# Board of Architectural Review - March 20, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 20, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6073 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6073?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-03-20 - **Last revised**: March 20, 2024 - **Length**: 5,113 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on March 20, 2024, with the Chair presiding over the session. The board addressed four agenda items, all involving architectural and construction projects requiring review and approval within the jurisdiction. During the meeting, the board took four votes on various construction and renovation proposals, ranging from porch restoration to parking lot construction. No public comments were heard during this session. All four agenda items presented to the board received approval, demonstrating a productive meeting where proposed architectural changes met the board's standards and requirements. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered four Certificate of Appropriateness applications during the March 20, 2024 meeting, approving all four with various conditions. **155 Woodland Avenue (21030155-g)** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 155 Woodland Avenue. The motion passed by voice vote with two non-standard conditions and two standard conditions attached. **582-608 West Main Street (12270582-g/12270608-e)** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 582-608 West Main Street. The motion passed by voice vote with the standard two conditions plus a third condition requiring additional landscaping. **715 West Short Street (17170715-d)** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 715 West Short Street. The motion passed by voice vote with the standard two conditions. **321-323 Arcadia Park (00510321-I)** [timestamp: 00:00] The Certificate of Appropriateness for 321-323 Arcadia Park was approved by roll call vote despite one dissenting vote from Ms. Hill. The approval included a specific condition that windows on the east and west sides must be enclosed from the interior while remaining in place from the exterior. All four applications ultimately received approval, though the Arcadia Park application faced some opposition. The approvals came with various conditions ranging from standard requirements to specific architectural modifications and landscaping enhancements. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among board members. **321/323 Arcadia Park Window Alterations** The primary point of contention involved a proposal for window alterations at 321/323 Arcadia Park. The disagreement centered on whether to permit the property owner to enclose windows on the east and west elevations from the interior side while keeping the windows in place on the exterior. This proposal created a division among board members regarding the appropriateness of the modification. The split vote indicates that some members supported allowing the interior enclosure as a compromise that would preserve the building's exterior appearance while addressing the property owner's needs. Other members opposed the alteration, likely due to concerns about the impact on the building's historic integrity or other preservation considerations. The nature of the disagreement suggests differing interpretations of preservation standards and what constitutes an acceptable modification to a historic property. While the exterior windows would remain visible and intact, the interior enclosure would effectively eliminate their function while maintaining their appearance from the street. The outcome of this split vote was not specified in the available information, leaving unclear whether the proposal was ultimately approved or denied. The division among board members highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing property owners' practical needs with historic preservation requirements. ## 155 Woodland Avenue: Construct/restore porch [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for porch construction or restoration work at 155 Woodland Avenue. This agenda item was the first matter discussed during the meeting. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Van Meter and Mr. Petit, who presented details about the proposed porch project. The application involved either constructing a new porch or restoring an existing porch structure at the residential property. The commission evaluated the proposal against applicable design standards and historic preservation guidelines for the area. While specific details of the design elements, materials, or scope of work were not detailed in the available summary, the discussion resulted in the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The application was approved with conditions, though the specific conditions attached to the approval were not specified in the meeting summary. These conditions typically relate to materials, design specifications, construction methods, or other requirements to ensure the work meets historic preservation standards. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the porch construction or restoration project at 155 Woodland Avenue, subject to compliance with any conditions established by the commission during their review process. ## 321/323 Arcadia Park: Change opening and demolish park [timestamp: 00:00] The committee reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 321/323 Arcadia Park involving changes to building openings and demolition of a deck structure. James Vermillion served as the key speaker presenting details of the proposed modifications to the property. The application requested approval to alter existing openings in the building and remove a deck, which required review under the Certificate of Appropriateness process due to the property's historic or architectural significance. The committee evaluated the proposed changes against applicable design guidelines and preservation standards. The discussion focused on ensuring that any modifications would be appropriate for the character and context of the property and surrounding area. Following their review and discussion of the application materials, the committee approved the Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions. The conditional approval indicates that while the overall proposal was deemed acceptable, specific requirements or modifications were established to ensure compliance with preservation standards or design guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with changing the building openings and demolishing the deck, subject to meeting the specified conditions outlined by the committee during their deliberation. ## 582 thru 608 West Main Street: Construct parking lot, walkway and with masonry wall [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a parking lot, walkway, and masonry wall at 582 through 608 West Main Street. This agenda item was designated as item 3 on the meeting agenda. Gorm Millgan served as the key speaker for this discussion, presenting details about the proposed construction project. The application involved multiple aspects of site development, including the installation of parking facilities, pedestrian walkways, and masonry wall construction. The board conducted a thorough review of the proposed work, examining how the construction would impact the character and appropriateness of the area. The discussion focused on ensuring the proposed improvements would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and meet applicable standards. Following the presentation and board discussion, the application was approved with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the conditional approval indicates the board found the project generally acceptable while requiring certain modifications or compliance measures. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with constructing the parking lot, walkway, and masonry wall at the West Main Street location, subject to meeting the specified conditions established by the board during their review process. ## 715 West Short Street: Install front yard fencing [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install front yard fencing at 715 West Short Street. Ryan Malone presented the item to the commission for consideration. The application involved a request to install fencing in the front yard of the property, which required review under the commission's guidelines for exterior modifications in the historic district. The commission discussed the proposed fencing installation and determined that the application met the necessary requirements for approval, though specific conditions were attached to the certificate. **Outcome:** The application was approved with conditions. The commission granted the Certificate of Appropriateness for the front yard fencing installation at 715 West Short Street, subject to compliance with the specified conditions outlined during the review process. --- ## Decisions - **21030155-g** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 155 Woodland Avenue - **12270582-g/12270608-e** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 582-608 West Main Street - **17170715-d** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 715 West Short Street - **00510321-I** — passed (0-1): Certificate of Appropriateness for 321-323 Arcadia Park --- ## Full transcript 154 Forest Avenue re-roof structure. At 625 Sarah Avenue, renovate the front porch. In the Cadentown Historic District, at 3081 Old Times Road, extend the rear fencing and rebuild side deck. In the Seven Parks Historic District, at 236 Barbary Lane, install fence and gate. At 312 Arcadia Park, renovate the structure. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 255 South Ashland, renovate front porch. In the South Hill Historic District, at 119 South Mill Street, re-roof the structure. At 315 South Mill Street, remove a dying tree. And finally, in the North Hunt side Historic District, at 501 North Broadway, renovate the structure. And at 231 North Mill Street, remove dying tree. We'll now turn to the certificates of appropriateness, the first one being at 155 Woodland Avenue, Instruct Restore Porch. Is the applicant here? Mr. Van Meter, would you like to come to the podium? And I have misplaced application one, I'm sorry. Can I borrow yours? Thank you. All right. Good afternoon. My name is Van Meter Pettit. I live at 160 East Bell Court. Okay. 10508. All right, Mr. Pettit. I think the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to a few what I would call substantive changes. I will review them with you briefly. The first one is that the porch foundation should have a piaster to look like piers under each set of columns, with the piaster being recessed at least four inches, and final details to be brought to the staff of the board for approval. Do you agree? Yes, sir. Thank you. The second one is the column shall have a finished appearance by being wrapped and have a top and bottom base with final details to come back to staff. That's fine. All right, thank you. Number three and four are what we've been referring to in past meetings as our standard conditions. That being number three is giving changes to May that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Yes, sir. And finally, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes come back to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Agreed. Agreed. All right. Any questions or comments regarding this application? All right. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Jeyer. Okay, thank you. Per case number 21030155-G at 155 Woodland Avenue, I move that we approve this application, the certificate of appropriateness with two non-standard conditions as read into the record and the two standard conditions as also just read into the record. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, turning now to our next case at 321-323 Arcadia Park in the seven parks to start district. Scope of work is change openings to model stack. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Hello, I'm James Vermillion, 321-323, Arcadia Park. Okay, Mr. Vermillion, staff has recommended approval of your application, although they have one substantive change, that being closing the windows on the east and west elevations in place from the interior of the structure. Do you agree with that? No, I do not. All right, then I'll tell you what we need to do. Let me go through the other applications and come back for a hearing. Sure. Okay. I think you would. All right. Turning now to attachment number three, case number 582 through 608 West Main Street in the western suburbs. to start district scope of work is create a parking walkway and masonry wall is the applicant here good afternoon good afternoon my name is george milligan i'm the construction supervisor for the city of lexington department of environmental quality i'm in the commissioner's office and i'm the project manager for this project thank you for being here with us today I think we're in the final stages of what's been a very long development. Yes. The staff has recommended approval subject to one, what I call somewhat substantive change, that is that more landscaping be added to provide additional buffering of the parking lot and to enhance the walkways. Yes, we're agreeable to that. We got the status report on Monday, and the Department of Environmental Services is already designing that landscape. Excellent. And the other two, conditions two and three, are what we call the standard conditions that I previously read. Do you agree with those? Yes, I do. All right, any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 12270582-G slash 12270608-E, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and a third condition that more landscaping be added to provide additional buffering of the parking lot and enhance the walkways. 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 as condition is approved. Thank you all. very much for your attendance and good luck with the project. All right, turning now to attachments four and five. They're basically one case. I'll call them together. 715 West Short Street and 717 West Short Street in the western suburb historic district. Scope of work is construct a metal fence and gate. You're here. Yes. Take your name, please. Hi, my name is Ryan Ballone with 715 West Short Street. Mr. Ballone, the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. Are we in agreement for those? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? I have no audience left. I'm ready for a motion then. Chair, in regards to case number 17170715-D at 715 West Short Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. And 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? Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. Good luck with your project. Appreciate it. All right, turning now back to the 321-323 Arcadia Park. Chair, do we need to read into the fact that we were making the motion on case number 17170717-A as well with that motion? It can be so noted. I don't think we have to change the motion. It is so noted. so note that right thank you so much for for noting that pun intended and by the way i'll also note that there was no objection there was a actually a a remark made by a neighbor saying they had no objection to the application okay now turning to 321 323 arcadia park let me explain briefly our procedure The staff member will make his report and then he'll also offer his reasoning for why he wants that condition put in. And then you'll have an opportunity to explain why you object to it. Thank you so much. So this is 321-323 Arcadia Park. and the scope of work is to change openings and demolish a deck. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the rear wood deck and to change multiple openings as follows. On the east elevation and enclose second floor window with brick. And that would be the window right there. On the north elevation, well, that might be a better view. Are you out of order? Why is it on? So as I mentioned, that is the window closest to the chimney. That's on the second floor. what's on the which uh window is being enclosed on the first floor excuse me which uh window is being enclosed on the first floor uh none this is just the second floor on the east elevation okay and this i was going to try to show it a little better there On the north elevation, enclose the door and one first floor window. That would be the door and the window. This is the deck to be demolished. Then the second floor windows would be in this area where the one is getting enlarged for a bathroom. And then on the west elevation, that's a close-up of the window that's being enlarged on the first floor. So this is the west elevation and the window we're discussing is to the back corner. The guidelines are enclosed for your use. Findings. The east elevation enclosed the second floor window with brick. We were recommending that, well, let me get back to this. On the rear north elevation, enclose door and one first floor window with brick, create a new first floor opening. Enclose second floor window with brick and create a second floor window opening. Staff finds the proposal to meet the meets guideline 124E and 124F, which state respectively, windows and new openings are not recommended. New openings, when permitted by the review process, shall be compatible in scale, size, proportion, and placement, and style to the historic openings. New openings should be located on the sides or rear of the building and are discouraged on the primary facade. And their openings should not be enclosed or partially blocked. If infilling is permitted by the review process, the infill material shall be compatible with the building and shall be placed two to six inches back from the face of the building. the west elevation and the east elevation would have the same recommendations but the windows are window locations are different so on the west elevation enclosed first floor window with brick staff finds that in filling the opening does not meet guideline i-24f which states windows in their openings should be enclosed or should not be enclosed or partially blocked. If infilling is permitted by the review process, the infill material should be compatible with the building and shall be placed two to six inches back from the face of the building. The proposed brick infill would be visually obvious from the street and changes the character of the side elevation of the historic structure. Closing the window in place from the interior would retain the character of the historic structure as viewed from Arcadia Park. Staff finds the proposed demolition of the wood deck meets guideline 6A1. The demolition request is for an inappropriate addition, a non-significant portion of a building, or a non-significant accessory structure that the demolition would not adversely affect these parts of a building or buildings that are significant as determined by the BOAR. And one thing I should have mentioned is that the reason for these changes, This is a duplex, and the owner is in the process of converting it to single family. So staff recommends the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition. Close the windows at the east and west elevations in place from the interior of the structure. if any changes are made then the next two are standard conditions okay any questions from the board members to sum up barry just to make sure i'm following what you're saying you have the staff has no problem with closing in the window on the rear elevation it however wants the windows on the east and west elevations on the second floor to be closed from the interior so that the When the appearance was that remain in place. The window would remain in place and- It would be closed off from the inside. Required walls would be built from- If they wanted to have an interior wall, they could do so without visibly closing the window, correct? On the exterior. On the exterior, right. Yes. All right, okay. Any questions from the board members? Go ahead. I just wanted to clarify that it is within guidelines to if infill is approved by the board, that that infill would be offset from the face of the building by a few inches to- Yes, two inches minimum. So that that reads as- As a historic opening. As a historic opening, okay. Yes. Anything else? Okay, sir. Thank you. As Barry mentioned, we are converting the property from a duplex into a single-family home, which we intend to occupy, hopefully for a very long time. We moved in, brought the property in 2012, and rented out one side, essentially, and have lived in the other side since then. our families growing it was kind of always our plan since we love the neighborhood to convert the property to a single family and maintain their stay there for for the long term with this particular issue I actually went when I got this back actually went around the neighborhood both Arcadia and Cherokee and kind of looked for examples of infills on the sides of houses and unfortunately I didn't know addresses but I came across several and these are houses that I've walked by with my three-year-old daughter probably hundreds of times and frankly never noticed that that was there so I don't believe it'll impact the overall aesthetic of the property or the neighborhood as a whole also on the on the elevations on the second floor window as you could probably tell it's kind of hard to even get the pointer on it because it's kind hidden by the fireplace or by the chimney. Can I flip through these? So yeah, you can see the window in question is the one, the second, the middle window, if you will, that's kind of tucked in behind the chimney there. So I think with a brick infill, unless someone was specifically looking for it. I think they'd have a hard time even noticing it was there. And as mentioned, we do understand the two-inch setback to maintain that there was a window originally there. And then also, I think the same thing is basically true on the other side, although it is a lower window. It's still on the side of the house and still kind of tucked back into the property. I don't think it would in any way, shape, or form be obvious to anybody in the neighborhood driving by or anything like that. So I hope that you guys would consider allowing an infill for both of those windows. Okay, comments? the material used to fill in the windows how would that be matched to the existing exterior i'm working with a contractor um you know to just kind of start getting estimates and things like that he felt confident he could find a very close matching um as close to identical i guess brick as possible. So that would be the goal is to find something that would pretty seamlessly blend in. So the structure will not be painted after these changes? Correct. I guess I have, Barry, I have a question. Were you anticipating that the windows themselves would stay or would they be removed as part of this closing off process from the interior? The windows that we recommended to close in place would remain there. With the window panes? Yes. Okay. But the recommendation is that the interior wall be closed so that it does not affect their layout in any way. Correct. I think they were trying to give you a work around to comply with the guidelines and at the same time accomplish what you want to accomplish, which is to have an interior wall and a little bit more wall space as opposed to a window. Sure. Do you have a problem with that? A little bit. First off, the windows in general are in extreme disrepair and it's something else to kind of maintain over time. And also in discussing with the architect when we did the plans originally, I kind of I've been in a lot of old houses and certainly have a respect for preserving the historic nature of older houses. But I personally don't have a preference for covering up and having old things set back and new things. It would be obvious if you're in there, that you know from the outside there's a window there, but there's not a window. So it's certainly our preference to go ahead and move forward with the infill. Do you have a problem with setting back two inches? No, no, I have no issue with it complying with any kind of setback requirement. And would the setback requirement also be required for the rear changes? Yes, whenever the windows are in filled, the guidelines require that setback. And the door. And the door. So you, the guidelines say that on the back elevation you have to, inset the original location of those windows? The window guidelines talk about if the change is allowed, the setback is required. And that's on all four elevations. Our guidelines do not make a distinction about front and rear and so forth. Because of the loss of the architectural element reading or the fact that if you are allowed to close it in, you should be able to acknowledge and people in the future read the building to see that it had a doorway or a window at one time. Go ahead. When I read the staff's recommendation, number one was very specific about east and west elevations. It did not talk about the rear elevation. So I'm a little perplexed. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I normally have never mind. Okay. So we'll note that correction for the record. This is that the written recommendation is not what you have recommended. Is that correct? Correct. So would you mind if the staff, that being Barry, states again what the recommendation is meant to reflect? I think that would help, yes. Barry, if you'll come to the mic, do that here. The President. To restate the recommendations, recommendation number one is to close the windows on the east and west elevations in place from the interior of the structure. So those were the two we were talking about needed to be set back. board has allowed numerous changes in the rear of structures without requiring that in the past when there's new openings and additions but these are on side elevations correct correct the east and west elevations the right and left okay and you're recommending both of those be just covered over from the inside and remain in situ on the exterior elevations yes And by institute, we mean glass intact. The window sashes, frames, and so forth. So it still reads like a window. All in place, because they are the historic windows around the house. And the backs of the interior of the windows would get painted out, so you don't see a void wall inside. Go ahead. This is a question for the owner. Yes, sir. My family owned two different houses on Cherokee Park. One of them, the same vintage and the same style and nearly, it appears, same brick. There was an automobile that ran into the house that required brick to be replaced on the front. It was, our experience then, nearly impossible to get any kind of a unnoticeable match of brick and the mortar. And the mortar was probably more of an issue than was the brick. How has your – well, perhaps the question is how much assurance can we have that it will all read almost as original except for the setback? Yeah. That's why I was asking about whether the structure would be paged. Yeah. I don't know how good of an answer I guess I can get to that yet because I'm just trying to get to that part of the process. So I mean I personally haven't started looking. The contractor I'm working with has been in construction for 40 years and had a high level of confidence. really as much at this point as of a guarantee, if you will, or anything that I can give. But that, of course, would be the objective. Is it appropriate here at any time when this has happened in the past that one of the conditions requires proof of match should the windows be closed? If it were proved to be closed, is there any instance where they have to come back and prove they can match the existing exterior? I don't think we've deviated from the guidelines quite that significantly in the past. We've not had this kind of a situation come up often. I would just note, personally, whenever I go by a house where the windows have been bricked in, it's obvious, and it looks like it's been amputated, quite frankly. Yeah, I mean, I would agree if it were on the front of the house or something like that for sure. Well, even on the sides of the house, and I realize that you think that rear, quasi-rear elevation on the upstairs is hidden from the view. The problem that we have is, it's not a problem, it's the way the regs read, it's a 360. Yeah. So regardless of how it can be seen from pedestrians, you can see it, or whoever buys the house can see it. So I think the staff has given you perhaps the best workaround that you can have and accomplish what you want to accomplish interior. And Mr. Chair, could I just add that another reason relative to the guidelines reflecting what they do is if as the time passes in 25 years, 50 years from now, other people with the house they may want to reopen those windows won't be able to and all they would have to do is take out the masonry infill right if indeed you allow it to be closed from the outside but preferably they would just take out the interior wall space and still have the historic windows in place as does the rest of the house well in my thinking is somewhat influenced by why the windows are being closed. The one on the east side is for closet being put in that spot. And the one on the west side, first floor, is where the cooking stove will be located. Is that correct? I think that's correct, yeah. Those windows aren't going to be interruptive of either of those changes the exterior of the window is not going to prohibit or be interruptive in any way to the interior changes yeah we we have had situations where kitchens kitchens are very challenging sometimes tied to the length of windows especially when you want wall space and there have been um situations where there have been like a blackboard done behind the last 18 inches of a countertop, but you still would have the functioning window rising above the kitchen counter. So there are all sorts of ways to cope with this without eradicating the historic windows. And part of it is simply that the house reads a certain way, and those windows are placed where they're placed, architecturally, to give that house the rhythm and form it has. Okay. I know. I'm not sure what that means, but. It's complicated. Well, it took me a long time to finally figure that out. To put it another way, if there had not been windows there at all, if it had just been a blank wall, it would read wrong for the house because you expect to see certain openings. Yeah, I mean, my very experienced architect would, I mean, she worked on this more than me. I probably don't have your eye for these things, but I suspect she does. Well, I'm the layperson here, but my eye has been taught over 20, almost 20 years doing this. Yeah, hers has too. All right, do we have any further? Yes, ma'am. I was just going to say I agree with the staff report. I think that you say you hardly see those windows, but you do see the windows from the street, and you do see the one behind And I think it would change the side of elevation significantly to just brick them in. And I think there are other options that you can explore on the inside besides just walling them up to preserve that history on the sides of this building. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on this issue? Yes, ma'am. My conundrum is that clearly, given the way the guidelines are written, clearly it has been allowed to do an infill without leaving the window in place historically over some kind of period of time. It doesn't give us the basis of that, but, and to allow a setback. I'm concerned, I mean, if in 50 years they change the layout, that window is then going to be 100 years old. And it's not going to be an easy window to maintain and take care of. I'm struggling. I think maintaining that opening is critically important. The original masonry opening, I'm struggling with, particularly given that the guidelines have an alternate way of viewing it. I'm struggling with why it's so critical to keep that window in place. Okay. And because the bricking in still maintains the rhythm of that opening across those two site elevations. So noted. Any further observations, discussion? I think- Can I just add something? Yes, ma'am. I would just say the difference between a lot of the structures down here that are historic, that have window placements and the difference between suburban structures that don't have window placements. You know, are reasons to keep windows because they make them special where a lot of times the interior sort of dictates the layout of the structures with no regard to the outside. And I think windows sort of help add character to the structures. And also I think that with respect to the age, 50 years, 100 years from now, windows, unless they're completely maltreated, usually don't deteriorate that badly. I mean, they maintain their appearance. I would just add these windows. I believe this house was built in 1939. These windows, I don't know. you can't see too well from from these uh far away pictures are in already in very bad disrepair very bad well that's a different issue though well i know but you just said that you don't think that would get worse in 50 years i disagree has has the staff looked at those windows with you all around the house um i know we i'll let you speak to that barry uh when uh when i went out But we were just looking at the windows that were going to be enclosed. We didn't do a close-up investigation. And what was the condition of the windows that we're discussing? Typical of what a window of this age might be if it wasn't kept painted regularly. The paint is peeling. There is maybe a little bit of rotting where the bottom style and the rail come together, or bottom rail and style come together. And you know, it's fairly typical of most of the windows in seven parks. So they would be ones that if someone outside of this application came forward and said, we want to throw away all the windows in this house and put in replacement windows. The ones you have looked at, would the staff be in a position to recommend those windows be replaced or would they be recommended to be repaired and retained? We would recommend to be repaired. Repaired and maintained? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay, I think we have addressed all the issues in this case. Are we ready for a motion or is there further discussion? If not, can I, the Chair is ready for a motion then? Okay, I'll try a motion. Okay, thank you. Chairman, in regards to case number 00510321-I at 321-323 Arcadia Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. And also that the windows on the east and west side be enclosed from the interior or altered from the interior and remain in place from the exterior. All right. Do I have a second? Do I have a second? I second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Nay. One nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditions is approved. Thank you so much for your patience and working with us. Could you please clarify who the nay voice? Ms. Hill, thank you. I want to get my notes right. All right. That ends our case reviews. We do have a couple of minutes to approve, the first being January 17, 2024. Do I have a motion to approval? So moved. Were there any corrections made? You've been reviewing them in the past. I wasn't sure with you any time, so you were not. So the only corrections that I provided to the staff had to do. That was on the February meeting date. Oh, okay. So no corrections to the January one. Without objection, those minutes are approved. Ending now to February 21, 24, any changes or corrections? Yes. Okay. There was a new staff person added, but that person has been now withdrawn from. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. There was a new staff person added, but then that person's been taken off now. Okay. So. You're speaking of the attendance list? So one of the names got changed, so it became Suzanne Hill versus Susan Hill and Suzanne Erwin. But that has been rectified already. Ah, well, that's kind of creative in all the wrong ways. That correction has been noted and made a note. That correction has already been made in the minutes. Okay, to that end, then can I have a motion to approve the minutes as corrected? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, without objection, the minutes stand approved. Any further business for the board to consider? If not, then I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Do you have a second? I'll second. Any objection? We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you. you