You and I, you and I, you and I Come on, every guy, every girl, everywhere Across the world, every nation They're dancin' in the streets It's just an invitation, a proclamation I change for the folks you need There'll be laughing, singing, music, swingin' We're dancin' in the streets Feel that Belgium we have Dancin' in the streets Baltimore, NBC now Dancin' in the streets Can't forget the Mona Lisa Dancin' in the streets All we need is music All we need is music Now we can swing everywhere Now we can swing and sway We're gonna play Dancin' in the streets Oh, doesn't matter what you wear Just as long as you are there Come on, every guy, every girl, everywhere Across the world All we need is music All we need is music They're dancin' They're dancin' in the streets Dancin' in the streets Way down in LA Every day They're dancin' in the streets Dancin' in the streets Every single way Dancin' in the streets They do it every day Dancin' in the streets Across the ocean blue Dancin' in the streets Dancin' in the streets See you at Chris Forge Shop Chris Forge Shop Who is an amazing commissioner Former council member Very supportive of how we respond In Lexington Not only to the opioid epidemic But all substances Folks in our city are using substances And we help everyone But today we're going to focus on just the opioids We are here During the Neal Exchange On Mondays and Fridays To talk with folks who are considering Going to treatment We engage you Develop a conversation with you A rapport with you And build a level of trust And that's extremely important Because folks who come in here Typically they're not trusting of this system Right, I'm aware of that Right, so if you were to come in And we may see each other four or five times We may not even know your name Or not And it doesn't matter I will treat you just the same Because this entire thing is anonymous We never ask anyone's name Sometimes they tell us But if you were to talk to me about treatment What we would do Is look at all the resources available Having been in the field for more than 20 years I know a lot of them A lot of contacts We want to try to get a person into treatment As quickly as possible For folks who have loved ones Who are struggling with addiction We know that the window of opportunity For folks to go into a treatment program Is very narrow And we want to help folks as quickly as possible So we get on the phone We call our contacts And the goal would be for someone to leave here And go to a treatment program And we work with programs All over the state Do you make referrals then? We make referrals We've had over 200 people About 250, 260 at this point Enter a program We don't follow them But that's a step And we believe that recovery is possible For everyone And that everyone has value And we're grateful to be a part of this program This partnership It's funded by a four year grant And we're happy To be on this journey together And grateful to promote it Encourage anyone Who is a loved one of A friend of Absolutely To come in and get Naloxone And if you never need it That's amazing But if you need it And you have it You could save a life And that's what we really want to promote here It's really great work With every respect The folks who come here Are five times more likely to enter a treatment program And Everyone who walks in Is treated with dignity and respect And that is one thing that Bryce Leach required And now Craig Humbaugh requires And it's just Something that must happen When you work in the new exchange program And it's a great partnership for the city And we're grateful To have this partnership And we'll write another grant And hopefully have it for four more years Absolutely And we're working With some of the most vulnerable folks In the city If you come here Typically Your disease has progressed a great deal However We believe we can help everyone Who wants to extend We're here to do what we can It's great to have a health department And social services That are so welcoming This is a big step to come to this building Whether it's the front door, the side door, or the back door To seek a treatment To look for help in a different way And to make Even if it's just the lightest decision To move in a different direction You've helped change a life Absolutely And we're grateful for that You may come in one week and say I can't talk to you today That is moving in the right direction That is the harm reduction we're looking for The seed is planted And if he or she never goes But they continue to stay safe Then that is a success And we measure success In varying ways here But when a person Enters a treatment program And they're able to get the tools To live a different lifestyle It's of course a success But we look for any positive change To keep folks safe and healthy And alive Well, thank you for helping us be here today All the professionals that are here And the great stories that you've related to me And the training I've gotten And I will carry my naloxone And I think you all should come And carry yours too The only boundary that addiction knows Is death So to defeat it You have to get in front of it And naloxone will make that happen Thank you very much Put the keys down Kevin But I'm gonna drive home There are several warning signs present That you shouldn't be driving My text to emoji ratio has gotten a little out of hand A little? Yep, I'm definitely gonna call right home Season 1 episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Hi, my name is Jennifer Reynolds And I'm the council member Here in the 11th district And today I am out here in Gardenside Park With Officer Michael Jones And I just thought that we would take this time To talk a little bit about Officer Jones' role And how he helps here in the 11th district So Officer Jones is what's called A Neighborhood Resource Officer Can you tell us a little bit about what that is And what that means? Well this isn't the very easiest type of position To define because we are very tailor made To the communities which we serve I'm the resource officer assigned to Cardinal Valley And my job as a resource officer Along with all the other resource officers Is to integrate themselves as much as they can With the community they're assigned to And to be able to identify the unique problems That that neighborhood is having And to do what we can to find long term solutions To fix the issues that neighborhood's dealing with And for us as resource officers We are able to utilize the many resources That this city provides to us And we're more than happy to be out there helping So would you say that your role Is more of a preventative role And kind of aid role? Absolutely Crime is not just this simple Defining good guy and bad guy situation Crime is much more complex than that It's people that are dealing with many issues in their lives And we're trying to find a way To bring resources to the people who need them So they can better succeed in their lives Well I in my role as council member Have worked very closely with The neighborhood resource officers And this year with Officer Jones And I have found them to be extremely helpful In connecting with constituents And following up on maybe a certain issue And getting people the aid And the resources that they need If I had it my way I would have a lot more neighborhood resource officers And I think that's the long term goal And do you think that your job Is a lot different than the average patrol officer? Overall the heart of what we do Is very much the same We are here to serve the community The only main difference that we have Is that a patrol officer Is really their primary function Is to answer calls on the radio And to patrol the streets Which they're assigned The difference with me is Because I'm not that primary person to get dispatched I have a lot more time on my hands To work towards integrating into my community And getting to know people on a more personal level That's wonderful Well just know that I really appreciate you And I think if we have any residents out there watching You know if you need to connect with an officer About something The neighborhood resource officer Is a really good person to connect with And Officer Jones has said He's willing to help beyond Cardinal Valley As much as he's able as well in the 11th District Absolutely What does the average day look like for you? Obviously my main function on a daily basis Is to do what I can To get out there and talk with the community And to continuously strengthen those connections that I have I work with property owners Property managers The tenants of those properties I work with business owners And the employees of those businesses Many of the homeless people that we work with in the area There really just isn't a typical day We also, you know in Cardinal Valley We do deal with some women That are working in the sex trafficking industry And we work very closely with a ministry Called Natalie's Sisters That helps get these women off the streets Some other things we do is You know there's some days I go to some of the schools And I read to the kids I go to the family care center on occasion And work with those children And some of the mothers that are there for school It's just all kinds of stuff that we get to do Yeah it's wonderful that it seems like Very diverse type of things you get to do Similar to my job You never know what the day is going to hold It's never boring But you always feel like you're making a difference Absolutely That's wonderful That's great So actually I'm going to get to see What an average day looks like With Officer Jones on Monday Because I'm going to do my second ride along with him So that'll be a lot of fun If he can put up with me all day Then I will get to see a little more about what he does And what Counselor Reynolds does not know As we will be starting that day With a reading to a kindergarten class At Cardinal Valley Elementary Oh that'll be a lot of fun In the Leavitt District As you think of the Leavitt District What are some of the most common crimes that you see And how could we maybe prevent those Or help prevent them The ongoing problem that this city faces Is obviously car break-ins It doesn't matter what neighborhood it is Car break-ins are one of the number one things That gets talked about I was told yesterday that last month in October We had 38 guns stolen out of cars citywide 38 guns stolen? That's a lot So what I would say Number one Lock your cars Keep your valuables out of your cars Especially your guns Another thing that we deal with Is residential burglary That kind of fluctuates Doesn't really have any specifics But it does fluctuate throughout the year My biggest thing As an officer I do my job to patrol the area As well as all these other patrol officers do We don't know your neighborhood like you do If you see something that looks out of the ordinary You see somebody that Isn't necessarily somebody that should be in that area Feel free to call it in and let us know We're more than happy to investigate suspicious activity We can use all the help we can get And since we're dealing with colder weather And the holiday is coming Some of the other issues we have Are package theft That kind of goes along with the burglary If you're seeing things that look suspicious Call it in And the other thing With the cold weather People love to start their cars Before they leave for work Leaving those cars unsecured and running And vehicles end up getting stolen I would not recommend doing that And please don't Yeah, yeah I think it seems like For a long time I've heard The most popular things are Car theft and burglary And things like that Lock your cars and your house And all the things Lock all the things Yes So At least it won't be a big target Anyway, right? I mean It's still theft even if Your car's unlocked, right? It's still theft Absolutely But we can not be a target For someone that's quickly looking for things And stuff like that That's really good advice And as residents of the area That, you know Want to see a safer neighborhood Want to see a safer community What can we do to help aid in that? Well, with you being a councilwoman And me as an officer We both know that A big part of our job is funneling through complaints And we deal with that quite a bit However, it's not as common To see people Trying to find solutions to those problems You know, we will do what we can In our respective position But I believe this is a joint effort We as a community need to come together And we need to be that positive light in the community Whichever way we see fit And, you know An engaged community is a much safer community And a much happier community I think knowing your neighbors Knowing the people that live on your street Understanding what's going on around you All contributes to that sense of community Watching out for each other Absolutely And we can work together To have a safer community But if we're trying to do it on our own Or just, you know, upset at people Or things like that We might not be able to make as big a difference Absolutely And positive activity within a community I find pushes out the negative Positive activity So more youth programs Sports Absolutely, yes People going out to parks Walks, things like that So I think parks are an integral part of our district We have a lot of parks here And hopefully people will utilize them And make them safer by utilizing them Absolutely Is there anything else that you would like to tell people In the Leavitt District? Sure, I mean, I am quite impressed With the way this city operates When I first started this position as a resource officer I immediately got to networking With the many different resources That are available in this city And I would just say My opinion is I stand on the shoulders of giants In the position that I'm in Because if it were not for the many people Who saw the needs And developed these resources That are at my disposal now My job would be very ineffective And I'm very appreciative of the people Who paved the way for me Lexington is a wonderful city And it's an honor to serve the city, isn't it? Yes, it is Well, thank you for being here today Thank you for serving our community And our district And it's a pleasure to work with you And if you all would like more information About how to contact Officer Jones What would be a good way for people to contact you? My email is mjones at lexingtonpolice.ky.gov I'd be more than happy to answer Any questions you have through email And if you need to contact me For whatever reason You can contact me at jreynolds at lexingtonky.gov Thank you so much for tuning in today For this council comment And we will see you next time You're the cutest thing that I ever did see I really love your beaches, wanna shake your tree I love it, love it, love it, love it, love it, love it all the time Ooh yeah baby, I should show you a good time Cause I'm a picker, I'm a gritter I'm a lover and I'm a singer I play my music in the sun I'm a joker, I'm a smoker I'm a midnight toker I get my love and I'm on the run I'm a picker, I'm a gritter I'm a lover and I'm a singer I play my music in the sun I'm a joker, I'm a smoker I'm a midnight toker I sure don't want to hurt no one Ooh, ooh People keep talking about me Baby They say I'm doing you wrong Well don't you worry, don't worry, no don't worry mama Cause I'm right here at home You're the cutest thing I ever did see Really love your peaches, wanna shake your tree Love it, love it, love it, love it, love it all the time Come on baby now, show you a good time With the heartbreak over, so much you can't hide Put on a little make-up, make-up Make sure to get your good side, good side If the world don't open Get stuck in your throat Send a treasure token, token Write it on a pound note, pound note Goodie two, goodie two, goodie, goodie two shoes Goodie two, goodie two, goodie, goodie two shoes Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow There must be something inside We don't follow fashion That'd be a choice You know we're gonna set them, set them So everyone can take notes, take notes When the door you're kneeling Close, what's it you mean? Opening the eyeballs, eyeballs Pretending that you're out, green, out, green Goodie two, goodie two, goodie, goodie two shoes Goodie two, goodie two, goodie, goodie two shoes Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow There must be something inside No one's gonna tell me What's on your mind I'm telling you secret, secret About a woman big, fat, big, fat It doesn't matter what's on you Don't mess with who you are Too easy, you're an all-time legend I've seen the game, you can't run too far It's a world so spoken I guess I do know Spend the good, don't be tough Ride it up, down, up, down, up Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow There must be something inside So continue and don't follow The man who's gone Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow The man who's gone Don't drink Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow The man who's gone Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow The man who's gone Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow The man who's gone Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow The man who's gone Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? So continue and don't follow The man who's gone . . . . . . Fortunately or unfortunately for you all, you do have seven of us today. So we can get this meeting going. I would call this meeting to order being January the 16th, 2020. Happy New Year to everyone. First on the agenda, I think we do have minutes from November 21st and December 12th. And I believe there were corrections after these were emailed to the commission members. And those corrections have been made. If there's any other corrections that are needed, please let it be known now. Or I will entertain a motion for approval of those minutes. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. Move approval of minutes of November 21st, 2019 and December 12th, 2019. Yes, it is. We do have a motion and a second for approval of minutes from November 21st, 2019 and December 12th, 2019. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Postponements and withdrawals from today's agenda. I'm hearing rumors that we may have a few. Good afternoon, Mr. Wahlberg. Happy New Year to you. Happy New Year to you all as well. I can get you started with at least one. If I could turn your attention to page 3, item E. That's PLN MJDP 19-73, the Shroyer Property Lots 3 and 4. We're going to request a one-month postponement. That will take you to your February 11th meeting. During the process of going through this, we've discovered that a variance might be needed or a significant rework to the plan. So we need some time to figure out which way we're going to go. Thank you, Mr. Wahlberg. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 19-73, Shroyer Property Lots 3 and 4 to February 11th of 2020. Thank you. Motion was made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee as to postponement until 2-11-2020 of Shroyer Property Plan MJDP 19-73. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. It's coming. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Wahlberg. Thank you, sir. Mr. West? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Eastridge with Sentara Corporation. On page 4, item G, Plan MJDP 19-77, Winburn Estates Unit 3, I'd like to ask for a one-month postponement. Thank you, sir. Reasons? We have some things to work out with the Planning Commission. Okay. There you go. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. I move for a postponement of PLN MJDP 19-77, Winburn Estates Unit 3, Russell Cave Road, to February 11, 2020. Sorry, that's not the correct date. February 13th is a Thursday. Whoops. Uh-oh. February the 13th. We love Mr. Wahlberg. Yeah, Mr. Wahlberg's also to the 13th. Ah, okay. I correct that to February the 13th. Thank you, Ms. Wade. So we do have a motion for postponement of PLN MJDP 19-77, Winburn Estates, until February 13, 2020. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ms. Wade, do we need to amend the previous motion? Yes, please. Okay. Ms. Plumlee, did you make that? Ms. Plumlee made it. Yes, please. So in light of the error of date, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 19-73, Shroyer Property Lots 3 and 4, for one month to February 13, 2020. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Demovlin for the postponement of PLN MJDP 19-73, Shroyer Property, until February the 13th, 2020. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. She won't be able to put it on the screen. Okay. Show of hands. Motion passes. Thank you, and sorry to let everyone be led astray. Mr. Nicholson, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I have two postponements for y'all's consideration. The first is on page 2, item C, Hamburg East, the Baptist Health Care Campus. We would request a one-month postponement to the February 13th Planning Commission in order to continue working with the administration on this project. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion on this postponement. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Move postponement of PLN MJDP 19-70, Hamburg East, Baptist Health Care, until February the 13th, 2020. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Pohl for postponement of plan MJDP 19-70, Hamburg East, until February the 13th, 2020. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. The motion passes. Thank you, sir. On page 4 of your agenda, item F, the Blackford property, I'd request a one-month postponement to the February 13th Planning Commission. This involves a density transfer, and there are several steps that have to be completed prior to the Planning Commission looking at these development plans. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Pohl? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the postponement of PLN MJDP 19-74, Blackford property, to February 13th, 2020. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for postponement of plan MJDP 19-74, Blackford property, until February 13th, 2020. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Sorry, Heedley, for not seeing you. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity for another one. Other requests? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, staff, Mark McIntosh with Vision Engineering. On page 3, top of the page, item D, is MJDP 19-71, Rydale Plaza, lot 3, Parker property at 1108 South Broadway. We ask for a request for a one-month postponement to February 13th. Thank you. All the reasons, given that we submitted a revised plan 10 days ago, so the staff needs a little bit more time to review that. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Bell, are you so willing this time? I'm not prepared. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement to February 13th of 2020 for PLN MJDP 19-71, Rydale Plaza, lot 3, and I think this is amended. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of Rydale Plaza, plan MJDP 19-71 until February 13th. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Other requests for postponements, Mr. Arles? Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct the Planning Commission's attention to page 6 under continued discussion items. This is item A, plan FRP 19-24, the George Michael property. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. They're continuing to work on an issue that has arisen on this particular plan. The address is 6377 8th and Spoonsboro Road. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I also move for postponement of PLN FRP 19-24, George Michael property until February 13th, 2020. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of plan FRP 19-24, George Michael property until February 13th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? I see none. I know of none. Ms. Wade, consent agenda? Yes, sir. Chairman Owens, we do have several items that qualify for the consent agenda this afternoon, and you all should have that in front of you. There are three development plans, and I'll read through those. And if there's anyone in the audience or anyone on the commission that wishes to have any of them removed from the consent agenda for a full discussion, we can accommodate that today. The first item appears on page 1, item A of your full agenda. It's PLN MJDP 19-62 for Lansdowne Shopping Center. This is an amended final development plan. For property located at 3329 Tates Creek Road. The second item that appears on your consent agenda today is located on your full agenda, page 5, item H. PLN MJDP 19-78 for Lakeview Estates. This is for unit 2E, block K, lot 2, also an amended final development plan. For property located at 531 Lake Tower Drive. And the last item that appears on the consent agenda today is from page 5, item I on your regular agenda. PLN MJDP 19-80. This is Fritz Farm Retail Company, LLC, also known as the Summit Lexington. An amended final development plan for several parcels, but primarily located at 4100 Nicholasville Road. At this time, we'll see if anyone in the audience wishes to have any of these items pulled or removed from the consent agenda for further discussion. Seeing none, if there's a commission member that would like to hear any of these, we can do that as well. And if not, the planning commission can consider all three items with one motion today. Seeing no concerns, we can consider all three items at one time. We'll pause on the consent agenda. We need a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, at this time I would like to ask for approval of the items. I'm trying to do the PLN number and I don't need to do that. For the items on the consent agenda. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval as the consent agenda is read. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you. So we've got a few remaining items. At this point, we're going to start on page two, it looks like, with Ramsey Sullivan property. It's PLN MJDP 19-69. I believe we do have a revision before us that is on a brown sheet of paper. I was going to say both of them are on the brown sheet of paper. Well, yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. We need to make sure we get the right one here. We have an overstock for brown paper, I guess. Go right ahead. Is it not moving? What am I doing? There we go. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. We're located, this is Ramsey Sullivan property, located at 2559 Kearney Ridge Road. This being Kearney Ridge Road, this is Georgetown Road and the I-75 access from the 75-64 split. They were coming in, they had proposed to put townhomes in here. Here's a layout showing the access point, which runs across the street, lines up here. They brought us in a revised plan, as you can see. So we're down to the sign-offs from different governmental agencies. This property is located in the Georgetown Aquifer, so they've been to the committee meeting. We just want to make sure we have notes as to when it was approved. And also we're showing there's a turnaround up here in the top. We want to make sure that people don't park in that for the dumpsters. So that's why we have a note to ask them to make sure that doesn't become a parking space, because parking always seems to be short. So with this, they've met the parking requirements. That was why they were postponed. They came back and did some revisions as far as the number of units, and they were able to reduce the units and meet the parking so the staff can recommend approval. Okay. Thank you. Applicant, have anything to add? Steve Garland with Integrated Engineering representing AU and Associates. We have nothing to add. We're in agreement with the conditions of the revised staff report. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this request? Commission members, have anything? Yes, ma'am. I have a question, and I'm not sure which of you, but you're going to designate that as a no parking area, and we all know how well that's going to go. Is it going to have yellow curb and signings? So it's currently a dumpster that is, like most dumpsters, you have a drive aisle with parking on each side. So the concern is no one parks in front of it. Well, if somebody parks in front of it, they're also parking in front of four other parking places. So we don't want that as well. No one wants that. So I don't think anyone would do it because you would be blocking someone in, but we'll paint it, curb it, sign it, whatever it takes, but it's just not parking a dumpster. If someone does park there, like I said, they're blocking four other stalls, so hopefully that wouldn't be very polite. Okay. I just wanted to know how you're going to designate it. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Where will the bus stop be? So we do have a tentative e-mail, and staff has a copy of it. It would be close to the entrance, the main entrance into the development, kind of above the K of Kearney Ridge, and we're going to work with Lextran on not only getting a bus stop but a bus shelter. That's the end goal. Any other questions? I was just going to say they're in the middle of doing a research study to figure out the best place to do that. So at this time they don't have a designation, but they are working towards looking at that. Okay. I was going to ask if staff had anything else, but I guess you just took care of that. No one in the audience wishes to speak. Commission members, anything else? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Bell? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I'd recommend approval of PLN-MJDP-1969, Ramsey-Sullivan property, lot four, with the 14 conditions as stated. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of PLN-MJDP-1969, Ramsey-Sullivan property with the revised 14 conditions. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thanks for the work on that. Next on the agenda is PLN-MJDP-1981, Lockmere. We did have a request to delay this towards the end of the meeting. However, Mr. Murphy, you're the one in charge here. What would you like to do? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Billings did ask me to put this back if he wasn't in the room at this point. And much to my regret, he's not in the room. So I agreed to that. So we'd agree to this being deferred until the end of your agenda. Okay. Thank you. If that's okay with the commission, we will move that towards the end and move on. And move on to commission items. No, I'm sorry. I did skip one. I skipped one anyway. I was getting ready to move to Boonesboro Avenue. However, we do have a plat revocation. It's on page 7, under number 7, plat revocations. It's plan 2006-141C, Holly Hill Subdivision. And Mr. Martin is coming to speak. Good afternoon, members of the commission. As the chairman stated, on page 7, we have for you today a plat revocation. This is a consolidation plat that was done in 2006. It's located on Fairfield Drive. And apparently, some neighbors got together and agreed. Oh, there it is. Thank you. That's not it. That's George Mankle's property. Oh, that's Mankle property. I hit the wrong one. Sorry. I meant to hit the laser. There we go. Oh, that's still the Mankle property, isn't it? You're right. There we go. There we go. I knew there was supposed to be a dividing line in there. So, again, back in 2006, we had a consolidation plat that basically added this little section of property right here. See this nice, long, rectangular lot in the Hillendale subdivision? And they agreed to sell this little piece to these neighbors right here in the rear. Subsequently, in 2019, apparently, based on the information we have from the court documents, the financial institution holding the paper on this property said, no, hold on. They sued over the consolidation plat. And, by the way, that's something we warn people about sometimes when they do consolidations, is the impact on their mortgages and that sort of thing. Well, anyway, just like was done before during the court proceedings, the judge revoked it by his action. He did not remand it to the planning commission saying, fix it, undo this, revoke it. He actually revoked it and, in a quick claim deed, was filed. So, the judge has done it. We were requested by PVA to help clean up the paperwork and the title trail. So, by having you all officially revoke it, there will be recorded in the county clerk's office a revocation of this plat, so that anybody that does any title work and sees it will know that it's been revoked. It's no longer valid. Because even though there's a quick claim deed and a judge's action, sometimes those things aren't as apparent when you do title work. And so we were requested by the PVA to help clean it up. And that's why we're here with you today and recommending that, of course, you do revoke it. And any questions you might have, I will direct to our counselor. Any questions? Yes. Okay. Tracy, I go down and list this property. How do I get clear title to sell it? Well, they have already executed a quick claim deed. Okay. But, as a practical matter, the order the judge entered was also agreed to by all the parties. And so, unlike other types of the situation we've handled, there shouldn't be an issue because everybody's in agreement that this is the best way to resolve it. And we have the judge's order in our file. Okay. And, as I said, this action will be recorded, attached to this plat, so anyone doing good title work will find it. And we know that. Any other questions? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing. And to the best of my understanding and my description as to what needs to be done, we need a motion to acknowledge and authorize our wonderful planning director, Mr. Jim Duncan, to take this record of revocation to the county clerk's office and have it recorded. So interest in, anyone interested in making a motion? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Based on the information we've been given today and the information that's been shared with us, I move for a revocation of plan 2006-141C, Holly Hill subdivision, lot 12, block B, and Hillandale subdivision, lot 18, unit 1, for the reasons described by our legal counsel. Thank you. And a second for the authorization of this revocation of plan 2016-141C, Holly Hill subdivision. Any questions in regards to the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. We do have one other item. We've got a couple other items. However, we do have a performance and bonds letter of credit that is on your grant that we would need approval of if you all are so inclined. Anyone? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for the release and call of bonds. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds that is on our grant. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. And it is on the grant because I just saw Mr. Mulgrew looking at it. So, Mr. Murphy, you're still willing? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to its under commission items. It's a BOAR of 2021. It's at 601 Boonesboro Avenue. Mr. Bailey, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good New Year to all of you. We have a few things that we need to enter into the record before we go forward. This is BOAR 2020-1 for 601 Boonesboro Avenue. I would like to enter into record the design guidelines. Article 13 of the LFUCG zoning ordinance. The summary of the meeting held on October 23rd. The staff report from the planning staff. The staff report from the historic preservation staff. And then the letter of appeal from the appellant. There is also one letter of opposition that I'll pass around at this time. So the subject of today's appeal has been submitted by Mr. James Griggs and Miss Kim McBride. The change proposed is the utilization of BORAL true exterior trim material. The location of the property is at 601 Boonesboro Avenue, which is in the Bell Court historic overlay or H1 zone. The appeal, the applicant wishes to utilize the BORAL true exterior trim material for the exterior of their current structure. The previous action with the BOAR was that it was disapproved for the certificate of appropriateness requested on October 23rd, 2019, for the subject property to utilize the true exterior trim material to replace the existing historic material on the main structure or the house. So before we get too far, what is BORAL true exterior or the trim material in this case? It's a composite material that is made up of 70% fly ash, which is a byproduct of coal combustion, and 30% polymers. It has been studied extensively by the historic preservation staff where it has been utilized elsewhere in historic neighborhoods and districts. What are the best practices when looking at these kind of substances or these different materials with historic districts and historic structures? And I'm going to allow the historic preservation staff to answer any of your questions regarding that kind of research. It was fairly extensive during the last time some of these conversations have been had. It has been used and allowed for new construction in the H1, but again, and this will be discussed a little bit by both myself and by the historic preservation staff, it is to be utilized for new construction, not for the renovation of old or historic construction. That is to be done in kind. The Belcourt Historic Overlay Area or Zone, it was established in 1990. It is approximately 44 acres in size and includes approximately 157 buildings in the district. It's primarily characterized by Victorian and Queen Anne style structures. This specific property, you can see, is located up in this area at 601 Boonesboro Avenue, right at the intersection with Belle Place. The subject zoning for the property is primarily two-family residential R2 zoning. There's lesser quantities of R3 zoning in this area. R4 zoning here and here, and I'm sorry, planned neighborhood residential is the R3. R4 is high-density apartment. And then there are two sections of neighborhood business zoning here and here. Neighboring the property, you can see that there is a host of different zones, including professional office mixed-use, which is directly, this is the mixed-use 2 zone, directly behind the structure. And then we get into some of the B4 and I1 uses over along Midland Avenue and moving along to Winchester. Here we get an idea of just the property itself, looking at the aerial. This is the intersection with Belle Place. You can actually see that this is a nonconforming structure within the zoning ordinance. It's actually a fourplex at that location. There are a few fourplexes in this area, so there's some really historic multifamily structures that are around this area. And then looking directly at the property as it is as of a couple days ago. One thing that staff would really like to stress is that the applicant has done a tremendous amount of work on this property. This is what the property looked like in 2013 when it went for auction. And then this is what it looks like today in 2020. Involved with that, there have been numerous cases in which they have had to seek the BOAR approval for Certificate of Appropriateness. Now, I do want to stress that the Certificate of Appropriateness and historic zoning in general and restrictions is based off of the average reciprocity of restriction. So the aspect that makes it constitutional is that what you can do with your property is restricted because there's construction consistency over time throughout that district. That also allows for the integrity of these districts to be maintained and the historic properties to be preserved and restored over time. So with the prior BOAR cases, I am going to focus only on a few. There have been more than this. But with the prior BOAR cases, there has been a real focus primarily on new construction. As you can see, this portion of the structure was enclosed. That's not part of the original construction of this house, but was a later modification. The applicant went forward and opened that up. By opening that up and replacing the roof and some of the elements in that area, it was deemed to be new construction. The applicant has done numerous additions and modifications of the building, which has fallen under new construction, including the potential soon-to-be redo of the sunroom, adding the rear dormer or expanding the rear dormer, and doing a fair amount of work along the perimeter of the roof line. Historic Preservation staff can get at a lot more of this information. But the main component of this, or the common element for the past decisions, was the determination that the modifications to the structure were considered to be new construction, rather than the rehabilitation of historic elements of the original structure. This is particularly important in the fact that it was allowed for the use of the Boral True Exterior Trim in various places of this house. This has been used, but with the new construction in those areas that have been so severely damaged that it totally needed to be rebuilt. During the October 23rd BOAR meeting, the appellant requested a COA, or a Certificate of Appropriateness, to replace the existing historic wood brick mold trim of the historic structure. At that hearing, the appellant argued that the replacement of the severely deteriorated portions of the brick mold was part of the new construction and was an element of the window assembly. The BOAR found that while the house had certainly suffered from long-term lack of maintenance, these character-defining features of the historic structure are significant and have largely survived, despite the lack of maintenance. In accordance with the design guidelines, those significant features should be repaired in kind as required with wood. They stated that the replacement of the historic fabric with the substitute synthetic material was inappropriate and compromised the historic integrity and weakens the historic significance of the structure. The BOAR then disapproved the appellant's request for a COA with one abstaining. So just looking at what the elements of the house that we're discussing here today are the window areas, and you can see the white areas. You might be able to see this a little bit better on your computers in front of you, but those are the brick molds that we're discussing today. The brick molds are actually clearly defined within the guidelines for historic preservation, and they are called out as architectural elements. As architectural elements, they are defined outside just the window. The window itself is comprised typically of eight different elements, which I'll get into in a little bit here. Staff received the letter of appeal on November 21st of 2019. The appellant within their letter is required to make a statement of adding new fact to the case or showing where the BOAR erred in their decision or their disapproval of the COA. In this case, the appellant stated that the BOAR has allowed for the use of this material previously not only on this property but elsewhere. Their request is keeping in with the rehabilitation guidelines. The Boral True Trim and the Boral True Trim is a little more in kind with the original construction rather than being different, or rather than being less in kind with the wood that would be required by the guidelines. The appellant makes three primary arguments within their appeal to the Planning Commission. The first, the appellant argues that the brick mold is part of the window assembly and thus should be considered new construction and not a historic or architectural element as the windows were allowed to be replaced under the previous BOAR decision. The argument of new construction also allowed for the use of Boral True Exterior Materials elsewhere, and those materials are more adequate for the rehabilitation of other portions of this structure. The staff cannot agree with the appellant's statement that the brick mold would constitute new construction nor that the brick mold is part of the window assembly. The brick mold on the subject structure, while severely deteriorated in sections of the house, is present and has not been the subject of previous review by the BOAR, except for in some certain areas. There were some horizontal members that were discussed, but that was due to some other issues involving the rear of the property and not part of the window review. The window assembly is traditionally composed of eight elements. The head, the jamb, the frame, the glazing, the pane, the sash, the sill, and the mutton bar, not the molding. The brick mold is a decorative or protective element that frames the window or a door. The argument that the brick mold is more an element of the window and not the connective element of the house is incorrect. Further, the mold is defined within the design guidelines as an architectural detail of a structure by specifically distinguishing the mold or mold, M-O-U-L-D or M-O-L-D. That's a slight difference within the guidelines, just the British versus American way of categorizing it. The mold is defined within the design guidelines as an architectural detail of the structure by specifically distinguishing the mold or mold as an architectural detail in the guidelines for rehabilitation and renovation within the design guidelines. The Office of Historic Preservation has clearly delineated its need to be considered separate from the window assembly. Next, the appellant indicates that the staff report omitted information and that there were inconsistencies in the recommendation of the staff report. The appellant suggests that they are not seeking to replace all of the brick molding, but are seeking to replace the missing or unusable brick mold, which they define as severely deteriorated and dimensionally inadequate. The appellant has not provided staff with the locations of these portions of the brick molding, nor have they supplied the amount of molding that would need to be retained or replaced. This also undercuts the appellant's assumption that this would constitute new construction. Furthermore, the dimensional irregularities were caused by the action of the appellant. Since staff has added that in, the appellant has indicated that this is more of a feature of a misalignment of the wall and the window actually being more plumb. They'll talk about that in a little bit. We had this conversation a few minutes ago. I wanted to bring it to your attention. Furthermore, it is not in line with the in-kind materials called for within the historic design guidelines, in which they specifically state that if there is an issue that necessitates the elements of the structure to be replaced, it is to be done with in-kind materials. In this case, wood would be the appropriate replacement material. The appellant also states that the historic preservation staff has mischaracterized the actions needed as preservation, whereas the appellant indicates that the actions should be characterized as renovation. The appellant's assumption that renovation and preservation are disparate actions is incorrect. 36 CFR states that preservation is the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building. Preservation, therefore, is not a static maintenance of a building or a built environment, but a process that includes the proper rehabilitation of structures so that the integrity of the historic property is not lost. The integrity of the historic nature of a district and the built environment is heavily tied to the materials, craftsmanship, and layout of historic properties. This is why the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation in the LFUCG Design Guidelines state that deteriorated architectural features be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual properties. The National Park Service identifies four different instances that would allow for a deviation from historic construction materials. Those include the unavailability of historic materials, the unavailability of historic craft techniques and lack of skilled artisans, poor original building materials, and code-related changes. The NPS goes further to state that historic materials should be matched as closely as possible with new, in-kind materials, a sentiment that is reiterated within the LFUCG Design Guidelines. Finally, the appellant indicates that the boral is more in-kind with the original old-growth wood than any new-growth lumber could be. Staff finds no merit in this argument. Boral true exterior is a composite material consisting of fly ash, a byproduct of coal, combustion, and polymers. Additionally, this perspective is not supported by local, state, or federal guidelines. In connection to this argument, the appellant references two sections of the Design Guidelines. The first statement regarding the windows does not apply here, and that the second statement does not suggest that new growth is not similar or in-kind, but stresses the importance of maintaining wood elements of the original structure. Finally, the LFUCG's Design Guidelines clearly state that synthetic or substitute materials, such as vinyl or aluminum, over original wood siding is not appropriate for building and is not allowed. In studying this case, the planning staff can find no flaws in the review of the appellant's request by either the Historic Preservation Office or the BOAR's decision. Nor has the appellant provided any additional information relating to this request that would provide for a new finding. Based on findings as stated in the staff report and the recordings of the public hearing, the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness was not an error. It is consistent with the responsibility of the Board of Architectural Review, which is to interpret and apply the adopted Design Guidelines in determining the appropriateness of a specific request, particularly as they relate to the application of Boral True Exterior Trim. The ruling in this case is also consistent with past actions of the BOAR in addressing the renovation of exterior elements of historic structures. Whereas the previous decision that allowed the use of Boral True Exterior were new construction, the proposed construction clearly falls under the rehabilitation of a historic structure. The use of Boral True Exterior Trim on existing structures does not meet the intent of the local historic district and landmark design guidelines as adopted because the guidelines are definitive rather than suggestive as to their use of in-kind materials and the prohibition of synthetic or substitute materials. If you have any questions, I would be able to answer some of the things that I have talked about right now. We do have members of the Historic Preservation staff who will answer any questions about some of the studies that have occurred in the past. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. If it's all right with Commission members, unless there's something pressing, I'm going to offer to let's hear the presentation from all three parties involved or Board of Architectural Review and the appellate, and then we'll ask questions from anybody that's to anybody and from anybody that wants to. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, and appreciate all of you all's work in this. I will be very brief, and then, of course, Amelia Armstrong and I are both here from the Historic Preservation Office, and we'll both be available to you for your questions as you desire. Mr. Bailey has done an excellent job, as he always does, on the staff report on this application, and I would note that, of course, the core issue in this specific appeal, on what has been a very sizable project, a very several years ongoing project, and the Board and the property owner have had many, many dialogues about this project over the years and a number of permits have been issued to allow the property owner to carry out all the work that they have been doing. This specific issue of these window molds, the wood window molds on the house, it is important to focus on the fact that they are part of the historic structure and they are a significant part of that historic structure, as they are in every historic house all over Lexington and Fayette County and across the country. And in accordance with the design guidelines that are utilized for every application and specific to the nature of this application, it is totally consistent and reflects the Board's action that they took to deny this synthetic material being used in lieu of wood on these window molds. The Board's action is consistent with all the cases they've done. We really don't know of any case over all these many years that this has been approved, to put a synthetic in your window molds in lieu of wood. The window molds that survive do have the exact shaping and so forth, because of course they're the real deal, they're the original elements, and so utilizing wood and copying that shape and continuing that repair as needed on each opening is absolutely not only what the guidelines call for, but what is the best solution. I would note that it's certainly inappropriate to suggest that this would qualify as new construction, and hence our guidelines are very clear cut. The utilization of the borel and any other alternate material is only possible through the utilization of it in new construction, and I think Mr. Bailey has made that very clear and I will not go on about that, but this isn't one where there's sort of a tug and a pull. It's very clear cut what the appropriate outcome is per the intent of the preservation process, and frankly per what would just be best for the structure in terms of authenticity and integrity. I think I will stop at that, and other than to urge you to enforce the guidelines, to uphold the design guidelines as they are intended in this case, and that being to deny the application so that the outcome will be the appropriate one of having wood in these window molds all the way around the house on the historic mass. As I've mentioned, Amelia Armstrong and I are both here. She is who did the lion's share of the study that was done back in 2017. The topic of borel has been heard by the board throughout several instances in 2017, 2018, and 2019, and so in 2017 we took a pause and did this pretty intensive study looking at cities around the country, what other organizations are doing, what other design processes are doing, and so forth, and we thought we would just hold that information about any nuances of that unless you all had questions at this time about it, and then Amelia is available to give you an abbreviated summary at any time you would like to hear it should you so desire. And that's it for the moment. Thank you, Ms. Carr. Thank you. Once again, we'll just reserve questions until we get through it all, and I'm sure there will be questions afterwards. Mr. Griggs? My name is Jim Griggs. I live at 600 McCalls Mill Road. Thank you for being here. I appreciate your time. I'd like you to consider allowing the use of borel on three windows where the original brick mold is missing and on a few others where the original is severely deteriorated or unusable through no fault of our own. A review of the seven COAs granted by the Division of Historic Preservation allowing the use of modern materials based on their design principles and guidelines will be the primary evidence that this is a reasonable request. But first I'd like to give you a quick glimpse of the work we've done. That's what the property looked like when we acquired it at auction. It was a hoarder's house, and every room was filled to the top. It became uninhabitable, and the utilities were shut off. It had holes in the roof. It has floods in the basement from a rising water table annually for 100 years. The plaster and lath had fallen off the interior in places. To solve the water problem, we decided we would dig out the basement and add gravel and a concrete slab, and we did that. Then we salvaged the heart pine flooring. My wife and I bundled it, and we'll be using it on the first floor. She refinished 10 of these original doors, the hardware, the lock sets, the hinges, and then we went about replacing the entire first-floor system room by room, repairing the stone ledge, adding a pressure-treated plate, new 2-by-10 joists, and keeping it all level so that the finished floor would be where it was originally. This is what we ended up with in the basement, and this is the first-floor deck. The rules that govern our seven COAs are here under Section 2. I'm sorry, are here under Section 1. Some of our seven COAs are under Section 2, which are new construction, but this is the guideline that's for architectural details, which include trim, cornice, columns, et cetera, basically any decorative feature. The design principle is that the details need to be replaced. New materials should match the original as closely as possible. Then under Guideline E, highlighted at the bottom, if replaced, should approximately be the size, shape, material, color, texture, and other visual qualities of the original material. Later, when we review the staff report findings to disapprove that led to this appeal, you'll discover that Guideline E was omitted as if it didn't exist. Our Certificate of Appropriate Number 1 is the front dormer, which you can see above that enclosed porch. We were approved to remove the asphalt shingles from the sides of the front dormer and recover with hardy cement boards hiding and boral true exterior trim. This work would seem to fall under Guideline E, the point being, modern materials were allowed to replace missing original materials on an original dormer. Certificate of Appropriateness Number 2 is the cornice. This is all the way around the perimeter of the house, the horizontal section. We were given approval to tear off the overshot box gutters and severely deteriorated horizontal cornice and rebuild the cornice structure entirely with new framing. Boral true exterior trim was allowed for the fascia, soffit, and bed mold. Not sure if this was considered new construction, the most lenient standard, or rehabilitation and renovation under Guideline E, it necessitated the removal of the severely deteriorated original trim materials. Here is the cornice section drawing for framing detail. The brick is at the bottom of the page. Everything outside the brick is new. The new framing is highlighted in green, and the boral trim is yellow. The bed mold covers the space. That little bit of trim next to the brick is called bed mold. It covers the space between the soffit and the brick, the same purpose brick mold serves between the windows and the brick. After the motion to approve boral was made, but before it was voted on, the BOAR asked that if any usable original fascia and soffit material could be salvaged, it should be reused towards the front of the building. This COA was not a limited use of boral, as implied on page 3's second paragraph of today's staff report. This is a picture of the porch enclosure removed, the cornice rebuilt all the way around, and new windows installed. Continuing with Section 1, Guidelines for Rehabilitation and Renovation, under the windows section on page 88, the design principle is windows of baked enamel or anodized aluminum clad may be considered only if the original windows are not repaired, cannot be repaired. Guideline B says if aluminum clad windows are applied, they should match historic wood windows as closely as possible in their dimensions, profile, depth of muttons, and surrounding trim. The surrounding trim, called brick mold on masonry structures, would have been allowed in aluminum as part of the window replacement. This was not done because Marvin's standard trim, or their brick mold, shapes were not similar to ours, but it certainly makes the case that the brick mold is part of the window assembly. This is the front gable windows without brick mold. The Certificate of Appropriate Number 3 that we got were for replacement of the windows. Approval to replace all windows with Marvin Ultimate Double-Hung Casement or Awning Windows. These have extruded structural aluminum exteriors and wood interiors. They are not sash kits or replacement windows. They are new construction windows that attach to new framing inside the home, allowing precise placement in the existing brick opening. Window replacement necessitated the removal of the original brick mold. That should be emphasized. The brick mold had to be removed from the house to replace the windows. Replacement of the brick mold with boral through exterior trim where it is missing, severely deteriorated, or unusable is the subject of this appeal. Here's a picture of the interior wood framing, and here is a section drawing of the framing detail. The new framing is in green. The new window is pink. The boral brick mold is yellow. Notice that the brick mold is fastened to the new window framing. It doesn't even touch the brick. Now we're going to move to new construction, section two of the guidelines for new construction. And this is me summarizing. In categories that involve siding like garages, additions, or dormers, generally cementitious board may be considered. Boral through exterior trim or other composite materials are not mentioned, and vinyl is prohibited. The BOAR granted COAs for the following. This garage was approved to use boral, sorry, hardy cement board siding and boral through exterior trim highlighted for corners, windows, and door trim, cornice, fascia, and soffits. This is an old view of the back of the house. Our COA number five is the rear addition. We were approved to tear off and rebuild the 1950s rear addition using hardy cement board siding and boral through exterior trim for corners, window, and door trim, cornice, fascia, and soffit. The rear dormer is also rebuilt. This is a more recent picture of the rear of the house. The rear dormer, certificate of appropriateness number six, we got permission to approve approval to tear it off and enlarge the rear dormer using hardy cement board siding and boral through exterior trim for the corners, window trim, cornice, fascia, and soffit. And then the last of these COAs, number seven, is for the front porch. Approval to tear off the enclosed front porch and replicate a covered open porch using round fiberglass columns and boral through exterior trim for the box beam, cornice, fascia, and soffit. The board motion resulted in allowance of the boral through exterior because it is being totally rebuilt and is essentially new construction. And that's on this page 53 from the staff report of the 4-12-17 hearing. This is boral. The small piece is of the original brick mold off the house. The larger piece I milled from a two-by-four ripped lengthwise with a half-inch chamber. It's a replica of our brick mold ready for paint. Called through exterior trim, it is manufactured by Boral, a $5 billion company, the largest manufacturer of brick and cultured stone in the country. Boral through exterior is a composite material consisting of 70 percent fly ash, 30 percent polymers, no wood fillers. It will not rot or suffer insect damage. It is impermeable to water. You can take it straight to grade or the roof line and is dimensionally stable. It was introduced in 2008 and has undergone accelerated testing in a first-class R&D center in San Antonio. It's been put through thousands of freeze-thaw cycles and simulated 40 years of UV rays with no deterioration. Given these characteristics, paint will stay on indefinitely. It can be cut or shaped like wood to duplicate any profile. Fasteners are the same as with wood. Visually, it's indistinguishable from wood, and it's a green product, cradle-to-cradle certified, providing an alternative to old growth trees. I have three arguments for your consideration. Whether its installation is classified as new construction or rehabilitation, the brick mold is part of the window assembly. Its installation mirrors the cornice trim example exactly. In both cases, the underlying structure is newly built and originates from the interior of the main structure. Only then can the trim be attached. Likewise, tearing off the rear dormer and rebuilding it followed the same sequence. Tear off the old, build the new, add the boral trim. For the dormer, this process was classified as new construction, as it should be. The front porch was torn off and a replica was built with boral trim. The BOAR considered it essentially new construction. A large percentage of the exterior trim on this home is boral, including some brick mold legally installed on two front doors and a window while they were inside the enclosed porch. Here are elevation drawings indicating extensive approved trim locations. Boral is highlighted. That's the left side of the house. This is the rear of the house. Here's the right side, and here's the front. This is a picture of the window that was enclosed behind the porch enclosure, and it has boral brick mold on it now, as do the two doors. As an aside, the design guidelines for new construction, section 2B1 paragraph J states, in areas where strong continuity of materials, texture, material color is a factor, the continued use of those materials is strongly recommended. Argument two, the staff report errors, omissions, and exaggerations. The staff report recommended to disapprove based on the proposal to completely replace the existing wood brick mold trim. This is the staff reports and the staff reports findings to disallow that resulted in this appeal. On page 57, it says the proposal to completely replace the existing historic brick mold trim, but on our application, we ask only to replace missing or unusable brick mold. The staff report on page 54 omits guideline E, A, B, C, D, but guideline E, this is from the guidelines, which would allow the replacement of original materials that approximates the size, shape, material, color, texture, and other visual qualities of the origin is not included in their staff report. Also, notice that guideline B, use of the word should. Back to the staff findings for disapproval, instead, they summarize A through D as if guideline E does not exist. Here in bold, they quote guideline A, architectural details shall not be removed even though the staff knew the brick mold had to be removed during earlier window replacement, and they misquoted guideline B, changing should to shall be repaired rather than replaced. The findings continue on page 57 with this brick cottage still retains a substantial amount of original brick mold, cornice, fascia, and soffits relatively intact, continuing on page 58 of their findings to disapprove. While the house has certainly suffered from long-term lack of maintenance, these features have largely survived. From the previous elevation drawings with the boral highlighted in yellow, it's clear that 75% or more of the original trim has not survived. In addition, at the bottom of this highlighted section, they base their final arguments on Secretary of Interior Standards preservation guidelines, the strictest of the four categories rather than the rehabilitation, the category Lexington guidelines are based on. Preservation is applying measures necessary to sustain the existing materials, impossible to do when material is missing or severely deteriorated. In essence, they misstated our application, misquoted guideline B, concealed guideline E, grossly exaggerated the surviving trim, and then raised the standard from rehabilitation to preservation, and this was the staff report that the BOAR relied on to make their decision. The third argument is that boral is more similar to old growth wood. Going back to section one, the windows part of the guidelines on page 91, the guidelines argument promoting the preservation of original wood windows includes in paragraph four, old growth lumber used in historic window frames can last indefinitely unlike new growth wood. This statement confirms that new growth wood is not similar or in kind as generally implied. The original old growth wood brick mold shares more physical characteristics with boral true exterior trim. In conclusion, in every previous COA, new construction or rehabilitation, whether it was a new outbuilding, a rebuilt addition, an enlarged dormer, a replicated front porch, the residing of an existing dormer, or the total rebuilding of the main house cornice, boral trim was permitted, either over the entirety or as a replacement for missing or unusable historic trim. I assume in every instance the BOAR justified these decisions with applicable guidelines. This appeal asks the planning commission to recognize the precedent the BOAR created at 601 Boonesboro and overturn their decision prohibiting boral true exterior as a replacement for missing or unusable original brick mold. By the way, I would define unusable brick mold as severely deteriorated or dimensionally inadequate, which is requiring splicing to cover an entire length or requiring caulking larger than three-eighths of an inch to cover the required width, instances where the brick is not plumb with the newly installed windows. There are several brick window openings where the brick is a half inch out of plumb so you have your brick mold space growing as you go up, and I don't think a caulk joint bigger than three-eighths is a wise way to go. So if I was redoing it with boral, I could cut that brick mold to fit the space. One thing to think about, the historic preservation staff has the ability to allow for severely deteriorated wood on the main structure, siding can be replaced with cementitious board like hardy. Severely deteriorated wood columns can be replaced with fiberglass columns on the main structure. If you have severely deteriorated windows, you can replace them with aluminum windows. But when it comes to trim, they push you towards new growth wood which isn't a long-term solution or they, you know, I just can't feel comfortable being part of the removal of old growth trees. So we won't solve that today, but maybe you folks can take a step in the right direction. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Greggs. I'm sure we will, and I think I'm going to extend what I was offering a moment ago before we get to any questions. Ms. Kerr, do you have any sort of rebuttal that you want to go with? We'll go with Ms. Kerr, Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Greggs can finish up with any rebuttal, and then we'll get to questions. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a number of things that certainly could be clarified from what has been presented by the applicant, but to focus on just some of the main things, I would call your attention to that he noted that surrounding trim of windows, that being moldings, is replaced as part of replacing window sashes, and that is not the case. Every job that we work with, the window sashes can be replaced and keep the brick mold right in place, and as is always the case, a certificate of appropriateness, a permit, would reflect very specifically if indeed there was some reason the window molding area needed to be worked with, that would very specifically be mentioned as a separate element, because it is a separate element, as we've already discussed. It is part of the structure, not part of the window system. So, the permits reflect very closely. If your authorization is to do window sashes, what about the window sashes? If it is to deal with anything to do with the window moldings, it talks about that specifically. The brick mold is not an integral part of a window sash, which I believe the applicant would suggest that they're kind of connected, like hip bones and shin bones, but that is not the case. The process in working with this property has issued a number of permits, which you've heard the applicant summarize some of them, and as you heard, a number of them reflect what was new construction. He did not articulate as closely about the ones that reflect renovation of the historic structure itself and the repair of woods and so forth that needed to be done to go with that. And the board has, in granting those certificates of appropriateness to authorize renovation of existing condition, looked at that really closely on each elevation and put language in the permits that the applicant on, say, the cornices and all the wood elements that existed, that many of which were in very rough shape. Nobody's suggesting they weren't. But the applicant agreed at the time with those permits that he would very meticulously work with salvaging any wood that was viable of those elements and use those toward the front of the house, as you heard he mention. But the problem was, and the staff was to go meet with him and did numerous times on site, but the problem was, what would be found was the property owner had removed a great deal of the material to be reviewed by staff in a very rough fashion, assuring that it couldn't be reused. So it really left you with this existing reality that it had gone from being something to be discussed and determined where what should happen to being it's a done deal and here you are with something different, in his opinion, needing to go back. So it's been sort of a sliding slope in terms of trying to work through this long project and each time the board would deny a certain piece of it, down the pike the applicant has come back with a, well, I want to do this this way again. So the board is consistently on this specific topic of the window molds throughout at least three, perhaps as many as five hearings held that they need to be wood, they need to retain what they can of the historic fabric and to be an in-kind matching replacement to go back. The example that the property owner showed saying that the window had had Borel window mold trim put around it, he referenced about the front porch area. The board did not approve putting that brick mold in Borel around the windows that he showed pictured. Picture, if you will, the front of the house, can you pull that back up, it's the portion of the front of the house where the porch was closed in and so what becomes as he is later opened the porch up, there we go, if we could have both of those. So this one and then, yeah, thank you. The image on your left shows what the house came to have happen to it probably in the 50s, 60s, enclosed that front porch and then so what he did was when the board denied using the Borel for the window molds all over the house, he came back and said, well, this is interior space, these two front walls. So where the front door is and the windows that are there that you see now in the right hand where he has removed the two added walls, he came back and said, well, you can't review it and I can do what I want in there because it's the interior, it's an interior space of the house. But he was knowing full well he was going to take those walls off and have a traditional front porch that is an open porch as an end product. So law department talked with us about this at the time this went on. The determination was that he had found a bit of a loophole that technically was at the moment an enclosed space, but it was certainly recognized that it is historically an exterior wall of the house and that he openly stated he intended to make visible once again as the exterior of the house, which is a good thing, nothing wrong with that, to have a front porch back as it's supposed to be. The catch is in the meantime he carried out work in a fashion that he fully understood having been denied by the BOER the manner in which the materials in which he used to do that. So he just, you know, took this opportunity. And so it is not correct to suggest or imply in any way that that was approved by the board. And as a matter of fact, it was knowingly denied by the board for that to be the outcome. So talking about things being dimensionally inadequate. Number one, historic houses, I think everybody knows, have all sorts of varieties of dimensional issues as time passes, particularly, and sometimes were built with irregularities in some of their dimensions. It is very common, very, very common to see any kind of openings, anything where things settle to get a slightly larger gap as time goes on, to even get a bigger than slightly large gap as time goes on. And that is always accommodated very carefully and very appropriately with wood, making the piece to fit just as you would a piece of borel. You know, if you can cut borel to fit, I believe you can cut wood to fit. And when you're talking about a three-sixteenths kind of difference, we're not talking about a big gap. You're not got a gaping wound or anything like that. There is nothing about dimensional inadequacies that is particularly challenging. And the term is really sort of a misnomer, to be quite honest. Mr. Griggs has, throughout this process, you know, he's done a lot of work to rescue this house, which is a wonderful thing. And this process has worked really hard to facilitate, through all of his numerous requests and further changes as times have come along and all. But he has, throughout, kept telling the BOAR, he said, I want a maintenance-free house. And so that was in the undercore of it, every time it would come back to, well, now I want to do this in borel, and now I want to do that in borel, and that kind of thing. It kept growing to be, I don't want any wood in my house. There's only one problem with that. He bought an early twentieth-century historic building in a very, that has significance in its own right, in a very significant historic district. And innately, the materials of that building are what they are and have integrity and have value and they have significance as part of the whole. And sort of piecemealing it back together to finally become something that has all sorts of parts in the historic part that really aren't within the intent, much less the specifics of the design guidelines, is not what is intended to be an outcome for historic properties in Lexington and Fayette County. And in new construction parts, I feel like the Board of Architectural Review truly bent over backwards to work with the applicant broadly, but specifically to all the portions that could be deemed to be new construction, that dormer on the back. It was a smaller dormer, and with the Board's approval, was removed and the applicant's absolutely right. It was deemed new construction because he made it considerably larger, and hence was a candidate for Burrell. And you can take that through all of his examples, but everything that the Board determined to be new construction, they offered him and that project every opportunity to use alternate materials anywhere appropriate, and you're seeing that he got to do that. But the Board has held the line at what was viable of the historic fabric of the building to be retained, and that's an important thing as an outcome. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Furr. Yes, sir. I will be quick. I do want to focus on the two elements of the guidelines that the appellant referenced. In the architectural details and features in the section E, if replaced, should approximate the size, shape, material, and I want to stress material here in this location, color, texture, and other visual qualities of the original materials. In this case, approximate the material would reference to an in-kind change if it needs to be changed. That in-kind change has been referenced in the guidelines, and by the Historic Preservation Staff as would in this location. Furthermore, they've done a substantial amount of research to indicate that the Burrell true exterior is not appropriate for this. They've done a fair amount of research for the rehabilitation of structures and architectural details. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the material or the approximate material that's referenced in E is actually referencing would. Furthermore, in B, under windows of the guidelines, it states that they should match historic wood windows as closely as possible in their dimensions, profile, depth of muttons, and surrounding trim. Again, as closely as possible, staff is referencing to an in-kind change, which would be, in this case, would. On that, staff has no other comments or rebuttals at this time. Thank you. Mr. Greggs, rebuttal, and then we'll go to questions. Rebuttal as far as the rebuttal itself. The brick mold on that house was attached to the wood windows with nails, and it was caulked to the brick. I don't know how you would remove the old windows and install new windows with the brick mold. I don't know how you'd get it off the old windows easily without removing it first, and if you were trying to remove the windows with the brick mold attached, the brick mold would pull with it. The other thing I might have misspoken, because I think an excessive caulk joint would be three-eighths, and I think Betty said three-sixteenths. I think when you get towards a half-inch with a caulk joint, I'd rather cut a new piece of trim and not have that large a cap, but that's all I really have to say about it. Oh, she was mentioning that I'd handled the cornice material roughly, and it's 13 feet up in the air, and it's the remnants of a box gutter that was rotted out, and we were surprised a couple of times. I had some help, and we broke some pieces, but a lot of it crumbled, and we didn't tear it up intentionally, and so I'm a little, well, thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, we've heard from all parties involved. I'll open it up to questions to any one of the three from any commission. Oh, wait a second. Let me back up. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Okay. All right. So, I'll go back to questions from the commission members, from anyone. Yes, sir. I was sitting on the BOAR when some of the applicants' applications came through, so I'm pretty familiar with these arguments, and I only have one question, and that is around Mr. Grigg's last argument, and that is the issue ... I think it goes to the word integrity. For me, describing using new wood as meeting the requirement to create integrity is in error, because particularly when you're describing window trims, because I have ample experience with the failure of new woods in these conditions, and the success of old wood, and so I'm very sympathetic to the argument that replacing a brick mold or a window trim with new wood and calling it a like kind, to me, that's an inaccurate description. It is not like what the old wood was like. It's a vastly inferior product, and it makes a situation where the owner has to put something on his house that is going to fail, and I have a real problem with that, so I should have prefaced this by saying I really respect the preservation staff's findings, I really respect the BOAR's findings, and to me, this is really the only issue that I think argues for the applicant's case, so I guess I could ask if Betty or Amelia would like to respond to that, but I guess I'm making a statement, not so much as asking a question, and my statement comes as much from experience as it does from understanding the guidelines. So is that a statement or a question at this point? I would leave it open. If you'd like to respond to that, I'd like to, I'd be interested in hearing your response. Ms. Carr, I would say just be brief, because we've got to allow it on both sides, and we could go back and forth the rest of the day. Well, I learned a long time ago not to get in a spitting contest with voting members of any body, so I don't think as preservation staff that this is the forum, nor specific to this application, the place to get into a much-welcomed philosophical dialogue, which Mr. Pohl and I have had over the years, many excellent dialogues about many things of both detail and broad things that impact historic preservation and impact our community, and I'm always appreciative of those discussions. I would say, however, that in terms of saying new wood is not going to be a product that is going to last, there are currently available woods that help avoid that outcome, some of your finer woods, and on a building of historic nature, so they're not second growth, they're not third growth, but they are woods that are environmentally responsibly produced for the use in construction. They're not cheap, but then neither is Burrell, and they do have a better longevity than going out and getting some pine and putting it on your building. No one is suggesting that that would be the right solution. So I think the design guidelines, philosophies are still quite appropriate and have what would be an outcome with integrity, but I think there certainly would be specified the nature of the wood that would be used in such a repair so that the historic fabric that does survive could continue to be in place and have its in-kind replacement join it. I think that's about all I'll say. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Griggs, response to that of any sort? No? Thank you. Yes, sir. I have a question. On the property, the windows that have been replaced, other than the ones that were, I guess, at one time inside the porch area, are there any windows that the BOA are approved to have the Burrell as trim? No. The current status is that the windows and the window sashes were in really bad shape and not able to be repaired and worked with. So the process authorized, as has been mentioned by the applicant, the window sashes be replaced. The moldings, the window moldings, have not been resolved, with the exception of the ones we've referenced that he did put the Burrell because tied to his determination as the property owner, it was an inside space. Other than those, they have not to be resolved, yet to be resolved. Including ones that were in the areas that were deemed new construction? Now that, I'm not familiar if you have completed out on your new construction, and if so, you know, Burrell was approved to go with that because it is new construction. So what I'm saying is your historic window openings on the main mass of the house that had and continue to have some wood brick moldings continue to exist in that condition with no repair yet accomplished on the window moldings. Am I correct? On the windows where the brick mold was historic, the original historic part of the house, there is no Burrell brick mold installed except where I was able to accomplish it because it was an inside space. But all the rest of the way around the house on the historic windows, they're replaced. New windows are there, but we are without brick mold of any kind at the moment. So I'm waiting to determine whether I can finish out the house with the original brick mold that's usable, and where it's missing or not usable, I'd like to put Burrell brick mold on that I fabricate myself. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Bell? Mr. Pohl, I'd like your comments, if you don't mind, on the answer that was given and your comments from Ms. Kerr's answer, if you don't mind commenting. One of the dilemmas that the BOAR has frequently is asking people to do things that are more expensive than they may need to be if they were to cut corners from a preservation standpoint. You're not supposed to consider the cost when you make a decision as a BOAR member, but I mean the reason that there is a BOAR is because every circumstance is different and every applicant, every site, every condition is ... You never have the same thing over again. Ms. Kerr is talking about using a higher grade lumber, which it's occurred to me that there are some materials out there that are sustainably harvested and that really have extreme longevity, but the typical homeowner is not going to spring for those. The typical homeowner would not spring for them. Mr. Griggs might spring for them because he's very particular. I agree that there are some options in the world of wood that would work quite well, but I also look at the fact that cementitious siding was not allowed for years. It's quite evident that replacing wood siding that's shot with currently available wood sidings is a really bad idea. You can get decent redwood cliver sidings, but they're finger jointed. They're nothing like the old redwood sidings used to be. I wouldn't recommend it, and so now cementitious siding is accepted. To me, this is an absolutely parallel circumstance. It's a situation where the technology is ahead of the rulemaking, and I think the rulemakers are correctly defending a position with as much energy as they can, and I think that's their job and that's what they should do, but I'm here to predict that it's just a matter of time before products like Burrell will be accepted in the same way that cementitious siding is accepted. My question is, do we want to jump in the middle of that argument, you know? Well, the reason I asked you, because I regard very much your involvement in history and talent, and Mr. Griggs, observing y'all's work, I guess it's you and your wife's work, is really just extraordinary, and my opinion would be that you're not looking to cut corners I mean, the meticulous work that you do is just, it's extraordinary, and I'm respectful of that, and I'm respectful of Ms. Kerr and the historical, yet it's a balance, you know, it's hard to find that happy median, and I think to Mr. Pohl's comments that this is something that, you know, timing-wise, you might just be not quite there yet, I don't know, but I can tell you, you know, I'm sensitive to it, and finding that balance, and it's not easy. So, thank you, you've done incredible work, so thank you so very much. Okay, so we're showing questions, I think, as well. Ms. Mundy wants to go last, so, no, she said she'd go last, so Mr. Wilson, go right ahead. Well, I can direct that. Let me say that you all have carried me further in the woods, no pun intended, than I ever thought. I don't know enough about the subject to actually get into a lot of the discussion here, but let me just clarify a couple things. We're talking about how many windows, three? There are three windows that are missing their original trim, and there are some other window openings that might struggle with the original trim because of the variations in the width, but the lion's share of the original brick mold I don't have an exact count, but there's three windows that I'll have to use Boral on, and one other had plastic stapled on it with a thousand staples, and they're all rusted out, and I don't see how I can pull those out and get the lead paint off it and sand it and use it. So, that's one other window that I'd like to change out, and there's four brick openings that have at least a half inch out of plum, so I might be able to use the original trim if I shave it, but if it has to be bigger, then at some point, I'd rather replace it. So, you have three windows that you definitively, but it could be more, maybe? Well, it could be more than three, but I did take the brick mold off of those windows, and I numbered each piece, and they're stored safely in the house, and I can work with Amelia to if the bottoms are rotted where they're sitting on those limestone sills to a large degree, that means you've got to cut them off and splice a piece on. I'd rather maybe use that piece for a shorter window, but then it leaves me with a long window that doesn't have brick mold on it, so I don't want to make it overly complicated. I'm not trying to pin you down, I'm trying to learn a few things here as it relates to the extensiveness of what we're talking about here, that's all I'm trying to get, so it's not an issue there. I have another, go ahead. So staff would like, this was part of staff's statement about the number of windows that need replacement, the amount that needs replacement. From experience with my work in historic preservation and architectural preservation, typically on a national level project, you need to document the total amount that is being kept and the total amount that is being removed. In this case, staff doesn't have a clear understanding about what the applicant wants, so in this case, from our understanding of the appellant's appeal to this commission, he is asking for carte blanche, not for a specific set of numbers of windows based off of the appeal, based off of the BOAR case. So in that case, staff is unwilling to say that we know that some will be preserved or we're going to lose some. It results in somewhat of a wishy-washy kind of determination that is not really a legal application. It's either a set number, all of them, or none of them. And I guess that's what I was confused about myself in terms of whether this was just, you almost like, you almost talk like sometimes a surgeon, they don't know what's going to happen until they get in there, and then they have to do a lot of things that they didn't understand that they're going to have to do. And so I'm sympathetic to that, but I understand the staff side of it as well. In conjunction with what Mr. Bailey said, it was an application made on it for as-needed, replace as-needed, was the language. Other questions? Can I ask one more? Sure. Again, I'm learning here a little bit, and maybe Mr. Polk can help me out here, my colleague. The fact that the BOA would allow this borough on new construction, why? Why would they not just stick with the same principle for the new construction as it would the old? I'm sorry. Well, and that expressed question is why we did this study in 2017 about Borough and to see what other communities were doing with it or not allowing it or if they were allowing it and what situations and so forth and so on. And we visited Shaker Town, which was being used. They were doing a project over there as a test case for Borough in conjunction with the Kentucky Heritage Council Preservation, Statewide Preservation Office. And there, I visited it twice, and I think Amelia visited it once. And using it as a microcosm, they found it was the least successful as a product on the long runs of Clatford, you know, wood siding of buildings. They did not, in that project, ever allow it to be tried on the window itself to be window surrounds or moldings or either. So but Amelia can give you a quick summary of what that study in 2017 exhibited. And basically, I will say one sentence, and then if you would like to offer her the opportunity to tell you a little more about the nuances, the end result was that in historic districts at the time, it was not being approved with any regularity and with not any kind of a track record that we were comfortable with that suggested this was something that the Secretary of the Interior Standards was turning to allow for use on tax credit projects. They are not. So it wasn't just a shot in the dark to say, hey, Borough might not be a great product. We did do a lot of looking into it. And as I say, Amelia can give you more if you would like to hear more. I'll leave that up to my colleagues if they want to hear that. But I think I got the nuance, I got the essence of what it is. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? Ms. Mundy, your turn. First of all, I want to start out by saying, you know, we have these preservation areas. We have the H1 overlays and those different overlays that we have, the Belcourt area is one of those. And I think we certainly need to be mindful of that as we're making our decisions on these kinds of things. I also would suggest, and maybe your study does prove that, there are new materials being created all the time. I've worked with a builder here in Lexington for 23 years, I've represented the same builder. He also does some remodeling. And I know there are new products all the time because he's telling me about a new product he's using in a house or in a remodel or that. So I know that, you know, those are kinds of things that that study of the Burrell is a good thing so that we can learn to know which products are better. Also in my lifetime of 36 years of being a realtor, I've also seen a lot of wood, wick water up in it and you've got to cut it off, there's a maintenance issue there and that. And then I have to go back to my own personal experience of putting in windows this fall because I couldn't be there the day I was set to do it and had to have somebody come in and be there until I could get home because we had a meeting here. And so, and interestingly enough, they did have to take the brick molding off to get my windows out. They used the same brick molding and put it back and they have a service call because all seven of my windows this weekend leaked. The rain came in just like waterfalls coming in my new windows and I'm not a happy camper about that. So, I do know that just like I think Mr. Pohl said, depending on the property and the product and that, there are some things that vary, whether it's putting back that wood or whether it's using a newer product or whatever. But my confusion in this whole thing is, is it new construction or is it rehabilitation? You've got both. And so, where do you draw the line on that? Because you're going to have some windows with boral and then as suggested by the BOAR, we're going to have some windows without boral. Now, as a realtor, and I'm showing that house to sale, and if I have one of those engineers that I don't necessarily like to sell houses to because they're so picky, but he's going to say, why are these three windows this way and these windows that way? And so, I see it as a problem as far as the overall, not strength of structure, but the look of structure. So, you know, you've allowed boral on the new construction windows and then you're saying, well, but you can't use that on the historic part. So then you've got a mismatch on the windows, and I have a problem with that. So, you know, I don't know how to evaluate this, whether it's new construction or rehab, you're in an H1 overlay, you've got to protect all of that. And then to say the brick mold's not part of the window, my experience of my windows, it was part of the windows. So where do you draw the line on that? So I'm kind of up in the air on this thing, you know, have any of the neighbors complained? That would be something else I'd want to know. Have you heard from any of the neighbors? And then, you know, the material in question, it's fairly new material and they did test it at Shaker Town, how do we know that it is not a superior product to old wood going back in? So that's my thought on it. So, that's it. Okay. Very good. Other questions? Yeah. Graham, what do you think about the material? Save that for one second. That's a question. Now, save that for one second. We can get into our own discussion on that. Questions? Yeah. Going back out to our fine friends there. Anybody else? I've got 15 pages here from last night. I've drilled it down to about one. I was going to ask one question, but I'll save it for a statement later. So if everybody's okay, I'll close this part of the hearing and we'll go to interior questions back and forth and or other statements, and then we'll go to a motion. Okay? Mr. Bell. Yes, sir. Do you have an opinion, Graham, on this material? It's worth a ton, my opinion. I think it's an excellent material as a trim material. I do not think it's an excellent material as a siding material. I think the Shaker Town experience proved that as it uses a siding, it's problematic. So that's my opinion. So then in this occurrence, you're comfortable with the usage of it? Are you comfortable with the usage of it in this occurrence here? I think that the question here is not so much. Yeah, I mean, if there were no questions of precedent and of the whole process of decision-making that we would be overturning, I would say, yeah, it's a great material. You won't be able to look at that house and know that it's any different from anything else that's been there, and it'll last. But we do have those other issues that we have to think about. And if I may, and maybe you're not the right one to ask, do you have an estimate in your mind of the difference between this material, the cost, and what it would take for the highest look? Okay. I don't know anything about that. All right. Thank you. I do know that we have specified for our, when I was still working as an architect, that we specified that material quite a bit, and we had really good results with it. And it was used widely. So that would suggest to me that, I know it was an expensive material, but my experience with it was that it wasn't so expensive that it would be precluded from being used in a fairly normal circumstance. Thank you. Other statements? Yes, sir. May I ask my colleague, Ms. Mundy, a question? Sure. Sure. Related to... I was out there looking at the house today, and I walked all over the place trying to figure out what was going on. Now, again, I'm not an astute construction person, and I would say that I was looking at a difference without a distinction. I couldn't tell one window from the other. But having said that, being a relative, does this add value to the home? When you have mismatched windows, is it more important that they fit and that they keep the rain out, or does having mismatched windows within a home either increase the value of the home or lower the value? I think it depends on your client. The average client just wants to be sure that there's a window there... There and whatever. ...not like mine that are leaking. So they want to be sure. But then, depending on the client you get, and Anthony's probably dealt with this with some of his agents or whatever, but if you get an engineer, someone who's a techie or that, they are very astute. I'm a married one, so I know how to deal with them, usually. But if you're dealing with someone who is an engineer or a builder or someone who's worked construction or someone who is very technical-minded, they're going to look at every one of those windows. They're going to... Oh, I'm sorry. They're going to look at every one of those windows. They're going to try them. They're going to make sure they work. Half the time with some of these technical people, when you're showing them houses, they're doing their home inspection while they're looking at it. They're going to try the windows and be sure they go up and down, and then that's when they're going to say, oh, the windows in that new addition back there are different than these windows here on the front. Why is that? But the issue of performance, is that more important than just the look? No. Not to a technical person. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. But that's... They're going to get up close and personal, was my point in that. Okay. Other statements, thoughts? Yes, sir? Yeah. I would just say that I think what we heard is that all the windows in this property are being replaced with what would look like the same window. The difference is the molding on the outside, and I'm going to gather, based on the samples that were passed around, after you paint them and you look at them, you're probably not going to be able to tell which is which, which was the original and which was the new material, if you looked at it. However, this property is sitting in an H1 zone, and you ask the question about real estate, the buyers know that they bought property in an H1 zone, and their conditions are changing it. You have to get approval. And I think the issue is more of, is this a piece of material that can be approved or not? Either material put on there is going to work, it's going to last some length of time, just like a five-year shingle or a 30-year shingle, they're all going to work, they're going to look identical, but it has to get approved if you're living in that area, and you know that. I think, to me, that's the big difference here is where the property sits and their conditions, because it's in an H1. Maybe those rules need to be changed to allow something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, no way I would ever be able to tell that there was a difference other than the people who were charged with being responsible to decide what materials go in an H1 overlay. Yes, ma'am? Thank you. I think at this point, we've come down to the thing in a nutshell is what a colleague said earlier, that technology is ahead of rulemaking, and I think that's what our conversation right now is reflecting, so that would be my feeling. Anyone else? I was just going to mention the letter that was distributed earlier from Linda Carroll, in which she urged us to honor the people who are the experts in this matter and the decision that they have made, recognizing that they are spending a lot of their time and energy on these very issues frequently, as we spend time on zoning issues, they're spending time on preservation issues, and I think that's a good point. Anyone else? If not, I'll close this up then with a couple of my own thoughts. One, I think everyone would recognize that we do take historic overlays seriously. We have met several times and voted on that on several occasions and had long meetings to do so. So, you know, anything that's done in an H1 overlay, we respect immensely. Normally, we're here talking about vinyl, and it does say no vinyl in an H1 overlay. I'm thumbing through 30 some odd papers here, and I thought last night I saw something that spoke of wood, spoke of like kind, said no vinyl, but did not say that borel was prohibited. I might have dreamed it, because it was late last night when I was reading that. But in looking at this, we've got an old house in an historic district that, quite frankly, was probably ready for a bulldozer. A lot of work has been done, and to me, what I've seen, it's quality work. And from what I understand, it sounds like the applicant has been to the BOAR on many occasions trying to get approval and trying to do things the right way under the guidelines. I've, you know, myself, I've pounded nails since I was very young, at a very young age, for various reasons. Usually it was to make a buck, but sometimes, you know, it was renovation of a house or whatever. I've put in new windows. I've replaced old windows, and any time replacing an old window, the brick mold has to come off. The brick mold comes off the window frame. The brick mold does not come off the brick. To me, that's part of the window. You know, with this house, you know, we're talking about new construction. It's okay for new construction, but on old, it's not. New construction, we're talking about replacing a porch that was dilapidated, that was deteriorating. We're talking about replacing it. We're talking about the same thing when it comes to a window. The window is deteriorated, and we're replacing it. And I was going to ask Mr. Bailey, but I decided not to put him on the spot, as to has anyone tried to take off a piece of trim before? Have they ever gotten all of their work done without breaking that piece of trim? You know, I know I've been there many times, and, you know, I've broken my share of the trim. We talked about using some of the old material. Mr. Griggs talked about splicing joints. To me, ultimately, that weakens what we're putting in. As soon as you splice it, you can caulk it, you can paint it, but guess what? That's going to be the first place moisture goes to, as opposed to one continuous piece. So it's difficult to use replacement pieces, particularly if you're talking about splicing stuff. We all saw the product. It's, to me, it looks like a quality product. I saw it out at site. And, you know, I mean, here, I practically couldn't tell if it was wood or not. Ms. Kerr spoke about the historic fabric of being in an H1 overlay. You know, what I'm being, what I see being done to this house, and I see the house as the historic structure. The house is still there. We've still got that historic structure. What is being done to it, to me, complements it. If it complements the house, it's going to complement the whole H1 district. We're talking about being ahead of our times. We may be. We may be in this situation. With vinyl, I don't think so. But with this, we may be ahead of our times. So, you know, that's, you know, once again, I mean, I can't see a difference between new construction or replacement of a window. I mean, we're replacing a porch because it needs replacing. We're building a new porch because it needs it. Materials approved there that is not wood. Eight feet away on the corner of the front of the house, we're not going to allow the same material to be used as a brick mold. Yeah, I've got a problem with that. So I will close. You can guess where I'm headed. But I'm going to leave it up to you all and ask for a motion. Or we can have more discussion. Wishes? Wants? Do we want to bring it back for more discussion later? I don't think so. I'll make a motion. Okay. I move that we deny the request of BOAR 2020-1 for 601 Boonesboro Avenue based on the information we've heard. Second. I'm going to ask you to clarify that. Are we upholding the decision of staff as far as disapproval of the appeal? Yes. Upholding the decision of the staff. Okay. That's what I'm trying to get to. This is for BOAR 2020-1 at 601 Boonesboro Avenue. Mr. Chairman, you're upholding the decision of the BOAR, not of the staff. Okay. I'm sorry. I saw the staff report. You're good with that, Mr. Mulvaney? Yes. Okay. Mr. Powell, you second it? You're good with it? Okay. Questions in regards to it? This is for upholding the decision of the BOAR. Now, let me double check here. If you're voting it in favor of upholding the BOAR decision, you vote yes, right? Correct. Okay. Okay. Anything else? If not, I'll call for a vote. Vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion fails. So, look. Ms. Jones, can I ask for another motion? Yes? Would someone like to make another motion? Yes? Regarding BOAR 2021, 601 Bloomsboro Avenue, I move to withhold, to disapprove the opinion of the BOAR. Okay. No, we voted to approve. The original vote was to uphold the decision of the BOAR. I'm good. For disapproval of the applicant's request. Okay. Ms. Pullman, are you suggesting that we overturn the BOAR? Yes. That would be a better way to phrase it. Would you like to rephrase that? Okay. Overturn. I move that we overturn the opinion of the BOAR. Okay. So, we do have a motion to overturn the opinion of the BOAR. You want reasons? Yes. Sure. You do need reasons. Yes. Okay. Thank you. For reasons that, again, that came out in discussion with the commission, that technology is ahead of rulemaking. Okay. I second. So, we have a motion to overturn the decision of the BOAR for the reasons provided. Ms. Wade, are you okay? Not really. Not really? That's a very broad finding. Okay. I would. Would you like to take a moment? Yes. I think the law department may be advised of it. Can I ask this while we're also doing this? Just so we're clear, if you overturn the decision of the BOAR, then you're, in essence, granting the appeal made by the applicant, which will, in fact, grant the certificate of appropriateness. So, I just want to make sure you know that's what you're doing, and we'll try to accomplish that, too. I think it would be appropriate to ask the Historic Preservation staff if there are any standard conditions associated with approving a certificate that would be appropriate in this case. In this instance, the specificity is that I would ask if it's the commission's intent that Borel be approved to go on every window molding in the building. If so, you might want to indicate that in your motion, because the Board of Trustees, if so, you might want to indicate that in your motion, because the Board of Architectural Review's action was based on an as-needed basis, the use to use Borel as needed. So, if you intend for this to result in the original wood being torn off of the historic window openings, original wood being removed and thrown away, and Borel put on every window, you need to know that's going to be the outcome of this motion, that you are not only approving Borel where parts are missing, but you're – I'm not trying to interject into what your motion says. I'm just saying the outcome, if I'm hearing you, would be that the permit our staff would be charged with issuing would be to allow the removal of all the existing historic wood and its replacement throughout every window opening with Borel. If that is your intent, please confirm that or tell us differently as part of your motion, please. And then, to answer your more procedural question about conditions, usually on anything like this, it would be, you know, the first thing is it'll be done in accordance with the details provided by the applicant, which we would need to finalize that, as in – which he's very used to doing. And that'd be the first condition. And then, the second – there are two other conditions which are standard, which is that it'll be in compliance with all other necessary permits of government. These are your boilerplate kind of conditions, and so that's very normal. But your first condition – well, not yours, but the permit will reflect the first condition that responds to it will be in accordance with the details provided by the applicant, Mr. Griggs, Mr. and Mrs. Griggs. And those details would need to be in accordance with what your motion reflects. Does that make sense? Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. I was going to offer to take, like, a five-minute recess. We're past Mr. Penn's three o'clock break anyway. So if we can, let's take a five-minute recess and we'll resume. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So thank everyone for their patience. As always, we do want to get it right, so I think we have now. So, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we've spent a long time on this one because we are serious about what is presented on our agenda. And each case is individual. And I personally believe strongly in ordinances and adhering to the ordinances. But I also consider that each case is individual. So, with that, I would like to move, make a motion to overturn the finding of the BOA on BOAR 2021-601 Boonesboro Avenue. And the findings, due to the severe deterioration in some of the windows molding at this location, those that cannot be preserved can be replaced with Burrell true exterior and considered as new construction. Two conditions. Done, number one, done in accordance with LFUG HP staff review of integrity of original window molding. Condition number two, compliance of all other necessary permits of the LFUCG. So moved. Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second on BOAR 2020-1 at 601 Boonesboro Avenue to overturn the BOAR's decision. And you heard the findings and the conditions behind it. Any questions in regards to the motion? Ms. Mundy made the second. Any questions on the motion? This is for overturning the BOAR's decision. If that's what you want to do, vote yes on it. If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. So, thank everyone. It's never easy. We all take it seriously and, you know, I've often said all of us want to do is do what's right for Lexington. So, hopefully we're there. Thank you, everyone. I think it's Mr. Murphy's turn. Mr. Billings, I'm glad you did arrive. I don't know if Mr. Murphy knew what he was agreeing to when he agreed to it, though. Ms. Gopp looks like she's coming down. This is Lockmere, Plan MJDP 19-81, Lockmere Track 4. Okay. It's another brown sheet. This is Plan MJDP 19-81, Lockmere Track 4B, Stonecase Valley, Andover Club. This was recently rezoned. This is the location of the old golf course clubhouse. There's a pool, and then we had some open areas, a trail. And we had seen a zone change for this property, and now they're coming back with a final development plan that is very similar to what their zone change proposal was. They brought us in a revision. Part of our question at the time we had the recommendation of postponement was because we were wanting to make sure that in the townhome area they were able to meet their open space requirements because they're subdivided into individual lots. So, with the revisions here, we have just our typical sign-offs, as you can see. We need a condition to label all the access easements within the townhome area. If they don't have those labeled, we want to make sure that that's labeled because we have a note saying no parking on those access easements. Then we had to pick the variation of a three-foot offset for every three townhomes. That is a requirement when you have a string of townhomes. Every third townhome, it needs to be offset. We would like to see that in the layout of the townhomes so that it helps every three units. So, it can help with building inspection so that they can see where they're going to put these offsets in there. And then, addition of the insert showing the compliance with open space requirements for each lot. Tony had presented a sheet showing us how he was going to meet that. We would just like to have that also on the development plan base to show how those lots are going to meet their open space. So, with that, after those revisions, I believe the staff believes we can recommend approval. Thank you. If you all have any other questions? Ms. Galt. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. Tony Barrett and I are here on behalf of Anderson Communities. Mr. Billings is here on behalf of the association which Anderson Communities purchased the property from. And as Ms. Galt mentioned, the main issue at the subcommittee meeting was the open space requirement. And I think Tony has demonstrated our compliance to the satisfaction of the staff. And we are in agreement with the staff conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Yes, sir. You're more than welcome. We waited just for you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Murphy and I talked, and my son had his science fair today at 2 o'clock, so it was to accommodate me to get from his school down here. Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Billings. I represent ACP, which was the owner of the property who sold to Anderson Acquisitions. Because of some of the issues raised at the subcommittee hearing, I told Mr. Murphy that I would make sure I was present today to show support. ACP agrees with staff recommendations and is in favor of the plan. It has a couple of changes from the original plan, which we have agreed and negotiated with Anderson on. We appreciate their continued partnership in this deal. Thank you, sir. Mr. Barrett, do you have anything to add? No? You're good? I think that takes care of everyone in the audience. Questions from the commission? No? If not, I think we can move on. We can close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motion. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I am. First of all, Mr. Billings, I would appreciate the fact that you keep your priorities in order. That's great. I move that we approve PLN-MJDP-19-81, Locklear Track 4B, Stone Caves Valley, Andover Club, with the 13 conditions provided by staff. I believe there are two on the back. There are two on the back. There should be 15 conditions. Sorry, 15 conditions provided by staff. Thank you. We do have a motion for approval of plan MJDP-19-81, Locklear Track 4, with the revised 15 conditions. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. So thank you. Thank you all for your patience. Staff items. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You all will notice that we are one week off in each of our meetings this month, and that continues next week. So we will be having a work session next Thursday, the 23rd, at 130 in the Phoenix Building, third floor. We have a number of items for you, and I'm just going to give you a quick preview. One will be an update on the work of the Green Space Commission and the things they've been doing over the past year. We have several staff updates for you also, and we're also going to be sort of laying out the calendar of work session activities through the end of April, so you'll kind of see what's coming up. We've got a number of things, and we want to get those before you. And we'll be getting that agenda out to you on Friday because of the holiday week next week, so we'll get that out to you early. And one of the updates also is a law update, and Tracy would like to address you at this time to see if there's anything that we can help prepare you for that. Because we've gotten several questions recently about things that relate to open meetings, open records, conflicts of interest, we just thought we'd try to do an update. But we're going to try to do it primarily in a discussion format so that you all can ask questions. So if you have any specific thing you would like for us to address, if you would like either maybe give me a call over the next week or email me, then we can try to incorporate that in as well. But we will be – I don't want you to have to listen to a lawyer for 30 minutes. So it will be a back and forth discussion thing so you can, you know, maybe ask a question and we can try to answer it. But if there are certain things you'd like to know, I'd like to maybe be able to look at those a little ahead of time so I can give you the best answer we can. Okay. I will chime in on this. I did bring this up to Mr. Duncan and Ms. Jones. And well, I don't mind saying right here, right now, not because of any of the recent past, but over the years we have had various situations to arise, not necessarily open meetings, but possible conflicts of interest. And there's always been discussion. And I just said, hey, let's just have a quick review of it. So that's what we're talking about. And I would encourage if anyone has any thoughts, has any specific questions, wants to get it to Tracy in advance, please do so. So, okay. Anything? Any questions? No? Mr. Duncan, improvement plan progress report? Is there anything there? Ms. Wade? No, we didn't have anything. There's nothing there. Okay. Thank you. Audience items. That's dwindled. Stay seated, Tom. So our next meeting, as you heard, is next week, work session next door. If nothing else, thank everyone. And this meeting is adjourned.