New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission.

Commissioners, do we have any additional questions? Seeing as there's no additional questions, is there any public comment? No public comment. Commissioners, can we get a motion to move this forward? Thank you. Motion by Commissioner King, seconded by Commissioner Akenberg. Thank you. All those in favor? I'd like to make sure everyone's hand is up for this so we can do roll call. All right. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And thank you for bringing this forward today. Thank you. Thank you for your attention. I appreciate you all. Now you can get back to business. Thank you for asking. Great. Wonderful. So with that, do we need motions to reinstate? No? Great. Thank you. All right. Item three. Moving forward. Election of chair and vice chair. Happy to serve again. I think Commissioner King is as well. Looking to other commissioners for this. Move to nominate Jenny West and I guess we do one at a time. One at a time. OK. Move to nominate Jenny West as chairman of the HCLC. Thank you. Seconded. Thank you. All those in favor? Thank you all. That's great. Motion approved. Second would be for vice chair. Motion to nominate Jason King for vice chair. Thank you. All right. Wonderful. All those in favor? Motion carries. All right. Thank you. And congratulations to us, I guess, for running meetings again. Thank you all for trusting us to do this. And I promise we'll get through two months worth of agenda today. All right. Moving forward. Appointment of ARC members. Do we want to read through that list? Actually, we are recommending the same ARC members remain. Great. For commissioners, their resumes were in the packet that was provided online. So with that, do we have a motion to reappoint the ARC members? Commissioner Lupin. Move to reappoint the ARC members as designated by staff. Great. Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Hackenberg. Wonderful. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Great. Great. And thank you to all those folks who are serving on ARC. We know it is a lengthy time commitment and we appreciate your professional input on that board as well. All right. So moving forward. Next item is landmark nomination of 1737 New Orleans Street. OK. Full report was available as part of the presentation, but I'm just going to be reading the basics so that we can move through this. 1737 New Orleans Street is located on lot nine of Municipal Square 767 in Municipal District 3. As this building is not in the National Register Historic District, there was no FEMA historic survey of the neighborhood. The building first appears on the 1895 Sanborn map. 1737 New Orleans Street was the final residence of musician Isidore Babaran and remains in his family to this day. The Historic District Landmarks Commission evaluates the significance of a structure based on the four criteria established by Section 8422 of the city code, any one of which can make a building eligible for nomination. In this instance, the nomination was put forth by the homeowner who voiced their wishes that the building be protected under HDLC jurisdiction. Additionally, the staff finds that the building would qualify under criteria two as it is associated with an important person in the history of New Orleans musical heritage. As such, the staff recommends that the building be nominated for study as a landmark. Thank you. Is there anyone here on behalf of this landmark nomination? Do you wish to step forward or to say anything today? If. Do you mind stepping forward and speaking into the mic? OK. Any one of them? Yeah, either one of them is fine. OK. Yes, this is my husband's family home and he's parking the cars. Oh. He was supposed to be doing this. But yes, it's the Barbaran family, Isidore Barbaran, Paul Barbaran, all of the musicians, Danny Barker. So they would like this home to be, you know, preserved as much as possible. And so that's why we're asking you guys to make it a landmark here in New Orleans on New Orleans Street. That's wonderful. Thank you very much. Do you mind stating your name and address? My name is Gail Baptiste, and my address is 991 Kahana Street, Dominguez, Mississippi. But everybody else is here. But we're here representing everybody else is here in New Orleans. Wonderful. Thank you so much for being here. I'm sorry that your husband is parking the car right now. You can tell him that we were so enthusiastic about this. We wanted to move it forward. So and to the staff, thank you for the thorough report and appreciate that. Is there any additional public comment on this landmark? Please step forward, state your name and address for the record. I'm sorry I didn't do a card. This is Sandra Stokes with Louisiana Landmark Society. And I'm so thrilled to see this being nominated. And we support it totally. And I'm really happy to see a family come forward and really want to preserve the landmark home. So thank you so much to the staff and to the family. Yes. Thank you very much. Is there any additional public comment on this item? Seeing as there's no additional public comment, commissioners. And I just need a motion and a second. Yes. Wonderful. I will make a motion to nominate the structure for the landmark. Thank you, Commissioner Hackenberg, seconded by Commissioner King. And I need a second. You need a motion and a second. Great. Wonderful. Do we need two seconds or one? I'm sorry. Just one. Great. Well, wonderful. I see your husband just arrived. Congratulations. Your project has moved forward for a landmark nomination at 1737 New Orleans Street. We're really grateful to have that. So thank you very much. And thank you for being here. All right. Great. Moving forward to the next item, landmark designation of 2025 Constance Street. 2025 Constance Street is an individually listed building on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as being a significant rated building in the Lower Garden District, local and National Register Historic District.

The building was designed by Baltimore architect Louis Long and built by Thomas and Daniel Mulligan at a reported cost of $100,000. Instruction began in 1855 and completed in 1857. The building was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 22nd, 1973. The Historic District Landmarks Commission evaluates the significance of a structure based on the four criteria as established by Section 8422 of the City Code, any one of which can make a building eligible for nomination. Staff concurs with the 1973 National Register nomination report that this building should be designated as a landmark for its exceptional architectural value as an important example of mid 19th century construction and the 1996 NPS survey, which found that it met the first and third criteria as it exemplified the reflected broad cultural values and embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type, method and construction of craftsmanship. Wonderful. Thank you. Is there anyone here representing this application? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Good afternoon, everyone. I am Cheryl Caprera, a resident of St. Tammany Parish and president of the Friends of St. Alphonsus, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving this church as a place for community and culture for over 30 years. Along with me are board members Joanna Caprera and Elise Brunier. In that time, we have held fundraisers, lectures, art shows, concerts and school functions inside this the historic walls to raise money just to keep the building open. Once known as the jewel of the Irish Channel, St. Alphonsus Church has seen better days since opening in 1857. Its construction was a labor of love and devotion for the Irish community. From the women who carry bricks in their aprons from the river to the men who work day jobs and then went to the construction site at night to continue working on the church. Today, St. Alphonsus stands as a sad reminder of what once was. Unfortunately, Hurricane Ida in 2021 caused severe roof damage, which is now the biggest concern. Every time a storm rages through New Orleans, more damage becomes apparent, especially for the ceiling frescoes painted by Italian artist Dominic Canova. With water leaking in, the plaster soaks up the moisture, gets heavy and falls from the wooden laths that support them. I had the opportunity to go inside the church recently. It was heartbreaking to see these fallen frescoes and the standing water on the tiled floors. Our board members are working with the Redemptorist Order to restore this once vibrant building to the community. It's the Redemptorist based in Chicago who actually own and run St. Alphonsus Parish, which is not affiliated with the New Orleans Archdiocese and therefore receives no benefit from it. In 1996, St. Alphonsus was designated as a National Historic Landmark thanks to the late Blanche Komansky, founder of the Friends of St. Alphonsus. Then in 2020, the church was named to the list of most endangered places by the Louisiana Trust for Historic Preservation and also to the Louisiana Landmark Society, New Orleans nine endangered sites. With the help and renewed interest in this beloved building, the Redemptorist. and the Friends of St. Alphonsus hope to bring back the life and community of this jewel. Thank you to the New Orleans Historic District Landmarks Commission for the honor of this landmark designation to St. Alphonsus Church. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you for being here and thank you for the nomination on this. I would like to, I received a card from you but you just spoke. Thank you very much. So I just want to make sure I got that. We do have two public comment cards. I believe we also received letters from both of these. I'll go first with Louisiana Landmarks, Sandra Stokes, if you wish to speak. Thank you so much. I want to thank the staff for a great report and the HDLC for accepting the study nomination. The building was completed in 1857, put on the National Register, but I think the biggest part it was designated a National Landmark in 1996 and so it's just and right that it should be a local landmark as well. We thank you all and we support this totally and hope that through recognition such as this we can get some restoration to happen because I just looked at pictures and it's not a pretty picture inside anymore. So thank you. Thank you very much. Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley with the PRC. Good afternoon. Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center at 923 Chapatula Street. The PRC enthusiastically supports Louisiana Landmarks Society's nomination of the St. Alphonsus Church building for local historic landmark designation. We'd also like to thank the HDLC staff for their research and support of the nomination as well as friends of St. Alphonsus for all of their work over the years. We ask the Commission to vote in favor of this important local designation. This building is exceptionally important for its architecture, history, and cultural significance. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. With that, do we have any additional public comment on this nomination? No additional public comment. Commissioners, we need a motion and a second to move this forward. Commissioner Ashby, you wish to make a motion? Yes. Wonderful. Seconded by Commissioner King. Great. Congratulations. And with that, the landmark nomination moves forward. Thank you very much and I would like to step back one moment because I just saw Mr. Batiste walk in and so we did approve your project for landmark nomination but wanted to see if you wanted to speak briefly. No? Okay. So with that, congratulations to both of your projects for the landmark nomination and with that, you're welcome to leave if you would like to spend your afternoon elsewhere. If you'd love to stay here with us, you can stay. We have a long agenda. So thank you very much and congratulations. Wonderful. Next item is consent agenda.

So I'll read through all of all of our items here and then we will see if there's any public comment on any items. I will also note that item D is Commissioner Hackenberg. So I'll ask you, you're recusing yourself, but we'll also leave at this time. Is that correct? I am recusing myself for the professional record. Thank you. Wonderful. All right. So with that, item A, 836 Philadonna Street, item B, 6124-26 Royal Street, item C, 5800 St. Charles Avenue and 1542-44 Nashville Avenue, item D, 710 3rd Street, of which Commissioner Hackenberg is recusing himself as professional record, item E, 7003 St. Charles Avenue, item F, 620-22 Louisa Street, item G, 1803-05 South Carrollton Avenue and 8037 Hickory Street, item H, 3218 Magazine Street, item I, 3423-25 Annunciation Street, item J, 833 Washington Avenue, item K, 2417-19 Constant Street, item L, 644 Bounty Street, item M, 2535-37 North Rampart Street. Do we have any public comment on any of these items? No public comment on these items. Commissioners, can we get a motion to move the consent agenda forward? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Lupin. Seconded by Commissioner Ashby. Sorry, I'll look over here next time. Don't worry, I'm coming for you. All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. If you are on consent agenda, please enjoy your afternoon and leave. You do not need to stay for the rest of this meeting and good luck with your projects. All right, wonderful. July new business demolition applications, item demolition applications, item A, 1215-17 Constantinople Street. Is the applicant present? Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C. Francis. Thank you. All right, this is an application for the demolition of more than 50% of the roof and exterior wall area at a contributed rated one-story single-family residential building in partial control of town. The applicant proposes the demolition of approximately 59% of the existing roof area and 72% of the existing exterior wall area to accommodate the construction of a new camelback addition. The proposal also restores the front porch to an appearance more closely resembling its historic configuration by removing the non-historic Spanish Revival style front facade. Because the proposed camelback addition has set back at least two historic rooms from the front wall of the building consistent with our design guidelines, HDLC staff does not object to the requested partial demolition. Typically, the HDLC would recommend that any rear addition be set back behind any character-defining features. However, due to the typical constraints of this narrow lot, the HDLC will not request retention of the left-hand side side bay. Furthermore, the HDLC staff supports the proposed restoration of the historic primary facade re-establishing the building's historic streetscape appearance. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the commission? No, just thank you for the staff's time. Great, thank you. Do we have any additional public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, commissioners, this is an uptown. Commissioner Lupin. Move to accept the staff's recommendation. Great, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Wonderful. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, and good luck with your project. Item B, 917 Dupasat Street. Is the applicant present? Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman Street, Francis. Great. This is the application for the demolition of over 50 percent of the roof and exterior wall structure at a contributed rated one-story single-family residential building in uptown partial control. The applicant proposes demolishing 61 percent of the roof area and 59 percent of the exterior wall area to accommodate the construction of a new camelback addition. The proposal maintains the existing front facade. Because the proposed camelback is located at least two historic rooms back from the front building wall consistent with the HDLC digons, staff does not object to the request for partial roof and exterior wall demolition. Thank you. The applicant agrees with the staff's recommendation on this one. Is there any public comment? Seeing as there's no public comment, again, this one is in uptown. Commissioner Lupin? Moved to accept the staff's recommendation and allow for the demolition, partial demolition. Thank you. Commissioner King seconds. All those in favor? All those opposed? No one's opposed. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, and good luck with your project. All right, so with that, we've concluded July demolition applications. We're moving forward to August new business demolition applications. Item A, 3110 St. Anne Street. Is the applicant present? Hello, yes. Ty Nguyen, 1000 South Norman C. Francis. Thank you. This is the application for the demolition of more than 50 percent of the roof and exterior wall structure at a contributed rated one-story single-family residential building in Esplanade Ridge Partial Control. The applicant proposes demolishing 50 percent of the roof area and 62 percent of the exterior wall structure to accommodate the construction of a new camelback addition. The proposed modifications of the primary facade are within the allowable limits set by the HDLC. Because the proposed camelback is located at least two historic rooms back from the front building wall, consistent with our design guidelines, HDLC staff does not object to the request for a partial demolition. Wonderful, thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the commission? Just that we appreciate you guys' time in reviewing this and we're just open for any questions if needed. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, commissioners, this is an Esplanade Ridge Partial Control and we do not have a commissioner here for that district.

I move to accept the staff's recommendation and allow for the partial demolition. Thank you, Commissioner Lupin, seconded by Commissioner Ashby. Thank you. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. Item B, 920 Cadiz Street. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. Corbett Scott, 4219 Dumaine. Thank you. This is the application for a demolition of more than 50 percent of the roof and exterior wall structure of a contributed rated one-story single-family residential building and uptown partial control. The applicant proposes demolishing 56 percent of the roof area to accommodate the construction of a new Camelback addition. The proposal maintains the existing front facade, the exterior wall structure and building footprint. Because the proposed Camelback is located at least two historic rooms back from the front building wall, consistent with our guidelines, HDLC staff does not object to the request for demolition. Wonderful. Does the applicant wish to address the commission? Just thank you for your time. Great. Do we have any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, this is also in uptown, Commissioner Lupin. Move to accept the staff's recommendation, allow for the partial demolition. Thank you. Motion on the floor, seconded by Commissioner Ashby. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. All right. Item C, one more to read through. 616 to 18 Jenna Street. Is the applicant present? Eric McCutcheon, 3515 Annunciation. Thank you. This is the application for the demolition of a non-contributing rated two-story, two-family residential building to grade in the uptown partial control district. FEMA research indicates that the duplex was constructed between 1970 and 1980 outside the period of construction. significance for Uptown. The two-story slab-on-grade masonry-clad structure appears to be in good condition. The structure is set back significantly from the street and its primary entrances are located on the side elevations rather than the primary facade, a configuration atypical of historic buildings within the district. The primary facade combines light-colored brick veneer with a smooth light-colored stucco central section containing metal double-hung windows. The building is capped with a low-pitched hip roof clad in asphalt shingles which appears also to be in good condition. As a non-contributing structure, an interior inspection was not performed by staff. Because the building is classified as not contributing, it's set back far from the street and is constructed on a slab-on- grade foundation. Staff recommends approval for the demolition to grade. No comment, just thanks for the time. Sorry, I assume you're in agreement. Great, thank you very much. Is there any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, Commissioners? It's also in Uptown. Lather, rinse, repeat. I move to accept the staff's recommendation and allow for the demolition to grade of this building. Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Ashby. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Wonderful. All right. Item D, 935-37 Adams Street and 7636 Barrett Street. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. Lacey Watering, 305 Vallette Street. Thank you. This is an application for partial demolition of more than 50% of the existing roof at a contributing rated one-story single-family residential building for a new dormer and rear addition in Partial Control Carrollton. The original proposal, Option A, would include the demolition of approximately 73.5% of the existing roof. However, after working closely with staff, the applicant developed additional options B and C, which eliminate the proposed front dormer and reduce the overall amount of roof demolition. Option B reduces the proposed roof demolition to 63.9%. However, both options A and B are considered to be inconsistent with the HDLC guidelines because the overall amount of roof demolition is substantial relative to the modest scale of the building and because both options would radically alter the original building's perceived historic size, scale, massing, and roof forms at the highly visible front and side elevations. While Option C includes the demolition of 66.1% of the roof, only 60% of the roof framing will be removed, as compared with the other two options, with the remaining 6.1% considered demolition through encapsulation to accommodate new roof drainage crickets. By setting the new second floor addition back and away from the historic main ridgeline, more historic building fabric is preserved, and less of the building's original massing and roof form are altered. Based on these factors, staff recommends denial of options A and B and has no objection to Option C. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the Commission? Yes, I'd like to thank the staff for their help. They've advised a lot in finding, I think, a happy medium between what the owner needs and meeting the guidelines. We have some circumstances that don't meet code that we're working with and trying to find a solution where life safety and ceiling height are managed. So the owner is happy to move forward with Option C if that is deemed appropriate. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, Commissioners, this is in Carrollton. Commissioner Irvin? I will make a motion to follow the staff's recommendation, deny Option A and B, and permit Option C. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Poirier, thank you. All those in favor? Raise your hands. Sorry, we got in trouble the other day. All right, great. All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you and good luck with your project, and thank you for working with the staff to find a good solution on this one. Thank you. All right, item E, 518 Upper Lane Street, has been removed from the agenda. Item F, 906-08 Dante Street. Is the applicant present? Please state your name and address for the record. David Merlin, Maid Design, 1100 St. Andrew. Thank you. This is an application for demolition through elevation, including partial exterior wall demolition at a contributing rated one-story raised basement residential building in partial control Carrollton. Sanborn map research indicates the building was likely constructed between 1909 and 1951. First appears in the 1951 Sanborn map as a two-story residence rather than a raised basement structure, although in its current form appears more consistent with that typology. The applicant has not provided alternative options to demolition, however the proposed elevation would occur in conjunction with the relocation of the building farther back on the site to separate it from the adjacent structure at 902-904 Dante Street to establish a more typical property line between the two lots and allow the properties to be subdivided from the larger Blessed Sacrament St. Joan of Arc Church site. HDLC does not consider this associated building relocation to constitute demolition. An exterior visual inspection was conducted by HDLC staff and the building was determined to be fair to good condition from the public right-of-way. The existing ground level basement has approximately six feet eight and a half inches of head clearance and does not meet the minimum seven foot requirement established by section 26-196 of the New Orleans Code. Accordingly, the proposed increase in floor-to-ceiling height to nine feet to create code compliant interior space constitutes demolition through elevation under the HDLC design guidelines and current demolition definition. Additionally, the proposal to increase the height of the exterior walls is considered partial exterior wall demolition, however the applicant has proposed specific means and methods to limit impacts the existing building and to retain most or all of the ground level wall framing. For example, the building would be temporarily raised while a new foundation with extended stem walls is constructed, after which the existing structure would be lowered onto and integrated with the new foundation rather than removing and replacing all of the ground floor wall framing. Additionally, the new foundation would remain at approximately the height of the existing basement foundation and would not be raised to base flood elevation. This approach would help to preserve more of the building's historic fabric and to retain more of its original scale, massing, proportions, and relationship to the street. Based on these factors, staff has no objection to proposed demolition through elevation or partial exterior wall demolition provided the work is completed using the means and methods that are consistent with those presented to staff. Wonderful. Does the applicant wish to address the Commission? No, just thank the staff for their diligence on the project. It was a complicated one. Wonderful. Colin Ruscovich, is that correct? Do you wish to address the Commission? I do not. Thank you all so much for your time. I'm here to of course answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, Commissioners, this is in Carrollton partial control. Commissioner Urban? Can I just make a motion to approve the application with the staff's recommendation? That's good, okay. Felt overly complicated. I will make a motion to approve demolition with the staff recommendation. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Hackenberg? All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. Item G, 1033 Milan Street has been removed from the agenda. And now we're moving forward to July old business retention applications. Item A, 906 Phillips Street. Is the applicant present? 906 Phillips Street. Is the applicant present? Staff given the recommendations for this? Have you all heard from the applicant? I have not. But it is from the June meeting, so we may need to make a motion on it. I agree. I remember hearing this one. Okay, let's move it forward. This is an application for the retention of unpainted front porch columns and uplighting at a contributing rated one-story single-family residential building without a C of A in the Irish Channel. At the June hearing, the application was deferred to provide a chance for the applicant and staff to confirm the case history of the project. As the applicant or owner had thought there had been a final inspection done and that this was part of that, that is not the case. The building permits were issued for a renovation in Camelback in October 2023. However, no final inspections have been done for the HDLC permit or the safety and permits permit. This was prompted by a public 311 complaint about unapproved work on the site that also included paving. So zoning has also opened a violation case on this property. Per the guidelines, they are clear on paint requirements in states that should be limited to exterior front doors where appropriate for the style. All other exterior woodwork must be painted with an opaque paint. As such, the column should be painted per the guidelines. As per the guidelines, we do not approve uplighting directed at the facade of any building as it alters the perception of architectural features and contributes to light spill into the sky. Further, the light fixtures installed at the building are large and intrusive. If ambient light is wanted on the front porch, staff would recommend installing recessed can lights behind the existing decorative soffit bins. As such, staff recommends denial of both items for retention.

Thank you. So with this, I'm just going to make one more call to the applicant. If the applicant has arrived. We have not. Okay. And with that, public comment on this application. Is there any? No public comment. Commissioner Hackenberg, this is from the Iris Channel. Yes, it is. I'm seeing that a lot of work was done without permits on this. And while stain columns look wonderful for a little while, the maintenance on them is ridiculous. And we've had this issue before, and we have consistently denied it. And I will make a motion to deny the unpainted columns and the uplighting. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? Thank you, Commissioner Lewis. Second. All those in favor? All those opposed? If anyone's opposed, please raise your hand. Second. Everyone's in favor? Okay. The motion carries unanimously. You have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing. And the staff will furnish you with the details of this appeals process. Thank you. July new business retention applications. Item A, 725 to 27 Mandeville Street. Is the applicant present? Please step forward. State your name and address for the record. Simone Sifuente, 727 Mandeville Street, 70117. Thank you. This is an application for attention and installation of two new street-facing dormers with inappropriate detailing at a contributing rate at one-and-a-half-story residential building in deviation of a C of A in full control maritime. The applicant originally received approval to construct two new street-facing dormers in 2023. During the course of the installation work, the applicant contacted HDLC staff in June 2024 to request review of progress condition photos and to inquire if the dormer trim and detailing appeared to be installed correctly. Staff noted several specific elements and details that did not appear to match the previously approved drawings or details. The current inappropriate conditions include window trimming corner boards installed as fiber cement trim rather than wood. For example, at the cheap walls, weatherboard siding appears to extend past the face of corner board trim. Fascia elements installed as fiber cement rather than wood. The extended gable fascia and eave lack depth and are not well integrated with the front and side walls. An oversized metal roof drip edge was installed. installed over the front fascia. Window units do not appear to be sufficiently deep enough into the wall, although they are minimally recessed. Wide gaps between trim boards indicate that joints may not be fully caulked or sealed. The base of the windows appear more like flat apron trim rather than the required sloped wood sills, and all elements appear to be unpainted. The applicant has noted that the previous contractor installed the dormers is no longer communicating with them and that it is unlikely they will return to make the necessary corrections. While staff is sympathetic to this issue, the current dormer installation is not considered staff approval, without additional modifications to bring them closer to the design guidelines and design and detailing typical of other new and historic dormers in this area. Staff has provided recommended dormer correction options to the applicant previously, however, they are currently requesting approval to retain them as installed. The dormers are highly visible elements of the front elevation, therefore their materials, construction, installation, and detailing are important to the overall historic character of the building and surrounding streetscape. Based on these factors, and because there are potentially cost-effective options available to revise and improve the dormer detailing, staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends the applicant continue to work with staff to develop an implementable plan for corrections. For example, a minimal scope of work could include replacement of only fiber cement window trim, corner boards, and cheek wall fascia with true 5 1⁄4-inch wood, and replacement of apron trim with sloped wood sills. Additionally, staff recommends that all wood and fiber cement elements must be painted. Is it possible to get a copy of that image? Yes, the staff can provide that to you. So yeah, I don't like it either, first and foremost. I mean, the roof, now that it's metal, it's really hard for me to get on there to paint it, and it's been really hot, and I don't want to be outside in the summer, but I'm not happy with it. My contractor is a, words I can't say in a public meeting, so I have a friend who is more of a craftsman, artisan-type carpenter. He was willing to work with me, but then the, so I, I used to teach high school. I do a lot of stuff. Like, I can build a bookshelf. This is, the language of what's wrong with this is beyond my comprehension, so it's very frustrating for me and overwhelming. So I had my friend, who's a Finnish carpenter, he's very skilled, reach out to HDLC on my behalf, and he was willing to do stuff. HDLC said that that was not sufficient, and I don't really understand any of it. It's all Greek to me. So, like, I would love to fix it. I don't know what I'm doing, but, like, the thing that irritates me is that I was under the impression this was all in my original bid. It was all under my permits, and I have documentation that my contractor said, there are no permits, when, like, I added him to the damn permit. So I don't think he's gonna respond to me if I reach out to him. He's gonna charge me, like, whatever, and I feel like I already paid for it. Like, this project was 50 grand, and I was, like, you know, a school teacher with a second job. And then my carpenter friend said that it's gonna be an additional $4,000 to do it the way that it needs to be done, and I'm just like, that's a lot of money for a bunch of other stuff that needs to be done structurally and internal to the house.

So, like, I can figure out how to paint it without breaking my neck. I'd like to do some type of repair, because I don't think it's attractive. I love, like, the dormers historically in my neighborhood also, but I don't know, like, I'm just a homeowner. Like, I don't know how to fix it myself for less than, and I don't understand the language that is coming at me in terms of, like, I know what a sill is, I know what a hardy board is, but the other detail stuff, like, I don't know how to fix it. So that's my piece. That's wonderful. Thank you for being here. Thank you to the staff for the thorough report. I do think that this drawing very clearly indicates the corrections that are being requested. You know, we follow the guidelines, and just like you, a lot of folks in town are homeowners and do not do this professionally. As we tell everyone, you know, you've got to hire a contractor, and it is your responsibility as the property owner to ensure that they follow the directions. You do own a house in full control. Marnie, which I know you're aware of, because you've been here several times before. We've seen you quite a few times. We have a long case history. So I would, as we've stated before, please work closely with Dennis and the staff to get this corrected, and work with them if you have questions in the future. So is it that green strip that just needs to be added, and that would be sufficient? I'm gonna let the staff walk through each one of these items. I don't know if it's possible for us to point to each one of the bubbles on here to make sure that it is clear. Because I don't think I've seen that. So I'm gonna ask the staff, has this been transmitted to the applicant? Yes, it was emailed to the applicant. It's also available in the one-stop case. This is, I believe, the second iteration of corrections that were generated once the carpenter reached out to me. And it wasn't that the proposal that they said that they wanted to do was rejected. It was that they needed to provide information on specifically what they would do, so we could know that the cumulative changes would be such that it would correct the general issues. And just so- Or that they also had the guidance. And just for our clarification too, when you are emailing, you are emailing to the applicant that's in front of us today, and if their contractor or whomever might be doing that work, they're potentially copied on that email, or the applicant is forwarding it, correct? Correct. Okay, great. So with that, if you can just walk through this drawing, so we make sure it's clear, and hopefully can get this one remedied and on its way. Sure, and it is a little difficult from like the staff perspective, because I'm not able to get up there. I don't know how exactly it was framed. So these are, you know, every suggestion I could think of that, you know, it wasn't necessarily that each and everything has to be done, but that, you know, a combination of these things would all help to push it closer to compliance. But essentially, the bigger issue is that the flat hardy trim is a little bit thinner than a standard 5 1⁄4 inch wood. And so if the, for example, if the front surrounding trim and the corner board and fascia were to be replaced with a 5 1⁄4 inch wood, that would better meet our guidelines for materiality. It would have a different thickness, so it helped make the window appear a little deeper reset. It would have a better relationship with the siding at the side. You know, simple things like potentially removing the oversized metal trim at the fascia. Some kind of effort, either like a piece of trim or something to sort of wrap to give there some connection between the front and the sides that you see in typical historic dormers. And some, like, if you scroll lower in that, like other historic dormer examples were also provided to help, you know, basically give a little menu of options to see what was feasible, what can be done to kind of just start the conversation, being that it seemed a little difficult to communicate the things and to have them understand what the corrections were, kind of being asked of them. All right, thank you. So with that, this is, I'm gonna see if there's any additional public comment on this application. Is there any additional public comment? Seeing as there's no additional public comments, this application, the staff is recommending that the dormer detailing be denied, the dormer detailing as is, and for the applicants to work with staff, and they have proposed the detail. This application is in my district, so I cannot make a motion on this application, but we'll look to other commissioners for discussion and hopefully a motion to move this forward. Commissioner Hackenberg. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a solution that can be come to. I think it's gonna take probably the carpenter sitting down with a staff member or meeting on site and sort of discussing some of the options, some of the things. You know, I'm concerned the still condition on that window has me, from what I can see, is probably not an ideal situation. So those are like Pella brand new windows, and they initially installed them on the face, and I was able to get that contractor out to reinstall and recess the windows as much as possible, but of course, you know, modern windows are significantly thicker because they're like double paned and whatnot. I'm seeing that vertical piece of trim, and there really should be something overhanging that because it could potentially get water in and underneath the window. I'm just pointing that out. So I mean, I would be willing to deny the dormers as they are, but I think we need to find a support staff to come up with an equitable solution or something. So to clarify, the issue is front-facing only, so I could paint the side and I wouldn't have to redo the trim on the side? I would wait until all that work's done so you don't have to come back and do it.

To do it all at once, it's gonna be a whole lot easier, I think. You know, have one person up on the roof to doing it all instead of multiple trips. So I'm gonna make a motion to deny the retention as they are and direct the staff to get with the owner and the owner's carpenter to come up with a solution. Thank you, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Irvin, thank you. All those in favor, please raise your hands. All those opposed? None opposed. The motion carries unanimously. You have 10 counter days from the date of this meeting to appeal to city council in writing, and if you wish to do so, the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. We would hope you would work with the staff to remedy this and hopefully get this buttoned up and closed. I know, me too. Is there a time restriction to get with the staff to do that? No, we do not have a, we cannot dictate a time restriction on it. Okay, so it's just ongoing? It is ongoing, yeah. So it's currently- Okay, I can handle that. Yeah. All right, so good luck with your project, and yeah, hope you can get this one remedied soon. Me too, thank you. Thank you, thank you very much. Okay, moving forward, 8616 Hickory Street is the applicant present. Wonderful, please step forward, state your name and address for the record. We are now into August. Darrell Lewis, 8419 Plum Street. Thank you. This is an application for retention of partial demolition of more than 50% of the roof structure at a contributing rated one-story church building in deviation of previously reviewed drawings in Partial Control Carrollton. The drawing submitted with the initial application in December 2025 depicted the new addition with a single pitch shed roof attached to the primary structure at the right side. Because the drawings appeared to indicate that roof demolition and or encapsulation would be below the 50% threshold, HDLC approval was not required at that time. During the initial review, however, staff was unaware that most of the existing roof had already been modified or replaced without HDLC or safety and permits approval. The work included alteration of the full right side roof slope and rear roof forms, substantially affecting the building's historic roof form and massing. The submitted drawings did not accurately depict the existing conditions or the addition as constructed. Applicant photographs also suggest possible framing replacement at the left side roof slope, although the extent is unclear. Shortly after the building permit was issued in May of 2020, 2026 the previous contractor requested its withdrawal due to issues with the owner. A new application submitted in June triggered another HDLC review during which staff identified the prior roof demolition and requested additional information. Based on a comparison of the current roof plan with the previous conditions approximately 65.3% of the roof was demolished without HDLC approval. While the building is contributing rated and had been previously altered, the roof changes completed have substantially and negatively impacted its historic form, massing, and appearance from the street. Based on this and because the changes were completed without HDLC review or approval, staff recommends approval of the retention request and recommends levying a fine from Tier 2 of the fine range, which in this case is zero to $25,000. Thank you. To the applicant, do you wish to address the Commission? Yes, I'm the pastor of that church, of Great St. John Missionary Baptist Church. The church was very deplorable at the time when I entered. However, I did have a permit. My contractor died and I got another contractor. I spoke with Mr. Warren Jones and he said that when he closed that contract, I mean that permit, he said he should have never closed it. However, he gave me a number and I did call in with a new contractor. My wife and I, we are servers, we're not takers. We were trying to better that building, not do anything without, you know, illegal or what have you. So, we're asking for grace. We didn't know. I never knew that the building was Horseshoe Historical and no one never sent anything to us stating that it was. However, we did have a problem. I did send pictures, I think you all have pictures, showing the roof. At the time, it was deplorable and the fact is that if we had not fixed it at that particular time, it would have probably failed. So, that's why we took initiative to do the building as much as we could. But we, my wife and I, we put in $75,000 and my son gave an additional $50,000 from his company as opposed to trying to fix the building. The church has no money at all. Okay, thank you for the comments. I'm sorry, I'm just reading the case history a little bit on this one. So, I will say we, this commission regulates the guidelines and we regulate them across all projects regardless of who the owner is on those projects and we do have to review projects equally, if you will. On this one, I will say there is some case history on this in terms of review of steps and how it was looked at and reviewed. This is a significant amount of demolition, I will say, and is altering a contributing structure and Carrollton is and has been in partial control since 2017 and so we have been reviewing applications in this district since 2017 on this commission. Well, not all of the building was done without a permit. A new addition was built without a permit. We had a permit when that new addition was built. It was just a rising, the rising of that one half on the right and we did that simply because we needed the HVAC space in order to continue to the new building, but we did have a permit. Understood, you did not have that work permitted by HDLC, which is why your application is filed under the new business retention applications because it was not, if it had been previously reviewed, you know, anyway, it was not reviewed under there.

So I can just, we can confirm with the staff that, and I think they explained that again, it was not documented in the drawings that are submitted and those drawings are what your permit is issued with, your building permit and the review from the City of New Orleans, which is why, forgive me I'm going to finish, why I read the speech at the beginning of every meeting and I know that it gets tiresome for folks, but it is exactly that. If you deviate from the drawings and you are either in a partial or a full control HDLC district, you are much better off to come to staff and work with them early. They are available and changes happen all the time on projects. We don't like to see retention applications and having to go through this because there was not the opportunity for staff to weigh in and hopefully correct items and put you in the right direction before you spent the money to make these modifications and then you end up here today, if that's fair. And so we, I try to emphasize that at the beginning of every meeting, the staff are there to pick up the phone at any point and if you ever have trouble getting a hold of them, you obviously let the directors know and other folks know on here. But in this case, I am going to look to staff, they were not notified of the changes in construction prior to it happening. Is that correct? So it was initially submitted as a building permit. HDLC reviewed the drawings at that time. I believe the work had already commenced at the site and what was shown in the drawings did not reflect what had already happened and staff was not aware during that initial review that the work had already been done. Okay, thank you. So the applicant, do you wish to address the Commission? Yes. Was I supposed to be notified by the Permit Association or whomever was in charge of that area to tell me about the historical, partial historical area? I knew nothing about it. It is. Nothing at all and no one never said anything to me about it. So if when you submit, and I'll go through this, when you submit a permit to the City of New Orleans, it opens a, I would say, a very lengthy checklist of items that go through there and the HDLC, this property is listed in a district that has an overlay and that is also identified when you get your permit. So it does list that there is a reviewer assigned to review it and they do go through that process. So just like you have your electrical, your plumbing, all of your structural, whether it's structural or not, all of that is listed and is, there's a lot of things that the city reviews for and so that is clearly stated and shown on the city's website on One Stop Shop. Yes. Do they notify, does each plan reviewer notify you? Most likely not because each, each case, and nor are they expected to, each case has, each application has a number of items that are listed and they can get very lengthy depending in what overlay district they are in, zoning, other items that are on there as well. Yes. Well, had I known, I would have never went against protocol. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I said, had I known, I would have never went against protocol, so we ask you for your grace. Understood. I do believe the staff is stating that these changes were made prior to, some of this work was done prior to that application in there anyway. I just would like to move this forward. The work has obviously been done. You're here for retention. We appreciate you being here to explain and to answer questions. I'm going to turn it over to the Commission. I'm going to first see if there's any public comment on this application. Is there any additional public comment? Okay, no additional public comment. Commissioners, this is in the Carrollton District. I'm looking to our Commissioner for that district, which is Commissioner Irvin, and I'll let you take it from here. I will, you know, recommend the approval of the retention. I am sympathetic and hate to levy a fine, but out of that big window, I'll levy a $5,000 fine. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner Pori seconds. Thank you. I'm just going to ask everyone to raise your hand high, whichever way you're voting, just so we can see that here. So we have a motion on the floor to allow for retention of the demolition and levy a $5,000 fine, and we have a second to that motion. All those in favor? All those opposed? We have one opposed. The motion passes. You have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting to appeal to City Council in writing, if you wish to do so, and the staff will furnish you with the details of that appeals process. If you don't wish to do that, you can also get with the staff to pay the fine and move forward on this, but we have voted to allow for retention of the work with a fine of $5,000. Thank you. Thank you, and good luck with your project. All right, item B, 1200-04 Ursuline Avenue and 1039 Henriette DeLille Street. Is the applicant present? Yes, good afternoon. Thank you for hearing us. Judson Scott, Carolina Scott, 1200 Ursuline Avenue, New Orleans. Thank you. This is the application for the retention of decorative mechano railings and tiered shutters at a contributing rated two-story mixed-use building without a certificate of appropriateness. The decorative railings located at the upper level between the primary and secondary building were installed sometime after 2022, replacing a wood railing. The HDLC guidelines do not permit the replacement of wood railings or posts with iron or synthetic materials without historic documentation. A second metal railing was installed above fencing, separating the primary and secondary buildings. Photos indicate that at that location, there was previously wood panels. The HDLC guidelines state that the replacement of woodwork or ornamental metal should be to match the size, shape, types, profiles, and detailing of existing historic components.

The current railings do not replicate the features that were historically occupied those specific locations. Staff notes the applicant has worked with staff to address these violations and other violations on the properties. Staff recommends denial of the decorative railings. Sometime after 2022, the existing shutters on both the primary and secondary building were modified without a permit. The HDLC guidelines require that all shutters be operable, and when closed, completely fill the windows and doors openings. In addition, the guidelines do not permit shutters that fail to replicate the design dimensions and proportions of historic wood shutters. In this case, the issue is not simply the appearance of the shutters, but that the original shutters were altered by cutting them into separate sections and adding new hardware. Historically, the shutters were constructed as full-height units and would not have been divided in this manner. Board and band shutters were traditionally built as solid, continuous wood panels. The modifications have resulted in irregular shutters that no longer replicate their original proportions, constructions, or operation. By cutting the shutters apart and introducing additional hardware, the original historic fabric has been altered, creating a condition that would not have existed. Although the guidelines do not specifically address the exact alterations, the work is inconsistent with the guidelines to preserve and repair original features rather than modify them into non-historic configurations. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the retention of the modified shutters. Thank you. So the applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Yes, yes, definitely. First, we apologize that we've done this wrong. We've never lived in a property that requires preapproval. So I know that's not an excuse, but that's how this happened. So if you look at the railings, that rotten wooden railing, so in 1982, the commission, there was an application to install a railing there, and the commission just said install a low railing. It didn't say wood or metal or anything in 1982. But whoever did it, they installed wood, and then over the years, you can see one rotten wooden railing after the next rotten wood railing. So we found this piece of iron in the courtyard, and it matches exactly with the gallery. It's the exact match of the gallery railing that goes around. So we just figured that that's where it belonged. Because over the fence, you can see in the middle, there's that dark spot. That railing was already there. We just removed the wood that was covering it and painted it white. So it already had that decorative railing above the fence, and then we found that other railing in the courtyard and replaced the rotten wood railing with it, because it just seemed appropriate that it matched every other railing on the property. I think the guidelines say that where you can salvage existing stuff that belongs on the property that matches it, that you should use it for historical purposes. So that's those two railings. One was already there. We just took the wood off of it, and the other one we found and installed it. So that's the railings. That's how those happened. The shutters, they're the exact same shutters. So my wife's in the house alone a lot. This was a commercial building, like a store. So when those shutters are open, the whole open, everything is open. So there's no security. If you want air or you want light, there's no security, because it's designed for people to come in off the street to shop at the store. It's a residence now, though. So we've had, during when we were moving in and they were open, a homeless person just walked in, grabbed some stuff, and walked out, because it's that easy to come in off the street when they're open. And so this seemed like a way to have security and ventilation and light, which the guidelines talk about that when they talk about louvered shutters, that they provide security, but you can also get light and ventilation. And then as far as I've seen in the guidelines, there's nothing, I believe the staff called these tiered shutters. There's nothing prohibiting tiered shutters in the guidelines. So we would ask for, to be able to retain them for, because now it's a residence. We need security, but we also want airflow and light. They were designed for a commercial space to get people in and out easily, which we don't want people in and out easily when she's home alone. And we can go through all the different crime that's happened right outside our door, but I don't know if that's necessary, but we do take it very responsible. We weed the sidewalk. We pick up all the garbage. We want it to be beautiful, beautiful home, beautiful building in the neighborhood. And I do want to thank staff. They were very helpful with the other things we've already remedied. So that's how these are. That's why we're requesting retention. Thank you for coming today. Thank you for owning a home in a historic full control district, and we appreciate you working with staff on remedying and a number of the other items, which we are not hearing today. Just to be clear, since this is your first time here, I would assume, I'll state the same things that we tell everyone is, so there's a partial control district, which has a different level of review. You own a home in the most restrictive district, which is a full control district. So anything that is seen from the public right of way, any corner, any sliver, I'm sure you've learned this from staff, is visible and underneath, it's HDLC regulates. We review all the applications with the same guidelines. We try to be consistent across all the rulings. A lot of us have sat on this for a number of years so that it is consistent and that is with the guidelines and there's no confusion. So with that, I'm just going to see if there's any public comment on this application.

Is there any public comment from anyone? No public comment, okay. And then I'm going to turn this over to commissioners for review and to discuss these two items. Thank you for the thorough, at least acknowledging, kind of how these items came to be, so we'll discuss it. Commissioners, this is in Treme. We do not have a commissioner for the Treme district, so you won't have one of your neighbors who's up here, but I'm looking to other commissioners who are here to go through these two items and ask the staff any questions. I believe this is Michaelis. Is that correct? Yeah. Was there a, did you look at the safety argument on that one? I know we talked about that a lot in Treme. Was that the commissioner? No. It seems to me, just kind of taking these a little bit individually, the upper rail that was replaced, the wood, is there anything to suggest in the guidelines that that should have been wood? I'm a little sympathetic in that they found the size and that it happens to fit right there. Is that a chance that it might have been metal, or you have a notion that that needed to be wood and it always was wood? It could have been metal. I know he's mentioned in the previous, like in the ARC meeting back in the 80s, they did allow either metal or wood could be installed. I think it was wood at the time, but we don't have any documentation showing that it was metal there. Okay. Also, there's more of an issue, too, that it's a highly decorative metal, and I mean, it's a beautiful piece, and it's not something that would readily be approvable on a building of this vintage. I got you. You know, that's, just to make the broader point, this is why it's always important to get a CMA, because the staff is here to help you make these decisions. Instead, we'll end up in these kind of, you know, violation retention conversations. Yeah. And then the front rail, I mean, that seems like a no-brainer simply because it's a fence, effectively. So, metal on top of your fence, you guys wouldn't normally approve. And then, on the shutters, isn't there a regulation on shutters that if they're a certain size, they can be bifurcated like that, or is that not in HDLC? I think VCC has a piece of that, but not in HDLC, is that? Neither one. Neither one? Okay. You do see them, but they're not approvable as per our guidelines. Okay. Okay. And that, Kate? Can I say something? Yes, you can respond. So, I mean, I know it's decorative metal, but it's the exact same decorative metal in the gallery. It's not like we're bringing in some new feature. It's an exact match. So, it already has decorative metal all the way around the building. But the gallery metal, that's all internal. It's not exposed. It's not on the outside of the building at home. No, it is on the outside. You can see it in that photo. Well, it's at the… See, that's the exact same metal. I just want to clarify that the gallery is historic to the building. Where the railing we're talking about that's in retention is not a historic portion of the building. It's a walkway that connects this building to the neighboring building. So, we would not recommend matching the hand railing there because it is not a historic portion of the building. Got it. Thank you for clarifying. Okay, I'm going to look. Just one more thing, too. You know, that's why this also went to the ARC. So, this has been reviewed for these kinds of, you know, questions. And they're here for, you know, retention. And the commission is able to make considerations outside of what was, you know, denied at the ARC. So, that's the discretion of this body. Thank you for clarifying. I would like to move this forward today because everyone can move on with what these fixes are or what the path forward is. Commissioners, does anyone want to make a motion? Sure. I mean, given that conversation and the clarification from staff, I'm going to move to deny both the railings and the shutters. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second, Commissioner Porey? Okay, great. Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Porey. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Your application to retain the railings and the shutters has been denied, both items. If you wish to appeal this to City Council, you have 10 calendar days from the date of this meeting, and the staff will furnish you with that appeals process. If you wish to fix the items or do any work in the future, please work with the staff. Oh, definitely, yes. Just so you know, they're there and they're available. Can someone give us guidance for security? I mean, with those shutters wide open? We can work with you after the meeting, so just make an appointment with the staff and we can discuss that. Okay. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you very much, and good luck with your project. Okay. Item 301203 Homer Street. Is the applicant present? Yes. Wonderful. Please step forward. Wendola McInnis, 301303 Homer Street. Thank you. You were listening. Thank you very much. This is an application for the retention of installation of inappropriate windows at a contributed-rated single-family residential building in deviation of a certificate of appropriateness in Algiers Full Control. Excuse me, without a certificate of appropriateness. So, on August 25, 2016, a stop work order was placed on the property for performing work without a C of A. The replacement of original wood windows on the right-hand side of the building, the Brooklyn Avenue side, was part of that work completed. On September 15, 2016, the commission approved the retention of the Brooklyn Avenue side windows with the proviso that they were reinstalled, recessed into the wall, and full wood screens were installed to obscure their visibility. The commission also approved the rail windows as installed. The commission noted that any further work replacing of the windows must be reviewed and approved by the HDLC. The HDLC did issue a C of A, but that work had expired before any work was commenced.

Around that time, the left-hand side, the Test Street side, and the rear windows were replaced with similar inappropriate windows. On June 16 of this year, the administrative judgment accessed a fine for the inappropriate windows, and the applicant filed for a new permit application shortly thereafter. At that time, the applicant alerted the staff. The window installer confirmed that these existing windows cannot be recessed. The applicant is requesting retention of all the side windows as installed. HDLC staff recommends denying the request to retain the existing inappropriate windows. allowing their replacement with new recessed one-over-one double-hung vinyl windows. However, because the Commission has previously ruled on this matter and the applicant is requesting relief based on financial hardship, staff is deferring this decision to the Commission's discretion. Thank you. So the applicant, do you wish to address the Commission? Yes. Well, I am having some hard times. I did lose my job for a while, and I am trying to be compliant with what's needed now, but I'm having a hard time with someone wanting to come in and do the recess on the windows. So I was trying to think of another alternative, if it was. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this application? No public comments? Commissioner Poirier. So I just want to make sure that I have clarity. She had an approval to install those windows, but not the kind that she had installed. Is that correct? So where we are today, she has approval to recess the Brooklyn Avenue side windows, but that's something that has not been physically able to do with those types of windows. And then the other side is, were replaced at some time. I don't know exactly when, and so those don't have any Commission or ACL staff direction. You said that there was no time period. Could we assess for the time period? Legal has ruled, I'll look to the staff, but my understanding is legal is not allowing us to do time periods, because there is no way for the staff to go back and ensure the time period and compliance. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah, at this time we haven't found a window that HCL South can approve for its visual look and replicating historic windows, and one that is financially within the scope, because they were originally not expecting to have to replace the window. They were just going to recess them. And just to be clear, I'm going to ask the staff to reread the last, like, two sentences where you're, I think it may weigh a little bit. The staff recommends denying, you know, what you're recommending and then why you're referring it to us or at our discretion. Thank you. Sure, yeah, so the ACL staff recommends denying the request to retain the existing inappropriate windows while allowing the replacement with new recessed vinyl windows. However, because the Commission has previously ruled on this matter and the applicant is requesting relief based on financial hardship, staff is deferring the decision to the Commission's discretion. And clarify to me one more time, I'm sorry about this, what was the initial ruling? Yeah, it is a little confusing, so happy to answer your question. The original ruling was they can keep their vinyl windows, but remove them and reinstall them recessed into the wall. But when the applicant went to do such, those types of windows are not able to be recessed into the wall. So the applicant is not able to meet the Commission's previous ruling. So basically, since these windows are not a type that can be recessed, they would need to be replaced. And the applicant is applying for a financial hardship, which is something that the Commission can consider. And so I make the motion to allow the applicant to retain the windows due to financial hardship. Can I make a friendly amendment? That if these windows are replaced, that they be replaced with an approvable window. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor and we have a second to that motion from Commissioner King. We can repeat that motion if you'd like. So I believe the motion on the floor is to allow to retain the windows due to financial hardship with Proviso, that if they are replaced in the future, they are replaced to meet HDLC guidelines and with a permit. I'm sorry. And yes, and so that was the motion by Commissioner Borey. Wait, sorry. I don't believe that you can do that. You can't make Provisos like that. Yeah, and I do think that if they go to replace windows, they would get a permit and then we would review that at that time. Okay. Okay. Thank you for clarification. Do we have a modification to the So I guess I go back to my original statement that I would allow the applicant to retain the windows as is. And so therefore we don't need the Proviso that when they, whoever goes. Okay, great. So we have a motion on the floor. Commissioner King, do you make a second to that motion, that amended motion? Great. Thank you for all the clarifications here. Clear as kind. Thank you very much. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yep, thank you. Okay, item D, 737 to 39 Elmira Avenue. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Good afternoon. Okay, Barry Forstall, 1610 Chantilly Boulevard, Wallace, Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Forstall. The staff will make their presentation and we'll hear your comments following. This is a retention of installation of inappropriate windows that contributed rated one-story residential building without a certificate of appropriateness and Algiers Point full control. On May 20th, 2026, a stop work order was placed on the property for performing work without a C of A. The work performed included removing windows, shutters, and wood window trim. Previously, the recessed metal windows were obscured by board and batten shutters.

The HDLC does not object to the removal of the existing shutters because they're not historically appropriate for the building type. When the windows that are removed are not original wood windows, the HDLC may approve vinyl replacement windows provided they are recessed into the wall and do not have internal grids between the glass and are an appropriate profile. HDL's design guidelines though does require retaining the historic wood trim including the window trim, fiber cement, or composite is not approved. HDL staff recommends approval of the retention of the one over one double hung windows provided that they are recessed mounted. An applicant has confirmed these windows could be recessed as long as they are appropriately detailed with either wood screens or louvered shutters and in the wood trim. Good afternoon. Such similar cases one after the other in Algiers. Yes. Do you wish to address the Commission? Thank you. No. Okay. It sounds like you have been working with the staff and are in agreement with recessing these windows. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you very much for talking with your contractor and coming to us and for the staff for working through that. So with that, is there any public comment on this application? Seeing as there's no public comment, Commissioner Poirier? Yes, I agree with the motion to move the staff recommendation to recess the windows. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Commissioner King? Seconds? All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you and good luck with your project. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, last item of the day. Almost last item of the day, but item E, 3138 to 40 Dauphine Street is the applicant. I assume you're here for this last one. Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Benjamin Purley, formerly George Black. I'm the owner of the property. Thank you. This is the application for the retention of gallery modifications at a contributed rated two-story mixed-use building in deviation of her certificate of appropriateness. On June 12th, 2026, a final inspection was conducted and during the inspection, during which the inspector determined that the construction of the gallery and parapet had been built differently than shown in the approved plans. Although the gallery has been restored with a high level of craftsmanship, it was constructed with a noticeable shift towards the left side of the building. As a result, the gallery no longer returned to the building at the same exact location. This shift is also caused by the gallery's, also caused the gallery brackets to end at the window trim rather than at the corner board. The inspector also observed that the parapet had been reconstructed with additional height beyond the approved, was approved, altering the proportions. Staff recognized that the building itself leans heavily towards the right, which explains the decision to shift the gallery to achieve a more level appearance. However, the construction did not justify the increased height of the parapet, which further modified the building's appearance. The applicant went before the architectural review committee and after reviewing the proposal, the architectural review committee recommended that they reconstruct the entablisher on the right side so that it returns to the building along the gallery edge rather than at the corner of the building and to relocate the downspout so that it runs along the side elevation instead of on the gallery column. The applicants were requesting retention to allow the reconstruction of the parapet in the existing location of the downspout. After reviewing the proposal, staff finds that the ARC recommendations are appropriate and consistent with the guidelines as they were better preserve the proportions and character-defining features of the building. Therefore, staff recommends the commission uphold the recommendations of the architectural review commission and deny the retention. Thank you. The applicant, do you wish to address the commission? Yes, I prepared some comments as the owner and then I'll throw it to the contractor for this portion. I'm Benjamin Purley, co-owner of 3140 Dauphine Street. Todd cannot be here today but he did submit comment via email. First, I'd like to say that I respect the work the HDLC does and without your oversight our historic neighborhoods would be chaos. However, I'm here to ask permission to leave the balcony as is, but we did agree to build it back exactly. It's my understanding that our contractor, Steve, ran into significant challenges along the way due to the decades-old slanting of the balcony and structure itself. It has been slanted but stable since our oldest photo of it from the early 70s from the Charles Bronson movie. The posts are in exact same places before. The right bracket is attached to the house in the exact same spot it was before. Moving the post to the right would have put it on our neighbor's property line. Steve can elaborate further on this when it's his turn. Also, unlike building permits, there were not really any HDLC oversight of this project until the very end when the examiner came out. We didn't find out about this until it was too late to do anything about it. It's been in public view for almost a year now. It's quite unfortunate that somehow this one fell through the cracks. This has been a long and expensive project and was further delayed by an arson in January. We essentially had to start over on it. To tear into it again is a significant financial hardship. We already spent over $40,000 on it before the fire. We've already paid Steve and he's left the job site to go work on something else. As you deliberate today, I would ask you to think not just about the mistake but also to all the historical details that he did get right on this balcony. Every element was painstakingly taken apart to be restored.

With the exception of the top right corner, it is better than it was before in pretty much every respect and built solidly enough to outlive us. Anecdotally, I showed photos to many Bywater residents, including direct stakeholders on the block. Nobody could spot the discrepancy until I told them exactly where to look. They're not architects, of course, but it does speak to the fact that the neighborhood isn't very concerned about it. I ask you today to please grant an exception for this honest mistake and if not, to recommend easier corrective action that does not involve reworking the roof or the column. Thank you. Thank you. Do you wish to address the commission? Yeah. I'm Steven Johnson, Johnson Construction. We did the project here for Ben and Todd. In our original bid proposal that was submitted back, I guess it's been like 14 months ago now, it was to correct violations. The violations were solely in regards to the gallery itself due to basic structural integrity issues that were close to having it collapse. If anybody saw pictures from that before, for the last 30 years, you recognize that. Our issue was to correct the gallery. I submitted drawings that I drew myself and we rebuilt it painstakingly to match everything. We pulled all the brackets off, all the spandrels, rebuilt them all, straightened them all out, and then put it back square, true, level, and solid. However, the reality is the house lists about 20 inches to the right from bottom to top. If we were to try to adjust the columns to match the house, we would be on the line of servitude into the neighbor's property. Even though I realize that's city property on the street, the actual columns would have been in the line of servitude and really look out of place in our mind. We struggled with what to do exactly to make it look correctly. This is what we came up with. In order to make it, if we had actually built it to where everything lined up correctly, then the actual gallery would have kiddiwampused and done a nice trapezoidal connection to the existing house, which is listing. We asked for retention of this project as it is. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this application? There are. I think there are 30 comments. I was just about to note, we received them all via email yesterday. I have not read any of them. I went through a number of them. You did talk to a lot of neighbors, and they wrote in, and most of those, I think, were in support. I just didn't make a tally on it, but there were a number. I would just say to the commission, I'm in the Marigny. Our bywater commissioner is not here today. This is a significant renovation to the balcony. I will say, as a pedestrian, I've always walked on the other side of the street until recently because your balcony leaned quite a bit and did appear to be very unsound, so I appreciate you making those corrections. Obviously, it's been to the ARC for review. The staff's given it thorough review, so I can't make a motion, but we'll leave it to this commission to review and make a decision on this. We've reviewed this a lot, and the ARC has too. Like Jenny, I've been familiar with this building too, and when you have a structure that is leaning, and you've got a structure that attaches to that that is then being rebuilt plumb and straight, then there's going to have to be some sort of leeway. You're not going to build a gallery that's leaning, a new gallery that's leaning to match the leaning building, so it's kind of one of those conundrums. Just to note, too, on this property, and it is detailed, and I know that a number of the neighbors' letters, this was also a property that was arsoned along with a number of other arsons that happened in Bywater, and this project was under construction but had a lot of visual damage from that, so they've been through a lot in terms of construction, both in the corrective actions on a leaning building and having something that happened during construction that no one wants to see happen, and the neighborhood really worked through that holistically because that was an unfortunate evening. So we'll just note that as well, as a neighbor. And unfortunately, the arson happened the day before we were going to be putting on our refurbished railings, and the spandrels were all done, the brackets were all done at our shop, and thank goodness we did not install them because that would have been many more thousands of dollars' worth of damage. So as it is, we had to tear off all the decking, all the framing, and redo it completely, repair the columns and everything, and the whole front lower part of the house, as well as some interior stuff, which we obtained a second permit for. So it's been a challenge, but you know, we like challenges. Thank you. Yep. Love living in New Orleans, right? Love living in an old, full-control Historic District Landmarks home. I wouldn't say I love challenges. How long have you owned the property? Since 2004. Okay. If I'm not mistaken, you used to have it, was it a coffin book? Like an art piece that was out front? Oh yeah, there was a little free library in front. It was made of a coffin lid, but unfortunately it got severely burned up. We're going to try to put it back out there eventually. I remember that as a defining feature that we don't have jurisdiction over. Jenny, if you could make a motion, what motion would you make? Oh no, you can't. I can feel the other architects up here trying to figure out what to do because of the ARC recommendations and staff. Given the hardships on this property, we don't have jurisdiction over paint. The downspout might go away and be less visible if it was painted white. That can be done, but the downspout did come down that column originally, and that was part of the reason that the whole gallery started to collapse. It's because that had been not taken care of. But again, we don't have jurisdiction over paint, so I don't know.

I have no objection to painting the downspout. That might just make it go away a little bit. Other than that, I feel like this project has been through a lot. We have a little funkiness on that street anyway, so I'm actually more excited that this gallery has been retained rather than losing its fabric and then going back without a balcony because I think too often we lose the balconies completely. I've worked on a project down the street where we had looked at photos to potentially reinstall a balcony at a gallery like this, so I'm thrilled that we didn't lose that fabric, even though it has deviated and it's a little bit unusual. So that helps you with where I might vote on this one. Did we have any other common parts? They were all supported. There were a lot of – this has a lot of favorable neighbor. I didn't read through them, but it was a big windy. I know you sent them over. It was a very long list. It has a lot of comments on it. After the fire, it was also noted quite a bit. I can tell you this is probably all positive. But there were people who were against it. Okay, that's good. This is a really – this block in Bywater is also very supportive and a good neighborhood component. But, yeah, a lot of familiar notes in there. If you're willing to do that, maybe – is anybody willing to make a motion on the floor on this one to move forward? That's the last item of the day, and we'll finish early, hopefully, before 4 and let everybody out of here. I would make a motion – recommend a motion for approval for retention with the deviation of the roof line as well as the downspout and encourage the owner to paint the downspout white. I don't – great. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Lupin. All those in favor? All those opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. Thank you, and good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Thank you, and we will repaint that downspout. This means that you've approved the retention, right? Yes, we've approved the retention, and thank you again for all the diligent work that went into this. Thank you, guys. I appreciate your work. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any next steps other than going home and painting it? No, I don't believe so. Staff, is there anything? They'll reach out to you, but I don't believe there's any other steps. There would be perhaps a reinspection, or does this sort of close it? No, we already have photos of it. We just close it out. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Great. So with that, well done, everybody. Staying on task. Thank you to the staff for keeping the reports brief and to the point. We appreciate that. Last item is ratification of Architectural Review Committee and staff actions since Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026. Do we have a motion for that? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Lupin. Seconded by Commissioner Hackenberg. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Any additional HDLC reports and communication? Thank you all very much. Meeting adjourned. We'll see you in September. Thank you. We finished. Oh, I'll ask. Yes, I will ask all of them. No, this was just for your reference if you needed it during the conversation. Thank you very much.