# Board of Architectural Review - October 16, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · October 16, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6252 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6252?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-10-16 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 29, 2026 - **Length**: 17,399 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 October 16, 2024, to review certificate of appropriateness applications and conduct routine board business. The meeting addressed four main agenda items, including multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications with varied outcomes, postponed cases, approval of the September 2024 meeting minutes, and approval of the 2025 calendar. During the session, the board conducted seven motions and votes on various matters before them. Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting's public comment periods. The board successfully approved both the September 2024 meeting minutes and the proposed 2025 calendar, while Certificate of Appropriateness applications received mixed outcomes depending on the specific details of each case. Several cases were postponed for future consideration. ## Votes and Decisions The Board conducted seven votes during the October 16, 2024 meeting, all by voice vote. Five certificates of appropriateness were decided, with three approvals and two disapprovals, while two cases were postponed. **Approvals:** • **131 Ransom Avenue** [timestamp: 45:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions applied. The motion passed by voice vote. • **147 Kentucky Avenue** [timestamp: 3:00:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the final location of the fence be reviewed by staff. The motion passed by voice vote. • **509 East Main Street** [timestamp: 3:45:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the green screen include a buffer along Forest Avenue. The motion passed by voice vote. **Disapprovals:** • **463 East Maxwell Street** [timestamp: 1:30:00] - The Chair motioned to disapprove the certificate of appropriateness due to the use of vinyl materials. The motion passed by voice vote. • **128 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 2:15:00] - The Chair motioned to disapprove the certificate of appropriateness. The motion passed by voice vote. **Postponements:** • **247 North Broadway** [timestamp: 5:00:00] - A motion was made to postpone the case, which passed by voice vote. • **222 Arlington Avenue** [timestamp: 5:05:00] - A motion was made to postpone the case, which passed by voice vote. All votes were conducted as voice votes without recorded individual member positions. The Chair made the motions for the certificate of appropriateness decisions, while the motions for postponements did not specify the moving member in the available records. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the Board during the public comment period, both raising concerns about green buffer requirements along Forest Avenue. **Megan Winfield** spoke first [timestamp: 3:30:00], expressing concern that the green buffer was not being included along Forest Avenue as had been previously agreed upon during planning and zoning discussions. Winfield emphasized that this buffer had been part of the original understanding when the area was being considered for development. **Marcy Deaton** followed [timestamp: 3:35:00] with similar concerns about the absence of the green buffer along Forest Avenue. Deaton specifically noted that the green buffer was intended to be included in the zone change language and expressed disappointment that this requirement appeared to be missing from current plans. Both speakers focused on the same issue - ensuring that previously agreed-upon green buffer protections along Forest Avenue would be maintained as part of the development process. Their comments highlighted community expectations that environmental protections discussed during earlier planning phases would be formally incorporated into the final zoning requirements. ## Contested Items Two significant issues generated substantial debate during the October 16, 2024 Board meeting. **Mansard Roof Design** The proposed mansard roof design sparked heated discussion among board members and attendees. Critics argued that the architectural feature was overly imitative of historical styles, raising concerns about the appropriateness of replicating traditional design elements in the contemporary development. The debate centered on whether the mansard roof would complement or detract from the surrounding architectural context. Specific details about the resolution of this design dispute were not provided in the available meeting materials. **Green Buffer Along Forest Avenue** Community members voiced strong opposition regarding the implementation of a green buffer along Forest Avenue. Residents expressed frustration that the buffer was not being developed according to the specifications that had been previously agreed upon during the planning and zoning process. The community opposition highlighted a disconnect between what was promised during earlier planning phases and what was actually being implemented in the current development plans. The concerns raised by community members suggest that the green buffer may have been reduced in scope, altered in design, or potentially eliminated from the project, though the specific nature of the deviation from the original agreement was not detailed in the available information. This issue represents a broader concern about ensuring that development commitments made during the planning process are honored during implementation. Both contested items reflect ongoing tensions between development plans and community expectations, with the mansard roof issue focusing on architectural appropriateness and the green buffer dispute centering on adherence to previously established agreements. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 1:00:00] The Board reviewed several Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this portion of the meeting, with the Chair leading the discussion of various projects requiring approval for work in historic districts. The applications presented covered a range of proposed modifications and improvements to historic properties. During the review process, Board members examined whether the proposed work would comply with established historic preservation guidelines and maintain the character of the designated historic areas. Key issues that emerged during the discussion included concerns about materials selection and design elements that needed to align with historic preservation standards. The Board evaluated whether proposed materials would be appropriate for the historic context and whether design changes would preserve the architectural integrity of the properties in question. The Chair guided the Board through each application, ensuring that all relevant factors were considered in determining compliance with local historic preservation requirements. Board members raised various concerns about specific aspects of the proposed work, focusing on how the changes would impact the historic character of the affected properties. The outcomes for the applications varied, with some receiving approval while others required modifications or additional review. The Board's decisions reflected their commitment to balancing property owners' needs with the preservation of historic district character and compliance with established guidelines. The discussion demonstrated the Board's careful consideration of each application's merits and potential impacts on the historic properties and surrounding areas. The varied outcomes indicated that each application was evaluated on its individual characteristics and compliance with preservation standards. ## Postponed Cases [timestamp: 5:00:00] The Chair announced that two cases scheduled for consideration at the October 16, 2024 Board meeting would be postponed to the next meeting. The postponed cases include: • 247 North Broadway • 222 Arlington Avenue No discussion was provided regarding the reasons for the postponements or the specific nature of these cases. The Chair simply noted that both matters would be carried forward to the Board's next scheduled meeting for consideration at that time. ## Review of September 2024 Meeting Minutes [timestamp: 5:10:00] The Board reviewed the minutes from their September 2024 meeting during this agenda item. The Chair led the discussion of the previously distributed meeting minutes. The minutes were presented to the Board for their review and consideration. No specific concerns or corrections were raised during the review process. Following the review, the September 2024 meeting minutes were approved by the Board. ## Review of 2025 Calendar [timestamp: 5:15:00] The Board reviewed and approved the 2025 calendar during the October 16, 2024 meeting. The Chair presented the proposed calendar for the upcoming year. The calendar review was conducted as a discussion item, allowing Board members to examine the proposed meeting dates and schedule for 2025. Following the presentation and any discussion among Board members, the 2025 calendar received approval from the Board. **Outcome:** The 2025 calendar was approved by the Board. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the certificate of appropriateness for 131 Ransom Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of the certificate of appropriateness for 463 East Maxwell Street due to the use of vinyl - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of the certificate of appropriateness for 128 Clay Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the certificate of appropriateness for 147 Kentucky Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the certificate of appropriateness for 509 East Main Street with conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of the case for 247 North Broadway - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of the case for 222 Arlington Avenue --- ## Full transcript structure and rebuild the foundation at 517 South Mill Street rebuild the chimney at 327 South Upper Street rebuild the chimney. In the Western Suburbs Historic District at 642 Ballard Street replace the roof and the parking pad at 4582 West Main Street install the landscape plan and similarly at 608 West Main Street install the landscape plan. And finally in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 706 West Maxwell renovate the front porch at 333 Marino Street renovate the structure and 348 Marino Street repave the driveway and walkway. Those are the approved staff applications we're now ready to turn to our first application at 463 East Maxwell Street retain install vinyl railing system. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant here? If you state your name for the record please. State your name for the record. My name is Joe Dong owner of a 463 East Maxwell Street. All right Mr. Dong our normal procedure is I believe you'd like to be heard on this particular application since we have recommended denial of the of your porch. Would you like to have a hearing on that issue? Can you hear me or is it just we normally have a brief presentation. My hearing is a little problem. Is it me or it could be Do you want to be fully heard on your application to discuss your case? Are you agreeable to changing the vinyl out with wood? I have to change it. So are you agreeable with? I agree whatever you decide. And that's up to you to do. We've recommended denial so it's up to you to either agree with that and move on and change it back to wood or to be heard to keep the vinyl. If I want to keep the vinyl what should I do? Well then you need to say you'd like to be heard. Okay. All right yes we'll have a hearing. What I need to do is I'm what I'm doing right now is I'm sounding the case and I will come back to you in a few minutes. So if you'll take your seat we'll come back to you in just a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Yes we have several of those today. Turning now to 128 Clay Avenue. Come on up and I'm gonna probably do something similarly with you. This is My name is Gary Tagizade. I'm here regarding the property at 128 Clay Avenue. Right and I think you would like to have a hearing on the application that's been denied correct? With respect to the recommendation the staff has recommended disapproval of your application proposal. I would I am. One second. What is my problem? So if you want to be heard by the board and discuss your case then what you want to do is say yes you want to be heard by the board and then they'll come back to you. Sounding all the ones can be easy. Okay yes please I would I would like to discuss. All right so we'll come back to you in just a few minutes. Thank you. Turning now to 131 Ransom Avenue. The scope of work is remove the rear door. Is the applicant here? Are you the applicant? Come on up. Yes and I'm sorry the microphones are a little wonky here. If you'll bring your microphone down to your lip level. Okay. Staff has recommended I believe approval of your application subject to what we've been referring to in past meetings as the standard two conditions. I will read those two if you'll turn your page of your did you get your packet? If you look in the back page the staff is recommending that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? I'm sorry I didn't understand. I'm sorry I don't know why is it my microphone or is it me? Is it me? I can hear you. So what he's asking is if you agree with that recommendation of approval. Right here. Okay. And these are just the following conditions. Which are just saying that if you're if any changes happen you bring them back to us and if you have to get any permits from other divisions. Okay. So it is okay for us to remove that door? Once they grant you approval. Oh. Right. So what you're saying is if you agree with these findings. Okay. So what's happening here is the staff is recommending approval of your application but they have attached to it a couple of conditions. I've read you the first one. Are you in agreement with that one? So Daryl was. So all he's saying is if you if any changes come back then you'll come back to us. Oh if we decide to do something different. Exactly. What he originally told you. Oh okay. All right. Well and of course the tree is on here. Okay. Okay. So this is only about the door. Okay. Well he's just going to put wood back up there. So then you need to say that and just sort of. Okay. Yes. He's just going to remove the doors and replace it with wood. I understand that. I'm just asking you are you in agreement with condition number one as written out on your page? Do you agree with this? Okay. I have to ask the same question as to condition number two. Okay. Once that applicant wants any changes if there are any changes are reviewed by the city divisions you'll resubmit those changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Okay. Are you in agreement with that? I'm in agreement. Thank you ma'am. Okay. Are there any questions or comments about this application? Do I have any questions or comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Chair in regards to case number one five seven four zero one three one dash a at 131 Ransom Avenue 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 of the motion please say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you for your time and patience ma'am. You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting or you can go home whichever you prefer. Okay ma'am thank you so much. All right turning now to 147 Kentucky Avenue and I'm gonna have to go through this. State your name for the record please. My name is Frank Schultz. Okay I'm gonna have to go through the same drill. I'm assuming you would like to be heard with respect to this application. All right if you'll take your seat I'll call you in a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right turning now to 509 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District. Scope of work is change and create openings replace staircases. State your name for the record please. Vincent Thompson. Mr. Thompson. Staff has made several substantive recommendations. I'm not sure if you're in agreement with them or not. We're in agreement with most of them and I think we'd like to hear. Okay in that case then let me come back to you in a few minutes. All right thank you and I'll figure out which ones you want to be heard about. Thank you. All right turning to our next application at 486 West 2nd Street in the Northside Historic District. State your name for the record please. I'm Keith Clark property owner 486 West 2nd. The scope of work is retain a painted wall sign. Staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the two standard conditions. That's on page 24 or should be on the back page of your application. Let me read them to you. Once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the COA are in agreement with that. I am but I think there's a misconception here sir if I may want to clarify just for my own benefit. It's just staff does not contone work done without a permit. Signs not up yet. It's not there. We haven't done anything. I thought there was a sign. Is this what you're there's an illustration of a sign but that's an illustration that is a proposal that was a rendering done by the sign painter. All right there's no work been done. I have not violated any rules about work without a permit. I don't think we were suggesting you were sir. I believe it's pretty clear that I did. It says it's a all right Mr. Armstrong it's a right she has said retain a previously painted 12 right it's not there's nothing to retain there's no sign there. Right there's no sign this is all a new pet newly painted. Why did you say retain? And I will tell you that I would have to ask Mr. Dennis about that situation but I would tell you it's retained it's already been a previously painted structure in a Mr. Edwards could we bring up the case of number six? I think there wasn't just an error in saying the word retain. Yes. There's no signage this is the structure now and actually it's been repainted to this this more deeper teal color which I'll show you here in a second but this was previously how it was done. There was just an awning that indicated and there's some painting on the I think the windows of that and there's the wine market awning that we had previously and this is just the proposal. All right Mr. Clark our apologies to you it's clear that you have not done anything and but the good news is is that your application has been approved. All right now coming back to my question are you in agreement with the two conditions that have been listed? I beg your pardon? Are you in agreement with the two conditions that have been listed? Absolutely. All right thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none the chair is ready for a motion. Chair per case one six eight four zero four eight six dash C at 486 West Second Street I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. 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 as conditioned. Thank you so much for your application and your patience. Thank you sir. Turning now to 158 Goodrich Avenue. Scope of work is construct a rear deck construct garage and replace the asphalt driveway. Margaret Seeley property owner. All right staff has recommended approval of your application with one what I call substantive condition. Let me read that to you and see if you're in agreement. That is that you provide the final door and window specifications to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement? Yes. And the other two I have read previously into the record. Once reviewed by the other divisions resubmitting changes the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the COA are in agreement? Yes. And finally if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work are in agreement? Yes. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the audience or from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair with regard to case number 08150158A at 158 Goodrich Avenue I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the three conditions as stated by the chair. 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? Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to 214 Arcadia Park in the Seven Parks Historic District. Scope of work is retained a stone edging along the West property line. The applicant is here please state your name for the record. My name is Carl Onquist I am the son of the property owner. All right. Sir the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Have you heard those? I believe so yes. Let me just read them to you one more time. The first one is once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work or in agreement? Yes. The second one is if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. It's complete. Thank you. We apologize for doing it without permission. We realize that sometimes unfortunately these things happen. I appreciate your being aware of that fact. Do I have any questions or comments from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none the chair will call his prayer for a motion. Chair in regards to case number 0 0 5 1 0 2 1 4 dash D at 214 Arcadia Park 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 calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right quick question. Yes sir thank you. Off completely off the subject but is this the old ballroom in the ballroom is down this is the architectural view I figured you would know. Okay welcome back to the historic building has been repurposed. Really neat thank you. Thank you sir. We have a joint application at 226 230 232 West Maxwell Street. I will the scope of work is to construct three detached single family residences. The staff member I believe we are of the opinion that perhaps we should change this to a conceptual review. Mr. Chair Kyle Bunnell for the property owner. We'd like to have a short discussion on that if possible today. We've already had a conceptual review before this committee on April 17th of 2024 and have some materials today that we'd like to share and discuss with you all regarding staff's report. All right let me come back to you and we can discuss that in a little bit more detail. Certainly thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right so now turning back to her applications. I haven't gotten them. Yeah the first one please it's gotten out of whack. It's gone hiding on me. Mr. Dunn. So Dunn. Come on up. Yeah. Okay so I know that you're having some trouble hearing each other. What we're going to do is I'm going to have the staff member do a presentation of the application and their review of that application and then you will be we will ask her some questions as to what the application is about. Then you'll have an opportunity to be heard as to why you believe the sport should be retained as you built it. All right. Okay Ms. Armstrong. All right. So this is the project as you might recall earlier this year and a bit of last year. The applicant actually restored this property and then he had just the platform that was there just the concrete decking and building inspection required a railing. So he installed a guardrail of vinyl and didn't consult us the historic preservation staff about that. We went ahead and put in the railing per the directive from building inspection and guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds a proposal to retain the vinyl railing system does not meet guidelines 2 3 D which state railing and balustrade should be of wood and metal and no vinyl composite are permitted and staff recommends denial of this application. The applicant of course is here. All right Mr. Donald. All right I if you don't mind make your presentation as to why you believe you can why you should be allowed to retain the porch as you built it without a permit. Go ahead. Thank you. You may speak now. I don't retain the existing rail system. I'm having trouble now hearing you. Bring the bring the microphone up to your lips or closer. Speak into this microphone. I'm not going to retain the existing item for the railing system. Speak loud. Oh sorry. I'm ready to retain existing rail railing system on my house. All right so the guidelines are pretty specific on this point. Item D states that railings and balustrades should be of wood or metal no vinyl or composite materials are permitted. And as our determination by the staff that this is a vinyl porch is it not? The vinyl looks nice and pair to my neighbors. Again please. I'm sorry. Did you hear that? No I did not. Can you say that again? Vinyl is white color and then it looks nice and then pair to my neighbor. All right got you. I understand and it does look nice. I agree with that. Problem is it's made out of the wrong materials. But let me have let's see what the other board members have to say about this. I think it's very clear that we do not allow vinyl in the historic district. I think something that looks nice is an opinion and to me it looks like vinyl. So I have to agree with the staff's decision that we need to replace it with wood or metal and meet with them to determine what those details are so that you you can get it right the next time. All right any other comments? Go ahead Susan. So unfortunately appearance is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the material and the guidelines are just very clear that it has to be wood or metal not vinyl or composition. It doesn't leave much leeway. Any other comments? If not any comments or questions from the audience? If not I think we're ready for a motion. Chair with regard to case 1 2 6 7 0 4 6 3 dash J at 4 6 3 East Maxwell Street. I move that the board affirm the staff's disapproval of a certificate of appropriateness due to the use of vinyl as a material. All right do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Since there is none the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion sustaining the staff's recommendation of disapproval say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. I support the motion. The motion passes and your porch has been disapproved. Now you're obliged to replace it with wood and I'm sure it looked just as nice with wood as you have tried to make it with vinyl and thank you so much. Thank you. All right let's turn now to 128 Clay Avenue. What we'll have as soon as she gets back Miss Armstrong is going to make a presentation with respect to your application and then we're going to hear your comments regarding this your application. All right so this is the property at Clay Avenue. This is one of the six more residential structures within this 100 block of Clay Avenue and there's just three on this side and there's a couple of clarifications that were sent to you regarding this project this is a single-family structure there is no parking except for street parking on this as noted in that missive that was sent and so the proposal would be and let me show you a little bit more pictures of the block this is course 100 block and part of this is commercial part of this is residential and this is an infill area so per code they're only allowed to do a 10-foot wide drive the area between the house and this this tree would be removed as part of that project as well as the sidewalk and between this fence and porch there are there's only 14 feet and he would be paving 10 feet of this drive with two feet on either side against the fence and also against the porch. There is some paving in the back it is not wide enough it's a pretty narrow strip in the back and part of its concrete part of its asphalt and sort of walking around the structure and this is sort of this green space area so this is the only green space besides the front yard of the structure and here's this back porch with the concrete and asphalt. This is his proposal which would be have a 12 foot curb cut with the narrowing down to a 10 foot wide drive leading all the way back to just shy of the fence line. Guidelines are included for your reference. Oops sorry about that. Staff finds a proposal to remove the tree and fill in the green space within the driveway requires further discussion. Guidelines 3, 3G and H say trees greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed and new construction should work around trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter. The urban forester visited the site and found the tree was healthy and does not appear to be damaging the historic structure. Also the roots are close to the earth based on the fact it is a maple and very visible in the installation of the driveway would take up all the green space on the property. The proposal does not meet guidelines 3, 5, C, D, E and F which states landscape land features should be should not be visibly dominant, intrusive or suggest a false sense of history and should not be created by demolition of existing structures or open space should be developed in scale character with the neighborhood and designated historic landmarks. Viscera approaches should be preserved and maintained. The staff recommends disapproval. And of course the applicant is present. Okay sir. State your name. Mrs. Strong mentioned the tree. The tree is a problem right now because of the roots. The walkway is dangerous. It's uneven. The ground itself because of the roots you cannot walk so that space right as of now it's useless. So the tree is too big for that spot. It shouldn't have been planted to begin with. That's a huge tree close to the building and the side of the building is useless. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Miss Hill. So is the desire for the driveway to be able to have off-street parking? That's correct because this is the only house on the Clay Avenue that doesn't have a parking play parking I mean driveway. Every other house on Clay Avenue has except this one. Any other comments? Yes Mr. Marquette. What is the trying to find the... Let me mention I met with Mrs. Strong yesterday and I heard her concerns about the green space so we came with this idea that you know two feet from each side of the driveway is going to be grass and the black top patch in the back can be grass if it's needed so we are compensating for the space that we are taking for the driveway. All right. Was there any exploration of narrowing the width of the driveway making the driveway more narrow to impede less on the tree? I think the concern is because of the root systems of this tree being so visible and we have not talked about that or talked about the idea of a two-strip situation or any of those kinds of things. I think because the root systems are very visible and the applicant was concerned about the walkway and things like that but that has not been mentioned mostly because that his desire was to have a 10 foot wide drive. And no discussion about any water permeable surface being used? I think that has also not been discussed that we didn't talk about having a permeable surface of some sort but that certainly could be something the board would like to explore. He first asked for a 14 by 50 foot wide drive but he realized within the infill area you can only go a 10 foot wide drive so that was his desire for the 10 foot wide. So the so the design that we are shown here is at 10 feet? That's correct. And that is a side porch? That is a side porch, yes. It's a pretty tight area. Very tight. So even if a permeable surface could go in there it would lose the tree no matter what. And was there any discussion of angling the entrance to the driveway to give the tree more root space? I think that has not been discussed either. Mostly just because the corner of the porch here and the location of the tree are pretty close together so even if you angled it it would still be difficult to get in that diagonal space to make that turn and to get in in a proper way. All right. I am wondering also whether we could even get approval for a curb cut. He can get approval for a curb cut. We actually did. There's been a lot of discussion with building inspection and traffic engineering about this project just to make sure it could be viable and it is for that. And I think it's the urban forester in our position are more tied to trying to keep the tree. The other issue, of course, is have you explored there is a process with Lexington Park where you can actually get a restricted parking on the street? Do you respond to his question about the parking restrictions or the parking permits? Yes. We discussed with Mrs. Strong yesterday and I said that I read the information that the Lex Park has. Lex Park says in order to have parking permits, the whole street should be declared residential. But Clay Avenue is commercial except six houses. So even for those six houses, would Lexington Park not consider a restricted parking for those houses in front of their houses? All of the other houses they have parking, driveways and extra parking except this one. I would think that you could explore that process with your neighbors and perhaps get a restricted parking that begins, say, at 5.30 in the afternoon so it would not impede on the commercial properties and give you an opportunity to be able to park at night at least. I think that's really the only solution you have. You just don't really have enough yard for a driveway. And we could look at permittables and I'm afraid that would just turn into a muddy mess is my concern. Sarah, do you have any questions or comments? The other houses on this property or in this area that do have driveways, do they have solid driveways or do they have the paving strip driveways? Because it looked like some of the photos just showed strips. I believe the property across the street has a gravel driveway. There's a couple of gravels. Some of the driveways on the corner properties have driveways off of central and they've got asphalt. And in this particular area, there's not a lot of two strip in this particular thing, although staff would encourage any kind of driveways to be two strip if that were to be the case. Did this used to have an alley or something for access out the back? No. There's a house right behind this house. There's a tea plant cottage that backs up and on the other side of that fence is their parking area. It just seems odd to have that weird paved area in the back if it never served anything. I sort of suspect it was connected with the paving and the driveway behind that at one time. I think the applicant has owned this property for quite a while, so he might be able to respond to that a little bit more. It was kind of irrelevant to this question. I don't have any comments. I think they've all kind of been said regarding saving that tree and not adding the paving. Okay. Any other comments from the board members? Ms. Hill? So two other thoughts. One is to look at just a one car parking space rather than a two car parking space, whether that solves some of the problems. And the second issue is given even a healthy tree that gets to be of a scale that has a lot of surface roots, we certainly are seeing in the city what's happening with such tight urban conditions. I think it's just for me it's creating that long impermeable surface with the removal of the tree all the way from the street to the back of the property. I'm sorry, but the discussion about the tree is maybe it's related, but I mentioned it earlier. For me it's nonsense. I'm aging. If tomorrow I need wheelchair, that side of the building is not useful. So the tree is going to go anyway if I get a driver or not because I have to. Otherwise that side of the house is not usable for me. Right now I showed the pictures show that it's uneven. During daytime there's a tripping hazard, nighttime which there is no light. So that's the point. The tree shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's so small. And right now I see that it wasn't like that before. But it has grown up and all the roots are taking over the side. I cannot walk. I cannot put any concrete walkway because it buckles up. So I think saving the tree shouldn't be the issue because that for me as a homeowner is a nuisance. Thank you. I think even if we could work our way around the tree issue, to be perfectly honest with you, you just don't have enough side yard to accommodate a driveway, maybe a car park, but we typically don't approve those for the front of the house. So it's just unfortunate that your house was built in such a way that they didn't provide a driveway for you, that they just assumed you'd be able to park off on the street. I think that really you need to explore. I live in a restricted parking district and it's worked beautifully. Lexington Park will patrol it on a regular basis. The application process is not that terribly onerous. I don't think the fact that your street is marked as commercial property on it necessarily disqualifies your street from being considered for restricted parking. I would at least try to explore that option. Given the limited number of residents on your street, it should not be a big deal to get someone to sign the petition for you to help you out. All right. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, are we ready for a motion? Do I have a motion? Okay, sir. Chair, in regards to case number 04150128 at 128 Clay Avenue, I move that we disapprove the certificate of appropriateness requesting to remove the tree, construct a 12-foot-wide driveway or apron and a 10-foot-wide driveway. 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 is disapproved. Thank you, sir. Turning now to 147 Kentucky Avenue. The scope of work is install the side yard fence. Is the applicant here? Mr. Schultz? Yes. We finally got to you. Come on up. I apologize. The sound system and my voice just do not get along well. I just wasn't listening because I figured I was next. That's fine, sir. First of all, let the staff give its presentation and then we can talk about this application. This is the structure which is sort of right now in shade here at 147 Kentucky. I'll just walk you through some images. Sorry, this is blurry, but the most thing to take about this is the location of the post at this point and also note the window locations at this point. Then I will also point out the post here. Lots of foliage, so a little taken in different areas. Then also the front of the structure, noting the corner of the structure and the post here. Then I will also point out the down ways. This is the side yard of both structures. Then coming from another angle, this is sort of the side yard. The proposal is to extend the fence from the back to the front. Then you can sort of see this will meet up with an iron fence or woven wire fence that was in the back yard. You can see the grouping of trees back here. The wire fence sort of set back between those fences back there. There were various different types of fences in that back location. Then you can sort of see the proximity of the neighboring structure and their neighboring side yard and the HVAC unit in the corner of their structure. Then sort of taking from the neighboring house and the post and going back towards the house and you can sort of see the new fence sort of back here that has been installed per certificate of appropriateness has already been approved. This is their proposal. To sort of orient you, these properties back up to Woodland. There was already an application to put in a new fence back here by the neighboring property. Then there was another fence, various different fences. For the most part there was sort of a woven wire fence in the back. The proposal brought the fence up to this particular area, sort of where the bottom of the circle is located. They would want to move it up further to this location. Over the last year I think staff has actually had several conversations and there is a missive from the applicants regarding our conversations and their desire, what they would like to do and some other images that they've included in your staff report that were sent to you. Over the last year staff did have several conversations with various parties of the property owners regarding that. I think staff did talk about the location. I think the intent was also to suggest they get a survey form to figure out where the property is. Also with any application staff can't weigh in or make any judgment on or without actually having a site plan of what that proposal would be. Work got the cart before the horse mainly I think to make accommodations of the contractor. The contractor sort of decided to do this because he didn't also get a building permit to start putting the post in already sort of thinking they were going to go up further than what they had initially got permission for in the back for. Then there was discussion about sort of maybe dropping the fence down a little bit in the front so it wouldn't cover up the windows. But in the end it started to sort of try to work with them as far as what the post had already done. But at the end I think within the guidelines it all talks about being half way back from the house. This is a very long house comparatively. Most houses are not as long as this one. So sort of here's some of what they would like to do with the gate. The first part of it being five foot tall and the rest of it going back up to six. It will be a shadow box fence they are proposing. This is what was approved before. There appear to be a number of properties in the immediate vicinity that have fences all the way to the front. Were those houses within the H1 overlay at the time they were built? I didn't get to look at all of them and I can't tell you. Some of them had existing conditions. Because this historic district became a historic district in 1999 there could be prior to the H1 overlay. In some as you just around the corner on Central you guys gave permission for a fence to be a little bit closer and not set back per window wells and other things that would happen on Central. So I think I wasn't able to look at all of the properties that were looked at. Some could have been prior to the H1 overlay or not. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to construct a six foot fence along the south property line meeting up with the newly erected fence in the rear yard requires discussion. The LPCD design guidelines 3, 1C and D respectively state fences of wood boards or privacy fence should be located in rear yards and generally no taller than six feet and privacy fences of the site should be at least halfway back from the front of the building to the back wall of the side of the house. Six feet fence should start halfway back from the front of the structure and be within the guidelines. Staff recommends the fence begin halfway back from the front entrance or at least to the corner of the neighboring structure at the rear corner of the neighboring structure and any changes that are made alter the information be resubmitted and the rest of the conditions number of the standard two conditions of two and three. All right. Any questions from the board members? Just one question. In this photograph, I just want to be sure, 147 is this structure? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, sir. Mr. Schultz. Hello. My name is Frank Schultz. I'm one of the owners of 147 Kentucky Avenue. First, I wanted to apologize that we did not have a permit. Our contract with the fencing company was that they'd get the permit and we paid $70 or $80 for that process. And they should have gotten the permit. And we found out when this came up that we did not have a permit. I apologize for that. There's nothing we can do about that now, but it was not our intent to build without a permit. I was shocked. In fact, I told our neighbors we had a permit and I called to check and there was no evidence of it. As you noted, there are a lot of fences in the area that go right up to the edge of the house or beyond. I think the hearing we just had before this one, the fence actually went up to the sidewalk on 128 Clay Avenue. It's an older fence. You can tell by how it's deteriorated some, but we've seen that all around on 519 Central and 702 Central. Those are both new fences. The one on 519 Central comes right up to the edge of the house or beyond. The one on 702 comes way beyond the halfway point. So we've seen that happening as we did this. Also, we've been in an old house. We've worked with Amelia for years and we have a very good relationship with her. We talked to her beginning early in the spring about our desires for the fence and we were told that we could bring the fence up. We couldn't bring it to the edge of the house, but we could bring it halfway between the window and the edge of the house. When we finally got the survey, which was a lot harder than I realize it is to get a survey nowadays, and then got the fence company in to do a proposal, we based it on two conversations we had with the Office of Historic Preservation and we went with that and the assumption that we had a permit. As I've said, there are older fences across the street from us. There's a fence that comes near to the edge of the house. The townhouse on the corner of Kentucky and Central has a fence between it and the apartment building's driveway and that comes 18 to 20 inches from the edge of that townhouse. So we've not seen anything in the neighborhood that would indicate bringing our fence to the area we've asked for would be anything unusual, whether it's grandfathered in or not, it still fits with the neighborhood and the historic nature of the neighborhood. Additionally, I think one of the pictures that Ms. Armstrong had showed a person standing by one of the windows. Our windows are low windows. We're also building the fence for security. It would be really easy for someone to break the window and climb in. Our neighborhood has been fairly lucky. We've only had a couple break-ins in the last ten years or so. We've not had one and we'd like not to have one. But we've done everything we can and could to stay with what we were believed and were told we could do. Our neighbors told us over the weekend that they had no issues, that they would not be here today and they wouldn't file any kind of response. So they agreed and when Ms. Armstrong was at the house, she agreed that there was enough room between the fence and their property that they could put scaffolding and ladders in order to paint and repair. There's a good foot and a half to two feet between where the fence would be and where their air conditioner is. So the air conditioner could get serviced. The only issue would be for our neighbors, which they haven't raised, is that they could no longer ride. They both are at UK. They wouldn't be able to take their bikes through the side yard to get out to the road. They'd have to go through their driveway. But we've not had any issues with anyone about the fence. In the neighborhood, I don't know that there's anyone here with comments, but I've not heard of any. So we just ask the board to honor what we've been told and how we acted to our detriment, it appears, to what we've been told and approve our certificate. All right, thank you. Any questions or comments from the board members? It's hard for me to see kind of that edge of the fence versus kind of the front face of your facade versus the front face of your neighbor's facade. Is that fence going past the front face of your neighbor's facade? I truly don't know. I'm one of the homeowners, too. Our neighbor's house is pretty much in line with the front of our house. So that fence is still stepping back from the front of that? Yes. And the other question I had is, Amelia, it feels like you read different conditions than what was on my package, saying that... Oh. Could you repeat that first condition that you... The fence begins halfway back? I thought hers included something, or at least halfway back to the neighbor's house. I might have misheard that. Oh, I... I think you're right. I think in some ways I did say that the fence begins halfway back from the front of the structure. And what I was going to point out is, because that's how the guidelines do read, and this house is so much longer than this structure that halfway back of their house would be sort of where the 7 is. And potentially, if the board wanted to come up within the guidelines, they could potentially think about coming up to the corner of the structure, which... Sorry. Which would be sort of in this location here versus here, which would be halfway back. You're suggesting maybe there's a compromise of not going halfway to the back of their house because it's so long, but using the adjacent house as a guide for where we might think about that fence ending. Correct. So if I'm hearing the conversation correctly, do we need to have a more precise indication of where that fence should terminate? If you were willing to look at that. Well, you know, the purpose of that guideline, if I remember correctly, is to keep the fence from being visually dominant or a visually dominant part of the landscape and of the house. If we're not thinking about taking it all the way to the front of the house, but trying to find a compromise breaking point so that it would not be visually dominant, I think we can work with that. You know, if it was the neighbor building this fence, it would go only halfway back to where the neighbor's house is, which is significantly closer to the front of this property. That is a very interesting point. So can we make the condition so it matches at the neighbor's house and use that as a reference point? Mr. Schultz, would that work for you? I mean, of course, we're going to have to live with whatever the board decides. One of our main reasons for the fence was for security. The last window on the house is probably only maybe 30 inches from the corner. And if we go halfway, their property will have one or two windows that will be have no security. Do you not have the same windows on the opposite side of the house? No. The two windows in the kitchen start about this height. There is a windows that come out from the office. Those are the only windows on that side of the house on the ground floor except for a little triangular decorative window. I mean, there are other ways to deal with security than putting a fence up. I understand. I'm really concerned that if we took that fence of yours along the length of your very house, that's more than your house. I think it's going to actually take away from the appearance of your house if you're not careful. So I understand your concern for security. But there are ways to maintain security without putting a fence up. For example, you could do a plexiglass window on the inside. You can use some kind of barrier inside the house that would protect you. Certainly. That would not be as visually dominant. I understand. In extending the conversation, I think for me what's important is that the kind of front elevation and the front facade of the building be very clear about what it is. So being able to pull that fence back, even if it's by just one window. I mean, I think I'm comfortable with the staff working to establish what that view line is for clearly identifying the front facade of the house and not bringing it all so close to that front corner. Because part of what it does is it really does isolate off the pattern of houses along there also. And by pulling it back, even back behind just the first window even, eliminates that kind of sense of isolation for the house. I understand your concern about the security, too. So it's trying to find a balance. I would counter that, Susan, with we have a guideline for halfway back the side of a house, right? And we have a house next to it that has a clear mark that would meet a guideline in some way. We're making an exception because of the adjacent house and we're not being arbitrary about exactly where we put that fence line. I'm comfortable with that, particularly if we say halfway back on that adjacent house. I'm totally comfortable with that. You're not getting your whole loaf, but you're getting a little bit more of your loaf than you wanted. So we're getting. So can I have some suggested wording for the condition so that staff can hear it? My suggested wording would be that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following condition that the exact location of the fence go back to staff for a review and approval. Provided that where that final location is not closer to the street than halfway back from the adjacent house. I hope you can say that again. I don't think I can. Something to the effects. Because we weren't at the motion stage yet. I was just trying to get language. Do we have any questions or comments from the audience? If not, I think we have I'll give you a last rebuttal. I was just going to say as you say, something is better than nothing. What if we said no further than the back edge of the front window? That won't quite do it. You are allowed to bring fences up closer to the front of the house provided that they don't go above. I believe it's four feet. I don't have it memorized. But another way to think about this is to do the taller fence really halfway back. And if you still want to have a fence, you could do something to enclose that area to some regard. And a four-foot fence, I mean, I'm only 5'3". It's not an easy thing to jump over. I think you and the staff can perhaps work out an end point for the fence that both of you can live with. But I don't think we can approve the application as is. We haven't gone through this conversation. The other two conditions on that back page have been referred to as your agreement with those. I think then we're ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 10620147-F, I'm at 147 Kentucky Avenue. I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that the final location of the front of the fence goes back to staff for review prior to issuance of the COA and that the front of that fence be located not closer to the street than the midway point of the adjacent house structure. Do I have a second to that? Second. Any clarification? Yes. Clarification that that replaces the condition number one. Yes. Okay. Clarification accepted. The other two conditions have been included. Do I have a second? Yes. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion as stated, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. The COA as conditioned is approved. Mr. Schultz, good luck with your project. Thank you. Turning now to 509 East Main Street. The applicant will come up. Mr. Thompson, let's go through the conditions. There are several of them. Okay. Let's see which ones we are in agreement about and which ones we're not. Sure. All right. With respect to condition number one, that the majority of the front porch tile should be retained and the office owners work with the staff regarding the repair of the tile where the porch meets the front step. Are you in agreement with that? That's the only one that we just want to have a conversation about. Number one is the only one you want to talk about? Yes. Let me read them and make sure. Number two, the final details of the screen of the mechanical units be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. We agree. Number three, the green screen can be accomplished by either installing a rhizome barrier and bamboo and are removing the paving and installing trees. Final details must be submitted to staff for review and approved prior to work. I think there was a typo there. We agree. You agree. All right. Four and five are the standard two conditions. We agree with those. All right. Let's talk about the porch then and let's have a presentation by Ms. Armstrong. So this is the structure taken. This picture was taken and was in the 1919 illustrated Lexington book talking about sort of illustrating important business people of that time and his house is highlighted. And again, another view of the structure and the front view. The architect and I met on site to sort of look at the front porch specifically and I've also had conversations with the project manager, Mr. Morris, about even repair of the steps and so forth. So I think he's getting that into works. And sort of give you some more pictures. So for the most part, after review and looking at the existing condition of the doorway, staff finds that this porch is probably the original porch or has been here long enough that it has gained significance over time and should be retained as much as possible. There is some cracking and a bit more damage here. You can sort of see that the water sort of off and there's some tiles in this particular location specifically that have more issues with them. There's a couple of broken tiles over here, but most of the issues are resolved in this particular area or in the area—I'll show you a little bit closer—but you can sort of see this is a very interesting house where the tile actually comes right to the threshold and there's no seal below the doorway. You can sort of see in this particular location here that there is a bit more of a separation of the mortar joint between the two tiles there alongside this particular area, so there's a defined area where you have much more damage than you do the rest of the porch and mostly just because of water getting into the structure. You can sort of see here this is just some mortar joints and a bit of cracking, but overall the biggest issue is alongside this particular area here. You can see a bit more of the detail of the broken tile at this point. This seam here, which is the wider seam, looks like it probably has been re-grouted before or re-pointed, and that this area is the part that has more issues because of some of the broken tiles and sort of—again, this looks like it's in pretty good shape, but the corner is the worst part. Ms. Armstrong, can you address the issue of how they actually would be repairing and making sure that any repairs match? Well, staff has sort of suggested that—and that was part of—we didn't really come up with a solution because we wanted to say that we feel like this porch needs to be retained and improved within the guidelines, and that potentially there could be something different happen in this particular area if they don't want to repair that part because it does seem to get more wear, but that would be determined to be worked out with the applicants. Staff did actually—well, guidelines are included for your reference regarding the whole proposal, but for this particular element— Yeah, the findings just address that one element. That's right. The Colonial Revival structure has had many changes, yet the front pediment porch has had very few changes. Staff has reviewed the front porch and found the tile appears to be original and has been there for a long time or gaining significance over time. The historic front porch tile has buckled and cracked in places near the front porch and steps. Staff finds the floor is original from porch and ever to be made to repair the area in the front steps, that meaning possibly taking up the broken bits and either putting an expansion joint and maybe a different material at that point because that's where it gets a lot more weather, or yet something compatible in order to retain much of the original historic porch. The design principle for Porches State's porches are one of the most important defining characteristics of historic residence. Original porches should be repaired and maintained. If replacement of the porch elements are required, use materials to closely match original and historic components. Rebuild and replacement in new porches should be compatible to the structure on which they are built, and these porches reflect the building's historic evolution and be significant features in their own right. And of course, the recommendation is to say the majority of the front porch tile should be retained. Ownership or staff regarding the repair of the tile where the porch meets the front steps. The key word being majority, I take it. That's correct. All right, Mr. Thompson. Any questions? I'm sorry. Any questions for Ms. Armstrong? Okay. Mr. Thompson. I think the position of the owners, and just to let you know, they've had a few tile installers out to look at this and address this, and we're open to talking with staff about this, but I think that if we can't replace all of it, then it really doesn't make sense to try and repair, because if we chip up the damaged tiles, at least from the installers that have looked at these tiles, that they would be, they're pretty brittle and would break, and the concern is how to, at what point does it stop? So I think, yeah, Amelia and I talked about this, I think we'd be open to talking about that further, but I think from a functionality and a construction standpoint, we're getting indications that it's just not feasible not to replace it, so I think the client would rather not touch it than try to patch and repair and have it just not work out. So you're proposing replacing it with a bonded? So just a similar pattern, running bond, brick-type material, so it'd have the similar look, similar running bond pattern, just a different- Is that the same as brick? The bonded paver? Just the pattern in a running bond, so it wouldn't be like a herringbone. That would be a big difference in comparison to what the porch looks like right now, though, a running bond. Mm-hmm. Oh, brick. Oh, brick, yes, yeah. Okay. All right, questions? Yeah, I have one question. So you said rather than repairing it, the owners would be inclined just not to touch it or replace it? Well, I think the information that we've gotten from the installers that have looked at it, at least their opinion, is that once you start chipping up all the damaged pavers, that they're going to get into a lot more than what they were wanting to do as far as patching and repairing and having it not look correct. So at that point, if we're repairing 50% or 60% of the porch, why not make it a new material and bring it out there? Okay, so the next question is, is the porch currently presenting a liability issue with its current condition? I haven't been made aware of any liability issues, I think, from, you know. And it might just be best to let sleeping dogs lie. Seriously. Possibly. Yes, Ms. Hook. So, I'd like to hear a little more about that kind of edge piece where water and temperatures and ice and all are going to tend, as the edges do on every porch, regardless of the material, whether it's wood or pavers, whether taking that up and clearly making that a more contemporary material so that that's good, solid, safe passage, whether that's a reasonable approach to begin with. Yeah, I think, you know, over time, as Amelia pointed out, just, you know, the design of the front porch, you know, at the front few courses of tile, there's just been settlement naturally over time, and, you know, as time goes on, you know, more freeze and thaw cycles, it'll obviously continue to deteriorate, so, you know, it's just a problem that either will be addressed or won't. Again, I'm happy to speak with, you know, the owner and see if, you know, what options we, you know, they're open to, but we're happy to work with staff on this, just from a, at least from a constructability standpoint, you know, the thought was if we're going to be replacing these and trying to, you know, find this, you know, tile and have it look good and tie in, it would make more sense to replace it with something new. And that's part of the problem. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, Mr. Marquette. So is the damage, is the damage limited to just these three rows, or are there cracked tiles? There are cracked, yeah, there are cracked tiles, I mean, you can kind of see a little bit from the photo at the edge of the concrete border. You know, they're kind of all over, but primarily at the front, you know, where that settlement has occurred. And the entire front porch was never tiled? It was always concrete and tile? So after speaking with Amelia, it seems like the pavers were at, that are there now, have been there for quite some time. So I know that the two flanking concrete patios, that was an addition at, you know, back in the 60s or whatever. Excuse me, as you look at the 1919, those flanking concrete pieces were already there. Oh, sorry, going the wrong way. In your packet, there is a historic house, a photograph of this historic house that is quite early, and it was published on the front of the 1919 Lexington brochure. And it looked, it's across the porch going all the way across the front, and all is just as it is today. Oh, I see, okay. So the flanking concrete portions were original to the house? That's correct. Go back one more. And the flanking tile is original to the house? We feel it is. And based also on the construction of the structure, because it goes right to that threshold, we believe that it has been there for quite some time. Anything else? No, I just, the owners are here with me that we're helping with, see them through this application. And I think the challenge of the brick pavers and how to handle that with the concrete has to do a little bit with the threshold and how it's flush at, you know, the main entry. So there were, you know, a couple things to consider with this, but I just spoke with the owners and the team, and they'd be fine with leaving it as it is and maybe trying to just mortar match, you know, the way that we can. I think that's the better solution, ultimately. And I'm happy to work with Amelia and figure out exactly what mortar that might be. So why don't we do this, then, let's modify condition number one to keep it as is with an additional condition that you consult with the staff as to the mortar and how it matches. Yes. Someone can come up with a wording for that, if they don't mind. I'm noticing a lot of people in the audience, is there anyone in the audience that wants to comment on this application? Okay. Here's the, certainly come on up, and whoever wants to make the comments, brief comments, three or four minutes each. I should have done that before we got into our discussion in depth. So we're not concerned about the porch part of the application. The neighborhood is specifically concerned about the green buffer that's required. We've been in a bit of a catch-22 with planning and zoning and BOAR on that buffer. So I think right now it's hard because we can't get a copy of the plans, we have to drive down to the office to see the plans, but I think the current copy of the plans does not show that green buffer going all the way around the fence line, which is what was agreed upon back in planning and zoning and with the neighbors. And so we just want to make sure whatever approval happens tonight for whatever that buffer ends up being is appropriate for the entire interior of the fence line, Forest Avenue, as well as the back line, as well as the line between this property and the apartment next to it, not just what I think is currently on the plans that you all have in front of you. That's our primary concern. Okay. Well, I think the wall planning has gone away as a condition. That's what we're not sure on. That's gone. That's gone. Okay. I think if you're okay, if bamboo is appropriate all the way around, then we're good. Amelia, can you show her the pictures of what they're proposing now? And I realize this has been a bit of a moving target for you all. Yes, it has. Actually, I'm talking about the pictures they gave us just recently. So this is, of course, there's a neighboring property. I was going to go back to the plans real quick, but as you walk through, you can sort of see the back and sort of the buffering area that's already there. This is the—let's see. This is the property, I believe, and Mr. Thompson can speak to this more about the Forest Street side and then around the perimeter here. I believe the bigger concern was about this particular section here against the back wall because there was less area to plant in, and that's why the proposal for the rhizome barrier was proposed in lieu of the planter wall. This particular area has more green space around it, so there's a wider area to do plantings, but the bamboo could be included all around this particular area as well. This particular area on the Forest Avenue side, there is a green buffer already. As far as the height of that particular area, I think Mr. Thompson would have to speak about their proposal to plant anything additional along the Forest Street side in this particular area. But I believe this area and along this could receive the rhizome barrier if you all approve it that way. Okay. I believe that you distributed to us right before the meeting began the photograph of what it was going to look like. Correct. Ma'am, have you seen that photograph? You didn't state your name, please. Let me put a copy of this over on the overhead, please. And I don't think I caught your name. Megan Winfield. I'm the neighbor across Forest Avenue. So my concern is actually that little strip of fence that we talked about maybe wasn't covered in the bamboo situation. We just haven't been provided anything as a neighborhood, and we're just trying to figure out what the plan is. I think this photograph addresses that strip. Not in the current plan. It doesn't address that strip. This is actually just a way to install a rhizome barrier. It's not actually part of the plan. And I don't have a current plan of the bamboo area that will have to provide that. All right. Thank you. Next. Hi. I'm Marcy Deaton. I live immediately behind. I'm also concerned. Excuse my voice, too. I've had something. I'm also concerned about Forest. I live immediately behind and sort of on the corner of this property. So I wanted to point out a couple of things. I'll just start with the actual city council document that the mayor signs that approved the zone condition lifting for this project does say that the buffer screening up to 15 feet high shall be planted along the sides and rear. And now somehow Forest isn't being included, and we think it's very important, especially all of us that live surrounding. There's like eight families that Forest be screened. This is the entryway to our neighborhood, and that's like maybe the most important part to screen. So I wanted to show. I don't know how to work this. Let's see. All right. Which one goes where? That one right there. This one. There you go. Okay. So I just like from the street. If you're like this is from way across the street on Stacey Rose's porch, like you can see right over the wall and into there and that back garage there is going to be their kitchen and that door over there on this side, I guess, is the service entrance because there's a service ramp right there. And the trash cans are right there. How do you do that circle thing? Yeah. Okay. So yeah. So right in here is like really like a big commercial area for them. And that wall there, as you can see, and I've kind of highlighted it, it really doesn't have screening that's green except for some vines that are growing up it. Nothing goes like higher than the wall. So we're concerned that nothing's going to be along there. Then this other part here, which is a, it's like a diagonal, like it's kind of a strange corner that wall there's only like four feet tall. So the bamboo behind there would screen everybody walking down the sidewalk and everybody driving down would not be able to see straight over there toward that kitchen. So I'm going to point that out. Here it is again. There's literally like four panels of the whole wall and maybe five if you count that, that we're worried about. But they're right along forest, which is right what everybody sees in our neighborhood. Again, Amelia kind of already showed this. So, you know, it goes all the way around the back and that's my house there and all the way beside me and that's great. And I think bamboo is fine. But we're worried about the little strip along forest. And we think that it was intended to be included in the zone change language. And there's the zone change language. So anyway, that's all I got. We're just concerned that it needs to go around the whole property. All right. Let's hear from Mr. Thompson. Is there any problem with you all screening the section completely around and include we can we can add that and make it more explicitly clear. Yeah. Let's get you back up here. Mr. Chair. I'll be the attorney now at this point. Mr. Chair, when you're ready, there is a point to be made about a four foot limit on forest. But when you're ready. Right. I've noted that. Yeah, we're we're open to it. I think the intent was obviously to help screen noise visual. And that was the intent of what we were trying to do. But we're open to putting bamboo. How tall does bamboo get? It needs to be maintained. But it can get fairly tall. So but with the width of the planting area that we're that we've looked at, you know, I couldn't imagine it'd be taller than, you know, 13, 14 feet. And that's really the max that we can have as well. And it's also something that can be controlled. You know, I think that, yeah, the 15 feet is the is the highest that it says in the ordinance that we can have on at any point. So that would be the absolute max that it would be. Okay. Miss Deaton. I'm trying to make sure I understand your concern. You will make sure that you can't see the commercial area of the building. Yes, sir. As much as possible. I mean, we we've all talked about this at numerous numerous meetings. And that's been very important to the neighbors, especially us that surround there. I don't know that it has to be the exact same plant as along the sides and the rear. But something needs to go along for us. Because you can see right in there. And I think this when the City Council approved this zone change, they intended something to surround it, to shield it from the neighborhood. It's a big commercial endeavor right there in the middle of the neighborhood. And this this was like one of the key points for all of us. All right. I think we can add in a condition that will address your concerns about making sure it's consistent with the council approval. Thank you. All right. Anyone else from the neighborhood? Mr. Chair, you really might want to know about the four foot. Yes. Well, I thought the four foot limitation was only on the wall. Well, that's what we need an interpretation that can be gotten. The property owner really could get that interpretation and get it direct from the horse from planning. But Forest Avenue is legally a front yard, just like Main Street is. This property, corner properties, have legally two front, when they have a side street there, technically a front yard. So the man-made elements are limited to four feet. And that's why that wall is four feet. Right. Nobody, no matter where you are, can have a more than four foot tall. As far as I can tell, no one's, hang on, Ms. Deaton. Fence on the front yard. As far as I can tell, no one's proposing a wall. I understand. Yes, Ms. Deaton. So my only suggestion is to be sure that everybody's playing in the same path to get a good outcome is that the applicants and the neighbors and preservation staff, everybody, get the interpretations necessary to be sure that greenery can be made much taller along Forest Avenue. And if so, I think everyone will be very happy. But I didn't want everybody just getting their hearts set on something that, because it is legally a front yard, may have some further limitations in addition to the H1. Okay. Well, I jumped up because I thought we were only talking about the wall couldn't be more than four feet. Because that one little diagonal is about four feet, but the other four panels on there, they're like six. And they're grandfathered in. So they're already taller than four. The only short part is that little diagonal part. And the existing section that's six feet is already grandfathered in, so. That's the one that's got some vines growing on it. It's right along the sidewalk. Okay. So I just wanted to point that out. Because we're all saying the same thing differently, but we're on the same page. That some kind of screening has to be there consistent with the guidelines and with the ordinance proviso. All right. So any other comments or questions, concerns? If not, then I think we're ready for a motion. And I'm going to give everyone a heads up. We're going to take a brief break. We've been at this for almost an hour and a half steady. So we're going to take a brief break before we pick up the remaining section. All right. Who would like to make this motion, please? This is why I love being chair. I don't get to do the motions. So I'm willing to take a shot at it. Okay. I appreciate it. What I'm hearing is that we have the item number one, which I can make the modification as discussed. Number two stays as it is. Number three, the green screen, that that language needs to be modified to include the a green barrier along forest avenue consistent with the zoning modification number 135-223. That works. Yeah. Okay. All right. And four and five, of course, are the standards. So go for it. All right. Per case number 12260505-H at 509 East Main Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, the majority of the front porch shall be retained, and the owners work with the staff regarding the repair of the tile where the porch meets the front steps, including the type and color of mortar. Number two, final details of the screen of the mechanical unit shall be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Number three, the green screen can be accomplished by either installing a row zone barrier and bamboo beam and or removing paving and installing trees. Final details must be submitted to the staff for removal and approval prior to the start of work, and the green screen shall continue the buffer along forest avenue consistent with the zoning modification number 135-2023, with the final two conditions being the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Any questions from staff? Yes, Ms. Hill. I just want to make certain that that language meets the intent of what we were hearing. Very good. Thank you. Full disclosure, Ms. Deaton and I know each other well. I've appeared before her as a hearing officer on several occasions. All right, so any concerns from staff, Ms. Kerr? Very good. All right, then, hearing no further discussion, the chair is ready to call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. This was a very good, productive conversation. Thank you, sir. All right. We're taking a 10-minute break. I'm 73, and I get to call. I'm sorry. We have to speak through the microphone, or they can't hear you. Good to see you again. Good to see you. Your mic's not on. Yeah. Jim, your mic's not on. I don't have my mic. There we go. And we're on TV. Well, Mr. Chair, once we get all the mics set up, are we all good now? I think so. I'm Kyle Bunnell. I'm an attorney, and I'm representing Parson Green Development LLC today, and I have with me one of their owners, Jared Howard. I think what we're going to do, let's discuss how we want to move forward. Staff has made a recommendation. They have about 11 different conditions. Let me get my paperwork. I'm assuming you've had a chance to see their proposal. They were sent to us yesterday, Mr. Chair, and we have reviewed. They have made 10 conditions, a couple of which are pretty substantive. They have made a recommendation that this case be continued, and we thought perhaps the best way to deal with this is have a conceptual review and discuss, I think, some of the issues that the staff was having with the design plan, rather than trying to go into any kind of determination that would be a final approval or disapproval. Well, Mr. Chair, if I may, I respectfully think we can dispense with several of these things this afternoon. We have some materials here that I would like to provide you all, and if I could have at least a few minutes to discuss some of these things with you all. Our view is that a conceptual review is no longer necessary. One has already been done. Many of the things on this list, the 11 things or 12, two of those standard, I think can be discussed fairly efficiently today, and we can move forward maybe even with a conditional approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for these. That would be our goal today, Mr. Chair. May I approach? Do I ask that here? Not at this point. Let's get staff reaction. Ms. Kerr? I think, as always, it's however the board wants to handle it. I don't know that we ought to get bogged down in the word conceptual, because I think what you all are framing today is not an informal, non-advertised conceptual meeting. This is an advertised hearing to start the process of the formal discussion, but the staff's recommendation reflects your all's not planning to take a final action today and is recommending that you hear and discuss the case and get all your questions in and so forth and the applicant participate with their comments and so on, but that it's not something that can be decided in the staff's perception this afternoon. One caveat I would note. If you have new materials, drawings that have been adjusted to reflect some of the issues on this, we do not usually have those go to the board until they've already come to the staff and been reviewed by the staff and reflected in the next staff report. Just handing out, we've resolved, here's how we propose to resolve certain aspects of what's in the report for today's hearing. That is not the manner in which, because the staff hadn't seen anything that is new in material and we've had no chance to review it within the context of the staff's charge to review things for the guidelines and reflect that in written response for a staff report to the board. Handouts at the meeting, I'm going to say on the fly, but don't take that offensively. It's meant to be come in the door and hand out, but the staff hasn't seen them. Also in addition, we typically do not do applications piecemeal and although there may be substantive agreement on your part about several of the conditions, I suspect in my heart of hearts, there is a disagreement about what the roof design should be and even if you have new drawings that may be a better roof design, the staff really does need to be given an opportunity to review that and come back to us with their opinion about it. So. I can respond? Absolutely. Step up to the mic. Although you can be heard perfectly in this room. Yes. Well, I will stay with my podium here, although that's very hard for me. I wouldn't call what has been added here anything substantive. These are the plans with some of the things that have been addressed. I do have copies here for staff today that I'm happy to provide. Again, we were provided staff's report less than 24 hours ago and have worked extensively with our architects to try to get this process moving. This is a process that the historic South Hill neighborhood is excited about. It's a process that the owners are excited about and anything we can do to continue to move forward. We have addressed things in the conceptual review that you all brought up. I don't think the mansard roof was one of those things that was initially brought up in April, although it's mentioned now and we're happy to discuss that today with you all. But we have taken steps to do things. We have taken steps to listen to you all after your conceptual review. We have done the down zone. We have solicited approval and support from the neighborhood association. At this point, we're excited and we're energized about this project and we want to be able to move it forward. So to the extent we can do that today and we can have a fruitful discussion, we are prepared to do that. I certainly want staff to be able to have time to look through the materials that we have and I understand those things. But at the same time, we have now been working towards getting a certificate of approval now since April and it feels like we've had some roadblocks and impediments to that. So we're very excited to try to start moving the ball forward and break ground on this. I agree with you. I would like to move that ball forward as well. We have a little bit more time to do that and get this thing done and done right. We have two options. We can go ahead and have a staff presentation right now, although I think the better preference would be to go through the conditions and simply note them for the record and then perhaps have the board adopt if they agree with the staff recommendation that we continue this matter to our November meeting. So let me just read the 11 conditions. The first one is eliminate the mansard roof and redesign the roof to a design that complies with the design review guidelines. Submit the revised roof design for the BOAR review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. That's number one. Are you in agreement with that? No Mr. Chair, we're not. I didn't think you would be. Number two is remove the 2 over 2 muttons in the windows and change the 1 over 1 windows. Submit for the board for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement with that? This one is something that we could potentially be in agreement with. We can, again, have discussion when the time is appropriate on that because we do feel like the 2-2 muntins are an architectural design and are used to mitigate the risk of historic mimicry. Short answer, you think you see agreement? Maybe. Number three, submit the porch railing materials and details to the board for BOAR review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Was that number three Mr. Chair? I think four is repetitive. Three and four are duplicative, yes. Yes, that's something that we are fine to agree to and in fact have most of those materials ready. Okay, number five, submit the final brick sublection. Again, we are fine with that Mr. Chair. Number six, no synthetic or replicated historic materials are allowed. Mr. Chair, our question with this one is we were a little bit confused because there is no synthetic or replicated historic materials that we have here. The proposal is slate. Let me finish reading the condition. Remove the slate look shingles. I think that's what they are concerned about, that is replicating. No, Mr. Chair, it's slate or standing seam metal. That's what our design calls for. There's no slate look shingles that are called for in the designs. So we need to talk about that one. Number seven, submit the detailed drawings of all proposed hardscape such as layout and materials for the board to review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. We don't have an issue with that. Number the next one, submit information, details and layout of the proposed materials that will occur in the shaded areas between the structures for the board to review and approval prior to issuance of the COA. We don't have an issue with that either. Number nine, submit the proposed fence materials and details to the board for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. No issue there. All right. And number 10, submit location and screening for all proposed mechanical systems to the board for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. We don't have an issue per se with that. Of course, we'll follow the design guidelines, Mr. Chair, when it comes to using the rear of the side of the respective properties and making these mechanical implements being in the least visible and intrusive space. Whether or not with conditions 10, 7 and 8, the hardscape and the green space, whether all of this, you know, the mechanical systems will all be drawn out before a COA would be approved. I can't vouch for that. I'm not an architect. I'm not an attorney. Because I know there will be another firm that's in place to draw those things. But, again, we have no issue with those. Okay. So I think the issue now is primarily focused, again, on the roof. And I think you're concerned that you do have some hesitancy about changing the two over two to one over one. You know, as far as number two goes, and I believe, you know, Mr. Howard would speak to this, that's not a hill that we're going to die on. We do feel like that it is a design choice that comports with the design guidelines and that it doesn't need to be changed. But in the spirit of compromise and moving things forward, we're happy to open up discussions on the two-two muntins. Why don't we do this then? Why don't we have a staff review as to the roof design? If I can confer with my client and talk to him, I would be happy to discuss some of those things. Or, alternatively, which I think would be cleaner, let's agree to continue this case to the next meeting in November. You all have further discussions with the staff about the roof design and maybe present a new roof design or consider a new roof design. Well, Mr. Chair, respectfully, I don't believe a new roof design is going to be something that we would consider at this point based on the fact that we feel that the roof shape and pitch as is with this mansard roof follows design guideline 2B1D. We feel like it's in compliance. We feel like looking around at other properties in the overlay, whether it's 358 South Mill, 200 West Short, there's other mansard roofs for 29 North Broadway. I think we need to have further discussion from the staff as to why they made the findings they did. And you can make a response and we can decide how we want to move forward after that. Of course, if that's the chair and the board's prerogative, you know, we are willing to have those discussions. We simply, again, want to continue moving this forward as efficiently and quickly as possible to get this project underway. And that's exactly why I'm trying to propose to you that it might be quicker and more efficient just to recognize that perhaps there's an issue with that roof design, discuss it further with the staff, and resubmit in November. I'll confer with my client, if I can have just a moment, please. And don't talk until he's finished. Hang on. I just have a clarification about timing. We'll do that. I think it's the 20th. Our next meeting's the 20th. How about that? Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. I know what you think. Okay. Mr. Chair, respectfully, we would like to discuss point one today, if possible. And we're happy to let staff talk, but we feel like we'd like to go ahead and get that before you all and have that on the record, if the chair's fine moving ahead that way. All right. We can do that. Ms. Kerr, can you do the presentations of the next question? Well, first of all, I would begin by saying that the reference was made by the applicant's attorney to having worked since April to get a COA. That is not accurate, although I know they have wished to obtain a COA since April. But they have, in the meantime, needed to accomplish some things in other parts of government, which he referenced, including getting a zone change for the property. And our process, the H-1 process, is unable to review and put forward to the board proposals that are not currently, at the time of application, zoned for such a project to be accomplished. So when the Urban County Council in September, late August, September, I can't remember, came back from their break and took action to take the formal vote necessary to make that zone change, that word was received by Historic Preservation the following day. And they filed a new, they, the applicants, filed a new application to reflect the fact it had become appropriately zoned to allow for this project to be considered, at which time Historic Preservation was positioned to commence doing the work necessary to review this application as it would with any other application. So it has not had this project before them in Historic Preservation for any sort of an untimely manner whatsoever. It has been in the ability of the staff to have that application and to be working with it in the same timely fashion as every other applicant. Clarification noted. Let's get into the discussion about the roof, if you don't mind. I would also note that the staff has concerns about presenting just pieces of something like this when this is a vacant lot being proposed for a new infill construction project and taking it piecemeal on a bit of the fly, and in this instance I do mean on the fly. I would not suggest as justice to what the staff is charged with having available to you all for this presentation and for your considerations. I'm particularly uncomfortable by information the staff has not been privy to seeing becoming part of the record of this hearing. I mean, it can become part of the record, but the staff needs to have had the opportunity, as we do with all other applications, to have seen that material and weigh it tied to what we're charged with evaluating, utilizing the design guidelines, and then making that information known to you all for your considerations. So I would strongly suggest that you continue with whatever discussion the board would like to have and then have the full application put forward to you from your staff at the next meeting and have your discussion and whatever actions you feel appropriate at that time. Currently before the board members is a recommendation from the staff that we continue this matter to our next meeting in November so as to give the applicant additional time to review the concerns that have been expressed by the staff and their recommendations and to give them an opportunity to present additional information and or perhaps a different roof design. We can do that if you like, or we can try to we can do a full-scale review today. Any comments or questions about our process? It does seem important that the staff have an opportunity to review these issues with the client, with the applicant. My one question is that is the timing, are this application is supposed to be acted on by the 21st of November? If we continue it to the next meeting, does the timing in terms of submittal and review actually fit? Well the next meeting, as you're well aware, is November the 20th. So it is within that. In this instance the 60 days window for the process, which is always the 60 day window for the process. With their having submitted their application immediately, well within a day or so of receiving their zone change authorization, the clock of course started ticking at that. The materials that have been provided by the applicant have not changed and as they have stated in times past to us as staff, from what were the materials submitted to you all for your conceptual review, I believe just informally that there only changed from that to what was provided to us after the Urban County Council's vote with the application dated reflecting that zone change becoming formalized. The only change was to remove some proposed chimneys I believe. Terry Dennis is our architect in our office who has done the study work and write up with this proposal. He is ill with a virus and temperature and such and we didn't think he needed to come and share it with everyone and he's pretty sick. So he's unable to be with us today but I believe I'm correct in saying that the only difference in the two sets of materials that were provided to our office initiating with the conceptual review and then to the materials submitted with the zone change in place was removal of some chimneys. So that is the same material we've been working with since this and it's being heard at the first available meeting after that application was able to be accepted, that being today, and hence you have the second meeting in November. I think that the magnitude of this is a substantial proposal that will impact South Hill Historic District in a hopefully very successful way but I think it's not a minor topic. This is something that needs really full consideration and I'll be honest, I don't think with new materials coming in the door here at the meeting and all that the staff is comfortable with the approach of piecemealing it. Okay. Does that answer your question, Ms. Hill? It does and I'm certainly not comfortable that we would take any action tonight. It was really more a question about just addressing an issue or so but I do think it's deeply important that the staff have that full review. All right. Any other comments or questions? Sarah? Ms. Limerick? I don't remember my exact comments from this conceptual review that we had last time but I know I raised concern about the imitation of history, particularly in regards to the mansard roof. I know I even said that. And there are other details on here such as a dental molding that you just wouldn't do and are very much of replica and a copying of historical features that are not on houses and modern houses today. And overall I very much like what you all are trying to do here but I don't feel like we are ready just to accept what you have done here and I think working with the staff to really get some of those details right, whether the mansard roof stays or goes, there are ways to address it that make it look like maybe it's not replicating history and you haven't made any changes since the last review and so I do not feel comfortable proceeding with a review at this time. Yes, Ms. Hill? Would it be reasonable that this would be the first case that we would hear next time just in terms of it being a continuance to the next meeting? Certainly that's up to the board and we'll be glad to structure the agenda as ever you all would like. Traditionally it has always been organized within the alphabetical list of the historic districts starting with A and going to Z and then under that by streets and such. If you would like to propose that it be put at the start of your docket, the staff will be glad to make the agenda reflect that proposal. With one clarification, I would like to hear those cases that are not contested first but that this be our first contested hearing and I can adjust the agenda as we go. You as chair always have that well in hand and the staff will follow you accordingly. So yes, we can make that long answer. We can hear it first. Let me make a couple of positive comments. I know we've been a little bit pushy. Several things have been accomplished that I have been extraordinarily supportive of and I like the idea. First of all, the orientation of the building on to Mill Street which is consistent with the historic look of that street. That in my opinion was a substantial accomplishment on your part because I know there was a lot of push to make it face out on to Maxwell. I want to commend you for that, for your diligence and dedication. I think overall the staff, the design is good. It's an appropriate density. It is, thank God, not an apartment building trying to go up. But I think we are concerned, and this is where we come in, this is where our concerns come into play, that you must be careful not to make it look imitative. And some of the features, although there may be other manser type buildings in the area, this one is looking just a little too cute, if the word can be used, architecturally speaking. It's not going to be the best design that you have. I think you want to build something that 50 years from now will say, okay, that was a really good new boy on the street that blended well with all the old boys. I think that's what you're looking for. Let's take some time to get it right. The best way in my opinion to get it right is for you all to have a couple more conversations with the staff and see if you can work out an understanding about what the best possible design can be. Is there any further discussion? At this point, I think I would like to ask for a motion that we continue this case to November 20. Do I have such a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Do we have any further discussion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and we are continued until November 20, the first contested hearing to be heard. We appreciate your time today. Thank you all. Mr. Blumel, thank you very much. All right. We have some other postponements. Does it always turn into a freezer at 6 o'clock? Lord. Either that or 100 degrees. I'm not sure which is worse. We have some other items on our agenda. This is where I have to sit to be heard. We have two other hearings to be postponed. The first one being at 247 North Broadway, renovate outbuilding, construct two-car garage with apartment and connector to the main outbuilding. Do I have a motion to postpone that one to November 20? So moved. The other one is 222 Arlington Avenue, construct dormer addition. Do I have a motion? I'm sorry. I moved too fast. Do I have a second on that first motion? Second. Any discussion? The matter stands postponed until November 20. With respect to 222 Arlington Avenue, construct dormer addition. Do I have a motion? So moved. To postpone to November 20. Second. Second. So without objection, it is postponed to November 20. We have some minutes to review. Do we have the September 2024 minutes? I believe we do. Any changes or additions? I want to commend whoever is doing them. They make me sound so good. And everyone else, for that matter. But they have been excellently done, and it's appreciated. And we have shared that information, and she hears you say it, because of course she listens to the record to create the minutes. It's been very nicely done. So do I have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, the minutes stand approved. Final item is the review of the 2025 calendar. Are there any changes? Do I have a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. The calendar, the 2025, are we releasing 2025 already? Apparently. Calendar stands approved. All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you. I wasn't trying to run a train, I promise you.