February 15, 2024 Minutes

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 The Meeting of the City of Dover Historic District Commission was held on Thursday, February 15, 2024, at 3:30 PM as an In-Person meeting in the City Hall Conference Room (anchor location) and virtually using the videoconferencing system Webex. With Chairman Czerwinski presiding, the other members present were Mrs. Mason, Ms. Horsey, Mrs. Ellen H. Richardson and Mr. Street. Planning Office Staff members present were Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, and Mr. John England Code Enforcement Inspector, as well as Assistant City Manager Sharon Duca (assisting with management of the Department of Planning and Inspections). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Horsey moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and the vote was unanimously carried 5-0. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Mrs. Richardson moved for approval of the Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2023, with the necessary corrections, seconded by Ms. Mason and the roll call vote was unanimously carried 4- 0. Mr. Street abstained from approval because he was absent on November 16, 2023. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Summary of Applications for 2023 and 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that the first item is reflecting the Applications that were before this body; so, we're now looking at 2023 and 2024. In 2023, the property at 153 S. Bradford Street was the referral of the Demolition and Renovation Permit. Within the last week, we received the Supplemental Engineering Report, and it was forwarded to the Code Enforcement Staff. The property owner has not selected which remedy option to pursue at this time; whether the repair of the existing building or to move forward with that request to demolish the second floor. Our Code Enforcement Staff in conjunction with the Building Inspector looked at that Engineering Report and responded to the applicant’s representative. If they do choose the remedy of removing that second floor, then they will be invited back to a Historic District Commission meeting to continue consideration of the said Permit. Chairman Czerwinski said we do not have the content of that report. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied no you do not. Because at this point since they (the applicant) hadn't made a decision of which way they were going to pursue, we did not forward that to you. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there was an option to keep the floor. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied yes, there was the Structural Engineering Report that laid out a series of repairs or fixes. They were noticing things. So, it's back to the applicant at this point to decide which way they want to go. If they decide one way, it may never come back to you and if they decide the other way, then it will. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any questions; there were none.

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that for 2024 we just have one referral, which is the Fence Permit that will continue consideration of today. She asked if there were any questions on this application; there were none. Summary of Architectural Review Certifications for 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there has only been one Permit in the Historic District area. It was for an Interior Renovation at 28 W. Loockerman Street which did not require that type of review. Department of Planning & Inspections Updates Update on C-2 Code Amendments Project for Potential Revisions to Zoning Ordinance for C-2 (Central Commercial Zone): Proposed Ordinance #2024-01 CCOW-LFA Amendment #1 Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that for the update on the C-2 Code Amendments project, the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance primarily focused on the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) that has been proposed as Ordinance # 2024-01 with the Legislative, Finance and Administration Amendment #1. That Ordinance goes to a public hearing with the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their own hearing on March 11, 2024. This proposed set of amendments, as I noted before, focuses on changing some of the permitted uses in the zone. It looks to add design standards for certain aspects of the building including a provision for stepping back of upper floors related to height because this proposes to increase the allowable height in the C-2 Zone to 10 stories and 125-feet. Then the other parts of the Ordinance focus on dumpsters, parking requirements in the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area for new construction, and some definition amendments. It does not change any of the provisions of the Historic District. A lot of the properties that are zoned C-2 are also found in the Historic District; so, it doesn't change any process or procedure that way. It just has some changes to the base zoning. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if there were any questions. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that it does affect us because it is in the Historic District as well. So, you can have structures within the Historic District up to 10 stories. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated however it doesn't change the review process. If someone was building a building that large, it's going to require Architecture Review Certification by the Historic District Commission and work with the Planning Commission on Site Plan and that certification as well. NEW BUSINESS Review of Permits Referred to Commission HI-24-01 Referral of Fence Permit #23-1868 at 146 S. State Street - Continued Review of Architectural Review Certification as Referred by the City Planner to the Historic District 2

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Commission for a Fence Permit #23-1868. The project involves a 6-foot vinyl fence to the rear of the property spanning from the fence at the northern adjacent property along the parking lot to the south side adjacent property fence with 2 pedestrian gates. Additionally, there is a 6-foot vinyl fence segment between the northern adjacent property fence and the building with a pedestrian gate. Property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the H (Historic District Zone). The owner of the record is State Street 146 Properties, LLC. Address: 146 S. State Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.09-02-58.00-000. Council District 4. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Staff can start in that you begin review of this Fence Permit Referral at your last meeting and ultimately had a couple of informational questions that you were seeking additional data about. The Planning Office did reach out by letter that was sent by e-mail to the representatives that we had for the site. We have not received a response from them, but in the interest of keeping this project moving Staff has prepared Addendum #1 to your Architectural Review Report that we previously issued to you in response to your two information requests. Your first information request was about what we called really the existing conditions of the fence at 146 S. State Street as installed. You had some questions about the exact material and to clarify its location. What Staff did was respond based on our observations of the fence since it is in place. We see that it is a 6-foot white vinyl fence. There's really two fence segments and the map that we had attached to the Addendum shows the locations of both fences. Fence 1 and Fence 2 is how we've been referring to them. Fence 2 is the small segment that's closer to South State Street and is the one that would be visible from the public way. Fence 1 is the larger one or longer one that's on the edge of the parking lot to the rear of the building. As previously noted, it's not technically visible from the right-of-way of South State Street and we're providing to you that both of those fences appear to be white vinyl at 6-feet in height. Information request number two was about the Permit history for the adjacent property at 140 S. State Street which is referred to as the Grey Fox location. Planning Staff did look at our Permit records and we did not find a Fence Permit specifically for the white vinyl fence that is observed at the rear of that building. We did provide a couple of Google Street View shots. There has been some permit activity over the years, some of which did involve fencing. Over time, it's been a restaurant since we believe at least the mid-1980s. There's a survey from 1985 that shows a 6- foot fence surrounding areas at the rear of this building and over time that fence has had a variety of formats including wood, painted wood, etc. There's a portion of fencing that was a chain link with the slats in it at the far rear of that property near the alley where they took down what was previously a barn structure in 2012. I would remind the Commission what you have before you is the Referral Fence Permit for 146 S. State Street. The Architectural Review Report includes Staff’s review, Staff findings, and some suggested recommendations as to dealing with what we were calling Fence 1 and Fence 2 at that location. Unfortunately, we continue to not have any representation from the property owner or their contractor with us today regarding this Permit. There has not been any outreach to Staff on this application. 3

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Ms. Mason mentioned that she was just thinking when we were talking about it the last time and we realized that the only recourse we have is giving them a fine for it. I have two ideas: Number one, is it possible for us to go in person to the people of Grey Fox and discuss it with them? I don't know what the protocol is for that, but I sort of hate to see the whole thing just being ignored. Is there some way we can get in touch with them? Does that make sense? Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if she was talking about the Permit that's before us now or the existing condition of the Grey Fox with its fencing? Ms. Mason replied that she was thinking of the Grey Fox first about the information we need and wanting to talk to them about it. There should be some sort of communication and recourse. A lot of times if you send things by mail, they're just going to throw it out. I don't know if that's something that has been done in the past. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that Code Enforcement Staff was available to speak at the meeting today. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is a member of the Code Enforcement Staff that's been dealing with the Code Enforcement case relating to 140-146 S. State Street which is where the Permit has now been filed because the fence was installed basically within the last year, 6 to 9 months ago without a Permit. Chairman Czerwinski asked Code Enforcement Staff if action was taken on 146 S. State Street when a Permit was filed after they got written up. Code Enforcement Staff Mr. England replied yes. Chairman Czerwinski asked so why don't we write up the Grey Fox? The Grey Fox should be written up as well. Ms. Horsey agreed. Mr. England replied at that point there was concern with this fence being installed and that's what we deal with. If somebody complains on the street about one fence I don't go looking at 100 fences. Chairman Czerwinski asked so somebody actually reported that fence. Mr. England replied yes. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned now I can understand why this has happened. So, would we move ahead with the recommendation of this, and that 140 S. State Street should also be issued a fine that their fence is wrong. He wanted to get some documentation showing that no Permit was filed for the fence. There is a possibility that both fences were installed around the same time. Mr. England mentioned if Mrs. Melson-Williams, Planning Staff sent him out to investigate and we know that there are no Permits then it would direct him to issue a violation letter to them to start the process. Mr. Street said let's look at the one for 140 S. State Street. Let's look at the one that we're looking at right now (the one that got the Permit) and figure out what we can do there. If we want to talk about the other one (Grey Fox) we can do that also. I think we have to be consistent with fencing. I think, if I remember correctly, the Tastee’s Chicken and Seafood of 147 S. New Street 4

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 came in because they had to replace a fence. He was near the building that caught on fire. He wanted to replace it with a white vinyl fence, and we said no. We said no because we didn't want white vinyl everywhere. We suggested a wooden fence. So, just for the sake of consistency, I feel like without anyone standing here saying this is why we did it or this is why we need it this way. For this one, for this application, for this Permit, I would think that we would want to come back with at least something similar at least for that 8 foot or 10 foot (length) or whatever it is that's visible. Can they come back with something comfortable but not white vinyl which we have said no to in the past? Mrs. Richardson mentioned that was her concern at the last meeting that in their application for the Permit they did not specify the type of material. We did ask for the information and Planning Staff went out to the property. We wanted the property owner to add this information to their application. Mr. Street mentioned that the Permit should be updated. For the sake of the fact that they're not here, I don't know whether the Permit has been updated. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied no. Mr. Street mentioned to keep moving forward, you can take action and say look for consistency. We recommend you pull down these 10 feet and put back what is appropriate. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the argument here is that they want the entire fence replaced. If they replace the front that is visible from State Street, then the rest is not visible. What do we consider as visible? Because primarily looking clearly from the visibility it’s from the street. That's what we're concerned about. I understand what you're saying as far as I'm using improper material in the back. But do you really want to push the button on that? Because really it doesn't face the street. Ms. Horsey and Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that we've already determined the alley (fence), we just want them to replace the front section. Mrs. Richardson mentioned she could live with that. Ms. Horsey mentioned can we allow one property to put up an improper fence? Chairman Czerwinski mentioned this is the reason he wanted to move on and wanted you know and have a record stating that for consistency and zoning purposes. The punishment should fit all infractions. That's why I'm looking at 140 and146 S. State Street. From consistency, that's what I'm talking about, the Code Enforcement and 140 S. State Street. Because it's on record that both of those fences were actually built without a Permit. In the future, we don't know; however, if we vote here, there's a record saying there was a Code violation that we addressed. What about every time somebody is not enforcing the standards? Now what we want to do as far as remediation of this one is probably going to have a difference of opinion. Because there are ones on the Board that want all the fence replaced with wood fence, which would cost an absorbent amount of 5

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 money. Because the fence is in the back and it's not considered facing the street and visible from the street, we would leave that portion of the fence alone. Ms. Horsey mentioned, remember we're talking about two fences. One fence while in the alley doesn't count. I mean it's not right. I mean we were explained that the last time that it's not visible from State Street because it's in the alley which doesn't matter. What’s visible and that matters is one that you can see from State Street which I think is Fence 2. She asked Mrs. Melson-Williams if that was correct. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied yes. The one you can see from S. State Street we've identified as Fence 2. To clarify, Fence 1 is the one that is to the rear of the building, near the parking lot and that is basically most readily viewed from the alley which is not considered in the public view for Historic District Commission purposes. Ms. Mason mentioned that her first thing is you got to get in touch with people no matter if you're doing Code violations or whatever. People just can't go and build stuff and just ignore everything. The second thing is what you're saying is when you have the two things, are you going to make them fix their fences or give them a timeframe? I agree with everything you're saying, and I think we should just do something about it instead of having people just keep doing this. Everything you are saying makes a lot of sense. Chairman Czerwinski asked if everyone agreed. Everyone replied yes. Mr. Street asked if the fence could be vinyl in a different color? Can it be wood? Chairman Czerwinski mentioned this is where the amendment or the standards will give us options to say there's a material that looks just like the way that we would be happy with from the purposes that you can't tell the difference between the two. So, we've got to go with the old- fashioned method and say well you know what, you have to stick with the original materials and construction of 4 feet which is the recommended or required. We have approved 6-foot fences in the past for security (a waiver). With this being on the back of the building, I wouldn't worry too much about it being 6-foot because it is so far back. Mr. Street mentioned that he was okay with it for consistency’s sake as far as what is there right now. Ms. Horsey commented, I think the 6-foot fence that is there now behind the restaurant is for privacy and people dining or whatever else is out there. I can see that and as previously mentioned we have recommended 6-foot. In the past, they have all been metal, but if the material is what we like and recommend, then yes. Another material that is either wood or looks like wood or something that is not white vinyl, we also passed those. We have set precedent before, but not for what's there now. Ms. Mason asked if the suggestion was that they take down the fence because it’s vinyl? Chairman Czerwinski mentioned we were discussing Fence 2, the section that goes between the 6

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 buildings and if to replace it with a 6- foot wooden fence or 4-foot wooden fence. We could leave it at 6 feet for the privacy of the customers at 146 S. State Street. We are not talking about 140 S. State Street. Mr. Street mentioned if we act on a motion recommendation, can they come back if they want to entertain a new Permit and talk to us about providing something different than what we recommend? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied, they could certainly do that. What we would issue is the recommendation of the Historic District Commission in regard to that Permit and with these conditions that the Permit would be granted. Mr. Street mentioned if they don't like it, they've had an opportunity to say that because this is the second meeting. Mr. Street moved to recommend approval of Fence Permit 23-1868 with the condition that Fence 2 be installed at 6 feet with a wooden type of material. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Richardson and unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Street asked Mrs. Melson-Williams if there was ever a Permit for the fence (at Grey Fox) that has been there for years. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied it is not totally clear. There is a 6- foot fence that is identified in a 1985 survey of the property. It doesn't give a height or material of it. There is again discussion of a fence in 1991 when the expansion to include an outdoor patio and deck for the restaurant went before the Planning Commission. The fence is mentioned in the discussion of that application. We did not go digging for that file. There's clearly a portion of the fence that was built in 2012 when the barn structure was removed. But that portion of the fence kind of closed off where that building once was at the rear of the deck. It wouldn't have been subject to Architectural Review Certification because it's not visible. Most of the fence would likely be considered as not visible from S. State Street because of its location predominantly to the rear of the building. The only piece that truly would be recognized as visible is the piece that is perpendicular to the building that's got a couple of shrubs in front of it. We've looked at street views. It's hard to tell the exact history of when various fences came and went at the rear of that building. Mr. Street mentioned that he thinks the point is that there has been a fence there for years (back in the 80’s). Chairman Czerwinski mentioned that in the picture there is a wooden fence. I guess at this point unless the City is going to impose the Code Enforcement, there's nothing much more we can do with that property. Mr. Street stated that he agreed. I think if they come before us with enforcement actions, that’s one thing. 7

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 OLD BUSINESS Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Information on FFY2023 CLG Grant Application-Update on Status Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that included in your packet is the information on the Federal Fiscal Year 2023 CLG grant application. We are coming up on a filing deadline of March 1, 2024. We included the e-mail that identifies the amount that the City of Dover would be eligible for with this grant opportunity. It's a grant opportunity of $11,530. the City would have to provide a match of 40%. That is $7686. We do in our current FY24 Budget have that and have made a request for similar matching funds moving into our FY25 Budget. Previously, we had attempts about a Grant Project that would focus on a consultant looking at and providing kind of informational guidance about modern materials and technologies that you might be encountering here in the Historic District and how to come up with kind of Design Standards and Guidelines for looking at those types of items. What I included was a previous project narrative that we had put forth a couple of years ago for a similar Grant that we did not end up pursuing with this program for various reasons. If the Commission is interested in moving forward, then Staff can work to prepare the Grant application and get that submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office. If we are not looking to pursue the Grant opportunity with this project or another one, I do have to let them know so that they can reallocate those grant funds to other potential awardees. I will note that this is what they call Federal Fiscal Year 23 (FFY23) money. There will likely also be an opportunity in the future for Federal Fiscal Year 24 (FFY24) money once the State Office knows a little bit more about what those numbers look like. This project timeframe for implementation would cross two City budget years which is something we can probably deal with, but we need to have some direction here of your interest and potential path forward if we want to pursue this Grant Application. Mrs. Richardson asked how many months for FFY23 are left to get everything together. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied for the grant application at least a good draft of it is due March 1, 2024. Typically, what happens after that is there has to be a Grant Agreement put in place that identifies exactly what the project is, deliverables, what the exact monies involved are, and then in this case the proposed Grant would have us go for consultant services. It is on the lower expenditure of consultant services so it's a little bit easier for the procurement process. To have a consultant on board, I would say it would probably be this summer and then we have through September of 2025 to complete it. The only thing there is that it will go across two City Budget years, but there's ways to make that work. Ms. Horsey asked if there were enough staff to put it together. Chairman Czerwinski asked if she was referring to the proposal for the project? Ms. Horsey said either way. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the project could be the consultant to do the project. The key is I think a lot of it's already here. Mrs. Melson-Williams mentioned that the bulk of it is if you're interested in pursuing the same type of thing. We've got at least a very good starting point. The rest of the Grant Application is a bunch of forms. It's listed there and it's a little bit of logistics getting it together, but if we're 8

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 interested in it and moving forward with it, then we'll work to make it happen. We had tried a couple of years in the past, but then I think the last time they had money out there was right at the time of the start of COVID. We had a Grant Application and we decided to abandon it because of what was going on at that point. We did not pursue FY22 money. Mr. Street mentioned that he thought that we had been trying to do this for years. He wanted to know what had changed. Chairman Czerwinski replied, he thinks part of the problem is staffing. Mr. Street asked did we ever receive any interest from other outside consultants on doing it? Mrs. Melson-Williams replied we never went out to find consultants. Chairman Czerwinski mentioned the more and more and every year we do this, the more this becomes essential to what we do because of the materials. There could be a lot of stuff that we don’t know. In getting the right consultancy for a chapter on materials and new products that are out there. They can make it a lot easier for us to make recommendations for people that are doing cornice, or façade work as well as fences. If there is a material out there that looks just like wood could be helpful in our case. This becomes more and more imperative every year that we do this because there's definitely a lot of materials out there that we could be offering or that could be used as an alternative source that's longer lasting and it looks just as good. We got a good start with this proposal. I think it's really down to Staffing and being able to run with the ball. It would be nice to get this knocked out and get a consultancy hired. He would like to see us do it again because it helps us make a lot of key decisions. I'm sure there's more materials out there that are more affordable or more available. Ms. Horsey mentioned that we would be up to date with other municipalities. Ms. Mason mentioned that she was not sure or understood exactly what this was and how it would be used. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that the consultant would do the work preparing the documents. I would think that there would be some interaction with at least the Historic District Commission as part of that. There may also be some opportunity for public outreach as well depending on how the deliverables are proposed for the project. The bulk of the heavy lifts for the project itself would be done by a consultant. Ms. Mason asked if the Commission would be there to volunteer our time and to assist with this. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied that we could certainly as part of this ask that they report progress and drafts and have a conversation with the Commission about the concerns with the materials, like where are you seeing difficulties in reviewing applications; so, that there's some guidance for the consultant as well. Ms. Mason mentioned that she thinks it sounds like a great idea especially if we have it organized and have the time to do it. 9

CITY OF DOVER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the consensus from the discussion is that Staff try to move forward to submit a grant application with the project being focused on this question of modern materials and technologies. Implementation of 2019 Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that moving forward with a Grant program like this certainly goes to some of the goals and recommendations of the Historic Preservation Chapter. I will note that there is a consideration underway for a Stormwater Utility in the City of Dover to assist with the funding of stormwater citywide related to permitting and how we deal with runoff from properties and our city streets. Chairman Czerwinski asked if it was related to the environmental review. Mrs. Melson-Williams replied it's related to some environmental permitting that the City is required to have in place and take care of, but that's something I think that was in the other areas of the Comprehensive Plan. With the C-2 Text Amendments, you can point to parts of the Comprehensive Plan studies too. There's a number of studies going on in general across a number of different project topics in the City, but there's not anything to specifically to bring to you for your review at this point. Chairman Czerwinski asked if there were any further questions. There was none. Ms. Horsey moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Richardson, and unanimously carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Acting Secretary Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 10