl Street consists entirely of contributing two-story residential homes with Vernacular architecture that were constructed between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The overall appearance of Pearl Street is unchanged from the period of significance; therefore, this area of the Historic District has a strong cohesive historic impression. According to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, the subject property is noted as a wood frame Vernacular home constructed circa 1885. The structure consists of weatherboard siding, three (3) bays, a pyramidal hipped roof with asphalt shingles, and a Vernacular porch with Tuscan columns and Italianate cornice brackets. The windows are noted as six (6) over six (6) windows. Case History The property owner visited the Planning Division office on August 17, 2017, to inquire about the permitting process for making exterior changes to property within the Historic District. Staff advised the owner that a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) must be obtained prior to making any exterior changes with the exception of routine maintenance. Staff specifically advised the owner that replacement of an asphalt shingle roof with architectural shingle is supported by the HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 2 standards of the Historic District Design Guidelines; however, the replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows would not comply with the requirements of the Historic District Design Guidelines. On September 25, 2017, a zoning inspector noticed that exterior changes had been made to the roof and windows at 217 Pearl Street without a Certificate of Appropriateness, as required by Section 31-302 (a) (1) of the Unified Development Ordinance. A Notice of Violation was mailed the following day to the property owner. The owner returned to the Planning Division office on October 2, 2017, to submit an after-the-fact COA application. There is one (1) previous COA on file for the subject property, HC-2011-21AD, which allowed for in-kind repairs to the siding and skirting, as well as exterior painting. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Proposed Actions This is a request for an after-the-fact Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant’s request consists of the following items: 1. Replace the preexisting asphalt shingle roof with Tamko architectural shingles in Virginia Slate. 2. Replace the preexisting six (6) over six (6), double-hung, full divided light, wood windows with six (6) over six (6), double-hung, vinyl windows. Please note that the muntins/grids of the replacement windows are located on the interior of the glass. 3. Remove the preexisting metal skirting around the foundation and install a new red brick skirt around the entire foundation. (The existing masonry piers would be concealed by the new skirting). The color and dimensions of the new brick are proposed match the existing brick utilized on the piers as closely as possible. 4. Brick over the existing concrete front porch steps so as to match the proposed brick foundation. The color and dimensions of the new brick are proposed match the existing brick utilized on the piers as closely as possible. Condition Statement Marcy Vick, owner of Tidewater Home Improvements, submitted a condition statement (dated September 26, 2017) in support of this application, as required by the standards of the Historic District Design Guidelines. The letter states that the old windows on the home had suffered substantial rot and deterioration, leaving no option but complete replacement. Surrounding Characteristics A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. 209 Pearl Street - Vernacular house constructed circa 1890 with a rectangular transom HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 3 and sidelights, cornice returns, and a metal door hood. 210 Pearl Street - Vernacular house constructed circa 1885 with a Vernacular porch, chamfered supports, and brackets. 211 Pearl Street - Vernacular house constructed circa 1890 with a Vernacular porch with pediment and square columns. 212 Pearl Street - Vernacular duplex constructed circa 1890 with a Vernacular porch, turned supports, and Italianate brackets in the cornice. 213 Pearl Street - Vernacular house constructed circa 1890 with a Vernacular porch, Tuscan columns, and Italianate cornice brackets. 214 Pearl Street - Queen Anne house constructed circa 1910 consisting of a Vernacular porch which curves from the front to ride side and features Ionic columns and pediments. 216 Pearl Street - Queen Anne home constructed circa 1910 consisting of three (3) bays (asymmetrical), hipped roof with lower cross gable, Vernacular porch with Ionic columns, Palladian motif window on the front gable, and two (2) over two (2) windows. 219 Pearl Street - Vernacular house constructed circa 1890 with a Vernacular porch, Tuscan columns, and pediments. 223 Pearl Street - Vernacular house constructed circa 1890 with a Vernacular porch, Italianate cornice brackets, chamfered supports, and jigsaw balusters. Site Modifications The applicant does not propose any site modifications as part of this application. Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines Chapter 4, Section C. Window Openings:  It is very important that the windows of an historic building be preserved where possible to maintain their size and details (e.g. muntin patterns, mullion spacing and width, transoms, trim details, etc.). Chapter 4, Section C.3. Guidelines for Window Preservation:  Maintain Original Windows: Maintain original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the wooden members. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. Uncover and repair covered-up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. If repair of an original window is necessary, repair only the deteriorated element to match the original in size, composition, material, dimension, and detail by patching, splicing, HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 4 consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the deteriorated section. The removal of historic materials shall be avoided.  Avoid Replacing Original Windows: Replace windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs, when available. Replacement windows should be designated to match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, the reflective quality or color of the glazing, or the appearance of the frame.  Maintain the Original Window Patterns: Do not change the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that do not fit the window opening.  Maintain Consistency of Window Types: Maintain window types that reflect those types found in the district.  New Window Materials: New windows may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad. Unfinished or anodized aluminum is not permitted. When evaluating the acceptability of replacement windows, the following criteria shall be used: o Kind and texture of materials; o Architectural and historical compatibility; o Comparison to original window profile; o Level of significance of original windows to the architectural style of the building; and Material performance and durability.  Conditions Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed general contractor stating the condition of the existing windows, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options to replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Chapter 4, Section F. Materials  Masonry is found in building’s walls, steps, and decorative details. Wood was commonly used in building frames, cladding, window and door frames, and decorative elements. Metal is not as common a material in the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District except for use as roofs and gutters. Chapter 4, Section F.1. Masonry  Masonry includes brick, terra cotta, concrete, stucco, tile, and mortar and is used in making cornices, pediments, lintels, sills, and decorative features, as well as building walls, retaining walls, and chimneys. The color, texture, mortar joint type, and patterns of the masonry help define the overall character of a building. A number of residential buildings used masonry as their primary material. Among the bonding patterns found on these buildings are Flemish, common, and on newer structures, running bond.  Masonry such as brick should be used for new construction and additions where brick is HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 5 the common wall material.  Duplicate mortar in strength, composition, color, and texture. Duplicate old mortar joints in width and profile. Chapter 5, Section H. Foundation Design  Solid Brick foundations are common for residential buildings in the district. Masonry Pier foundations are also typical with the spaces between the piers often filled in with brick. Chapter 5, Section H.2. Rehabilitation Guidelines  Repoint or rebuild deteriorated brick porch foundations matching materials as closely as possible. Chapter 5, Section I. Roofs  Traditional roofing material such as standing seam metal are preferred over asphalt shingles but are not required.  When the original roofing material has already been replaced with asphalt shingles and re-roofing becomes necessary, then, at a minimum, the roofing material shall be upgraded to an architectural-grade shingle.  Condition Statement: A signed statement, with exhibits, from a licensed general contractor stating the condition of the existing roof, ability to be repaired, need for replacement, proposed corrective measures, and options to replacement is required as supporting documentation for any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. B. Secretary of the Interior Standards The Secretary of the Interior Standards, which are included in Appendix A of the Historic Guidelines, encourage the repair and preservation of existing historic materials and character defining elements. Where replacement is determined to be necessary, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The design of replacement features shall also be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Specific guidance with regard to the preservation of historic windows is provided below.  Windows - Identify, Retain and Preserve – Recommended: o Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Such features can include frames, sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hoodmolds, paneled or decorated jambs and moldings, and interior and exterior shutters and blinds.  Windows - Identify, Retain and Preserve – Not Recommended: o Removing or radically changing windows which are important in defining the historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 6 diminished. o Changing the historic appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs, materials, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, and muntin configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame. o Obscuring historic window trim with metal or other material. o Stripping windows of historic material such as wood, cast iron, and bronze. o Replacing windows solely because of peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sash, and high air infiltration. These conditions, in themselves, are no indication that windows are beyond repair.  Windows – Replace – Recommended: o Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to repair using the same sash and pane configuration and other design details. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible when replacing windows deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.  Windows – Replace – Not Recommended: o Removing a character-defining window that is unrepairable and blocking it in; or replacing it with a new window that does not convey the same visual appearance. Staff Analysis The standards of the Historic District Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation state to replace windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs, when available. Furthermore, replacement windows should be designed to match the original in appearance, detail, material, profile, and overall size as closely as possible. Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, the reflective quality or color of the glazing, or the appearance of the frame. The standards of the Historic District Guidelines specifically state that new windows may be constructed of painted wood, metal clad or vinyl clad. Vinyl windows have not been permitted except in some cases where they are not visible from the right-of-way. The subject property previously consisted of six (6) over six (6), double-hung, full divided light, wood windows, which were located behind one (1) over one (1) aluminum storm windows to provide protection from the elements. Based on the present configuration of the window openings and trim that have been modified over the years, the preexisting wood windows may not have been original to this structure. Although it is difficult to determine whether some or all of the preexisting windows may have been original, they did consist of an appropriate material for the Historic District. The proposed replacement windows, which were installed without a COA, consist entirely of vinyl with interior grids and do not convey the same appearance, profile, character, details, muntin configuration, or glazing as the preexisting wood windows. In addition, the bright white color of the replacement windows does not match the existing beige window trim and frames. HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 7 In past decisions, the Historic Landmarks Commission has required that historic wood windows be replaced with compatible vinyl clad or metal clad windows which evoke the same appearance, profile, character, details, muntin configuration, and glazing. At a minimum, the HLC usually requires clad windows on the front of a structure and in any other areas that are visible to the public right-of-way for those areas have a direct visual impact on the integrity of the Historic District. Noncontributing additions and rear building walls may sometimes be permitted to utilize vinyl replacement windows. Secondly, the applicant requests to replace the preexisting asphalt shingle roof with architectural- grade Tamko singles in Virginia Slate. While traditional roofing materials, such as standing seam metal, are preferred over asphalt shingles, they are not required. In cases where the original roofing material has already been replaced with asphalt shingles and re-roofing becomes necessary, then, at a minimum, the roofing material shall be upgraded to an architectural-grade shingle in accordance with Chapter 5, Section I of the Design Guidelines. (The HLC previously established an administrative process to allow for the replacement of an asphalt shingle roof with architectural-grade shingle through the issuance of a General Certificate of Appropriateness.) Thirdly, the applicant proposes to remove the preexisting silver metal skirting around the foundation, which was not an appropriate material, and replace it with a solid brick foundation to conceal the existing masonry piers. The color and dimensions of the new brick is proposed to match the brick utilized on the piers as closely as possible. Chapter 5, Section H, of the standards of the Historic Guidelines states that both solid brick foundations and masonry pier foundations that are filled in with brick are common on residential buildings in the Historic District. The original masonry piers supporting the main structure are positioned such that they are only slightly recessed from the exterior building walls. It appears that if an entirely new brick skirt were installed on the exterior of the piers, the new skirt would protrude outward from the building walls. Furthermore, the masonry piers supporting the front porch are flush with the edge of the porch decking; thus, it appears that a new brick skirt in this area would protrude outward by the full width of the new bricks. Foundations are traditionally constructed to align with the edge of the building walls or be recessed. There are no known examples of foundations in the surrounding area that extend beyond the plane of the building walls. Due to this concern, it is recommended that rather than constructing a new brick skirt that wraps around the exterior of the piers, it is most appropriate to fill in the gaps between the piers with matching brick and mortar. The applicant also requests to cover the existing concrete front porch steps with brick in order to match the proposed brick foundation. According to the applicant, there is an existing gap between the concrete steps and porch; thus by bricking over the steps, the applicant can address this hazard. The color and dimensions of the new brick are proposed to match the existing red brick utilized on the piers as closely as possible. Brick porch steps are present throughout the Historic District and they are particularly common on Vernacular structures. Chapter 4, Sections F and H of the District Guidelines also recommend the use of brick as one of the main construction materials. Please be advised that the modified steps will be required to comply with the Uniform Statewide Building Code. HLC2017-017 November 9, 2017 Page 8 Summary and Recommendations Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2017-017, with the conditions noted below: 1. The preexisting asphalt shingle roof shall be replaced with Tamko architectural-grade shingles in Virginia Slate. 2. The preexisting silver metal skirting around the foundation shall be removed. The gaps between the existing masonry piers shall be filled in with matching brick and mortar. The color and dimensions of the new brick shall match the existing brick utilized on the piers. The new mortar joints shall match the existing mortar joints in strength, composition, color, texture, width, and profile. 3. Brick over the existing concrete front porch steps so as to match the new sections of the foundation. The color and dimensions of the new brick shall match the existing brick utilized on the piers. The new mortar joints shall match the existing mortar joints in strength, composition, color, texture, width, and profile. 4. Replace the preexisting wood windows on the rear of the structure only with six (6) over six (6), double-hung, vinyl windows, as submitted. 5. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 6. All required building and zoning permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Based on the previous findings-of-fact, staff recommends denial of the following action requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC2017-017: 1. Replace the preexisting wood windows on the front and sides of the structure with six (6) over six (6), double-hung, vinyl windows. (An addendum with a new proposal for appropriate replacement windows shall be submitted for approval as directed by the Historic Landmarks Commission.) Attachments cc: Dwight Graves, property owner HLC2017-017  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HLC2017-017 CE GR A PEA R L RM 34G18(A)*172 R PINN E CBD BAN K s HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Appearance of property prior to changes (Google street view 2012): Preexisting asphalt shingle roof (Pictometry 2016): 1 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Photo of one (1) sash of the preexisting six (6) over six (6) wood windows (provided by applicant): Existing conditions of the subject property: 2 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Proposed vinyl replacement windows on front porch: Left side view from Pearl Street: 3 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Rear views: 4 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Brick piers supporting front porch (preexisting silver metal skirting removed): 5 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Brick piers on the right side of the home: Comparable historic windows on Pearl Street: 6 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street Streetscape images: 7 HLC2017-017, 217 Pearl Street 8  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W. WASHINGTON STREET, P.O. BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning To: Historic Landmarks Commission From: Kevin M. Wyne, AICP, Principal Planner Date: November 9, 2017 Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HLC-2017-019, submitted by David Strauss, agent for J Eure Properties, Inc., property owner, for the repair of a collapsed portion of a structure and the removal of an existing garage door on property located at 104 Pine Street, Zoning Map 34G17, Block A, Parcels 155. The affected area is further identified as being located in the Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject property is situated at the northern boundary of the Historic Conservation Overlay District as it narrows along W. Washington Street. The property is located within the Suffolk District Expansion (2004) which consists of a three (3) block by two (2) block area bounded by North Street on the west, Pine Street on the east, Market Street to the north, and W. Washington Street to the south. The structure was built circa 1920 and is a brick, commercial style, one-story structure consisting of a flat roof with a stepped parapet. The structure has one (1) garage door on its Pine Street elevation and evidence of two previous window openings are filled in by brick. The rear of the building (north elevation), prior to a recent collapse, consisted of brick that had been stuccoed. The W. Washington Street Expansion Area of the Suffolk District Expansion (2004) area is generally comprised of the parcels on the north and south sides of West Washington Street between Clay and North Streets, the parcels on the east and west side of Pine, Chestnut and North Streets, and four (4) north-facing parcels on Market Street between Chestnut and Pine Streets. There are a total of sixty-five primary resources included in the expansion area. Washington Street is historic Suffolk's main east-west travel corridor and buildings fronting W. HLC-2017-019 November 9, 2017 Page 2 Washington Street are primarily commercial. The structure at 404 West Washington is an intact example of a frame combination commercial and residential building. The circa 1890 two-story, front-gable building has an intact storefront with central entry on the first level and a residential space sheltered by a two-story porch above. In keeping with slightly later commercial construction trends, the brick commercial buildings along West Washington Street are have common walls with adjacent buildings and are aligned with the sidewalk. Residences on West Washington Street are set back from the roadway, creating a transitional space between the public right-of-way and the building facades. The W. Washington Street expansion area's only religious structure is the Macedonia A.M.E. Church at 127 Pine Street, which sits diagonally from the subject property to the northwest. The steeply pitched, flush-gabled main block was constructed prior to the Civil War. The building was moved to its present site around 1870. The exterior reflects various building and improvement campaigns and includes a bell tower, a front-gabled entry vestibule, several rear additions and a combination of brick veneer, weatherboard and shingled siding treatments. Case History The proposed actions, detailed below, stem from a collapse of the rear portion of the building which recently took place. In an effort to minimize damage to the remaining portions of the structure, the remaining unstable portions where demolished shortly after the collapse. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Proposed Actions The applicant is proposing to repair the exterior rear wall and roof that was damaged as a part of the collapse. The portion of the building that collapsed and was demolished consisted of approximately 1,300 square feet and will not be reconstructed. The repairs will allow for a wall to be constructed to serve as the new rear of the building, which will reduce the depth of the structure by 32’. The proposed actions include the following: 1. A new rear concrete masonry unit block wall will be constructed and stuccoed to match the original rear elevation prior to its collapse. 2. The existing flat roof will be repaired where necessary to match the existing roof utilizing black adhesive tar, consisting of non-fibrous and cellulose fiber materials. 3. A 12’ x 10’ garage door opening, similar to the existing garage door opening on the Pine Street elevation, will be installed on the rear wall. The opening will house a 12’ x 10’ metal garage door, white in color that will match the existing garage door on the Pine Street elevation slated for removal. 4. The removal of an existing garage door on the Pine Street elevation. The garage door opening will be filled with brick which will match that of the material used to fill the two window openings on the Pine Street that have been removed in the past. HLC-2017-019 November 9, 2017 Page 3 Surrounding Characteristics A detailed description of adjacent and nearby properties is provided below. 117 Pine Street – A two (2) story, three (3) bay, side gable, vernacular single family dwelling. The house has weatherboard siding and six (6) over six (6) double sash windows. 130 Pine Street – A commercial style structure constructed circa 1925. It is a one (1) story, three (3) bay brick building with a flat roof and stepped parapet. There is evidence of two (2) window openings and one (1) door opening on the façade being filled with concrete block. 132 Pine Street – A circa 1900 vernacular, two (2) story, two (2) bay dwelling. The structure has been vinyl sided but retains its original six (6) over six (6) double hung sash windows. 258 W. Washington Street – The subject structure is attached to this building, which is a 1920’s commercial style building with tiled storefronts on the first floor and replacement windows on the second floor. 300 W. Washington Street – A 1920’s, two-story brick commercial building with two (2) altered storefronts. The building is surmounted by a stepped parapet roofline and paired with single two (2) over two (2) sash windows. Site Modifications The applicant proposes no site modifications. Applicable Regulations A. Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines 1. Chapter 6, Section C.2, Guidelines for Mercantile Buildings: Preserve Historic Building Facades: Where the building's original facade has not been altered, preserve the original façade design and details in order to maintain its historic character. The preservation of facades includes the performance of regular and preventative maintenance to avoid future deterioration. 2. Chapter 6, Section C.2, Guidelines for Mercantile Buildings: Rehabilitate Historic Building Facades: In the case of the alteration or deterioration of an historic building’s façade, rehabilitation of the original façade elements is necessary to restore the historic urban character of the Downtown area. Rehabilitation may HLC-2017-019 November 9, 2017 Page 4 require the careful removal of alterations and additions which have covered over the façade’s character-defining architectural elements. Where necessary, new construction may be required to restore missing, heavily damaged, or altered elements. Limited direction is outlined in the Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines relating to the reconstruction of failed or demolished features. As such, the sections below reference the guidance given on new construction, which may be utilized to offer some clarity on how the reconstruction of certain features should be managed. 3. Chapter 7, Section F, Mercantile Building Guidelines: Most roofs on mercantile buildings are either flat or sloped and are not visible from the public right-of-way. Consequently, mercantile buildings generally have shallow shed roofs concealed behind roof cornices or parapet walls. When constructing a new mercantile building, the roof form, pitch, and overhang should relate to that associated with adjacent historic mercantile buildings. 4. Chapter 7, Section F, Mercantile Building Guidelines: New buildings within the Historic Urban Core and the Historic Entry Corridors should be designed and constructed of materials which closely resemble the materials originally used on historic buildings. In the Historic Urban Core most buildings are constructed of brick although a few have some stone and tile. Exterior details, which typically would have been made of stone, can be made of materials such as stone, recast concrete, stucco, tile, or other materials, which achieve this appearance. B. Secretary of the Interior Standards The Secretary of the Interior Standards, which are included in Appendix A of the Historic Guidelines, encourage the repair and preservation of existing historic materials and character defining elements. Where replacement is determined to be necessary, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The design of replacement features shall also be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Changes that create a false sense of historical development are strongly discouraged.  Masonry: Stone, Brick, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Adobe, Stucco, and Mortar- Limited Replacement in Kind: Recommended: o Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing components of masonry features when there are surviving prototypes, such as terra-cotta brackets or stone balusters, or when the replacement can be based on documentary or physical evidence. The new work should match the old in material, design, scale, color, and finish. HLC-2017-019 November 9, 2017 Page 5 Not Recommended: o Replacing an entire masonry feature, such as a column or stairway, when limited replacement of deteriorated and missing components is appropriate. o Using replacement material that does not match the historic masonry feature.  Roofs: Limited Replacement in Kind: Recommended: o Designing and installing a new roof covering for a missing roof or a new feature, such as a dormer or a monitor, when the historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when the historic feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Not Recommended: o Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the missing roof feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic documentation, is not compatible design, or because the feature to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the building. o Introducing a new roof feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color. Staff Analysis As outlined above, the applicant is proposing four (4) separate improvements to a contributing commercial style building located at 104 Pine Street. Those improvements include the repair of a stuccoed wall at the rear of the structure, the in-kind repair of the flat roof where necessary, the installation of a 12’ x 10’ garage door on the repaired rear wall, and the removal of an existing 12’ x 10’ garage door opening on Pine Street which will be filled with brick. While a contributing structure, being erected circa 1920, the structure has lost some of its architectural integrity through previous alterations, specifically through the removal of windows on its Pine Street elevation and the installation of modern garage door openings on this same elevation. The repaired wall will replace the old rear elevation wall that collapsed. As a result of the collapse, a 41’ x 32’ section at the rear of the structure has been removed and is not slated for replacement. The repaired wall will serve as the new rear building line for the structure, and will match the previous rear wall in dimension and color with the exception of the relocation of the garage door opening from the Pine Street elevation. From a material standpoint for the new wall, the applicant proposes to utilize 12” concrete masonry unit block in place of the brick that was previously in place. The concrete block will be covered in its entirety utilizing stucco, thus the block itself will not be visible. Chapter 4 of the Suffolk Historic District Guidelines offers direction pertaining the treatment and repair of masonry within the district. This chapter states HLC-2017-019 November 9, 2017 Page 6 that “concrete block is not an historic material and, therefore, should be avoided.” However, the guidelines continue by recommending property owners “Repair stucco by removing loose material and patching with a new material that is similar in composition, color, and texture.” While block is proposed, its presence will be undetectable as it will be finished in stucco to match the original end wall. The proposed stuccoed finish allows for the use of block to be justified in this case while also complying with the district regulations. Photographic evidence that depicts the structure pre-collapse has been used in an effort to ensure the repaired rear wall matches the previous as closely as practical. The existing roof is flat and it is not visible from the right-of-way as it is concealed by the structure’s stepped parapet. The proposed wall repair will continue to conceal the roof from view utilizing a similar parapet; however, the roof will be repaired in kind utilizing materials that will match the existing roof. In kind repair of substantially deteriorated roof elements is encouraged by the Secretary of Interior Standards, which recommend: “Designing and installing a new roof covering for a missing roof or a new feature, such as a dormer or a monitor, when the historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when the historic feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building.” While the repaired roof will not be visible, the repaired roof will employ the guidance given in the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation pertaining to roof repair and replacement. Another element of this application is the relocation of the 12’ x 10’ garage door opening from the Pine Street elevation to the rear elevation. The previous rear elevation did not include a garage door opening. Additionally, a separate garage door opening, from the Pine Street elevation, was lost in the collapse and will not be replaced. A new modern, white garage door will be utilized at the rear elevation and will closely match the existing garage door that will be removed from the Pine Street elevation. The opening left by the garage door from the Pine Street elevation will be filled with brick, matching in size, dimension, and color, the brick used to fill in window openings on this elevation in the past. The infill material will allow for evidence of an opening to exist while using the brick to nicely complement and blend with the historic brick utilized on this façade. While the new garage door will be modern, it will match the existing door on the Pine Street elevation and its location on the rear of the building will offer less visibility from Pine Street, as it will only visible from the north approach on Pine Street travelling south. This arrangement offers an improvement upon having the door visible to all travelers on Pine Street, and thus, should be encouraged. Summary and Recommendations Based on the above findings-of-fact, staff recommends approval of the following completed actions requested by Certificate of Appropriateness, HLC-2017-019, with the conditions noted below: 1. A new rear concrete masonry unit block wall will be constructed and stuccoed to match the original rear elevation prior to its collapse. 2. The existing flat roof will be repaired where necessary to match the existing roof HLC-2017-019 November 9, 2017 Page 7 utilizing black adhesive tar, consisting of non-fibrous and cellulose fiber materials. 3. A 12’ x 10’ garage door opening, similar to the existing garage door opening on the Pine Street elevation, will be installed on the rear wall. The opening will house a 12’ x 10’ metal garage door, white in color that will match the existing garage door on the Pine Street elevation slated for removal. 4. The removal of an existing garage door on the Pine Street elevation. The garage door opening will be filled with brick which will match that of the material used to fill the two window openings on the Pine Street that have been removed in the past. 5. Any additional improvements shall require a Certificate of Appropriateness. 6. All required permits shall be obtained from the City of Suffolk. Attachments cc: J. Eure Properties, Inc. HLC2017-019  ZONING / LAND USE MAP HC2017-019 B-1 MAR K ET RU CHESTNUT PINE CLA Y 34G17(A)*155 LEE WAS H IN G TON CBD RM SOUTH RM RM SA AT R OG A s 10/23/2017 104 Pine St - Google Maps 104 Pine St Image capture: Jul 2012 © 2017 Google United States Suffolk, Virginia Google, Inc. Street View - Jul 2012 https://www.google.com/maps/place/104+Pine+St,+Suffolk,+VA+23434/@36.7299014,-76.5859953,3a,75y,176.11h,74.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snL91S4gOd1rV3WqOuQLlFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5… 1/2 HLC2017-019 104 Pine Street, W. Washington Street Elevation HLC2017-019 104 Pine Street, North Facing and Pine Street Elevations HLC2017-019 104 Pine Street, North Facing Elevation HLC2017-019 104 Pine Street, Block Views B  104 Pine Street 02/18/2016 Zoning Case Activity Report November 2017 PROPERTY OWNER(s) LOCATION VIOLATION(s) JUDGEMENT INSPECTOR Zoning- Changing Windows without a Suffolk Tower Holdings LLC 181 N Main St Appeal BZA Ricky COA Raven P. Coston 222 Pinner St Zoning-Failure to comply with COA Fined Ricky Zoning- Changing Porch Decking without Lakeisha Bradley 302 Bank St Fined Ricky a COA Zoning-Displaying signs without a Marcus R Pollard 156 W Washington ST COA obtained Matt Permit/COA Referred to court Shore Breeze, LLC/ Lashawn Howard 216 Grace St Zoning-Exceeding Scope of COA Matt 11/2/2017