# Board of Architectural Review - March 27, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 27, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4730 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4730?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-03-27 - **Last revised**: March 27, 2019 - **Length**: 11,682 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 convened on March 27, 2019, in Street Room 220. The meeting addressed three main agenda items: Staff Approvals, Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, and Conceptual Review, all of which were informational in nature. During the session, the board conducted six motions and votes on various matters before them. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, indicating the proceedings focused primarily on board business and administrative matters. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered six Certificate of Appropriateness applications during the March 27, 2019 meeting, with four approvals, one continuation, and one denial. **Approved Applications:** • **19130367-f (367 Transylvania Park)** - The board approved the Certificate of Appropriateness by voice vote with conditions requiring a barrier and retention element be installed along the perimeter with details to come back to staff prior to permit issuance, along with two standard LFUCG division items. [timestamp: 00:00] • **13150353-p (353 South Mill Street)** - Approved by voice vote with conditions that any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work, as well as two standard conditions. [timestamp: 00:00] • **10620249-b (249 Kentucky Avenue)** - The board approved this application by voice vote with conditions to grade the demolition area and re-seed or replace sod, place kicker, landscape timbers or planting along the driveway to prevent parking in the rear backyard, and two standard LFUCG conditions. [timestamp: 00:00] • **06510632-h (632 Elsmere Park)** - Approved by voice vote with extensive conditions requiring final porch and skirt details and specifications to be provided to staff for review and approval prior to certificate issuance, all vertical elements and mullions to be the same width, and final door and window details and specifications to be provided to staff or board for review and approval prior to certificate issuance, plus two standard items. [timestamp: 00:00] **Other Actions:** • **16780621-f (621 Sayre Avenue)** - The Certificate of Appropriateness application was continued to a future meeting by voice vote. [timestamp: 00:00] • **30870111/d (290 Dancler Court)** - The Certificate of Appropriateness application failed by voice vote. [timestamp: 00:00] All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual vote tallies or member names for any of the decisions. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that generated community opposition and required board deliberation. **Vinyl Windows at 290 Dancler Court** The primary contested issue involved an application regarding vinyl windows that had been installed at 290 Dancler Court without prior approval. The property owner sought retroactive approval to keep the unauthorized vinyl windows in place. The application faced significant community opposition from residents who objected to the vinyl window installation. The board ultimately denied the application, citing both established community guidelines and the opposition expressed by community members. The denial means the property owner at 290 Dancler Court will need to remove the vinyl windows and likely replace them with materials that comply with community standards and guidelines. This case highlights the importance of obtaining proper approval before making exterior modifications to properties within the community, as well as the board's consideration of both established guidelines and community input when making decisions about architectural changes. ## Staff Approvals [timestamp: 00:00] The board received an informational update on various renovations and repairs in historic districts that were approved by staff without requiring board review. These staff approvals represent routine maintenance and minor modifications that fall within established guidelines and do not require full board consideration. The staff approvals covered multiple projects involving renovations and repairs to properties located within designated historic districts. These types of administrative approvals are part of the standard process for managing historic preservation activities, allowing staff to expedite routine work while ensuring compliance with preservation standards. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, as it was presented as an informational update rather than a discussion item requiring board input or debate. The staff approvals were presented to keep the board informed of ongoing preservation activities within their jurisdiction. This agenda item concluded as informational only, with no action required from the board members. The staff approval process allows for efficient handling of routine historic district matters while maintaining appropriate oversight of preservation activities. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting included a review of Certificate of Appropriateness applications for construction and renovation projects within various historic districts. These applications are required for property owners seeking to make changes to buildings or structures located in designated historic areas to ensure compliance with preservation standards. The agenda item was presented as a discussion and informational session, allowing the board to review pending applications and assess their compliance with historic district guidelines. Certificate of Appropriateness applications typically involve proposed alterations, additions, new construction, or demolition projects that could affect the historic character of designated districts. During this portion of the meeting, various construction and renovation projects were examined to determine whether they meet the established criteria for historic preservation. The review process ensures that proposed changes are compatible with the historic character and architectural integrity of the surrounding area. The discussion served an informational purpose, providing board members and attendees with updates on current applications under consideration. This type of review is a standard function of historic preservation boards, which must balance property owners' development needs with the community's interest in maintaining historic character. No specific outcome or formal action was recorded for this agenda item, as it was categorized as informational in nature. The review of Certificate of Appropriateness applications represents an ongoing administrative function that helps preserve the historic integrity of designated districts while allowing for appropriate development and maintenance of historic properties. ## Conceptual Review [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting included a conceptual review discussion regarding the installation of solar panels at 353 South Mill Street. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes to provide the board with an overview of the proposed solar panel project. The review focused on the conceptual plans for installing solar panels at the specified address. As a conceptual review, this discussion was intended to give board members and the public an early look at the project before more detailed plans are developed and formal applications are submitted. The agenda item was classified as informational, meaning no formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting. The conceptual review process allows for preliminary feedback and discussion of potential issues or considerations before the project moves forward to more detailed design phases. No specific concerns or detailed debate points were captured in the available meeting data for this agenda item. The discussion served its intended purpose of providing an initial overview of the solar panel installation proposal at 353 South Mill Street. --- ## Decisions - **19130367-f** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 367 Transylvania Park with specific staff recommendations - **13150353-p** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 353 South Mill Street with conditions - **10620249-b** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 249 Kentucky Avenue with conditions - **06510632-h** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 632 Elsmere Park with conditions - **16780621-f** — continued (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 621 Sayre Avenue - **30870111/d** — failed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 290 Dancler Court --- ## Full transcript 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 or 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 the 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 17 approved applications today on today's agenda. They are as follows. in the Ashland Park Historic District at 246 South Hanover Avenue install handrails in the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District at 251 South Eshland Avenue renovate dormers and altar landing in the Ellsford Historic District at 611 Central Avenue renovate structure at 222 Clay Avenue replace trees again at 222 Clay Avenue renovate structure at 216 Rose Street install handrails and finally in the and also a 361 Transylvania Park renovate structure and 338 Woodland Avenue refurbished chimney in the Bell Court historic district at 256 Bell Place remove dead tree at 219 Bell Place install chimney caps at 255 DeMar Avenue replace damaged pine tree at 621 Sayre Avenue replace fence, masonry wall, and replace basement window. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 628 Ellesmere, renovate structure. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 411 North Limestone, renovate structure. At 531 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District, renovate structure. At 468 West 3rd Street, repair chimneys. And finally, in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 705 West Maxville, renovate structure. We will now turn to our first application, which is a 367 Transylvania Park paved gravel drive and parking area. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here due to illness and they have were sent their staff report. And I take it they've seen the staff report and agreed to it? Is that what you said? Yes. Okay, the staff has made, has recommended approval and made three conditions, two of which are the standard conditions. The first one is a barrier or retention element being installed along the perimeter, the details to come back to staff prior to the issuance of the permit. The second one is once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. And number three, any changes obey that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. I have typically referred to items two and three as what we call the standard conditions. Is there any discussion or concern or questions by the board members? Dennis, is this your application that you're working on? I'm wondering how much green space are they going to put around the perimeter, if any. okay um if you hold on one second i'll bring up the site plan okay thank you you're trying to do two things today i don't know what you're talking about um let's see if i can do this oh darn it i may have to get it from doing this but if you can see I couldn't tell from the looking at how many feet that's going to be or inches. The gravel is pretty exhaustive now, so they're cleaning up the redges. So they'll be about a little bit more, about seven feet from its existing location back to this line, which is the new paving. four feet on this side about six feet on this side and then two narrowing to zero on this point is it just gonna be grass yes just right okay all right any other questions any comments or concerns from the audience how did they get that much parking approved in the first place do you know good question but apparently you know as you can see and the um part of this was prior to the h1 overlay first of all it began then when it was first developed and this was part of a larger plan that it that first connected with these units over here which are townhouse units and so when they were developed it was developed with a large amount of parking on that side on that lot and in looking through the map that we have maps we have like this is the most present plan but you in your packet you have the plan from 2002 which is also shows as much parking this is in your site plan i mean your packet i can cut to the chase anecdotally i know mr wasmer just decided to gravel the entire backyard before the overlay had been put in i think code enforcement uh issued a citation against them but i don't think he ever corrected it that is most likely probably the case because i can remember the trucks coming in this has been back in the mid 90s and he just grappled a whole backyard. This is two units in here and technically per code and for parking code they are allowed six spaces. But unfortunately because it was in this condition at the time the overlay was adopted it's grandfathered in. This has been one of the frustrations that we face especially along Ellsford, which also has extensive gravel backyards. So if there are no further questions, the chair will ask for a motion. I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for case number 19130367-F at 367 Transylvania Park. with the specific staff recommendations for approval. As noted, number one, a barrier and retention element be installed along the perimeter with details to come back to the staff prior to the issuance of the permit, along with the two standard items from LFUCG divisions. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the application say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Motion passes and the CLA is approved as conditioned. Turning now to attachment number two at 353 South Mill Street in the South Hill Historic District. Install solar panels on the rear L. If you may recall, we had a conceptual review at our last meeting on this. Is the applicant here? Good evening, I'm the applicant Kelly Bartley from 353 South Mill. I will note that the staff has recommended approval and they have suggested only that you make sure that the heights shall be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. The remaining two conditions, two and three, are what I've been referring to as the standard conditions. Do you agree with these conditions? I do not. Just a point of clarification, the staff recommendation states that there will be approximately 14 panels. Staff is aware that we've been working to finalize that layout, and I think it's going to be 15. 15. Is that okay with the staff? The staff will just need a final plan that is totally accurate as you arrive at it. before commencement of any work. And of course the compromise is that you moved it to the Rural. I did, yes. Any questions or comments from the board members? Anything from the audience? Which is not very full. All right. In which case then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve case number 13150353-P at 353 South Mill Street with the following conditions. Any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work, as well as our two standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? I second. All right, any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes, and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Turning to attention, I can't talk today, attachment number three at 249 Kentucky Avenue. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here. Illness in the family, this is my case, so I can answer your questions. He has agreed with the staff recommendations and sent an email to that effect. Okay, I will note for the record that there are four conditions, the two of which are substantive. Am I on the right one? Yeah. Okay, you just had that look. I did because I forgot something. The first one being grade the demolition area and reseed are replaced sod. Number two is place curbing, landscape timbers are planting along the driveway to prevent parking in the backyard. And, of course, three and four are what have been referred to as the standard conditions. The proposal, of course, is to demolish a garage, which is not a significant historic structure. I should also point out that there's a letter from a citizen voicing their opinion that it should not be approved. This is from Melvin Crosby. Yes. On a date of 410. I won't read the letter but I will note for the record that he is in opposition to the demolition of this garage like he says among other things it has a sound concrete pad under it and it also has a new-looking garage door this is from melvin cosby of 334 woodland avenue any questions about the application barry do you have any idea what the date of this garage might be is there a sandboard map on it as i noted in the staff report there was a garage there prior to 1934 but staff investigated this garage and it's all recent materials so i would say it's the 80s or soon more recently it's got inch and a half by three and a half inch two by fours and hardboard siding so the hardy board i'm sorry hardy board siding hardboard hardboard masonite all right so essentially Barry you're saying that it's 30 to 40 years old at most I doubt it's even that but yes okay thank you any questions I think my only question is related to the letter that we received that's concerned the backyard is going turn into a parking lot and I do note that the staff have recommended placing curbing or landscape timbers to prevent parking in the Ritter lot. I would suggest that the staff monitor the demolition and the installation of the landscape timbers are some barrier to keep the yard from turning into a parking lot and frankly I'm assuming it's your all's policy if you see a deviation from the plan that you'll call the coding of code enforcement if need be well we try to handle it ourselves first yes I should also mention that I spoke with mr. Hughes around four o'clock and his reason for wanting the garage down was so it people aren't parking in the front and in the back so he's a relatively new property owner and has done a complete renovation of the historic structure so I think that's at the house I'm seeing work being done on right now yes any other questions I guess I'm ready for a motion any questions or comments from the audience If not, then the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for case number 10620249-B at 249 Kentucky Avenue and to include the three recommendations number one being grade the I'm sorry four recommendations number one being grade the demolition area and reseed or place sod number two place curbing landscape timbers or planting along the driveway to prevent parking in the rear backyard and number three and four are the standard LFUCG. Do I have a second? I second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Turning now to 632 Ellesmere Park. Scope of work is construct rear addition. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chairman I'll go ahead and mention that I'll have to recuse myself from this okay I'm Daniel Ware architect here in Lexington Kentucky and the applicant representing Beth and Kaywood Pruitt okay mr. Ware I believe they have reviewed your application and if I can get to the end of it they have recommended approval subject to what I would call three substantive conditions and then we have two of the standard conditions the first one being provide the final porch railing and skirting details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa number two all vertical elements mullins shall be the same width number three provide the final door and window details and specifications to staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa are you in agreement with those yes sir and we have already made those revisions and and submitted that uh any questions or comments from the uh and i'll note for the record we also have the standard conditions is four and five any questions or comments from the board members do i have any questions or comments from the audience if not then the chair is ready for a motion Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for case number 06510632-H at 632 Ellesmere Park to include the five items listed under recommendations. recommendations with number one being provide final porch railing and skirt details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. Number two, all vertical elements mullion shall be the same width. Number three, provide final door and window details and specifications to staff or BOAR for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. and number four and five are the standard items do I have a second a second all right any further discussion on the motion if not then the chair will call the question all those in favor of the application say aye all those opposed to the motion say no motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved thank you Thank you, sir. Turning now to 361 South Upper Street. Scope of work is construct arbor and front yard fence. That application, oh, sorry. That application has been withdrawn and the arbor is to be removed. All right. We don't have to take any action on withdrawal, do we? i'm just checking making sure okay oh you're fine thank you all right turning now uh to two i might hit it myself or am i have i missed one yes i bounced right by one didn't i so you're at 621 i need number five and i don't think yeah yeah borrow it and as you get older and you stack everything together in one place and then you walk out to office and you don't have it uh this is uh attachment number five bell court historic district at 621 sarah avenue scope of work is replace lattice with new windows and doors is the applicant here come on up hello i'm jeff fugate i am a homeowner at 621 sarah avenue all right mr feud uh i am assuming that you would like to be heard on this i would like to be heard i appreciate it in fact i get to be the main event it looks like uh since they have more or less uh recommended disapproval so let's have the findings on this one okay miss armstrong okay this is the property at 621 sayer avenue staff was at another site and noticed that the lattice panels were being replaced with windows and what you're seeing now are images provided by the applicant indicating the windows the openings with lattice the door actually had was sort of a two-thirds one-third glazing in the back had this lattice there's screen inside that but it just this was the condition into the applicant was and desired to fill this in and put in new windows indoors so here is the during construction project with the new window and door the windows that they're proposing are that they put in actually are aluminum clad windows and As you noticed in the before picture, the lattice went all the way up to this header, except for the door that had lattice above that existing. And the proposal now is to close that off and make it smaller so the windows and doors would not be full height of the lattice opening. now this work has been done hasn't it the work has been done it's not completely finished they were going to finish it off with putting a um and we'll see the outside as you saw before i had sort of a stucco a tudor style stucco appearance and they were wanting to emulate that above the door and window system here as you can see the repairing to do that in that location and also here's a side view of the window and door system that had been started and those were the panels that they intended to put in the lattice but as you can see also in your proposal the applicant was going to realign the back windows to make the trim a little different because you can see it's a bit heavy-handed so the idea is that this time the owners are requesting the board to consider the application to recommend to give a grant a certificate of appropriateness to place existing door with the shorter door install a tutor style trim above door replace south facing windows with one over one aluminum clad windows in rear place lattice panels with a two one over one aluminum clad windows install aluminum trim around the casing and the above opening above the openings applicant would like to install the tudor style stucco and of course this is the site plan and this is the proposal that the applicant has submitted so there's no change to this side as far as what had been constructed except for this side you can see per our meeting and conversation with this we he saw that the trim around the windows as they were constructed was pretty heavy of course our issue also is that would you use your pointer talking about that. So this is what his proposal is now, as you saw before in the earlier photo. I can't tell. Is that finished, actually, or is it just prepped to be finished? The up part, this portion here is prepped to be finished, but it's not finished. All right, thank you. so as you can see the two images before that he is intending to rework this section to make the trim a little more not so heavy around the actual the casings oh amelia do you know you may not know the answer to this but what was the purpose of that original screening in on that lower level in the first place this was actually sort of a staircase system sort of an enclosed staircase system and there's another house actually in the belcourt area that had a similar situation that a staircase system that just had lattice panels in it because the lattice was sort of an old lattice it wasn't sort of a new lattice it were really sort of built with nice little strips that were pretty heavy and probably no you know probably didn't need to have some work done to him but we had another house actually on Sayre Avenue down the street that this had had similar situation was an exterior stairs to reach the sleeping forches that and this one was the one down the street was apartment so it was lattice panels to sort of enclose a staircase and this actually does have a staircase system in it all right you read your findings then guidelines are included for your reference findings the proposal to enclose the maturing addition by replacing lattice panels installing new windows and doors requires further discussion staff finds it would be with within the guidelines to replace the lattice panels with double hung windows and a new door however the method and details of how this work has been carried out is not within the guidelines if replacement of panels with new doors would have occurred under the proper process review staff would have suggested the windows fit the whole opening without the installation of his stucco tutor accents above around the windows as proposed installed request to replace the lattice panels with smaller windows is not in compliance with the guidelines guidelines 2b1f and k state openings such as entrances and windows architectural features such as divisional bays and porches are designed components to help establish balance rhythm scale proportion and emphasis and structure patterns of these components on buildings along blocks and within districts create a characteristics of rhythm for streets case and neighborhoods it's very important that the new construction respect the balance proportion scale of existing buildings along the block and within districts in regards to these components windows window openings should be compatible in size scale and proportion to establish openings in the adjacent surrounding buildings and the installation of ornament or details that give a replication of imitation history appearance is not allowed the installation of tutor replicating history the detailing replicating the history while the tutor style does appear on the second floor it it does not appear on the first. In the installation of Tudor details creates a false sense of history. With regards to the door, the applicant indicated that due to the nearest door, he did not want to accentuate the narrowness by bringing it up to the full height. Guidelines 1-7-A and B for the door states, surround, sidelight, transom details should not be removed or altered if they're significant to the building. Original framing such as jam, stills, and and headers of the opening should be maintained and retained. And replacement doors should match the historic door and materials size and should be appropriate for the style and period of the building. Staff was not able to review the condition of the doors prior to the replacement. Staff's proposal to replace the two-thirds light and one-third panel door with similar scenario is appropriate. Staff would have suggested to make a transom for the top in lieu of a stucco. accent in addition while upper story windows in the rear edition have some metal wrapping of trim and metal the installation of wrapping over wood trim is not within the guidelines guidelines 1.1 f which states architectural details including gingerbread barge board eaves brackets dentals cornices moldings trim work shingles etc should not be covered with vinyl or aluminum or other artificial siding to summarize as constructed and proposed the project does not meet the guidelines because one the windows do not meet the opening size two the trim is wrapped with metal and three the installation of tudor style accent creates a false sense of history and recommendation staff recommends disapproval as constructed of course the applicant is present and i didn't see you summarize your recommendation about the door the door because um after further looking at this because the door actually didn't come up all the way to the opening it was sort of smaller as mentioned the findings that they actually installed a transom above that that actually wouldn't have met the guidelines because the door didn't go all the way up to the actual opening so long as they have some kind of transom excuse me so long as it has some kind of transom above it correct okay all right All right. Again, Jeff Fugate. I am the homeowner at 621 Sarah. I purchased the home this past summer along with my wife. And I want to thank you for the opportunity this evening. I also want to start by acknowledging my mistake. It is with great embarrassment that I say to you and to all the people on GTV that this geographer and urban designer misread the map. The boundary is three doors over. So I looked at the map, I got in a hurry, and I should have looked at it twice. So with that, I want to say that I know and I have worked alongside the staff. I have all the respect in the world for them, so there was no disregard or disrespect intended by proceeding with the work. That said, I did review the guidelines, and so had come to a slightly different professional opinion. But I also understand that guidelines are tricky business. betty and i actually worked very closely on developing downtown design guidelines once upon a time which she's probably wishing i hadn't brought up because it was a lot of work and part of the issue is trying to create guidelines that are that are meet certain situations right and unfortunately they were not they were not accepted by the council at that time but what i wanted to bring to speak a little bit about this evening is is that we have what is not necessarily a unique situation but perhaps a unusual one so if we could go to the first okay well you have it i believe you have it in front of you so if you look at the first page um these are the the the current where these were the um as bought conditions um one point of clarification mr fugit if you just slow down just a hair yes sir a minute and i know you're a bit nervous but let's oh i your presentation will be more effective if we can hear you absolutely Thank you. Absolutely. Some people know that I can say a lot in a short amount of time. I'd like to point out that what is a bit unusual in our situation here is that we have a finished sleeping porch above what at one point appears to have been some sort of an open system. However, as you can kind of see, this is a solid masonry wall on this side. So it's actually only open on two sides. So it is a two-sided porch as opposed to a three-sided porch. And it was enclosed with the lattice system at some point. Therefore, what we were dealing with was a porch that was already enclosed. And you can see here that there is actually a volume within the space. So there is about, let me see here. Oh, I think. Ah, here we go. You can see, this is looking through the kitchen door, that there is a volume here that currently is a downstairs bathroom. And here is the little L shape that it makes. So there was actually kind of this little L between the lattice and the volume inside. And so therefore, we're not really dealing with closing a porch, per se, as much as working with sort of an enclosure that was already in play. Here are some of the details. But the volume inside actually is covered in stucco, so an exterior treatment. And here is the lattice, which you can see has about 25% transparency. So we're dealing with something that is a little unusual because we have historic fabric directly above what is effectively an addition to some extent. extent and so i took heart in that my confusion about whether the treat does as an extent as an addition or a renovation or a or a porsche uh it was confirmed by the fact that that i noticed that both the renovation guidelines and the new construction guidelines were referenced in the staff report so clearly i'm not the only one who was sort of trying to make sense of what to do with this particular situation you can see here the before and after um mr chair you're correct So this work is complete. Everything is finished except for this piece here and then the actual painting of the metal. That's just the factory bronze color there. Reason for the metal, I should point out. Well, actually, I'll come back to that. So there are a couple of architectural constraints that I also want to point to. So one of which is that because of this volume, we're actually extending the wall directly across. So we have to account for this mullion here. And this becomes a laundry closet, basically. There is also the fact that, you know, you would not be surprised that it's a historic building. There is a two-inch difference between one corner and the other corner in terms of being at a square. So anybody who's ever tried to deal with that knows that you need a certain amount of trim to hide that. And so yes, the trim around the windows may appear to be slightly heavy handed. That's partially because it was scaled in such a way to hide some of the squareness. And you can see in this one right here, that slope right there. And finally I wanted to point out that the choice to wrap the trim in metal, which is one that is totally negotiable, but just to give you an idea of our thinking is that all of the other standard windows on the property have been replaced previously and are all trimmed as well. So this is the side of the house. This is the front of the house. So it was also in keeping with modifications that had already been made to 621 SARE. So I wanted to go back real quick and also show this, is that, so in trying to make sense of how to reference the upstairs historic fabric without something that was totally inconsistent below it, the intention was not necessarily to create false tutor, but it was to draw some reference and we kept it pretty, I thought we kept it fairly light handed in the sense of it just as square, didn't do the false mullions or that kind of thing. We kept it pretty square to try to basically reference what was above it. And then you can also see that this door, it's a little harder to see, it'll be easier to see in this one. The door that is in reference to the original door was, it was a two-thirds over one-third. It was actually covered in lattice as well so the whole volume was lattice except for the one side that was masonry uh mr feud yes ma'am oh yes sir i think i heard you say the other windows had been replaced yes so if you go to do you know slow down do you know when they were uh when that replacement occurred um you actually had it in the file right it was i believe it was prior to the h1 yeah i'm just trying to I make sure. Yeah, I know. They were. If it had been after the H1, then there might be an issue. They are not the greatest of windows, but they're what we got. So I wanted to just sort of, well, I think in general I've responded to the staff's recommendations. Certainly I'm open to considering some considerations, but don't necessarily feel like that the proportion of the windows is out of character because the way I read the guideline, guideline 2B1F, or no, 2BF, I think it was, about window opening shall be compatible in scale and size is that had we filled, had we filled this entire volume, they would have been the largest windows on the street. So there was a deliberate effort to size these windows so that they matched the windows that were above it and also in scale and proportion with the rest of the house so that it looked less like a patio and more like an addition. With that, I'll take any questions you might have or considerations. Do I understand that that manufacturer does not make a unit that both of the upper and the lower part is the same dimension? And the one you're using, the upper glass is shorter than the one below. they're not well like upstairs yes but those those were those are existing windows they're there so you're saying I'm sorry I didn't I don't know that I followed your question may I paraphrase tied to my own question of that the it looks visually like the upper sash in your newly installed window to the right of the door is shorter top to bottom than the size of the vertical dimension of the lower sash. I do not believe that is true. Am I on what you were asking, Ms. Tate? Oh, okay. I understand. No, I believe that's just the angle of my camera. They are one over one. Mr. Fiat, you might want to just hold the microphone as opposed to... Okay. You know, I've spent a lot of time at this podium and I never did like it turned on I haven't even you would not you don't want to know the number of hours I spent trying to get a new City Hall so okay there there we go that's a little better I will I can double check I do I believe I sent you the tear sheet but they should be proportional they should be equal size sashes. It doesn't look like it. Let me see. I might have a different photo. Here we go. There's the interior shot. That looks normal, right? But now that's not the same window, is it? That is the window on the back. So let me see. It's the one beside the door that is raising question yeah what a wide angle will do for you let's go say no magic of the phone it might be that the glass is the same size but this is so tall it's tricky yeah yeah um is he any questions or suggestions it's really bad you didn't just call what's that oh i know like i said it is called then we wouldn't be having this conversation i know it's such a it's such a era i believe i'm irritated as as much as you are so um this may be an expensive quick look at the map and not double check i'm assuming you can resize the openings which opens you talk the bottom one where you filled it in with those windows can you adjust those windows to be the same size as the original opening well suggested I think part of what we'd be dealing with is going back to is that to do that basically I would be giving up to some extent the whole purpose of doing the project so it but you want to sort of create the you know to create this usable mudroom space as opposed to having was effectively a dark place for squirrels that hang out. If I'm hearing you correctly, Jim, you're just saying make those windows taller. You're not talking about, well, I mean, they could also be, if they're re-shifted in that space so that the center trim isn't so wide, but that the proportions are better between the side trim and the center trim because it looks like even on the interior jeff that the wall that you're building on the interior won't be impacted by shifting those windows but it's really the height of the window you were asking yes and i'm if i'm reading the staff recommendation correctly is that not what we need to be doing is making the window larger or taller Ms. Armstrong? Whose case is this? It's because she's trying to be both the video, audio person and the presenter. I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is the staff thinks needs to be done. Well, as stated, typically if you have a masonry opening, opening of some sort if you're replacing a window of some sort you need it to fill the opening and not be truncated in some ways the whole idea of this also and we've had discussions about this is to make sure that also the these elements we sort of retain a porch-like fill and that they still have as much glazing as they would originally have had. Well of course with the lat, you see that's the problem with this and I can see where Mr. Fugate's coming from. It doesn't really read like a porch either. I mean it's just sort of a weird enclosed lattice masonry edifice for for lack of a better word. And if it's a stairwell, it wasn't used as a porch, was it? Go ahead, someone. Well, per the Sanborns, it just shows that they wouldn't have it. It just said that it had a second floor system. So there was no real indication on the Sanborns of how the space was used, given the fact that it has the same foundation as the house, it has the same brick as the house. um you know it's the inside use i'm not quite sure if it actually has been modified because you know the stucco that you saw that mr fugate indicated is actually sort of the enclosure of a bathroom so that if there was a staircase system had been lost with further modifications or other modifications but it does have the the wood floor and these lattice panels and and just from the other system that was also replaced, that was sort of a similar situation where it had brick similar to the main house, and it was just sort of a staircase system. And that was an easier staircase system than what you have here. Okay, just because I'm not following this, on the other side of that lattice, were there windows? What was on the other side? saw um but okay go back and show okay and you actually have this in your packet you might be able to see better that he passed out windows it's just yeah you mentioned screen earlier but if you the i think the important part on this part to look at is this portion here the styles and the rails that are framing for openings of some sort. And over time, in terms of historic buildings, there are a number of examples I can think of here in town that are an outside staircase that are within a fully built porch with a lattice surround. It's not uncommon to have that travel stair at the rear have, it's an outdoor, so it's not got climate control, no glass, and may or may not have been latticed when it was first built, but comes to be latticed, or may have been latticed when it was built. So it's kind of a utilitarian outdoor travel system, and you see it on frame and masonry structures on rear porches sometimes. so that it's we can just make our best guess in terms of architectural history traditionally of what you see in these structures because of course none of us including the new owners have the full story but I understand this building has lots of stories I bet it does I bet it does but in terms of reading the architecture from a historic structure sense I think that's what that is and there's a smaller window it seems like on the side toward the yes ma'am find it so right here yeah like a pantry window there yeah and so that's that that's that volume right there you can see is that and then there's this little window right here which is probably a pantry historically where their icebox may have lived icebox like deliver the ice type icebox natural and hence the outdoor porch thing it's the outdoor porch served a function as in they wanted it outdoors so only original window in the whole house that one right there so please guard it with your life I will no plans for that one right there so if I may I think that one possible design solution here is that we could fit what is basically so taking Amelia's lead is is that we could look at a 12 I think it's a 10 or 12 inch you can fit about 10 or 12 inch transom above each of the three windows in which case you would alleviate some of the guideline concern, right? So basically, you know, you'd have an opening here in terms of, you know, that would answer the guideline that we're pointing at. And there we go. Give you a little, you know, give you more glazing on that opening. Same thing here and here. I will say that this is a custom width, and so if it would please the board and the staff, is that perhaps we do a transom here, here, and here, and then find an appropriate solid treatment in this place. But if that is a concept that the board's comfortable with exploring, then that is something that we could certainly look into. And that may be a solution. My pet peeve is I hate designing a house. Totally understand. So I'm wondering if our solution might be to continue this hearing, let you bring some new plans back to the staff, see if you can't work out a compromise, and bring it back to us. I would be totally up for that. That would eliminate the stucco wind fill so that we get rid of all the stucco, since there is no stucco anywhere else on the first floor of the house. That seems the most inappropriate part of it. And, Jeff, there may not that kind of custom door size might be a problem for getting a fixed clear story, but you could probably have one site made that would be less expensive than a manufactured one that would accomplish keeping that rhythm. But providing that transparency, I don't see any other solution than just replacing the windows. Right. The other solution was that we could come back with lattice here. Right. That was kind of a conclusion I came to, too. But, you know, I was like, well. You already dug your hole deep enough as this. I understand. I support your notion. Also, depending on where the board is with this, I think we understand your design concepts of basically accomplishing, switching out where the stucco panels are suggested, basically turning those into a transom system. and if that's the primary thing, you could empower the staff to carry that out in conjunction with working with the property owner unless you have other issues that you would also like to have come back to the board or you just wanted to come back to the board and you all have your input with the revised drawings, both of which, either formula of which would satisfy the process. to be honest with you i think before we sign off on this i would like to see what the final plan looks like okay excellent and i think there's often as a you know there's a reason for the expression the devil's in the detail something could arise that you all try to finesse without bringing it back and i think the best thing is with mr fugue's concurrence let's just go ahead and continue this hearing to our next uh would two weeks give you enough time or do you need more time than that i guess it depends on how quickly um i could certainly be ready in two weeks i don't know if you need it sooner than two weeks for it to be we would need it um like in the next two or three days if indeed it were to be ready for another meeting and the thing we were going to mention what amelia is reminding me we don't technically have a meeting in our next rhythm because we had no applications that were completed in that time period so it means your next meeting really will be May 8th. That's before the deadline so that should work. And it is before the deadline. Okay. So it's very doable it also gives you a little more time to do your paperwork. And would that work for you? It would. Okay. I'll have Betty call my wife. How does the rest of the board members feel about that I'll go ahead mention I agree with Susan's comments about the stucco and the guideline that sticks out the most to me is 13 D talks about the open character of the porch so everything we're talking about I'm on board with as well okay and could I ask the board just so that is we're working with you to come to propose solutions from your end. The divider in the middle between the paired windows, are you all okay with that staying as wide as it is? I know that the owner has explained why it's that way. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. It seems to match with the windows upstairs. It's much wider. The proposal that you actually put forward actually has a different material in that center. Right. We can continue to refine that detail with staff. From the staff's perspective, I think that does need to be some attention given to that. So long as you and the staff can work it out so they can come here saying it's approved, then we're going to be good. I like that. I like that. I think the best thing to do with that opening would be to have some glass and one other material, not three. Yes. Yeah, I follow, and I agree. And even if it means shifting those two windows to change the proportions of that vertical trim on the edges and in the middle to make it work a little better, so it's not such a wide series of trim between the two, which seems to me really different than what's happening up above. Okay, we'll look at that. It's like they're pushed to the farthest edge on the outer sides with this fat middle. It's such a weird porch. There's not even a capital on that because it's not a column. because it's not a column yeah that's the other thing is there's this that's an awkward so so that is that is like a trim detail is really gonna have to be dealt with because that you can't square into that so you've got this sort of interesting solution there that has to be not to be flipping about love architect speak sorry about that that's okay uh any other further comments or questions then i think the chair is ready for a motion for a continuance of this hearing and it is a a continuance not opposed so say that way please there's a technical reason we are continuing the hearing is what we're doing and not postponing consideration of the application there's a difference mr. chair I move to continue this application and it's hearing and save the number of the application please okay it's number one six seven eight zero six two one dash F at 621 Sarah Avenue bingo second second any further discussion on the motion we're continued what's this May 8th is the date all right chair we call the question all those in favor of the motion to postpone to May 8th say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and is postponed or continued to May 8th thank you thank you I know that this appreciates your cooperation mr. Fee well and I appreciate your all's time I know it is no small feat to serve on this board so they thank you for being here every other Thursday okay thank you turning now to attachment number seven two oh nine Dantzler Court scope of work is replace windows miss Hill this has been one of our problem child for a while I will note there's no one else in the room so I'm assuming the applicants not here I will note for the for the board that the recommendation has been disapproved is there whose application is this I need you Ms. Armstrong please have you heard anything further from mr. Smith no I this is the one I didn't have really time to review is mr. Smith the current owner or is this one trying to be sold it's trying to be sold but he's still the current owner okay and he lived in the house yes well i thought it was rental no okay what was the date of the edition the edition that's on there now that actually was prior to him actually purchasing that so he did not bill that addition? I think he just finally walked in. All right. All right Mr. Smith here to your timing is very good. Okay. I'm assuming that you would like to be heard as to this application or? Yeah. The staff has recommended this approval course. Right, right. So, Justin Smith, my wife Amber Smith. And do we need to do I need to take a moment Ms. Armstrong could you do a presentation please yeah y'all just have a seat there on the front row all right miss miss Armstrong sorry so this is the structure at 209 Dantzler in this case sort of began in November 6 of 2017 when staff found that the windows were being replaced this picture you've seen in front of you this might help answer your question so about the fact that there was an addition already on this structure and this is taking from the when this property this whole district is becoming an H1 overlay and And you can see that the windows were a combination of, there was, I think, four over four, and then there was six over six, and various types of windows. Of course, gives you another view of the house from that time period. And again, you can see the addition in the back there that's still there. So there was a total of 18 windows installed and the existing sashes were 6 over 6 and then they were installed with new vinyl windows. This is actually taken from the PVA picture of that 2017. And this was during the windows that had been replaced with the four over one windows. And the house did have existing vinyl on its fascia sills and brick mold. And so staff had found this work was started and it stopped the work. Applicants did appear before the December 13th meeting, and they were disapproved. No work had come about, and so they put it on the market to sell. Staff just called the realtor up to inform them that this property still had violations on it. And then the owners contacted staff, and then subsequently they made application to ask for the windows again. and to keep the vinyl windows and the applicants are present of course in course guidelines include your reference findings the proposal requires careful consideration typically staff is able to review the windows prior to the placement to determine if there's any candidates for replacement however staff was not able to review the windows because they were already replaced without a coa the replacement existing when historic sashes and installation of new sashes and not appropriate nor in keeping with the LFPC design principles design principle says window openings windows window door details size and shape of the elements help establish rhythm scale proportion in buildings and reflect architectural styles and character windows should be maintained repaired to match the original window if windows are determined beyond repair the installation new windows to match the original design is recommended windows of baked enamel or an anonized aluminum clad may be considered only if the original windows cannot be repaired vinyl vinyl clad windows are not allowed staff finds the replacement should occur to match in material size and design and in addition it is not appropriate to wrap surround or brick mold around the windows guidelines one one k stage architectural t-tell should not be covered with vinyl or aluminum clad or artificial siding and i'll give you some more images to the windows the minutes from that meeting are in your packet these are the original sashes the way they were taken out they were not able to be able to be installed the way they were taken out with the crowbar all the original jams were destroyed and and this is that edition we're talking about see how the windows were taken out that they could not be put in to have proper jams is the abatement measure to reinstall wooden windows is that how you're going to abate this violation they can make application to put in windows that meet the guidelines of either aluminum clad or wood windows all right meeting and they need to meet the same style as they had originally the problem is they changed some of the window configuration on the back side correct correct but that can be probably work be worked around there's uh because this was a later edition i think there was discussion at that meeting 2017 about the the bigger issue about these were actually being vinyl versus right its actual components in style all right and the applicant is present all right mr smith evening um so when you move into a home you don't hear that spiel first of all and that was our original case when we came out here last year. We weren't aware of the guidelines. We knew we were in a historic neighborhood. Young owners, perhaps that's on us for not doing more research or on our installer for not doing his due diligence. At the end of the day, what the guidelines, I believe, are meant for is to create an attractive neighborhood. we've done nothing but add beauty to the neighborhood add value to the neighborhood as far as i know no neighbors have taken issue directly with us maybe one that obviously made someone aware during the installation i don't know but as far as we're concerned it hasn't added anything but value and safety for the occupants of the home The neighbor to the right there had windows that were deteriorating to the point where, because our windows were made a point of, you all came out and got this kind of trouble. That's the neighborhood right now. It's fairly dilapidated. It's basically what you would refer to as a college slum out there. Behind us, which is an H1 overlay, there's vinyl boxes, vinyl windows, you name it. Homes that are older than ours, our street and over, yeah, were I believe trying to be salvaged by making it an H1 overlay. So that investors wouldn't buy these properties, bastardize them, put big vinyl boxes on, do it as cheaply as possible. And that was not our intention. We weren't trying to do things as cheaply as possible. We were just trying to make things modern, efficient, use new construction science. There's really nothing wrong with vinyl. Obviously, aesthetically, you know, if you're looking at a home on South Ashland that has old wooden windows and nice details, I get it. This neighborhood, Cape Cods, post-war homes, they weren't designed to be the fanciest homes. so we did what we could to match the value of the neighborhood without overdoing it. We've put new roof. We've done new gutters. We've done chimney. We've done the garage, the basement. We did all the functional things to salvage this home and make it more than just livable, make it comfortable. And also price it out of the area to where an investor would buy it. To the point now where this came up again. we did we are we have a contract on the home and that's going to make it one of the more expensive homes in the neighborhood again doing nothing but raising property values we're asking for an exception that would be allowed to have the vinyl windows they're not hurting anything your guidelines are asking for wood it already had aluminum clad around the windows it had aluminum fascia it had some exceptions before it was grandfathered in before the h1 overlay uncertain items but we don't see taking out ten thousand dollars worth of windows and putting in fourteen thousand dollars with the windows um at this point you know yes we didn't do it the right way um we've learned but ultimately we didn't hurt the neighborhood we didn't hurt the value of the neighborhood there's homes in the neighborhood that already have vinyl windows that were grandfathered in there's six on our street well supposedly they're grandfathered in there's there's some exceptions that are probably overlooked that weren't grandfathered in because there are a couple windows on the back of a home somewhere and well there's six houses on our street that have vinyl windows and we're not trying to get anyone else in trouble no we're not that's not our intention we did notice that other it's going to help if you speak one at a time rather than just chiming in sorry so um to her point yes other homes had vinyl windows on the street i guess our window installer didn't think twice about it we didn't really think twice about it until it was brought to our attention and again when we move into this neighborhood there's not guidelines handed to us maybe that should be a thing we mentioned that last time we've made the buyer aware of the situation but again we just can't can't justify taking out those windows and putting in new ones at this point in the game I think we had suggested when this came up a year and a half ago that one approach would be to do it in increments you wouldn't have to do the entire expense all at once instead you have not done anything and now you're trying to sell the house yeah and the reason that we're selling that house is the same reason that we replaced the windows to be honest with you it's for the safety of our family we don't believe it's a safe neighborhood for our daughter to be in we couldn't open the windows and that's why we replaced them to begin with um and so that was all about two years ago we had a one-year-old daughter now we have a three-year-old daughter she's more active wants to play in the neighborhood it's not a neighborhood where kids play it's just not it's where college kids live you have a few professionals that work over at uk or jew or a baptist over there and it's we're moving to a different neighborhood we're moving to palomar it's much safer for her much nicer other kids that's why we're moving we're not moving to avoid being in h1 or to avoid replacing the windows it's purely for our family okay any questions or comments from the board members and i guess another thing to bring up is um there's six streets on our house with vinyl windows and just want to turn the mic towards towards you oh sorry and tell us oh my name's amber smith um i'm one of the owners but there's six houses on our street with vinyl windows and you know when all this came about justin drafted an email and sent it asking for because you know the talk is they were grandfathered in they were there before existence so we asked for documentation that they were there at the time the overlay went in place and no one has given that to us either so it's like okay well they have them i don't want to get them in trouble that's the last thing i want to do but you know were they really there like was it documented at the time the h1 overlay went into effect that these houses had them and that they're good to go and they're grandfathered or is it just like did yeah so i asked amelia um if we could have documentation of everyone that was grandfathered in or made exceptions to um and anyone that was outside of that um that hadn't been documented because we could bring up homes that we knew of so we never got that documentation of homes that were grandfathered in versus homes that were made exceptions to or homes that have not been made aware of so again drive down the street it's it's not south ashland it's not that sort of historic neighborhood i believe the guidelines were put in place just to protect it from becoming college slums so look at the homes in the neighborhood compare it asking us to replace the windows it just seems like you would have to ask everyone else in the neighborhood to do the same thing. The historic districts are not for antiquities at all. It's in in your case a post-World War II neighborhood and the intention is to try to preserve that so that people who are interested in flow of architectural styles and as they relate to what's going on in the world at the time have a model to look at and And I can see how it just frustrates the heck out of you all. Because it's a very kind of academic thing to do. But it's really, it leaves all of the periods of growth in a city or a community so that it can be understood how it happened, why it happened. And that's just, historians love that. And people. And I've read that. And now that I've educated myself, the first thing I read was that the point of the Historic Preservation Society is to create a tourist attraction. This neighborhood's not a tourist attraction. I hate to break it to you guys. And post-World War II homes are not necessarily. In a hundred years, it might be. Yeah, sure, sure. So, again, I don't think we've done anything to bastardize it. i mean construction science vinyl windows much more efficient to use this is just that's our argument right not following the guy i know i have to say at least 75 of the things that we that come before us are exactly what why you're here right and it's just as hard for us to say no it's not not right I mean those were set in place before you bought it and yada yada yada it's still I understand exactly what you're saying but on this board to kind of keep that ramp down the other dilemma that we have and you might not be appreciative of this if we allowed you to have an exception to the guidelines then every other house that inadvertently replaces their windows with vinyl would be right here pointing to your house and saying that's an exception that we should acknowledge and do again and that's one of the reasons why we can't move forward with your application so does the argument even matter about if there's documentation about all the other houses on our street i don't find that to be honest with you i don't find that particularly relevant the point is that your house was in the condition was in at the time that the h1 was approved it is relevant because if you're using our house as an example and we can't find other homes as an example i'm not familiar with you can have the same argument with anyone else that comes forward and say no that house is an example one person at a time mr smith mr kirk Well, it is not appropriate for the staff to be asked to research and demonstrate different topics on other properties within a historic district. That is not the role of this. So at the last meeting we were at, it was presented that they did a survey of our historic district and that there were six houses on our street in our historic district that had vinyl windows. That was presented at the last meeting. I can't. Yeah, I know, but I'm just. Exactly, but the point being that when you request information like that, the staff isn't there to prove points to you. That is your burden as a property owner to do some research if indeed you feel those issues need to be fleshed out. We have material available through open records requests that you can look at. but you would have to file an open records request on other people's homes in order to get information about their homes. If the point that you're trying to make is that other homes had wooden windows that had somehow turned into vinyl without our approval or enforcement, that doesn't really help you. That's similar to an argument of one person being picked up for speeding, and he's saying, well, all these other people are speeding. Why aren't you picking them up? The point is the enforcement action is centered on your house. That's the only thing that really truly is relevant to this consideration. And I sympathize with you and I realize that I can see how you made this mistake. To be honest with you, I have made not this expensive, but I have made my own set of mistakes when I made an assumption that I shouldn't have. And I got dinged personally, which is sort of how I got involved with board. But the only remedy at this point is we can't approve the application as submitted. Now you can work with the buyer and see if you can get him to agree to go ahead and install the window. Perhaps add that as a condition to the deed, but I'm not suggesting that is the way we go. But you need to have a heart to heart conversation amongst yourself. work out a contract and get those windows replaced. Or sell your house at a reduced value and have him put the windows in as a covenant to the house. I'm sorry. Any further questions, comments? I don't have any questions. observation that at the December 2017 meeting that Mr. Smith had noted that you felt like you were fully informed of all the guidelines. So at that point, having, submitting a COA, a request for a COA would have prevented all of this from us. I don't know how that's not true. How would that have ever been said? It doesn't make sense. we were aware of them after it happened yeah that's about the extent of it yeah because we made the point that maybe these guidelines should be presented to new homebuyers when we came in we weren't aware when we did the windows we made the window installer aware that it was a historic neighborhood but beyond that we didn't know what documentation or certificate of appropriateness was all right information is available online okay well everybody and be thankful that we have not yet moved into enforcement action where there would be a lien on your house preventing you from selling it unless the windows were replaced so you know you're not there yet although we're headed that way any further uh discussion i would only share you might want to note you have some uh submittals of letters i didn't see them i'm sorry where are they were they in the package no if they were i missed them they were on the desk when we came in all right i've got them thank you there are two well actually the emails have now been we have two emails of objection I don't think we need to read them into the record, but they are, to put it mildly, rather adamantly opposed to your application. I'd like them read. I'd like it read. You may have copies. You may have copies. any further i think we're ready for a motion I will know for the record two of the there's a two-page email from Susan Spengler and the other is from Brian. Okay This is for case number 308701 one one slash d at 209 dance court in the seven parks historic district i move that we deny this application and in that it it does not follow our guidelines. Do we have a second? Yes, second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion of disapproval, please say aye. Aye. Aye. opposed nay the motion carries and the coa application is disapproved i am sorry thank you for trying to be cooperative sir all right we have no minutes still correct is there any other action we need to take at this point all right then the chair is ready for a motion to adjourn We adjourn. Do we have a second? Second. And on that note, we stand adjourned. All right.