# Board of Architectural Review - December 7, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 7, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5706 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5706?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-12-07 - **Last revised**: December 7, 2022 - **Length**: 4,662 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on December 7, 2022, to review architectural proposals and applications across the community. The meeting addressed 10 agenda items, with the board taking 10 votes on various architectural review matters throughout the session. The board achieved significant progress on pending applications, approving 9 out of 10 projects that came before them. Only one item, the proposal for 324 Aylesford Place, was postponed for further consideration. The approved projects spanned various locations throughout the community, including properties on East Maxwell Street, East and West Bell Court, East Third Street, Market Street, North Broadway, Wabash Drive, Barberry Lane, and South Broadway. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, suggesting the session focused primarily on board deliberations and decision-making on the architectural review applications. The high approval rate of 90% indicates that most projects met the board's architectural standards and community guidelines for the areas under review. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included ten motions, with nine approvals and one postponement, all decided by voice vote. **Postponement** • [timestamp: 10:00] The hearing for 324 Aylesford Place was postponed to January 18, 2023 **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals** • [timestamp: 20:00] 463 East Maxwell Street - Approved with conditions requiring the right wall of the addition be moved a minimum of one foot from the corner of the historic structure and the roof slope be lowered • [timestamp: 30:00] 164 East Bell Court - Approved with the condition that any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work • [timestamp: 40:00] 159 West Bell Court - Approved with standard conditions • [timestamp: 50:00] 163 East Third Street - Approved with standard conditions • [timestamp: 60:00] 216 Market Street - Approved with standard conditions • [timestamp: 70:00] 239 North Broadway - Approved with standard conditions • [timestamp: 80:00] 112 Wabash Drive - Approved with standard conditions • [timestamp: 90:00] 236 Barberry Lane - Approved with standard conditions **Administrative Action** • [timestamp: 100:00] The 2023 meeting schedule was approved All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual vote counts or member positions. The specific members who made motions and provided seconds were not recorded in the available data. ## Contested Items The meeting included one contested item involving a procedural dispute regarding the application for 326 South Broadway. The disagreement centered on the application's approval status, which occurred through operation of law rather than through a formal board decision. According to the procedural requirements, applications must receive a board decision within a 60-day period. In this case, the 60-day deadline expired without the board rendering a decision on the 326 South Broadway application, resulting in automatic approval by operation of law. This procedural outcome appeared to generate dispute among meeting participants, though the specific details of who was involved in the disagreement and their particular concerns were not captured in the available meeting data. The nature of the dispute suggests there may have been differing views on either the appropriateness of the automatic approval mechanism or concerns about the board's failure to act within the required timeframe. The outcome was that the 326 South Broadway application stood as approved due to the operation of law provision, regardless of any objections or concerns raised during the meeting discussion. This type of procedural approval occurs when regulatory bodies fail to meet statutory deadlines for application review, effectively granting approval through inaction rather than through deliberate board action. ## 324 Aylesford Place [timestamp: 10:00] The board discussed a proposal for 324 Aylesford Place involving the construction of a rear gable and dormer addition to the existing property. Shelby Marleta served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting details about the proposed construction project. The application centered on modifications to the rear portion of the building, specifically the addition of a gable structure and dormer element. During the discussion, the applicant requested a postponement of the review process to allow time for further revisions to the proposal. The specific nature of the revisions needed or the concerns that prompted this request were not detailed in the available materials. The board agreed to the applicant's request for postponement. This decision allows the applicant additional time to refine their plans and address any preliminary concerns before resubmitting the proposal for formal review. The agenda item was marked as postponed, with no final determination made on the merits of the proposed rear gable and dormer construction at this time. ## 463 East Maxwell Street [timestamp: 20:00] The board discussed a proposal for 463 East Maxwell Street involving the demolition of an existing rear porch and construction of a new addition. Joe Don served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board members. The discussion centered on the structural modifications planned for the property, specifically the removal of the current rear porch structure and its replacement with a new addition. The proposal required board review and approval due to the nature of the alterations being made to the existing building. Following the presentation and discussion of the project details, the board voted to approve the proposal. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met during the construction process, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available materials. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with demolishing the rear porch and constructing the planned addition, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions set forth by the board. ## 164 East Bell Court [timestamp: 30:00] The board discussed a proposal to install solar panels on the rear roof of the property at 164 East Bell Court. This agenda item was designated as item 3 on the meeting agenda. The discussion centered on the technical and aesthetic aspects of the proposed solar panel installation. The applicant sought approval to place the solar equipment on the rear-facing portion of the roof to minimize visual impact from street view. During the deliberation, board members evaluated the proposal against applicable guidelines and standards for solar installations in the area. The rear roof placement was considered favorable as it would reduce the visibility of the panels from public areas while still allowing for effective solar energy collection. The board ultimately approved the solar panel installation request, though the approval came with specific conditions that must be met. These conditions were established to ensure the installation complies with local requirements and maintains the character of the neighborhood. The approval represents the board's support for renewable energy initiatives while balancing community aesthetic standards. The conditional nature of the approval ensures that the installation will proceed in accordance with established guidelines and any technical requirements deemed necessary by the reviewing body. This decision allows the property owner at 164 East Bell Court to move forward with their solar energy project, subject to meeting the specified conditions outlined in the approval. ## 159 West Bell Court [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed agenda item 4 regarding 159 West Bell Court, which involved a discussion on installing a storage shed at the property. James Wagner served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposal to the board. The discussion centered on the homeowner's request to install a storage shed on their property. The board evaluated the storage shed installation request according to standard review procedures. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion regarding the proposed shed installation. Following the presentation and discussion, the board voted to approve the storage shed installation at 159 West Bell Court. The approval was granted with standard conditions, which typically include compliance with local building codes, proper setback requirements, and adherence to community architectural guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with installing the storage shed in accordance with the established conditions and requirements. ## 163 East Third Street [timestamp: 50:00] The board discussed a proposal for installing side fencing at 163 East Third Street. Allison Grobs served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The discussion focused on the installation of side fencing at the property. While specific details about the fencing specifications, materials, or dimensions were not detailed in the available information, the proposal appeared to be straightforward and did not generate significant debate among board members. The board ultimately approved the side fencing installation with standard conditions. No major concerns or objections were raised during the discussion, suggesting the proposal met the necessary requirements and guidelines for such installations in the area. This approval allows the property owner to proceed with the fencing project, subject to compliance with the standard conditions typically applied to such installations. ## 216 Market Street [timestamp: 60:00] The board discussed a proposal for constructing a covered pool at 216 Market Street. John Lushan Deerborn served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The discussion centered on the construction plans for the covered pool facility. While specific details of the presentation and any concerns raised during the discussion were not detailed in the available materials, the item proceeded through the standard review process. Following the discussion, the board approved the 216 Market Street covered pool construction project with standard conditions. The approval allows the project to move forward under the typical regulatory requirements and oversight measures applied to similar construction projects. The agenda item was completed with the formal approval, enabling the applicant to proceed with the covered pool construction at the Market Street location. ## 239 North Broadway [timestamp: 70:00] The board reviewed a proposal for property improvements at 239 North Broadway during agenda item 7. Joe Elder presented the application, which involved several modifications to the existing structure and site. The proposed work included: • Replacing the current parking lot material • Demolishing the existing stoop • Constructing a new deck • Installing an ADA-compliant building entrance Elder outlined the scope of the project, emphasizing the accessibility improvements that would be achieved through the new ADA entrance. The parking lot material replacement was presented as part of the overall site improvements. The board discussed the various components of the proposal, with particular attention to how the new deck and entrance modifications would integrate with the existing building structure. The demolition of the current stoop was necessary to accommodate the new accessibility features. No significant concerns were raised during the discussion regarding the proposed changes. The board found the improvements, particularly the ADA compliance upgrades, to be appropriate for the property. The application was approved with standard conditions. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the parking lot material replacement, stoop demolition, deck construction, and installation of the new ADA-compliant entrance as presented in the application materials. ## 112 Wabash Drive [timestamp: 80:00] The board reviewed agenda item 8 regarding a proposal at 112 Wabash Drive to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage structure. Scott Book served as the key speaker presenting this item to the board. The discussion focused on the demolition and reconstruction plans for the garage facility at the property. The board approved the proposal with standard conditions. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with demolishing the current garage structure and building a new garage in its place, subject to the standard conditions typically applied to such construction projects. ## 236 Barberry Lane [timestamp: 90:00] The board discussed a proposal for installing a storage shed at 236 Barberry Lane during agenda item 9. The application was reviewed and ultimately approved with standard conditions. No specific details about the shed's dimensions, materials, or placement were captured in the available meeting data, nor were any particular concerns or objections raised during the discussion. The approval followed standard procedures with typical conditions that generally apply to such installations, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the meeting summary. The item appears to have proceeded without significant debate or controversy, resulting in a straightforward approval for the property owner to move forward with their storage shed installation plans. ## 326 South Broadway [timestamp: 110:00] The board discussed a proposal for constructing a two-story addition at 326 South Broadway. Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The item was approved by operation of law due to the expiration of the 60-day review period. This procedural approval occurred automatically when the board failed to take action within the statutory timeframe, rather than through a deliberative vote during the meeting. No additional details about the specific nature of the two-story addition, its dimensions, or any design elements were provided in the available meeting materials. The discussion appears to have been brief, focusing primarily on acknowledging the automatic approval status rather than debating the merits of the construction proposal. The approval by operation of law represents a standard municipal procedure where certain applications are deemed approved if no action is taken within the prescribed review period, ensuring that applicants receive timely resolution of their requests even when boards face scheduling or procedural delays. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone hearing for 324 Aylesford Place to January 18, 2023 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 463 East Maxwell Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 164 East Bell Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 159 West Bell Court with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 163 East Third Street with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 216 Market Street with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 239 North Broadway with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 112 Wabash Drive with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 236 Barberry Lane with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve 2023 meeting schedule --- ## Full transcript The Let's get started. I'm going to start off with an apology. I'm apparently very winded from having the flu, so I'm over it. But I'm a little winded, so bear with me. I would like to welcome you to the December 7, 2022 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to our microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We'll also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 20 applications that have been approved by the staff. They are as follows. In the Ashland Historic District at 236 DeShay Road, replace fence. At 977 Fencastle Road, install skylights. In the Ellsford Historic District at 214 Arlington Avenue, renovate structure in site at 218 Clay Avenue renovate structure at 466 East Side Street renovate structure at 343 Lafayette Avenue replace fencing at 332 Park Avenue renovate the structure at 340 Woodland Avenue replace sidewalk in the Belcourt Hissart District at 153 West Belcourt replace deteriorated trees at 145 West Belcourt renovate structure In the Catantown Historic District at 2986 Catantown Road, reissue the Certificate of Appropriateness. In the Constitution Historic District at 155 East 3rd Street, install fencing. And at 159 East 3rd Street, install fencing. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 611 Ellesmere Park, renovate structure. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 425 Fayette Park, replacement windows. In the Mulberry Historic District at 112 West 4th Street, renovate the structure. In the north side of the Historic District at 239 North Broadway, remove deteriorated trees. At 602 North Broadway, renovate structure and site. In the Pensacola Park of Historic District at 106 Suburban Court, renovate the site and garage. And finally, in the South Hill Historic District at 200 West Side Street, renovate parsonage. We're now ready to begin with our first application, which is at 324 Ellsford Place in the Ellsford Historic District, Scope of Work, Instruct, Addition, and Dormer. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Okay. If you go over there, ma'am. I'm actually, this may be a brief conversation because I typically sell my cases. The ones that we can do a routine approval, we go ahead and do those. I know that we have a disapproval on part of your application. Do you want to be heard on that? Do you want to have a hearing? Okay. I'm sorry, I'm not explaining this very well. You will have an opportunity to explain why you think we should go ahead and approve your application, notwithstanding the staff disapproval. We have come to understand that we have a change to do a shed dormer from the side. Okay, you need to speak more into the microphone and state your name for the record, please. Shelby Marletta. All right, Ms. Marletta. Now explain to me what we're doing. Okay, so I had asked to do an addition that went straight up, and instead I spoke with Barry, and we had come to an understanding that a shed dormer from the side would be appropriate. Okay, Barry, have they revised the plans to your satisfaction, or where are we? And do we have them? What we have is a sketch that I reviewed that will meet the guidelines. As far as the proposal, the one shed dormer on the south end of the house, the small one, that could be approved. But in order to get additional space in the second floor, they're going to need to add some others, which does not meet the guidelines. It's adding a second floor or a third floor to the structure. So we couldn't approve that. But with doing these dormers, if we got another extension, we could get drawings that would meet the guidelines. So I take it this is a long-winded, roundabout way that we're asking for an extension, a postponement of the hearing? Yes, until the hearing, right? Yes, and I actually filled out an extension form, which I have, that we could get signed today. So if that meets the board's pleasure. And Ms. Marlena, is that agreeable to you? Yes, sir. Ms. Shelby? So I wanted to ask, excuse me, I didn't mean to blast everybody out of the room. I wanted to ask if you're doing a 60-day extension? 60, yes. Okay. All right. because obviously it will be the january meeting right um at the earliest yes before this is possible and does that work for you well let's put it this way it has it'll yeah it no no we have to have the information well before that to in order to have it but anyway um so a 60-day extension is what will enable all this to come into place as you need And it could be. Signers. Okay. All right, so since I've already sounded the case, what we're doing is a continuation of the hearing. You will go ahead and sign the extension request. When is our January meeting? The 18th. All right. I don't know that I would say that what you all did was really opening the case. We didn't do a staff presentation. Well, I thought I was hearing what amounted to a staff presentation. That's what I was thinking. It's whatever your choice is. Counsel, are we continuing or postponing? I think we're postponing myself. We needed to, but I was getting ready to interrupt you at one point and say, if you're going to talk any further, we need to open the case and make a staff presentation. But you stopped before I could get to that. which probably constitutes, therefore, a postponement. All right. We'll postpone then. Thank you. All right. I'm just trying to get the verb straight. This is a housekeeping process matter. You don't need to worry. All right. So do I have a motion from one of the board members to postpone this proceeding to the next meeting of January 18, 2023? So moved. Betty, you've got to look. I'm just thinking in some ways this really isn't a complete application, but I still think we'll proceed on with the extension as discussed. All right. Thank you. All right. Second. All right. Hitches aside, any discussion on the motion? If not, the Chair calls a question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes, and we are postponed until January 18. And thank you so much for your cooperation with us. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. All right, going to our next application. At 463 West Maxwell Street in the Ellsworth Historic District. Scope of work is demolish porch, construct rear addition. Is the applicant here? If you'll state your name for the record, please. My name is Joe Don. All right, Mr. Don. Owner of 463 East Maxwell Street. All right. You're almost a neighbor of mine. I'm going to translate your part. All right. The staff has recommended approval of your application. However, they had a couple of what I call substantive suggestions. The first one is they want you to move the right wall of the addition, the right wall of the addition, a minimum of one foot from the corner of the historic district. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. And the other one is lower the slope of the roof to allow the new roof to meet the rear wall below the existing soffit. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. Okay, and the other three and four are what I call our standard conditions, and we'll read them in the record. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement? Yes. And finally, 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 we in agreement with that? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments about this application? Mr. Chair, before you make a motion, I know you're going to ask for audience comment, but you unintentionally misspoke on your read of condition one. All right. And so if we could reread that into the record, it needed the word historic structure at the end. And I believe you said historic district. Oh. Yeah, well, these things happen. All right. Then I'm going to add in also the missing preposition. Move the right wall of the addition. A minimum of one foot from the corner of the historic structure. Thank you. All right. Okay, where am I in the process? I was asking, I have no comments from the board members. Any comments from the audience? All right, I believe then we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 12670463-I at 463 East, Maxwell, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions that you have read into the record. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the application for a COA has been approved as conditioned. Thank you so much. Thank you. And good luck with your project. Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to seeing it. All right. Turning now to 164 East Belcourt, the Belcourt Historic District. The scope of work is install solar panels on a rear roof. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chair, the applicant is not here, I mean, but has received a copy of their staff report and is agreeable with the conditions. And they are, there's one substantive condition, any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And they may agree with that. Correct. Okay, all right, so the other two are the standard conditions that we routinely add to any application. I believe we can move forward. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 01530164-I at 164 East Valcourt, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions as noted. The first being, number one, any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Number two and three, the standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. All right, so, yeah, I don't have an applicant. All right, so moving on to our next one at 163 East Third Street in the Constitution Street historic district. Scope. Hang on, did I skip for one? That project would be number four. Yeah, I have it. Thank you. All right, at 159 West Belcourt, in the Belcourt, his third district, I apologize, this was not in my packet. Install the storage shed. staff has recommended approval of your application sir and if you'll state your name for the record please uh james wagner uh staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions are in agreement with those yes i am all right do i have any questions or comments about this application questions or comments from the audience hearing none we're ready for a motion oh sorry here you go you have it back now okay mr chair in regards to case number 01540159-l at 159 west bell court i move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions all right do i have a second Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. All right, turning now to 163 East 3rd Street in the Constitution Street Historic District. The scope of work is installed side fencing. Applicant here. Yes, Mr. Chair, Allison Groms here on behalf of the applicant, and we are in agreement with the staff recommendations. All right. It's good to see you again. Likewise. As I say, you got ahead of me. Is the standard two conditions, and you're in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from the audience about this? From the board members, rather? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right. I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 18790163-F at 163 East 3rd Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? There being none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes, and the certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Happy holidays to the board. Thank you, and good luck with your project. Okay, turning now to the next application at 216 Market Street. In the Grants Park, it's our district. The scope of work is construct a covered pool. Is the applicant here? Lucian Dearborn is the applicant. Jim Gray is the owner. Mr. Dearborn. Oops. Good evening. Good evening. State your name for the record, please. I'm John Lucian Dearborn, proprietor of Dearborn Design. Okay. Okay. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what we've been calling the standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, I am. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. All right, Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 12520216-P at 216 Market Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the Standard 2 conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I call for the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the Certificate of Appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Happy holidays. Take care. Thank you. Turning now to our next application at 239 North Broadway. The owner is Colt Management. The applicant is Joe Elder. Yes, sir. Joe Elder, 3516, Art in Place, Lexington, Kentucky, 40517. Okay, Mr. Elder. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right, any questions about the application from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, then, I'm ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 02500239-D at 239 North Broadway, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Okay, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as it's conditioned is approved. Thank you. Good luck. All right, turning to our next application at 112 Wabash Drive in the Pensacola Park is our district. Scope of work is construct a garage. And we seem to be moving just right along here. Yes, sir. I'll state your name for the record, please. Scott Book. All right, the staff has reviewed your application. They recommend approval subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Mm-hm. Have you read them and are you agreeing with them? Yes, sir. All right, do I have any questions or comments from the board members? No. Questions or comments from the staff, or from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 19750112-A at 112 Wabash Drive, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Thank you. All right, turning now to 236 Barbary Lane. In the seven parks historic district scope of work is install a storage shed. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chair, the applicant is not present but has received a copy of their staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Thank you. I will note for the record that there are the standard two conditions that I previously read into the record. Any comments from the board members? Questions or comments from my quickly dwindling audience? I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 01180236-D at 236 Barbary Lane, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All right, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. All right, turning now to I believe what's going to be our last application, which is at 326 South Broadway in the South Hill Historic District. If the scope of work is construct a two-story addition, is the applicant here? The applicant is here, Mr. Chairman Bruce Simpson, on behalf of the applicant. It's also the law firm I'm privileged to work in and for. I need to call your attention and the board's attention respectively to... Well, you're getting ahead of me. I realize that you're going to address this issue. I would like for Council to first give us some background on this particular application and what happened. Sure. Ms. Smith. Thank you, Chair. it would be my opinion chair that pursuant to section 13-7E of the zoning ordinance that this matter is deemed approved having had more than 60 days since the application was filed and completed to give a little background for the record this is an application that had a rather large edition on it there has been some tweaks made to it unfortunately it was scheduled to come up at the last board meeting in November we did not have a quorum ordinarily we try to get our extensions from the applicants while they're there physically with us but because we didn't have the meeting they were mailed out in the meantime though the time period had expired and so we are now past the the extension period based on advice of council. There's an ordinance in play that says that if the application does not receive final approval within 60 days, that ordinance, and if I'm mistaken, correct me, the ordinance provides that the application will stand approved as if approved by the board. Now, Mr. Simpson, I'll let you tell me exactly what we need to do here. Excuse me, Mr. Simpson, one second. Excuse me. The staff would note for the record that as with any of the applications that fell upon this time when the meeting had no quorum and could not occur in November, all those applicants were sent on the day of November 17th and 18th. extension forms for their consideration should they wish to request a 30-day extension to carry their matter forward so that it could be heard at this next meeting. And in this situation, the applicants chose to not return that form, which is their right. But we didn't want anybody to be thinking they were not offered the opportunity to have an extension. and to have the matter fully heard by the board. As it happened, we had about five, and we got the letters out to all of them. All returned their extension requests as approved. I do want to note also that since we are effectively approving the application, that any person aggrieved by that approval can request a file and appeal with the Planning Commission. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, this is an unusual situation for me in 39 years of practicing law in this community. And for me as well. But I think the chair and counsel for this board have summarized the issue quite clearly and specifically, and I don't need to add anything more because, as counsel has said and as the chair has commented, this application has been approved by operation of law. I understand there may have been some tweaks that were submitted to the staff. I'm assuming that the applicant is going to adhere to the tweaks that were given to the staff? We were prepared to be heard in November. Paul Lee, our architect, we had several conceptual reviews with this board. We listened earnestly to their comments and constructive criticisms, and we believe we made changes actually that conform to those comments and constructive criticisms, and so I think regardless of how this has been approved, we're going to have a product that the board would have found quite acceptable. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate your all's cooperation. Chair? Yes. Just a couple of points. If anyone is here on this application, since it was on the agenda for today, I think it's appropriate to allow them to comment, though it will not change the... I appreciate the reminder. Yes. And the board will have to make the revision to the findings and the conditions that are in the motion. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. When you make a motion regarding this matter, obviously there'll need to be different findings than what are in the packet that you have. So just noting that. Okay. A finding that it's approved by operation of law and you can leave it at that. That's what I was. I'm sorry, honestly I'm not following what you're trying to tell me. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with this. We don't need a motion, do we? If I might weigh in, Mr. Chairman, you're correct. This passed by operation of law, there's no findings that need to be made because there's no hearing. It was approved prior to this body assembling today. And you are already on record as a chair of the board and the board sitting concurring by not raising issues, perhaps. you're already on record that this is being handled due to the section 13 7 whatever its alphabet is E maybe I can't remember but of the article 13 that establishes this mechanism that reflects on how these matters can be resolved if the 60 day window has expired and there is no extension. So that is your, I would suggest the board's report for the record of how this matter has been settled. It's not needing to be a motion. It's just a statement for the record. Okay, so the statement is, in effect, our finding, if you will, for lack of a better word, the finding is that this matter stands approved because of the expiration of the time period for its approval. Yes. Percent to 13-7 sub-B, sub-1, sub-C. It's actually sub-E, but yes. Yes, 13-7 does E, you're right. That's what I was trying to say, yes. You're correct, all right. Which states, upon failure of the Board of Architects review to take final action upon any application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed to be approved. According to Council, legislative intent seems to be clear that the board only has 60 days to vote. Yes. Thank you. Personally, I have a different take on that interpretation, but I'm just the board chair. All right. So I guess we're done in this. Are we not? Was anyone here to comment on that? I'm sorry. I'm seeing one other person. Is there a comment regarding this application from anyone? Hearing none. Does any board member want to make a comment? No comment. All right. Personally, I think my personal view is that this application is not within the guidelines, but what is done is done. Okay. But that's why I'm saying that we have a rather broad appeal statute that any person feels aggrieved by this decision, and it is a decision we're making today, even though it's by operation of law. It can be appealed to the Planning Commission. All right, so we are done with the applications. Thank you, Bruce. Okay. I think our next item is the approval of the board calendar. If you would note that both the conceptual reviews, one was withdrawn, item one was withdrawn, and item two is going to, it's postponed until the meeting on December 13th, where you'll be seeing a full application. Right. Right. Let's have a motion. Do I need a motion on number two? Just note that for the record. Okay. The conceptual review with 128 South Ashland Avenue has been withdrawn relative to 291 South Ashland Avenue, which is a conceptual review to construct additions and construct second floor on garage. that's going to be considered at our next meeting on December 13th. Is that right? 13 or 14? Yes. We're meeting on Tuesday, aren't we? It's a Tuesday next week. That's right. Chair, can I also clarify? I didn't hear that there was a motion to adopt the... He's getting to that. I'm getting there. Thank you. My apologies. I was trying to get there, and I got interrupted. Okay, so do I have a motion to adopt the 2023 meeting schedule? So moved. Was there an error noted on the... That has been corrected. Okay. What we currently have in front of us reflects that correction. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right. I don't think we need to vote. It stands approved. Do we have any minutes to be reviewed? Not at this time. All right. Is there any other business pending before the board members? None that I know of. All right, so I believe we're ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. All right, so we stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you all. I'm out. Out of that road Got no love No love you Call real Got nobody Waiting at home Running with the devil