Historic Preservation Board — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-05-20
Time: 17:00

MEMBERS
 Brad Miller, Chair
Historic Preservation Board Valerie Paquin-Gould, Vice Chair
 Hilary Bassett
Wednesday, May 20, 2026 at 5:00 PM William DeSerres
 Michael Hutchins
Room 24 (Basement Level of City Hall) Kristina Sottery
and Zoom Rob Whitten




HYBRID PARTICIPATION:
The Historic Preservation Board invites the public to attend the meeting in person or Zoom pursuant to the
Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the Historic Preservation Board. Prior to the meeting, please check the
Agenda Center https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com to view memos and reports which will be posted by the
end of the day on the Friday before the Historic Preservation Board meeting. Please note that the placement of
each item on the agenda is subject to change. Please check the Agenda Center prior to the meeting for the item
start time.

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to
attend either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

For more information on how to use zoom, please go here: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/18148b5d-
f26e-472f-8d2c-245db97e5c27

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

You are invited to a Zoom webinar!
When: May 20, 2026 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Historic Preservation Public Hearing 5-20-2026

Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/83176870234

Phone one-tap:
+13052241968,,83176870234# US
+13092053325,,83176870234# US

Join via audio:
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 386 347 5053 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
 1
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 360 209 5623 US
Webinar ID: 831 7687 0234
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/ktdeHCyMQ

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
 To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email hp@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
 received by 12:00 pm the day before the Historic Preservation Board meeting to guarantee their inclusion
 in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help
 ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see
 below).




AGENDA:

1. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
2. REPORT OF ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 2026
 i. Public Hearings
 Review of & Recommendation to Maine Historic Preservation Commission regarding National
 Register Nomination for 0 Fessenden Avenue (Little Diamond Island Casino). DeSerres,
 Hutchins, Miller, and Paquin-Gould present. Bassett, Sottery, and Whitten absent.

 Review of Alterations; 279 Congress Street. DeSerres, Hutchins, Miller, and Paquin-Gould
 present. Bassett, Sottery, and Whitten absent.

 Workshops
 Review of New Construction; 30 Atlantic Street. DeSerres, Hutchins, and Miller present.
 Bassett, Paquin-Gould, Sottery, and Whitten absent.

3. REPORTS OF DECISIONS AT THE MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 2026
 i. Review of & Recommendation to Maine Historic Preservation Commission regarding National
 Register Nomination for 0 Fessenden Avenue (Little Diamond Island Casino). The Board
 voted 4 in favor, none opposed to recommend that the Maine Historic Preservation
 Commission support the nomination.

 Review of Alterations; 279 Congress Street; St. Paul’s Parish Church, Applicant. Plan
 Number: HP-00061-2026. The Board voted 4 in favor, none opposed to table consideration of
 the application.

4. COMMUNICATION AND REPORTS
5. PUBLIC HEARING

 2
 i. Review of Alterations; 28 Waterville Street; Eliza Huber-Weiss, Applicant. Plan Number: HP-
 00080-2026.

 ii. Review of New Construction; 30 Atlantic Street; Brooke Chornyak and Dylan Jones,
 Applicants. Plan Number: HP-00068-2026.

6. WORKSHOP
 i. None

7. CONSENT AGENDA




 3

MEMBERS
 Brad Miller, Chair
Historic Preservation Board Valerie Paquin-Gould, Vice Chair
 Hilary Bassett
Wednesday, May 20, 2026 at 5:00 PM William DeSerres
 Michael Hutchins
Room 24 (Basement Level of City Hall) Kristina Sottery
and Zoom Rob Whitten




HYBRID PARTICIPATION:
The Historic Preservation Board invites the public to attend the meeting in person or Zoom pursuant to the
Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the Historic Preservation Board. Prior to the meeting, please check the
Agenda Center https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com to view memos and reports which will be posted by the
end of the day on the Friday before the Historic Preservation Board meeting. Please note that the placement of
each item on the agenda is subject to change. Please check the Agenda Center prior to the meeting for the item
start time.

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to
attend either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

For more information on how to use zoom, please go here: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/18148b5d-
f26e-472f-8d2c-245db97e5c27

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

You are invited to a Zoom webinar!
When: May 20, 2026 05:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Historic Preservation Public Hearing 5-20-2026

Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/83176870234

Phone one-tap:
+13052241968,,83176870234# US
+13092053325,,83176870234# US

Join via audio:
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 386 347 5053 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
 1

 Page 1
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 360 209 5623 US
Webinar ID: 831 7687 0234
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/ktdeHCyMQ

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
 To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email hp@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
 received by 12:00 pm the day before the Historic Preservation Board meeting to guarantee their inclusion
 in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help
 ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see
 below).




AGENDA:

1. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
2. REPORT OF ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 2026
 i. Public Hearings
 Review of & Recommendation to Maine Historic Preservation Commission regarding National
 Register Nomination for 0 Fessenden Avenue (Little Diamond Island Casino). DeSerres,
 Hutchins, Miller, and Paquin-Gould present. Bassett, Sottery, and Whitten absent.

 Review of Alterations; 279 Congress Street. DeSerres, Hutchins, Miller, and Paquin-Gould
 present. Bassett, Sottery, and Whitten absent.

 Workshops
 Review of New Construction; 30 Atlantic Street. DeSerres, Hutchins, and Miller present.
 Bassett, Paquin-Gould, Sottery, and Whitten absent.

3. REPORTS OF DECISIONS AT THE MEETING HELD ON APRIL 15, 2026
 i. Review of & Recommendation to Maine Historic Preservation Commission regarding National
 Register Nomination for 0 Fessenden Avenue (Little Diamond Island Casino). The Board
 voted 4 in favor, none opposed to recommend that the Maine Historic Preservation
 Commission support the nomination.

 Review of Alterations; 279 Congress Street; St. Paul’s Parish Church, Applicant. Plan
 Number: HP-00061-2026. The Board voted 4 in favor, none opposed to table consideration of
 the application.

4. COMMUNICATION AND REPORTS
5. PUBLIC HEARING

 2

 Page 2
 i. Review of Alterations; 28 Waterville Street; Eliza Huber-Weiss, Applicant. Plan Number: HP-
 00080-2026.

 ii. Review of New Construction; 30 Atlantic Street; Brooke Chornyak and Dylan Jones,
 Applicants. Plan Number: HP-00068-2026.

6. WORKSHOP
 i. None

7. CONSENT AGENDA




 3

 Page 3
STAFF MEMORANDUM
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

TO: Chair Miller and Members of the Historic Preservation Board
FROM: Evan R. Schueckler, Historic Preservation Program Manager
DATE: May 15, 2026
RE: 28 Waterville –PUBLIC HEARING – Alterations
PROJECT ID: HP-00080-2026
MEETING: May 20, 2026

Owner: Eliza Huber-Weiss
Architect: Chelsea Lipham, Chelsea Lipham Architecture | Design

A sign announcing the Historic Preservation Board’s meeting on May 20, 2025 was posted at the
property on May 10, 2026, and 63 notices were sent to neighboring property owners within 100
feet of the subject property.

_________________________________________
PROJECT SCOPE

Enclose existing, non-historic side porch to create new mudroom.

Dimensions:
Overall Height: ~9’-4”
Footprint: ~5’ x 12’-6”

Material Specifications:
 Foundation Existing
 Siding Wood clapboard with 4” reveal
 Trim Wood
 Roofing Existing
 Windows Unspecified
 Doors Unspecified

_________________________________________




 1

 Page 4
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC CONTEXT




 Figure 1: Map of Portland’s Historic Designations showing location of 28 Waterville Street.

28 Waterville is an individually designated Landmark in close proximity to the Munjoy Hill and
Portland Company Historic Districts. Constructed in 1859 the modest house is one of the earlier
surviving structures in Portland’s East End, having survived the Great Fire of 1866 and multiple
phases of subsequent development. The building is a simple one-and-a-half story cape structure
which features a decorative Greek-revival entry surround and gable returns. The building
historically featured corner boards and wooden clapboard siding, but sometime after 1924, the
house was resided with asbestos cladding. In 1977 a covered porch was added to the north side of
the house, and in 1991 a deck and sliding glass door were added to the south side of the house. All
windows and doors were also replaced sometime before designation of the structure as a
Landmark in 2021.




 Figure 2: 1886 Sanborn Map showing the footprint of 28 Waterville Street.




 2

 Page 5
 Figure 3: 1924 Tax Photo of 28 Waterville Street.




 Figure 4: 1954 Sanborn Map showing the footprint of 28 Waterville Street.

Additional information on the Munjoy Hill Historic District can be found on the city website:
https://www.portlandmaine.gov/1548/Historic-Designations

_________________________________________


 3

 Page 6
STAFF COMMENTS

The applicant is proposing to enclose an existing non-historic porch which was added to the house
in 1977. The massing of the side porch is an existing condition which the applicant is seeking to
work within, utilizing the foundation, posts, and roof. To enclose the porch, the applicant is
proposing to fill in the spaces between the posts with simple clapboard-clad walls. The new
enclosed porch will feature a simple single-lite door facing Waterville Street and a single-lite
casement window on the side. These simple contemporary openings will help to show that the
enclosed porch/mudroom is not an original or historic feature of the house, while the use of
horizontal clapboard siding will help to establish some compatibility with the historic house.
Overall, the impact on the existing structure will be minimal and require little, to no alteration of
the historic structure beyond the non-historic porch.

_________________________________________
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION

I move to [APPROVE / CONDITIONALLY APPROVE] application HP-00080-2026 for alterations
at 28 Waterville Street on the basis of submitted documentation, plans, and specifications;
information provided in the staff memo; and the attached findings by the Historic Preservation
Board [AS WRITTEN / AS AMENDED DURING THE MEETING ON MAY 20, 2026] that the
project MEETS subsection 16.6.3 standards for review of alterations to contributing properties;
[WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:]
 1) [CONDITIONS]

_________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS
 1. Project Description
 2. Drawings
 3. HP-00080-2026 Draft Findings of Fact, May 15, 2026
 4. 1977 and 1991 Permits for 28 Waterville




 4

 Page 7
Historic Preservation Board
City of Portland, Maine
 th
389 Congress Street, 4 Floor
Portland ME 04101

Subject: 28 Waterville St April 27, 2026

To the Board of Historic Preservation:



On behalf of the owner of 28 Waterville St, I am submitting this letter to detail the proposed project at the
property. The proposal would convert an existing covered deck into an enclosed mudroom. There is no
change to the building footprint or roof area.

The new enclosure will follow the existing deck and utilize the existing deck roof. The entry wall will be inset
5-6” in order to keep the existing electrical meter located as it is now. The existing house is clad in asbestos
shingles, but was historically clad in clapboards. The new walls will be clad in 4” clapboard, painted to
match the existing house. Windows and window trim will match the existing house.



Please reach out with any questions.

Sincerely,

Chelsea Lipham
Maine Licensed Architect

Chelsea Lipham Architecture and Design LLC
741 Stevens Ave, Portland ME 04103




 Page 8
 28 WATERVILLE
 28 Waterville St
 LOT 017 E034

 ZONE RN-4
 HISTORIC BUILDING
 W DESIGNATION
 AT
 ER
 VI SCOPE OF WORK:
 LL
 E ENCLOSE EXISTING
 ST ENTRY PORCH. NO
 CHANGE TO BUILDING
 FOOTPRINT
 SCALE:
 1" = 30'-0"
 AREA OF WORK ISSUE
 (ENCLOSE EXISTING 28 WATERVILLE ISSUE
PORCH, NO CHANGE TO LOT 017 E034
 EXISTING FOOTPRINT) 4/27/26




 TITLE
 PLOT PLAN


 S ST SHEET
 ADAM


1
 PLOT PLAN
 1" = 30'-0"
 A-0
 Page 9
 28 Waterville St




 SCALE:


 ISSUE
 ISSUE
 4/27/26




 TITLE
 PHOTOS


 SHEET


 A-02
Page 10
 1
 A-3 A
 A-2
 NEW BATHROOM W2
 WINDOW EXISTING
 ROOF
 POSTS

 NEW 2X4
 INFILL
 WALLS




 2' - 0"




 28 Waterville St
 INFILL WINDOW



 CUBBIES /
 STORAGE



 EXSITING DOOR

 6' - 7"
 B
 11' - 9" A-2


 3' - 0 1/2" 1' - 6"
 2
 Window Schedule A-3

 Type Mark Width Height Comments Count
 SCALE:
W1 1' - 9" 3' - 0" 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
W2 1' - 10" 3' - 6" 1 DN W1
 ISSUE
 ISSUE
NOTE: 3' - 2"
1. NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE WINDOWS IN STYLE AND COLOR D1 4/27/26
2. EXTERIOR TRIM AT WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE
 EQ EQ

 LINE OF
 Door & Frame Schedule ROOF ABOVE
 TITLE
LOCATION DOOR
 OPENING PANEL 4' - 6 1/2" EXISTING
 POST PLANS -
 MARK OPERATION WIDTH HEIGHT MATL THICK COMMENTS MUDROOM
 INSET WALL TO CLEAR
D1 Single - Hinged 2' - 8" 6' - 8" WD 1 3/4" EXISTING METER
 EXISTING SHEET
 EXISTING ELEC METER STONE

 A-1
 C RETAINING
 LEVEL 1 PROPOSED A-2 WALL BELOW
 1
 1/2" = 1'-0"



 Page 11
 28 Waterville St
 EXISITNG
 ASBESTOS
 SHINGLE SIDING
 1 TO REMAIN (8" 1
 A-3 EXPOSURE, TYP) A-3

 EXISTING ROOF
 TO REMAIN

 NEW ENTRY
 DOOR
 EXISTING PORCH
 NEW FASCIA ROOF


 NEW 4"
 CLAPBOARD
 SIDING (PAINTED
 SCALE:
 W1 W2
 TO MATCH 1/4" = 1'-0"
 EXISTING
 HOUSE)
 ISSUE
 ISSUE
 4/27/26



 EXISTING DECK
 POSTS TO TITLE
 EXISTING STONE ENCLOSE REMAIN
 RETAING WALL AT PORCH
 GRADE TO REMAIN EXTERIOR
 ELEVATIONS

 SHEET


C
 NORTH (STREET SIDE) ELEVATION
 1/4" = 1'-0"
 B
 WEST ELEVATION
 1/4" = 1'-0"
 A
 SOUTH ELEVATION
 1/4" = 1'-0" A-2
 Page 12
EXISTING ROOF

 5" +/-


  1 X TRIM


EXISTING RAFTER
CLAPBOARD SIDING
 NEW WALL




 RAKE DETAIL SECTION




 28 Waterville St
 3
 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
 EXISTING ROOF
 STRUCTURE


 1
 A-3



 EXISTING ROOF 3
 STRUCTURE A-3




 EXISTING FASCIA


 EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS


 SCALE:
 FULL HEIGHT CUBBY
 As indicated
 NEW INFILL WALL, ENTRY STEP
 ALIGNED WITH POSTS ISSUE
 ISSUE
 SLOPED
 EXTENDED 4/27/26
 NEW PLY FLOOR EXTERIOR SILL
 SHEATHING AND FINISH
 FLOOR 7"
 EXISTING DECK FRAMING

 WATERPROOF AT NEW TITLE
 WALL, ALLOW DRAINAGE
 BETWEEN RETAINING WALL SECTIONS
 AND NEW WALL FINISH

 EXISTING STONE
 RETAINING WALL SHEET


 2
 CROSS SECTION
 3/8" = 1'-0"
 1
 SECTION
 3/8" = 1'-0"
 A-3
 Page 13
CITY OF PORTLAND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
NOTICE OF DECISION

PROPERTY OWNER: Eliza Huber-Weiss (“Applicant”)
PROPERTY LOCATION: 28 Waterville Street (“Property”)
PROJECT ID: HP-00080-2026
HISTORIC DESIGNATION(S): 28 Waterville Street

___________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 1. On April 28, 2026, the Applicant applied for approval of alterations at the Property.

 2. Pursuant to subsection 16.5.2 of the City of Portland Land Use Code (“Land Use Code”),
 the application required review and approval by the Historic Preservation Board (“Board”)
 against the standards for review of subsection 16.6 (“Standards”).

 3. Subsection 16.6.2 of the Land Use Code incorporates by reference the Historic Resources
 Design Manual, which provides additional guidance to this Board. Specifically, when
 discerning the “compatibility” and “differentiation” of the proposed project, the Design
 Manual provides the following guidance:

 “Two core concepts in reviewing alterations to historic properties and additions or
 new construction within historic contexts are those of compatibility and
 differentiation. Compatibility refers to establishing visual relationships with the
 patterns or characteristics that define a given context. New work does not need to
 follow the patterns of the context in every way; however, they should relate to a
 number of the key character-defining features of the context. Differentiation refers to
 the ability of new work to be visually understood as a construction of its own time,
 distinct from the historic properties. This inherently requires some degree of
 departure from the patterns of the context.

 These two concepts are at times in tension, but when they are successfully balanced,
 they uphold the goals of reinforcing what defines historically-designated places while
 ensuring authenticity and allowing the passage of time to remain legible in the built
 environment. There are numerous approaches that designers can take in striking this
 balance, and their successful application can be found across a variety of projects.”
 (Page 2.12)




 1

 Page 14
 4. On May 20, 2026 the Board held a Public Hearing to review the application for alterations
 at the property under HP-00080-2026.

 5. Based on the written materials, oral testimony, staff memoranda, and public comment
 received during the public hearing held on May 20, 2026, the Board finds as follows:

Subsection 16.6.3 - Standards for review of alterations to contributing properties:

 Standard A. Compatible use
 When the use of a property is being changed, every reasonable effort shall be made to minimize
 the alteration of the character-defining features of the building, structure, object, or site.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided plans and a project description to demonstrate that the
 structure is intended to retain its residential use. Additionally, the Board notes
 that the proposed alterations will be limited to the area of the non-historic
 YES
 porch. The Board further finds that the work will therefore minimize
 alterations to the character-defining features of the building. Thus, the Board
 finds this standard has been met.

 Standard B. Retain historic features
 The distinguishing original qualities or character of the building, structure, object, or site shall be
 retained and preserved. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive
 architectural features should be avoided when possible.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided plans to demonstrate the scope of work will be limited
 to enclosing an existing non-historic porch. The Board finds that this work will
 YES
 not require removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive
 features. Thus, the Board finds this standard has been met.

 Standard C. Historical accuracy
 The building, structure, object, or site shall be recognized as a product of its own time, place, and
 use. Alterations that have no historical basis or create a false sense of historical development,
 such as adding conjectural features or elements from other properties, shall not be undertaken.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided plans to demonstrate the scope of work includes
 enclosure of the existing non-historic porch with simple clapboard siding,
 single lite vertical windows, and a full-lite door. The Board finds that the
 YES
 proposed alterations do not create a false sense of historical development
 since they do not involve the addition of conjectural features. Thus, the Board
 finds this standard has been met.




 2

 Page 15
Standard D. Acquired significance
Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and
development of the building, structure, object, or site. Changes that have acquired significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 Historic Preservation staff provided historic documents to demonstrate that
 the existing porch was added in 1977. The Board finds that the porch was
 added less than 50 years prior to the designation of the Landmark, and is
 YES
 therefore not considered to be a historic alteration to the building. Thus, the
 Board finds that no changes which have acquired significance are to be
 removed or altered and this standard has been met.

Standard E. Distinctive features
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of skilled craftsmanship
which characterize the building, structure, object, or site shall be retained and preserved.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided plans to demonstrate that the scope of work will be
 limited to enclosing an existing non-historic porch. The Board finds that this
 YES
 work will not require removal of any distinctive features. Thus, the Board finds
 this standard has been met.

Standard F. Repair rather than replace
Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. Where
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
should match the feature being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual
qualities and, where possible, materials. Repair or replacement of missing historic features should
be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The Board finds this standard is not applicable to the proposed scope because
 NOT
 the applicant provided plans demonstrating that no replacement of historic
  APPLICALE
 material is proposed.

Standard G. Surface cleaning
The surface cleaning of the building, structure, or object, if appropriate, shall be undertaken with
the gentlest means possible. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause
damage to historic materials shall not be undertaken.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 NOT The Board finds this standard is not applicable to the proposed scope because
  APPLICALE the applicant provided plans demonstrating that no surface cleaning is planned.




 3

 Page 16
Standard H. Archaeological resources
Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve significant archaeological
resources affected by or adjacent to any project. If resources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures shall be undertaken.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The Board finds this standard is not applicable to the proposed scope because
 NOT
 the Landmark designation materials for 28 Waterville Street do not identify
  APPLICALE
 significant archaeological resources on this site.

Standard I. Differentiation and contemporary design
Alterations and additions shall not destroy the character-defining features of the building,
structure, object, or site. New work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible
with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the building, structure, object, or site.
Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such
alterations and additions do not destroy significant materials or features that characterize the
building, structure, object, or site.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided plans showing the scope of work includes enclosure of
 the existing non-historic porch with simple clapboard siding, single lite vertical
 windows, and a full-lite door. The Board finds that the proposed work will be
 subtly differentiated through the existing form of the porch and its use of
 YES
 single lite windows and a full-lite door which are simple modern interventions.
 And the Board further finds that the use of horizontal clapboard siding and
 vertical windows make the proposed work compatible with the historic house.
 Thus, the Board finds this standard has been met.

Standard J. Reversibility
Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to the building, structure, object, or site shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the building, structure, object, or site would be
unimpaired.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided plans to demonstrate that the work is limited to
 enclosure of an existing non-historic porch. The Board finds that this work will
 YES not require significant changes to the form or details of the existing historic
 house, and will therefore be readily reversible in the future. Thus, the Board
 finds this standard has been met.

_________________________________________


 4

 Page 17
DECISION

By a vote of ___ to ___, the Board adopts the above findings of fact to support its [APPROVAL /
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL / DENIAL] of application HP-00080-2026 from May 20, 2026.


_________________________________________________ ___________________
Brad Miller, Chair Date




 5

 Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
STAFF MEMORANDUM
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

TO: Chair Miller and Members of the Historic Preservation Board
FROM: Evan R. Schueckler, Historic Preservation Program Manager
DATE: May 15, 2026
RE: 30 Atlantic Street – PUBLIC HEARING – New Construction
PROJECT ID: HP-00068-2026
MEETING: May 20, 2026

Owner: Brooke Chornyak and Dylan Jones
Architect: Lauren Rosenberg, Lauren Rosenberg Architect, LLC

A sign announcing the Historic Preservation Board’s meeting on May 20, 2026 was posted at the
property on May 11, 2026, and 28 notices were sent to neighboring property owners within 100
feet of the subject property.

_________________________________________
PROJECT SCOPE

Construct new two-story gable-roofed single-family house with associated gable-roofed garage.

House Dimensions: Garage Dimensions:
Overall Height: ~29’ 6” Overall Height: ~14’
Footprint: ~87’ X 22’ 6” Footprint: ~13’ X 24’

Material Specifications:
 House Garage
 Foundation Concrete Concrete
 Siding “Masonry tile” & cedar Cedar
 Trim Not specified Not specified
 Roofing Standing seam metal Standing seam metal
 Windows Aluminum-clad wood Aluminum-clad wood
 Doors Not specified Not specified

_________________________________________




 1

 Page 27
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC CONTEXT




 Figure 1: Map of the Munjoy Hill Historic District showing location of 30 Atlantic Street with yellow star.

Munjoy Hill is a dense historic neighborhood with a blend of vernacular, working-class architecture
and a number of grand, high-style houses which primarily face onto the Eastern Promenade. There
are also a small number of commercial and institutional buildings scattered throughout.

Early in Portland’s development, Munjoy Hill was sparsely populated with only a few houses
located at the western base of the hill, closer to the waterfront. Other than the area occupied by
the Portland Observatory and its attendant structures (constructed in 1807), the majority of the
Hill was privately maintained as open-space for the pasturing of cows. The original Tukey’s Bridge,
constructed in 1796, connected the eastern end of the Portland peninsula to the mainland and
prompted the laying out of Washington Avenue. Development on the hill remained slow-going
early in the nineteenth century. Regardless, in 1836 the City of Portland purchased the lands along
the edge of the peninsula that would eventually become the Eastern promenade in response to
the increasing development. The earliest houses, of which only a few survive, were generally very
modest one- to two-story wood-frame capes.




 2

 Page 28
 Figure #: An example of an early, though somewhat altered, cape type house, which would have been
 common in the early- to mid-nineteenth century (7 Lafayette Street).

Development picked-up pace in the mid-nineteenth century with the founding of the Atlantic and
St. Lawrence Railroad in 1845 and the Portland Company in 1847. Jobs at the Portland Company in
particular, at the base of Munjoy Hill and along the waterfront, created the need for working-class
housing in close proximity. The undeveloped tracts on Munjoy Hill provided ample space for that
growth. Homes from the mid nineteenth century were often built in the vernacular Greek Revival
style, featuring highly symmetrical façades and austere classically-inspired details.




 Figure #: An example of a more ornate asymmetrical gable-fronted Greek Revival (8 Sherbrook Street).

In the aftermath of the Great Fire of 1866, Portland found itself in dire need of additional housing
and significant development occurred on Munjoy Hill. This was fueled by subdivision of the
remaining large tracts of land and the arrival of horse-drawn (and later electric) streetcars, which
made the easternmost ends of the peninsula easily accessible to downtown Portland. In this late-


 3

 Page 29
nineteenth century era, the scale of buildings increased, with many two- to three-family Italianate
and Second Empire structures being built. This dense mode of development was further fueled by
an influx of immigrants in the early-twentieth century. The demand for housing led to the advent
of the now ubiquitous triple-deckers which dominate the easternmost ends of Munjoy Hill. These
large frame structures can be found dressed in various architectural styles that were popular from
the 1880s into the 1910s.




 Figure #: A typical street showing examples of triple-deckers and Italianate duplexes (82, 84, 86, & 88
 Beckett).

This same era also saw increased interest in the expansive views and beauty of the Eastern
Promenade by Portland’s wealthiest residents. A number of grand single-family homes were built
along the Promenade in the Italianate, Second Empire, Shingle, and Queen Anne styles. This
development in the very early-twentieth century solidified the Eastern Promenade streetscape as
we know it today.




 Figure #: An example of grant Queen Anne style house facing onto the Eastern Promenade (140 Eastern
 Promenade).


 4

 Page 30
Munjoy Hill has a long history of development and features highly varied architectural expressions
across buildings. Many buildings also feature historical alterations, as past owners tried to update
Capes or Greek Revival houses with Italianate or Queen Anne details, creating varied and dynamic
layers of history. Regardless of this diversity, there are a handful of unifying features within the
district. Construction is primarily of wood frame over brick or stone foundations, with only a
handful of primarily brick structures. Structures are typically independent, but constructed
densely, with tight driveways and side yards. Front yards are typically extremely shallow, with
proximity to the sidewalk being prioritized even on large lots. Projecting bay windows or entry
porches are often used to create additional variety along the sidewalk. Windows are
predominantly vertically oriented with varied placement on front and side elevations.

The immediate vicinity of the proposed development is highly eclectic, reflecting the overall
diversity of the district’s architecture. There are several one-and-a-half story structures along
Atlantic, with 48 Atlantic being the most architecturally spectacular of them. Two-and-a-half-story
Greek revival and Italianates predominate, with a few second empire houses, triple-deckers, and
larger multi-unit buildings intersperse.




 Figure 4: 2023 google street views showing 48 Atlantic Street (left image, left), a spectacular low-scale
 Italianate house next to 52 Atlantic (left image, right), a typical two-and-a-half-story Italianate house. 29
 and 23 Atlantic (right image, left to right) are examples to austere two-and-a-half-story Greek revivals.




 5

 Page 31
 Figure 5: 2023 google street views showing 28 Atlantic Street (left), an example of high-style triple decker,
 and 55 Atlantic, an early fully brick three-story apartment built.

Additional information on the Munjoy Hill Historic District can be found on the city website:
https://www.portlandmaine.gov/1548/Historic-Designations

_________________________________________
PREVIOUS REVIEW BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD

April 15, 2026, Workshop:




 Figure 6: Rendered view looking south from the April 15 workshop.

During the workshop Board members expressed generally favorable views of the proposed design
stating the form, scale, placement, and fenestration of the proposed new construction were all


 6

 Page 32
very compatible with the Munjoy Hill Historic District. Board members did express an openness
with some mild reservation regarding the proposed tile shingle cladding system. Board members
requested additional information and views of the material to better understand its character.

The Board’s most significant concern was with the proposed primary entrance placement and
configuration. Board members noted that while side entrances are common throughout the
Munjoy Hill Historic District, they are usually placed fairly close to the street and are quite
prominent either through robust trim details or porches that project to or very close to the street.
Board members noted that some of the proposed site features, including a solid fence between
the house and garage, further reduced visibility and prominence of the significantly set back front
door. Members recommended exploring ways of making the entrance more visually prominent.

_________________________________________
STAFF COMMENTS

Since the workshop, the applicant has made some changes to the proposed site features in an
effort to emphasize the building’s entrance. The applicant is now proposing a lower, 4’ tall, fence
and gate between the house and garage. Additionally, they have added a walkway separate from
the driveway that provides a pedestrian approach to the gate and door beyond.

In response to questions about the cladding material, the applicant has provided additional images
of the proposed tile shingle product on several completed projects.

_________________________________________
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION

I move to [APPROVE / CONDITIONALLY APPROVE / DENY] application HP-00068-2026 for new
construction at 30 Atlantic Street on the basis of submitted documentation, plans, and
specifications; information provided in the staff memo; and the attached findings by the Historic
Preservation Board as amended during the meeting on May 20, 2026 that the project [MEETS /
FAILS TO MEET] subsection 16.6.4 standards for review of additions and new construction
[WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:]
 1) [CONDITIONS]

_________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS
 1. Project Description
 2. Drawings
 3. HP-00068-2026 Draft Findings of Fact, May 15, 2026




 7

 Page 33
  Re: Project description for Historic Preservation Application Submission / V2


 APR IL 2 7, 202 6


  Dear City of Portland Planning and Urban Development Department,



  The property of 30 Atlantic Street is currently a .12 acre vacant parcel on Munjoy Hill.

  The proposed project includes three separate structures: a main house (2983 square
  feet) , detached 1-car garage, and detached sauna pavilion. From the street, the house (the
  principle structure) is justified on the left side of the property, measuring 18’ wide and
  extending to the rear setback. The house has a strong connection to the street and
  ensures continuity in the neighborhood. The house has a 9:12 standing seam gable roof.
  The facades are a combination of masonry tile and vertical cedar boards. The masonry tile
  is a timeless natural material that has a 100-year warranty and resembles traditional cedar
  shingles. The vertical boards connect a grouping of windows on the first and second
  levels, and will be stained to match the masonry tiles.

  The staircase on the left-side of the building protrudes out to allow for daylight to be
  brought into the staircase while maintaining privacy from the adjacent neighbor, and
  adding architectural interest from the street. The entry shares a similar language, yet by
  maximizing glazing: this emphasizes the entry, allows light into the house, provides a visual
  continuity between the front and back yard, and is highly visible from the street. A flat roof
  extends over the entry and garage roof, providing a covered “connection” between the
  house and the garage.

  From the street, the garage is justified on the right side of the property and is 13’ wide and
  set back 14’-6” from the house. The garage also has a 9:12 standing seam gable roof. The
  garage facade will be vertical cedar boards, aligning with the tonality of the main house
  masonry tile. A sauna pavilion anchors the far right rear of the property, forming a
  courtyard within the three buildings. The pavilion will also be clad with natural vertical
  cedar boarding and will be seasonally used. The structure is intended to “float” over the
  property and fully engage with the designed landscape.




L A U R E N R O S E N B E R G A R C H I T E C T L L C L R A R C . C O M
 Page 34
  I appreciate the feedback that was provided during the April 15th workshop. We have
  considered the comments and have taken multiple measures to alter the approach to
  provide more of a connection to the street. The initial design included a taller gate that APR IL 2 7, 202 6
  acted as a continuation of the front garage facade. We have eliminated this connection,
  understanding it felt like a wall, and pushed the gate towards the back of the property and
  lowered it to ~4’, aligning with the masonry wall tile. We also incorporated the house
  number and mailbox onto the entrance gate to ensure that one knows this is clearly the
  entrance — it’s the entrance to the property that anyone could feel comfortable
  approaching, with high visibility to the entry door (which stands 10’ tall) and to the
  backyard (with an additional sight line through the house to the backyard) . The original
  design had a walkway that only connected the driveway to the entrance gate. We have
  altered this to provide a direct connection to the sidewalk, making it very clear that anyone
  on the sidewalk can enter the property. These shifts work together to create an entry that is
  closer to the street, more inviting, and fully engaged with the neighborhood.

  Thank you,
  Lauren Rosenberg




L A U R E N R O S E N B E R G A R C H I T E C T L L C L R A R C . C O M
 Page 35
 3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T
 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N
 04.27.2026




 OWNER
 Brooke Chornyak and Dylan Jones

 ARCHITECT
 LR/ARC

 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
 Matthew Cunningham Landscape Design

 CIVIL ENGINEER
 Acorn Engineering, Inc.

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
 Albert Putnam Associates



												 								 LR/ARC
 Page 36
 SITE CONTEXT




 A
 T
 L
 A
 N
 T
 IC
 E
 D
 S A
 T N
 R E
 E
 E M
 T O
 R
 P
 N
 R
 E
 T
 S
 A
 E




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 37
 STREETSCAPE




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 38
 STREETSCAPE DIAGRAM




 WIDTH AND HEIGHT PROPORTIONAL
 TO S T R E E T S C A P E

 S TA C K E D B AY T W O - S TO RY E N T RY B U M P - O U T GABLE ROOF
 GABLE ROOF
 WINDOWS
 COVERED ENTRY SIDE ENTRANCE




 A L L U S I O N TO S TA C K E D B AY W I N D O W S RECESSED GARAGE



 C L E A R V I E W TO T H E F R O N T D O O R
 VISUAL PRIVACY
 ( H I G H W I N D O W S I L L / LO W E N T RY G AT E )




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 39
 FIGURE GROUND DIAGRAM




 PRECEDENT BUILDINGS


 A # 5 6 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T


 B # 3 7 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T


 C # 2 7 M U N J OY S T R E E T


 D # 5 1 WAT E R V I L L E S T R E E T


 E # 3 4 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T


 F # 6 6 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T


 G # 7 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T




 CONSISTENT SETBACK FROM STREET




 MASSING AND BUILDING WIDTH
 CONSISTENT ALONG STREET




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 40
 PRECEDENT IMAGES




 A # 5 6 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T

 GABLE ROOF




 S U B O R D I N AT E S I D E E N T R A N C E




 B # 3 7 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T



 GABLE ROOF



 SIDE ENTRANCE SET BACK FROM THE STREET




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 41
 PRECEDENT IMAGES




 C # 2 7 M U N J OY S T R E E T

 GABLE ROOF


 T W O - S TO RY B U M P - O U T AT E N T RY




 S U B O R D I N AT E S I D E E N T R A N C E B E H I N D G AT E




 MAIN ENTRY HIDDEN FROM STREETVIEW




 D # 5 1 W AT E R V I L L E S T R E E T




 VARIOUS WINDOW SIZES ON FRONT FACADE



 S U B O R D I N AT E S I D E E N T R A N C E




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 42
 PRECEDENT IMAGES




 E # 3 4 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T

 GABLE ROOF


 SIDE ENTRANCE SET BACK FROM THE STREET




HISTORIC PRECEDENTS
* C U R R E N T LY D E M O L I S H E D / M A J O R LY R E N O V A T E D B U I L D I N G S




 F # 6 6 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T G # 7 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T


 GABLE ROOF

 GABLE ROOF SIDE ENTRANCE SET BACK FROM
 S T R E E T, B E H I N D G AT E

 T W O - S TO RY E N T RY
 BUMP-OUT ON SIDE OF
 BUILDING




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 43
 8 Chornyak-Jones
 11
 G


 Residence
 SITE PLAN
 30-32 Atlantic Street
 Portland, Maine
 G




 118
 G

 General Notes:

 1. Existing conditions and topographic data are

 118 from a site plan of land dated 17 July 2025;
 G

 prepared by Owen Haskell, Inc., 390 US-Route
 NEIGHBOR
 Chornyak-Jones
 1, Unit 10, Falmouth, ME 04105 - Tel: (207)
 774.0424
 Residence G

 2. Existing conditions supplemented from data
 PROPERTY LINE collected by: Matthew Cunningham Landscape
 G G G G
 30-32
 Design LLC,
 G
 Atlantic  Street
 G411 Main G
 Street, Stoneham, MA
 G G



 118
 G
 Portland, Maine
 G G
 02108 / 366 Fore Street, Portland, ME 04101
 G
 FENCE - Tel: (617) 905.2246
 LOW RETAINING WALL

 3. True and current conditions may differ from

 120
 General Notes:
 those indicated on the plan. Contractor shall
 G
 GRAVEL STORAGE verify true conditions in the field prior to
 SPACE 1. Existing conditions and topographic data are
 construction and notify landscape designer of
 BUILDING SETBACK
 118 from a site plan of land dated 17 July 2025;
 significant discrepancies.
 prepared by Owen Haskell, Inc., 390 US-Route
 G
 NEIGHBOR 1, Unit 10, Falmouth, ME 04105 - Tel: (207)
 4. Contractor shall verify location of any existing
 774.0424
 utilities and services and provide protection
 SOAKE POOL PROPERTY LINE during construction. Contractor shall directly
 2. Existing conditions supplemented from data
 MECHANICAL
 119 coordinate with DIG Safe. Utilities damaged
 G
 G G G G G G G
 G G collected by: Matthew Cunningham Landscape
 during construction shall be repaired at
 SOAKE FENCE Design LLC, 411 Main Street, Stoneham, MA
 LOW RETAINING WALL contractor's expense.

 118
 POOL 02108 / 366 Fore Street, Portland, ME 04101
 LF-1 - Tel: (617) 905.2246
 7

 ATLANTIC STREET
 9 11 5. Contractor shall contact and inform client and
 G



 11 120
 STONE PATIO
 5'-0" GRAVEL STORAGE
 landscape esigner to any unforeseen conditions
 3. True and current conditions may differ from
 LF-1 SPACE 3'-6" 3'-0" RE-ALIGNED which may affect the intended design as set forth
 those indicated on the plan. Contractor shall
 GARAGE in the drawings.
 ENTRY DRIVE verify true conditions in the field prior to
 BUILDING SETBACK G
 construction and notifyENTRY
 landscape designer of
 SAUNA 6. LOW NATIVE
 Contractor  shall secure  any necessary
 significant discrepancies.
 3'-0" permitsPLANTING
 required for the work from any state or
 local agencies, departments, utility companies or
 4. Contractor shall verify location of any existing
 other authorities having jurisdiction and affected
 G
 SOAKE POOL utilities and services and provide protection
 119
 MECHANICAL by the work.
 PROPERTY LINE during construction. Contractor shall directly
 G G G G G coordinate with DIG Safe. Utilities damaged
 SOAKE G G G G 7. All work shall be in in accordance with the
 6'-0" 4'-0"
 118
 during construction shall be repaired at
 LF-1
 G
 POOL FENCE Maine State Building Code.
 LF-1 LOW RETAINING WALL contractor's expense.
 LF-1 7

 ATLANTIC STREET
 9 11 ENTRY shall
 8. Contractor PATH LIGHTING
 leave site clean and orderly
 11
 STONE PATIO 2'-6" 5. Contractor shall contact and inform client and

 120
 during all phases of the construction process.
 5'-0" landscape designer to any unforeseen conditions
 G
 LF-1 Remove from the site all excess materials, soils,
 10'-0"
 GRAVEL STORAGE RE-ALIGNED
 6'-0"
 SPACE 3'-6" GARAGE 3'-0" ENTRY DRIVE
 which may affect the intended design as set forth
 ENTRY
 debris, WALK Store
 and equipment. WITHmaterials only in an
 STONE WALK in the drawings.
 BUILDING SETBACK approved location.STEPS
 GRANITE
 SAUNA
 6. Contractor shall secure any necessary
 G
 9. Do not scale drawings.
 3'-0" LF-1 permits required for the work from any state or

 FENCE
 local agencies, departments, utility companies or




 BUILDING SETBACK
 10. All angles
 ORNAMENTAL are assumed to be 90 degrees
 authorities having ENTRY
 jurisdictionPLANTER



 K
 PROPERTY LINE
 SOAKE POOL other and affected




 BUILDING SETBAC
 unless otherwise stated.
 WITH
 work.PERENIALS AND ANNUALS
 119
 MECHANICAL STONE WALK by the G




 PROPERTY LINE
10'-0"


 118
 SOAKE 7. All work shall be in in accordance with the
 1'-0" 6'-0" 4'-0" POOL
 STEP LF-1 STEP
 Maine State Building Code.
 LF-1
 7 G




 ATLANTIC STREET
 9 11 8. Contractor shall leave site clean and orderly
 11
 STONE PATIO 2'-6" 1'-0" during all phases of the construction process.
 5'-0"
 3'-0" Remove from the site all excess materials, soils,
 6'-0" LF-1 GARAGE 10'-0"
 RE-ALIGNED
 3'-0" ENTRY DRIVE debris, and equipment. Store materials only in an
 G
 STONE WALK
 SAUNA 11 approved location.
 RESIDENCE 6 9. Do not scale drawings.
 6'-9" G




 BUILDING SETBACK
 10. All angles are assumed to be 90 degrees
 K
 7'-6" 3'-0" 117

 PROPERTY LINE
 8 unless otherwise stated.




 RE-BULT RETAINING WALL
 BUILDING SETBAC
 11
 STONE WALK
10'-0"
 3'-0"
 G



 118
 1'-0" STEP LF-1 STEP
 2'-6"
 1'-0"
 G

 5'-0"
 3'-0"
 3'-0" STONE WALK

 11
 G




 6'-9"
 RESIDENCE 6


 BUILDING SETBACK
 7'-6" 3'-0" DR
 K G




 PROPERTY LINE
 D
 117

 BUILDING SETBAC
 8 STONE WALK

 11 STEP STEP
 3'-0"
 G

 2'-6"
 W
 W


 BRICKS REMOVED
 116 G




 117 BUILDING SETBACK
 11
 RESIDENCE 165 G




 G G G G G G G G
 G G G G G G G G
 G G G

 117
 G
 G G G G


 8
 G
 DR
 11
 D

 PROPERTY LINE
 G

 W
 W


 BRICKS REMOVED
 116 G




 2'-2" BUILDING SETBACK 411 Main Street, Stoneham, MA 02180
 366 Fore Street, Portland, ME 04101
 11
 G
7 617.905.2246 p | 617.321.4014 f
 5'-0"
 GRAVEL ACCESS
 PINE DUFF PATH 5 REVISIONS:
 DR
 D G G G G
 AREA G
 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
 #: DATE: DESCRIPTION:
 G




 PROPERTY LINE W
 W G




 BRICKS REMOVED
 116
 C H R NYA K- J O NE S 2'-2" BUILDING SETBACK 411 Main Street, Stoneham, MA 02180
 366 Fore Street, Portland, ME 04101
 30 Atlantic St. Portland, Maine
7 11 617.905.2246 p | 617.321.4014 f

 LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN 5'-0"
 GRAVEL ACCESS
 PINE DUFF PATH 5 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
 REVISIONS:
 DATE: 06 April 2026


 G G G G
 AREA G G G G G G G G G G G
 27 APRIL 2026 #: DATE:
 G
 G G G G G G DESCRIPTION:
 NEIGHBOR
 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
 0' 4' 8' 16'
 PROPERTY LINE
 SHEET TITLE:
 0' 3 04' AT L A N8'T I C S T12'
 REET 							
 20' H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 44
 Landscape Site Plan
 FIRST FLOOR PLANS




 G A R A G E


 S A U N A
 ( F F E : 12 0 ' - 6 " )




 E N T R Y
 ( F F E : 12 0 ' - 0 " )




 H A L L




 SITTING R O O M
 B E D R O O M 1

 M U D R O O M L A U N D R Y



 S C U L L E R Y

 K IT C HE N DR B A T H 1
 D



 W
 W
 ST A IR




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 45
 SECOND FLOOR PLAN




 H A L L




 H A L L




 P R IMA R Y B E D R O O M
 B E D R O O M 2



 P R I M A R Y
 W C C L O S E T




 B A T H 2
 P R I M A R Y
 B A T H R O M




 ST A IR




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 46
 914 .4 7 5.6061 | L a ur en@L Ra r c .c om




 P AV I L I O N E L E V AT I O N S
 SB SA SB SA S2 S1 S2 S1


 laur en r osenber g architect llc
 2 2 C U S H M A N S T R EET , 2 A
 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 2
 914 .4 7 5.6061 | L a ur en@L Ra r c .c om




 SB SA SB SA S2 S1 S2 S1




E V A T ION 1
 N O R T H E L E V A T ION 2
 W E S T E L E V A T ION 2
 W E S T E L E V A T ION
 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "




 30 A T L A NT IC S T R E E T
 30 A T L A NT IC S T R E E T
E V A T ION
1' - 0 "
 1
 N O R T H E L E V A T ION
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "
 2
 W E S T E L E V A T ION
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "
 2
 W E S T E L E V A T ION
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "
 A T LA NT IC


 N O R T H E L E V AT I O N W E S T E L E V AT I O N




 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 1 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 1
 A T LA NT IC


 SA SB SA SB S1 S2 S1 S2




 SA SB SA SB S1 S2 S1 S2




E V A T ION 3
 S O U T H E L E V A T ION 4
 E A S T E L E V A T ION 4
 E A S T E L E V A T ION
 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "


 S O U T H E L E V AT I O N E A S T E L E V AT I O N
 PAVILION
 ELEVATIONS
 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
 DATE: 3/ 17/ 26




E V A T ION S O U T H E L E V A T ION E A S T E L E V A T ION E A S T E L E V A T ION
1' - 0 "
 3
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "
 4
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "
 4
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "
 A-204


 PAVILION
 ELEVATIONS
 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
 DATE: 3/ 17/ 26




 3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 47 A-204
 G A R A G E E L E V AT I O N S


 laur en r osenber g architect llc
 2 2 C U S H M A N S T R EET , 2 A
 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 2
 914 .4 7 5.6061 | L a ur en@L Ra r c .c om
 GB GB GA GA G2 G2 G1 G1




 laur en r osenber g architect llc
 2 2 C U S H M A N S T R EET , 2 A
 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 2
 12 12 12 12
 GB GA G2 G1 914 .4 7 5.6061 | L a ur en@L Ra r c .c om
 GB 9 9 GA 9 9 G2 G1




 12 12 12 12

 9 9 9 9




 116 116




 116 116




 1
 N O R T H E L E V A T ION N O R T H E L E V A T ION 2
 W E S T E L E V A T ION W E S T E L E V A T ION
 1 2
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "




 3 0 A T L A N T I C S3T0R E
 AT
 E LT A N T I C S T R E E T




 A T L A N T IA CT L A N T I C
 N O R T H E L E V A T ION 1
 N O R T H E L E V AT I O N
 N O R T H E L E V A T ION W E S T E L E V A T2 I WOEN
 W E S T E L E V A T ION S T E L E V A T ION
 1 2
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "




 P O R T L A N D , M AP IO
 NRE T0L4A10
 N D1 , M A I N E 0 4 10 1

 GA GA GB GB G1 G1 G2 G2




 12 12 12 12

 GA 9 9 GA GB 9 9 GB G1 G1 G2 G2




 12 12 12 12

 9 9 9 9




 D04 D04




 S O U T H E L E V AT I O N E A S T E L E V AT I O N
 3
 S O U T H E L E V A T ION S O U T H E L E V A T ION 4
 E A S T E L E V A T I OD04
 N E A S T E L E V A T I OD04
 N
 3 4
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "




 GA RA GE
 S O U T H E L E V A T ION S O U T H E L E V A T ION E A S T E L E V A T ION E A S T E L E V A T ION ELEVATIONS
 3 3 4 4
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
 DATE: 4/27/26



3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 48 GA RAA-203
 GE
 ELEVATIONS
 H O U S E E L E V AT I O N S




 35'-0" M A X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T 35'-0" M A X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T




 D C B A A B C D



 T.O. R I D G E T.O. R I D G E
 E L E V . = 2 8 ' - 3 1/ 4 " E L E V . = 2 8 ' - 3 1/ 4 "
 12 12
 12 12
 9 9
 9 9


 laur en r osenber g architect llc
 2 2 C U S H M A N S T R EET , 2 A
 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 2
 914 .4 7 5.6061 | L a ur en@L Ra r c .c om




 T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R ) T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 2 0 ' - 10 " E L E V . = 2 0 ' - 10 "




 208 207
 215 214




 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( S E C O N D F L O O R ) T.O. S U B F L O O R ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 " E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 "




 107 106


 114 113




 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( F IR S T F L O O R ) T.O. S U B F L O O R ( F IR S T F L O O R )
 E L E V .= 0'-0" E L E V .= 0'-0"
 S I T E E L E V . = 119 ' - 0 1/ 4 " S I T E E L E V . = 119 ' - 0 1/ 4 "




 30 A T L A NT IC S T R E E T




 A T LA NT IC
 1
 N O R T H E L E V A T ION 1
 S O U T H E L E V A T ION
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "



 N O R T H E L E V AT I O N S O U T H E L E V AT I O N


 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 1
 35'-0" M A X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T




 5.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0



 T.O. R I D G E
 E L E V . = 2 8 ' - 3 1/ 4 "




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 49 T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 2 0 ' - 10 "
 30 ATLAN
 35'-0" M A X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T




 A B C D A T L
 P OR T L A ND,
 T.O. R I D G E
 H O U S E E L E V AT I O N S
 35'-0" M A X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T

 12 12 E L E V .= 28'-0"
 9 9

 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
 laur en r osenber g archite
 2 2 C U S H M A N S T R EET
 PO R T L A ND, MA INE 0
 T.O. R I D G E
 E L E V . = 2 8 ' - 3 1/ 4 " 914 .4 7 5.6061 | L a ur en@L Ra r




 T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 EL EV .= 20'-6 3/4"




 T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 2 0 ' - 10 "


 215 214




 206 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 205 204 E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 "
 217 216 215




 202


 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 "




 114 113




 105
 104 103
 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( F IR S T F L O O R )
 E L E V .= 0'-0" 115 114




 30 A T L A NT IC S T R E E T
 D02
 102




 A T LA NT IC
 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( F IR S T F L O O R )

 1
 S O U T H E L E V A T ION E L E V .= 0'-0" MA IN HOUSE
 S I T E E L E V . = 119 ' - 0 1/ 4 "
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 " ELEVATIONS
 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
 DATE: 4/27/26

 W E S T E L E V A T ION




 P O R T L A N D , M A I N E 0 4 10 1
 2
 W E S T E L E V AT I O N
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "



 A-201
 35'-0" M A X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T




 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0



 T.O. R I D G E
 E L E V .= 28'-0"




 T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 EL EV .= 20'-6 3/4"




 213 210




 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 "




 112 110 109 108




 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( F IR S T F L O O R )
 E L E V .= 0'-0" MA IN HOUSE
 ELEVATIONS
 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
 DATE: 3/ 17/ 26


 2 E A S T E L E V AT I O N
 E A S T E L E V A T ION
 S C A L E : 1/ 4 " = 1' - 0 "


3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC A-20
 Page 50
 RENDERINGS




 VIEW FROM STREET




 V I E W F R O M C O U R T YA R D




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 51
 SKETCH RENDERINGS




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 52
 P R O P O S E D M AT E R I A L S




 MASONRY TILE | GLEN-GERY SK1N VERTICAL CEDAR BOARDING S TA N D I N G S E A M M E TA L R O O F - G A LV A L U M E



3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 53
 MASONRY TILE | PRECEDENT IMAGES




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 54
 PROPOSED DOOR/WINDOW




 M A R V I N U LT I M A T E MARVIN MODERN
 casement/fixed multislide door




3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 55
 2 8 2 6
 NOTE: SEE ST R UC T UR A L METAL SILL PAN W IT H
 2 2 2 2 2 2 F OR HE A DE R SIZING BA C K DA M. DO NOT
 SET IN SE A L A NT
 2 8 2 6
 EX T ENT OF BOA R DING
 WMETAL
 R A P GRSILL
 A C EPAN
 ICEWAIT
 NDH
 2 2 2 NOT E: SEE ST R UC T UR A L 2 2 2 WATERBA  C K LDA
 SHIE D M.
 ONT DO NOT
 SILL
AY


 P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G D E TA I L S
 F OR HE A DE R SIZING SET IN SE A L A NT EX T ENT OF TR IM
 N ALL
 EX T ENT OF BOA R DING
 EX T ENT OF F L OOR ING
 W R A P GR A C E ICE A ND 2x SILL, P IT CHED TO
AY NOT E: SEE ST R UC T UR A L WATER SHIE L D ONT O SILL DR A IN
 N ALL F OR HE A DE R SIZING EX T ENT OF TR IM
 SEA L F L A SHING TO
 SHE A T HING W IT H ST R IP OF V P 10 0 EX T ENT OF F L OOR ING T .O. S U B F L O O R A T F IR S T F L O O R
 SE L F -A DHE R E D ME MB R A NE 2x SILL, P IT E
 CHED
 L E VTO
 .= 2 1' - 0 "
 DR A IN
 SEA L C OP P E R F L A SHING




 3 0 A T3L0A A
 N TT ILC
 A NSTTI R
 C ESETTR E E T
 SEA L F L A SHING TO TO SHE A T HING W IT H ST R IP 2 6
 1 1/ 4" NOSE
 STARTER
 SHE A T HINGTR IM
 W IT H ST R IP OF V P 10 T .O. S U B F L O O R A T F IR S T F L O O R
 OF SE0L F -A DHE R E D
 SE L F -A DHE R E D ME MB R A NE BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D ME MB R A NE E L E V .= 2 1' - 0 "




 A T L
 AAT L
 NAT INCT I C
 10 10 10 10 10 10 SEA L C OP P E R F L A SHING 2 6 3/ 16" x 3/ 16" DR IP K ERF
 TO SHE A T HING W IT H ST R IP 2 6
 NOSE
 AL UMINUMTRTRIMIM AT HE A D
 1 1/ 4"
 STARTER 1/
 OF4"SEVLENT
 F -AILA T R
 DHEIONE DGA P
 BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D 2 8 A ND JA MB S BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D
 2 6
 ME MB R A NE 1x K IC K BOA R D
 10 10 10 10 10 10
 2 6 3/ 16" x 3/ 16" DR IP K ERF
 A L UMINUM TR IM AT HE A D 1/ 4" V ENT ILA T ION GA P
 BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D 2 8 A ND JA MB S 2 6 BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D
 1x K IC K BOA R D
 F L A SHING, TYP. D O NOT SEA L HE R E
 EX T ENT OF HA R DSC A P E




 P O R TPLOARNTDL, AMNADI ,N M
 E A0I 4N E
 10 1
 0 4 10 1
 DRYWALL R ET UR N AT C OP P E R HE A D F L A SHING,
 BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D
 JA MBS A ND HE A D INT E R IOR BA C K E R TYP.
 F L A SHING, TYP. R OD A ND SE A L A NT D O NOT SEA L HE R E
 APPLY F L UID OV E R EX T ENT OF HA R DSC A P E
 INT E R IOR BA C K E R F L A NGE A ND ONT O F R A ME
 R OD A ND
 DRYWALL SEUR
 R ET A LNA NT
 AT C L OSED CELL SPRAY C OP P E R HE A D F L A SHING,
 F OA M INT
 INSUL AT HE A D A ND JA MBS
 JA MBS A ND HE A D E RA T
 IORION
 BAIN
 CKEALLR TYP.
 CAVITIES
 R OD  A ND ASERAOL A
 UNDNT
 C L OSED CELL SPRAY F OA M W I ND O W S APPLY F L UID OV E R 2 4
AT INT E
 INSUL A T ION INRALL
 IOR BA C K R
 CAVITIES F L A NGE A ND ONT O F R A ME
 ARROODUNDA NDWSE  AL
 IND OAWNTS C L OSED CELL SPRAY
 F OA M INSUL A T ION IN ALL AT HE A D A ND JA MBS
 CAVITIES A R O UND
 C L OSED CELL SPRAY F OA M W I ND O W S 2 4
AT INSUL A T ION IN ALL CAVITIES
 A R O UND W IND O W




 5 TYPICAL CASEMENT HEAD DETAIL @ MASONRY TILE WALL 9 FLOOR TO CEILING W INDOW SILL
 A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 2 1/ 2" 2 1/ 2"

 TYPICAL CASEMENT HEAD DETAIL @ MASONRY TILE WALL FLOOR TO CEILING W INDOW SILL
 T Y PSCALE:
 5
 I C A3"L= 1'-0"W I N D O W H E A D D E T A I L
 A-601
 9
 A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 16 " S T A N D I N G S E A M M E T A L R O O F



 DR IP E D GE



 ICE A ND WATER SHIE L D O/ 5/8" R OOF SHE A T HING ICE A ND WATER SHIE L D O/ 5/8" R OOF SHE A T HING
 2 2 2 2 2

 16 " ST A NDING SE A M METAL R OOF 16 " ST A NDING SE A M METAL R OOF

 2


 3/4" TYP.
 EX T ENT OF BOA R DING
 DR IP E D GE DR IP E D GE SEA L A NT A ND BA C K ER R OD
 3/4" TYP.
 EX T ENT OF BOA R DING


 2 6
 5/4 W O O D SILL, HE L D
 T IGHT TO HA R DW A R E
 2 6
 SEA L A NT A ND BA C K ER R OD SEA L A NT A ND BA C K ER R OD 12
 A L UMINUM SILL 5/4 W O O D SILL, HE L D 12 12 12 12
 T IGHT TO HA R DW A R E S K 1N MA SONR Y TILE
 1/ 2" GYP. BD., TYP. HOL D BOA R DING D O W N 1/ 4"
 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8
 3/4" TYP. 12
 A L UMINUM SILL
 2 8 2 8 METAL HAT C HA NNE L
 1/ 2" GYP. BD., TYP. HOL D BOA R DING D O W N 1/ 4" 2 8 2 8
 5/4 W O O D SILL, HE L D 2 8 V P 10 0 W R A P S OV E R R.O. 2 8
 T IGHT TO HA R DW 3/4"
 A R E TYP.
 2 8 2 8
 C O NT INUO US BEA D OF F R A MING AS REQ 'D. F R A MING AS REQ 'D.
 5/4 W S K 1N MA SONR Y TILE SEA L A NT BE T W E E N F R A MING S K 1N MA SONR Y TILE
 1/O
 2"O D SILL,
 GYP. HE L
 BD., D
 TYP.
 T IGHT TO HA R DW A R E AP
 V  10 SHE
 ND  0 WRAA P S OVTYP.
 T HING, E R R.O.
 1/ 2" GYP. BD. AT WALL 1/ 2" GYP. BD. AT WALL

 2x8 S T UD W A LL 2x8 S T UD W A LL
 C O NT INUO US BEA D OF A ND C EIL ING, TYP. A ND C EIL ING, TYP.
IC O NE P R IO R TO METAL HAT C HA NNE L SEA L A NT BE T W E E N F R A MING METAL HAT C HA NNE L
 INST A L L A T ION. 1/ 2" GYP. BD., TYP.
 A ND SHE A T HING, TYP.

 ( F IL L C A V I T I E S ( F IL L C A V I T I E S
 A ND R E M O V E
 E OUT .
 TYPICAL
 W IT H C C SP F ) W IT H C C SP F )
IC O NE P R IO R TO F R A MING AS REQ 'D. F R A MING AS REQ 'D.
 INST A L L A T ION.
 A ND R E M O V E
 W INDOW
 E OUT . 1/ 2" GYP. BD. AT WALL 1/ 2" GYP. BD. AT WALL DETAILS
 TYPICAL
 A ND C EIL ING, TYP. A ND C EIL ING, TYP.
 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 W INDOW
 DATE: 4/6/26
 DETAILS
 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"

 TY
 6 PTYPICAL
 I C A L CASEMENT
 WINDO WDETAIL
 S I L@LMASONRY
 D E T ATILE
 I L WALL
 2 x 8 S T U D W A L L ( F IL L 2 x 8 S T U D W A L L ( F IL L
 DATE: 4/6/26
 SILL 7 TYPICAL DIRECT GLAZED SILL DETAIL @ VERTICAL SIDING 10 W INDOW HEAD DETAIL @ SITTING ROOM
 A-601
 A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"

 6 TYPICAL CASEMENT SILL DETAIL @ MASONRY TILE WALL 7 TYPICAL DIRECT GLAZED SILL DETAIL @ VERTICAL SIDING 10 W INDOW HEAD DETAIL @ SITTING ROOM


 C A V IT IE S W IT H C C S P F ) C A V IT IE S W IT H C C S P F )
 A-601
 A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"




 A L UMINUM TR IM
 C L OSED CELL SPRAY
 F OA M INSUL A T ION IN ALL
 EX T ENT OF MA SONR Y TILES CAVITIES A R O UND
 W I ND O W S

 INT E R IOR BA C K E R 2 8
 R OD A ND SE A L A NT




 1 TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL 1 TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL 2 TYPICAL RAKE DETAIL 2 TYPICAL RAKE DETAIL
 A-501 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-501 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 T Y P I C A L E AV E D E TA I L A-501 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 TYPICAL RAKE D E TA I L
 A-501 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 2 8 laur en r ose
 2 2
 22 C U S H M
 PORTLAN
 2 8
 914 .4 7 5.6061




 6 6



 3/4"

 BL OC K ING AS R EQ 'D EP DM R OOF ME MBR A NE O/ EP DM R OOF ME MBR A NE O/ 2 6 2 6
 DRYWALL R ET UR N AT TAPERED INSUL A T ION, TAPE SEA MS. TAPERED INSUL A T ION, TAPE SEA MS.
 JA MBS A ND HE A D PITCH 1/ 4":1'-0" PITCH 1/ 4":1'-0"
 SILL BE L OW
 2 6 2 6
 C UR B TO RETAIN RIVER R OC K C UR B TO RETAIN RIVER R OC K



 T Y P I C A L W I N D O W J A M B D E TA I L 1' - 4 " 1' - 4 "
 F R A MING F R A MING
 TO TO
 F R A MING F R A MING
 TYPICAL CASEMENT HEAD DETAIL @ MASONRY TILE WALL
 1 TYPICAL CASEMENT/AWNING W INDOW JAMB DETAIL 4
 @ FLUSH CONDITION 8 FLOOR TO CEILING W INDOW HEAD DETAIL @ SECOND FLOOR
 A-601 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A-601 A-601
 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
 3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T2 							
 8 2 8
 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 56
 NOTE: SEE ST R UC T UR A L
 F OR HE A DE R SIZING
 C




 12 T Y P IC A L R O O F A S S E MB L Y ( MA IN H O U S E )
 BUILDING/WALL SECTION
 ST A NDING S E A M MET A L R O O F
 9 IC E & W A T E R S HIE L D O R SIM.
 5/ 8" S H E A T H I N G
 R OOF T R USSES
 9 1/ 4 " M I N . C C S P F @ R O O F D E C K




 R OOF T R USSE S - SEE ST RUC T URA LS
 T.O. P L A T E ( UP P E R L E V E L )
 E L E V . = 2 0 ' - 10 "




 F R A MING A S REQ'D.




 D C B A




 T.O. R I D G E
 E L E V .= 28'-0"

 12 12


 9 9




 P R IMA R Y B E D R O O M



 E NGINE E R E D R OOF T R USSE S - SEE ST RUC T URA LS




 2 x 8 S T U D W A L L ( F IL L

 T.O. P L A T E ( S E C O N D F L O O R )



 C A V IT IE S W IT H C C P S F )
 E L E V . = 2 0 ' - 10 "




 12 ' - 10 1/ 2 "




 9'-0"

 T .O . F I N. F L R . T O B . O . F I N. C L G .
 C L O S E T




 T .O . F I N. F L R . T O B . O . F I N. C L G .
 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( UP P E R L E V E L )
 E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 "



 14 " D E E P J O I S T S - S E E S T R U C T U R A L S




 1' - 6 1/ 4 "
 T.O. P L A T E ( MA IN L E V E L )
 E L E V . = 10 ' - 2 "

 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( S E C O N D F L O O R )
 E L E V . = 11' - 4 3 / 4 "
 T Y P IC A L W A L L A S S E MB L Y ( MA IN H O U S E ) 14 " T J I s @ 16 " O . C . - S E E S T R U C T U R A L S 2 x 12 s @ 16 " O . C . -
 K IT C HE N SEE ST RUC T URA LS
 G L E N - G E R Y S K 1N T I L E S
 HA T C H A N N E L
 HYDROGAP
 1/ 2 " S H E A T H I N G
 2X8 ST UD WA L L ( CCSPF) T Y P . C E I L I N G : 1/ 2 D R Y W A L L
 O / 2 1/ 4 " S T R A P P I N G
 1/ 2 " D R Y W A L L / W O O D B O A R D I N G - S E E F I N . S C H E D U L E
 S E E F INISH S C H E D U L E
 F O R W A L L MA T ER IA L

 F L USH BA SE BOA R D




 9 ' - 10 1/ 2 "
 DA MP P R OOF ING
 3/4" W O O D F L O O R I NG O /
 3/4" S U B F L O O R

 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( MA IN L E V E L )
 E L E V .= 0'-0"

 M U D R O O M E N T R Y
 9.5" D E E P J O IS T S - S E E S T R U C T U R A L S




 T .O . F I N. F L R . T O B . O . F I N. C L G .
 GR O UND SLOPES AWAY
 F R O M W A L L AT 5 %



 CA P IL L A R Y BR E A K


 SEE ST R UCT UR A L S
 FOR CONNECTIONS 3"
 8"
 11"

 T.O. S U B F L O O R ( F IR S T F L O O R )
 E L E V .= 0'-0"
 C R A W L S P A C E 9 . 5 " T J I s @ 16 " O . C . - S E E S T R U C T U R A L S




 C R A W L S P A C E

 5'-5 3/ 4"
 SEE ST R UCT UR A L S F OR
 F OUNDA T ION INF OR MA T ION



 P OL Y ET HY L ENE V A P OR
 BA R R IER T UR NS UP WA LL

 T.O. S L A B ( C R A W L S P A C E ) T.O. F O O T I N G
 E L E V .= -6'-4" E L E V . = - 6 ' - 10 "




 4" P E R F O R A T E D D R A IN w / 3/ 4"
 CLEAN C R USHE D ST ONE ALL
 A R O U N D W R A P P E D IN F IL T E R
  TYPICAL WALL SECTION F A BR IC . D R A IN T O D A Y L IGHT
 TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION


3 0 AT L A N T I C S T R E E T 							 H I S TO R I C P R E S E R VAT I O N A P P L I C AT I O N | 0 4 . 2 7 . 2 0 2 6 		 LR/ARC
 Page 57
CITY OF PORTLAND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
NOTICE OF DECISION

PROPERTY OWNER: Brooke Chornyak and Dylan Jones (“Applicant”)
PROPERTY LOCATION: 30 Atlantic Street (“Property”)
PROJECT ID: HP-00068-2026
HISTORIC DESIGNATION(S): Munjoy Hill Historic District.

___________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 1. On March 23, 2026, the Applicant applied for a approval of new construction at the
 Property.

 2. Pursuant to subsection 16.5.2 of the City of Portland Land Use Code (“Land Use Code”),
 the application required review and approval by the Historic Preservation Board (“Board”)
 against the standards for review of subsection 16.6 (“Standards”).

 3. Subsection 16.6.2 of the Land Use Code incorporates by reference the Historic Resources
 Design Manual, which provides additional guidance to this Board. Specifically, when
 discerning the “compatibility” and “differentiation” of the proposed project, the Design
 Manual provides the following guidance:

 “Two core concepts in reviewing alterations to historic properties and additions or
 new construction within historic contexts are those of compatibility and
 differentiation. Compatibility refers to establishing visual relationships with the
 patterns or characteristics that define a given context. New work does not need to
 follow the patterns of the context in every way; however, they should relate to a
 number of the key character-defining features of the context. Differentiation refers to
 the ability of new work to be visually understood as a construction of its own time,
 distinct from the historic properties. This inherently requires some degree of
 departure from the patterns of the context.

 These two concepts are at times in tension, but when they are successfully balanced,
 they uphold the goals of reinforcing what defines historically-designated places while
 ensuring authenticity and allowing the passage of time to remain legible in the built
 environment. There are numerous approaches that designers can take in striking this
 balance, and their successful application can be found across a variety of projects.”
 (Page 2.12)



 1

 Page 58
 4. The Board held one public workshop on April 15, 2026.

 5. On May 20, 2026 the Board held a Public Hearing to review the application for new
 construction at the property under HP-00068-2026.

 6. Based on the written materials, oral testimony, staff memoranda, and public comment
 received during the workshop held on April 15, 2026, and the public hearing held on May
 20, 2026, the Board finds as follows:

Subsection 16.6.4 - Standards for review of additions and new construction:

 Standard A. Scale and form
 1. Height
 The height of the addition or new construction shall be visually compatible with the contributing
 buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation when viewed from any street
 or public open space.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis and drawings to demonstrate that
 two-story primary buildings and one-story accessory structures are typical of
 the Munjoy Hill Historic District and that the house is proposed to be two
 YES stories tall while the garage is proposed to be one story. The Board finds that
 these proposed heights are typical of the Munjoy Hill Historic District, and are
 therefore visually compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the Board
 finds this standard has been met.
 2. Width
 The width of the addition or new construction shall be visually compatible with the contributing
 buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation when viewed from any street
 or public open space.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis and plans to demonstrate that the
 proposed structure would be about 22 feet wide, and that many neighboring
 buildings in the district have similar or greater widths. The Board finds that the
 YES proposed width of the house and that the proposed width of the garage, which
 is narrower than the house, fit within the ranges of widths found in the Munjoy
 Hill Historic District and is therefore visually compatible with surrounding
 structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard has been met.
 3. Proportion of principal facades
 The relationship of the width to the height of the principal facades shall be visually compatible
 with the contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation when
 viewed from any street or public open space.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments



 2

 Page 59
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that buildings in the
 context are typically taller than they are wide, creating vertical proportions.
 Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant has provided plans showing
 YES that the proposed building will have a vertically proportioned façade. The
 Board further finds that the proposed vertically proportioned façade is typical
 of the Munjoy Hill Historic District, and is therefore visually compatible with
 surrounding structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard has been met.
4. Roof shape
The roof shape of the addition or new construction shall be visually compatible with the
contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation when viewed from
any street or public open space.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that many buildings
 in the context feature gabled roofs. Additionally, the Board notes that the
 applicant has provided plans showing that the proposed house and garage will
 YES have gabled roofs. The Board further finds that the proposed gabled roofs are
 typical of the Munjoy Hill Historic District, and are therefore visually
 compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard
 has been met.
5. Scale
The size and mass of the addition or new construction in relation to open spaces, windows,
doors, porches, and balconies shall be visually compatible with the contributing buildings,
structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation when viewed from any street or public
open space.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate the relative scale of
 windows on contributing buildings. Additionally, the Board notes that the
 applicant has provided plans showing the scale of the openings on the
 proposed house and garage. The Board further finds that the relationship of
 the proposed openings is consistent with what is found on nearby contributing
 YES buildings with the windows generally having ample “breathing” room around
 them, with some areas of more concentrated windows such as at bay windows
 or the grouped corner windows on the proposed hose. Therefore, the Board
 finds that the propose scale of the windows and house and garage are visually
 compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard
 has been met.

Standard B. Composition of principle facades
1. Proportion of openings
The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with
the contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation.
Standard Met? Staff Comments


 3

 Page 60
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that windows in the
 context are predominantly vertically proportioned. Additionally, the Board
 notes that the applicant provided plans showing that the proposed house
 would have vertically proportioned openings. The Board further finds the
 YES proposed vertically proportioned windows are therefore visually compatible
 with surrounding structures. The Board also finds that the garage is proposed
 to have a slightly horizontally-proportioned door, as is also typical of garages in
 the Munjoy Hill Historic District. Thus, the Board finds this standard has been
 met.
2. Rhythm of solids to voids
The relationship of solids to voids in the principal facades shall be visually compatible with the
contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that buildings in the
 surrounding context feature primarily solid façades, with large windows
 regularly arranged, with some groupings of windows. Additionally, the Board
 notes that the applicant provided plans showing that the proposed house
 YES
 would feature a predominantly solid wall with regular window placement and a
 grouping of windows at the front right corner. The Board further finds that this
 arrangement of windows is therefore visually compatible with surrounding
 structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard has been met.
3. Rhythm of entrances, porches, and other projections or recesses
The relationship of entrances, porches, and other projections or recesses to sidewalks shall be
visually compatible with the contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic
designation.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis demonstrating the character of
  FOR BOARD typical side entrances found in the Munjoy Hill Historic District. Additionally,
  DISCUSSION the Board notes that the applicant provided plans showing [BOARD
 FINDINGS]. The Board further finds [BOARD FINDINGS].
4. Relationship of materials
The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the principal
facades shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used on the contributing
buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided specifications and images demonstrating the character
 of the proposed tile shingle cladding material. The Board finds that clapboard
 and shingle siding are the predominant cladding materials on non-masonry
 YES buildings within the Munjoy Hill Historic District. The Board further finds that
 the proposed tile shingle cladding has a similar scale and texture to wooden
 shingles, and is therefore visually compatible with surrounding structures.
 Thus, the Board finds this standard has been met.



 4

 Page 61
Standard C. Relationship to street
1. Walls of continuity
Facades and site features, such as masonry walls, fences, and landscape masses, shall, when it is a
characteristic of the context, form cohesive walls of enclosure along the street to ensure visual
compatibility with the contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic
designation.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that buildings in the
 Munjoy Hill Historic District are typically located close to the street and in
 alignment with narrow side yards. Additionally, the Board notes the applicant
 has provided plans showing that the front façade of the proposed building
 YES would align with the front façade of its neighbors while maintaining narrow
 side yards. The Board further finds the proposed structure reinforces the
 somewhat diffuse street wall of the context, and is therefore visually
 compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard
 has been met.
2. Rhythm and spacing along streets
The relationship of the addition or new construction to the open space between it and adjacent
buildings, structures, objects, or sites shall be visually compatible with the contributing buildings,
structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that properties in the
 Munjoy Hill Historic District are often places close together with narrow
 driveways separating some structures. Additionally, the Board notes that the
 applicant has provided plans showing that the propose structure will be placed
 YES close to its southern neighbor with a narrow driveway separating it from its
 northern neighbor. The Board further finds that this placement reinforces the
 tight spacing of structures within the historic district, and is therefore visually
 compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the Board finds this standard
 has been met.
3. Directional expression of principal facades
The addition or new construction shall be visually compatible with the directional character of
the contributing buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation, whether this
be vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional character.
Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis to demonstrate that buildings in the
 Munjoy Hill Historic District typically have vertical facades but are clad in siding
 with a horizontal expression. Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant
 YES
 provided plans showing that the proposed house will have a vertical proportion
 and predominantly horizontal siding. The Board further finds that this mixed
 vertical and horizontal expression is typical of the surrounding context, and is



 5

 Page 62
 therefore visually compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the Board
 finds this standard has been met.
 4. Streetscape, pedestrian improvements
 Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in the appearance thereof located
 adjacent to any addition or new construction shall not be incongruous with the contributing
 buildings, structures, objects, and sites of the historic designation.
 Standard Met? Staff Comments
 The applicant provided a context analysis showing that open front yards, with
 low fences are typical of the surrounding historic district. Additionally, the
 Board notes that the applicant has provided plans showing that the property
 will have a small front yard between the garage and the street, a low fence and
 YES gate between the house and the garage, and a path leading to the gate and
 entrance beyond. The Board further finds that this arrangement of a small
 front yard with a path leading to the entrance is typical of the historic context,
 and is therefore visually compatible with surrounding structures. Thus, the
 Board finds this standard has been met.

_________________________________________
DECISION

By a vote of ___ to ___, the Board adopts the above findings of fact to support its [APPROVAL /
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL / DENIAL] of application HP-00068-2026 from May 20, 2026.


_________________________________________________ ___________________
Brad Miller, Chair Date




 6

 Page 63