Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:05]

>>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

WILL EVERYONE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>>> MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL POLICE.

>> MR. BRODERICK. >> PRESENT.

>> PRESENT. PRESENT.

MR. WESTBERRY. >> PRESENT.

MR. SAMPSON. MADAM CHAIR BOARDMAN.

[4. CERTIFICATION OF ALTERNATE MEMBER VOTING STATUS/EXCUSE NON VOTING ALTERNATE]

>> DO WE NEED CERTIFICATION? MADAM CHAIR BOARD, BOTH MR. WESTBERRY AND HANSEN WILL BE ACTIVE VOTING MEMBERS TONIGHT SINCE THE OTHER TWO ARE NOT HERE.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

>>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 23 MEETING?

>> YES. >> ALL IN FAVOR.

>> AIKO. >> ANY OPPOSED?

>> THANK YOU. >> WE HEAR FROM 1960 PAPERS.

[a. Certificate of Appropriateness 19-60 - New Exterior Doors and Siding - 207 Avenue D]

-- CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATION THIS 19-60.

THIS IS THE CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATENESS.

IT IS FOR THE NEW EXTERIOR DO DOORS.

THIS IS THE BUILDING LOCATION. IT IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE SECOND STREET. ON THE 11TH BLOCK.

THEY WANT TO CHARACTERIZE THE AREA AROUND IT WITH SIDING AND SHE DID NOT KNOW THE SIDING. THIS INDICATES THAT YEAR 1901.

ONE IS ON THE EAST SIDE. THIS IS THE COLUMNS AND THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THEY ARE REQUESTING REPLACEMENT OF THE DAMAGE. TERMITE DAMAGE.

A REPLACEMENT FROM THE DOOR. WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PICTURES WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. THEY SHOW THE EXISTING DAMAGE TO THE SIDING. THEY ALSO SHOW THE SIDING IS NOT CONSISTENT. IT HAS BEEN REPLACED IN MANY PLACES AND PATCHED TOGETHER. IT LOOKS DIFFERENT IN THE FRONT SPOTS OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE. IT IS ACTUALLY TWO DOORS.

ALSO THE SCREEN DOORS. ALL OF THE PURPLE THOSE -- DOORS

ARE SET UP FOR REPLACEMENT. >> THE STANDARDS ARE FOR NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER NINE. THE COLOR WILL BE DIFFERENT.

IT WILL BE A LITTLE LIGHTER. IT WILL BE MORE LIKE A WHITE.

I WAS TRYING TO TAKE A PICTURE BUT HE DID NOT SHOW THE EXACT

COLOR OF THE SIDING. >> THIS CONFLICTS WITH THE SECRETARY AS TO THE DISTINCT FEATURES.

[00:05:04]

FROM THE HISTORIC DESIGNS. HOWEVER THIS IS TO BE DONE TO PREVENT THE DAMAGE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHY. THEY WANT TO THE EXISTING CITING ONLY PARTIALLY ORIGINAL AS MANY PARTS WERE ALREADY REPLACED.

CURRENTLY ALL SIDING IS DAMAGED AND THAT YOU THE -- AND DETERIORATED TO A POINT WHICH NECESSITATES REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING DOORS HAVE DECORATIVE ELEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE PROVIDED PICTURES WHICH SHOULD BE RETAINED, REPAIRED AND PRESERVED AS THEY DEFINED THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING. THE PLAYING CONTEMPORARY DOORS PROPOSED AS A REPLACEMENT DO NOT HAVE THE PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEXITY OF THE CHARM.

>> ANYWAY, THEY DENIED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE DOORS.

WITH THE CONDITION OF THE REPLACEMENT DOORS WILL MATCH THE EXISTING DOORS IN DESIGN AND COLOR.

AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. ENQUEUE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF. >> THE SIDING, WHAT IS THAT?

>> IT IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS RIGHT NOW.

>> THE ONE THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT, YOU SAID.

>> WE WILL HAVE YOU SWORN IN AND THEN COME UP.

>> IT IS NOT YOUR TURN. >> MADAM CHAIR.

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> I OBSERVED AND READ THROUGH YOUR ANALYSIS REGARDING THE DOORS.

IN YOUR OPINION, THE GLASS DOOR IS ORIGINAL?

>> I DO NOT THINK IT IS ORIGINAL BUT, IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO NOT NECESSARILY KEEP THEM BUT REPLACE THEM WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AS NICE AS THE GLASS AND THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS.

KEEP THE CHARACTER OF THE DOORS BASICALLY.

>> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE DUAL HANDLES, I NOTED THERE WERE TWO HANDLES ON THE DOOR.

>> NO. >> DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK?

>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TOO GO BACK TO THE DOORS?

>> THE GLASS DOOR APPEARS THERE IS A HANDLE OVER HANDLE.

MAYBE IT IS A DEAD BULL. >> OH, I SEE.

>> I NOTICED THAT THE ROOF WAS REPLACED.

>> YES THE ROOF WAS REPLACED. AND BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR EITHER MAINTAINING OR REPLACING THE DOORS WITH SOMETHING MORE HISTORICALLY FITTING, IF THE BOARD WERE TO MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, IS THIS SOMETHING THE DOOR SELECTION AND INSTALLATION OF A PARTICULAR DOOR, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE?

[00:10:01]

>> I BELIEVE SO. MAYBE WE CAN ASK IF THEY WOULD

BE WILLING. >> THANK YOU.

>>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> EVERYONE AGREES. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK, PLEASE

COME FORWARD. >> WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> BRIAN GARCIA.

900 EMERALD AVENUE. >> DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE

TRUTH? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I AM ACTUALLY WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

THE OWNER IS HERE BEHIND ME. THAT IS A HEARTY SIDING THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON THE BUILDING. THERE ARE MULTIPLE COMPOSITES OUT THERE BY DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS.

THE REASON WE WENT WITH THE SECURITY DOOR IT GAVE THEM THE SECURITY AND ALLOWED US TO GO TO THE IMPACT CODES.

THE HOMEOWNER IS HAPPY TO RESUBMIT THE DOORS IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. IT IS SOMETHING HISTORICAL TO THAT PERIOD, NOT A PROBLEM. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR US CONCERNING THE PROJECT? TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE ELECTRICAL IN THE PLUMBING HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TO CURRENT CODE.

WE DID THAT AS WELL AS THE HVAC. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN TERMITE TREATED. HE IS ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR TO GETTING THE EXTERIOR SO HE CAN FINISH THE INTERIOR AND MOVE INTO THE HOUSE. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT.

THANK YOU. >> HAVE A QUESTION.

THE SIDING, YOU WILL REMOVE IT. >> WE WILL REMOVE THE CURRENT SIDING AND PUT OF FIVE EIGHTHS OF BAR IN PLACE WITH A TIEBACK ENERGY CEILING. THEN PUT THE HEARTY SIDING ON TOP OF THAT. WITH A SHERMAN WILLIAMS EXTERIOR PAINT. SHE WAS CORRECT IT IS MORE OF A SAND COLOR THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PICTURE.

WE WENT WITH SOMETHING MORE BEACHY.

THAT IS WHAT THE HOMEOWNER LIKED FOR THAT AREA.

>> THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL ON THE FRONT PORCH WILL BE THE

SAME. >> YES THEY WILL REPLACE IT WITH HEARTY SIDING. WE DO WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT WAS TYPICAL FOR THAT TIME LIKE THE REAL SYSTEM.

WE WILL KEEP THE PAPER COLUMNS BUT RIGHT NOW IF SOMEONE NAILED T1 11 OVER TOP OF THE OLD RAILS. HE WOULD LIKE THE OPEN PORCH BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS DONE FOR THAT ERA INSTEAD OF HAVING THE ROTTED WOOD ON THE FRONT. BUT YES, WE WILL STAY WITH THE TAPERED COLUMNS AND THE HANDRAILS OF THAT ERA.

>> I'M GOING TO SAY I DIDN'T HAVE THESE.

>> THERE'S A LOT OF COMPONENTS TO THE HOUSE THAT WE RAN INTO THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE. IT HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING

EXPERIENCE. >> MANAGER.

>> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO REPLACE THE DOORS WITH THEY HAVE

HIGH SINGLE IN SHORT TEXT. >> YES I CURRENT -- GUESSER.

HE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO A FULL FRENCH ON THE FRONT.

AND USING HAVE HIGHS IN THE BACK.

WE WERE GOING TO RESUBMIT THAT. HE MAY GO WITH HALF HIGHS

EVERYWHERE. >> HAVE HIGHS WOULD PROBABLY BE LESS EXPENSIVE AND YOU CAN GET THEM AN IMPACT.

>> WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MATCH THE DOOR THAT WAS THERE.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE FOR POINTING OUT IT WAS HISTORIC TO

THAT ERA. >> GETTING CLOSE.

>>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CRACKS IF NOT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SITTING ON THE BOARD ONE IS CHAIRMAN BORDEN.

SHE WAS ALLOWED TO PUT HEARTY BOARD ON HER HOUSE PROBABLY TEN YEARS AGO. IT PRESERVED THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE FROM AFAR.

IT PRESERVES THE LOOK. IT IS A MUCH MORE SENSIBLE WAY TO GO. I WAS FORCED TO USE A SIMILAR SIGHTING AS THIS HOUSE HAS ON THE BUILDING I DID AT 409 NORTH SECOND STREET. FIVE YEARS LATER HAD TO REPLACE 30 SQUARE FEET OF SIDING BECAUSE IT ALREADY ROTTED AND I USED HIGH-GRADE CYPRUS. SO IF WE WANT TO PRESERVE OUR BUILDINGS WE REALLY NEED TO GO TO THE HEARTY BOARD OR THE

CEMENT BOARD TYPE COMPOSITE. >>> YOU BRING UP THIS POINT THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH MOSTLY RELATED TO WINDOW INSTALLATIONS. THIS TAKES IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND PROTECTING THE ENTIRE OVAL. I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT.

[00:15:04]

THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT PROVISION OF THE MODIFICATIONS OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF AND KEEPING IT IN THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF BEING A TEAR DOWN. I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT OF

THE BUILDING. >>> IN THAT FASHION I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I HAVE BUILT A LOT OF BUILDINGS WITH THOSE SIGHTINGS AND THEY DO ROT. IT IS HARD TO GET THE EXACT SIZE AND SHAPE. IT IS ALSO VERY EXPENSIVE.

I JUST WISH HARDY HAD THE SAME STYLE BUT THEY DON'T.

IT IS MORE STABLE MATERIAL. >>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> UNDER COA 19 -- 60, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AND A MOTION THAT AFFECT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HEARTY BLANK SIDING AND GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE A SINGLE FULL FRENCH DOOR OR A HAVE FIVE FRENCH DOOR FOR THE DOORS.

>> I SECOND THAT. >> MAY HAVE LOCAL POLICE.

>> YES. >> THANK YOU AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> ONE QUESTION, ONE CLARIFICATION.

DO THE PROPOSED DOORS NEED TO BE SUBMITTED TO MARIA FOR FINAL

SIGNOFF? >> YES.

>> SO THAT IS UNDERSTOOD. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT

CLARIFICATION. >>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF

[b. Certificate of Appropriateness 19-61 - Sky Lights and Wheelchair Lifts - 239 S. Indian River Drive]

REPORT FOR CERTIFICATE OF 19 -- 61.

>> SO WE HAVE A BUSTED HOUSE. WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION.

THIS APPLICATION IS FOR SKYLIGHTS AND HANDICAP LIST TO MAKE THIS ASSESSABLE FOR WHEELCHAIRS.

THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING.

EVERYONE KNOWS THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW.

I THINK, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE BACKGROUND AND THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BUILDING. I JUST WANTED TO GO TO THE APPLICATION. SOMEONE RECENTLY LIVED IN THE BUILDING. THE FIRST ONE WAS IN DECEMBER 2018. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

IT WAS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDOWS AND RIGHT NOW ALL OF THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED. THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. AND IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE COURTYARD IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEN, WINDOW REPLACEMENT WITH CONDITIONS AND DENIED FOR THE PURPLE ADDITIONS.

ON THE IN THE APPLICANT DECIDED NOT TO CHANGE THE WINDOW.

BUT APPLIED AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER. IT WAS ALSO DENIED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. SO RIGHT NOW THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THE EDITION OF TWO SKYLIGHTS GOT WILTSHIRE LIVES ON THE PORCH IN THE AREA NEAR THE COURTYARD.

>> THOSE ARE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED.

IT SHOWS RIGHT HERE. THOSE ARE THE PROPOSED WHEELCHAIR LIFTS. THE ONE ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, IS GOING TO BE ONE STORY.

IT WILL SERVE THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE ONE ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, IT WILL BE TWO STORIES AND WILL SERVE THE SECOND FLOOR.

ANDY HAD AN EXISTING PROPOSED ELEVATION SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL HAVE ON THE VISUAL OF THE BUILDING. AND HERE IS THE SKYLIGHTS AND

[00:20:03]

THE PURPLE FRONT LIFT. AND ON THE EXISTENT -- EXISTING RAIL YOU CAN SEE IT IS TWO-STORY.

THOSE ARE THE SIDE ELEVATIONS WHICH ARE EXISTING.

>> THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS RIGHT THERE ON THE LIFTS AND OUT THEY WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING.

WHICH SIDE OF THE STAIRS AND OUT THEY WILL OPERATE WITH THE REST

OF THE BUILDING. >> THIS IS THE EXAMPLE AND THE DETAILS OF THE TWO-STORY AND THE ONE-STORY LIFT.

THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE INVOLVED IN NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER NINE. AND THIS WILL IMPROVE THE CIRCULATION, IT WILL BE HANDICAP ASSESSABLE IN THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY. AS TO THE CURRENT ROOFING.

THEY CAN ADD INAPPROPRIATE FEATURES SUCH AS SKYLIGHTS GOT AIR CONDITIONERS SOLAR COLLECTORS WHICH ARE DISMAL FROM THE PUBLIC. CHANGING THE FEATURES SUCH AS DORMER WINDOWS, VENTS SKYLIGHTS OR A PENTHOUSE.

HOWEVER IF THE ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW USED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS RECOMMEND DESIGNING ROOFTOP ADDITIONS INCLUDING SKYLIGHTS, SO THAT THEY ARE INCONSPICUOUS AND MINIMALLY VISIBLE ON THE SITE AND FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DO NOT DAMAGE OR OBSCURE CHARACTER DEFINING HISTORIC FEATURES.

>> THIS IS A VISIBLE COMPONENT. IT IS A BIG PART OF THE BUILDING AND THE DESIGN. AND IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THE WAY IT HAS BEEN. IN ADDITION, THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE VISIBILITY CODE AND MUST COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS.

HOWEVER, WE MAY MAKE THIS ASSESSABLE WHILE PRESERVING THE DESIGN. IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING'S OVERALL DESIGN IN A PRIMARY FEATURE DEFINING ITS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THE COURSE OF REHABILITATING BUILDING. IN ADDITION HISTORIC PROPERTIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE AMERICANS WHICH WITH HAVE DISABILITIES ACT AND MUST COMPLY WITH THIS REGULARIZATION'S.

HOWEVER AS WITH OTHER ALTERNATIONS GOT HISTORIC PROPERTIES CAN GENERALLY BE MADE ASSESSABLE WHILE PRESERVING THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER THROUGH DESIGN.

ALL OPTIONS FOR SENSIBILITY SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH A SENSIBILITY SHOULD BE IS ACHIEVED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT CHARACTER DEFINING SPACES AND FEATURES ARE PRESERVED OR IMPACTED AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN SAFE ACCESS AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS TO BE FOUND. THIS SHOWS THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN BUILD AS IT IS NOW. THE PURPOSE OF RENOVATION ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE SECOND FLOOR PLAN IS LIKE THIS. MAYBE I SHOULD MENTION THAT THERE IS A BASEMENT WHICH WILL BE USED AS A BATHROOM.

IT WAS AN EXISTING BATHROOM. THE FIRST FLOOR WILL BE USED AND ASSESSABLE. IT WILL HAVE HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY. THE KITCHEN, WILL BE USED AS A

[00:25:06]

SMALL CAFé OR BISTRO. ALSO IT WILL BE EXTENDED TO OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO THE COURTYARD.

THE COURTYARD WILL BE USED AS PART OF IT.

THE SECOND FLOOR WILL BE USED AS AN OFFICE.

IT WILL ALSO HAVE A LIFT AND GIVE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING AND THE SECOND FLOOR WILL ALSO HAVE AND ASSESSABLE BATHROOM.

THE THIRD FLOOR WILL BE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE.

>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS.

THE SECOND DENIAL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION THE FLOOR PLAN SHOULD SHOW THE INSTALLATION OF MORE SKYLIGHTS.

IN THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE DESIGN OF THE SKYLINE INCLUDING WHERE WE'RE IT WILL BE VISIBLE.

APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PAVER WALKWAY AS PROPOSED.

NUMBER TWO DENIAL OF THE SKYLIGHTS ADDITIONAL APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SKYLIGHTS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE ADEQUATE FUNCTIONING OF THE THIRD FLOOR. THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT DETAILED DESIGN OF THE SKYLINE INCLUDING MATERIALS TO DEMONSTRATE THE SKYLIGHT WILL BE MINIMALLY VISIBLE.

THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOWING THE INSTALLATION OF THE TWO-STORY WILTSHIRE LIFT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SECOND FLOOR.

THE ONE-STORY LIFT IF HANDICAP ACCESS TO THE SECOND FLOOR IS NOT MET IT SHOULD BE. THEREFORE RIGHT NOW, THE FIRST FLOOR LIFT IN THE ONE-STORY SHOULD BE APPROVED AS WELL AS THE SECOND STORY SINCE IT WILL BE USABLE SPACE FOR THE OFFICE.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE WHEELCHAIR ACCESS AS WELL.

I DISCUSSED ALSO THIS SITUATION WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SENSIBILITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE THIRD FLOOR BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE FIRST FLOOR WILL BE USABLE BEFORE WE LEFT THE APPLICANT WITH THE WHOLE THING AND WITH THE SKYLIGHTS.

AFTER THIS DISCUSSION IT SEEMS LIKE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE WAIVER LOOKING AT THE REGULATIONS.

THEY HAVE PREPARED FOR THE WAIVER.

SINCE THEY ARE PROVIDING SIMILAR USES, THEN THEY WILL BE ABLE, ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, TO RECEIVE THE WAIVER. SO, RIGHT NOW WE THINK THAT THE LIFTS ARE NEEDED. AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THE BUILDING. THE TWO STORIES LIFT WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE BACK. IT WILL BE SCREENED BY THE BUILDING. THE FIRST LIFT IS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS AND IT IS REQUIRED. I DON'T THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN SAY, TO MAKE THEM SCREEN IT. AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN AVOID ACTUALLY INSTALLATION OF THE LIFT ON THE FIRST FLOOR. ADDITIONALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE SECRETARY, NUMBER TEN THEY SAY OKAY IF YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, DO IT SO IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE BUILDING THEY CAN REMOVE THE LIFTS AND THE BUILDING WILL STAY IMPACT. -- INTACT.

>> WHEN IT COMES TO THE SKYLIGHTS, WE DID DECIDE TO USE

[00:30:04]

IT. I BELIEVE I FOUND OUT THAT THE SPACE ON THE THIRD FLOOR IS LARGER THAN I THOUGHT.

IT IS ACTUALLY A REALLY NICE SPACE.

I BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAVE THEM AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DENY THE USE OF THE SPACE. THE LIGHT WILL BE LIMITED BECAUSE IT WILL BE IN THE SMALL WINDOW IN THE BACK.

AFTER A DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE THE SKYLIGHT WHICH WILL BE HARDLY VISIBLE.

IT WILL ONLY BE 3-4 INCHES FROM THE ROOF.

I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DESIGN BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT SKYLIGHTS AND SOME ARE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROOF AND WILL BE LESS VISIBLE THAN THE OTHERS.

I BELIEVE, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO USE THE SECOND FLOOR AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

BUT IT IS OBVIOUSLY UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE.

THE OWNER IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF? >> MADAM CHAIR.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS ONLY REQUIRING THE LIFT TO THE FIRST FLOOR?

>> TO THE 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR. >> THEY ARE REQUIRING BOTH OF

THEM CRACKED. >> YES.

THEY SAID EVERYTHING COULD BE WAIVED ON THE THIRD FLOOR IF IT WILL BE USED IN THE EXACT SAME WAY.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MAKING IT A MEETING ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND SOME SPACE ON THE THIRD FLOOR AS AN OFFICE BUT PROVIDE THE SAME USE AND OFFICE USE ON THE 2ND AND THE THIRD FLOOR, SO THEY CAN GET A WAIVER FROM THEM.

FROM THE STATE. BUT NOT FOR THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND-FLOOR. THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN

USES. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> IN THAT SAME VEIN, IS THERE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PACKAGE OF RENOVATIONS THEY ARE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH. IS THAT CONTINGENT ON THEM RECEIVING A WAIVER FROM THE STATE SO IT HAS TO COME IN FIRST BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED?

>> I THINK THEY WOULD LIKE TO USE THE THIRD FLOOR.

I THINK FOR THE LIFT THEY WILL NEED TO USE IT.

BUT IF THEY NEED THE THIRD FLOOR THEY WILL NEED A WAIVER.

>> I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT WOULD TIE UP A LOT OF TIME AND I KNOW THEY ARE TRYING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

MAYBE HE WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU. >>

>> I UNDERSTAND AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT 488 DISABILITY, THE REASON WHY THE THIRD FLOOR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED AND NOT NEED A WAIVER IS THE BUILDING OWNERS ARE GIVING THE SAME USES TO THE SECOND FLOOR. SO YOU ARE NOT ELIMINATING THE ABILITY FOR A HANDICAPPED PERSON TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT THIRD FLOOR. WHERE AS THE FIRST FLOOR HAS A DIFFERENT USE SO IT HAS TO BE ASSESSABLE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I'M JUST CURIOUS, ON THE THIRD FLOOR, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ADA, DON'T YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO ADDRESSES FOR FIRE?

>> THAT I AM NOT SURE. I GUESS THEY MAY FIND OUT WHEN THEY GET THAT FAR. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL

REQUIREMENTS. >> THE ELEVATOR IN THE STAIRS.

>> THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOORS FROM THE STAIRS.

THERE IS NO OUTSIDE. >> THANK YOU.

>>> I GUESS WHILE WE'RE IN THIS PORTION I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE WHO IS INVOLVED WITH PUTTING THE SITE TODAY. I FOUND THAT TO BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO GATHER INFORMATION AS FAR AS THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY ARE FACING WITH THE DESIGN AND THE REPURCHASING OF THE BUILDING AND IT ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GETTING THERE AND GETTING THE INFORMATION DIRECTLY ON SITE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

I WOULD SUGGEST WE WOULD WANT TO DO MORE OF THAT IN THE FUTURE.

[00:35:04]

SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.

I KNOW I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE TODAY.

IT WAS A GOOD EXPERIENCE. >>> MADAM CHAIR.

CAN I ADD TO THAT. I DIDN'T GET TO THE MEETING THIS MORNING BECAUSE IT IS A MONDAY MORNING AND THERE WERE 4,000 PEOPLE TRYING TO GET INTO THE COURTHOUSE.

I WANT TO ASK THAT YOU DO THIS BUSINESS ON A DIFFERENT DAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF?

>> MADAM TRAVEL QUESTION. THESE LIFTS, THEY ARE OPERATING, CORRECT. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A THIRD PARTY TO SEND PEOPLE UP AND DOWN, CORRECT?

>> I THINK SO. >> REFER TO THE SLIDE.

>> YES. THEY ARE USUALLY OPERATED BY THE ACTUAL PERSON USING IT. INAUDIBLE.

-- INAUDIBLE. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF CRACKS SEEING NONE I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS?

>> HELLO. >> MR. BERNARD DO YOU SWEAR TO

TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH? >> YES.

LET'S SEE. VERTICAL LIFT ASSESSABLE TO THE THIRD FLOOR BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME USE SCOTT MY STAFF SAID TECHNICALLY WE DON'T OFFICIALLY HAVE TO GET A WAIVER BECAUSE WITH THE OFFICE SUITE WE HAVE A COPPER -- COMMENT CONFERENCE ROOM. THE ON ACCESSIBLE FLOOR IS PRIVATE OFFICES SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A WAIVER.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGING USE FROM FIRST FLOOR TO SECOND-FLOOR

WE HAVE TO HAVE VERTICAL AXIS. >> NEXT QUESTION.

THIS IS BASED ON OCCUPANT LOAD AND TRAVEL DIFFERENCE BASED ON OCCUPANCY. THIS WILL BE DETERMINED AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ACTUAL PLANS.

AND WE HAVE A SECONDARY MEANS OF MEANS TO THE SECOND FLOOR SO WE CAN USE THE THIRD FLOOR TO THE SECOND FLOOR.

SKYLIGHTS, THE PRODUCT APPROVAL INFORMATION I PRINTED OUT.

I DID A BUNCH OF RESEARCH ON SKYLIGHTS.

EVERY SINGLE SKYLIGHT OUT THERE THAT IS IMPACT RESISTANT TO MEET HURRICANE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION THEY ARE ALL MOUNTED ON THIS WOULD CURB AND THEY HAND -- HANG OVER TOP.

A FLAT ONE WILL STICK 4 INCHES UP.

THE MAJORITY HAVE SOME SORT OF DOME TO THEM.

WITH A RANGE OF 4 INCHES TO 8 INCHES.

THE ONE WE PROJECT WE PICKED OUT AND SPECIFIED, FINISHED FROM THE ROOF DECK TO THE TOP OF THE DOME WOULD BE EIGHT AND HALF INCHES.

>> AND THE LIFTS ARE OPERATOR USER.

ONE PERSON CAN DO IT THEMSELVES. VERY SIMILAR TO THE LIFT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR MURPHY'S PROPERTY ON U.S. 11.

ALSO THE TWO STORIES LIVED IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WAS

APPROVED AT THE SCHOOL. >>> MADAM CHAIR.

AT THE SITE VISIT WE WERE LOOKING AT THE OUTSIDE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE WALKWAY AND THE PATIO THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. DRAMA GENERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT LANDSCAPE SCREENING FOR THE AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS AND THAT WILL BE A PORTION OF THE LIFT. WE MENTIONED THIS EVENING EXTENDING THE BARRIER DOWN THROUGH THE AREA TO THE FIRST FLOOR CONFIGURATION WILL BE SET UP FOR ADA CAPABILITIES.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT OR IS THAT PRACTICAL TO DO

CORRECT. >> ARE YOU TALKING ON THE FAR

EAST SIDE OF THE COURTYARD? >> IT WOULD BE THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THE ADA POINT IS. A STAIRWELLS GOING IN THERE.

>> ON THE FRONT ENTRY CRACKS. >> YES AND THE ADA LIFT IS RIGHT BEHIND THAT. I'M NOT SURE IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTEND THE LANDSCAPING FROM THE AIR-CONDITIONING AREA.

>> WE COULD DO SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE ALONG THE BUILDING.

FOR YOUR SENSIBILITY IT WON'T SHE YIELD ANYTHING BUT THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THE STAIRS AND THE RAILINGS WILL SHIELD THE LIFT MORE THAN ANYTHING.

[00:40:01]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT CORRECTS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK

AGAINST THE CHANGES? >> WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER

DISCUSSION. >> MANAGER I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. AGAIN I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY ENLIGHTENING TO TAKE A SIDE VISIT.

IT REALLY EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THE THIRD FLOOR IS A VERY SPACIOUS ROOM. IT IS VERY DARK BECAUSE IT IS SERVED BY TWO SMALL WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AND THE BACK.

I BELIEVE IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO APPROVE THE SKYLIGHTS JUST FOR AMBIENT LIGHTING IN THERE BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A LARGE SPACE WITH NO OTHER NATURAL LIGHT COMING IN.

IT IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> I AGREE WITH CHARLIE'S ASSESSMENT AND WOULD POINT OUT ONCE THEY START PETITIONING THAT SPACE IT WILL DARKEN REALLY QUICKLY. THE SPACE IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL.

IT IS A REAL PURPOSE AND OF THAT AREA OF THE BUILDING WITH IMPROVEMENTS. I THINK IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO UTILIZE THE SPACE WITHOUT NATURAL LIGHT.

I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS TO GET TO THIS POINT WITH THE OTHER SUGGESTIONS BUT I THINK THE FINAL IDEAS ARE WORKABLE AND THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHT THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO KEEPING THE ADA REQUIREMENTS OUT OF THE VISUAL SIGHTLINES WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR ACROSS THE AREA.

THE SKYLIGHTS ARE JUST A NECESSITY FOR THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE CORE SPACE. IT WOULD BE SHAMED -- LIKE IT WOULD BE A SHAME IF IT WAS WASTED.

I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I WOULD SUGGEST THE SKYLIGHTS THEMSELVES, HE INDICATED THEY PUT RESEARCH INTO THIS, I WOULD

LIKE TO SEE THAT INFORMATION. >>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MADAM CHAIR, IN CONSIDERING IT I HAVE SEEN THE FLAT TYPES AND THEY USUALLY HAVE CLEAR GLASS, I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN A BUBBLE THAT ISN'T FROSTED. KNOW.

BUT TO USE THE LINEUP THERE IS SHOULD BE CLEAR.

I KNOW FROM THE OUTSIDE, I THINK A CLEAR OPTION SHOULD BE THE

WEIGHT TO GO IF IT IS POSSIBLE. >>> MANAGER I ALSO THINK THAT THE BUBBLE TYPE, YOU WON'T BE HAPPY WITH IT.

THE FLAT ONES ARE GREAT. I THINK EVERYONE APPROVES THE FLAT ONE BECAUSE YOU CAN HARDLY SEE THEM FROM THE ROOF.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> A LOT OF OLD BUILDINGS IN NEW ENGLAND HAD ROOF ACCESS AND FLAT GLASS AND THEY DID HAVE A

LADDER. >> I THOUGHT YOU MADE THAT UP.

>> NO, I BUILT A FEW OF THEM OVER THE YEARS.

>> IS THAT A QUESTION THAT MR. MINARD WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF A FLAT?

>> YOU CAN PUT IT IN THE NOTES SO THEY WOULD HAVE THAT

AVAILABLE TO PROVE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUES QUESTIONS. ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> SURE. MADAM CHAIR.

I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE COA 1L CHILLERS AT 239 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. SKYLIGHTS TO BE A -- OF A FLAT NATURE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

>> I SECOND PERIOD. >> I HAVE A MOTION FOR A SECOND PERIOD WHAT I HAVE -- MAY HAVE ROLL CALL POLICE.

>> ROLL CALL. >> ALL YES.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THE PROJECT. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

[c. Certificate of Appropriateness 19-62 - New Garage, Front Porch, Fence and Remodeling - 410 N. 2nd Street. Variance from City Code Section 22-28.1(d)(2), Section 22-28.1(e)(3) and Section 22-28.1(e)(4)a.5.]

I HAVE STAFF REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

19 -- 62. >> THIS IS THE RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO 410 NORTH SECOND STREET.

THE FIRST SLIDE SHOWS THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS A LITTLE BUILDING WHICH WAS ABANDONED FOR A LONG TIME.

[00:45:07]

MAYBE NOT ABANDONED BUT NOT USED.

IT WAS THE SUBJECT AT SOME POINT IN THE DISCUSSION, OF THE BOARD.

BECAUSE IT WASN'T MAINTAINED PROPERLY.

SO THE HOUSE WAS BOUGHT AND THE APPLICANT IS READY TO START THE

RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING. >> THAT IS THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING. IT IS LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM RIGHT HERE. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE IT IS. IT IS VISIBLE IN THIS PHOTO.

THE HOUSES LOCATED ON THE BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY AND THE WHOLE FRONT YARD IS EMPTY. THIS INDICATES THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT AS A PRIVATE RESIDENCE IN 1921.

THE PITCHER SHOWS IT WAS BUILT IN 1924.

THE FIRST BUILDING IS A ONE-STORY HOME.

IT HAS FEATURES INCLUDING SIDING AND EXTERIOR WALLS AND WINDOWS.

THIS BUILDING HAS RETAINED SOME OF ITS ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURE.

THE BOTTOM PITCHER SHOWS THE VIEW OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE NORTH SECOND STREET. YOU CAN SEE BASICALLY THE STRUCTURE SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS EMPTY BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS MOVED TO THE BACK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A NEW GARAGE, FRONT PORCH AND A THREE-FOOT HIGH FENCE AND THE REQUEST CERTAIN VARIANCES.

THEY WILL BE FROM SECTION 22, 28 AND 22.

THIS REQUIRES THE SIDE YARD TO BE 5 FEET OR THE DEPTH OF THE YARD. THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO SECTION 22 AND SECTION 22-28485 WHICH ALLOWS THE GARAGE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. THE PROPOSED REMODEL INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDOWS, DOORS SIDING AND ROOF, BATHROOM ADDITION AND CONVERTING EXISTING BATHROOM INTO A SCREENED PORCH.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE.

ON THE SIDE ARE THE COLORS WHICH ARE PICKED FOR THEM.

THOSE ARE NEW COLORS FOR THE HOUSE.

THIS IS AN EXISTING SITE PLAN. IT SHOWS THE PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IT IS RIGHT HERE.

>> THAT IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE NEW HOUSE.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED GARAGE. THIS IS THE SPACE AROUND THE HOUSE. INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL BATHROOM. THOSE ARE THE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS AND THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS.

YOU CAN SEE THE BACK PORCH WILL BE REPLACED.

THE NEW BATHROOM WILL BE CHANGED TO A BATHROOM AND THE SECOND BATHROOM WILL BE ADDED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

[00:50:01]

AND THE PORCH WILL GO AROUND THE HOUSE WELL AROUND MOST OF THE HOUSE. WE CAN SEE AND COMPARE WHAT IS EXISTING AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. THAT IS THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSE THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW AND THAT IS THE EXISTING ELEVATION.

IT SHOWS TWO SIDE PORCHES. AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM IT IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATION. WE CAN SEE THE SIDE PORCHES AND THE CHANGE OF THE ROOF. THAT IS THE EXISTING ELEVATION IN THE PROPOSED ELEVATION. THE BIG CHANGES WILL BE THE MIDDLE PART. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE ROOF LINE HAS CHANGE. THIS IS THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF THE HOUSE. THE RIGHT SIDE AND LEFT SIDE AND ON THE BOTTOM. THEY'RE ALL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE ELEVATIONS.

INCLUDING THE ROOF. >> THIS IS THE PROPOSED GARAGE.

THE ELEVATIONS AND THAT IS THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE.

YOU CAN SEE IT WILL BE RIGHT HERE.

>> IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. AND LOCATED IN THE AREA THAT IS BEEN VACANT FOR A FEW YEARS AND SUBJECT TO COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS. THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN DETERIORATING AND THEY WILL REBUILD THE PROPERTY.

AND THEY WILL NEED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

THE TWO PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF THE VARIANCES AND COA APPLICATIONS THOSE BEING, PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY FRONT YARD, DESIGNED TO ARCHITECTURALLY BLEND WITH THE RAIN RESIDENTS AND BE IN SIMILAR SENT BACK TO THE STRUCTURES LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THE SECOND WILL BE PROPOSED SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE MAIN BUILDING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING BEDROOM TO A HOUSE A NEW BATHROOM, AND CLOSURE OF THE NORTHSIDE PORTICO TO HOUSE A SECOND NEW BATHROOM, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BATHROOM STRUCTURE ON THE REAR SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF THE SCREEN PORCH AND PATIO DOORS. INSTALLATION OF THE PORCH SPANNING THE ENTIRE FRONT FAçADE OF THE BUILDING, MODIFICATION TO THE ROOF TO COVER THE NEW BATHROOM AND PORCH STRUCTURES, REPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION OF WINDOWS AND ENTRY DOORS.

>> THERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VARIANCES.

THEY WERE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.

THE FIRST ONE MENTIONED THE STANDARDS WHICH REQUIRE THE STRUCTURE TO BE 5 FEET. THE SECOND IS THE GARAGE TO BE LOCATED IN A CERTAIN SPOT. THE PITCHER SHOWS WITH THE ONE.

WE DO HAVE CRITERIA WHICH THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO RESPOND TO.

IT IS ABOUT THE VARIANCES. THE INTERESTED AND RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONS. IT IS TWO THINGS THEY HAVE TO CONSIDER. NUMBER ONE DESCRIBE CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND NOT APPLICABLE TO EITHER LAND COST STRUCTURE OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. ALL OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE CAN

[00:55:09]

INTERFERE WITH THE EXISTING SETTING.

IT HAS TO BLEND WITH THE MAIN RESIDENCE.

IT IS THE OPINION THAT THE GARAGE REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM CODE SECTION 22-28. WHICH ALLOWS CURRENT DETACHED GARAGE IS TO ONLY BE LOCATED WITHIN REAR YARDS.

WHEREAS THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ONLY AVAILABLE SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD.

THE VARIANCE ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED GARAGE DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT CODE THE STRUCTURE IS NOT INTRUSIVE OR DRAMATICALLY INTERFERING WITH THE EXISTING SETTING.

THIS TALKS ABOUT THE SETBACKS. THE GARAGE WAS ALSO PLACED BACK AND I DON'T THINK THIS VARIANCE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT IS A MINIMAL THING. THE GARAGE IS NOT ATTACHED FROM THE HOUSE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH THE HOUSE. I THINK THE VARIANCE OF THE LOCATION IS JUSTIFIED HOWEVER THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK VARIANCE IS NOT REALLY JUSTIFIED IN THIS SITUATION.

>>> THE NUMBER TO PROPOSE PORCH ON THE MAIN BUILDING.

THE PROPOSED FRONT PORCH REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM CODE SECTION 22-281D2. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS WHICH REQUIRES MINIMAL DEBT OF THE SIDE YARD TO BE 5 FEET WHEREAS THE PROPOSED DEBT SHOULD BE 9 FEET.

THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE HOUSE AND THAT REQUESTED VARIANCE IN THIS CASE IS JUSTIFIED.

>>> THE SECOND ONE IS NUMBER TWO, SIX AND NINE.

ON THE BOTTOM, IT IS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY.

LET'S FOLLOW NUMBER ONE. THE PROPOSED GARAGE.

ON THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY. DOES THE GARAGE BLEND WITH THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND IS THE STRUCTURE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH. IT IS THE MODIFICATION BRINGING IMPROVEMENT TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

SOMETIMES THIS IS NEEDED TO ASSURE CONTINUITY.

THE PROPOSED RENOVATION OF THE RESIDENCE IS FUNCTIONAL.

HOWEVER THIS IS IS A BIG CHANGE. NOT ALL PROPOSED CHANGES ARE KEY TO THE APPLICANT'S USE OF THE BUILDING.

THE EDITION OF THE BUILDING IS NOT NECESSARILY BUT CHANGING THE FRONT PORCH AND ROOF IS NOT. IF THE FUNCTIONAL CHANGES ARE ESSENTIAL AND CANNOT BE AVOIDED THEY SHOULD BE DESIGNED SO THEY ARE NOT INTRUSIVE AND DO NOT DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL HISTORIC STYLE. AND THEY DO NOT COMPETE WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING AND SURROUNDING

ENVIRONMENT. >>> IN ADDITION, THE STANDARDS DO NOT RECOMMEND CHANGING THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

THEY RECOMMEND RETAINING A HISTORIC INTEREST EVEN THOUGH IT WILL NOT BE USED BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE BUILDING FUNCTION.

THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE ROOF SHAPE. THEY DO NOT RECOMMEND REMOVING THE ROOF AND REPLACING IT THAT DO NOT MEASURE THAT.

[01:00:03]

HOWEVER THINGS LIKE THE WINDOWS AND ROOF MAY HAVE DAMAGE AND MAY DETERIORATE SO IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REPLACE THEM.

IN THIS CASE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE HISTORIC FEATURES SO THE NEW FEATURE MATCHES THE EXISTING DESIGN.

THAT IS A VIEW OF SECOND STREET. >>> ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED FENCE. IT IS THREE-FOOT TALL.

IT IS A PICKET FENCE. THE RECOMMEND NATION IS AS FOLLOWS, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION OF THE NEW GARAGE AND THE THREE-FOOT HIGH PICKET FENCE.

NUMBER TWO GOD DENIAL FOR THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR REMODELING THAT INCLUDES POOR TRADITION, REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDOWS, DOORS, SIDING AND ROOF AND BATHROOM ADDITION AND CONVERTING EXISTING BATHROOM INTO A SCREENED PORCH.

POSTPONING THE APPLICATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO NEW DESIGN WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STANDARDS.

>> DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I HAVE SEEN THE HOUSE BEFORE. I HAVE SEEN IT FROM A FEW OWNERS. I NOTE THAT THE ADDITION TO THE NORTH ON THE HOUSE, THAT THEY WANT TO REMOVE AND MAKE IT MATCH. THAT WAS PUT ON AFTER THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. IT IS LIKE A SPONGE WITH TERMITES. THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF THE FRAME. THAT PART OF THE HOUSE FROM THE CENTER OF THE HOUSE, IF THEY FOLLOW THE FOOTPRINT, I THINK COMING UP AND MATCHING THE ROOF INSTEAD OF PUTTING A SHED DOOR ON IT, MATCHING THE ORIGINAL STYLE WOULD ENHANCE THE ORIGINAL I KNOW THAT THE FRONT PORCH ITSELF, IS NOT SOMETHING ORIGINAL 2,000. I KNOW A LOT OF HOUSES THERE HAVE FRONT PORCHES. TO ME I THINK IT WOULD BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS IS MUCH AS THE STANDARDS. THOUSANDS OF SMALL THAT ADDS OUTSIDE USE IN SPACE FOR OUTSIDE LIVING SPACE.

I THINK THE GARAGE IS FINE. I LIKE THE PROJECT MYSELF.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD ALSO SAY I DID MAKE DISTRICT MEET THE COUPLE. THEY ARE EXCITED TO BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR TO BEING A VIBRANT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DO KNOW THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET WAS ABLE TO ADD A FRONT PORCH THAT WAS NOT ORIGINAL. I KNOW MY HUSBAND AND I ALSO ADDED A SIDE PORCH. I WANT THAT TO BE ON RECORD THAT I AM AWARE OF TWO INSTANCES WHERE PORCHES HAVE BEEN ADDED

THAT WERE NOT THERE ORIGINALLY. >> YOURS AS WELL.

>> MANAGER. >> THIS IS IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, CORRECT? SOME OF THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE DO NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE IS A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS AND USES THAT CAN BE DONE IN EDGARTOWN. I WAS PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT DRAFTED IT. IF WE CROSSED OUT THE GARAGE AND MADE IT AND A SENSE REBUILDING, IT WOULD COMPLY UNDER THEIR

UNDERLAY. >> THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

BECAUSE EXTRA BUILDINGS ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THE FRONT YARD.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A RESTRICTION IN THE OVERLAY.

HOW COULD YOU HAVE IT IN THE BACK WHEN THE BUILDING SITS ON

THE REAR PROPERTY LINE? >> WELL THAT IS WHY THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR A VARIANCE. WE PROPOSE THE BOARD APPROVE IT BUT THE GARAGE IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE FRONT YARD IN THE DISTRICT.

>> I WILL DOUBLE CHECK BUT I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

>> I WAS JUST WONDERING, I NOTICED THAT THE BACK AREA, THAT IS A BATHROOM, I WOULD FIND THAT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT WAS AN ORIGINAL BATHROOM IT WAS PROBABLY A PORCH AT ONE TIME.

IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU ARE NOT RECOMMENDING IT GOES BACK TO

A PORCH? >> ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE ALL OF

[01:05:05]

THE ADDITIONS INCLUDING THE BATHROOM AND THE CHANGE, TO THE BATHROOM AND THE PORCH, AND THE FRONT EDITION OF THE PORCH, I WOULD RECOMMEND ALL OF IT. IT COULD BE DONE THIS WAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIDE YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE BUILDING IS CHANGE. THE SMALL PORCHES DISAPPEAR.

THE ROOFLINE HAS CHANGED. YOU CAN SEE THAT BASICALLY THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING HAS CHANGED.

IT IS NOT THE SAME BUILDING. I BELIEVE ALL OF THOSE, I RECOMMENDED ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT I THINK THEY CAN BE DONE IN A WAY THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE SO MUCH OF THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING. THE ADDITION CAN BE DONE INCLUDING KEEPING ALL OF THE SMALL PORCHES.

THE WAY YOU DESIGN THE ROOF COULD BE DONE SO THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE WILL NOT BE CHANGED SO DRASTICALLY. THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES AND THINGS LIKE THE WINDOW TO THE DOOR, THEY ARE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE USE BUT THERE ARE CHANGES WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED IN MY OPINION. EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO DO CAN BE

ACHIEVED. >> THANK YOU.

>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE COA IS FOR.

IT TALKS ABOUT REQUESTED ACTION, CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCTION TO A GARAGE AND PORCH I'M THINKING OF REMODELING BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE WINDOW DETAILS, ROOF DETAILS OR

ANYTHING. >> IT SAYS, THEY DO NOT PROVIDE IT THERE. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REPLACING ALL OF IT. ALL OF THIS WILL BE REPLACED AND I THINK IT WILL BE HURRICANE PROOF.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THOSE VARIANCES.

THEY WANTED DOORS, SIDING AND THE ROOF.

ALL OF THE THINGS ARE INCLUDED. JUST SHOW THEY DID PROVIDE THE DETAILS FOR THE WINDOWS AND DOORS.

>> I SEE SOME. >> SOME ARE HERE.

>>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

>> MANAGER, ONE QUESTION. IN YOUR ANALYSIS YOU INDICATED THE VARIANCES OR A PORTION REQUIRED A SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE. IT IS INDICATED IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE REQUESTED DISTANCE THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE GARAGE WHERE 5 FEET IS REQUIRED IS 4.9. IS THAT 4.9 FEET?

>> S. >> WAS A VARIANCE FOR

1.2 INCHES? >> HAS.

>> UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES WHICH ALLOWS FOR SMALL ONES TO BE APPROVED BY THE STAFF. OURS DOES NOT HAVE IT.

SO EVEN IF IT IS JUST ONE, IT STILL NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.

>> I KNOW YOU WERE SUGGESTING IN THE VARIANCES REQUIRED, SOME OF THEM YOU WERE SUGGESTING TO APPROVE AND SOME OF YOU WERE NOT. 4.9 IS THAT ONE YOU WERE SUGGESTING FOR APPROVAL QUICKSAND ARE YOU SUGGESTING IT SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR THE HOUSE ADDITION, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE ALIGNED WITH THE HOUSE BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE GARAGE.

>> NO BECAUSE THE GARAGE IS 1.2 INCHES.

>> IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. >> YOU CLARIFY FOR ME THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC

[01:10:03]

HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON

BEHALF OF THIS. >> HELLO.

>> YES. HI, LEXI.

THIS IS A DOOZY. WE HAVE A LOT GOING ON.

THIS IS A MASTER PLAN FOR A COMPLETE RESTORATION REHABILITATION INCLUDING THE DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE PATIO AND THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE. THE GARAGE IS SO THE PATIO LINES UP WITH THE HOUSE AND THE PORCH AND EVERYTHING IS IN LINE SO YOU DON'T HAVE A SKEWED PATIO IN BETWEEN.

THAT IS FOR THAT ONE. >> WE NOTICED THAT WHEN WE DROVE BY. AS JOHN MENTIONED, THE ADDITION TO THE NORTH, THIS IS ROTTED WE WANT TO CARRY THE MAIN ROOFLINE SO IT LOOKS LIKE AN ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE HOME.

THE WRAPAROUND PORCHES, WE ACTUALLY HAD IN THE APPLICATION ADDITIONAL VARIANCES BECAUSE EVERY SETBACK OF THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHES ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

ON THE SOUTH SIDE IT IS 7 FEET VERSUS 5 FEET.

IF WE ARE LOCKED TO THE PORCH WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

WE JUST TRIED TO COVER EVERY ANGLE.

THE SAME WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL BATHROOM ADDITION TO MAKING THAT A PORCH WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR THAT BECAUSE WE ARE ALTERING THE STRUCTURE JUST IN CASE.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A VARIANCE SO THAT SETBACK IS ONE POINT FOR EXISTING FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

WE WANT TO DO SIGNING WE WANT TO DO IMPACT RESISTANT WINDOWS LIKE THE BOSTON HOUSE. WE WANT TO CHANGE OUT THE DOORS TO IMPACT DOORS. WE WANT THE HOUSE RECITED.

WE WANT TO MAKE IT TIGHT AND PUT NEW PROOFING ON WITH THE ALIGNMENT. WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS HURRICANE RESISTANT AND ENERGY EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.

THIS IS THEIR RETIREMENT HOME. THEY PLAN ON STAYING HERE AND FIXING IT UP. AS FAR AS THE PORCH AND ROOF THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT METHODS WE CAN USE.

AS IT IS CURRENTLY ILLUSTRATED I HAVE THE NEW RAFTER SITTING UP ON TOP OF THE EXISTING WALL WHICH DOES ENCROACH ON THE ROOF A LITTLE BIT. DUE TO THE ACTUAL HEIGHT AND ADJUSTING THE PORCH DECK TO STEP DOWN FROM INSIDE, I FEEL I CAN ADJUST THE ROOF AND FRAME IT WHERE WE DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ROOF AT ALL EXCEPT WITH THE ACTUAL ROOFING.

>> IS ANYTHING THERE QUICKSAND WE CAN FRAME IT AND PUT A LEDGER AGAINST THE HOUSE TO KEEP THE RAPTOR TALES COMING IN AND PUT THE NEW RAFTERS BESIDE THE EXISTING SO IT BLENDS IN WITH THE EXISTING DECKING AND CARRY THE ROOF.

IT CAN BE VERY EASILY KNOCKED OFF IN THE FUTURE.

>> IS NOT A SLIGHT MODIFICATION AS IT IS PROPOSE?

>> VERY SLIGHT. IT WOULD BE TAKING, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT ELEVATION WHERE THE HORIZONTAL LINE IS, IT WOULD BE FURTHER DOWN IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING LINE.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS I THINK THERE WERE SPECIFICATIONS TO MATCH THE EXISTING.

>> S. >> SAME SIZE.

SAME CONFIGURATION EVERYTHING. >> YES.

>> IMPACT RESISTANT VERSIONS. >> ON THE FRONT DOORS OF THE

HOUSE, YOU WILL HAVE LIGHTS? >> LIP PUT IT THIS WAY, ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW.

>> DO YOU WANT LIGHTS IN THE DOORS?

>> 3RD QUARTER LIGHTS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> PASS THIS AROUND. >> I HAVE IT.

>> THERE IT IS. THE ONLY THING I AM GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT, OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL ROOF EVERY OTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT OR IS

IT NEW? >> IT IS NEW TO EVERYONE.

AFTER READING THE STAFF REPORT THAT I GOT LAST WEEK, IT WAS

[01:15:06]

MODIFIED. >> I WAS LOOKING TO VERIFY IF I COULD DO SOMETHING WITH ANYTHING.

>> MAKING SURE WE HAD THE PROPER CLEARANCES AND THINGS OF THAT

NATURE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> CAN WE ASK MARIA WHAT SHE THINKS OF THIS?

>> WHEN YOU THINK? >> I THINK ANYTHING WILL BE AN

IMPROVEMENT. >> I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE ROOF PITCH EXCHANGE. IF WE WOULD MAKE A PROPOSAL TO ACCEPT IT WE COULD MAKE IT CONTINGENT ON THE DESIGN CHANGE.

IN A PLAN GIVEN TO MARIA FOR REVIEW.

>> ABSOLUTELY. AND AN APPROPRIATE DETAIL NOT A

HAND SKETCH DETAIL. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS NICE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> LIKE HE WAS SAYING ABOUT THE BUILDING, THE GARAGE IS ANY KIND OF A BUILDING.

CAN IT BE MADE MORE PRETTY. YOU'RE CHANGING THE ROOF.

IT IS SO SIMPLE. >> YOU'RE TALKING THE DETACHED

GARAGE? >> YES.

>> MAKE IT A LITTLE CUTER. ADD A WINDOW TO THE SIDE OR

SOMETHING REX. >> I THINK IT LOOKS NICE.

>> IT DOESN'T NEED ANY OTHER DECORATIONS.

>> THERE IS MANY OTHER HOMES THAT HAVE GARAGES IN THE FRONT.

>> IT HAS A MOTHER-IN-LAW SCREEN ON IT.

>> IT IS THE SAME STYLE. >> IS THE ROOF PITCH THE SAME AS

THE HOUSE? >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK

AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? >> CATHY, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MARIA. IT DOESN'T SEEMED LIKE THERE IS A REASON FOR HAVING A PRESERVATION BOARD IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PRESERVE IT. THE THING ABOUT AN OLD HOUSE YOU HAVE TO PRESERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

THOSE WINDOWS HAVE LASTED SINCE 1921.

THEY NEED NOT BE REPLACED. THE SIDING SHOULD BE IN THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL. IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING TO GO THROUGH THIS. YOU'RE DOING A RENOVATION NOT A PRESERVATION. I THINK WE HAVE VERY FEW HOUSES (AND IT IS A SMALL TOWN. IT HAS WONDERFUL OLD BUILDIGS.

WE JUST HATE TO SEE ONE BY ONE, GONE.

I ALMOST WOULD RATHER SEE IT DEMOLISHED THAN CHANGED IN THESE HORRIBLE WAYS. SO IF THERE IS A WAY TO PRESERVE THE MATERIALS, THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS AND AS MARIA SAID, THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE EVEN THOUGH, THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE USED AND THERE ARE THINGS YOU STILL OUR NOT USING ORIGINAL MATERIALS OTHERWISE I HAVE A

PRESERVATION BOARD. >> THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?

>>> I'M LINDA GRAHAM FIELD. I LIVE ON SEVENTH STREET.

AS A HOMEOWNER. >> JUICE UNTIL THE TRUTH REX.

>> AS MUCH AS I LOVE THIS HOUSE IN THE ROOF AND THE SIDING AND THE WINDOWS. I HAVE PICTURES THAT I WOULD

[01:20:03]

LIKE YOU TO SEE THAT THE ROOF DOES HAVE HOLES IN IT.

THE CEILING DOES HAVE MOLD IN IT.

THE WINDOWS ARE CAUGHT SOME OF THEM ARE ORIGINAL, SOME OF THEM ARE ALUMINUM. SOME OF THEM ARE FARM WINDOWS.

IT IS IN VERY POOR SHAPE. I DO HAVE PHOTOS IF ANYONE WOULD

LIKE TO SEE THEM. >> THERE HOLES IN.

THERE IS SMALL AND THE ROOF. THERE IS HOLDS -- HOLES IN THE WINDOWS. TWO WINDOWS ARE STILL FUNCTIONING. THAT IS JUST 16.

>> MANAGER. I CAN STATE AND BEEN IN THIS BUILDING. IF NOTHING IS DONE SOON, IT WILL FALL DOWN MY NEGLECT. IT IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE.

I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO STEP FORWARD AND PUT MONEY INTO IT TO PRESERVE IT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

IT IS IN POOR SHAPE. >> WE HAVE RESEARCHED THIS HOUSE AND IT USED TO BE A BOARDINGHOUSE IN THE 40S.

EIGHT PEOPLE LIVED IN THE HOUSE AND THERE WERE FOUR ENTRANCES.

>> THE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET IS ALSO A BOARDINGHOUSE AND THERE WERE A LOT MORE THAN THAT MANY PEOPLE THERE.

>> THERE ARE HOLES IN THE FLOOR AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NO SOAP FLOOR UNDER THE ORIGINAL FLOORING.

WE WANT TO TRY TO SAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

EVEN THE EXTERIOR SIDING IS MISMATCH.

IT HAS BEEN REPAIRED OVER THE YEARS.

IT IS LITTERED WITH TERMITE HOLES.

THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS MOLDY AND THE BATHROOM IS SO DETERIORATED THAT EVEN ONE OF THE COLUMNS UNDERNEATH IT IS NOT TOUCHING THE BOTTOM OF THE FORM TO SUPPORT IT.

SO THE FACT BATHROOM IS GOING TO FALL OFF.

THE NORTH EDITION IS GOING TO FALL OFF.

EVEN THE PORCH FLOOR IN THE SOUTH ADDITION IS RIDDLED WITH TERMITE HOLES. IT IS UNFORTUNATELY SOLD DETERIORATED THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE THINGS GOT MOST OF IT. WE WILL TRY TO KEEP THE STUDENTS. WE WILL TRY TO KEEP THE RAFTERS.

THE SEALS ARE DAMAGED. WE WILL TRY TO KEEP IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN. THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF THE WRAPAROUND FRONT PORCH WAS TO MINIMIZE THE LOOK OF THE BATHROOM ADDITION WE WANTED TO PUT OFF ON THE MASTER BEDROOM.

WE THOUGHT IF WE PUT THE PORCH IN YOU WOULDN'T SEE THE ADDITION AS NOTICEABLY AS IF WE JUST PUT THE ADDITION IN ON THE LEFT SIDE. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE WRAPAROUND PORCH. IF YOU HAVE A BETTER SUGGESTION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR IT. AS FOR THE GARAGE, MR. JOHANSEN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN A WINDOW I WOULD LOVE THAT.

WE REALLY DO WANT TO KEEP THIS HOUSE AS ALIVE AS POSSIBLE.

I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS LITTLE PLACE FOR SIX YEARS.

>> I LOOKED AT IT A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK, ON THE NORTH SIDE MOST OF THE WINDOWS HAD FALLEN OUT BECAUSE THE TRAINING WAS GONE. THE TERMITES AIDED.

>> IT IS WAVY GLASS. IT IS OLD.

THAT IS THE ONLY THING GOOD BECAUSE THE GLAZING IS GONE.

THE WOOD IS ROTTED. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SAVE THE BARN WINDOWS BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL USE.

THEY WERE USED WHEN THEY WERE PUT IN.

>> THE GOVERNMENT STANDARDS TO PRESERVE THE BUILDINGS AND TO

PUT IN STORM WINDOWS. >> WE DO WANT TO DO THAT.

>> IT IS FEDERAL. THE ROOFS ARE FEDERAL NOW.

THEY HAVE TO WITHSTAND A HURRICANE.

IF THEY CAN'T WITHSTAND A HURRICANE THEY WILL BE.

>> THE DOORS ARE MADE TO LOOK AS OLD AS POSSIBLE.

THEY ARE VARIED. SPECIFIC.

I THINK THAT WOULD LOOK NICE. WE DO WANT THE HOUSE TO LOOK AS

NICE AS POSSIBLE. >> THINK HE WAS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU.

>> WITH ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK.

IF NOT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> JUST ONE COMMENT.

THIS IS DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD HAS BEEN FACED WITH ONCE

[01:25:05]

AGAIN. THE COMMENT THAT AND I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE, THE BUILDING IS A SUBJECT OF TEARDOWN DUE TO NEGLECT. IN THIS INSTANCE WE ARE PEOPLE TO COME IN AND RESTORE IN WITH THE SECRETARIES STANDARDS.

WITH NEW MATERIALS AND SUCH. SO REALLY AND MY MIND THE CHOICE IS VERY SIMPLE, DO WE ALLOW THIS BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED.

IT WON'T BE THE ONLY ONE. THERE WILL BE A FEW.

WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT THIS MORNING.

IT IS MY PREFERENCE TURNED THESE FOLKS WILL INVEST A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS HOME, AND I APPLAUD THEIR OPINION.

I GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR BEING WILLING TO TAKE ON A PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE VERSUS LETTING THE BUILDING BE A LIGHT IN THE AREA AND BE A TEARDOWN. I SUPPORT THEIR APPLICATION FROM

THAT PERSPECTIVE. >> THANK YOU, ANY OTHER

COMMENTS? >> THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE TO PUT THE GARAGE BUT THE FRONT YARD. IF THERE WERE PLACE IN THE BACK I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE PLACED IN THERE BUT THERE IS NO SPACE. I THINK IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE

TO PUT IT IN THE FRONT. >> THERE WERE NO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BUILT.

WHO IS TO SAY IT IS ENCROACHED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

PROPOSED.ROOF DESIGN THAT WAS- THE MEETING, THAT THE DESIGN COMES THROUGH AND BE APPROVED BY MARIA.

WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE WINDOWS AND WE NEED A BETTER DESCRIPTION

FOR THE PEOPLE. >> MORE DETAILED SO MARIA CAN

APPROVE? >> IS.

>> I THINK THAT SHOULD DO IT. >> SECOND PERIOD.

>> I BELIEVE THE VARIANCES NEED TO BE APPROVED.

>> I APPROVE VARIANCES ALSO. >> ANYONE SECOND PERIOD.

>> SECOND PERIOD CAN I ROLL CALL.

ROLL CALL. >> ALL APPROVED.

>> IT IS APPROVED WITH ROOF MODIFICATION.

>> HE NEEDS TO GET APPROVAL ON IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD LUCK WITH THAT HOUSE.

>> THANK YOU. IT IS A LARGE UNDERTAKING.

[a. Administratively Approved Certificates of Appropriateness - September 2019]

>> HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE CERTIFICATE OF

APPROPRIATENESS FOR SEPTEMBER? >> NO ISSUES.

>> I DID AND I APPROVE ALL OF THEM.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? >> IT JUST MAKES IT EASIER.

[9. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]

>> DO HAVE CONSIDERATIONS OF ABSENCES.

>> MADAM CHAIR, MR. SAMPSON DID NOT CALL IN THIS EVENING.

MR. BETTMAN ARRIVED AT 6:02 P.M. BUT WE ALREADY HAD TWO ALTERNATES SWORN IN. WE ALSO NEED TO APPROVE YOUR

ABSENCE FROM THE LAST MEETING. >> I WAS TOTALLY OUT OF THIS

WHOLE I FORGOT THE MEANING. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXCUSE THE THREE PEOPLE THAT DID NOT SHOW UP.

>> SECOND PERIOD. >> ALL IN FAVOR.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.