You Do Do So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So So both wood and then two different steel options with a W section and a tube. As you can see, the dimensions are fairly negligible. Obviously, the tube is the most reduced scale, and we can go there if we need to go there. I think the owner is looking to try and keep this out of a wood construction. Of course, those would be pressure-treated LVLs, but keep those out of a steel for cost first off, but I think also just the actual infrastructure to get that in. They're going to have to bring a crane in, do some things. The LVLs, they can probably jack up in the field and put in, so there's a couple of factors to it. I will say that as far as the design and aesthetics go, the LVL depth was my original assumption and what I have shown since we've looked at this since the beginning, so there's really no change in the scale of it. That's sort of the maximum version that it can be. Obviously, if you all see to think this is appropriate and want to say that we can work through even thinning that up, the steel can certainly be an option for us. As you'll see in this, we have the connector that comes back and it forms here as it comes across and meets the garage. It actually picks up on the thickness of that deck, which then in turn comes under the bottom side of that plinth, if you will, for the garage. Then looking at this, which is the most recent detail we've provided, you'll see it existing in the same situation. That is nothing has changed there. We've just embellished this detail per their request, showing number one, the LVL structure in place on either side. This would be open underneath. This would be a wood decking on the top, likely an e-pay or some kind of resilient wood, but this would not have a cap under the underside of it. We want that to be transparent for water to come through and so forth underneath. Then we would have a cross structure to brace and all that. We've really thought about this, again, from the macro down to the micro. I think we're at that micro moment now. As Ms. Armstrong stated, I have had several discussions with building inspection and planning and zoning as the building inspection being the gatekeeper for that. I had a concern that the bridge would be something they weren't going to be very interested in. That concern has been alleviated. I've had several rounds with them and I have an email stating that they are comfortable with this proposal. As Ms. Armstrong said, they did want the height at mid-gable to come a little bit so that garage is brought down a little bit more, which I think everyone would agree is a positive thing given what we've talked about with this project. I know we're here to talk about the connector. I'm happy to answer any other questions you all have about that, but that's where we are presently. Okay, Ms. Hill, any questions? So I did some research because this is occurring all over the country in historic districts. I realized that one of, in talking with colleagues, I realized that one of my concerns is the potential future impact on both of the building structures, where that connection. The notion of a bridge I'm comfortable with, and I do acknowledge that you continue to work to lighten it up, which I'm appreciative of. Which we can have another pass at as well. But taking that idea of bridge is really where I would like to focus my thoughts and ideas on, and that is not to really make this bridge-like, and not have it structurally connected to the two buildings, but to have it spanned across a very light, probably steel structure as a column system, which would be easy to get into the yard without a crane. And then butt this up to each of the structures with a gap that could easily be closed off by an expanding threshold, so that there would be no trip or gap to have to navigate. But it would also mean that in the future, as components age and move and change, that this bridge structure no longer impacts the structural integrity of either of the full enclosed buildings themselves, but can be addressed as its own bridge structure. And that's really where I would like to, is to take that idea that you've talked about all along, but let's just make it exactly what you've been calling it. And let's not make it a physical structural link. I think in some ways it might even be cleaner from a construction point of view. And it certainly would simplify movement differences between the two buildings and this connector, and it would certainly simplify water issues. And that would be where I would want to see the direction gone. I do note that deadline for board action is tomorrow. So if we are, if you're in agreement with that step, we would have to talk about extending that deadline. But if you're not, I'm uncomfortable with the potential negative impacts on the two primary structures themselves, in terms of the way it's physically, structurally connected. My thoughts are, I'm inclined to agree with Ms. Hill. I think this might be a way to finesse the guidelines, if you will, that we're not actually constructing something that's going to be physically attached to the two, to the primary and accessory building. It also, I think, achieves the goal of what we're trying to get to, is to provide additional density and to provide a means for people to remain in place at their homes. And so I think if we could come up with a new design, if you will, that will actually not be as permanently attached to the two ends, that that might be a way that we can say that that actually meets with the guidelines. So I think there's a possibility to make that work, potentially. I think, obviously, this is the first I'm kind of hearing of this specific concept, so this is probably our fourth engagement on this particular piece of the puzzle. Having an approval for the addition, having approval for the garage, and this being the last link, my request would be, and I'm not sure procedurally how you would want to work this, is how do I go ahead and start to be able to move all of these elements forward, right? I've got building inspections giving me sort of a green light to finish my drawings. I've got a green light from you all on the addition and the garage, the connector being the outlying piece. I'd like to move the whole ball down the field and get it across the finish line. As we know, the sun is getting lower in the sky in the year for being able to build things, and so I'm trying to be responsible with my client's resources and time and how we move forward with this. So, I guess I would ask your opinions or advice on how we are able to test this. Is this something where we can say, listen, these are the ideas, can you please show this to us and we can work with you and the staff? How do we do this? And if the idea of the connector, of the bridge is there, but we're talking about technicalities of material connections and some structural elements, is that something we can continue to work through so that I can kind of get this all moved together, or how does that work for us to be able to? Well, that's a good procedural question. I'm not quite sure how to answer it, is the truth, you know. I don't want to tie the staff's hands to an idea that we're beginning to explore with you. I want to compliment Ms. Hill for really going to extra mile to. Appreciate that. We've been reaching out to other historic districts that's had this issue, and this is one solution that has been proposed. Frankly, I think it works within the Secretary of Interior design. I'm not comfortable trying to write a condition that would be subject to staff review and approval without at least a drawing. Understood. So, now, here's the deal. I think we're at the point where we're going to have to approve the disapproval unless we can move forward with this other proposal. So would that mean that we want to postpone this until I'm able to actually revise this graphically and represent it to you all? You know, you said that very succinctly when I spent 50 words saying yes, but we'll need your consent to the extension, to the postponement, or continuance of the hearing, excuse me. Yeah, I think if that's where we're headed, then let's seek a continuance. I wouldn't want to short this given how far we've come and given where I think we are. Since we're a four-member board and we don't have Sari, Brack, what are your thoughts about this? I have a question. Please. I'm trying to visualize what's being described. If there were pillars under the walkway on both ends, under the connector on both ends, those pillars would be in front of the first floor door. Potentially, yeah. I haven't been able to really process how that would work. So are we talking about having to relocate the link? If you can see there, where would the pillars be placed on the lower level? Because if they are directly under the junction, then it's going to interfere with the eave over that back door and the placement of the door. Agreed. Yeah, I think there's probably four or five factors. So hearing this for the first time, I haven't really studied it or even thought through right now because we've got probably five factors we need to consider. I've got stairs coming down. I've got the main roof overhanging eave, so there's that condition on the garage side less so concerning, but there's a window there. So there's some things that we need to study and understand what that is. There's probably two or three options to come back with and present. I can think of a steel scenario where there's an element that might come down and cantilever so you have a column and a cantilever beam so you don't have columns on both sides as a rhythm. There's a lot of ways you can do it. It's 2025. We can do anything we want technically, but we just have to talk through the different pieces to the puzzle that you're mentioning. The complexities on the garage side are pretty much non-existent. Fairly minimal, yeah. We've got a window there. So yes, like anything, it takes study and it takes us actually getting in and drawing it and then presenting something to you guys we feel is an appropriate responsible. I think what we're trying to get at at this point, behind that preposition that, is if we can have an agreement that so long as we can avoid a budding up to the building and have pillars instead of it physically attaching into the primary structure in the garage, I think we might have a workable solution to details. But I think it's not fair to the staff to throw all that on them. I think we need to have some drawings from you. So then I would request a postponement to October for us to be able to prepare. The technical term here is a continuance. Continuance, very well. We'll request a continuance. We've already started. I think we've done that once. I should have known that. Because we've already started the hearing. We're continuing the hearing. Very well. Yes, ma'am. So, I want to swing back to your earlier observation about the client being able to move forward where, you know, hopefully we actually will begin to have rain before long and the weather cool off and then it will accelerate. Part of the reason for thinking of this as a third structure, which means that it shouldn't impact the two buildings, it's really about how the details of that third piece are visualized to be able to make them work within that context. But I see no reason why it should slow down the other piece of it. More for me, it's just thinking about this as a whole picture of everything that they're wanting to do and a budgetary piece of this. I think what we're talking about for that as an element on its own has a pretty substantial cost implication if we're going to talk about it being all steel and separated and how it functions. Not to say that it's not going to be expensive either way, but I just want to be able to get a picture of the whole piece so that they can move forward. We sort of have a good picture of the puzzle, but not all of it. So I think we're just working to conclude it so that we can move on and get CDs finished and do all that. So, to your point, yes, I think if it ends up becoming an independent element, it is an independent element and it can be constructed on its own. I do think that the function of the garage and the function of the second floor where we have a door, that if we don't do the bridge, then the door makes no sense. And then if we have the second floor of the garage with the balcony, how do we terminate that? Does it still make sense? So there are some pieces and parts that are, to me, dependent on the bridge approval, if you will. So I'm just trying to look for some buy-in on the idea of the bridge. And I think, Ms. Hill, you've granted at least the idea that, and Mr. Dickinson as well, that maybe the bridge is becoming something that maybe we're okay with. It's the technicalities of how that bridge comes to pass, I think. And technically, let's just refer to it as the third structure. As opposed to a bridge. That will be how we'll, I suppose, be looking at it next. We're actually constructing a new structure between the two main structures. So that's how we'll have to look at it. And we'll get into that here between now and then. And so then, what would be our application, Amelia, for October? When would we have to actually get that in to you? The next meeting will be October 15th. That's right. Meeting will be October 15th. And let me get to my calendar here. I believe it probably would be the, can you get it by October 7th? That's why architects work through the weekends. So I do hear your observation about the potential, some cost increase with the use of columns. But it also simplifies some of the structural load that's going to be at those two points where a bridge that spans across and has live loads on it. That certainly is going to simplify those construction points by having this as a bridge and not being structurally loaded on the two structures. Yeah, I think I'm processing ways that I can take this to where I think we're talking about taking it to. It's a great creative opportunity in the first of its kind. Ms. Hill, who were you talking to in Cincinnati, I believe? I'm sorry, I don't remember her name, but I can certainly get it for you. I suspect Mr. Taylor would like to know. I'd be glad to provide it. Okay, so any further discussion on this? Yes, sir. Mr. Taylor, again, I want to, I've always been effusive in my compliments for you. You have been an ideal applicant to work with because you're willing to be patient and realize this is a process, and so I thank you for that. Yes, well, I appreciate it. I do my best to represent my client's desires and obviously understand the board's positions and staff's positions, and it's a piece of the pie. I think we're close, and this is, for the impact this will have on their lives living in this place, continuing to live in this place, this is a worthy exercise for us to go through, and I think precedent-setting or not is worth fighting for, so. And given the other corner lots in the Belcourt area, this may be a way for other people to find a solution as well. Maybe. All right, so if there's no further, do I have any questions or comments from the audience? I don't think I did that right, but we're already done. Okay, so, any further discussion? Do we have to extend the deadline? Is that a motion that we ask? We have to have, actually what I need from Mr. Taylor is a signed agreement to extend the deadline. And we'll send a waiver out to tomorrow, and have it both signed by both people. I do have you verbally committing on record to sign it. To sign the waiver? Yes. Correct, yes. I'm sorry, we've gotten a little cautious about that. No, we'll do that. So we'll have our continuance, and we'll be here for October. Okay, so the continuance date is October 15. Do I have a motion that we continue this hearing to October 15, 2025? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes, and this case is continued to October 15. See you in a month. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, thank you so much. This is a historic step. Yes, well it's a good, and thank you all for keeping with us. Appreciate it. And appropriate that we're doing historic things with historic buildings. Okay, all right, let's turn to our last case then. Let's move now to 287 South, yeah, is that right? Yes. Yes. Yeah, 287 South Limestone. Yep, it's me again. Genghis, I've met you. Okay. 287. How do you pronounce your first name? Genghis. Okay, we are going to have a presentation for the staff first. Perfect. And let them do their presentation, and then we'll hear from you, sir. I appreciate your patience. Thank you. Amelia, is this yours or Barry's? Barry's. Aha, there he is. Speaking with Darren about the previous hearing. 287 South Limestone, the scope of work is to retain the rear deck and railing, sorry, I turned my phone off, but not my watch. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to retain the rear wood deck and railing. Staff became aware that a wood deck and railing had been constructed without a COA. Staff then notified the applicant that a COA was required in order to construct the deck. The applicant then filed a COA application for the already completed work. The deck is located at the rear of 287 South Limestone, adjacent to West Maxwell Street. The deck runs along a fenced-in trash enclosure from the back of the sidewalk to connect with a previously approved outdoor seating area. The guidelines are included for your use. Although the staff does not condone work without a COA, the deck may be approved if the deck is cut back to no closer than five feet from the back of the Maxwell Street sidewalk to comply with LFUCG zoning regulations. Staff got that information from building inspection. So the recommendations, I guess I should show you some photos. So this is the deck in question. We're looking kind of northeast to where it connects with the previously approved outdoor dining area. And this is the end of the deck along Maxwell Street. You can see there's that brick wing wall that the trash is behind. And this is an overall view of the building along Maxwell. So recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the proposal under the following conditions. The deck shall be cut back to a minimum of five feet from the back of the Maxwell Street sidewalk. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Okay, I have a question. Who did you talk to at planning that said that you had to push that back up? It wasn't planning, it was building. Actually, it was planning. Well, and Jonathan also, Adams and building inspection. I'm just curious, why can't it just be where it is? Because a built element cannot be that close to the sidewalk per zoning. You can't have vertical construction out of flammable materials that close to the sidewalk without having, if you were building a building, it would have to be a raided wall. So if a fire starts there, they don't want it that close to public space and that's just my interpretation of it. Yeah, right. So when we're talking about the deck, is that only the structure with the railing around it? Yes. All right. So this gate and this wall thing, are they separate from the deck? Yes, they are. And that wall thing was approved previously? Yes. By whom? By staff. But it's within five feet. But it's a fence. It's technically a fence, not a deck. So it's like a, what, an eight or ten foot fence? No, it's not that high, I don't believe. It was approved to be six foot high as a rear yard fence. So even though there are flammable issues with the fence, it can be where it is, but the railing can't, the extension, if you will, the deck can't be, correct? As I understand it, yes. Even though it's wood and just as flammable as the deck? Is that a conversation that we can pursue further, that you can pursue further and just get a little bit better clarification? I'd hate for the man to go through the expense of losing five feet, or he's going to lose his deck, basically. Is he not? Well, if he goes to get a building permit, he would not be permitted to have that. Whether the board approves it, to keep it or not, when he goes to building inspection to get a permit, a building permit for the deck, they're going to require him to cut it back. Well, could we approve it subject to his getting approval from? I don't see why not. Let's do it that way. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. I was going to caution you against doing the overly restrictive cut back by five feet anyway because I didn't want a situation where there's a possibility other than cutting it back and then you pass the motion where it's overly restrictive where that would be his only option. So I think that it would be okay to condition it on further approval. All right. I think that gives us some maneuvering. May I ask another question? Sure, absolutely. From Barry? Barry, yes. Yes. So the Board of Adjustments, I mean the Board of Architectural Review approved, staff approved this wall as it's- Staff approved a backyard fence of six feet. Okay. So that is a plywood wall with fencing attached. A wood stud wall with the facing being plywood. Correct. Well, the face on the other side appears to be planking. So what we have here is not a six foot wooden fence. We have a six foot wall with fencing attached to it. What opportunity does this body have to review this piece of construction for its compliance with the guidelines? Do we need to? Staff is unable to issue a permit for a deck without- I'm sorry? We were not able to issue a permit for a deck and railing system without approval from the UAR. I'm raising a separate issue. I'm not talking about the deck anymore. I'm just, as a board member, why are we getting into this issue now? Well, that should be only six feet high. It's not a matter of the height. It's the construction. What exactly are you trying to get to? What I'm trying to get to is, does this board have any ability to go back and re-review the construction of the fence and whether- construction of that fence and whether or not it was- No. It's already been done. I'm sorry. I'll jump in here. The 30 days for an appeal has already passed and it's done. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, I think we hit upon a solution. Sir, come on up. If you're following the conversation and the acoustics in this room, of course, are always miserable, I think what we're going to have to do is- I think I'm hearing consensus here that we're going to approve your fence as- your deck as built, but you're going to have to get other permits for it. That's fine. Thank you so much. Okay. And those agencies may disapprove it. Okay. Who do I contact for that? You will first need to contact, as we talked about earlier, building inspection, commercial building inspection. Okay. Mr. Humphreys? Or, sir, do you have a question or comment? I have some comments. Absolutely. Come on up then. I wanted to stand up because it looked like you were moving forward. Well, I didn't- I jumped ahead of myself. I was wondering why we had so many people here. Come on in. Let's hear your comments, sir. State your name for the record, please. My name is Austin Mayer. I own the condo, a unit 305 at 275 South Limestone, which is actually the upper- in the picture shown there, it's that upper condo, and the bedroom window for that condo unit overlooks this property. And there's been- the notice came to me and not the other members of the Condo Association at Kimball House, but we've all talked in a consensus that we're opposed to more loud noises and bar decks being built right next to this residential historic zone area. It's very loud now. He's built the deck without approval, and we have heard videos for the fellow that lives below me on the second floor, below my unit, I don't live there, but it tends to, complaining about the noise of this unapproved deck. We also did a survey and found out that he's built this deck about three feet over on our property on the other side from Maxwell, and that survey has been forwarded to the Urban County Council. I don't know if staff has it in their files. Bill- Bob Wilcox sent an email. Right, and that actually I think was sent to planning as well, and we were CC'd on it. Okay, okay. And it's my understanding too, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the certificate of land use restriction previously for this property, number six of those restrictions said there would be no outdoor live entertainment or outdoor speakers, and Mr. Armetti may want to comment on it. I don't have first-hand knowledge, but it seemed like there was music being played on the deck, which again is troublesome for people trying to sleep at 11, 12, 1, 2 o'clock in the morning right next to this structure and business, which did not start out as an outdoor entertainment venue and an outdoor bar, but now it's becoming a louder, more intrusive business for the residents that live right next door. Within 15 feet, there's only 15 feet that separates our condos from that building, and I think if I look at that picture correctly, it looks like the existing deck is covered, which probably would reduce the noise of the existing deck, but this one is uncovered, which makes it a little bit louder, so that's our objection to it. All right, thank you very much. Any questions from the board members? All right, Mr. Armetti, what is this, what are you using this deck for? Is this for your personal use? Just the seating, to be honest, just for people to sit to eat. I'm getting played, you're going to slow down. Just people to eat and stuff like that, because we do serve food, too. The noise that he's talking about while they were building it, I think it was about, we just opened it two weeks ago, and I had some people, some guys working on the roof and everything, and they were playing music, like the construction employees and stuff, and then they called me right away, so I just told them to stop that. Okay, so is this your personal deck, or is this a restaurant deck? Just a commercial deck, yes. Ah. Yeah. There's some jurisdictional issues that we can't get into, but, Brack, did you have a question? This is structured with the sign on it, 28 laps, is that your property as well? Yes, yes it is. But it's, okay, thank you. Okay, a couple of observations I'll make, typically the BOAR does not get into what a construction is being used for, nor do we get into code enforcement issues. Those are issues that can be taken up by the condo association with code enforcement and with whatever noise ordinance may be violated. At this juncture, you may be headed for probably a determination that you're going to have to have a board of adjustment determination as well. So we have a standard condition, and I need to read that and make sure you fully understand it. Yes, sir. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to work. They may, and also, they have to sign off on whatever you're doing. So just because we're saying the COA is okay with us, doesn't mean that you can't change the habit. 100%. Yes, I agree. This has turned into a much more interesting case than I anticipated. The outdoor is just for seating. We do not have any music out there, so that's why. It's not about the music. It's more about just people to sit there and just enjoy the view. Because Tim Roof is right next to us. So if we're cutting five feet off your deck, that really isn't accomplishing anything other than just reducing the size of the deck. That's it, yes sir. And that's just pushing it back from the sidewalk. From the sidewalk. But the sidewalk is twice. You know how there's two sidewalks? And we did go on the survey. It's like nine inches to ten inches behind our line, too. Okay. Well, it sounds like you've got a whole bunch of other issues that we can't get into. If you're encroaching on a property line that's not yours. Well, the thing that he was talking about is the gate that's been there for 20 years. It's a gate that's been there for over 20 years, and they got a survey, and apparently it's like eight inches to 12 inches on our side. But it's like... I have to bring this up to you. I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of an attorney of adverse possession. Yeah, adverse, yeah. Just because it's always been there doesn't mean it's legal. Right. Right. Okay. You may need to be looking at an attorney on top of everything else. Okay, yeah. At this point, all I'm ready to see, do we want to move forward with approving and having this conditioned, subject to approval by the other divisions? Or do we want to go ahead and accept the staff recommendation of cutting it back five feet? I have an additional question. Go ahead. If the fire material of the deck is five feet too close to this Maxwell Street sidewalk, is that something that this board rules on, or is there another agency that determines the fire code? Yes. That would be handled by building inspection. So since he does not have a building permit for the deck, he's going to have to submit to building inspection. They would handle that. And our recommendation was just to abide by what planning and building inspection had told us that it had to be five feet back. But do we get into fire code regulation in other projects that we do? We don't, but if we try to not have the board approve projects that the other agencies within LFUCG cannot approve. We try to be concurrent with other zonings when possible. We try to have this board, in their approvals, be compliant with the building code and zoning. Then why isn't this particular situation being adjudicated first by whoever is in charge of the fire code, and then based on their decision, come back to this board with a request to do what they have approved is appropriate? I don't understand the inter... Because he cannot get a building permit without a certificate of appropriateness. That is another regulation within the historic district. So he has to have the board of architectural review issue a certificate of appropriateness prior to getting his building permit. So the only way we can approve this is to make it match the requirement. Or as Mr. Dickinson alluded to, approve it as is, but he still has to meet the other agency's regulations. You've answered my question. Are we ready to move forward with our motion? Any further discussion on this? Ms. Hill, are we ready to move forward? Do you want to take this one? Rack, do you want to do it? Chair, with regard to case number 11670287-S at 287 South Limestone, I move that we approve that we grant a certificate of appropriateness based on the two standard conditions with the additional condition that, as advised by other city codes, the deck shall be cut back to a minimum of five feet from the back side of the sidewalk border on Maxwell Street to reduce fire risk. I'm not going to second that. Ms. Hill? I think you can scratch that last part about the fire risk. Can we just delete that deck change and make it just dependent on the city agencies and if they require that cut back, then that's a zoning or building inspection requirement that they will impose on the project, if I understand correctly. Well, the two standard conditions actually covers that. That's right. So we don't even need to include that non-standard condition. Rack, I appreciate your efforts there, but I think this motion will fail for a length of a second. I can support the way this is done. Okay, Ms. Hill. Will you accept a friendly amendment just to delete that condition? So I would like to restate my motion. Yes, go ahead. That the certificate of appropriateness be approved with the standard two conditions and condition number one be deleted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. You're not out of the woods by any means. No, I got you. Thank you so much. The COA as conditioned is approved. I got you. I won't let you guys down. I got it. And I suggest that you might want to reach out to your neighbors and talk to them. I got you. I definitely will. All right, sir. Now, do we have minutes to approve or not? Yes. I did not have a chance to look at them. All right. Let's do them separately. Bracken, have you had a chance to look at them? They were handed to us. They came to us. I'll tell you what. Those minutes came to us so late. Except I think they need them for the next, there's an appeal coming up. Okay. Bracken, can you go ahead? Sure. Do you have a motion to approve? Everyone's comfortable. Yep. Go ahead. Chair, I propose that we approve the Board of Architectural Review minutes from the July 23, 2025 meeting and the August 20, 2025. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.