# Board of Architectural Review - August 19, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 19, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5190 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5190?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-08-19 - **Last revised**: August 19, 2020 - **Length**: 21,613 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review held a meeting on August 19, 2020, at 4:00 PM via video teleconference. The meeting addressed 10 agenda items, all involving various residential construction and modification projects throughout the community. During the session, the board took 10 votes on applications ranging from solar panel installations and parking lot construction to home additions and garage demolitions. Of the 10 projects reviewed, 8 were approved, 1 was denied, and 1 was tabled for further consideration. The approved projects included solar panel installation at 224 Lackawanna, parking lot construction at 421 and 425 South Mill Street, porch rebuilding at 303 Desha Road, garage demolition and outbuilding construction at 216 East Bell Court, additions at 203 Arcadia Park and 722 West Maxwell, porch rebuilding and addition at 260 Clay Avenue, and garage construction at 667 Elsmere Park. The board denied the application for painting a brick structure at 221 Barberry Lane and tabled the driveway design revision project at 788 Caden Lane. One member of the public provided comments during the meeting. The meeting demonstrated the board's active review of residential architectural modifications and construction projects across various neighborhoods in the jurisdiction. ## Attendance The following members were present for the meeting on August 19, 2020: **Present:** • Linda Gorton • Bettie Kerr • Amelia Armstrong • Jim Dickinson • Suzanne Irwin • Josh Gilpin • Susan Hill All scheduled members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included ten Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) decisions, with nine approvals, one denial, and one postponement. **Approved Applications:** • **224 Lackawanna** - Mr. Gilpin motioned to approve the COA for solar panel installation, subject to standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 02:00] • **421 and 425 South Mill Street** - Ms. Irwin seconded the motion to approve the COA for parking lot construction, subject to standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 06:00] • **303 Desha Road** - Mr. Gilpin seconded the motion to approve the COA for front porch rebuilding, subject to standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 10:00] • **216 East Bell Court** - The COA for garage demolition and outbuilding construction passed by voice vote with one abstention, subject to standard conditions and submission of final details. [timestamp: 14:00] • **203 Arcadia Park** - Ms. Hill seconded the motion to approve the COA for demolition and addition construction, subject to standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 18:00] • **722 West Maxwell** - The COA for demolition and addition construction passed by voice vote, subject to standard conditions. [timestamp: 22:00] • **260 Clay Avenue** - Ms. Hill motioned to approve the COA for porch rebuilding and addition construction. The motion passed by voice vote with one abstention, subject to standard conditions and submission of final details. [timestamp: 40:00] • **667 Elsmere Park** - The COA for garage construction passed by voice vote, subject to standard conditions and reduction of garage size. [timestamp: 60:00] **Other Actions:** • **788 Caden Lane** - Mr. Gilpin motioned to continue the COA for driveway design revision to September 16 for revised design submission. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 30:00] • **221 Barberry Lane** - Ms. Hill seconded the motion to deny the COA for painting a brick structure. The motion failed by voice vote. [timestamp: 50:00] ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one resident addressed the board regarding a historic district matter. **Sarah Schoenberg** [timestamp: 50:00] spoke as a resident of the historic district to voice her objections to the painting of the brick structure located at 221 Barberry Lane. Schoenberg expressed concerns about this proposed alteration to the property within the historic district boundaries. The public comment period focused solely on this historic preservation issue, with no other residents or stakeholders choosing to address the board during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that generated significant discussion and community opposition. **221 Barberry Lane - Paint Brick Structure** The primary contentious issue involved an application to paint a brick structure at 221 Barberry Lane. The proposal faced substantial community opposition, with concerns centered around historic preservation guidelines and the appropriateness of altering the building's original brick facade. The disagreement appeared to stem from differing perspectives on whether painting the brick structure would comply with established historic preservation standards for the area. Community members who opposed the application likely raised concerns about maintaining the historic character and integrity of the neighborhood, while the applicant presumably sought approval for aesthetic or maintenance reasons. The nature of the opposition suggests this item involved broader questions about balancing property owners' desires to modify their buildings against community standards for historic preservation. Such disputes typically involve considerations of architectural guidelines, neighborhood character preservation, and the precedent that approval might set for similar future applications. The extracted data does not specify the final outcome of this contested item or provide details about the specific arguments presented by either supporters or opponents of the proposal. The resolution of this matter would have required the governing body to weigh the community concerns against the applicant's request while considering applicable historic preservation guidelines and local regulations. ## 224 Lackawanna - Install Solar Panels [timestamp: 02:00] The board reviewed an ordinance application for the installation of solar panels at 224 Lackawanna. Mr. Gilpin presented the item to the board for consideration. Staff recommended approval of the solar panel installation with standard conditions. The application followed the typical review process for residential solar installations in the jurisdiction. The board approved the ordinance allowing the solar panel installation at 224 Lackawanna to proceed under the recommended conditions. ## 421 and 425 South Mill Street - Construct Parking Lot [timestamp: 06:00] The board reviewed an application to construct a parking lot at 421 and 425 South Mill Street during agenda item 2. Ms. Irwin presented the proposal to the board for consideration. Staff recommended approval of the parking lot construction project with standard conditions. The application underwent the standard review process for this type of development proposal. The board approved the application for the parking lot construction at the South Mill Street location. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with constructing the parking lot at 421 and 425 South Mill Street, subject to meeting the standard conditions typically applied to such projects. ## 303 Desha Road - Rebuild Front Porch [timestamp: 10:00] The board reviewed agenda item 3, an ordinance application for rebuilding the front porch at 303 Desha Road. Mr. Gilpin presented the application to the board for consideration. Staff recommended approval of the porch reconstruction project with standard conditions. The application involved rebuilding the existing front porch structure at the residential property. The board approved the application as presented, allowing the property owner to proceed with the front porch rebuild project subject to the standard conditions recommended by staff. ## 216 East Bell Court - Demolish Garage and Construct Outbuilding [timestamp: 14:00] The board considered agenda item 4, an ordinance regarding a property development application at 216 East Bell Court. The proposal involved demolishing an existing garage structure and constructing a new outbuilding in its place. Staff presented their analysis of the application and recommended approval of the project, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The specific conditions attached to the staff recommendation were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The board proceeded to review the application materials and staff recommendations. No specific speakers were identified during the discussion of this agenda item, and the available records do not indicate any significant debate or concerns raised by board members regarding the proposed demolition and construction project. Following their review of the application and staff recommendations, the board voted to approve the ordinance. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with demolishing the existing garage and constructing the proposed outbuilding at 216 East Bell Court, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. The approval represents the board's determination that the proposed project meets applicable zoning requirements and development standards for the property location. ## 203 Arcadia Park - Demolish and Construct Addition [timestamp: 18:00] The board reviewed agenda item 5, an ordinance application for 203 Arcadia Park involving the demolition of an existing addition and construction of a new addition to the property. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board for consideration. Staff had reviewed the proposed demolition and construction project and provided their recommendation for approval with standard conditions attached. The board proceeded to vote on the application following the presentation and discussion. The application was approved, allowing the property owner to move forward with demolishing the current addition and constructing the new addition as proposed, subject to the standard conditions recommended by staff. ## 722 West Maxwell - Demolish and Construct Addition [timestamp: 22:00] The board reviewed Agenda Item 6, an ordinance application for 722 West Maxwell involving the demolition of an existing addition and construction of a new addition to the property. Staff presented the application and provided their analysis of the proposed project. Following their review, staff recommended approval of the demolition and construction plans, subject to standard conditions typically applied to such projects. The board proceeded to consider the staff recommendation for this property modification request. No specific speakers were identified during the discussion of this agenda item. The board approved the application for 722 West Maxwell, allowing the property owner to proceed with demolishing the existing addition and constructing the new addition as proposed, contingent upon meeting the standard conditions outlined by staff. ## 788 Caden Lane - Revise Driveway Design [timestamp: 30:00] The board considered agenda item 7, an ordinance regarding a proposal to revise the driveway design at 788 Caden Lane. Mr. Gilpin served as the key speaker for this item. The discussion centered on modifications to the existing driveway design for the property located at 788 Caden Lane. While specific details of the proposed revisions were not extensively documented in the available materials, the item was presented as an ordinance requiring board consideration and potential approval. Following the presentation and discussion, the board determined that additional information was needed before making a final decision on the driveway design revisions. Rather than proceeding with a vote on the current proposal, the board chose to table the matter. The decision to postpone was made to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit a revised design that would address any concerns or requirements identified during the board's review. This approach enables the applicant to refine their proposal and potentially resolve any outstanding issues before the item returns for further consideration. The item remains pending, with the expectation that a revised driveway design submission will be presented to the board at a future meeting for final review and decision. ## 260 Clay Avenue - Rebuild Porch and Construct Addition [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed agenda item 8, an ordinance application for 260 Clay Avenue to rebuild the porch and construct an addition to the existing property. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board during the discussion. Staff had conducted their review of the proposed project and recommended approval of the application, contingent upon certain conditions being met by the applicant. The board proceeded to vote on the ordinance following the presentation and discussion. The application for 260 Clay Avenue to rebuild the porch and construct an addition was approved by the board. The specific conditions attached to the staff recommendation and the details of the proposed construction work were not elaborated upon in the available meeting materials, though the approval indicates the project met the necessary requirements for moving forward with the planned improvements to the property. ## 221 Barberry Lane - Paint Brick Structure [timestamp: 50:00] The board reviewed agenda item 9, an application to paint the brick structure located at 221 Barberry Lane. This ordinance-related matter involved a property owner's request to alter the exterior appearance of their brick building through painting. Staff presented their analysis of the application and recommended denial of the request. The recommendation was based on established guidelines that prohibit painting previously unpainted brick structures. These guidelines are designed to preserve the original character and materials of historic or architecturally significant buildings. Key speakers during the discussion included Ms. White and Mr. Stumbo, who participated in the board's deliberation of the application. The speakers addressed the merits of the request and the applicable standards that govern such modifications to brick structures. The board ultimately voted to deny the application, following the staff's recommendation. This decision upheld the existing guidelines that protect unpainted brick from being altered through painting, maintaining the original architectural integrity of the structure at 221 Barberry Lane. ## 667 Elsmere Park - Construct Garage [timestamp: 60:00] The board reviewed agenda item 10, an ordinance application to construct a garage at 667 Elsmere Park. Mr. Mitchell presented the item to the board during the discussion. Staff had reviewed the application and provided a recommendation for approval, though with specific conditions attached to the proposal. The primary condition recommended by staff was to reduce the size of the proposed garage from what was originally submitted in the application. The board considered the staff recommendation and the proposed modifications to the garage construction plans. The size reduction condition was intended to ensure the project would comply with applicable zoning requirements and maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character. Following their review of the application materials and staff analysis, the board voted to approve the garage construction project at 667 Elsmere Park. The approval included the staff-recommended conditions, particularly the requirement to reduce the garage size as specified in the staff report. The approved ordinance will allow the property owner to proceed with constructing the garage at the Elsmere Park address, subject to meeting the conditions established by the board's approval and any additional permitting requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 224 Lackawanna to install solar panels - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 421 and 425 South Mill Street to construct parking lot - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 303 Desha Road to rebuild front porch - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 216 East Bell Court to demolish garage and construct outbuilding - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 203 Arcadia Park to demolish and construct addition - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 722 West Maxwell to demolish and construct addition - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Continuation of COA for 788 Caden Lane to revise driveway design - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 260 Clay Avenue to rebuild porch and construct addition - **Motion** — failed (0-0): Denial of COA for 221 Barberry Lane to paint brick structure - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 667 Elsmere Park to construct garage --- ## Full transcript Thank you. We are live, sir. Thank you. I would like to welcome you to the August 19, 2020 special meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the state of emergency, this meeting is being held live, our live video. pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. This board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park and we now have a total of 16 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. It is a procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on their agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. I will ask the parties that wish to be heard regarding the application to raise their digital blue hand in order to be allowed to comment as an applicant or citizen making public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you're recognized to speak, and as you start your comments, state your name and address for the public record. upon conclusion of the specific application you're addressing you will be returned to the regular attendee status and you are of course welcome to continue observing the meeting the board will ask any questions or may comments regarding the application and hear comments from any other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion and take final action i would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are pending currently 79 staff approvals. The staff has been very, very busy. Let me read those into the record, please. Starting in the Ashland Park Historic District at 329 Deshaies Avenue, expand the patio. At 306 Deshaies Avenue, rebuild rear deck. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District at 119 South Ashland Avenue, replace the dying tree. At 128 South Ashland Avenue, renovate structure, renovate chimney, and renovate addition. At 210 South Ashland Avenue, remove a dying tree. In the Ellsford Historic District at 514 Central Avenue, remove damaging tree. At 244 Clay Avenue, renovate front porch at 260 clay avenue replace vinyl siding with new cedar siding at 466 east high street remove dangerous tree at 247 kentucky avenue renovate structure at 307 east maxwell street construct new fencing at 456 east maxwell street install landscaping at 161 ransom avenue replace barraged roof at 224 rose street renovate siding and remove tree at 315 321 335 337 360 361 362 363 and 365 transylvania park install gas meters we're so glad they're done at 363 transylvania park remove the damage tree at 366 transylvania park remove damage tree At 368 Transylvania Park, replace garage door. At 368 Transylvania Park, remove front porch or renovate front porch. At 147 Woodland Avenue, rebuild chimney. In the Bell Court Historic District, at 210 Bell Place, renovate dormers. At 210 East Bell Place, renovate structure. At 214 East Bell Place, remove tree. At 215, Bell Place change patio material. At 531, Boonesboro Avenue remove damaging tree. At 222, Delmar Avenue renovate chimneys. At 611, East Main Street reissue the COA. At 519, Russell Avenue prep for painting and renovate structure. At 620, Sare Avenue renovate rear structure. In the Constitution Street area at 114 Constitution Street, relocate the gas meter, 133 Constitution Street and 135 Constitution Street, reload gas meters. In the Fayette Park historic district at 416 Fayette Park, renovate garage. At 435 Fayette Park, install stone pavers and stepping stones. in the north side historic district at 340 new street replace roof decking at 330 hampton court replace fencing at 210 north broadway remove damaged trees renovate structure and replace roof at 555 north broadway remove dead tree at 431 west 2nd street renovate structure at 472 west 2nd Street restore wooden shutters at 473 West 3rd Street renovate porch at 478 West 3rd Street replace replacement windows in the Pensacola historic district at 107 Goodrich Avenue replace roof at 137 Lackawanna Road install replacement fencing at 1827 Nicholasville Road replaced driveway 1859 Nicholasville Road renovate structure at 136 Rosemont Garden installed landscaping at 161 Roseland Garden installed landscaping at 112 Wabash Drive renovate structure and 119 Wabash Drive renovate structure turning now the South Hill Historic District at 324 South Mill Street install hand mills at 331 South Mill Street install small garden shed at 362 south mill street renovate remove damaged tree 432 south mill street relay relocate the gas meter 517 south mill reload gas meter 602 south mill street refurbished front porch 425 south upper street relocate the gas meter in seven parks this are District at 108 Arcadia Park, replace fence. At 517 Arcadia Park, replace Dying Tree. At 526 Arcadia Park, replace fencing. At 534 Arcadia Park, replace fencing. At 113 Barbary Lane, replace fencing. At 134 Barbary Lane, renovate structure. At 129 Shawnee Place, repair, replace fencing. In the Western Suburbs Historic District at 579 West Short Street, reissue the COA. And in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 315 West High Street, remove roofing. And finally, at 351 Marino Street, renovate structure. This brings us to the end of the staff approvals. We will now go to our first application. I normally call these applications in order. Occasionally, if I believe the application may be a contested hearing, I may skip over it and go to other cases that I think can be heard more quickly. So we're starting off with initially 224 Lackawanna install solar panels. Is the applicant here, please? Do I have an applicant or does it take a while? still take a moment to get him in yep i'm here all right uh this is who uh john bogushevsky mr bogushevsky how are you today good yourself i'm well uh i believe the staff this is a uh the scope of work is install solar plant solar panels on a roof i believe the staff has reviewed your application that recommends approval subject to what I have been referring to as the standard conditions. Suzanne, for your purposes, there are certain conditions that routinely appear, and so I have referred to them as their standard conditions just to save a little time and energy. The staff is recommended that once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of a COA, and if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work are you in agreement with those conditions yes thank you very much are there any questions from the board members all right any questions or comments from whatever audience i may have all right hearing none then i think the chair is ready for a motion Mr. Chair per case number 1095-02224 at 224 Lackawanna I move to approve this COA application per the staff's review with the two recommendations as noted and recently read into the record. I do I have a second. Second. All right, Mr. Gilpin. Any further comments on the motion? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Actually, should the procedure be to raise the, I'm just going to ask for aye or just wave your hand one way or the other. Anyone opposed? The motion passes and the COA is approved. Thank you very much. Turning now to case attachment number two at 421 and 425 South Mill Street. Scope of work is construct parking lot fence and landscaping is the applicant here. I have applicant as Matt Burton, Mr. Murphy. Are you here to comment on it or are you the applicant? I'm attorney representing Matt Burton, the applicant. Matt is on the line as well. And we, I think, have our architect, Baron Gibson, may be on the line as well. Well, I see that you have really come low to bear. I will note, Mr. Burton, that the staff has reviewed your application. They recommend approval subject to our standard two conditions. I'm assuming you have heard me read those into the record previously, or have you not? Yes, I have. That's correct. Are you in agreement with those conditions, Mr. Burton? Yes. Yes, we're in agreement with those conditions. All right. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience, such as it is? Okay, then I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 13150421-A and 131-50425-A at 421 and 425 South Mill Street to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two stations. All right. Do I have a second? I second. All right. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. You do have to remember to unmute. any further comments or questions about this application or on the motion itself if not then the chair will call the motion all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed nay motion carries the coa is approved mr murphy mr burton thank you so much for coming these virtual meetings are an entirely different experience for a lot of people so i appreciate you here hey thank you all very much thank you okay mr burton good luck with your application. All right, turning now to attachment number three, case number 05550303-E at 303 Deshaies Road. Scope of work is rebuild the front porch. Is the applicant here? Do. There he comes. Mr. Birch, Miss Birch. And you need to unmute. Can you hear me? Ah, there you are. Miss Birch, I can just bear. I can just barely hear you, ma'am. You can just barely hear me. Is this better? You need to turn up the sound on your device. if you can all right then just speak loudly okay uh i'll identify for the record you are kerry birch and i believe you are the owner of the property yes i am and i also uh invited tom burke who is our architect if there are any other questions okay uh i this is a scope of work has rebuild the front porch i will note for the record that the staff has recommended approval subject to what we've been referring to as our standard conditions. Have you heard me read those into the record previously? Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, I am. Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from the board members? I'm seeing a shaking of heads. Any comments from the virtual audience? Hearing none, I believe I'm ready for a motion. don't be shy Mr. Chair per case number 05 550 303 E I move to approve this COA application per the staff's review with the two standard recommendations as noted All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gilpin. Are there any further comments on the motion itself? If not, then the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye or wave your hands. Aye. Okay. All opposed? Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Ms. Birch, thank you so much. Good luck on your project. Thank you. All right. Okay. The next two applications, number four and number five, I am going to pass over because I believe you will have to have a hearing on those. So I want to turn to item six on our agenda at 216 East Belcourt, case number 01530216 at 216 East Belcourt, Belcourt Historic District. Scope of work is demolish a garage, outbuilding, lunch pool, and landscaping. Is the applicant here? Yeah, this is Roscoe Clausing. Mr. Clausing, good afternoon. Thank you for stating your name for the record. I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to a couple of substantive comments, that the final door details be submitted and the final roof details be submitted, and the other two standard conditions I've been reading into the record. I believe you've heard them already. Have you not? Yes, sir, I have. I've also read them. Okay, are you in agreement with the first two recommendations? I am. I've already had discussions with staff about this. Okay, Mr. Klausing. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? A question, how long do I need to pause to see if there is going to be a comment? Mr. Horne, someone advise me on that? Okay, I'll do a count to 10. And that has already expired. So I believe we're ready for a motion then. I am abstaining from this vote. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 01530216-I at 216 East Bell Court, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, that final door details be submitted. Number two, that final roof details be submitted. And numbers three and four would be our standard conditions. Okay. Do I have a second? I need a second. Second. All right. You're cutting it out, Ms. Hill. I'm not sure what's happening. It just may be the guarantee of virtualness. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion itself? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right. The motion to approve the COA passes and your certificate appropriateness has been approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Okay, turning next to our attachment number seven, case number 00510203-F203 Arcadia Park. Scope of work is demolished edition. Construct edition is the applicant here. I'm not seeing anyone by that name. We have Phyllis Hall or Lucian Lynn. Phyllis Hall has got her. Okay. Ms. Hall, are you there? Is her video on or do you want to have your video on, Ms. Hall? Can you hear me? You need to unmute. Depending on your device, probably somewhere in the right upper end corner, you'll see. Ah, I think you have figured it out. Ms. Hall, I believe the staff has recommended approval subject to what I've been referring to as our standard two conditions. Have you heard those conditions, ma'am? Yes. All right. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? I'm seeing shaking of heads. Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? Hearing none, I believe everybody for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move on case number 00510203F to approve certificate of appropriateness with the stated guidelines. or standard conditions. Standard conditions. It's an already process and you've done very well. Not trying to be paternalistic at all. Oh, no. Do we have a second? Ten. All right. A second from Ms. Hill. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, then the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. And Ms. Hall, your COA has been approved. Good luck on your project. Thank you. Thank you. All right, turning now to attachment number eight at 722 West Maxwell Street, case number 12680722-C, Scope of Work, Demolish Edition, and Construct Edition is the applicant here. Yes, I'm here. This is Oliver Hidalgo. Good afternoon. Thank you for stating your name for the record. The staff has reviewed your application and they are recommending approval subject to the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, I am. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? Hearing none, I think the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, per case number 1268-0722-E, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness as per the recommendations as noted. All right. Do I have a second? Okay, go ahead. Ms. Hill, there's a real, I hate to tell you, this is a real bad lag in your audio. I'm not sure what's happening. I may just not be speaking clearly into the mic. Are you hearing me? I'm hearing you now. You're drifting in and out, so it may just be voice sensitive that you're just going to be right there, especially if you have a comment. Okay. Thank you. Any, now I've lost completely. Do I have a second? I second the motion. All right. All right. Thank you so much. I hope I'm not fading in and out. If I am, please, someone tell me. Is there any further discussion on the motion itself? All right. Then the chair will call the motion. All those in favor, wave your hands or say aye. opposed nay motion passes and the coa as condition is approved uh good luck on your project sir thank you so much have a good day guys all right okay we will now go back into the regular order of our agenda i'll turn the board members attention to attachment number four and that is 788 Caden Lane. Construct new front yard parking area committee and Charlene Hayes are the applicants and I think I saw earlier that Mr. Hayes was in the virtual waiting room. Can we bring him in please? I am here. Can you hear me? I can hear you, but I can't see you. Okay. I don't know why that is, but I can see you for sure. I tell you what the problem may be. I think because Mr. Parrish is waiting to be heard, he has walked you out from where I can see you on my screen. There you are. There you are, sir. How are you today? Good. How are you doing? well it's a pleasure to see you again good to see you as well all right the staff has reviewed your application they this is the scope of work is to construct a new front yard parking area they have made a finding that your shed is acceptable but the driveway itself may be too wide and so they have recommended disapproval of widening the driveway and apron I'm sorry and disapproval of the storage shed as proposed. Actually Mr. I'm sorry I misread it. Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Hayes has submitted a different storage shed that can be approved. Okay. We would change that to an approval. he's and we actually have a final material to a metal material which is acceptable within the guidelines okay is there any need for the board members to look at that those specifications are we just accepting it as a verbal presentation that's I'm not seeing any disagreement with that So since the shed is now made of appropriate materials, Mr. Hayes, we will change that recommendation to approve your storage shed. Any standard conditions, Ms. Armstrong? It would be the same standard condition. All right. So the same two conditions that I've been reading into the record periodically are applicable. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Mr. Hayes? yes yes that's fine thank you all right so uh i'm assuming you would like to be heard about the driveway issue sure sure okay all right so miss armstrong if you'll start the presentation give me a second please okay all right can you see the screen uh you got the wrong one pulled up it's 224 lakawana oh it changed sorry sorry sorry i would think i thought it was being smooth there and we're in a pretty part of town which looks like uh arcadia park well it's not but hold on one second please it's it's a process we're learning i keep waiting for my very first administrative hearing that i might have to do virtually you know it'll probably be an interesting process all right there we go now we have it yes ma'am so the applicant is interested in widening their driveway um this of course this property went for the board a couple of years ago to have the structure constructed with the current drive. They ended up, because of the lot configuration as it is, and because there is a drastic drop-off, they sort of moved the driveway closer, the house closer to this fence line, as you can see over here, which would be on the east side of the property, sort of a northeast, where you could see the trees, trees, evergreen trees. And so, which their initial plan gave them a bit more background space and now they have less. And so their proposal would be to, there's a, if you could see ever so slightly, a pedestrian sidewalk leading to the garage by the basketball court that empties out there. And they are requesting to widen the drive from that particular location where actually the basketball court is down to the street level. And it would be at the widest point, four feet, and then less in some particular areas. And so they're proposing that to be in concrete material. Did you say four feet or less? Four feet at the widest area. Mr. Hayes has alluded to and then and of course it will widen at the street with having a apron. Okay so how close to that mail would be if it were widened just to give us perspective. Pretty close if you think four feet plus a two foot flange so if you are gauging this I would say you're going to be pretty close to that side to that mailbox okay mr just mr hayes that miss our armstrong finisher presentation and I'll hear from you okay sure and then I'm going to go into the next slide so just to give you an idea of the this particular area here to the northeast of the drive and then some more views of just the driveway and the house and then there's some additional information so this is sort of a site plan proposal and then sorry this is not going well hold on there we go and so if you can see this is a pedestrian walkway and the vegetable court set in this particular area it would be widening along that and there's a better plan coming up so hold on one second oh and you can see i hate to ask can you see i hate to ask this board members did you get the site plan i did not should be in there and there should be another one that you'll see uh they it was not included in the packet this should be included in your packet it wasn't interesting can you blow it up so we can see it a little bit better there there we go okay interesting so this would be where the basketball court set and this is the location all right can you show us where you think the more appropriate turnaround would be well I'll go back to some of the images that staff was considering putting it in this location sort of a turnaround sort of a dog leg turnabout and let me get out of this particular screen for a second excuse me for a second I've got some noise in the background So this area here is where you have, there's a span between the two trees, some of the trees here. Staff suggested or recommended this particular location. And then if we go back to the actual visual images, it would be between these two trees. Okay. Let's hold it one second. Between these two trees, having a background area. Any questions by the board? That cleared everybody? The suggestion? Yes, sir. Okay. And then... Okay. I'm sorry. I haven't finished yet, have you? back to this particular image here. Of course guidelines are included for reference. The findings, the proposal to widen the driveway in April requires further discussion. The LFUCG design guidelines 3-5-B-D-E respectively state driveway parking lots that are new should be located in the rear or side of the building not be visually dominant and they should have their priorities located in rear yards and be screened with hedges, shrubs, or fences as appropriate. And driveways should not be sighted in the front yard. Staff finds that the proposal is not within the guidelines. Staff finds that the widening is too visually dominant, that a better location for the turnabout along the fence line is between the evergreen trees on, and I should say, that's the northeast side of the driveway in lieu of the widening of the driveway. Of course, the guidelines are here for, is also for the garage. The proposal of the shed does meet that because it now is metal versus wood referencing guidelines 2B, 2D, and recommendation, of course, staff recommends disapproval of widening the drive, but in lieu of the material choice for the short shed, does approve the approval of the short shed. And, of course, Mr. Hayes is there as well. Okay, before you step away, any questions from the board members of Ms. Armstrong? May I ask, and this may be more appropriate for the owner, but is the purpose of the widening to allow for a turnaround space? Does it have to back all the way out of the driveway? Yes, ma'am. And basically, both of our parents, our youngest parent of ours is like 70, and they have issues getting in and out of the driveway. So we're widening it so they do not have to back out of it because there's always an issue. And I'll say this, on the fence side where the board is proposing us to put the concrete, the reason, I guess, when we built the home, The reason why I can add more concrete on the side that borders Miss Kendrick's property is there's an elevation change of probably three to four foot against the fence. So if you could imagine, if you extend it four foot, as you get closer to the fence line, you're going to have a wall of concrete that's probably three or four inches thick near the fence, which is not aesthetically pleasing. And also with our parents, if they're trying to back out, they'll probably fall off into the fence. So that's kind of what we were looking at. May I further ask another question? Is do they park in the garage and then back out of the garage to to turn around? They actually we don't have room in our garages for more cars, so they back out. Yes, ma'am. So when they park, they simply pull in and park about where on this photograph that's showing where that white SUV is parked? Yes, ma'am. They just fall in line. If there's already cars there, they just pull right in. Okay. Any other questions? I have a quick one. is the reason for widening the entire driveway is to be able to have a car back out while another car is parked there? Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, or is just having a certain distance that's widened so that a car could back in and then turn around to leave? Right. So our thought was, you know, when I pulled the measurements, you know, and having it on the mailbox side, I would say this, too. The concrete would end actually a little bit further away from the box than kind of what everybody's thinking. But, yeah, our thought was if you could pull in like you could see the white SUV, if you could pull in forward, if we added that little bit of concrete, they could back out and turn around and then be facing out. And at the end of the day, if they missed it, then, I mean, they're going to tear up a little grass. That'd be all we'd be risking. So we were thinking that that would be simpler for them just because they don't drive as much. I am wondering if you have that basketball goal device right there. I'm wondering, is that a place that you could do a pull-in so they could back into that and then turn around? No, that's only as wide as a sidewalk. That's not wide enough for a vehicle. You literally would pull into the grass if you tried that. Is that a place where you perhaps, I'm wondering now with the staff, is that a place where they could actually more appropriately do a turnaround sidewalk and then narrow it down instead of a sidewalk? Is that an option? Well, that actually is sort of the same issue as far as parking in the front yard. it would sort of encourage parking front yard versus sort of well I don't think to be parking I think they actually would just be turning around correct as far as and typically we have turnaround spots that are sort of to the side of the back versus right or front of the look at another image think for our process that's not necessarily something you've done anywhere in the back of the house to turn around? There's actually a pretty big elevation drop as SUV is. Oh, I remember this house now. Yeah. Yeah. You almost have a second floor on that back, don't you? Yes, sir. Okay. Relative to the 160-foot width of the street frontage on this lot, I don't feel Railway is visually dominant compared to that 160 feet. However, I am concerned about parking or an area of this property. So I'm still concerned with that. Well, the forefoot, if I could address some of that, the forefoot that we'd be pulling off of there. Again, we're just looking for the ability to turn around. If you pull in, you could turn around and come out without backing out because it's dangerous. Even though you've got cameras and stuff, you could very easily hit someone. So that's really all we're looking for. We're not looking to have a bunch of cars sitting right out in front of the house. We can park against the curb all the way down close to the Kendricks property if we had a bunch of cars or something. Could we see the very first photograph again that showed the overview of the house and the curb cut? And the curb. Can you pull back so we can actually see what the street had one? I don't have that. Let's see if I have another one. That one. I did have that. This is a pretty big house that memory serves. Susan, were you on the board when we approved this application? Okay. Just wise. So may I ask one further quick question, Mr. Hayes? Sure. What I'm trying to visualize is there a way to, as Mr. Dickinson was talking about, but not bring it all the way out to have to create a more curb cut that widens that whole front entrance. Right. Is it possible just to widen that area where the basketball goal is to be able to back into it? so you're right it might mean that there was an overshot in the backing up but it would be grass that would be backed into but that would prevent that the concrete from having such a presence if there is not a new curb cut yes ma'am I think maybe our sketch is a little bit I don't know rugged but what the whole intent is where you guys have the picture with the basketball go up the concrete would taper right into that curve so we would take it out from that curve without making the sidewalk wider you know we would just add it add right into that curb and you know about a foot outside of the mailbox it's kind of our intent so we would tie into the radius that's closest to the, to where the basketball goal is. There, exactly. Yeah. And, and so that would allow you to not have to actually make a curve count. Well, what I, what I was referring to is, you know, you were saying, Hey, let's not widen. And I think what I understood you to say is let's not widen like the sidewalk leading up to the home. And that's kind of what we were intending to do. What we're intending to do is to go basically a foot to the left of the mailbox and then basically tie into that existing radius right where the basketball goal was located when it was sitting upright. So it would just key right into that and not actually make that particular radius any wider. We could come right off of it. that's a lot of concrete I mean we cut out more concrete from our existing plan than what we're putting back our existing plan had the concrete I know and I remember your existing plan and we asked you to cut it back and you agreed to and now you're sort of wanting to put some of it back again and you Well, respectfully, sir, that's not what we did. What we did is we cut back on the plan that you guys approved. We didn't pour as much concrete as on our plan sheet because we realized that extending it out further was going to make the concrete basically come out on top. It would look terrible. You'd have like a two-foot wall of concrete you could see on the left-hand side. So on the left-hand side, we actually cut the concrete down less than what we got approved, if that makes sense. So your original approval had a 16-foot wide driveway? I have to go back to our original plan sheet that we got approved, but it's longer distance from the house than what you see in these pictures. Because, again, it was going to stick up and it was going to be terrible looking. So I said, well, hey, let's just make it not as wide. And I think I sent Amelia the actual dimensions in another drawing to kind of confirm that. Ms. Armstrong, do we have the other? This is the, and I think there is a, there's a plan. This is actually the plan that was close to what was being approved with this area that had been reduced. And then this is the proposed plan that had been looked at previously. And I think this is the actual plan that got approved. Can you highlight that and tell us the dimensions? This dimension here is 12 feet. Okay. And they're now wanting to make it 16 feet? I think what he's talking about is this amount here was a lot more than what has actually been, which now is reduced to this amount. Okay. To cook out this part back here. if you can look at this plan and that this amount had been removed. So to be clear, and I'm amplifying something the Sills trying to follow up on, you're not actually changing the size of the curb cut, you're changing the dimension of the driveway itself to accommodate a turnaround. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Or to give them enough space to be able to back and turn around so they can head out, correct? Yes. Yes, sir. I've got to kind of just kind of question this a little more. If we're talking about turning space, 16 feet is not even enough to do a turnabout. If we're talking about passing a car that's parked in the driveway, then 16 feet makes sense. So I'm trying to just get to the real, get clarity on the purpose of this 16 feet. Well, I can tell you guys right now, on a rainy day, if you come to our house, we back out into the grass in that suburban to turn around. So we're adding that concrete there to where we could turn around, we could back up, keep the tires on concrete and turn around and come through the front without hopefully destroying the grasses. We've already done it in places. There's bare areas where, you know, you just can't avoid it because it's narrow. We basically cut down our driveway due to the elevation on the left hand side of the property being what it is. It's very steep. Okay. So I'm still trying to understand what that width increase is if it's not changing the curb code. Did I see another site drawing sequence that maybe showed it a little different, Amelia? Correct. would that be that this plan i think uh is um indicates of course the extra and then if you have it down and that would mean this plan should find the curb cut versus just deading into this particular point and so that becomes 12 and extra 16 and then this winds out two more feet to 18 feet here if that were the case so the plan does in fact call for a widening of the apron and well that's the that's the proposal but he's now saying that that would die at this point versus widening that drive widening the apron well no i was actually saying that we would key it in and i thought the question was you know at the top are we going to prevent from widening the walkway And I was just saying that, hey, we would tie in the top right around where the basketball goal is. So we would smooth the radius out right into the top sidewalk. But at the bottom, you know, I think, yeah, if we have wider, we would have to widen the cut of the curb just slightly like you have on the drawing. Yeah, I mean, because it's a curve. Yeah, I mean, you would have to saw cut out, like you said, maybe two foot of the existing curb just to make it tie in as per the LFUCG codes, I think. the apron. Okay. All right. Any further questions or comments from the board members? Yeah, go ahead. Again, I'm looking at one of the Xeroxed photographs that we were provided and then looking at this site plan. And it may just be the angles that this photograph was taken. But it looks as if the concrete area between the walkway and the garage is a wider distance than the concrete driveway from the walkway to the street. Is that the case? Yes. Yes. If you look at this, yes, that would be correct. So the site plan actually does not convey that. Right, right. And I think what happened was, you know, we were not down, like when we went through this process, that grade had changed so much. and pouring of the concrete was one of the, you know, things we just kind of glossed over until we got time to pour it. And then we realized, oh, wait a minute, we've got a problem. We can't make it as big as we thought because we even have trouble based on the existing driveway. We've got a one car garage and a two car garage. Well, that last one, it's so tight that I basically have to pull in between the back two trees and the grass to even pull the car into the garage. That's how tight it is. It's almost too tight to even be a functional garage without driving in the grass. To make the radius for that turn. Yes, ma'am. Would some kind of non-permeable pavers be a solution as opposed to concrete? I think cost-wise, concrete is going to be the most cost-effective. So, if I can just ask something, not that I'm necessarily proposing this, but just to say if this would solve the issue. My understanding is that the guidelines are that you do not want to increase parking in the front yard. And any pavement that goes to the front of the house needs to be screened by bushes. Is that correct? it somewhat so we there you know um for our guidelines we don't encourage in parking in the front yard and and then any kind of additional paving you know say for instance over here where you actually have uh landscaping already and that would be a better choice because it's already could be screened by landscaping to soften the approach, soften the concrete. Go ahead. But my understanding is where you just pointed, where those trees are, there's a four-foot slope from the fence to the top of the driveway. Correct. okay I walked it this would be the area that we were suggesting yeah it's gonna be downhill I'm sorry but you could screen that is mr. in history and Katie is to pull it he has to actually pull into this area when he pulls out of that garage into this particular space so this is the area that we were encouraging green space or to this part to be paid all right we have other cases we're going to have to hear so any further Any other questions? Any questions from the virtual audience? Hearing none, do I have a motion that we accept the staff recommendation of disapproval? All right. Do I have a motion that we come up with something else? Mr. Chairman, case number 02960784E at 788 Caden Lane, I move to approve the certificate for an application to widen the driveway, as discussed, and to also approve the storage shed as it has been revised with a metal material under our standard two conditions. And subject to our standard two conditions? Yes. Okay, so your motion is that we accept the proposal as presented by the applicant along with the now new storage shed, correct? Yes. Okay. Yes, under the judgment that it is not visually dominant in relevance to the 160-foot street frontage. Okay, I'll accept that as your finding that you are of the opinion that we're not violating the guidelines and that it is not visually dominant, probably given the size of the house, given the size of the streetscape itself. I'm adding stuff to you, but I think that's the finding we're headed towards. Do I have a second for that motion? I will second the motion. Now we have discussion. is there another way that we can finesse this issue perhaps with less concrete and maybe have him submit a re a new design and we postpone or continue this hearing to another date that jim that would be my suggestion is if there is a way to and i think um miss ervin was heading that way is to have on the house side of the driveway to be able to have a little deeper back in to turn around and then to screen it with some landscaping. It does seem like on the left side of the driveway that the potential to inadvertently end up at the fence as parents He has some real potential, so I can understand his concern on that one. I just hate to see the whole driveway widened that much all the way out to the street. It seems like if it were a way to use that same amount of concrete, but keep it closer to the house, maybe make it even slightly deeper, but keep it closer to the house and put nice landscaping around it so that it's, you know, it integrates a little with the front yard. What we can do is I think I'm not in disagreement with that. I second the motion simply to get the ball rolling. Josh, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to allow your motion to be amended to basically instead of approval of the application that we continue this proceeding to give Ms. Hayes an opportunity to submit a revised application that would show a less visually dominant driveway? I agree with that, yeah. All right. Do I have a second to that then? I second. All right, Mr. Hayes, to explain, we're sympathetic to you. But I think we are all pretty much uniformly in agreement that there may be a better way to design this sketch and to get what you need to achieve for your parents. And Lord knows I'm having the same problem with my sister who can barely back out of my driveway. So I think what I would like to do is continue this motion. Let's continue this to our next meeting, which is September 16, and see if you can't submit a revision that might be acceptable to the staff. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? And the motion to you then is that we have agreed to continue these proceedings in order to allow Mr. Hayes an opportunity to submit revised drawings. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I would put up your hand. Opposed nay. The motion passes and will continue to September 16th. Mr. Hayes, thank you for your time. And as always, you have been very cooperative with us in this process. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. Let's move on to attachment number five, six, six, seven, Ellesmere Park. The scope of the work is construct a two-story garage. The case number is 06510667-Romanumeral I. Or capital I, please. Is the applicant here? i see no one by the name of mike mitchell but there is a phone number then some may be trying to phone in as opposed to zooming in i'm going to allow them to talk all right and we'll we'll confirm uh telephone number 859-227-6592 is this the phone number belonging to the applicant Michael Mitchell. You need to turn off. You have to unmute. Mr. Mitchell, can you hear us? Is he having technical difficulties? I'm trying to unmute for it, but it's not working. Okay. Is there a way for Mr. Mitchell perhaps to call my phone and I can plug him in and he can hear us? Mr. Chair, the staff has with us Mr. Mitchell's number that he's been communicating with us on. We're making a call. Okay, because this is a telephone number that we don't know who it's associated with. Right. Okay. Okay. It's not. Well, if we can pass him in by another means, let's do it. Staff had some communication with him a couple of days ago. And he was anticipating participating today. Okay. Whoever is with us, I'm not sure. if they don't understand how to unmute their phone or if there's just a technical glitch, they can't hear us. I think what we're going to do is pending, trying to get this technical issue resolved, I think, to our next application and come back to this one. Yeah. Okay, and so we can, if you do get a hold of Mr. Mitchell, we can arrange for a time for him to participate, probably towards the end of this proceeding, okay? Yes. All right, let's then go to attachment number nine, case number 04150260-C, 260 Clay Avenue. This global work is to rebuild the front porch and construct re-addition. Mr. Parrish, I see you there. Mr. Parrish, how are you today? All right. All right. State your name officially for the record, sir. Drew Parrish. All right. Mr. Parrish, I'm assuming that you would like to be heard on this. The staff has some substantive suggestions to make with respect to your application, I believe. Or not. I'm going to go ahead and read them into the record so we know what we can discuss. and then you can tell me which items you would like to be heard on in particular. And also I'm joined by a designer, which is Christopher Nahn, so he can also address as well. All right. Is Mr. Nahn going to appear? Is he with you or is he appearing elsewhere? I'm here, sir. There you are, Mr. Nahn. How are you, sir? Fine, how are you? I'm well. All right. What I'm going to do is I'm going to read what I call the substantive changes, and you're going to tell me which ones you agree with and which ones you don't. If you get through that process, then we'll have a presentation by the staff. So the porch railings and spindles be increased in size as noted above. The porch pedestal be deleted and final details be returned to staff for review and approval prior to construction. Is that acceptable to you? Yes. I need to have affirmative yes or no. Okay, so that is acceptable. number two the roof line of the rear addition be lowered and the final details come back to staff before construction you're shaking your head you disagree with that all right are you disagreeing with the three four and five of the other recommendations in other words the redesign where they're suggesting that the upper story be pulled off the upper story existing windows of a minimum of six feet or six inches. The upper story have a glass vertical piece be installed where the proposed addition meets the new addition of both the north and south elevation. Correct? You're wanting to be heard on that, right? All right. Who is the staff person in charge of this application? Ms. Armstrong? if you'll make a presentation please i will try not to interrupt you i'll go ahead mr chairman i'll go ahead and say real quick that i'll be recusing myself from this uh okay i i hate to lose your expertise on this one all right go ahead hold on one second please you just turned upside down Mr. Noon. Mr. Parrish, you are very dark. I don't know what kind of room you're sitting in, but if you could get a little bit more light on your face, it would be appreciated. There we go. Thank you. All right, Ms. Armstrong. Hold on one second, please. Perfect. Thank you, sir. All right. So this is the structure at 260 Clay Avenue. And this picture is sort of a bit of a dated picture. Most recently in the last couple of years, Mr. Parrish has made application to touch point the structure. So the masonry does look a little better. But what did happen is we lost a little bit of ghosting of the porch that did was on the front. So this picture is actually probably taken from when he actually purchased the property and it sort of shows okay mr. Armstrong nothing is showing up on the screen we just see you and out the pictures hold on one second please all right There we go. Aha. Okay. Can you see this? Okay. So this, like I said, can you see this image please? Yes, we can. So as I said before, this is actually, was taken probably about 2012 when when, but the reason why I include it is because it actually shows sort of the ghosting of what the porch had looked like. Mr. Parrish has had some tuck pointing in the last year or so, and so that sort of erased some of the ghosting we had had previously, but that sort of indicated the porch was there. There's also a picture from 1981 that does show also ghosting of the front porch that was there. And currently, and you can still see a little bit of it, he is currently also stripping his front door so that hence the color change. So at this time, the applicant is going to conduct the three pieces here to restore the missing front porch, construct a two-story addition, and the constructed deck that's off that two-story addition. And as we've talked about before, that there is ghosting on that showed that which porch was, and there are also sandboard maps that showed the front porch. And so based on that evidence, plus that he's proposed a front porch, and we'll look at that here in a second. The plan calls for a low-pitch roof. It will also be, let me see if I can just go to this plant real quick. excuse me, as I scoot through the plans, we can see the proposal of information. So as you can see the front porch, he's proposing this to be, have a low pitch roof, the EPD membrane with 10 inch tapered fiberglass columns with cap and skirt in base, a new 30 inch railing with wood spindles, and a vertical plank skirting on that front porch. In addition, the proposed plan calls for a two-story addition to be located at the rear of the structure. The proposal will be have the 15 roughly approximately 15 by 24 addition. The deck will be wrapped around this addition will be 10 by 27. We'll go to give you an idea about those plans. You can see here's the addition with the deck. The two-story, the addition will be located on the south or the east side of the rear wall, and it will have a longer footprint than the width of the upper-story addition. So the first floor will be longer than the upper-story addition. It would be clad in a six inch exposure of cedar siding. The proposed first floor would be 24 feet deep with the second floor being 13 in depth. And then there's supposed to be a green wall that was proposed on that east side and the south side. Let's see. Go back. Here's the south side. side you can see the proposed green wall which also creates in the upper story creates an overhang for the door entrance out into the deck. And then there will be a combination of windows proposed and also there's proposed rear aluminum awning. What is a green wall exactly? It's going to have a, Mr. Pierce will speak to this probably a bit more, but it's going to have sort of a growing wall, like a frame to have elements grow on it. Okay. here guidelines are included for your reference so we can make sure we make sure we go through all these plans there we go so um here's that upper story edition that have the green wall here and you can see the framing for that wall this will have a the store leads out into a deck that will have a parapet this is a parapet here with the awning and the deck he this um is going to be attached to an existing addition that has was an early addition that also had been roofed and he had actually received a certificate of appropriateness to clad the rear addition in um the cedar siding and the addition will also be cedar siding. I'm going to go back to my pictures for a second, jump around, apologize for the jumping around, but I wanted to talk about that. Okay, so as we talked about before, we saw the fronts and here's the sides. You can see the existing green siding that he's in the process of removing. This is a vinyl siding green siding that he has proposed and we'll see that he's replacing that siding with the new cedar siding six-inch cedar siding this is the rear of the structure and this is the proposal for where the new addition will go be located He has been in the process of stripping down the vinyl siding and this has exposed sort of some of the interesting features that have been covered up by this house already. And so here's our project house and sort of giving you different angles of this structure. of course we sell this plane before here's our site plan and the proposal for the new two-story addition the footprint plus the deck this is existing floor plan in the proposed fitting plan first floor plan shows it's um and the second floor it shows that this is this so only will be 13,6 versus a whole 24 feet. And I would note that the proposal does come, meaning that the addition comes above the ridge line here as its connection point. findings the guidelines are included for your reference findings the proposal to reconstruct a front porch with a new floor column railing system is appropriate within guidelines 1 1 a c in 1 1 14 d and e respectively the architectural details should be maintained, retained, and should not be removed or changed to the building, and if missing, they may be added to the building if accurately placed based on the physical and pictorial and historical evidence, painting, ghost, removed, etc., or that it's consistent with properties of similar design, age, and detailing in surrounding areas. There appears to be no ghosting along with the details. However, the column of railing choices are generally compatible with the neighboring structures along Clay Avenue streetscape. The railing system is too delicate and needs to be further studied and the railing need to appear building code needs to be wider and the spindles also need to be increased in size to provide a better visual identity and scale. In addition, there's a middle pilaster running vertically on the wall of the house, a design element that should be deleted from the proposed design as it is inappropriately placed. Referencing the design principle for porches would state, porches are often prominent features of a building and help establish scale proportion rhythm along with streetscape and construction of porch of existing building that should be compatible on scale and materials with the principal structure and adjacent surrounding buildings and districts. Porches should be keeping with principal structures, architectural design and its style and that reflect an earlier time period and I was going to mention if we can go back excuse me for a second so I can point this out there is a middle and you can see it on your plan a middle pilaster that I was going to refer to that you all just show you in that plan that that's what we're referring to excuse me for this there we go right here the proposal to use a wood tongue through flooring and a paneled skirting is appropriate design principles a rebuilt in a replacement of new porches need to be compatible to the structure on which they're built and to those adjacent properties the proposal to use fiberglass columns is appropriate within guidelines 1 14 C that state porch columns and railings of replacement of wood columns is necessary wood is preferable fiberglass may be considered for aluminum for a column shaft fiberglass basis and caps are acceptable and the railing details are appropriate except we just wanted them to be beefed up and be built in is an historic designs of documentation of the original columns and railings college palestrates and railings should be appropriately scaled for the porch and and no PVC or composite materials are permitted. Per the rear addition, the proposal to construct a rear addition requires discussion. Sanborn and architectural survey indicate this house was built in 1913, and by 1934, the house had this two-story rear addition with the hip roof encompassing the whole structure. And the request of the staff, the owner shared staff pictures where the addition was added. guidelines 2a 4b and c respectively state additions should be secondary and smaller and simpler to original buildings in scale design and placement exterior walls should be stepped in from minimum of 12 inches from the edges of existing building and the roof line should be stepped in from the peak in the existing main roof line in addition should be compatible and design and keeping with the original buildings design roof shape material color and location of window doors and quarter sites. The proposal to install a low pitch rear roof is within the guidelines. However, the roof is proposed is as proposed comes up too high and envelops too much of the rear eave line of the addition rising above it. Guidelines 2A4F which state additions should not be built in the manner which avoids substantial removal or loss of historic material which is not as proposed to damage or store the main architectural features of the building. Staff states that the roof should be lowered to tuck underneath the roof line or rear roof line of the proposed proposal. Staff finds fenestration adding within the guidelines 2B1F, which states openings such as entrances, windows, and architectural features as a visual maze. and of course is our design component to help establish balance rhythm scale proportion emphasis is structure patterns of the components of buildings along blocks and within the district create characteristic rhythms for streetscapes and neighbors however staff does find the proposed addition on the second floor does crowd the upper story windows such as just the upper story window addition be brought in six inches on the south side and and recommend is a vertical glass wall between that where the addition meets on the north and the south elevation at that point in this area and potentially in this area um okay and staff recommends approval with following addition the porch railings and spindles be increased in size as noted above porch by last year deleted and final details return staff prior to for review and approval the roof line of the rear addition to be lowered and final details come back to staff the upper story be pulled off the upper story window um a minimum six inches the upper story have a vertical black piece be installed where the proposed addition meets the new addition of both the north and south elevation and then if any changes are made that alter the information standards resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa and of course the last two standard conditions Of course, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Mellon are here as well. Okay, Ms. Armstrong, I have a question. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean in your recommendation for, where you're saying the proposed edition meets the new edition. Can you define what you mean by those terms? So here's your edition. And so what we're saying is the fact that this piece here is an existing edition. This is that, but it's an older edition built probably earlier. Is that what you're calling the proposed edition? No, this is the proposed edition. This is the steam edition. And so you see how this window is crowded by night. Right. So we're recommending that be pulled off six inches so it doesn't die right into the window and then pull that off. and then for further separation between old and the new, we have a glass piece. Here. In this location. Now. Well, from their perspective, it's 530. This is a great time to do the test. Just maybe I'm being dense here. Are you talking about the existing edition being pulled away from it? Exactly. So this new edition, the proposed edition, this piece, be pulled off of this window. All right. From the existing edition. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Let me start with you, Ms. Hill, if you have any. I think my comments and questions are going to be more from the design and other team. I think I understand what the staff's review issues are. Okay. Ms. Irwin? If not, I'll allow the architect to make his presentation. Okay. Mr. Noon, are you there? Yes, sir. Okay. Do you need to have the screen shared or do you need these drawings to still be, stay up on the screen? Yes, if you could leave them up on the screen, that would be easiest, I think. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. So thank you all for considering this application. And Amelia, thank you for all of your help in sorting through this. in terms of the recommendations item number one the portralian spindles yes that's easily adjusted and we've actually already made those adjustments deleting the pilaster we were in search of a an anchor that would allow us to not have to support a header there so that's been deleted so in my mind item one can be we can acquiesce to everything that's being recommended there. Number two, the roof line of the rear addition. I spoke earlier this week with Barry Dennis in the Historic Preservation Office, and it sounds to me like the main concern with the, it sounds like there are two issues. One is the relationship of the addition to the existing, which doesn't give prominence to the existing. But the second is the removal of existing material. And one recommendation we had was to actually leave the fascia and rafter tails in place when we framed it rather than cutting all that material out as a way of maintaining that existing material. So the objection that we have to lowering the roof or, you know, we've really explored lots of other roof configurations. And all of that we've been able to discover actually direct water back toward the existing structure, which ultimately is going to be a far greater detriment to the preserving existing structure than I think would be the intent. And the issue with lowering the roof line is that then it puts the ceiling height just above code minimum. And with the knowledge that Mr. Parrish is six foot five, this becomes an incredibly cramped area for them to utilize effectively. So just put that forward for your consideration. uh number three we've actually uh we're fine with that pulling that back um reducing that cantilever a bit to give that window some breathing room we're actually showing it now at 11 inches uh separation so we do not have any issue with number three number four uh again i spoke with mr dennis about the the need for some sort of vertical relief uh whether it's a reveal we feel like the glass is a bit excessive in terms of showing that separation we're already bringing one edition to another edition and so Mr. Dennis seemed amenable to the idea of creating a reveal I even came up with the idea of putting a strip of mirror or something that could differentiate the two masses without having to go through the structural gymnastics of creating a strip window, which I've done that on other projects, and it's always the contractor's least favorite and most difficult detail to work out. So we're in agreement that there needs to be some sort of way of signaling, especially with the same material, that there is a distinction between the two editions, the existing edition and the proposed edition, but I feel like the window, the strip window is more to accomplish that. And I guess that's all of the all of the topics. Yeah the rest of them are primarily the what we call the standard conditions. I am the lawyer on this board I'm not necessarily the architect so I will let the architects go first. Whoever wants to chime in first. So, Chris, Susan Hill here. I think your greatest challenge is about the way the roof lines come in together. And I can appreciate the gymnastics of what you've looked at for other ways to solve that. and it is true that the one that's most obvious is to make the tie-in point, the kind of low point of the addition roof, even if that meant sloping that addition roof so that you gain height as you go out into the space with some kind of built-in low gutter at the point where the water is coming together. And I know that's counterintuitive, but there certainly are lots of well-known architectural examples where that's used really successfully and very intentionally, mostly related to being able to gather water and to reuse it in some fashion. So, you know, I think technically it's not really the challenge it sounds like it's everything else I really like about what you've done here it's a tie-in point of how it kind of creeps up on the roof and doesn't give its distinction both to the original edition and the proposed edition it seems the compromise point between between those two pieces. That's the only piece of that I've been struggling with. I really like the green vegetated screen. I have any intent to provide water across it since that is the south elevation, right? And voice of experience is that you can fly vegetation on such a screen facing south if you're not careful about giving it a little relief from the sun. It's really the connection point of the old addition and the new addition where those two roofs come together. I think that's your challenge. It just, it does not, it does not It gives the kind of cleanness of the edition that you're, the new 21st century edition proposal that you're doing. And it's like this kind of funky overlap condition that happens. So it's both a design kind of response and question that I'm having and then how one practically does it. It's kind of both issues. Okay. Okay, Ms. Erwin. Anything? Yeah, I would just say that I agree with Ms. Hill that I understand fully that the water issue seems counterintuitive. And I would agree with that to look at, you know, running the water a different way when you slope the roof or you try to separate that roof away from what is existing now. But right now, it's just sort of creeping into it. And I agree that that does not meet what the design guidelines intend, which is to show a separation. and so I'm not comfortable with the way this but I don't know exactly what the solution is I do agree that having a substantial reveal around on the vertical plane is a very good suggestion and I think would make the design stronger. And I agree that it does not have to be glass. It can be a reveal of some type. But I do feel like that roof has to be something different. And if you can do it without, you know, I know you don't want to lower the head height because that makes the space much less than ideal. I do like the addition. Okay, so I'm going to be the layperson here. I don't appreciate this addition at all. I'm sorry. But that has something to do with that. To me, definitely, it looks like right now you sort of have the upper level of that new edition jamming into the side of the house and it doesn't read well. It doesn't read well at all with the house. So I think it does need to be separated out and dropped. I realized that creates a height issue for your client. I understand the need and recognize that, you know, a contemporary, you know, we should always have property, new additions, read as a new edition then oh boy does this read as a new edition. So I will defer to the architects on terms of the overall aesthetics of the design but I have to agree with them about the need to do a little bit more reveal and to drop that roof line. If you would like to submit new drawings to show all that so that we can give you approval, we can do that. Or if you want to go with the staff recommendations as written, we can do that. It's your, it's your choice, sir. And I think we're pretty much in consensus that with respect to the roof line, it's going to have to be changed. Understood. You weren't fully unmuted when you said what you said. Say again, please. I just said, I understand. Okay. So I was giving you an option. Do you want to submit new drawings to the staff for our review, or do you want to go with the way the staff has written it up and work from there? I think that I would say that probably going with the way that the staff has written it up and work it out with Amelia would be, or with the staff, would be our preference. All right. And that will save time, actually. Yes, Ms. Irwin. If I might make a comment, would it work to adjust the recommendation number two, instead of saying the roof line of the rear addition be lowered, if we state that as the roof line of the rear addition be altered to now I'm not sure what to be altered in such a way that the existing stay intact. Existing what stay intact? the existing roof line stay intact. I think it's going to be more clear if we simply say it be lowered and, you know, let them bring back the final details to us if need be. That's fine. Okay. I understand what you're trying to get at, but I think that's going to be a little bit more difficult to follow. It strikes me as being ambiguous. Ms. Hill? I would prefer to, since we're close, we're really close. I'm working with the staff and bringing the final drawings back to the board. I prefer to do it that way. So am I hearing from you of preference that we continue this matter to allow him to submit due drawings and let us look at him one more time? I think it's more about final drawings. Maybe that's, we've done that in the past. Okay, I misunderstood what you're saying. I think they're trying to say that, but we can make it more clear that any and all final drawings be submitted to staff for its review and approval prior to construction. Is that what you're getting at? Yes. And I think that actually is an item seven. Actually, it would be instead of prior to construction, prior to issuance of the COA. Right. I spoke to, sometimes I paraphrase badly. I think item seven covers that. Am I correct? Ms. Hill? I think Ms. Hill's nodding in agreement. Yes. Yes, I am. Okay. All right. I'm trying to talk like a sundial. I'm moving out of the sun here. Okay. Amelia, if we say it wrong, sing out so we make sure that we have the language the way that you want to hear it. Do I have any further comments from the board members? If not, then are there any comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready to move forward with a motion. Do I have a motion now? I'll be glad to attempt it. Okay. Mr. Chair, per case number 04150260-C, I am moved that we – this is – I'm not sure if it's actually final approval or not. That's what I'm struggling with. This is the terms and conditions of the COA subject to their review of any final plans. So yeah, whatever he takes away from there, he's going to take to the staff and we're done with it. Okay. I move to approve this application for a certificate of appropriateness with the recommendations as discussed and noted. and i i hate to do this to you but i need for you to read those into the record so it's number one is the porch railing and spindles be increased in size as noted above the porch pilaster deleted and final details returned to staff for review and approval number two the roof line of rear addition be lowered or altered and final details come back to the staff number three the upper story be pulled off the upper story existing window and it sounds like that's being done at 11 inches um and number four the upper story have a vertical piece not necessarily glass but a vertical be installed where the proposed addition meets the new addition on both the north and the south elevation number five if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa and then two standard conditions. Okay, and it being ensured that all details of the revised plans per our decision be provided to staff prior to the issues of the COA. All right, that's added in. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Okay, and for clarification's sake, I want to be clear that this new addition, that the proposed addition is actually the existing addition, so that there's no confusion on what's meant by that. All right. Any further? I've got second, right? Okay. Any further comment on this motion? Or discussion? If not, then the chair will follow the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Hold up your hand. Opposed? Nay? All right. The COA is approved as conditioned. Good luck with your project. And if, as always, yeah I see the thumbs up if always if you need further guidance from the board we are here to do that thank you thank you very much goodbye gentlemen bye all right I am now turning to did we ever I'm gonna go ahead and hear attachment number 10 I'm just wondering did we ever hear from Mr. Mitchell? Yes, I've just a few moments ago had success contacting him and told him that there was another case going to be heard. And then following that, that if he would be waiting in the right spot, we would hear his case. All righty. Let's then turn to 221 Barbary. Is it Barbary? I'm assuming this is case number 109502224. Scalpel work is a painting of the brick structure. Hearing officer will note, I'm sorry, not the hearing officer. The board member will note that the staff has recommended a denial of the application. Is the applicant here? I'm looking for Mr. Stumbo, not Mr. Mitchell. or Mr. Stumbo's attorney, whichever. Mr. Stumbo needs to unmute. you are do you want to be visible or you prefer to uh remain uh unseen well given my past political uh history i probably remain unseen mr chairman all right sir i want to make a couple observations before we move forward one of which is i am good friends with Mr. Stumbo. I work currently in the Office of the Attorney General, which he was Attorney General, although I did not work for Mr. Stumbo. I have supported Mr. Stumbo in past political campaigns, and I just want that noted. I will also observe that my prior support that has no bearing on my ability to observe or hear this case objectively unless there's an objection. So I also know for the record that Ms. White has appeared on the screen and you're also unmuted. Ms. White, why don't you introduce yourself for the record please? I'm Anna White. I'm attorney for the homeowners Greg and Mary Karen Stumbo and their daughter who lives at home. Okay Ms. White. In addition you have filed an extensive motion. Characterizes response and memorandum on behalf of the homeowners. That's your response to the staff recommendations of disapproval. You have raised a preliminary objection that you do not believe that you have been given sufficient notice and that they had failed to comply with the 14-day time period. Yes, sir. We can cure that by postponing these proceedings or we can move forward. It's your choice. Well, we pick neither. We would say that I'm a lawyer, right? We would say that we've only been given 13 days and two of those, four of those days included weekends. So really it was only 11 days to prepare for this hearing, which is not sufficient time to get an expert and fully assess the problem. I'm perfectly willing to continue this matter to our next hearing is September 16th. I'm perfectly willing to do that. Well, your rules and regulations hold that the application is considered or deemed granted after 60 days. Today is day 59. It's our contention that we were squeezed into a special meeting so that the application would not be removed. So while we don't waive the notice proceeding, we like to be heard if you're going to go ahead and consider this issue rather than granting the COA. Okay, Ms. Kerr has stepped to the podium. Ms. Kerr? I was just going to note that the 60-day time window is not applicable to any of the applications currently in the process. as relates specifically to the governor and Lexington's mayor's executive orders tied to the COVID coronavirus situation. It has removed all deadlines. Well, there have been many things taken care of with those executive orders, but specific to how it affects the deadlines for action for these applications and so forth, that deadline is not in place, and it is an open-ended time period according to those orders. And that said, if there is, it is honestly your choice, Ms. White. I'm not trying to play any kind of game with you at all. I'm saying, David, if you would like some time to pull together a couple of witnesses, you're welcome to do that and have them present with you, or we can move forward. I believe we'll go ahead and move forward at this point without waiving that argument in case we need to rant it later. But, yes, we would like to move forward since we're hearing it and you are hearing it. I'm not trying to be a lawyer with you as well, but if we move forward, you have waived that objection. And we will agree to disagree, but I understand the chair's position. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. I see Mr. Dennis has approached the podium. What we normally do, our typical procedure, Ms. Weiss, is these are very informal administrative hearings. In fact, unlike the Planning Commission, we do not swear in witnesses. We allow the staff to do a presentation. You will then be allowed and Mr. Stumble can make a presentation to us. The board members can then ask you questions and I will as well. And if there are any comments from and I believe we do have a letter of objections to note into the record we will then take any comments from our virtual audience. Okay? Yes, sir. Do you have any questions about the procedure? No. All right. Thank you very much. all right mr dennis you're up thank you case number 109502224 221 barberry lane this is the house prior to the paint being applied okay mr dennis i'm sorry you have not shared your screen yet you're not alone Ms. Armstrong did the same thing well we're just learning this and you're doing much better than I would sure Not there yet. There we go. That's the far case. This is attachment number 10. There we go. crisis averted okay well you need there we go thank you this is this is the house prior to staff receiving a complaint and going out and looking at what was happening this was the day that staff visited the site. This is the posting of the stop work order and a close-up of that. As you know, the scope of work is to paint the brick structure. The background, the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to paint the exterior walls of the brick masonry structure. The paint was applied to the unpainted brick without having filed for or being issued a COA to paint the brick. On June 18, 2020, staff received complaints that the structure in question was being painted. Staff visited the property that day and observed the painting of the brick was underway. It did not appear that anyone was available to talk to, so a stop work order was posted at the front door of the property. As staff was preparing to leave, Ms. Stumbo came up and staff had an in-depth discussion with her about being in an H1 local historic district and that any exterior work on the property required a certificate of appropriateness, including painting an unpainted brick structure. Additionally, staff informed Ms. Stumbo that the painting of the brick structures that was not previously painted was not in compliance with the design review guidelines. Ms. Stumbo asked why staff had not come to the property until the painting was almost complete. Staff said that the complaint was just received. She also said that she was not aware that the property was in a historic district and that no one had told her of the requirements. staff left the permit application forms with her and mr. co application to replace or to paint the structure later staff met at the property with mr. and miss on june 30th to discuss being in an h1 and the requirements of the h1 process staff gave a brief summary of the co application and review process for staff-issued and board-issued COAs, as well as the design review guidelines. Discussion followed related to the owners, stating that they were unaware of the property, which they purchased in December of 2018, was in a local historic district. At the completion of the meeting, staff observed the condition of the masonry structure and did a more detailed review of the existing wood windows. It should be noted that Mr. Stumbo's application for a COA also included a request to replace the windows, but included no details relative to that. During the June 30th on-site meeting, staff learned that the applicant had ordered new vinyl windows and after a substantial discussion and further consideration. The applicant is now pursuing repairing their original wood windows and will be making an application for a COA when they are ready to pursue that. Guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff finds that the proposal to finish painting and retain the previously applied paint on the brick structure does not mean. Guideline 13A states that brick materials original to the building should be preserved and maintained. Additionally, guidelines 13G and 13H state respectively, brick should not be covered with silicone-based water sealants or liquid siding. Water sealants and liquid siding can trap water on the interior of the building and damage the inside walls and brick. And brick that has never been painted should not be painted. The paint should be removed with appropriate methods in order to meet the guidelines and to reduce the... of moisture damage to the historic structure. Recommendations. Staff recommends denial of the application and that the paint already applied be removed by approved methods in order to come into compliance with the design and review guidelines and the H1 process. Deadline for board action. None at this time for COVID-19 related executive orders. Okay. Dennis, if you'll unshare and put us back in the gallery view, please. Oh, here we go. I got it. I think before we take questions from the board members, Ms. Weitz, I'm going to allow you to make your presentation. I will note that your well-written memorandum has been placed into the record okay thank you if you want to hit the high marks of it these proceedings I try to keep these proceedings to about 30 to 35 minutes if we can sounds good to me all right thank you ma'am thank you and so the board has our memorandum we also provided a short supplement that was a statement from the painter regarding the extensive damage to the brick prior to painting and a photograph of one of the large cracks in the house that had been leaking and is now, after being sealed and painted, is not leaking any longer. Those were a supplement that were sent to Mr. Dennis and Ms. Perum Monday, and they said they would provide those also to the board. I'm going to double check. Have we actually received those, board members? I don't believe we have. They were emailed to you yesterday. And the pertinent detail in there would be that the painter did notice the rough condition of the brick and a photograph of the painted brick with a large cracked circle. The high points we would like to go ahead and hit were these buyers are not, were not familiar with the historic designation. There's no large signage that they noticed. The real estate listing did not have any historic designation. They were never provided any of this information until they were more than 90% through painting. And if we had a time machine, they would be glad to go back. But at this point, the home is primarily painted and repaired. And so they would ask that under these circumstances, it's better for the building to remain painted and have that completed than to undergo the difficult process of stripping it off. The photograph that Mr. Dennis put up of the home, you can compare with the photograph we submitted to the record. His looks like the very artful glamour shot, perhaps from a real estate or Zillow listing. Ours is a lot more accurate. There were a lot of replaced bricks that didn't match and were not as hard or as soft as the original brick. Lots of mortar repair that perhaps this committee had not authorized through the years with a wide variety of substances. A lot of that cracking and repair is on the chimney side and the back. Mr. Dennis' shot is from the good side, the good angle. and some of these cracks were causing leaking into the basement as well as being really unattractive. Once the dying shrubbery was removed, it revealed that a lot of the shrubbery was there to actually cover up some of these cracks and damage. The Stumbos would not have bought this house if they had known it could not be painted. It's their daughter's home. It was her dream to have a white house and there are other painted brick houses in the neighborhood. So they had no knowledge that they would not be allowed to do this. I realize that your charge is to maintain the original structure and brick. But in this case, this is a house that has been used for renters through the years. It's a heavy student rental neighborhood. And sometimes those residents don't take good care of the exterior of the building or the interior. And so it had been damaged a lot. We're not talking about 1942 original brick and beautiful historic repair. We're talking about, you know, somebody backed their car into it and stuck the brick back and put a little super glue there. And so in this case, the cracking, the leaking and the unattractiveness are remedied by the paint, which protects the brick from water invasion. And you'll note the second page of the staff review, the highlighted portion says the most important thing is to keep water from invading a property. And this was the way that the painter who is an expert in doing this saw best to protect the property, to repair the cracks if they had to be to apply appropriate primer or seal and then paint over it. And we've had torrential downforce since then. And there has been no more water invasion. So in this case, it not only raised the value of the property, but it protected the property. And the staff has not been able to come up with a picture and didn't provide us with anything that shows this thing has never been painted. No portion of it has been painted. That, given the condition of the home and the rough exterior brick, there's really no way to tell whether in 1942 there was some paint on it. But our position is this brick really needed protecting. It has been appropriately protected. And while probably all of us on this call wish it had not been appropriately protected in this manner, to walk that back and to strip it has environmental impact, damages the brick, particularly where the repairs have, you know, been patchworky through the years, and really decreases the value of the homeowners investment. We want people to buy these homes and love them and take care of them. And that's what the Stumbos are attempting to do. And to tell them you have to lose not only your $5,000 down payment on the windows, which they've agreed to, but bear the cost of stripping off the paint and further damaging their daughter's home seems an untenable burden. There's been an increase in value. I believe we had an appraisal also submitted into the record. It's just a quick and dirty informal appraisal, but the property is worth more now. It's valuable now, and it will continue to be valuable because that brick is now protected rather than being a student patch through the years. The intent of the law is to keep these homes in good condition and usable and enjoyed by the neighborhood. And we believe that we have followed that intent of the law. And at this point, now that there is paint on at least 90 percent of the building, it would be very damaging and disruptive to attempt to chemically peel that off. And unless Mr. Stombo has something to add to that, you know, we really feel like this would be a very unfair and inequitable taking of value from the homeowners. We're going to have to now put more and more thousands of dollars into a place that is finally secure, attractive, and historically appropriate paint color matches the rest of the neighborhood and is safe from water invasion. It seems strange to require that destruction be brought on the building and then damage incident to that will be just more cost to be borne by the homeowner who's already invested heavily into this neighborhood. okay mr stumble do you have anything further you'd like to add yes mr chairman thank you and i appreciate the committee's indulgence on this matter uh miss white's stated the case quite correctly for us i would call attention to the fact that on the set on the june meeting we did not agree not to go forward with the window presentation we simply agreed not to go forward at that time with the window presentation, having learned that the certificate was necessary. And so when I applied, I believe for the certificate, we also included the window application. We did stop the order on the windows. And Mr. Dennis was going to send me the names of some people who did repair work on those types of windows, which I think I just got the day before yesterday or maybe the day before that. but we didn't um we didn't agree that we would not pursue that uh we'll pursue it in a proper manner if we need to pursue it but i think it is still part of the application and if you look at the charge uh it's to preserve and protect the value of the neighborhood um it's true when uh my wife and daughter saw this house my daughter is a student at the university of kentucky she wanted to paint it white you can i can hit a golf ball and i can't hit a golf ball very far anymore and hit probably three or four yards, Mr. Chairman, and members that have white brick houses. So we didn't know and never suspected nor never thought that that would be a problem, painting it brick to preserve the brick and to improve the value of the property as it relates to its aesthetic value. And it looks a lot better now than it did before, quite frankly. but we would hope that the committee would would recognize that the bricks are protected now Anna was exactly correct we had a water leak in the basement and they they did some remedial work on the walls and they also recommended that we seal the brick and sure enough we did the remedial work and when the paint was applied after all the rains we've had this last three or four months, it's not leaked anymore. So I think it's pretty clear that preserving the brick and preserving the integrity of the building has been enhanced, as Ms. White's pointed out, to the committee. And I know the committee doesn't like paint. I've heard enough stories from people who've heard about our situation and said that. And I can understand that if the paint was not of a historic color. I could understand. As a matter of fact, I believe that, if I remember correctly, Tom Edelman wrote an article about the Ashland neighborhood, encouraging that it be made a historical neighborhood. And he pointed out in his article that homeowners weren't not allowed to paint. They were only not allowed to paint if it were not historical colors. They didn't want lime greens or bright purples or things like that in his article. Now, that's either here or there, but I do remember that. I remember this legislation for all practical purposes, and I remember, I think I was a co-sponsor. we agree with the concept that historical neighborhoods and historical buildings ought to be preserved but i think on the other hand you have to recognize that this type of property as ms whites pointed out was um i would not consider it an historical property it's a small starter home that's what it was when it was built its value is because of its proximity to the university, not because of its structural integrity or its historical preservation. I mean, I don't think Washington ever slept in that house, to tell you the truth. But it was my daughter's dream to have her little house painted white. She loves that place. I would hope that she would take that into consideration, particularly in light of the fact that obviously the structure and the paint in the house is more sound, more valuable now than it was before we applied the paint. Okay, I'm going to allow Mr. Dennis to present any rebuttal that he would like to present, if any. All right, Ms. Kerr. You can just pretend I'm Mr. Dennis. Ms. Kerr, I think you have not yet officially identified yourself with this particular record, so if you don't mind, please identify. Yes, I'm Betty Kerr, historic preservation officer with the LFUCG. Just made a few notes of things for some clarification. We're tag teaming. First of all, before we go on more about the paint, the windows situation, the application was not a complete application about the windows. The application, you have a copy of it in your packet, but it says something to the effect of paint house and install windows or something like that. and so we had told the applicants that that was not any adequate information about the windows and that they would have to provide touch sheets and the type of window and materials of the window and the design of the windows and so forth that they would like to propose so they certainly may choose to still do so and are welcome to make that application they've been told pretty well I think when we were visiting the site, the complexities about considerations about windows and that the key thing per the guidelines is to retain the historic windows and repair them if needed. We did, while we were on the site at the conclusion of our meeting with the Stumbos, did with their permission walk and test each of the windows in terms of its fabric, the wood being intact with a pen knife, you know, nothing sophisticated, but, and found them overall to be in very good shape and just perhaps needing some repair and some reglazing as needed. So the windows are not before you today because there's not been a complete application file requesting to replace those windows and whether or not the property owners choose in the future to pursue such an application is to say they have every right to do so, but it was not and is not part of a pending application at this time. Relative to just some quick clarifications, perhaps, the photo that was referenced that shows the building unpainted, that is a current photograph from the PVA records, and that's where we got it. So it is very reasonably recent and taken through the PVA process. It's not a photograph we have taken at all. But if you look at it, it shows you that broadly there are not substantial problems by any means with the masonry on this house, at least as visible in those pictures. The only thing we saw about any kind of cracks or settlement in the house, we did see on the end, what would be the west end of the house, a pair of cracks rising from the corner of the windows on each side up to the gable end corners. they are settling cracks and have probably been there quite a long time. But otherwise, with the applied paint on it, we really didn't have the opportunity as staff to review anything about any other potential problems in either the masonry itself or the tuck pointing of the house. So when something is done in violation like that without an opportunity to record and report the current situation for the process. We really have not had the opportunity to make that evaluation. I think that that PVA photograph very thoroughly documents that the house has never been painted. Once houses are painted, they tend to stay painted. It is difficult to imagine this house got painted in the 1940s or 50s or 60s and somebody stripped it. You usually can find evidence of that if that is desired to be searched for. By looking under some of the window molds and trims and things like that, you would probably find evidence if the house had ever been painted before. So again, I refer back to that PVA image being current and I think it tells the story. As far as it not being a historic house, that whole neighborhood is a historic neighborhood and all the houses in it are part of that. And it certainly is headed to 80-ish years old. And the whole development of that area has been determined through the designation process to be of merit and meet the historic guidelines for historic. And so I don't really think that is in question. Then the issue of color. I know all the board members know this, but just for the record, and so everybody's reminded, the H1 process has never reviewed paint color. It's never intending to, to my knowledge, and it would certainly be something studied and considered if they ever decided to go there. but it's considered a paint color, not the paint itself, but what color it is, is considered a temporary state, because it'll be painted again and again and again as the years go by. In the meantime, what's happening is that the paint is sealing this brick up and not allowing it to breathe as masonry is meant to work. and so it's never considered the right solution if indeed there even were tuck pointing issues or masonry issues to just cover it over with something that seals it all that really does is assure that the building will not be able with its masonry to breathe back out we've provided some technical materials on that matter from the national park service that are in your record and I sent those to the applicants as well through their attorney. So I believe she's received a full set of everything the board has received. Okay, Ms. Kerr, anything else? No, I don't believe so. Mr. Dennis, do you have anything else? I think that's it from the staff at the moment. All right. I think now I want to note officially for the record, we did receive an email from Sarah Schoenberg, who is apparently a resident of the historic district in which she noted her objections to this project i'm not going to read the email in its entirety except just to note it's a an email putting us on notice that she does object to this project i am going to turn the floor over now to questions from the board members beginning with miss erwin is urban anything Ms. Hill, anything? Okay. Mr. Yelpin. All right. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. I've spent a lot of time in different basements on Barbary and Dansler and over in that area. Yeah. In college and after college. um but but there and i build a lot of water out of basements over there uh there's a creek there and about every decade or so some life-threatening situation happens in that culvert or that creek but my point is there's a lot of water in the ground over there so whatever moisture mitigation has been improved with the paint that you've got I would be surprised if that was a lasting solution to the problems. Maybe it's fixed some gutter runoff or whatever, but there's going to be a lot more coming through the seasons. So I don't think the paint was the correct remedy for the brick. And according to our guidelines, it's just, it was not followed. Thank you. I'm going to make a couple observations. I think I'm probably now, due to years of service, probably the most senior member of this board. The guideline speaks in different levels of absoluteness. Sometimes it implies wiggle room when it says should. In other areas, it's pretty emphatic. And in this particular area, it is emphatic. in item H 1.3 H says brick that has never been painted should not be painted and there are reasons for that as Ms. Currie has pointed out people were in the habit of painting their houses and they can create issues I know from personal experience sometimes paint does not hold up well on a brick house I want to also address momentarily the issue of notice in these days and times there used to be a policy and procedure but due to budgetary cutbacks that when we received notice of a new person arriving in the neighborhood that the staff would reach out to alert them that they were in an H1 overlay due to cutbacks in their budgets that has been I think a process that's been dropped there's also an addition And although they're not a huge sign saying you're coming into a historic district, there are around the perimeter of each historic district a border sign saying you are in the, in this case, the Seven Parks Historic District. It is also my understanding, and you can correct me, Ms. White, later if you care to, that the deed itself characterizes the area as being either in a historic overlay or not. I have not seen the deed on this property, and you did not provide a copy of it. and finally and this has been my pet peeve i do think the realtors notice should be amended to actually explicitly state yeah that a house is in a historic i think that would head off a lot of these issues that is something that i think that's a dialogue that's going to have to occur with the real estate commission and i would personally hope that someday we can actually have a conversation with the powers that be with that commission that they may adopt a procedure on their uniform rental or their uniform disclosure form that it be disclosed on the application itself when you're signing off on buying a piece of property that you're buying a piece of property that is protected within H1 overlay that would be an ideal solution unfortunately we don't have that Mr. Stumbo and Ms. White you are not the first person to have run afoul of this paint rule And I'm sorry to say that. And Seven Parks is a historic district that fools people because, as Mr. Stumble was pointing out, it doesn't feel like a historic district. But part of the desire between the H1 overlay is to protect properties that are worthy of preservation from being further demeaned or abused through either inappropriate additions, inappropriate work, inappropriate removal of old windows. and so typically the neighborhood will gather together go through the petition process and get themselves the protection they have been seeking we just went through that process recently with Pensacola and that is our newest one and that is beginning to happen further down or south on Nicholasville Road. Now I've gone on way too long because I just want to point out we are sympathetic Mr. Stumbo to your dilemma but the the guidelines are there right there is no wiggle room here unfortunately so there's gonna have to be a way for you to figure out a means for reducing your to taking that brick that white that the white paint off I'm glad fortunately for your sake and I think you'll get your money back if you did not go forward with the window replacement that would have been even in a more expensive endeavor. And we had a couple of cases where windows were taken out inappropriately and had to be replaced back with original wooden windows. I have gone on too long. Are there any other comments or questions from the board members? If not, I'm gonna ask for, are there any comments or questions from the virtual audience? Mr. Chairman, could I clarify some things? To begin with, the application, I don't have it in front of me, but I think it says it's installed in the windows. We never got any official notice that it wasn't complete. So, you know, we take issue with that. I mean, we did talk about it. We said we'd hold up. Hopefully, we thought at that point, well, you know, if they have problems with the windows, we can do something else about the windows, and maybe they'll not say that the painting of the brick was all right. And I understand what you're saying, but here's the point. Here's the underlying point to this whole case from our perspective. We own that property, and it doesn't conflict with the neighborhood's overall view because there are other houses that are painted white. So isn't it arbitrary and capricious to say that you can't paint your house white, but your neighbor can't just because of a timeline? No, it doesn't. It doesn't make any difference. If if the premise that you're operating under. Is the historical preservation of the neighborhood, then all the houses ought not to be able to be painted. And whether or not it hurts the brick, that doesn't make any real sense for the board to make that decision. That's the property owner's decision. Property owners should be able to decide that. That's very wrong, motherfucker. The underlying premise of the statute is to protect the value of the property owners. To protect the value of the property owners. That's what it says. so if you're going to say well just because we don't like brick being painted we don't care what it does to the property owner's value that's not constitutionally acceptable that's a taking without just compensation as miss white's point you can't say to people we believe that it hurts your brick we don't have anything to really base that on um other houses other property owners painted their brick white and you but you can't their house looks better than yours therefore your their house if is brought to the market is going to bring more to the value of the house than yours is. I don't see how you can make those decisions not based upon value. It has to be based upon owner's value, not what the board likes, not what you've done in the past. What is the value to the property owner? And the value to the property owner is protecting the property. Okay, Mr. Stonewall, let me make a couple quick. I'm hearing someone else trying to step in. Am I incorrect about that? Anyway, let me respond. Mr. Petty, you need to mute your mic. Ah, is that what's going on? Mr. Stonewall, let me make a couple of quick remarks, and then I think we do need to move forward. First of all, the issues that you're trying to raise with respect to the unconstitutional taking, I recognize you need to raise that issue to exhaust that argument for future purposes. with respect to your allegory about other houses being painted white and consequently you should be allowed to paint your house white by that same reasoning if there were other houses with inappropriate additions on them and you're saying that the historic overlay would allow inappropriate additions to be authorized simply because there were existing structures that were inappropriately no i'm saying that should be part of the decision making process the process should include notice of the fact that the neighborhood contains those types of um items and if in fact the property owner chose and it wasn't unsightly it wasn't against um it wasn't something that wasn't accepted in the neighborhood or seen in the neighborhood which might arguably lend it's to your argument that it's it has historical value as a neighborhood if it wasn't present in the neighborhood then i could understand but if it's present in the neighborhood whether it's an addition or whether it's a paint on a house then how can you argue how can you say that well we're trying to preserve historical significance of the neighborhood when other houses in that same neighborhood had those same characteristics so i think you have to look at the overall picture of the neighborhood and what's there and what's been allowed and what the property owners have done to preserve the value of their property that's what i'm saying it should be about value that's the underlying premise of the law is to protect the property owner's value it says it so if you're not going to protect the property owner's value if you're not allowed the property owner to protect his home through reasonable repairs then you really you've gone outside the purview of your charge and because how if my neighbor can protect his property with regular maintenance and i can't then that doesn't make any sense that's arbitrary and capricious all right well the the repairs that have to be done have to be done in accordance with the guidelines this particular project that you undertook is not within the guidelines miss curry no it doesn't say the guidelines it says should not it doesn't say shall not no it says that that relates to the argument that other houses in the neighborhood are painted you can't i just don't see how you can possibly and i'm not being argument you've always been someone i've admired uh mr dickinson mr chairman but um it doesn't make any logical sense to me and i've been around a lot of this stuff and i've seen i've seen a lot of stuff in my years in the legislature. But the premise of the law is to protect the property owner and to protect the value of the properties in the neighborhood. That's the premise of the law. Would everybody agree with that? If you agree with that, then you have to lead into the argument that, well, or lend yourself into this debate that I, as a property owner, have a right to make reasonable repairs to my property. And you have the right to make those reasonable repairs so long as they are in accordance with the guidelines. And I have to disagree with you. When you create a historic overlay, you're doing two things. You are also preserving and protecting the value of the home, not for the property owner, but for historic preservation. So that that neighborhood will continue to be similar to what had always been there before his approval. and that would be true if if that would be true mr chairman if no houses were painted if no additions were prevalent in the neighborhood but if you're selectively with the grandfather it's okay to paint other houses but it's not okay to paint your house that that defeats that argument don't you see what i'm saying i'm not trying to be nasty about it i do hear what you're saying but i don't think you understand the issue of these houses that were painted were grandfathered in and consequently were accepted that they were painted. It shouldn't matter. I think it does matter. If the argument is all the neighborhood is going to look alike and look like these historical houses always look, but these guys got grandfathered in and you didn't, that's arbitrary and capricious. I just don't see how you can do that to people. I mean, you can't tell a property owner. How do you tell a property owner that he can't improve the value on his property? if it's consistent with other things that other property owners have done in that neighborhood. Ms. Dumbo, with all due respect, we're going to have to move on. Mr. Chairman, may I put two quick points into the record? Let me see if Ms. Kerr has something that you might want to respond to as well. Okay. And quickly, Ms. Kerr. Yes, I just wanted for clarification to note about the H1 overlay, how you know of it, and that kind of thing. Noting that it is put with your zoning. So if your zoning is R2, it'll have parenthesis H1. So anybody who has checked their property zoning is going to learn what their land use zoning is and that it has an H1 overlay for every address. And then that's all on record through the PVA and that they're not in the deeds. Your land use zoning is not reflected in your deed, nor is the fact that it has an H1 overlay. But so these are not where they are and never have. Very good. Thank you. And this curve made one of my points for me. The deed does not give the designation. So these homeowners, you two streets over, it's not historic. And so they did not see the little sign and did not know. The second point is the staff recommendation. Well, maybe it is in accordance with the guidelines is requiring the homeowners in this particular case to further damage the brick. I think you probably all agree with me that if you take a brick that's been hard used and strip paint and primer off it, it's going to be very, very expensive, but it's also going to be very damaging and reduce the life of that building. And it's our objection to being forced to further damage property. Okay. Thank you. One second. Thank you. All right. I am bringing this conversation to a close, I believe. Mr. Chairman, we may have, I don't know, but I think one of the folks who signed on is a neighbor who has a comment today. Oh, I'm sorry. I did not realize we had someone else in the room. Yes, can you? Yes, who is this, please? Mr. Stills, you're muted again. There we go. Can you hear me now? Yes, sir. Yes, unfortunately, I can't see you because I'm working off my iPad. So if you will identify yourself with a record, there you are. Anthony Stills here, 233 Barbary Lane. All right, Mr. Stills, if you would like to make a comment or two. I actually have a couple comments, just as a resident who has been in front of the board ourselves. I know how it goes, so I'll try to keep it quick. But just a few things that I wanted to bring up. One, we also were not provided notification of our, I guess, historic society living situation, which hence why the first time we came up, we were surprised. Two, I do believe one of the street signs that says that this is a historic area has been damaged and or bent, I think, by probably rambunctious college kids that live not but a street over. and just the fact that we actually do support their decision to paint the house we actually enjoy it we think it makes the street and neighborhood look much better than it was as you know my wife and I both work at UK and I get to walk Elizabeth Street every day knowing that if seven parks includes all of seven parks which I think it should then all of those houses should be protected as well so that way they don't get destroyed if we're talking about preserving history of Lexington, that should be the biggest thing. Okay. Anything else? Nope. That's it. I appreciate your comments. Anything else? All right. Anyone else to be heard? Ms. White? Okay, Ms. White, thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you, sir. As always, it's a pleasure sparring with you from time to time. And if we can have, are we ready for a motion? I've lost okay I think I have my board members I need a motion please all right do I not have a motion Mr. Chairman I will move I have lost my paperwork all right the case number if you need it is 019502224 221 Barbera Lane. Regarding the case number just read into the record and the address as well, I move to disapprove the application. Or accept the staff's recommendation of disapproval? Yes. Do I have a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. Yes, Ms. Hill. I'll second it. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? I realize this may be a difficult decision, and we have got to figure out a better way of giving people notice. I will freely acknowledge that. I will agree with that as well. If there's no further discussion, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Raise your hand. Opposed, nay. All right, the motion passes and the staff recommendation that this application be disapproved is accepted. It's an awkward way of saying it, but that's the way we do it. All right. Again, thank you all for your time. It's been a good, robust conversation and discussion. And I appreciate everyone being very articulate in their views. Thank you. And Mr. Mitchell, I think we will finally be able to move on to you as well. And Ms. Weitz, thank you so much. Nice meeting you. Mr. Stumbo, good seeing you again. I think we'll see each other again on this issue, Mr. Chairman. Well, actually, you can go up to the Planning Commission with your appeal. I don't serve with them. And there's a lot of courts above them, too. That is true. It's a process. It's a lot of process. Okay, Mr. Stumbo, thank you. Mr. Mitchell, I see that you're on our screen. Would you let me go ahead and I hope I haven't lost my paperwork on this one. This is the case number 06510667, capital I, 667 Ellesmere Park. The scope of work is constructed a two-story garage. Mr. Mitchell, the staff has basically accepted your application with a recommendation of approval, but they have suggested that you reduce your garage from 30 feet to 32 feet. do you want to be heard on that issue sir no this is my second time up I think I resubmitted at 32 feet so I think we're good I'm happy with you Jim could you restate that because you said that in reverse staff recommends the garage be reduced to 30 feet in lieu of 32 I thought I had read that properly no you I think you reversed Okay. Okay. I have been known when I was in my acting days to storm onto the stage thing, and I call the actor opposite me by the name of my character. So this happens. Mr. Mishra, I thank you for your patience then for a very long proceeding. uh the other recommendations are basically the standard what i call standard conditions the following needs to be provided staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the coa the details of all doors garage utility and mandor are you agreeing with that sir i am all right uh the drawing shall be submitted the staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the coa and what we call our standard the last two are the standard four and five of the standard conditions that are with every application and I assume that you're familiar with those and and are you in agreement? I am. Okay Mr. Mitchell thank you. Do I have any comments or questions from the board members? Do I have any questions or comments from the audience? If not then I believe we're ready for a motion. Chairman I just want to make certain that the first staff recommendation has been understood and accepted by the owner, homeowner? I think you said yes, but let's be sure. You are in agreement that your garage will be reduced from 32 feet to 30 feet, correct? I missed that. I thought I was, it was at 32 feet, but I am fine with 30 feet. You're sure? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. If you are, then are we ready? I don't think I've heard any comments from the virtual audience. So are we ready for a motion? Mr. Chair, Per case number 06510667-5, I move to approve this application for a certificate of appropriateness with the recommendations just reviewed and read into the record. Do I need to read any more of them? I think we have read it enough times. Do I have a second? i need a second i second the motion thank you miss erwin any further discussion on the motion if not then the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye raise your hand and all opposed okay the uh certificate appropriateness is approved as conditioned mr mitchell again thank you so much for your time and a cooperation thank you all All right, thank you. All right, the last two items on our agenda, they're both applications that have now been withdrawn. Not on my agenda is the approval of minutes, but I believe Ms. Armstrong sent out this morning or yesterday minutes for July 5, 2020. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, the minutes stand and approve then. Our next board meeting will be September 16. I do not believe there's any further business for us to consider, is that correct Ms. Kerr? That is correct. With the one thing of, we'd all like to really welcome Suzanne Orwin to our board. Oh, I'm sorry. And thank you so much for your service to this community. And other than that, that's all we had. Okay, Mr. Irwin, you have... This has always been the case. I can vividly remember my very first case as a brand-new board member. We had an hour-and-a-half marathon over the construction of a proposed building. It's never been built on that vacant lot on the corner of High Street and Broadway. And they were trying to put in that seven-story, eight-story apartment building. So you've had your trial by fire. you have done, in my opinion, beautifully, and thank you so much. On that note, then, I'm asking for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second, please. Second. All right, we stand adjourned. I look forward to seeing you all again, probably virtually. One of these days, we'll actually get into the same room with each other, but not right now. You all stay healthy and stay safe, please. You too. Take care. bye-bye thank you thank you everyone thank you Woo! by those alibis and lying eyes and all the...