Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you to the February 13th, 2008 public hearing of the Board of Architects Review. We appreciate all of you who are here this afternoon. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Irvin County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. This afternoon we have four board members who are present and I will ask them to introduce themselves. Terry Hanely. Derek Winfield. Jim Dickinson. And I'm Clyde Carpenter. I'm currently the chair of the board. The Office of Historic Preservation maintains a full-time staff, some of whom are here this afternoon and will be taking part in the meeting. They're available to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use the Office of Historic Preservation as a resource. That office is located at 101 East Vine Street in room 220. It's our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions and make comments and then hear comments from any other interested persons who may be here this afternoon. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you're in the audience this afternoon and you wish to speak to the board, we would ask that you come down front to the podium and use the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We would also like to ask you to sign in at the sign-in sheet, which is back in the corner by the door, if you're planning to speak, so that we can have information about you correctly recorded. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. This afternoon we have eight staff approvals and we're continuing to have a rather large group of staff approvals each time we meet, which I think is indicative of the way in which the Office of Historic Preservation is being able to interact with the applicants. This afternoon we have three staff approvals in the Hale Street Historic District, 331 Hill and Walk, Replace a Dying Tree, 458 East Maxwell Street, Repair Roof, Soffit and Gutter from a Falling Tree, and the third, 460 East Maxwell Street, Renovate the Structure, also Damaged by a Falling Tree. In Belcourt, 122 Forest Avenue, Replace Skylights. In Woodward Heights Historic District, 316 West High Street, Renovate the Structure. In South Hill Historic District, 316 South Mill Street, Replace an Unsafe Tree. In the Northside Historic District, 462 West 2nd Street, Remove Four Dying Trees. And in the Western Suburb, 601 West Short Street, Install Flags and Signs on Buildings. So these items have already been approved by the staff and these applicants already have their Certificates of Appropriateness and hopefully are proceeding ahead with the work that was approved. This afternoon we have four cases on the agenda, four applicants for Certificates of Appropriateness which we will be considering. In a couple of cases the staff has recommended approval with conditions and I will call on these applicants and if they agree with the findings of the staff we will not have a full public hearing. So the first item on our agenda, item number one in the Ellsworth Historic District, 148 Woodland Avenue, Change the Opening. Is that applicant present? The applicant is not present but he's read the findings and he's in agreement with the staff report. Okay. The staff recommended approval and is there anyone in the audience that would like to make comments about this application? Hearing no comments the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval and issuance of the COA for 148 Woodland Avenue subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. The next item on the agenda, item number two, in the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, 217 South Ashland Avenue, Change the Rear Port Design and Install Paving. Is that applicant present? Yes. Would you be kind enough to give us your name and address? I'm Trevor Wells, 217 South Ashland Avenue, and we're in agreement with the staff recommendations. All right. And the conditions that are in there? Yes. Yes, okay. Very good. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. The staff has recommended approval with conditions, four conditions that are outlined in your report. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the COA for 217 South Ashland Avenue subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. I'll second the motion and just need to point out that in the second full paragraph, I think a word has been left out. It should read, the proposal calls for the demolition of the rear stoop, which has the dimensions of. Okay. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay, thank you all very much. The third item on our agenda, item number three in the South Hill Historic District, 239 South Limestone, construct a porch and change the siding material. Is that applicant present? Yes. Would you like to come forth? I need to recuse myself from this case. Would you like to come forward, please? Thank you. Okay, if you'll give us your name and address. My name is Andrew Moore and I live at 407 South Mill Street and I was the designer for Stephen Dahl here as the owner of this property. I think the only thing that we ask is there was an issue with materials with regards to the foundation. The staff didn't like the idea of using stone and suggested using split face and I think the only issue we have is that we're trying to get a little bit higher level of finish for the addition. So we'd just like the board to maybe take another look at material selection. Okay. We'll go ahead then and hear this case then if you would like to sit down. We'll have a presentation by the staff. Okay. So we'll have a presentation. Does the board want to have the presentation of all the portions of the application or to just focus on the portion to deal with the foundation? If you're are you agreeable with all the rest of the yes okay I think then we get to simply focus on the on the foundation that would be fine. Okay. This is a property at 239 South Limestone. This one story to the left is the area in question. The applicant desires to create a porch, an L-shaped porch that will wrap around this corner of the structure connecting the two entry doors. The one on the left goes to the first floor and the one on the right goes to the second floor. This is a side looking from the south. The new owner of this property received a series of staff and board issued COAs over the following 15 months to renovate this circa 1907 colonial arrival structure. In the process of doing that there is a you can have the floor plan please Randy. This is the floor plan and shows there's a set of stairs immediately inside to go to the second floor and so the code requires that there be a landing and in order to do the landing there would be a five foot by five foot area enclosed with clapboard siding. Thank you. The structure would be have a concrete slab floor and the foundation the applicant wants to be stone to simulate stone of the existing historic structure. This particular addition was done after 1972. The proposed use of the clapboard siding to help unify the rear addition with proposed new porch is found in accordance with guidelines 39-2. The replacement metal doors at the rear entrance also with wood is found appropriate. However, I think I've lost my place here. Actually, if you will, Martin, just continue on to the segment specific to the foundation work. Yes. I believe that's all we need to find. I was looking for it. I appreciate that. However, a more contemporary material to be used for the porch foundation would be a split faced concrete block in lieu of the stone. And so staff recommends approval as submitted with following conditions. Foundation of the porch be constructed as split faced concrete block in lieu of stone and that because it's a more contemporary material as is the hardy plank. And the second recommendation is the porch support post be trimmed out at the base and the cap with one inch redwood. The applicant is here. Martin, are you expressing a preference for the split stone simply because there might be some confusion that this porch addition is not going to be recognized as being what it is, which is a obvious addition to the house? That is part of it. Right. And may I see the north elevation, Randy? Or is it trying to match too much to the north elevation? Is that your concern? Well, right. On the north elevation, there's one line missing. Where all here is six inch stone veneer base. That stone veneer base would end right here and then it would be back to the regular plain concrete block of that structure. So how is that not compatible with the regs? How is their proposal not consistent with the regulations or the ordinance? It's showing a new addition onto a concrete block, a new porch onto a concrete block structure. Right. I'm trying to figure out why you don't like the stone veneer. Because it goes with brick. And as a rule, when we do a clapboard structure, the foundation is either stone or parched concrete block or split face. Okay. A contemporary material. In other words, you're saying it's more consistent and compatible with the clapboard as opposed to the brick. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Moore, would you like to come back? I'm not sure if I asked you to give us your address, if you would be kind enough to do that. I live actually in the neighborhood at 407 South Mill Street. Okay. All right. So you're agreeable to the other condition. But you'd like to talk to us about the stone veneer. We'd be happy to hear what you have to say. Basically, we just felt that the split face was we're trying to basically, this is going to basically be the formal entry to a second floor office area and a third floor residential area. So this will be their only entry point. And so that's why we're essentially trying to dress up the rear of the building. And we just felt that the split face block was not quite to the level of finish we'd like to bring this entry point up to. I've also sent this out to the neighborhood. And we've had a few discussions on it. And the neighborhood seems to be in support of this project. Last night they didn't have a quorum, so they couldn't issue an official letter in support of the project. But I did receive some e-mails from individuals and the president of the Neighborhood Association in support of this project too. I don't think anybody is not supporting the project. It's just a question of the material. Well, I brought that specific issue up, the fact of the foundation. And they seem to be supportive of the stone foundation. When you say they didn't have a quorum, just how many people were at this meeting? We probably had ten people. But the problem is it has to be a certain amount of board members. And I'm actually on the board, so I can't vote. So we had to have at least, I think it's seven board members there in order to. Okay. But you had about ten people at the meeting? Correct. How many people normally attend? That's probably about average. Okay. Unless we have a hot topic or something like that, it's a pretty small meeting. And stone versus split face is not a hot topic. No. Okay. Well, okay. Would you like to make anything else? And we'll see if the board members have questions for you, comments to make. And I guess, you know, if it's a matter of making it look different, you know, we could maybe do a different joint pattern. And also, it's a six-inch stone veneer. It's not a solid stone foundation. But, you know, we'd probably be willing to maybe stylistically maybe make the stone look a little bit different so that it's not repeating exactly what's on the original house. Mr. Gianocchio made a comment that the porch would have a stone veneer base, but then there's another part of the addition which has concrete block. Yeah. Essentially is the post-1972 addition is it's a brick structure with a cement block foundation which is exposed. And so when we add the porch, we would be covering up two sides of that, but the north elevation, which is essentially at a – it's almost basically a zero lot line. That portion, which backs up to an adjacent building, would remain block on the original addition. And you're not planning to change that? We really can't do much in the way of extending on that elevation because, like I said, we're pretty much right up against the property line on that side. So essentially you would not see that the concrete block would not be very visible in your opinion? I think there's probably three or four feet – there's basically I think an adjacent sort of apartment building next door. And so this would be – there's probably about three or four feet, I think, approximately in between the two buildings. Okay. All right. I'm not sure if any of those pictures really show that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hanley, do you have any questions? No, I'm going to abstain on this. Okay. Mr. Wingfield? I think your proposal for the cement veneer does meet the guidelines. Specifically, staff cites 39.1 and 2, that the deck material be appropriate to the building and the porches and decks should be compatible on scale, materials, the principal structure. And I find that your proposed foundation material does meet both of those guidelines and I would be in favor of approving your request. Mr. Dickinson? Well, I'm not entirely sure I fully understand the staff's reasoning on their recommendation, but I think I'm hearing some movement on your part. If the goal is to make sure that, you know, we're not blending in the new addition with what's already existing there, I think something can be worked out that would show a clear differentiation. Perhaps we can work out some kind of compromise between the split stone and some kind of other way of doing it. Martin, do you have any ideas on that? May I comment on that? Sure. And as well as Mr. Chackett. Go ahead, Betty, I'm sorry. Striking a different joint would help if you're willing to do that so that it would be identifiably different. That is the philosophy behind wanting the change in materials with the new construction. And so if the board feels it is appropriate to put stone, then if there is an appropriate different joint, then I think there would be. How about a raised joint? Maybe not do a raised joint, something like that. That would help to make that distinction still noticeable and hence that it's of a different era of construction. That's what is reflected in the staff's considerations, that it be easily identifiable as a different era of construction from the main body. How would we go about crafting a motion that would reflect this conversation? Something perhaps that notes that the joint would not mimic that of the historic mass, but would be done in a different, yet appropriate, joint style. Would you be all right with something, language to that effect? I think that would be fine. Do you have any additional suggestion toward that language? I think just maybe, just as you say, it's maybe not a square raised. That's essentially what that joint pattern is. Right. Right. Well, we could do this. We could disapprove the materials or the proposal as is, but as final details can be worked out between applicant and staff. I'm going to chime in on this. I'm in the green with Mr. Wingfield. Okay. And I would be willing to entertain the joint, but I'm not in favor of disapproving the material. So any other comments? You would be agreeable to a different joint detail? Yes. Hearing you say that. Okay. All right. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to make any comments about this? All right. The chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval, and this one's with the COA for 239 Limestone Street. Subject to two conditions. First condition, modify what's listed in the staff report to read that the joint not mimic the existing structure, foundation joinery, and that the final details of that joint come back to staff for approval prior to issuance with the COA and retaining staff condition two, poor support to be trimmed out, base cap with one inch redwood as noted in findings above. Findings, I find that the proposal for the stone veneer, especially with the change in the joint, does meet guidelines 39-1 and 39-2. 39-1 indicates that the porch deck material should be appropriate to the building in which they are located. And 39-2, porches and decks should be compatible in scale materials with the principal structure adjacent to the surrounding buildings. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you all very much. Okay. The next item on the agenda, item four, in the Ellsworth Historic District, 313 Lafayette Avenue, Fermuda Chimney, Stile Skylights. I understand that the request is to postpone this until the January 27th meeting of the board. The chair will entertain a motion to postpone this application. So moved. Second? Second. Okay. All right. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to postpone, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Then the next item on the agenda is Belcourt. It's item five on your agenda, 611 East Main Street. The application is to paint a masonry garage. The staff has recommended disapproval, and I assume that the applicant would like to talk to us about that. Did you all receive the letter that I sent Amelia explaining the purpose why we painted that front and back? If you saw it before that, a tree had fallen down. I don't know who laid the brick up. It was awful. I assume you're not in agreement with the recommendation to disapprove. I assume you're not in agreement. I'm just trying to explain to you why we... Then what we need to do then is to hear the case, okay? We'll hear the case then. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I mean, if you... Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Lights, please. This is the structure at 611 East Main Street. If you remember, in December, we went to the board for... The applicant went before the board for several issues. During that meeting, a couple of other issues were brought up, and at this time, a letter was sent to the... At that time, a letter was sent to the applicant addressing some of those concerns or brought up that meeting. The applicant has since filled out a certificate of appropriateness as to permit asking to paint the garage. This is the existing condition, a very ill picture of that. And here is the present garage. So the applicant is asking to paint the garage. He's already, obviously, done the work. And just sort of get familiar with the site. Obviously, this is the... You can see he's painted two sides of it. Two sides are... This is the side between the two buildings, which is left unpainted. And this is the rear of the structure. And the president has been working to make repairs and renovate the site due to the fire, and states in the letter that he wanted to paint the garage, protect the garage and disguise the graffiti and the soot in addition to protecting the spalling bricks. Guidelines are included for your reference. Findings, the proposal to paint the unpainted masonry building is not appropriate nor within the guidelines. Guidelines 32-7, 32-8, respectively, state masonry that was historically unpainted should remain unpainted and waterproofing sealant should not be used. Unpainted brick is an important architectural feature of the structure and historically these bricks were not painted and should remain unpainted. In addition, painting structures to seal the brick is not an appropriate method of dealing with any dilapidation of brick and may exacerbate problems further. SAS suggests the paint be removed and all masonry issues, such as tuck pointing and other spalling issues, be addressed with necessary procedures and not covered by paint or sealant. Staff recommends disapproval of painting the building. Any applicants present? Mr. Graff, if you could give us your name and address. Pardon? Give us your name and address, please. Al Graff, 141 Old Park Avenue. Okay. Well, we'd be glad to hear any comments that you'd like to make about the painting. Just like I said earlier, the reason, you know, we went to the expense, as you saw the front of the garage, you know, the brick had been relayed up halfway from a storm where a tree fell over. It was a bad job, and the spalling brick along the top. So if you passed it, then you'd have your mortar showing on that. Okay. Thank you. So I just thought the only way to keep it from going, the two sides were unpainted. They were protected from the weather, but that front and this side here where I guess evidently people take cans of spray paint and sprayed it. So I just thought that'd be the appropriate thing to do is, you know, to make it look a whole lot better than it was, you know. Do you intend to paint the other two sides? If Harvey will let me, I will. The other two sides, you know, they were in good shape, but then, I mean, I can. But the reason I quit there, that brick was okay, but I thought, well, it needs to be continued on, but Harvey, he's real close. He's worried about getting paint on his garage. I told him we'd put a drop or something like that and back and about. Well, we can to go ahead and complete the structure if that's what you'd like. I'm not saying that. I'm just asking. Yeah. I hadn't planned on it, no. Okay. All right. If there's anything else you'd like to say, that would be fine. We can go ahead and hear and entertain questions from the board members. That's all I've got. Is there anything else I need to? Let's see. Mr. Hanley? Well, they suggested removing the paint. I've exhausted any possibility of, you know, entertaining any thought of trying to get that off there because I've sent the specifications in because it's a Porter breathable bonding primer, so it's not a sealing waterproof paint. So it will look that old. That garage was built in 1937, so it's an old clay brick. So because I've done masonry before, you don't want to seal the water in if there ever is any moisture in there. So that's about where I'm at on it. Well, Mr. Graff, let me get straight from you. Are you saying it's going to be impossible to remove that paint without damaging the brick? Right. Okay. And where it's porous. You know, that old brick is porous. I mean. Yeah, I'm familiar with that kind of brick. You've been in construction, too. I mean, you know, it's. I assume it just didn't occur to you that that was something that needed approval first. No, it sure didn't. Okay. I thought it was the house and then the garage. You know, I didn't. No. Okay. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Dickinson? No, I don't. Mr. Hangley. Well, that was going to be my next question, was that the recommendation of staff was to remove the paint. And I was going to ask staff if there were any approved methods that would not damage the brick. Apparently the brick is in disrepair already. Is there any method of getting the paint off without damaging the brick further? The peel-away process, in my experience with this situation, has been used. But just before the meeting, Mr. Graff said that he might have. Did you try that process? Or did you ask people about that? Are you familiar with that process, the peel and the stick remover? Because there's two processes. That will work fine on flat granite, a smooth surface. As far as the brick where it's porous and rough with the joints, it's just not going to do it. Yeah, I'm familiar with the two processes of peel-away. There's one that you put a chemical on there, then you put the flat piece on there, then you peel that away. And then there's the stick-on process that both sticky pieces go on, and then you peel that off. And that has happened, in my experience, on brick of this nature. But he's investigated a bit about it, and so that's what I'm after that. It's just not going to work. Okay. That's all I have. Mr. Mayfield? This is an interesting case. If the paint cannot be removed from the masonry, it's a paradox. Just because the work was done without a certificate of appropriateness, and because the work is not in accordance with the guidelines, is, in my mind at least, the main issue. The work's already been completed, so it's an existing condition, and it can't be undone. I'm sure that I'm saying, I guess my quandary and my hesitation is that just because something has been done that can't be undone, it's still, that can't justify it being within the guidelines is, I guess, my comment. And so my inclination would be to disapprove the application, the COA. Where we go from there, I'm not sure. Excuse me. I have a similar quandary. I also found it really difficult to live with the idea that only one side of the garage would be painted. So, you know, if we were to decide to allow the paint to remain, I think it's very strange to just have one side painted. I think that, to me, accentuates the problem. Would you like me to go on with the other side, Mr. Carpenter, and do those? Would you like me to go ahead and do the other two sides? No, not necessarily. Oh, okay. Because, once again, this is in contradiction to what we normally would do. Yeah. You know, there may have been other ways to have dealt with the brick. I realize it was in bad shape and had been botched up in the process. But there may have been another way to have really dealt with that issue without painting it. But now that the paint is on there, like Mr. Ringfield is saying, it's work that's been done sort of violating our guidelines, and also it was done without getting a permit. And, on the other hand, to try to take the paint off may create a situation which could conceivably be worse, especially if you can't get it all off. So I don't know. It's a real dilemma. How do the rest of you all feel? I mean, I'm feeling the same way. I don't want to set a precedent and say, you know, everybody in historic neighborhoods go out and paint your brick and then come in and get a permit or say, well, it's, you know, I think we need to disapprove this. And then maybe you come back with another proposal. What other proposal would there be? I don't know. Paint the other two sides. I don't know. Whatever. Whatever it is. I mean, I think, at least for me anyway, I'm sure the rest of the board is more interested in the integrity of the structure. As opposed to the color or, you know, the paint itself. It's unfortunate, but things like this happen. And, you know, instead of looking backwards, try to look forward and see what we can do to alleviate the situation and still not set a precedent for others in historic neighborhoods. I'm kind of in a quandary on how to exactly do this from a procedural standpoint. Let me make a comment. Because I'll look down at the end. Let me make a comment or two. I think we may not be quite looking at the background of this case. First of all, this garage had been somewhat damaged by smoke and graffiti. And I take it there was some deterioration going on with the brickwork. The ordinance itself, Condition 32-7, speaks in the permissive. And as they should, as opposed shall, which implies to me that perhaps the writers of this ordinance foresaw instances when an exception can be made to the general rule that it should not be painted. If memory serves me correctly, I think that the last meeting we did approve the painting of a masonry building because of concern of graffiti. I know there are differences with that building. But we have done it before mainly because that building needed to be painted in the context of where it was located. And it's also an industrial building. I would say that the reason that that was allowed was because it was a non-contributing structure. Right. No. I don't think that was entirely our rationale for that. One last thing that I think needs to be focused on, of course, is that this is not the residence itself, but is, in fact, an outbuilding used as a garage. Now, I don't think if we do anything today, I'm not sure that this board is going to be inclined to help you out very much. But I think we're stuck with the situation that you went ahead and painted, probably in all innocence, because I don't think it occurs to most people that the painting restrictions were applicable to garages. And now that we're stuck with the situation, I think we need to go ahead and finish painting it, because it does look just peculiar with just the one facade. Is it two of the walls painted? Pardon? Is it the front and the, what, the side? The front and the side. And the back and the other side aren't. The back and the one next to the neighbor. Well, it looks peculiar. It would look, you know, if we're with the painting, we could go ahead and do the back and the side. So long as you don't get paint on your neighbor's garage. Yeah. I'm not happy about the situation at all, but the only other remedy we've got at this point is to basically go through a facade of saying, okay, you're in violation, we're not going to approve it, and then probably no further action be taken to enforce your noncompliance with the ordinances, which I don't think is a good policy either. So to make the best of a worse situation, I think we should perhaps look at the fact that in limited exceptions where the language is permissive and not mandatory, that we could perhaps find a finding here. And I think the finding is, given the fact this building was heavily smoke damaged by the fire, that that might be a justification to go ahead and authorize the painting of the structure. That's just my thought. I'm not happy about this, but I'm trying to figure a solution. Does the staff have any? We're over here scratching our heads about the issue. Unless the brick has lost its finished surface, and hence, you know, the paint you've applied has attached to the inner surface of the brick, there are very few that can't be cleaned successfully. I'm not suggesting you haven't looked into this. I certainly appreciate the fact you have. I'm wondering if there's a solution out there that hadn't been thought of yet to get this off. I've discussed it with Porter Paints and Sherwin Williams, you know, Craven's architect. I think there are a couple of folks here in town who are particularly good at this sort of problem, that it might behoove the situation to have one or both of them have an opportunity to evaluate this situation and see if they concur with what you've been finding. And if, indeed, they all do, then I and the staff, I think, would be more comfortable knowing that it's truly an irreversible situation. The brick was so porous, you know, that old clay, so that's, you know, that's the problem if you want to try and get that. I mean, it's. I understand, but. That bonding agent. There's an awful lot of pretty porous brick that has been stripped out there over time. So I don't have an answer. Obviously, if we did, we would have already offered it before this meeting. If I said I've done it, I would have done it. I understand. I understand. Betty, do you have a specific company to recommend to look at this? Yes, but I think the way to handle this would be we would refer those parties to the property owner. Okay. Please. Would it be appropriate, then, perhaps to postpone this? It's the board's decision, of course, but that's just what the staff, the only suggestion the staff could make to try to find a positive remedy to this still within the guidelines. Honestly, I think if we do a little bit of additional fact-finding and determine that it's irreversible, then that's one more reason why we need just to go forward and perhaps approve a painting of the entire structure. So at least it'll look done. So I would like to suggest, then, that we postpone. Is that all right with you, sir? Yes, that's fine. Let's postpone it to for additional fact-finding with respect to the rehab of this building in terms of removing the paint. And our next meeting is February 27th, is that right? That's correct. Okay. I'd like to move that we postpone it. Would that give you enough time, sir? Pardon? Would that give you enough time? Well, the finished painting. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, what we're doing here is we're suggesting that you meet with the board and do additional fact-finding in terms of other expert opinion that might be able to assist you in determining whether this paint can be removed without damaging the brick. And I was wondering, do you need two weeks or four weeks to do that? The staff would suggest four weeks, just knowing the availability is usually kind of tough on the couple of firms we're thinking about. When is the meeting in March? The first meeting in March is March 13th. March 13th. Also, could the staff note that the deadline for action is today, and so we will need to do an extension with the applicant reflecting. I was working on that. Thank you. Could we have a waiver from you, sir, on the deadline so that we don't have to disprove your application?  All right. Thank you. I move, then, that we postpone this meeting to March 13, pending further fact-finding by the applicant and the staff with regard to the possibility of removing the paint from this brick. Second. Any discussion? Okay. I guess the point is that we need to have some kind of expert opinion on this. It's not that we don't believe you, but I think, on the other hand, anyone can come in and perhaps suggest that the paint could be removed, and I think if we find out that, in fact, it would be detrimental to the building to have the paint removed, then that could change our perception in our position. So, if there's no further discussion, we'll vote on the motion. Could staff make one small correction? I was erroneous about the meeting date. The first meeting in March is the 12th, rather than the 13th, the 12th of March. I'm in my motion. Also, sir, when you talk to these other people, we will need some documentation of their findings. Right. Okay. All right. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you. That's it. All right. The next three items on our agenda have been withdrawn. That's 432 South Broadway, 115 Jefferson Street, and 262 North Limestone Street. And I don't believe we need to take any action on that. The minutes of the December 12, 2007 meeting were circulated by email, and I assume all of you got those today. And are there any corrections or changes? Okay. Hearing no changes or corrections or amendments, the chair will entertain a motion. So moved that we approve the minutes of December 12, 2007. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Second. No one seconded. Well, I wasn't present at the meeting, but in the interest of keeping the motion alive, I shall second them. Okay. I was there, and you're correct. And you can second approval of minutes even if you're a resident. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we have voted to approve the minutes, right? Yes, sir. All right, good. All right. Is there any other business? I did want to make one comment, if I might. Jack Ballard, who's been a member of this board, has had to resign because of another appointment that he had received, and I just wanted to say publicly that I think Jack did an excellent job as a member of the board, and we will miss having him here, and it will be up to the mayor to determine who takes his place. So this afternoon we have four members of the board, and there's one vacancy. So Ms. Kerr has informed me that their work is in progress to find a replacement, and hopefully that position will be filled soon. But I would just like to publicly thank Jack for doing such a great job. You're here. And we're missing some. All right. Any other business? Okay. The chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Very good. Thank you.