# Board of Architectural Review - July 12, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 12, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4295 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4295?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-07-12 - **Last revised**: July 12, 2017 - **Length**: 18,955 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review held a meeting on July 12, 2017. The meeting addressed three main agenda items and resulted in seven motions and votes being taken throughout the proceedings. The board accomplished several key tasks during the session. They reviewed and approved the minutes from their previous meeting held on June 28, 2017. Staff provided informational updates on recent staff approvals that had been processed. The board also considered Certificate of Appropriateness applications, which were approved during the meeting. No public comments were received during this meeting. The board conducted seven votes on various matters that came before them during the session, demonstrating an active agenda with multiple items requiring formal board action. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered seven certificates of appropriateness and one postponement during the July 12, 2017 meeting. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call. **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals:** • **Case 11670287-n (287 South Limestone)**: Motion by Mr. Chair to approve with conditions passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. Conditions require the applicant to provide final fencing details, resubmit any changes, and undergo review by other divisions. • **Case 122721-h (721 West Main Street)**: Approval with conditions passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. The applicant must provide final railing details, resubmit any changes, and complete review by other divisions. • **Case 14600331-b (331 Park Avenue)**: Motion by Mr. Chairman to approve with conditions passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. Conditions include resubmitting any changes and review by other divisions. • **Case 19130337-f (337 Transylvania Park)**: Motion by Mr. Chair to approve with conditions passed by voice vote with one abstention [timestamp: 00:00]. The applicant must submit lattice details, resubmit any changes, and undergo review by other divisions. • **Case 18800440-j (440 West Third Street)**: Approval with conditions passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. Conditions require withdrawing the paving portion, resubmitting any changes, and review by other divisions. • **Case 02140501-j (601 Boonesboro Avenue)**: Motion by Mr. Chairman to approve with conditions passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote from Mr. Poll [timestamp: 00:00]. Conditions specify using boral on new construction, disapproving boral on the historic structure, and using cement board on dormer walls. **Postponement:** • **625 East Main Street**: The board voted by voice vote to postpone this case to August 9, 2017 [timestamp: 00:00]. All approved certificates include standard conditions requiring applicants to resubmit any changes and complete review by other city divisions before proceeding with their projects. ## Contested Items The board faced one contested issue during the July 12, 2017 meeting regarding the use of Boral material at 601 Boonesboro Avenue. **Use of Boral Material at 601 Boonesboro Avenue** The board experienced a split vote concerning the proposed use of Boral material for a historic structure located at 601 Boonesboro Avenue. The disagreement centered on whether this material was appropriate for the historic property, with board members expressing concerns about both the suitability of Boral material for a historic structure and questions regarding its long-term durability. The debate reflected differing perspectives among board members about balancing historic preservation standards with modern building materials. Some members appeared to have reservations about approving a contemporary material like Boral for use on a historic building, while others may have supported its use based on practical considerations. The split vote indicates that the board was divided on this issue, though the specific vote count and individual board member positions are not detailed in the available information. The outcome of this contested vote and whether the use of Boral material was ultimately approved or denied was not specified in the meeting records. This disagreement highlights the ongoing challenges historic preservation boards face when evaluating modern materials for use in historic structures, balancing the need to maintain historical integrity with practical construction and maintenance considerations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item.* ## Review minutes from June 28, 2017 BOAR meeting [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed the minutes from their previous meeting held on June 28, 2017. This routine agenda item involved examining the official record of discussions, decisions, and actions taken during the prior BOAR meeting. The minutes were presented for board consideration and review. Board members had the opportunity to examine the document for accuracy and completeness before taking action on their approval. Following the review process, the minutes from the June 28, 2017 BOAR meeting were approved by the board. No specific concerns or corrections were noted during the discussion of this agenda item. The approval of these minutes ensures the official record of the June 28, 2017 meeting is formally accepted and will be maintained in the board's permanent records. ## Staff Approvals [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed several staff approvals that had been processed for various properties throughout the jurisdiction. This informational item provided an update on routine administrative decisions made by staff under their delegated authority. The staff approvals covered a range of property modifications and improvements, including: • Tree removal requests for various residential properties • Porch renovation projects that met established guidelines • Lighting installation approvals for both residential and commercial properties These approvals represent routine matters that fall within staff's administrative purview and do not require full board review. The items were processed according to established criteria and guidelines, allowing property owners to proceed with their planned improvements in a timely manner. No specific concerns were raised regarding any of the approved items during this informational presentation. The board acknowledged the staff approvals as part of the regular administrative process, demonstrating the ongoing work to facilitate appropriate property improvements while maintaining community standards. This agenda item served as a routine update to keep board members informed of staff activities and decisions made between meetings, ensuring transparency in the administrative approval process. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed several Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this meeting, focusing on proposed construction projects including fences, patios, and porches within the historic district. The applications represented various types of residential improvements that property owners sought to make while maintaining compliance with historic preservation standards. The discussion centered on ensuring that proposed modifications would be appropriate for the historic character of the district and would not adversely impact the architectural integrity of the area. Board members evaluated each application based on established criteria for historic appropriateness, considering factors such as materials, design compatibility, and visual impact on surrounding properties. The review process involved examining construction plans and specifications to determine whether the proposed work would meet the standards required for properties within the historic district. The applications were ultimately approved, indicating that the board found the proposed fence, patio, and porch construction projects to be consistent with historic preservation guidelines and appropriate for the district's character. --- ## Decisions - **11670287-n** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 287 South Limestone with conditions - **122721-h** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 721 West Main Street with conditions - **14600331-b** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 331 Park Avenue with conditions - **19130337-f** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 337 Transylvania Park with conditions - **18800440-j** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 440 West Third Street with conditions - **02140501-j** — passed (0-1): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 601 Boonesboro Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of 625 East Main Street to August 9, 2017 --- ## Full transcript The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions and make comments regarding the application, and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the Board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of nine approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the South Ashland Historic District at 241 South Ashland Avenue, remove deteriorated trees. At 259 South Ashland, renovate front porch. In the Ellsford Historic District, 134 Ransom Avenue, renovate walkway. In the Grants Park Historic District, 201 North Mill Street, install lighting. In the Northside Historic District at 210 North Broadway, repair driveway. 535 North Broadway, remove ash tree, and 618 North Broadway, renovate structure. In the western suburbs historic district at 582 West Short Street, renovate windows, replace replacement windows. And finally, in the Woodford Heights historic district, 812 West Maxville, rebuild chimneys. We will now turn our attention to the first application at 287 South Limestone, construct front yard fence. Is the applicant here? Come on. Well, that's my stuff. There we go. All right. Would you please state your name for the record, please? Yeah. My name is Genghis Amante. All right. Are you the applicant? Yes. All right. I will note that the staff has recommended approval subject to what I would call some routine changes, the one being provide final fencing details changing the fence to a wood picket fence or iron fence to staff for review and approval. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, sir. All right. And the other two conditions, I'll just note them briefly. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And finally, once reviewed by the other divisions, any changes come back to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Do you agree with those? Yes, sir. All right. Do I have any comments from the board members? Do I have any comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 11670287N at 287 South Limestone, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. One, that the applicant provide final fencing details changing the fence to a wood picket fence or iron fence. Two, the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. Number two, if any changes are made, alter the information submitted. Resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. And three, once reviewed by other LFU-CG divisions, any changes come back to the staff or the board for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Do I have any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The application is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Okay, turning to what we call attachment number two, 241 South Ashland Avenue. Is the applicant here? are the representative on behalf of the applicant. Please state your name for the record, please. Bill Hinkle. All right. And you're with the Hinkle, Denmark? Hinkle, Denmark, that's correct. I assume that you have reviewed the application and that basically we have what I call the standard conditions, which are if any changes are needed to be made after work is started that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the effected work, and secondly, once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmitting changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right, then. Any comments or questions from the board members? Any comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 00710241-K, 241 South Aspen Avenue, I make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness pending the following. If any changes need to be made after work is started that alter the information submitted, resubmit changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work. and two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any further comments or discussions regarding this motion? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion is carried. The application is approved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eagle. All right, turning now to Sarah Ware, attachment number three. Okay. 721 West Main Street. Construct new exterior stair is the applicant here. All right. If you'll state your name for the record, please. Kara Drion. All right. I'll note that the recommendations are basically fairly straightforward. The one that you may be interested in is to provide final railing details to staff prior to issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. Are you in agreement with that one? Yes. And the other two, of course, are what I call the standard ones, which is if any changes are made, that all the information is submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions, any changes come back to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are we in agreement? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 12270721-H at 721 West Main Street, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness pending on a conditional upon the following items. Items number one, the applicant shall provide final railing details to the staff prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. Number two, if any changes are made to alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And finally, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes come back to the staff or the board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Do I have any further comments or concerns regarding this application? If not, then the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries. The certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Turning now to attachment number 4331 Park Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District, Mall of Shed, Deck, and Pergola, Instructed Edition. Good afternoon. Please stage your name for the record, please. Bart Huffnagel. And who's with you? Scott Book. All right. This has come back to you after I think you all reworked the application. Correct. And it looks like the staff is fairly happy with it. Correct. Because basically we're now down to what I call the standard two recommendations. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. Okay. Do I have any further comments or questions regarding this application from the board? I just would make a note that I appreciate applicants' work on this and cooperative attitude. It's an improvement. It looks good. Thank you. Thank you. And I will share that sentiment. This is a very nice-looking plan now. Do I have any comments from the audience that's rapidly dwindling away? If not, then the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 14600331-B, 331 Park Avenue, I make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness pending the following recommendations, which are, one, if any changes need to be made after work has started that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work. Two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion concerning the motion? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed name. The motion carries. The Certificate of Appropriateness is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you, guys. Thank you. We have two applications coming up on Transylvania Park. I will go ahead and preside as chair, but I will not vote on these particular items. The first one being 344 Transylvania Park. Is the applicant here? This is the construct new screen porch on existing deck. 337. Am I out of order? 344 Transylvania Park. 337. That's the next one. Am I ahead of myself? I got ahead of myself. I am so sorry. Attachment 5. I just want the evening to be over. 337 Transylvania Park. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Come on up. And state your name for the record, please. Van Meter Pettit, architect for the owners. Okay, Mr. Pettit, I assume you reviewed the application, which seems to be pretty straightforward, having what I call the standard two conditions. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval, and once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start work. Yes. All right. In agreement with those? Yes. Any questions or comments from the board members? I don't have any doubt about what you're going to achieve here, Van, but I would like the lattice to be detailed for the staff prior to the COA. Sure. I think it's important that, you know, there are lattices and there are lattices. You know what I'm talking about. We're not going to do what they did to the Bell House. Mr. Porter, you want to add that as a formal condition? I would. Okay. So if I'm hearing you correctly, that the lattice detail be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the installation of the lattice? Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. All right. Any other comments or concerns from the board members? Any comments or concerns from the audience? If not, then the chair will call the question. I actually have no I actually ask for a motion please first I have a motion Mr. Chair I'll make a motion for case number 19130337-F at 337 Transylvania Park move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness conditional upon the following three items Number one, that the applicant submit details of the proposed lattice to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Number two, that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, that those be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. And finally, that once reviewed by other LFUCD divisions, that any changes be submitted to the staff or the board for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any further comments regarding this application? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. The certificate is approved. Let the record note that I abstain from this particular item. Thank you. Now turning to 344 Transimini Park. Is the applicant here? I don't see him. The staff report was emailed to the applicant, and he is not present. Okay. This is a construct new screen porch on an existing deck, and again, we just have the standard two conditions. I don't see any reason why we can't move forward. Do we have any comments from the board members? I don't feel that there's enough information in the submittal to really understand what is being proposed. I feel that the, I mean, maybe I'm missing some drawings, but I'm just seeing some very rough sketches and a very rough indication of framing members with no details. and I just don't feel like I understand what this is. Okay, Mr. Dennis. Eric, did you review this with Mr. Dixon and get a better feel for it other than what he's showing in these? Yes, we tried to get more complete drawings and were unsuccessful, other than having discussions with him to where we felt like we knew what he was doing, but I can't speak to specific details for him. I guess my concern is that these drawings, you know, you may have had discussions with him, but should he build something that's – he could easily build something that complies with these drawings that's really bad. I agree. And I don't think we'd have any recourse if that were the case. I don't know. Maybe we would, but it would certainly be a lot more difficult. If I may, the staff would like to concur with your concern and urge that this not be forwarded without better drawings. Okay, then. And if I'm hearing a sentiment that perhaps we need better drawings, the concern, of course, always is that with some people who are lay people, to make them go to the expense of hiring an architect, this is where they get really infuriated with the whole H-1 overlay program. Well, and it's for that very reason, as you've outlined, and I know all the board members are aware of it, that I'm sure Barry and his communications work very diligently to come to an understanding about what he's proposing, because we do have property owners who just don't have the skills, certainly themselves, nor do they have a friend who's a draft person and things like that, resulting in what you suggested. But at the end of the day, it does have to meet a certain level so that the concern that Mr. Pohl pointed out doesn't happen, which is how do we enforce and assure that what is built is within what was approved. And I don't believe that the material that is on paper thus far meets that. Okay. Would it be out of line, and I'm saying this with great hesitancy, would it be out of line for Mr. Dennis to assist Mr. Dixon in preparing a plan? It's always a gray area. I know. Without reviewing something you've drawn, what would be ideal is if we had a person in another piece of the government who could facilitate a drawing, which thus far we don't really have that. But we certainly let us, I think what I would suggest is just let us see what we can do to have the outcome not be more burdensome than the least possible and still get drawings that are able to at least be firmly determined what's approved. Okay, well, since we've opened the case, then I guess what we need to do is continue it to another date. Okay. And that date would be? The first meeting in August, which is the 9th. We believe we're looking for calendars. It's August 9th. All right. I'm not in disagreement with that, obviously. The plans were sketchy, and I was looking at it, and this is a little rough. And I may have been influenced by the fact that I know Mark and probably was just willing to let it go. He's been here before. Oh, yeah. And he clearly is in love with his property and wants to do the right thing. So it's certainly not a personal issue. Well, let's do this. Let's go ahead and continue it. Let me have a motion to that effect and see if we can get some better plans. Do I have a motion to continue this hearing to August 9, 2017? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Do I have any comments from the audience? If not, then the Chair will call the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries and we are postponed or continued to August 19, 2017. All right. Turning now to attachment number 7, 440 West 3rd Street, Northside Historic District. Scope of work is constructed addition with covered stoop roof over existing raised patio addition to garage and expand paving. Is the applicant here? No. She is on her way. She is not here at the moment because she thought it was a longer agenda, so wasn't going to show her. She was planning to be here. She is planning to be here. She is on her way. Okay. Well, she may have to wait until we get done with what's going to be a fairly extensive review, I think. All right, then. Let's move to attachment number 8, 601 Boonesboro Avenue. Is the applicant here? Come forward, please. State your name for the record, please. It's Jim Griggs. Thank you. I think what we're going to do is basically we asked for a continuance so that the staff could do additional review. And I think probably the best way to open this procedure is to have the staff present its review. Sure. And then we'll let you respond. Is that fair to you? Oh, I'm fine with that. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chair, the previous case's applicant has just arrived, and I don't know if what you want to do. I'm getting a nod that there's no objection to going back to it. Okay. Okay. You're okay with that? All right. So we're back on. I have misplaced my agenda. Hang on. And obviously 440 West 3rd Street Right, and that just is reflective of the fact that there is a substantial case Okay Just in the nick of time Right in the nick of time This is 440 West 3rd Street Would you state your name for the record? I'm Tom Berg, the architect Okay, have you reviewed the staff recommendations there? Yes and are you in agreement with them or do you want to have a discussion about I believe they wanted to change the paving. Change what, I'm sorry? Limit the extent of the paving on the driveway. Item three in your conditions. If you go to your last page. Well, yeah, keep on going. Keep on going. Did you get the correct? Item three. Right. It was discussed, could we, we have a landscape designer on board who would like to offer more detailed plans for hard surface. Okay. Can that come back at staff level or something like that for the hard surface? Well, what we could do is we could continue the case, give additional details to the staff and see if that will resolve the issue. Yeah. Mr. Kerr? Continue the entire case. Yeah. Would you like to have the other conditions approved so you can move forward? That's correct. We'd like to move forward with the additions and whatnot, the garage, the additions. Okay, so the rest of it is the doors and windows on the new addition be one light in lieu of multi-pane. Fine. I agree with that. Yes. Final details of the stonework come back to the staff. Yes. And the other two would be if any changes needed after the work is started, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work. Finally, once reviewed by the other divisions, recent many changes. And so we'll postpone or continue further discussion on the extent of paving. Correct? I just want to be sure I'm clear on language. If we get approval for all of this and then we come back to staff to show that to them, or does it need to come back here? I'm not sure. The staff's not empowered to approve paving like that. We're not empowered to approve paving. So categorically, you're going to need to be at the BOAR proper at the Board. Also, may I offer one other option process-wise? Amelia just had mentioned to me, and it's not a bad thought at all, and that's to withdraw the paving piece of this and then submit it separately, and that way it's under whatever schedule works with you all. But August 9th is the next available meeting. We don't have a quorum for the next meeting, second meeting in July. So just be aware that August 9th is the first available, and of course you'll need to meet the legal notice requirements, which you're aware of. Bring some lead time. So the deadline is tomorrow to get legally advertised for August 9th. So if you thought you were going to be ready within 10 days of the August 9 meeting to provide at the staff end your materials, you might want to ask for a continuance to August 9. And then the option is you could at August 9 withdraw it if you're not ready. I'm trying to offer up things that will allow you the most timing options. you can't obviously if you withdrew the case and still you know a week from now wanted to come on august 9 that would not be possible when is the next august meeting the next meeting would be how far out because our construction isn't going to go that quick anyway august 23rd we could alternatively we could just continue the paving to august 23rd and that would give the staff enough or withdraw it withdraw that piece now right and they'll give you ample time let's just do it that That just cleans it up. Okay. I think it's a good choice. All right. So I'm hearing from you. You're going to withdraw that portion of the application that pertains to the paving. Everyone will go ahead and assume that. I actually have a question. All right. Go ahead. In the staff findings, they were talking about the curved front stair and not recommending that be replaced with a square stoop. But that's not on the actual recommendations the staff made. So I was wondering if we were recommending approving changing that stoop or if you want to, you're okay with it. All right. Okay. What are we doing? While it's not enumerated, there's no issue with it, so that's why it's, okay, there's no recognition of any conditions that would be for that approval. Okay. Do you have a photograph with the original? Yeah, it's not in the drawings. I would like to look at it to see what we're giving up. And can... Mr. Burton, is it? Yeah, Burke. Tom Burton. Can you explain why they want to change this? I think it was their feeling that it wasn't as good looking as they'd liked it to be. It was thought that it wasn't really original. I don't know that for certain. Those were our thoughts. And is there also a photograph of the full door? Is any of that going to change? The door? Oh, no, no. Even the stone plinths and the stone step, all that stays. It's just the brick below that bottom stone plinth that the column pilaster is sitting on. It's all of that that comes out that we thought was not well done. looks a little tired doesn't really look original to me but are there any records of whether it was brick or stone before I don't know to be honest I don't the staff tried to research of course on this matter and we had a photograph that's not really was a survey photograph right so in 1970s late 70s and it looked like although it was through the bushes. So take this with a grain of salt. But we got magnifying glass out, did all we could. It looked like it was a square porch base, really a stoop, but probably of brick. It appeared to be brick. But it didn't necessarily appear to be this brick. Of course, it's black and white photographs, so all bets are off in terms of color matches or anything. But the rhythm of the joints and all seemed different. And so we came to the informal and somewhat not fully informed, not for lack of trying, decision that it is probably a late 1980s probably replacement. And therefore thought the, pardon the pun, door is open to the board to consider replacing it with something that is also an appropriate replacement. And I will say we thought stone would be a compatible material. I think our thought process isn't fully in there. The paragraph, we got started, and then we didn't quite finish the thoughts on this stoop. We've been a little unusually overrun, it seems like. But we talked about the materials. And thought stone, again, is in compliance with the guidelines as proposed. Okay. Well, let's compromise then and suggest that we add a condition that the existing detail of the final stoop come back to staff for review and approval. Does that work for you all? Yeah, I would be very concerned if that stone were creek stone or standard limestone that's overused in walls around town. I think it would need to be a cut stone, a very large scale for it to be appropriate. I think it needs to be thick and heavy. I agree. And, you know, frankly, I'm sorry to see the curve go because I think it has a very nice relationship to the transom over the door. I think there's something really elegant about that plan condition and referring to the elevation. but that's not a sticking point for me and on the other hand I think it looks odd so I think actually going back to a straight stone might be better although I'm not the architect here so let's go ahead and do this let's add a condition which would be the final details as to the stone stoop be resmitted to the staff for review and approval prior to construction of work okay any further comments or concerns from the board members? Anyone from the audience have any comments or questions? I do. I have some comments. Okay. I'm really disturbed by the fact that we're getting ready to approve this garage now and that we didn't approve the previous one because in my view the previous submittal was so vastly superior to this submittal and it's really what the owner and the architect wanted, but because of the vagaries of the guidelines, we're hamstrung, and I just profoundly object to that. I think that what we're looking at here is in no way comparable to what was initially proposed. What was initially proposed would have added dramatically to the architectural quality of the neighborhood and to that property. From a historic preservation standpoint, it would have been, in my view, far superior to what we're looking at here. And yet, I think it's pretty clear to those of us who are familiar with the guidelines that this probably meets the letter of the guidelines more accurately than the previous submittal. So I wanted to bring that up because I think it points to some really fundamental problems with the guidelines that are way, for me, beyond annoying. They're really problematic. And I think that the board needs more discretion to make decisions that speak to integrity, authenticity, and issues of that kind and not be hamstrung by the guidelines in cases like this. Okay, any further comments? I'll just add a little bit to that is I do agree when I saw this, I was saddened that it wasn't the other garage because it was so nice. And I was really hoping that the solution that worked here was still going to have some of that quality that the other one had, but still meet the guidelines, and I do think that has gotten lost. But this meets the guidelines. It's not about being lost. It's a totally different scheme. Yeah, it is. But it doesn't have some of the, I don't know, there was just some nice nuances in the last one. So what happened to the original application of the garage? It was a conceptual review. Oh, that's right. Okay. Yeah. Right. Okay. I'm hearing an objection, but I'm not hearing a motion to disapprove that part of the application. Am I? I think it's, you know, I think what is submitted here is arguably within the guidelines. I'm just saying that what was proposed in the conceptual review was, in my view, vastly superior and would have been much better for the community, for the neighborhood, for the property, than what we're looking at here. So it points to a fundamental problem with the guidelines. And I think it warrants discussion probably beyond this meeting, after this meeting, in some way. But I think it needs to be addressed. It's probably an issue that should be raised with the Preservation Commission, our committee. Process-wise, that's certainly true. And I would say for just a clarification about process, you know, it's always the case that you have to review whatever the existing scenario is. and if the proposal in order to accomplish the next scope of work on a structure brings with it the outcome of a demolition, then it kicks the board, as you all are so aware, back to then determining if the historic building that would need to be demolished in order to accomplish the proposal that is considered attractive and a good outcome, that's the weighing and the balancing of the charge of the board relative to those matters. Because a historic piece of a property in the form of an outbuilding or even in a full house exists and has integrity in its own right, it doesn't lead to the given that because you might like another proposal better, that it negates the value of the resource that would need to be eradicated in order to get there. So this is not a simple thing, and you all know that, and you're struggling with it, obviously. But I think that I would caution that because something else in a proposal is a possibility, There are usually several really great ways to solve a lot of these needs, and the fact that some of those result in taking up the footprint on a site that's already occupied, therein brings the maybe this isn't the place to put it. Or the flip side is, is the garage of historic significance enough that the plan needs to do what it's done now, which is be altered in order to result in retaining the garage? So I guess I'm suggesting I don't believe there's a flaw in the guidelines. I think it is an innate reality of weighing existing scenarios, the intent of the process, and desired outcomes. And desired outcomes aren't always possible given the existing conditions and everything in between. And that's exactly why you guys are sitting up there working so diligently to resolve these applications. So this is no critique or criticism on anybody's part of this, not on the designer's end, not on the property's owner's end, not on the board's end. But this is the innate tug and pull of what this process is charged with. So I don't think this is going to add to anything today, but I would caution that the fact that a different outcome is architecturally more successful, It's a temptation, but not necessarily appropriate tied to what we're charged with protecting and or what's possible within a footprint of a site, a structure, anything like that. So that's just my two thoughts on the general mission here. I think there are many attractive solutions to design issues. but under it is we have to do no harm first. So that's just some thoughts. If I recall correctly, we were also concerned during the conceptual review about losing too much of the fabric of the original garage with the proposed plan, which was very interesting. I'm now remembering it. It was just that there was that concern being expressed that we were losing too much of the original fabric. This plan at least saves, to a certain extent, the existing garage. The previous plan, no one is going to suggest, wasn't very delightful and very exciting. But it resulted in the loss of the historic resource to any level of integrity. It resulted in needing to take it down and retain a portion that's a reference to something that is truly gone in terms of its integrity as the element it was built to be in the 1920s. So that first threshold that you have to cross in order to then weigh how you accomplish the needs of your client and all the things that we all struggle with all the time, But that's the first threshold. Mr. Polar, I remember you were saying earlier on during the conceptual, well, I don't know if we've talked about the elephant in the room, the elephant in the room being the historic garage. So I'm not suggesting there's an easy solution to this, and certainly maybe not today, but I just wanted to kind of reiterate, based on the intent of the guidelines and how not only this community's guidelines but all across the nation are structured, that this is part of that baseline that we're charged with. Sometimes things are real tempting about possible other solutions, but you've first got to cope with what you're charged with protecting. And ultimately it comes down to the property owner should be the one exercising a certain degree of control over what they're going to be instructing so long as they comply with the guidelines. And as the staff has determined, evidently, although this is not perhaps the best conceptualization, it certainly is compatible with the guidelines and can be approved as such. We like to grudge, is the problem here. And the only last sentence I'd say is the board members and the staff don't have to, I mean, we all agree to disagree in different ways every day. and we're all pretty good at doing it cordially, thankfully, for the most part. You all don't all individually or as a body need to agree with the staff's interpretation and professional opinion in the sense about the significance of this garage. Now, I'm not lobbying for you all to back up and say, well, we don't think the garage is historic, but I'm just saying that that's part of what is in your quiver of rationales to work through as they relate to the guidelines is what is the significance of this historic garage. And we don't all have to agree on that. You all just as a board need to come to a vote that somebody provides. If I recall the facts of this case correctly, that garage is built at the same time as the house, has the same kind of brick in it, is of the same age, and is in relatively good repair, is it not? That's all correct. Okay. And it's a Warfield Gratz house and garage. That makes a demolition permit difficult then. And so certainly from the staff's perspective, we would strongly agree with everything you just said, and we've already reflected in the staff report and recommendation that we strongly believe it is a historic element. But I'm just saying process-wise, again, in terms of the tugs and pulls that you all are obviously reflecting in your discussion, I kind of wanted to go through the pieces of what your procedural options are. Okay. I'm disappointed that I don't see – well, let me ask you, what was your approach when you went back to the drawing board on this one, so to speak? Well, clearly the design is just much more contextual. I mean, when you have a structure that needs to stay, adding a structure onto it that's more than or as equally as size and scale as the existing structure to create a modern element to that, to me, would be a schizophrenic design. It just would not be in balance. So it's clearly not a modernist expression, intentionally not meant to be. It's meant to simply keep the brick, keep the structure as we can, and get a two-car garage at it. Let's just be blunt. I mean, what more can be done? There's only two approaches. deviate from historic precedent or be contextual with it and proportional as possible to the gables, to the scale? I'm not sure that you aren't overreacting to having that original garage there and I'm really disappointed because we all liked what you did before. But I don't think this is a good either or. And all of your other work seems so careful. And this just seems a little trite. And I know you're, I'm confident that you're really better than that. I was hoping that you would find a way to leave that simple form that the old garage has and still be able to work with a contemporary language to enlarge it. and I'm just really disappointed because I'd like to see a couple of other runs at it. And I think you'd feel a whole lot better about it if you could bring it together with a real contemporary addition to it. And with this, I'd say that you're not particularly happy with this. Hi there. The traffic was a little thick out there. If you'll stay tuned in for the record, please. Angela Forsey with Greystone. I'm the contractor on the project. Right. The client did not want that. They did not want what? They did not want to take this direction. If the original historic architecture remained, they wanted the addition to be more traditional. It is their home. It is their garage. They're the people that are going to be looking at it. This is a reflection of what they were comfortable with. I've got it. That's helpful. Thank you. Okay, as I said, we have the following options. We can either move forward and approve the application and agree that the paving section will be withdrawn for further consideration in another application. You also have the option of disapproving and saying it's not within the guidelines, the proposed garage, and you're going to have to make findings to that effect. we move forward and we approve the application as submitted for our conversation. This is the lawyer in me talking at this point. I think if we hadn't seen the initial scheme, we would have gone for this and would have been okay with it. That's the problem. And just to make one last remark to throw another wrench in the works, You know, Betty's explanation is really helpful and absolutely dead-on correct. But I would point out that she used the word resource to describe this original garage. And in my view, had we approved the scheme that was submitted with the conceptual review, that we would have a resource that would so outweigh the advantage of the resource that we're preserving here that there's no comparison. And, you know, so that's my opinion. All right. I am going to ask now for a motion. I think we have perhaps discussed this issue to its logical end. Do I have a motion from somebody? I can make an effort here. All right. Thank you. Regarding case number 18800440-J at 440 West 3rd Street, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with the following requirements. first that sorry that the door and window on the new addition be one light in lieu of multi-panel that final details of the stone come back to the staff for review that the paving pulled from the application and what's the word, continue to a future? Actually, it's withdrawn. Sorry? It's withdrawn. The paving portion has been withdrawn. So it will be resubmitted later. Right. Okay, so the understanding that the paving portion of the application is withdrawn. Right. That all final details need to be submitted prior to the issuance of a permit, that this would include details of the front stoop to replace the existing stoop, and that if any changes need to be made after work is started, that alter the information submitted. Those changes should be resubmitted to the staff for review and approval part of the start of the affected work. And finally, that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Okay. Do I have a second? I second. All right. Any further discussion concerning the motion? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. The certificate of appropriateness as stated by Mr. Gopo is approved. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let me turn our attention now. And, of course, I've lost it. We are now at 601 Boonesboro Avenue. Replace the bludge fin with Paul. I think we were almost starting that particular application, and I believe we're going to start with a staff presentation regarding its findings as to the synthetic and the compounds of material. Correct. I want to re-familiarize you with the house itself, so we'll walk around clockwise. That's, of course, the front elevation. here's the details of the trim you also have images in front of you with further details of trim this is of course the image of the front gable this is on the it's actually east elevation it's not the west elevation which would be clockwise Again, more details of the front gable. This is actually the return. Going back to the other side, here's an image of the front gable and the dormer. Another view of the dormer. Front dormer. Details. This is going back to that return. And going clockwise, this is the west side of the structure. Then this is the side gable. That's the west side. Right. Right. Right. And this is where they've exposed this element so you can see the woodwork. Again, they've been in process of looking at the structure. This is an image of the kitchen window. It indicates the brick mold. This is actually the east side basement window, the detail, and this is actually the detail above the window. This is the rear elevation. And this shows, of course, with the addition removed. You get a little closer detail. This is, of course, what the addition looked like prior to the removal of the addition. In two of these items, of course, this addition, this dormer and the addition, had previously been heard by the Board, and they were heard by the Board April 12th, and a certificate of appropriateness has been issued for the replacement of the dormer enlargement, and part of the request here is to replace the siding and the trim work with the boreal material. Previously, it was just noted as non-wood trim. The addition has not received a permit yet, but has received approval from this body. And there, he's asking to use that material on this addition as well. Of course, the whole proposal also is to replace the details, which include the molding, the brick and the crown mold, the cornice and the fascia. and as we see this is of course turning the corner going on to the east side and you can see the detail where the addition was taken down and that there was a continuous box gutter that had been overshot and of course removed when the addition was put on and now they have the case style gutters on the structure This is sort of on the east side. This is brick mold detail. Some more details of the windows. And this is the east elevation. Some more details of the windows. And then, of course, here's that basement window we saw earlier. Some windows. And back to the structure. And, of course, as you remember, the... Amelia, may I interrupt one second? Sure. Staff would note that we've put at your places the further photographs, And the reason for these is that they are tighter shots with a big zoom lens of some of these features. So they are not the same pictures you've seen, although there are certainly details of the images and other aspects of the building. But we just thought that you could see them more clearly, given the lighting in this room, with the bigger zoom lens is why you have that. And Mr. Griggs, you have this. Did we get to hand you that? Thank you. I'm sorry, Amelia. That's okay. Just to back up and to give you sort of an order, of course, as you remember, on March 12th is actually the date where he was heard to enlarge the rear dormer and rebuild the sunroom, and as I mentioned before, one that the dormer has gotten a certificate of appropriateness, and the addition is pending with some changes that might be heard at this meeting. On April 12, the Board heard about the reconstruction of the porch, what we see in front of here, and he was able, because this is new construction, to install the Burrell material on this, but retaining a wood porch. And I would mention that, of course, this case has been continued from the March 24th meeting date to have further information, and the Board members requested further information regarding how other communities, local historic districts process and address Burrell true exterior material and if it's been used in other historic houses in Lexington. In addition, if the Burrell material products, and Mr. Mott, he was a representative from Burrell, who was here mentioned that it was being used at the West Family Wash House in Checkertown in Harrisburg, Kentucky, and we have some previous information report on that. and in addition we have, and then we continue this case until now to hear this case. Of course, at this time, the applicant is asking to replace the existing historic trim, which includes the brick mold cornice, facial and crown mold, and the front trim on the front dormer and the previously reared, pre-approved rear dormer in the addition. And the guidelines are included for your reference. To reference attachment A for a little bit, we have looked at previous cases within Lexington to find out if this boreal material is used. Our approval of synthetic material really started in 2009 when the Historic Preservation Commission permitted, fiber cement board or cementitious board to be used. And so from now to June 2017, we've actually had only 13 cases where fiber cement board siding has actually been installed on structures and then had permits. But it's not a full replacement. It's a partial replacement. And these scenarios are due because it's not original siding where the site had been replaced in the 80s and was in poor condition because of the bad wood. It's been a later addition, garages, and for new construction. And then broadly within other communities, we've looked for practically about 200 cases, 200 communities and local historic districts to find out what they were doing for fiber cement board. And as we found out, they largely tie all their guidelines to the Secretary of Interior Standards, which talks about retention first and then replacement as last resort. And then we also looked at other materials such as the alternative, like an article published by the Columbus, Ohio Preservation Board about alternative materials and their use in historic district. We also looked, of course, closely, as you've received in your packet, the Preservation Brief 16 about the use of substitute materials in historic buildings. We also looked at a thesis done by a lady for the University of Pennsylvania where it talks about the choice of substitute material on historic preservation. We found mostly that largely, like I said, the secretaritarian standards is used greatly, and they really stress in kind. But as many cities like Lexington, there are particular scenarios where everything is sort of looked on a case-by-case basis. And you can see in this summary the cities that look at in-care repair, but then if that's not feasible, going back to what you can do and how you can replace it. We find mostly that very few communities allow synthetic materials on the front, on the existing structure and historic structure. Mostly allow for new additions, and occasionally there are some communities such as Pittsburgh or places where the houses are close together where you have available to use them on the sides and the rear. And those communities are listed in here. Let me ask a question to make sure I'm clear on some terms. When you're referring to cementous materials, are you talking about composite materials? And that's largely what we've found, because we actually found that Burrell is never actually used, per se, in the communities I've looked at. So cementitious siding is a composite siding, and it consists of concrete and polymers mixed together, and wood chips mixed together. What I'm trying to get at, is Burrell a similar type material, or is it completely different? Burrell is different, because it's a fly ash base and polymer. and it's relatively really new. And as I understand from your findings, it's very porous? A lot of, as many of these composite materials are used, I mean, I think we can't single out Borel as just being the most porous. I think in general, these materials are difficult to use sometimes. Okay. But the large majority of what we found is that siding is the most prominent amount of composite or synthetic material or substitute material allowed in any historic districts. The other thing to reflect back is to Shaker Town. We did talk to, staff talked to Shaker Town and talked to the property management for Shaker Town and specifically what was going on with that material. and I'll show you some images of our staff site visit to Shakertown. This is actually the West Wash House building. And this is, according to our discussions with the Kentucky Heritage Council, this is a test case, and so we're sort of testing this. But largely, the material used on this is actually the siding and the corner board trims, But the window surrounds and sills are all actually mahogany and not use a plurile. And as you can see, there is the top. In this location, it's still actually going to be part of the wood siding, and that we'll see on the rear, too. This is the front of that elevation. And here is a side showing the rear. That will remain wood, where the other parts will be, the boreal material. And, of course, this is the siding where, and we'll look a little closer at this. That's the upper portion, that's wood. This is the lower portion. That is the Burrell material. They did find that it has been difficult to use. And it was porous. This is the material sitting out. these are some issues with the use of Burrell that they're encountering on the installation where it's splitting in some places the material itself is splitting? as you see that is the Burrell? Do they know why it's splitting? Is it just that fragile? It is very fragile and shatters, so to speak, easily. One of the things that was very interesting about this, they've had to do the attaching in frequent intervals, rhythmically in frequent intervals, like every two feet or so. And those are exposed head, very visible. Of course, when it's finished painted, they'll be covered over. But one of the things they talked about, so after it's applied is when the cracks are starting to appear. This isn't things that have happened while they're installing. They've come back to it to find cracks forming in the product. and so they don't know exactly why it's doing it other than the stress of it is obviously splitting. They're having troubles with it undulating and hence all the connection points so rhythmically. But even doing with that, there were still undulations where when you're standing very close and look up at that wall, you would see gaps in the way the material is lying. So it was very educational to go and talk to the craftsmen who were working with this because to see the product actually being used on a historic structure. Now, certainly here in Lexington we have the product in some new construction being used and that sort of thing. but this instance is limited to Clapbird with the corner boards in Boral, as Amelia has said, but they made the decision to limit to that and to do the windows, as she's referenced in the mahogany on this test case. The reason they're calling it the test case is relative to the State Office. Their role in review has been tied to utilization by Shakertown of the historic tax credits. at the state level only. They are not pursuing the federal tax credits, and I think I indicated in your materials about that. But as you saw in the materials, Shakertown is not going to be approved relative to the tax credit review for use of Boral on the primary structures. They're partly tying this willingness to do this as a test, and I think they're very serious about it. They want to give this thing the chance and see how it all works out, but they're limiting it to a secondary building very purposefully. And I would like to continue that thought that, as such, we know that, or we're not as clear about whether the Federal Historic Tax Credits have used this product, but given the fact that those are based on the Secretary-to-year standards, there's a high chance that that has not been the case. And, of course, we also talked to contractors locally, and we also talked to construction companies or building supply companies. And they've said they've really sold more trim than they have siding here in Lexington. And we've seen that, actually, because we've had no application for actually Burrell siding to come forward. and also we did talk to some people like it and some people don't like it. We've had a mixed communication from various contractors. To continue and go back to the actual findings, for clarity, the proposed scope of work will be evaluated as it relates to the design guidelines in two segments. First will be the proposed renovations, which directly affect the main mass of the historic structure. Following will be the rear roof dormer, which previously was approved by the BYR to enlarge, along with the previously approved demolition of the rear existing construction of new addition on the first floor at the rear of the historic house. The proposal to replace existing historic trim on the historic structure and clad the front dormer sidewalls with Borel true exterior is not appropriate or within the design guidelines. The guidelines regarding rehab, rehabilitation, and renovation of architectural details in the future respectively state, 1A, B, C, and D, architectural details shall be retained and maintained. It should not be removed or changed if it is original to the building. It shall be repaired rather than replaced. This classic example of this 1910's Pyramid's Roof Brick Cottage with Projecting Bay and hip-to-roof dormer still remains a substantial amount of original woodwork in mold, cornice, fascia, soffit that is relatively intact. While the house certainly suffers from long-term maintenance, and these character-defining features of the historic structure are significant and have largely survived despite the lack of maintenance. In accordance with the design guideline, these significant features should be repaired in kind and needed with wood. if needed repair. More or the substantive water damage that has affected the soffit boards below the historic box gutter, which have been overshot at some previous time, the soffit also should be replaced as needed with wood in accordance with the design guidelines. Any missing or severely deteriorated element should be replaced with wood that reflects similar design, texture, dimensions, appearance as also noted in the guidelines. The front dormer should reflect the same retention or repair in kind with the wood as needed with the trim features, etc., with one exception. The sidewalls of the front dormer have over time come to be clad with asphalt shingle, as has the rear dormer, and since the historic wood and its character has been previously lost, the applicant may continue the existing condition by using cementitious board for the siding, consistent with grandfathering in material reflective of a later change. The cementitious board has been approved as an alternative material by the Historic Preservation Commission for new additions and new construction in a very limited pre-existing change situation. The use of cementitious board in this situation is consistent with the intent and the guidelines and consistent with how similar historic dormers have been handled by the H-1 process since 2009. The design principle for siting states, siting when replacement is necessary in kind is recommended to match existing in dimension profile. Semanticious board may be considered if total replacement is necessary. A similar scenario to that describes above what exists on the rear dormer. However, it should be noted that the new construction that are to be utilized relative to the new rear dormer are those of new construction, as the board has previously approved the rear dormer being enlarged. The use of cementitious board is allowed to be considered for siding and new construction and may be considered in this application. Guideline 2A41 states additions should be of materials compatible with historic fabric of the house. The use of wood is appropriate. However, cementitious board may be considered for additions. According to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Building States, Preservation is defined as the act and the process of applying measures necessary to abstain the existing form, integrity, and materials of historic property. It continues to state the standards for preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building's historic form. The statement mentioned above, along with the LFUCG design guidelines, emphatically emphasized that the historic material is equally as important as the mass and the form of the structure. The replacing of the historic fabric with inappropriate substitute material compromises historic integrity and weakens the historic significance of the structure. Repairs should be compatible in the historic structure and not be accomplished if they result in the loss and damage to historic fabric. Additions and new construction are both areas of the structure where new materials are allowed to be considered. philosophically the existing historic structure should retain and reflect continuity of traditional historic material appropriate to the age and the style of the historic structure and new construction in design and material should reflect today's time period. In light of the period above, the new construction portion of this application in the only area in which the synthetic boreal true exterior may be able to be considered with the intent of the design guidelines. Through the noted research study, HPE does find that the product interest as an option to be considered for new construction, but only for new construction. Staff finds the historic material should be retained, but if it is not present, then it is replaced with new wood to match historic fabric of the house in the historic district. Recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the use of the Borel true exterior on new construction elements with the following conditions. conditions. Installation of the Borel to exterior or new construction consisting of previously approved expanded rear dormer and new rear addition. All final details need be submitted prior to the issuance of that permit. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted and resubmit the changes to allow for review and approval prior to the start of work. And once reviewed by other LFUC divisions, resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Staff recommends disapproval of the Borel true exterior siding on the front dormer walls and recommends it be approved to use cementitious board for wall siding. Staff recommends disapproval of the replacement for the front dormer trim, brick mold, cornice, fascia, and crown mold of the historic structure with the Borel true exterior. Okay, thank you very much. The Chair will note that we have an undated letter from a Tracy Hawkins. She is expressing her concerns about the use of what she calls human-made materials, and that letter is referenced to the board for its review. And while you are absolutely correct, it's undated. It was received by email today. Okay. So, and Tracy is Hawkins, I think is the last name is actually a gentleman who owns the property and is a contractor for his profession and is renovating his house, basically. And I should know better, because I had a good friend named Tracy, and he was male. There you go. It's always to be wondering. All right. Mr. Griggs, after that presentation, we'd like to hear from you, obviously. And do you have some materials you want to bring up to? Can you detach? If you're going to talk to us with the materials in hand, detach that microphone from the other one, that one. This one? Chunky one, yeah. Will this work for the short term? Yeah, it'll work for the moment. Sure. Uh-huh. When you come up here with your materials, though, I'm trying to say bring the microphone with you. Okay. All right. That letter from Tracy Hawkins, was that in support or in? I'm sorry. I thought you had seen it. It's basically. Yeah. Excuse me. Go ahead. I'll read the substance of the letter. Basically, he is saying, in roughly 1998, I rebuilt the box gutters at 219 Bell Place. I used Douglas fir bead board for soffits. I decided to prime and paint the back side of the boards in hopes it would add stability to the wood, which it did. However, this turned out to be a snake, which has resulted in yet another framing repair. I recently discovered that two front gutter drops on the house had been leaking. I noticed the problem and damage showed up in the soffit. Because the back of the boards were primed and painted, it took quite some time for the water to make its way through the paint and rot the soffit boards. The water sat on top of the boards and exposed the raffer tails to more water than they would have been if the boards had not been painted. This is an area, in my opinion, that is not appropriate to use a more rot-resistant human-made material. If I had used such material, I'm certain the leaks would not have revealed themselves yet and would still be exposing the structure to further damage. So actually she's trying to say the leaks were a good thing because they came so promptly as opposed to letting it really rot out her soffits. I understand the impulse and desire to make such a choice. However, when choosing material for soffit, particularly below a box cutter, I think that material must be seen as sacrificial, much like the appropriate mortar in a brick wall. My genuine hope is that my experience will help others. Signed, bearing the name of Tracy Hawkins. Thank you. That was the very issue I brought up in our last hearing of this case, which caused me to recommend making holes in the bottom of the soffit material so that it would drain in the case that there was a leak into it. So there are options. Okay. All right, Mr. Ricks? I don't have anything in this talk about the porous issue that they just mentioned with Porell. I had a piece of inch-and-a-half material that was sawed, and there are some small voids in it, but porous seems like the wrong word because that sounds like water would go through it. But I do believe that some air bubbles get trapped in this material, and you would discover them when you cut it. and you can glaze over them and sand them out. Very tiny holes. First of all, I'd like to thank the staff for the time they spent researching Boral and the board for allowing this case to continue while they did that work. I got the staff report Monday afternoon. Only a couple of pages into it, I began to realize how little I understand this process. Kim and I have never taken apart an old house and tried to rebuild it. We were clueless about the H-1 overlay and the approval process, and this house probably not the best one for beginners. We are four years into it now. Kim and I have done most of the work ourselves. Amelia has been wonderful through it all. Here's the point, and it's embarrassing. It's true, one of our highest priorities is to make this house low maintenance. Once the Marvin extruded aluminum windows were approved, borel was the obvious choice for brick mold. You can mill it and it's suitable for masonry contact. Now don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if you approved borel for all the exterior trim and siding, but I never meant to rule out cementitious products. I like James Hardy products. My objective here is simply to rebuild the cornice, the west gable, the back addition, and the dormers using some combination of borel to exterior and Hardy trim and siding. I spent hours preparing for this hearing, all of it intended to gain the support of giving Boral a chance. I was pleasantly surprised with the staff recommendations on page 9 that they seemed to agree Boral deserves a chance. So unless the Board is skeptical about Boral True Exterior as a viable product, I will put those arguments aside. Now, this business at Shakertown is shocking. and I think in the, I have four, not including a garage that's coming later, places where I'd like to put a maintenance-free siding on. And I have 16-year-old Hardy Plank at the house I live in now and it was painted with two coats of Porter paint, high quality, and it still looks as good 16 years later as it did when I put it up. So for all the siding on my house, I'm happy with the smooth side out Hardy Plank. In an effort to whittle the issues before us down to a manageable size, let me say that I agree with the staff's first two recommendations, and the first part of number three, in that I agree that the front dormer trim is not in bad shape. The front corner boards are rotted at the bottom, but I can salvage enough material from the back dormer to make the needed repairs with original lumber. That leaves three items. desire to replace the cornice, by which I mean the soffit, fascia, and crown that circumnavigates the whole house with boreal true exterior or hardy trim, to replace the brick mold with boreal, and we need to address the west gable siding, because that's not really mentioned in this staff report. 601 Boonesboro, as you know, is in deplorable condition. We are bringing it back from the dead. As you requested, I've provided elevations and details that clearly show the parts of the house I need to rebuild. There is some original fabric, but most of the cornice and the framing that holds it together are beyond repair. It's sad that this house was vacant for 20 years and neglected for who knows how long, but that's also what makes it worthy for special consideration. This picture. This picture. If you don't mind passing that up, I'll talk to you on the other mic. Okay. Is there one for each of us? Yes. Very good. Thank you, sir. It's very similar to the drawing or the photo that Amelia had shown. But what I wanted to explain was, on that section, this spring, while we were stabilizing the roof structure, and before I understood the need for a certificate of appropriateness, we stripped the soffit off the house on the back west side. We replaced long sections of rotted plate. You can see right above the brick, the new wood. Two seven-foot lengths on a 20-foot section of wall. The original box gutter framing fell apart in our hands, and we were showered with termites. We added new box gutter framing, blocking between each one to support the rafters above, and a portion of sub-facia. The next day, I got the Certificate of Appropriateness for the front porch rebuild with clear instructions that the borel was approved for the front porch only and nowhere else, so we stopped. That photo was taken recently, but it's been like that for almost two months. My slide presentation in the first half of this hearing took you on a trip around the house, proving the poor Cornish condition is prevalent everywhere. I have the thumb drive if you would like to review those photos. I have removed the back addition where the roof attached to the main house, the Cornish, is completely gone. And there were pictures that Amelia had of the back porch removed, and that's where the cornice is gone. So if you are in agreement that the cornice is going to be replaced, the question is, can you allow borel to exterior or hardy trim? Now, after Amelia's presentation, I'm not sure you're convinced that the cornice is gone, but it's going to have to be taken apart to replace the plate over the brick. and the ceiling joists that come out and did before it was overshot created the box gutters. All that framework behind the fascia and the soffit is subject. And I took pictures of that cornice where there are four different pieces of soffit in 14 feet. It's been cobbled together. I've got a piece of plywood that's part of it. It looks okay in her photographs, but it's a mess, and it hasn't been fully discovered. I'm not sure what I do to do the frame repair. If I take those delicate boards off or the plywood, am I supposed to put them back? That's part of what this is about. I think the cornice needs to come apart. and I will give some credit to the farther you get up above the box gutters, the more stable it is. That front dormer, it is one of the better parts of the house, and as I said, I'm happy to keep it. And the rakes, if that's the right terminology for the gable ends, those are pretty high up on the house, and I don't know that they're termite damaged, and they are part of the best looking of the original, if you still consider that cornice, that goes up and down those gables. So what I'm really worried about is the horizontal cornice around the house. Not so much the gable ends, although the one on the west, because of its proximity to the property line, is going to have to be torn off and put back with fireproofing behind it, including all of the cornice under it. So I've gotten a little off my script. I'm going to go back to it, but I'd like you to know that I'm really just trying to figure out how to get this house done. And it would break my heart to take that stuff apart and then put up finger-jointed new-growth wood and paint it when they've got these products that seem superior. So I've got four pages of this big print. That's all I've got, except for a letter of support that I'd like to read at the end. Go ahead. So So I got off track because I was getting emphatic about how bad that cornice is. So if you're in agreement that the cornice is going to be replaced, the question is, can we use these high-tech materials? The design principle says if details need to be replaced, the new material should match the original as closely as possible. Regarding exterior wood, Congleton lumber sells finger joint cedar and clear redwood. The finger joint material is considered best for painted applications and comes with two coats of Olympic primer. Both contain sap wood. They also sell boral and a lot of it. The design principle says they should match the original as closely as possible. If match means having the same look and physical characteristic, I think the modern materials win. We all know the characteristics of new growth wood. Compare that to boral. Boral is dimensionally stable, and I'm talking about their trim now. I'm as shocked as anybody about the shaker count experience, and I don't know what was going on there, but this has got some strength to it. It's unaffected. It's dimensionally stable. It's unaffected by temperature changes and does not require space for expansion. And I'm talking about the trim now. It will not cup, twist, crack, or split. It mills like wood, and it accepts glue. It is impervious to water and moisture. That extends the life of a... I don't want to interrupt you. Just for the record, you're showing me a piece of original wood. Yes, sir. And showing now the boreal. Yes, and it's pretty darn close. Okay, I'm just trying to make sure the record's clear. Yeah, I should have let you know what that was. Thank you. The fact that it's impervious to water and moisture will extend the life of the paint job exponentially. It will not rot. It's suitable for ground and masonry contact. It is immune to insect damage, termites, and boring bees. It will not support mold or mildew growth or fungal decay. It will not deteriorate. I know it sounds too good to be true, but this product has gone through years of accelerated testing in its own labs and third parties. It's been on the market almost 10 years, so I know that's a new product, but it's not just been out a year or two. I searched the Internet for failures. Now, I didn't spend a lot of time on this and found none, although, as Mr. Pohl foresaw, there are warnings about trapping water behind it. Visually, there is no discernible difference between borel and wood as proof. And maybe you could pass these out. Thank you. Visually, there is no discernible difference between boral and wood. This is a photo taken last week of the house at 466 East High Street. All the trim is boral. Some misunderstanding occurred in the permitting. The construction lasted for years, and it's been years since it was completed. But the boral went unnoticed. Where is this house? 466 East High Street. it's a little bit east of the engineering firm that chairs the parking lot with John Michlers. Hogue Engineers. Yes. Okay. And so, because Borrell shares more physical characteristics with the original old-growth pine than the new growth finger joint product. I believe it meets the design principle as being a better match. Regarding issue two, the brick mold, our original brick mold was a simple 1-5-8-inch square with a half-inch chamfer. I'm going to give you a piece of it. It was nailed to the wood window frame, and they laid brick up around it. After the new windows are installed, the brick mold will need to fit between the window frame and the existing brick opening, and to be attached deeper into the house on the window mounting flange. I meant to give you this detail at the same time. Okay. I should have marked these as exhibits, I think. Go ahead. Mr. Criggs, why don't you explain to me what this is? Well, I was intending to build mill brick mold out of boral that would have the same appearance from the outside, the same reveal on the brick, the same width to the window with that half-inch chamfer, but build that piece out of one piece of burrell and then push it back into the slot and be able to attach it to that wing wall that says 2x6, for lack of a better word, that's part of my original framing. And then I'd also be able to seal the window to the... So the area marked in yellow is going to be the burrell? That would be Borel, yes, sir. All right. And it should be identical to the brick mold that's on the house now. I regret half of my original brick mold is lost. That may be an exaggeration from those photos. I know I took the brick mold off of four or five windows to facilitate caulk removal and brick cleaning. But even if I had it, the new brick mold is slightly different in length, longer, and much deeper than the original in that depth is needed for the attachment. Squeezed between extruded aluminum and the original masonry opening is no place for new growth wood but a perfect application for borel. and we're putting black windows up with black frames and we're going to paint the brick mold black. It's a red brick house. We're talking about an inch and five-eighths of material and I would really hate to put between aluminum and brick a piece of wood when I could put something on there that won't be affected by the condensation that's likely to occur there. just the connection between wood and masonry products is not a good idea. The last issue is the siding on the west gable where its proximity to the property line requires fireproofing behind the siding. The cornice on the entire bay will have to be removed as well for the same reason. I'm certainly okay with the cementitious. We're calling it cement board in our office because of the tongue twister. That's impossible. It's a hard word to pronounce. I'm certainly okay with that siding as recommended, the same siding that's recommended for the front dormer as it's part of the original. Could we see a picture of the West Cable? Do we have a picture? Yes. We'll be pulling one up. I've got it. Never mind. Oh, you found it at your place? I did. Thank you. I sort of got lost. And could I mention while you're paused, you didn't actually, on your application, state you wanted to do the gable ends, the horizontal boards. If I didn't, I'd have to refer back to my first paragraph that admits that I'm an idiot. Well, it's not that it can't be addressed. I think that the legal notice is broad enough to cover that and all, but I just wanted to note it's because it wasn't stated on it that we didn't write up about those horizontal elements. If anybody thinks that I'm not taking the blame for this, they're wrong. I'm completely responsible for leaving a part off. Well, and this is sort of just a process for everybody's knowledge, So that's why it's not in the text. I do think it's within the purview of the process for it to be discussed and acted on today because of the broader matters as they were advertised. Yeah, I don't have it on here, but it is on the detailed drawing. But I'm still taking all the blame. 466 was the one I mentioned to you a month ago. Actually, that was the one. No, not the one on it. This is High Street. Yeah, I was talking about the one. It's talking about that. Was it? I don't know. Here's the west gable. I believe we have the west versus the east. Right, and it's just a foot away from the property line, So building inspection is requiring the cornish and the siding on that gable end to be fireproofed with 5 eighths inches. Is it called type X drywall on the horizontal and the vertical surfaces? So that's got to come apart. No, it doesn't have to come apart. They're making you retroactively accomplish that. Say again, please. I think there's some technical solutions to this that you might be overlooking. Well, there's another problem. Those attic vents are illegal when you are that close to the property line. There's some solutions to these sorts of things we can work with you with in conjunction with building inspection, but keep on with your... Well, of course, I've been going into this with the objective of clearing the rotted stuff out, so it wasn't breaking my heart to take that apart and put hardy plank on there. Yes, but it's breaking ours. Well, I understand. I just have a couple more paragraphs on my big print, but I've got this letter of support I'd like to read. All right. I have a friend that lives in... If you want to finish your big print first, you may. Well, I'll just go right to this. And your letter of support is from whom? It's from Amy Lucas, and she is... Do you have an address for her, or is she Lexington? She lives in St. Paul, Minneapolis, but she grew up here. Okay. And she mentions some of the same things that I've mentioned, but she's got four pages of credentials. And so I'd just like to read this. It's addressed to you folks, and I just got it today. It was kind of a surprise. To whom it may concern, I have conducted a site visit of the property at 601 Boonesboro Avenue and understand that the property owner has asked for permission to use boreal true exterior, which will be reviewed by the Board of Architects Review on July 12th. I am a historic consultant with landscape research and meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Architecture and Architectural History. I assist property owners with the National Park Service Program for historic tax certification rehabilitation projects and am well acquainted with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and the related preservation briefs. I probably should let you know that Ms. Lucas, in her, I guess this is a resume, in 93 she got a Master's of Science from Columbia University, a graduate school of architecture, preservation and planning, with emphasis on historic preservation. And this company that she's a principal in does this work for people that are trying to save these historic buildings and get tax credits. So then she says, Preservation Brief 16, the use of substitute materials on historic building exteriors, provides guidance for the historic rehabilitation reviews with the National Park Service Architecture Division and is commonly used by local historic preservation commissions. In general, the brief states that architectural features should be repaired, but if too deteriorated, then the new replacement materials should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual properties. On my recent projects, the National Park Service and Associated Preservation Commissions have agreed on deterioration and approved cast concrete in place of sandstone and polymer shingles in place of slate roof tiles, as well as polymer wood trim. Substitute materials have been used for more than 20 years in federal-funded rehabilitation projects and are especially helpful in areas with high levels of deterioration due to snow, water, or ice, like foundations, or difficult to repair areas like cornices and high roofs. Boral True exterior wood substitute is difficult to distinguish from natural wood and has been approved by some of the most discerning architectural review boards, including that of Nantucket. As a substitute material, it is more acceptable than hardy plank, which is heavy, difficult to detail cut, and often has faux grain. The wood trim at 601 Boonesboro Avenue is severely deteriorated, and this proposed material is appropriate at this location. In fact, I applaud the owners of 601 Boonesboro Avenue for their restoration efforts and the choice of materials, which provide an exact match and will outlast the original materials. I'm unable to attend this evening's hearings, but I am available for further questions. She gives her phone number and her email address. For the record, is this a hired consultant? No, just a friend that happened to be in town this weekend. And she volunteered? I didn't ask her to do this. I told her that I was coming before you and what my application was, but this was a surprise. I only got it at 1 o'clock today. All right. I'm just clarifying for the record. Yes, it's just what it is. Okay. This from the Boral website on environmental issues. The product is cradle-to-cradle certified. It is 70% recycled material. It's produced in a state-of-the-art LEED Silver certified commercial facility in East Spencer, North Carolina. Coal combustion products are endorsed by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Green Building Council for use in construction materials, and you don't have to cut down any trees. That was not on the oral website. Just that last sentence. Okay. Individually, we are all responsible for making decisions that will lighten the burden on the planet. Those in a position to influence policy have the additional responsibility to nudge us in the right direction. I really appreciate the work you folks do, and I hope you'll find yourself in agreement with me. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to return this letter back to Ms. Kerr so it gets in the record. Yes. At this stage, do I have any questions? Mr. Griggs, don't sit down yet. Do you have any questions from the board members of Mr. Griggs or of Amelia? Do you have any need to say the same word as Mr. McGarry? Leave it up there. Mr. Cole? Okay. When you're all ready, not to interrupt, we're wanting you to go ahead, But just an FYI, when you all are ready, we do have a couple of annotations to make about a few of the things commented. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. The staff, there was one thing a property mentioned that staff would like to make some clarification about. But we're wanting to wait until you all have done your thing. Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Pohl. It's okay. Okay. I wanted to make some comments about the photos that we saw of the details at Chaker Village because it appeared to me that, first of all, the details of the house wrap were completely incorrect and also that the nail location and nail setting was incorrect also. So it brings to question, in my mind, the quality of the installation there. Those nails were set with the heads embedded in the material, and I'll guarantee that the specifications call for the nails heads to be proud of the material. And they were also shown close to joints and edges, and I believe probably closer than what the recommendations would be. So I'm not really sure that the problems they're having there aren't a result of incorrect installation. I am in agreement that replacing historic wood with new wood often falls into the category in the guidelines that under the section Poor Original Building Materials, where it says that some historic building materials were of inherently poor quality or their modern counterparts are inferior. And I personally have had this experience on our projects that the wood that you get today is inherently inferior. And so I am in complete agreement that I think replacing those soffits and fascias around the box gutter with the kind of wood that you can get today, unless you were to invest in ePay or some extremely high-quality, expensive material, is not a good idea. So I agree with that. I agree with your position on that. I guess from my perspective, what I'd like to see happen is a careful analysis of what is in good shape there. For example, you're talking about replacing all of your brick moldings. I don't think that should happen. I think that you should identify brick moldings that are in good shape, and you should clean them and restore them and put them back. i also don't agree that the relationship between wood and masonry is inherently problematic there is a clear way to deal with that and that is to hold the wood away from the masonry and to use the proper sealant with a backup rod to allow for the two to move differentially and to seal that joint. I would say that the biggest problem that I see in the field with wood replacement elements is where they come down onto horizontal surfaces or near horizontal surfaces, such as window casings that come down onto sills. And that's a detail that no matter how many times I draw the casings being pulled off from the sill and the gap being filled with the proper backer pod and sealant, it almost never gets executed that way. And those, the current standards of wood materials that you can get, when they are in that condition, they will suck the water right up into the grain and they will rot. And they will rot within five to ten years. And, you know, we see this all the time in subdivisions that are relatively new in lexington that the houses are just rotting out and uh partly because of poor flashing details partly because of incorrect vapor management such as we saw on that on that um house um on the on the in the photograph of the the Sugar Town House. Thank you. So I don't agree with replacing materials around the house that can be restored, but I can see that that soffit is shot. and I guess what I would like to see is an itemization of what's in good shape and can be reused and, as you say, borrow pieces to complete other pieces that need a little bit here and a little bit there, but I don't have a problem with using borrow to replace elements that are completely deteriorated and need to be replaced. That's my position. Okay, Ms. Tate. You're not wise to make comments. I'm just calling on you if you do. I was, like you were, pretty astonished at the report from Shakertown because at the last meeting it was inferred that they were going to use borrow on a lot of the buildings that they're restoring there. And so I happened to be in Shaker Town before you came the first time, and when this material was being placed, and I kept looking at it, that waviness that you see in the photograph, you see it when you're there, too. It's very strange looking. And I can't believe that Shaker Town is using tradespeople who aren't really good. I mean, they usually have. And so I'm not as willing as Graham is to blame their problems on the people who are installing it. The thing that I'd like to really verify is whether or not there is a problem with their installation crews. But some of those details of splitting and being porous look like a nightmare that you wouldn't or anybody else wouldn't want to have to deal with. Sarah, I don't want to use the borel siding. I'm totally happy with the hardy plank siding, but I'd like to use either hardy plank trim or borel trim for these soffits where they're rotted. I do understand that, but I'm wondering if the siding has given that much trouble in the installation, if the molded material perhaps will have also problems that you're not anticipating when you look at these samples. And it's, I do agree that it would be absolutely unacceptable to use any kind of wood that's finger jointed to do these things. And it would be much more expensive to get wood that is reliable and is denser than perhaps you can afford. So I'm back and forth there. Well, I'll just go to you. I think I'm a little less back and forth than Sarah. I can say I really think you need to do this with wood and repair it in kind with wood. I like the wood. I don't think almost 10 years proves it's a quality product. I don't think the Shaker Town installation proves it's a quality product. And I agree with Graham that I think a lot of that could very easily be the installer did a very bad job. But I think you're going to find that your installer is probably going to put a nail in the wrong spot and crack it while trying to install it if it's not pre-drilled like the sample piece you gave us. And I would like to see you go back with wood. And I think that adds to the character of all our historic neighborhoods to make sure that we're consistent in that fact. I never meant to be obsessed with Boral. My application was clumsily written. I'd be happy to use the board-tested hardy plank trim, not hardy plank, but the hardy trim, which comes in the three-quarter and five-quarter, which I think would eliminate your worries about down the road. I think the hardy board is proven to be a better product, but it's also proven to be a very difficult product when you're trying to do trim pieces and match existing profiles. I think wood is the better product. Well, actually, Hardy Trim now has a crown that's just like that one that Boral's making, and then the rest of my trim, it's not exotic. It's just 1x12s and 1x8s. And I would also say that that is a similar profile, but it's not the exact. No, it's not exact. So, you know, and it does say to match the profiles and dimension and such. And I totally appreciate all the work given in your house, and I understand that you want to make this house the house that you're going to live in forever. I'm not sure the Bortle project is really the product you think it is. Well, I'm okay. I think you're going to have a wonderful house when it's done, and I definitely don't want to discourage you from doing the work you're doing on that house. But I am going to be pretty strong that I think Wood is the right answer. Thank you. And I will sum up the I'm in agreement basically with the other board members. And in this respect, the lawyer in me will show that the guidelines allow only in very limited and under very specific conditions the use of substitute materials. I think the evidence is still out on the advisability of using Boral. the same is true with hardy plank the preference is the clear preference in the guidelines is that you replace in kind with kind and in this particular case you should be replacing wood with wood even though there are arguments being made the evidence is still out about how inferior the current wood products might be but nevertheless that seems to be the preference and until those guidelines are changed I think we're obliged to respect the sentiment and the spirit of the guidelines. More importantly, I don't want your house to inadvertently turn into the proverbial camel nose under the tent, and that as soon as we approve this kind of siding and trim for obviously a very deteriorated house, that we start seeing other applications making a similar argument. And for those reasons, I'm going to also accept the staff recommendations. I think the staff has worked very diligently. I think they have done an exhaustive review of when and under what circumstances this material can be used. And I think their findings are basically in conformity with the guidelines. Any other comments or questions? Anyone? Madam, do you have any questions? I wish, I have just one more thought. Sure, go ahead. I just wish that Ms. Tate or Graham Pohl, who seem to be more, no, I don't know how to say this, I'm just going off the cuff, but they seem to be more looking towards the future and the trends of where this is going. And I wish that we could continue this conversation for a few minutes more if they could play the devil's advocate or do something. to help you see in the two of them together. I know I need a majority, I guess. A tie doesn't work, but I just wish we could continue this a little bit. If one of the two of them would like to talk some more. Mr. Griggs, I hate to break this to you, that I have all the respect for the world from Mr. Poe and from his state. They're both veteran and well-respected architects, but you're talking to a lawyer, and the lawyer in me can't see my way past what the guidelines themselves are saying. Now, you wanted to make a point of clarification, Ms. Kerr. Actually, I do have a few points, but I got this grin because the non-lawyer in me is thinking it's a very interesting idea to have certain board members work to convince other board members on behalf of the applicant. That's a really interesting idea. And our attorney back here, I'm sure, has some real interesting ideas about that. One thing Amelia wanted to make a comment tied to something that Mr. Griggs mentioned in his presentation about another property on High Street. Mr. Griggs gave you the wrong address. This project is not the one that he referenced earlier that potentially synthetic site he was using on. This is done by a different contractor, and I just wanted to make reference to make note that this house does not have the Burrell on it that he showed you. Which is the one that does? It's 646 is one you talked about, not 466. Okay. It looks very similar. Now, is 626 also within the historic district? Pardon? Is 626 within the district? 646 is across the street from the park, and I think that's the one you were referencing earlier. But I just wanted to make clear that this property is not the one mentioned. But there is a property within the historic district that has morale. Mr. Griggs mentioned earlier that he was told that that material was used on that property. That porch on the other one is on the other side, isn't it? Yeah, it's very similar. It's the same style. They're the same style house, just different property. But you went and checked on the one that he referenced. Right. That one was done and approved in 2014 for rebuilding, and I'd been on site several times because they had to rebuild the box gutters because of some water issues, but I never saw Burrell being at the time. There was no mention of actually Burrell being used. When I saw the reframing of the box gutters, it was all wood, and I talked to the contractors at that time, and that was wood framing, so I never saw that any other synthetic material was being used besides wood, and that was what was approved to go on there. Okay. So in essence, they'll be needing to rectify that situation, that property. And Ms. Curry, anything else? Yes. Just real short, I was going to mention that finger-jointed wood is not just as a sort of tip. You don't want to use finger-jointed wood. There are other woods. And for the record, what is that exactly? That will be much more appropriate. What is it? They literally. You would have to buy solid wood. You see it in toe molding, you know, where it's two pieces of butt. Is it like telling the groove? No. Okay. No, they're literally like fingers on the ends of these things. But just a caution, do not buy finger-jointed wood for anything about your house, because you will not be happy. And that's not a commentary on the wood quality. That's commentary on it's the less expensive product, but there's a reason for that in terms of the quality. And that's an assembly issue. At the end of the day, you've mentioned about your soffit. Your soffit is your board on the bottom, you're aware. And your fascia is the board that you're vertical. And then your crown, of course, is above that. But when you've referenced that you just want to use borel or the hardy board for your soffit, I mean, that is getting into a similar plank. I meant for the cornice, for the whole assembly. Right, okay. So you're wanting to use two of those three elements are boards. They're not small pieces that are short and chunky. One by 8s and one by 12s will make the soffit and the... Right. And the reason I raise that is that the flexing in it and the porousness when you rip it, as in cut it to the dimensions to fit and all that, are some of the problems that you're seeing in Shakertown, which those issues are not tied to installation, what happens when you rip it and that kind of thing. Whether you can control the wave and that kind of thing is another matter. I would mention on the Shakertown, I had a long, very interesting visit with the gentleman overseeing all this, They are pre-drilling those holes, by the way. Those are not just slammed in. But beyond that, I can't tell you as far as what their technique is. Nobody was working at the time I was there because I was there on the Fourth of July weekend. The last thing, though, I think, obviously I'd say that your perception of what is very deteriorated in terms of these woods that are forming your brick molds and corners and so forth and so on. We in the business, we don't see that it's that deteriorated. We see that you have a huge challenge of a renovation, and we are very grateful to you for that. But all three of us, Barry, Amelia, and myself, have been around the property, as you're well aware, and have looked closely at it and down to taking a camera with a pretty close photo zoom lens on it. Technically, you can get like four by four inches with this lens. And while admittedly, until you're up on a scaffold and poking at all the pieces as you're working your way up and down to evaluate, I can't promise you that it's more solid than it looks. But a great part of what you've got just needs some good TLC. There's a lot of framing damage from termites and lots of what's holding it together. And the plate that holds the other framing together is... I understand, but that's not the elements we're talking about here in terms of... So I take those off and then replace them. Okay, Mr. Griggs, let her finish her presentation, and then you can offer some rebuttal if you like. Thank you. So I'd say that in terms of this process and its charge, that the staff, who certainly were not perfect, but we see a lot of these projects, as do every member of this board, we don't see the level of scariness in terms of that this material just needs to be thrown away. It's not the case. It merits working with. and it has value to the history of this house. It is exactly what the guidelines charge us with protecting, which is these are the true elements. They're simple, and they're meant to be simple. There's some lovely little shapings on some of your trims. Your basement window upper area below the lintel is beautifully done. So I know that it's overwhelming what all is needed there, But if you look just element by element, and I know you've looked at this many, many times, I think you're going to find that this is something that can be worked with and is the intent to be the end result is that it is a wood outcome on this. Now, and whether or not boreal or hardy, it's the same basic issues. we did as you saw recommend to staff the hardy on the front dormer side elevations and that's partly because of the role dormers when they sit on those roof lines they get the water and that's partly why the process has been going in that direction if it wasn't if that vertical wall was not part of a roof system or experiencing being part of a roof system you would have seen that need to be in wood too from the guidelines perspective. But that is an example of where the guidelines, I think, in the HPC and the BOAR have opened the door to having resolutions that are meaningful for the longevity of these properties and for you as the property owner to have a property that you want it to be. So I think unless the board or yourself as the applicant have any questions, that's all we have as staff. Mr. Griggs? Well, I guess I want to know how your motion is worded and if it addresses the siding on the west cable like we have talked. Because actually that was not really mentioned in the recommendations. If you're recommending, or staff is recommending, the use of hardy board on the sides of the dormer, that needs to be expressed, doesn't it? Yes, and that's in your report. The front dormer is recommended to have the sides be in party. If you'll look at number one, it's only talking about new construction. Number two. It's in the first segment. Oh, I'll find them. Yes. I'm on page 45. All right. Wait, I'm looking. I've lost my segment. I've got it. I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. All right, did this change and I didn't get the update? It's where it says staff disapproves the Borrell siding on the front dormer walls. Okay, I got you. This is where sometimes my eye, I'll see the points, and my eye will overlook this. You think you're through, but there are the two more entries relative to that. So basically, just to read into the record, the staff does recommend disapproval of the Borrell or Borrell true exterior siding on the front dormer walls and recommends it be approved to use a cement board for wall siding. So that will take care of the dormer sides that you were concerned with. He's asking actually about the gable ends, the two gable ends. There's one gable end that has siding on it. It's on the west side. That's it. That's all we're doing. The one with the vents. Right. And on that, again, we would recommend replacement in kind with wood if this cannot be repaired, but I suspect a large portion of this can be repaired. Okay. All right. Based on the findings that we have been presented with and the evidence presented, are we ready for a motion from the board members? I can't do it. I'll do it. All right. Go for it, Sarah. Ms. Lenore. I got to find the front page of this thing though. Okay. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 02140501-J, 601 Boonesboro Avenue, I make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the following. Subject to the following. Installation of boreal tool exterior on new construction consisting of previously approved expanded rear dormer and new addition. All final details be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. and once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start at work. I recommend disapproval of the use of boreal trill exterior siding on the front dormer walls and recommend it be approved as a cementitious board, it is a hard word, for a wall siding and recommend disapproval of the replacement of the front dormer trim, brick mold cornice, fascia, and crown mold of the historic structure with moral true exterior. Okay, do I have a second? A second. Okay, before I call for a vote, I just want to note, Mr. Griggs, I have been impressed with your fashion and with your presentation and that I applaud you for the tremendous amount of work that you have done on this House. And I know those are not of much consolation to you, but I do appreciate everything that you've been doing today. Any further comments? I have a couple of further comments. One is that I really appreciate all the work that the staff did on this, and it's a really fascinating report. I read all of it, and it's really a great piece of research, and I really appreciate it. I think you went overboard, and I think it was really helpful, really illuminating. Thank you for that. That being said, my sticking point is that I don't agree with Mr. Dickinson that the guidelines are clear on this because I read the guidelines to say that stuff that has deteriorated beyond repair can be replaced, should be replaced in kind. And I don't think that the current wood that is on the market is in kind. It is not in kind. It is not the same material as historic wood materials, and I think there are better products that can be used that will last longer, will protect the structure more, and will actually serve preservation for a longer period of time. So I think that's entirely consistent with the guidelines. It's just a different reading. Okay. Any further comments? Getting none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. Mr. Poles, nay is noted. The motion still passes. The certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. This brings us to the end of our case reviews. The last remaining item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes. Mr. Chair, there's one item to make a motion. I always jump past the post-moments. Your item 9, please. There is on item 9, 625 East Main Street, a request for a postponement. Do I have a motion to that effect to August 9, 2017? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Chair calls a question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed name. This item is postponed until August 9, 2017. Now I'll come to the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Thank you, ma'am. Do I have a second? Second. All right. No further discussion. All those in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The minutes are approved. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you. MUSIC PLAYS For a Saturday, and the manager gives me a smile Cause he knows that it's me they've been coming to see To forget about life for a while And the piano sounds like a carnival And the microphone smells like a beer And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar And say, man, what are you doing here? Oh, la, la, la, did it all La, la, did it all Sing us a song, you're the piano man Sing us a song tonight Well, we're all in the mood for a melody And you've got us feeling all right I'm sorry.