We are alive. Good morning. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the first meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission in 2021. My name is Katie Hamilton, and I am the chair of this commission. This commission is a quasi-judicial board, a record, and as such, all testimony will be recorded and will be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the following steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected while utilizing this virtual platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the newly enacted state statutes in session law 2020-3, which allow for remote hearings and quasi-judicial hearings during declarations of emergencies. Second, each applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this remote platform. The consent will be reaffirmed on the record today. If there is any objection to a matter of receding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting being held in a virtual platform was provided to applicants and the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners, and a general announcement via the city's website. The notices for today's meeting advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement, along with information about how to sign up to participate, was included in the mail notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. This information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in the case of objection to evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case being heard by remote meeting platform. All individuals participating in today's hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material they wish to submit prior to today's evidentiary hearing. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online with our meeting agenda prior to this meeting via Durham's Agenda Center. Finally, all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda, as well as all city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. But they were required to sign. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record today. Are there any members of the board who would have any conflicts of interest with regards to the cases before us today? Hearing none, are there any requests for early dismissals? I believe we have Wanda has requested to be dismissed at 10 a.m. Are there any others? Confirm. Thank you. This is Commissioner Bouchard. I've got a hard stop at 11 o'clock this morning. Okay. With the understanding that commissioner waiters and needs to leave at 10 and commissioner Bouchard needs to leave at 11, we will proceed. As chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to court proceedings. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may then present their evidence and the applicants may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented may not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case but after the presentation of evidence, pro and con concerning the case. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal at the board of direct adjustment and then the Durham County Superior Court. And now with that, Madam Clerk, can you please take the attendance of the members in attendance today? Yes. Vice chair Bouchard. Here. Commissioner Diane. Present. Commissioner DeBerry. Here. Commissioner Feaselman. Here. Commissioner Golsby. Here. Chair Hamilton. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Here. Commissioner Prager. Here. And Commissioner Waders. Present. Okay. Thank you, Terri. And now can you... And now we will review and if appropriate approve the minutes from the November HPC meeting, I'm sorry, December HPC meeting. And did any commissioners have any clarifications on the minutes as submitted? All right. Hearing none, Madam Clerk, can we get a roll call vote of approval of the minutes? All right. Motion to approve. All right. This is saying to motion to approve. Okay. I'll second that. And then Terri, can we get a roll call vote? Mm-hmm. Vice chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Dianne. Okay. Commissioner DeBerry. All right. Commissioner Thieselman. Commissioner Golsby. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Craig or? Approved. And Commissioner Waders. Approved. Motion passes. Thank you. And now Madam Clerk, if you can please swear in all city staff that will be presenting in today's cases. Thank you. Do you members of staff and citizens swear or from the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's cases? Is the truth by your own knowledge or by information or belief? Carla Rosenberg planning, I do. Grace Smith planning, I do. All right. Thank you. And with that, we will now hear case COA. Well, first, are there any adjustments to the agenda? No adjustments. Just wanted to make sure for new business that we talk about the newsletter. So adding that to the agenda. Okay, thanks. With that, we will be moving on to case COA, 2-0-0-0-0-7-6-807 East Main Street, 800 Taylor Street signs. If the applicant, which appears to be capital sign solutions, could receive the oath? Okay. Do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case is a truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. And Ms. Elliott, are you the only one here on behalf of this case? Let me open my door real quick. Yes, it will be me this morning. Okay. All right. And can you also confirm that you consent to doing this hearing online? Yes. With that, we will now receive the staff's report on this case. Okay, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, the CIS case, COA, 2-0-0-0-7-6-807 East Main Street and 800 Taylor Street signs. It's capital sign solutions represented in the application by Corey Cristiano. And today, by Ms. Elliott, I think it was, the owner of the property is LRC Cordova. And it's, the representative is Kerry Neuro. It's located on the north side of East Main Street between Elizabeth Street and Morning Glory Avenue, zoned Downtown Design Support 2. And this is the Golden Belt Manufacturing Complex and 1 and 2, which is a landmark. And it's located within the Golden Belt Historic District. So the applicant is just proposing to install additional panels to two signs that were previously installed. One of these is located at the Main Street entrance and the other is located at the Taylor Street entrance. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present the case. Okay, so the signage that we are proposing to add onto the pre-approved existing signage, the design matches the pre-approved existing signage on site. The new signage is to display what the Golden Belt Campus offers as people drop past the gateway signage. The signage does not protrude over the sidewalk and is on private property. So it's not in the public right of way. Is there anything else you wanted to speak to today, Ms. Elliott, before we? I think that's it, unless you have any questions. All right, thank you for your presentation. Did any commissioners have questions for Ms. Elliott or for staff? I just have a... Oh, go ahead, go ahead, please. Oh, I just have a quick question. How many feet off the ground, from the ground is the signage? It looks like maybe four or four and a half. Let's see the details I have here. I didn't see it in the details, but maybe I missed it. You can see that it's shown at waist height in this depiction here. It's not over the right of way. And so there's no clearance requirement, that usual clearance requirement of seven and a half feet that when it's over a right of way, that doesn't apply here. Okay, thank you. Hi, Andy Pulsby. Just for my clarification, when you talk about the pre-approved sign, you're just referring to the steel post and what in the images says golden belt, the black sign itself with the vinyl logos, that's not a pre-approved design, correct? Correct, that's what we are proposing to add. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant or staff? All right, hearing none. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for against this case? All right, hearing none. We can close the public hearing and discussed amongst commissioners. And did any commissioners have any points to bring up on this application? It was pretty straightforward to me. All right, so it's hearing no other discussion amongst commissioners. Can we get a recommendation from staff? Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of this application. Great, thank you, Carla. Do we have a motion to approve? I'll move Jonathan. A second, April. All right, and with the motion made to approve the... Wait, we have to actually say the motion, don't we? I can read it. The Store Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 200076207 East Main Street, 800 Taylor Street signs, the applicant is proposing two signs on a landmark property, one at each driveway entrance. The signs will be pile on type with white vinyl copy over a steel black plate, measuring five feet by two and a half feet. Each will be attached to a one beam that form part of the existing signage currently located on site. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in staff report. And the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA<PHONE_NUMBER>7 East Main Street, 800 Taylor Street signs with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially, sorry about that. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals related to building construction, site work and work in the right of way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. All right, motion being made by Commissioner Dayon and seconded by Commissioner DeBerry. Madam Clerk, can we get a roll call vote please? Yes, first Chair Bouchard, Commissioner Dayon. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Fieselman. Commissioner Fieselman. Commissioner Gulsby. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Criker. Approved. Commissioner Waiters. Approved. And I'll come back, Commissioner Fieselman. I think you're on mute. Can you hear me? Yeah. She's having it with her audio too, but she did write it in the chat as well and this stuff. Oh, okay. Motion passes on. Let's hear it. Thank you very much. And thank you, Ms. Elliott, for coming out and... Thank you. All right, and with that, we will be moving on to case COA 0020... All right, case COA 000080. If we could get the applicants to confirm their oath, and it looks like the applicant is Gabriel Liberty and Perry Shalom Liberty, are they on? They're coming on right now. I'll take a minute to get them over. Okay. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the test money you're about to give in the public here in proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or information and belief? Yes, I do. And are you the only applicant speaking on this today? My wife's sitting next to me, but yeah, I'll be speaking. Okay, great. Can you also confirm that you consent to having this hearing done in a digital platform? Yes, I do. Thank you. With that, Karla, can you please hear the stack report? All right, so this is case COA 000080. It's 1300 Broad Street demolition. The applicants is Perry Shalom Liberty, represented here by Gabriel Liberty. The owners are Gabriel Liberty and Perry Shalom Liberty. It's located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Broad and F streets, zoned office and institutional, and it's contributing structure to the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to demolish the primary structure in its entirety. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the liberties to present their case. Oh, do I begin? Yes, please proceed. Okay, sorry. So this home we purchased about a year and a half ago, and through the previous owners neglect, it no longer holds any historical value, I feel, to the neighborhood. The siding that you see here is aluminum siding, which is not original. The vinyl windows that you are seeing here are not original. The doors are metal regular Home Depot doors that you'd buy are not original. There's virtually nothing in here that is original, except for the structure itself. It, unfortunately, it's had better days. It suffers from extensive termite and dry rot damage. And so it's no longer... Originally we wanted to restore the building, but because of the engineering and different contractors that came in that quoted us, it would be very expensive to actually restore it. And so you can see these are some inside, inside of the lower basement area where you can see the dry rot there, where it's not very, it's not structural. In order to get it back to structural integrity, it would be quite expensive undertaking, potentially requiring lifting the building. And in that picture, you can see, you can actually see the daylight through the block, the block would all have to be replaced. So we more or less have to start over from scratch anyway, and it would just be more cost effective and better for the neighborhood just to demolish the building and start from there. Any questions? CK, can't wait to have you on too. Maura, what happened? Thank you so much for your presentation. Was there anyone else here who was just to speak for? I got it at Atlanta. Do any commissioners have questions for the applicant or for staff? Sorry, Katie. This is Jonathan. I wouldn't like to ask Chris about a conflict of interest that may be in the, so before I can continue on this case. Possible. Great. So I'm a, we're friends, Gabriel and I, and I want to put that on the table. We did not have any conversation about this property apart for them asking to talk with us. I told them that if they have an issue, call Carla from planning. I just wanted to make sure there's no conflict of interest here. Chris Cucro, city attorney's office. That doesn't sound like a problem. You didn't have any expert communications and you don't have a financial interest in the project. So, so long as you can be objective about the case, there's no need to recede yourself. Thank you. Thanks. I do have a question. I think in the application, there was mentioned that you tried to get a, the chief inspector to do what it's, what the general status you say you can do as far as deem it. There's a provision in the ordinance that says that a COA, a certificate of appropriateness can be waived if it is found to be structurally a public safety hazard. Correct. So, did you not go, so my question is, were they able to get the report done or? Yes. So the inspector came out and he deemed that even though it is not inhabitable, it's not a danger to the public because it's not as it's kind of, it's sealed up, right? So if you were able to walk in through it by busting out the locks, which unfortunately we've had some vagrants and homeless people tried to take residence in it, you would fall through the floor in many places. Okay. I just wanted to know what happened to that report. Yes. I believe I received an email just basically stating that it was not a threat to the public as far as structural integrity, but I think Carla has the report. Really the only threat is the squatters that have taken residence into it. Right. A no formal report was written to my knowledge. They may keep their own record of the visit, but it was an email as Mr. Liberty said, just an email stating that it didn't meet the criteria that they used to determine that a COA would be waived. Are there any other questions for the applicant or staff on this hearing? None. We can close the public hearing with option to reopen later if discussion amongst commissioners warns it. And I'll open the discussion up to commissioners to I'm sorry, Kate. This is Vice Chair Bouchard. I was trying to talk and I didn't even realize I was muted. I apologize. Just a couple of questions for Mr. Liberty. I mean, Mr. Liberty, is there any beneficial use of this property currently being derived? So we have some different ideas and obviously all our ideas would have to go once again through this board to determine its historical consistency with the area. And we plan on fully complying with that. Sure, sure. I'm talking about currently, are you deriving any benefit from this property? Oh, no, no, I'm losing money. I pay for the maintenance of the land, all the damages having to re-fasten locks time and time again. The plywood boarding it up constantly over the past year and a half. Recruit losses and not benefit. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Maybe one quick question for Carla. I'm curious to know Carla whether or not you agree with the assessment that the property doesn't have any remaining historical significance to the historic district. So I wouldn't say that it has no historical value the structure itself is intact. It could be rehabilitated. It would cost a lot of money, I'm certain. I haven't heard any evidence presented regarding whether any siding is present underneath the vinyl siding. That's currently on it. Aluminum siding. Aluminum siding. The window openings seem to be intact. The porch peers, obviously this is not original and this configuration here is not original. It's been enclosed. It could be rehabilitated but most things can be. I think without too much reconstruction, I think the bones are there even if individual fixtures like windows and doors are not. I'm curious about this door here. It's an old door even if it's not original. I wonder if it was taken from elsewhere on the house and put there. Do you have any views about what sort of architectural style we're looking at here? It was called out as craftsman. In the, sorry for the dizziness I'm causing, but you'll see that there's a national register summary. This was taken from the Watts-Hillendale nomination form of the National Register District. That's helpful. Thanks for pointing that out. There is a small section, like a three by four of original I would believe wood siding. So I believe they ripped out all the original siding and replaced it with the aluminum. And there's one picture that shows it right there. You can see it next to the aluminum siding. I wanted to ask you, Gad Griel, for clarity. Have you removed a piece of the aluminum siding to verify that the original siding was removed or? We lifted it up a corner of it. I believe there's actually a picture of it bent up somewhere. There's a picture that you said? Okay, I'm gonna scroll through. Yeah, there. Right here. Okay, I see, yeah. So there's nothing under there. Okay, and then I did want to say I do agree with Carla's assessment. I was thinking the same thing. My other question for you, Gad Griel, is what would you say is the percentage of rotted and termite damaged wood throughout the building? I would say it's extensive in the basement area that's where we're looking at right now. That's the basement. All the floorboards would have to be, basically the entire basement would have to be replaced. And trying to do that while maintaining the upper section would not be easy. So my original desire was to refurbish this, but given what all the contractors and the engineers that provided me feedback on it would be that it would be substantially more than just starting over, in which I would then could just mimic the historical kind of theme throughout the neighborhood. However, you would want it to be. Okay, thank you. Jonathan. Sorry, go on. I also have a question to Gad Griel Liberty. So Carla did note a couple doors and maybe other architectural or material that can be preserved. Do you have any intention of preserving that material or? Oh yes, yes I do. Any of those, there's very little. There's literally the door that in the front door and the side that we may repurpose for like an interior door or something like that. Well, we would have to determine what it would be, but I wouldn't have a problem with preserving that. None of the windows really are original. They're either the vinyl that you see there or there are some aluminum ones as well. So there's really not much to save as far as the windows go, but there is the, I think the two doors that you mentioned Carla Rosenberg planning. When you say to repurpose the doors for interior doors, do you mean on a future? No, on this site, we could. I wouldn't see a problem integrating that into whatever design we end up going with. You mean if you were to construct something in the future on this site, you would use it in that new construction? Correct, correct. I mean, if you would want me to and if the doors were in satisfactory condition, I don't know if they're in good enough, condition to repurpose, but if they are then I would be more than happy to repurpose. Mr. Liberty, do you think that if we impose a year delay on this demolition application, you will experience hardship through the inhabitants that are taking up residence here and the safety issues that exist. Do you feel that you'll have any hardships that will result from possible injury to those individuals beyond financially having to continue to? Yes, I mean, it's not just the taxes and the maintenance of the land through mowing it. It's the consistent vagrant set that try to inhabit the property. I have evacuated twice calling the police a couple of times and then having to go there myself and board up a window, reapply locks. So yes, there's a financial impact that if you were to delay a year, you would just be adding the thousands of dollars that I've already spent trying to do this. For context, can you say what the property was used for when you bought it? Were there people living in it at that time? Unfortunately, yes. The previous owner was not an upstanding citizen, needless to say, he cut off the gas to the place so it wasn't even being heated. He was charging the residents there like $300 basically for a room and it was not very good. I felt for the previous tenants who lived there and it was four of them, four men, and it was unsatisfactory conditions for them. Very upset about it. And Gabriel, have you received complaints from your neighbors, from the neighbors? Yes, I have. One has become a frequent caller to my wife to let us know that there's someone staying in the house again, we need to call the police or we need to go do something. So yes, my wife has befriended one of the neighbors to kind of keep an eye on it for us. And they tell us. And the police also have provided help in that of removing the people we've signed a waiver that allows them the right to remove them. My final question is, were you able to find any old photos of this property? Hardly, there were some distant photos that we saw when you try to look at the former hospital where you could see it off into the distance. It did not have that large staircase that's in the front of the house. It's difficult to see by any of the photos that I've seen. So were you able to tell if the, I can't tell whether they added this on the second level that the second floor extends out to cover the porch. So that I don't know. The addition in the back is definitely not original. The front, I'm not certain if they enclosed that at some point, it's difficult to see from any of the pictures. Okay. Are there any other questions from commissioners for the applicant or staff? Hearing none, we will at least close the hearing for public hearing for now and discuss amongst the commissioners. Did anyone have any statements on this application? That's before us that they'd like to discuss. As vice chair Bouchard, as typical with these types of applications, our purview is limited to whether or not to impose a delay up to 365 days. I have not heard anything that would justify a 365 day delay and we have heard testimony indicating that there is a financial burden here, possibly even a tort liability with respect to the folks who are making use of the structure. That's not to say that it wouldn't be a successful defense to any injury that occurred at the property as a result of a trespasser. Trespassers are owed duties of care by property owners but it doesn't stop somebody from making or asserting a lawsuit that could be an inconvenience. So I've heard enough to persuade me that there's not much justification for a 365 day delay. I asked questions about the significance of the property because I don't want to be biased by what I'm seeing in the current pictures. There could be a gem beneath the existing structure and so I don't want to be hasty about saying we shouldn't do what we can and encourage the applicant to do what they can to think of an alternative to immediate demolition but I'm struggling to see a justification for why we would try to impose that delay and those suggestions on the applicant in this case but I'm certainly open to hearing other views. Do you have any other commissioners built differently than Vice Chair Bichard? Yeah, it's easy to imagine and to see from the photos that there's a fair bit of damage in the basement but with that, much of the structure looks in good shape and I'm also curious what we as a committee and the applicant can do to potentially figure out a way to keep it. I think the applicant did say you did investigate that for a year and a half already. Is that true? Yes, that is true. And it would just be a much larger financial burden. It would cost literally just twice as much for us to say if that house and it would be built with trying to get it to current standards of living quality as well. It would be substantial amount which you don't outs the poor shape of the inside for due to asbestos. There was significant damage within the interior as well when the asbestos had to be removed, that I had to do as well. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, have you considered selling this property to someone else who may be willing to make that investment? I'd be open-minded to it. I don't necessarily think it's sat on the market for quite some time. So many other people had the opportunity to purchase it prior to myself.  In full disclosure, I am also a licensed real estate agent. I should have mentioned that earlier since we are talking about property. Are there any other commissioners who have strong opinion on 365 million? This is one to wait as I have no strong opinion. I just want to acknowledge that it appears that this gentleman has done a lot of work to find out what was possible and the safety issues and the financial issues and has spent some time doing that. So, yes, we always like to see old things refurbished and done beautifully. It sounds like he's done a lot of good work to understand what's not possible. He's also said some positive things like in a rebuilding that he would acknowledge things that would be appropriate for that area. So I found that somewhat reassuring. Thank you, commissioner waiters. And did any other commissioners have anything they'd like to say in regards to this application? Yeah, I don't feel strongly that we are delaying it 365 days is of the route that we should take, but I can't help keep thinking of other stories and testimonies and properties I've seen in my mind that were in worse condition than this and they were invested in, but foundations and basement issues are tough.  So I'm struggling with this because I think this house can be reversed. Is it too far gone? I don't feel like I have enough personally evidence to conclude that, but again, when it comes to basement issues and foundation issues, they can be fixed, but they do require a lot more investment. So yeah, I don't think 365 days is the route that we should go. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, just to remind you that it does not need to be either or, that 365 can be reduced. Yeah, it can be reduced, exactly. Just meaning, I think we should go the fullest extent. Do you, I guess, do we see value in a shorter delay? Well, we're trying to delay to give people opportunity to explore other options or give them time to get material salvaged or something to further historic preservation. And it sounds like this applicant has kind of already done that for a year and a half based on Jonathan's question. So I'm not sure that a delay will get us anything more than continued police presence on the property. But I don't know if you have a... I do have a clarifying question regarding the applicant and he had the property for a little over a year. And maybe I just didn't hear this part, but did you also, as far as, as well as investigate the property and see what you can do, did you use some of that time to seek other investors, other people who might be able to do the work? Investors or contractors? Investors, anybody else who would take the property from you? Oh, no, I didn't question any other investors. All right, sorry about that, Katie, I have one more question in me. Katie, I have a quick question. Okay. Mr. Liberty, were you aware that this house was in a historic district and was listed on the national register? Not originally, no. I should have done better research. I'll fire my agent, which is myself. It happens all the time. I work on commercial projects where they don't catch that. At that point had the MLS, they had a lot of changes and they asked to postpone the conversations on the mapping and I should revisit it again with them now, maybe they will add that layer. The issue is that they have too many layers and they don't want to add another one right now, not to complicate it, but I think that it's time to revisit it. I would concur. I think the MLS does have the zoning in there. The last time I saw them, they do indicate that and I want to say, it just says, I want to say just H, but people don't know what that means. No, no, no, it's a map that we should be able to come up with the searches for the agents. To make it clear. So, Mr. Liberty, have you explored national register tax credits for rehabilitation for this place? Yes, I have. And again, it just comes down to the complexity of the job. I mean, with the foundation, there's so much unknown with it that if I start, most people were telling me, you'll end up just sinking money and more money and more money and you won't actually know where it is. The ranges that I got were enormous between 200,000 to fix the basement to 400,000, depending on the difference. And so if when you're talking about 100% like range, it's just the risk there is too high. And so that's why the incentives of the tax incentives are not that beneficial to me. All right, well, I guess can we get from the commissioners just a pulse check on the desire for a delay? I know April had kind of stated one under 365 days would be preferable for her. I don't know if you had a time period in my neighbor or... Well, I think, see, I'm almost willing to go to vote for, vote without delay because of the foundation issues. He said 200, 400, something thousand hours. In my mind, I'm thinking this is a $100,000 job just for the foundation and basement. And I know that's not, I don't think that's something we should consider. But I also try to look at overall thing, what's the significance of the house in general? Is there a story there that we want to maintain? And I don't think that there is a general way, is it has ever been presented? It was former housing for nurses at the hospital. Okay, for Watts Hospital? Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah, but that's all I was able to get from it. Is that it was just a multi-unit housing. For nurses. Yeah, I don't know. I'll just, sometimes I can be too conservative in there. Sometimes I'm very liberal. And this is one of those days, I don't know which way I want to go, so I'll just... Thanks. Can I read you what I've been Googling as we've been looking at it? The description of the property when it was sold to Mr. Liberty was multi-budget boarding house investment opportunity, maybe possible to unit building, bring your contractor. This one will require quite a bit of work, which is exactly what Mr. Liberty has found. But I'm, yeah, people like you, I'm struggling. Watts Hospital is across the street. It is historic. It has largely been preserved in some interesting ways. This is a boarding house. There aren't many in Durham. It's a multi-unit that from the 20s and directly across the street from the hospital on the corner has a clear connection and story. It's hard for me to think about giving clear and quick license to demo this. I agree. Who said that? I did. Okay. Yeah, I mean, it's, the fenestration is gone. The stereo sighting is gone. But the Sanborn map where it says two, three, one, that indicates that it went from a two-story to three-story to one-story, correct, Carla? That's correct. The front would have been two and then three because I think there's that basement area in the back. So it amounts to three stories and then there's a one-story addition. Okay. That's what I was curious about was if they've even lost it. Yeah, I was interested in the front of the house. It looks like originally it was the two stories all the way to the porch area. It doesn't show a separate porch out here. So I'm assuming the porch is underneath that, the two. Yeah, so I've become good with no delay. If I could ask a question of Ted and Laura because I mean, you've piqued my interest here. I mean, if we were to, hypothetically speaking, consider imposing say 120 or 180 day delay, something less than the 365. What actions would you like to see the applicant take to potentially salvage this asset or to sell it to an entity or individual or investors who might be in a better position to spend the money to salvage this asset? I am open to considering a delay but I'm trying to get a sense more than what the applicant has already done over the last year, year and a half. What additional actions are we effectively asking the applicant to take by imposing a delay? Yeah, Matt, that's a good question. And the things that are on my mind are perhaps beyond the scope of this committee but I'm thinking of other multi-unit buildings across the street from Duke where investors have put clearly a lot of money in and yet the project pencils. And so I believe that the foundation work here is between one and 400K but I'm not convinced that that means the project still doesn't pencil as a whole. And so that's where my questions lie. Is there a way to rehabilitate the building in a way that will still make sense economically and preserve its historic significance? And Matt, if I can talk to, this is Tom Krieger. And the statute on the 365 delay just talks about that the preservation commission can negotiate with the owner and other parties to find a way to preserve the building. And that was the only thing I was hearing in this too is whether or not there's been a full effort by the seller to find somebody else that wants to maintain this and its historical context. That's not, I don't think that the statute requires that and I think that the owner is clearly being deprived of any beneficial use and that's enough to permit us to just waive the 365. So I'm kind of inclined to do that. But if we didn't do that, I would think that there are some folks on the commission that would wanna work with this owner to see if there's a way to try to assist him to find somebody else that wants to work on this building. Not that we wanna turn into a real estate broker commission but somebody that needs to help him to get this thing preserved in somebody else's hands or I would just say he doesn't have any economic value let's just let him demolish it and do something else with it. That was kind of where I was in between. Carla Rosenberg planning department. That's exactly right. That is the role of the commission during that's the purpose of the 365 day delay is to allow the commission to work with the applicant and maybe rally community interest in finding a way to save this property or that is selling it to someone who is willing to invest in it or maybe some other means. So yeah, I just wanted to reiterate that. And then also that the applicant has to be, I guess it can be reduced. It's kind of assumed 365 day delay but it can be reduced with the commission finding no historic value and or all beneficial use is denied the applicant and or I think there's the third point as well. That's how hard it's said. Yeah. All right. It's been an extreme hardship, yeah. I do have one more question for the applicant. I thought about it earlier and I forgot it. Have you spoken with the, I know Watts-Hillendale neighborhood is very active community and they are very active when it comes to historic properties. Have you heard from neighbors? It's, well, I guess they're not here. So that's, is that considered hearsay? Well, okay. I'm asking you for your testimony. Have you experienced any support of demolishing this building from the community, Watts-Hillendale association? So I have not reached out to the Watts-Hillendale association. Just the next door neighbors want me to destroy it. It's been an eyesore for them. It's like the ugliest building on the block. So. Well, ugly decades can be turned into a, it was part of that association in Watts-Hillendale in my previous house. If there would have been anything that would have, they're very involved, as you said, I think they would have been on this meeting. Yeah, and that's, that's why, yeah, I'm pretty sure they would have. So, okay. And that's very telling to me, for me. I guess I'll ask Mr. Liberty one more question. This is Vice Chair Bouchard. Mr. Liberty, if the commission were inclined to impose a delay of shorter than 365 days, would you spend 120 or 180 days to see if there's an alternative to immediate demolition of this asset? I mean, to state what I stated before, my original intention was to save it. And it really came down to the overall risk that was involved with it because within, if you actually go into the basement, you will sink in. And so there's significant water down there. And so right as soon as you open it up, you're kind of stuck, right? And so if you start spending 100,000 and then 200,000 and then three, and then it just grows. And so that's the risk that I wasn't able to get from a contractor or an engineer to tell me exactly what this would cost. Yeah. And Mr. Liberty, because the foundation is not intact, have you noticed any of their structural problems within the house, any cracking in the walls and things of that sort? Well, yeah, I mean, all the floors are slanted. I mean, inside the house. So you'd have to jack up the house to straighten it, try to straighten it as much as possible. Okay, so no wall damage yet. There's holes.  I think I'm referring to other parts, like on the second and third, I mean, the first floor, the ground floor and the second floor. Yeah, so on the ground floor, the floor is slanting downward and towards the back of the home. And then on the upper floor from that, it's just, it's also slanting downward. The primary floor does have damage in it as well, just from the previous tenants did not respect the place. And so there was definite damage within it. And have you rehabilitated historic house homes before? No, I have not. Okay. Well, I did one on Dearborn, that could be considered a story. No, it's a 1950s home that I didn't demolish and I brought it back to life. Oh, that's still good, that's close to where we're at too, tight house. It was a cinder block home that was really falling apart. And so I don't, I was able to get back to it. That was a significant period, so that it counts. Okay, well, thank you. I think I'm done now, thank you. Are there any other commissioners who wanted to speak for against a delay? This, Andy, I think it comes to mind right now, just to add to the discussion, if there was a delay and if our commission is, takes a role in finding some kind of mediation for further development here. I mean, does it, would it be our role for someone like myself, Mr. Liberty, I'm an architect, to just walk through, kind of assess what I can see and put that list together. And does that help our committee? I guess the first question is, does it help Mr. Liberty for me to do something like that? And the second would be, does it help our committee to see that list of what I think would be immediate needs for that reconstruction to bring ease to whether or not this building warrants demolition without delay? Again, I don't, we haven't had this kind of discussions out, so I don't know if that's even the extent. I think that would be a pretty good precedent, that we have landscape architects, we have architects, we have lawyers, we have real estate professionals. I think that if everyone now would give their service and I believe that is pro bono, otherwise it's a conflict of interest is, I don't think, well, Christa can kind of weigh in, but I think that that's a, we should have done this ahead of time. So if you would like, we can walk through properties before or around the properties before meetings, but to do something like this after the meeting, I think would be a bad precedent. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department there. So when we have imposed a delay in the past in the same neighborhood, the Community Association, the Neighborhood Association actually did rally and they were able to find an architect to work pro bono, to design a whole new addition that would pass the commissions. And so they didn't have to tear the building down, they basically had a 1200 square foot house that they built a large addition behind that did pass. It was on West Klobalovard. Yes, it was on West Klobalovard. So I'm not certain about this commission's expertise being used, I don't see any reason, there would be a conflict of interest to have a commission member actually serve, give that service, but certainly other architects, engineers could be brought in pro bono if the community were able to rally together to find those services. But that's exactly the type of thing that a delay would allow for, or simply finding another buyer that had the experience with this type of property to complete the renovation or rehabilitation if in fact it's feasible. The building on 2308 Klobalovard is probably a one and a half million dollar house. And I think that in the middle of West Klobalovard and it is the same Watsonville Association that they're not present here. I think that it's not exactly the same. A 1200 square foot house that became, I don't know, 6,000 square foot. So it was an eyesore for everyone there and that's why it was such a big deal back then if I recall correctly. I think that I'm not sure that this case is on par with that. I would like to say that, if in fact it was a boarding house for nurses, for Watsonville, if that hasn't common knowledge, which in its current condition, it doesn't tell that story, then maybe people aren't as interested in it. So, but maybe they would be with that history known. You hear the nail on the head when you say that if the building isn't currently telling that story and it's obvious to the neighbors and they're not advocating for it, I think that's very telling about the property. I think there are just a lot of unanswered questions here. And so I feel pretty strongly we need some sort of delay. I'm not sure what purposes serve by doing 100 days or 120, either this is gonna happen or not. I would support the 365 and let's help Mr. Liberty find a good solution to this. Let's go to the Neighborhood Association. That seems like our role, frankly. Carl Rosenberg Planning Department, I just wanna also say if we impose any delay, whether it's the full 365 or reduced delay, we also need to make sure that the applicant seeks the help needed to get it secured since it does have the vagrancy issues. May I ask how long was the property on the market before you purchased it? At the top of my head, it was over 100 days, I believe. I'm not exactly certain, I would have to look it up. I can see online, it went for sale in February, 2019 and closed in July, 2019. February to July, so it's four months. Five months. If the property was, and this was a year and a half ago, and now I'm talking as a real estate investor, for five months and there was no one to jump on it, I think that this is a bad sell, which means to try to make an applicant go back to market after holding a property for a year and a half. And again, I'm in full disclosure, I know Gabriel, but this is completely objective thought. The chances of selling that property and he will need a higher profit because he had losses. And this commission enforcing, I feel very bad about a delay here. This is, I don't think that we've ever had a case like this that we looked at it this way. And if we look at the facade and we have a couple architects here, nothing would resemble, and I think Carla talked about it too, nothing resembles what it was. I don't know how it looked like, but I'm sure it didn't have that addition in the front porch that was enclosed. So even if you restore it, nothing will resemble anything previous. If the applicant is willing to salvage material and add a plaque and add something that would acknowledge its previous state, I think that's very fair to their discretion and of course to the commission. But to now delay 365 days in this case, I think. And you know, usually I'm on the critical side and I think that this one is a much easier case. Well, I disagree that if he rehabs it, that it won't look like what it did in the beginning because we've seen people completely rehab a property and use the proper materials to reconstruct what it looked like. But just for a temperature check, I'm willing to vote for no delay or up to a 90 day delay, only just to give the applicant potentially more time to seek out another investor, someone who would want to potentially restore it, restore the building. But I think it's telling, because I know this neighborhood association, it's telling that if they're not here advocating to save the building that it answers some of those unanswered questions that we might have. So that's where I am. Commissioner Waiters, you're on mute. Well, you know, I had my heart stop at 10 and I felt bad to leave in lieu of discuss, this discussion. You know, I've been on this for a very long time and I believe in trying to do the best I can for everything. However, today, I want to be clear before my departure to say I do support the demolish. And, you know, as a healthcare provider, it would be wonderful if the Watts Hospital and that group would say, oh, let's do something beautiful with this, but I don't think we're dealing in logic in that at this point. And again, none of that group is here today. So I just want to be very clear because I have to go. That is as difficult it is to want to see something with the Watts Hospital history to be beautiful for the history of healthcare and nursing and all of that. I do not see that as a viable option for this. And so I'm going to depart. It's great seeing everybody. Sorry, I have to depart, but I do support the demolish. Thank you, Commissioner Weiders. Well, in the interest of time, seeing as it is 10 a.m., would the commission feel comfortable with moving forward with a motion to approve demolition subject to a 60-day delay that would give them two months, which would be sufficient time to seek another investor, look for opportunities, while also not putting an undue hardship on the property owner of 365 days of potential. As Matt mentioned, you know, harm coming to the people who are inhabiting this building illegally and, you know, the additional hardship to city resources and all of the other factors that were brought for us. This is Commissioner Bouchard. I would support a delay of 60, 90 or 120, two, three or four months. Carla Rosenberg planning department, is 60 really enough time given the nature of the market as well as it picks up in spring, right? Would 90 be more appropriate? I am fine with 90 days as well. This has nothing to do with the general market. And again, this is, I'm talking from my experience with the, this is going to be a specific investor, that if they're looking for something and they're not, they're not time-dependent in the yearly sinus trend of market that is more related to movement and the view of the education system here. I don't see a difference between the 60 and 90. Carla Rosenberg planning department, I see your point. I still do think it would take a bit more time. The minimum I could support is 90 or 120. Okay. Well, with- Hey, Katie. Yeah, sorry. There's something to add in real quick. If we vote and we go with 90 or 120 and during the, it seems to me like the most likely thing that's gonna happen here is that like the neighborhood is either gonna respond fairly quickly to someone from the commission and say, we want the building down. I mean, we had just approved it to be demolished or they're gonna come in and say something like this one slipped by us and we really want it preserved. And we've already approved the building to be demolished in 90 or 120 days where we can't, we kind of set this time. I mean, is there anything that we need other than to hear, I mean, what the actual neighborhood wants? I mean, if somebody from the, we're kind of presuming that because nobody came here to object that they don't object. But when we hear from them, isn't that gonna be pretty telling as to how we would have wanted to vote here? Like, is there a way we can keep this open? I mean, if David was here and said, I want this building down, I would vote for no delay. And if they said we wanna preserve it, I'd vote for 365 so that we give the neighborhood as much time as possible to try to work with the owner and preserve it. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, we could continue the case for, until the next month and contact the neighborhood association in the meantime. I don't know if that's responsive to Ted though, because if the neighborhood came in and said, we don't want this building preserved, if that, if you would still want the 90 or 120 days and that kind of pushes me back to, let's just go ahead and set 90 or 120. I mean, I don't wanna. I completely agree. When we don't have anyone here, when we don't have anyone here coming for it, then we say that we don't have any evidence against what we're doing now is we're giving time for evidence to come in after a hearing. This has, that's against everything I know in the past few years that I'm on this board. Jonathan, I agree with you that the purpose of this would be giving time for us to get more information. We've done that on other issues before. Not for additional evidence that is not required here. You're asking for a neighborhood for someone else not connected to the property. It's not specific to the property right now. Where the information you're asking is this the neighborhood gonna be willing to help out or do something? We have never done this. I don't know anything in planning commission either that talks about an additional time for, like if someone didn't come for a neighborhood meeting, then you ask it again. I don't know of any of the other sorts of... A stat you'd speak to the significance. In these 16 days, in 90 days, a hundred twenty, three hundred sixty-five days, someone personally regrets themself. Is this commission gonna be responsible? Jonathan, I can just tell you how I view it. That in, right in this, he talks about the special significance or to maintain what we're talking about is whether or not taking this building down would inhibit that. And the piece of information that would help me decide if I want to do three sixty-five or zero is whether or not the folks that are in that neighborhood who are not here, what their voice is. So I'm okay with going with what Ted said 90 or 120 days because I'm confident that we would get that information. I'm also okay with pushing this 30 days because if they say we don't have any special significance, that building doesn't matter to us and they don't take the torch and run with it, then I would say let's go with no delay and let them get on with demolishing this. So that's where I'm at. I'm also- The matters are not ours, not theirs, not the neighborhood. Can't we decide, isn't this a historic preservation's purview to decide the question that you're asking, you're asking the neighbor to make that decision for the commission. I think that's the commission. If this building is so important, we should make that decision now. If it's not and we can't be conclusive, then I think that we can't be conclusive. Otherwise they should have been here now or anyone who thinks that this building is should have been here. And we know that from previous times that they have been when it was important. What we can do though, Jonathan, is we can take one of the options on the table is to take the 365 days today. And then the commission can spend the next 365 days finding out all the same information that I'm proposing we find out in 30 days. I'm saying that we have that right under the statute to take the full year and I don't think we need it. I think Tad thought maybe 90 or 120 days would be enough. And so I was just saying in the next 30 days we might know better and be able to just go with zero day delay or we could do 365 or something in the middle. All that is, I think all that's consistent with the statute and with our role here and we're all just figuring out how much time do we need. Some folks say zero. Tad obviously wants some more. I wanna hear from the neighborhood. So I would go with either give us a 30 day delay. So if it was just for me, I would say give us a 30 day delay so I can hear from the neighborhood and I'll probably vote zero days. I keep mentioning you, Tad.  I agree. I think if we can postpone this for a month, go to the neighborhood and if they say they're not interested in preserving this building, I would vote for an immediate. Can we make a motion such that the delay can be reduced by staff subject to this neighbor going in front of the neighborhood meeting and submitting that they have sought this assistance from the neighborhood and have not received any. Cause to me that it's not a matter of what the neighborhood thinks. It's a matter of whether or not every opportunity for saving the building has been explored. And it sounds like the one opportunity that hasn't been explored is getting additional investors, which again, it gets weird of, is that really our purview to tell somebody to bring somebody else in financially? But it seems like there is that one additional avenue that could be taken to make preservation of the structure possible. And so to me, it seems that if Mr. Liberty submits documentation to staff that he has put out a request for additional investors and hasn't gotten or received any hard offers or interest that that would be sufficient. I don't know, Carla, do you feel comfortable in that role? Well, Carla Rosenberg planning department. So the state statutes are written that the HPC imposes this delay. So I don't think it would be appropriate for me to represent you for that specific task, unfortunately. Another way to reframe what we're talking about now. The specific property might to not make it today, but to push this case 30 days out and here again next month in favor of getting more time to gather more information about the historical significance of this property, which we really haven't very much of today at all, other than it was a boarding house for nurses. And part of engaging the neighborhood and gathering that story might achieve some of the goals that we're talking about here in terms of hearing from the neighborhood, but it would be in service of a specific information gathering related to the property. What is the historical significance of this place and how does it contribute to the neighborhood as a whole? And I personally would really like to hear more about that story. And I'd like, I mean, I think it would be interesting if the applicant were to gather it together with the neighborhood, which I think might bring out some interesting new things for us to consider next month. So I would like to say that I've owned this property for over a year and I have spent time. There's just not much out there. And so I have looked. And if an investor, you're right, I didn't directly solicit like put it on the MLS or in the market, but the home was on the market for over five months. And so if there was another investor, he had plenty of time or she had plenty of time to jump in on this property. Whereas I was the only one who was willing to jump in on it, thinking that I could restore it. And so others came through that door and looked at that and decided, you know what, it's not worth the risk. And I did because I thought it was worth the risk. And so all a delay will do will just lead to the inevitable, which is it will come down because I had engineers out there looking at it.  And that's all that will be the difference. Well, and I think the other thing that I do want to mention is that this isn't an and, and, and statement in the, you know, criteria that we review. This is an or statement. It's, is there hardship or is there a deprivation of beneficial use or is there no special significance? So while the property can be significant, I think we have to also consider what kind of hardship is being experienced with the delay and is it extreme? And so to me, a 365 day delay is an extreme hardship when you're talking about the issues that the applicant has brought forth. You know, I mentioned 60 days because I don't feel that that's an extreme hardship. It might be a, you know, mild hardship, but it does give a little opportunity for him to explore other options that he may not have gotten to in the last year. But I just kind of think we need to look at it that way as to what do you feel that none of these three criteria are being met? Because I do think a delay of 365 days is creating a hardship that is extreme, in my opinion, when I'm looking at those floors and knowing that people are going and inhabiting and inhabiting the space illegally. And if you would cause a delay and someone got injured, who would be liable? Would I be liable for that? Would the commission be liable for that? First, take a good city attorney's office. The city would not be liable for that. Based on TADD's minimum of 90 days, I would feel comfortable approving this with a 90-day delay to give the applicant time while not creating an extreme hardship on the property. Do other commissioners feel that is an acceptable approach? You know, alternatively, if we push this one month and talk to the Neighborhood Association, he may be able to demolish it in a month. So if we're talking about what's best for the applicant, I think we can get a pretty quick turnaround if that's what we want to do. If we're not comfortable trying to get a more community involvement, that's another story. Well, Rosenberg Planning Department, just we don't know what is going to come in the next month. So that wouldn't be a guarantee that it could just come down immediately. We don't know how you're going to vote in the next hearing. Oh, right. And what about this thing of neighborhood? The neighborhood, with all due respect to the Watson-Hillendell neighborhood, which as I said, I belong to, I belong to. I don't understand why they became the go-to historic preservation of homes. If there is information that we need to know or we need to know or we bring in historic someone with the credentials, not a neighborhood association with all due respect. And again, if the neighborhood association and it's the precedent we never had. Jonathan, you don't understand this. For me, maybe I've been using the word neighborhood association and it's sounding too literal. The statute says during the period, the commission shall negotiate with the owner and with any other party in an effort to find a means of preserving the build in our site. It was just, that's just one of the other parties that might have an interest in preserving the site. I agree with you, I'm a real estate investor, not downtown, but I agree with you that I don't think just a typical real estate investor is gonna come in here and preserve the site. I'm not really as a commission member gonna spend any time trying to find a real estate investor to come in. The question is whether or not somebody who has a stake in preserving that community, if they have any interest in this, and I presume that they don't, and I am inclined to just go ahead and vote to approve it with no delay, but when I'm hearing 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, and I know if we could hit pause and get somebody on the phone, we could go to zero. What Ted said is kind of how I feel 30 day delay will probably be the quickest way to get this thing approved for me. But that's why I keep bringing up that folks in the community, because I think they're the only people who are probably gonna fit that statute definition. Tom Miller, Tom Miller, I understand, I understand completely what you're saying, but Carla did say something very important. We don't know how this is gonna be voted in 30 days. And I think that a request for extension doesn't come from the commission, needs to come from the applicant if I'm not mistaken. But Tom Miller is the average living- Well, whatever. It blocks the way for me. Just- Sorry?  It's just really what that motion is, because if- Sorry, you were a little in, you disconnected, but Tom Miller is a planning department commissioner on the planning commission. And Carla Rosenberg probably knows him very well. He lives in that neighborhood, very, very active. April, I'm sure you know his name very well as well. On top of things mostly, if not always, and if a year and a half, this house is standing and we didn't hear from him. And this has been on our agenda and we didn't hear from him. I think that- Well- And that was my point in originally bringing up this conversation about the neighborhood association. And Jonathan, you kind of eluded as that the neighborhood does not have a stake in this. I think in the statute, I think the city has to send a notice out to people within a hundred feet or 500. I can't remember the number. Adjacent property owners. Adjacent property owners. So at least those people do have a stake and their voices, and they have already been notified and it doesn't seem like any of them are here. And again, you're right. The neighborhood leader for Hillendale is extremely active and they always know when a property is up for demolition. And that's where my kind of, one of my struggles is for this particular property. I don't think that we should go out asking them, use our delay time to bring them in. I think that they are active enough to know what's going on in their communities. They look out for things like this.  It really doesn't matter. They pay attention. So I don't think that we should use our delay time to go out. I think it's a good gesture. I don't think it's necessary because of this level of involvement with this neighborhood. So I'm still with either no delay up to 90-day delay just to do maybe another temperature check with the neighborhood because of the holidays or maybe people hadn't been paying attention or maybe they, and I also agree. I understand real estate, the real estate investing world and it will take a specialized person to take this property on. And I don't think you can find them in 90 days, 30 days or anything like that. I agree with what you offered about your phone. So with that, I agree wholeheartedly with April that a 30-day delay of the hearing knowing this neighborhood and having lived in this neighborhood will not actually in this loop. I lived south of this neighborhood but knowing exactly how involved they are, I agree that them not being here today indicate something and I don't know that as delaying 30 days, it's gonna suddenly have them coming before us with anything else. And as Jonathan stated, this is a quasi-judicial board and they did not come forward with evidence in the negative against the stimulation application. So I feel and that a 90-day delay is appropriate to give Mr. Liberty the opportunity to document the house in its existing condition or whoever from a historic lens can document the house in its existing condition. Mr. Liberty then has 90 days to also have the opportunity to seek additional opportunities for preservation and he has the opportunity to look at, all right, this is a door I wanna preserve, this is a door I don't wanna preserve before he demolishes the structure. Does everyone on this commission feel this is an acceptable? I'm taking my hands because I can't think of the word, but where we all... Are you doing a poll? Are you wanting to do a poll? Yes. Does everybody feel this is an acceptable coming together of opposing views? Matt is shaking his head, yes. You said 90 days? Okay. 90 days. Is that the high end of April's and the low end of TADS and we're there. Okay, with that, I will make a motion that... Oh, with that, can we get a staff recommendation? I'm sorry. Pearl and Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of this application on the condition of a 90-day delay to, as you said, seek salvage potential of the entire property through the Neighborhood Association or any other interested parties, Preservation Durham, putting out potentially publicity as well. And also for, in the case of going ahead and demolishing, then salvaging materials. Thank you. All right, with that, I will make a motion. Unified Development Ordinance Paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>A establishes the basis for a proving... I'm sorry. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA<PHONE_NUMBER>0 Broad Street demolition, the applicant is proposing to demolish a contributing primary structure dating from circa 1950. The commission has determined the primary structure to possess sufficient historical value or structural integrity to preserve it. However, the commission does find a hardship in the 365-day delay and the site will be stabilized with grass seed and straw following the demolition. No further construction has thus been proposed. Therefore, in accordance with UDO requirements, and NCGS 160A.400.14, the COA for the proposed demolition is approved with a 90-day delay. Second. With the motion being made by myself and seconded by Commissioner Dayan. Terry, can we please get a roll call? Yes, Vice-Chair Bressard. Moved. Commissioner Dayan. Moved. Commissioner DeBairi. Moved. Commissioner Fieselman. I'd like to abstain. Commissioner Gulsby. Moved. Chair Hamilton. I agree. Commissioner Johnson. I approved. Commissioner Craigher. I approved. Commissioner Waiters. I think she's already gone. Commissioner Waiters has been dismissed. Okay. That's a question. If she's dismissed, is it a yes or no? Because if she leaves, it's automatically a yes. But if she's dismissed. Pearl L. Rosenberg Planning Department, that's not the case in virtual hearings, correct? Ms. Coutrero? Yes. She's pretty much an abstainer. Grace Smith here with planning. If Ms. Waiters left the meeting, her vote does not count. She's gone from the meeting. And I'm gonna ask that the city attorney got us on the abstention. I'm not sure. I'm looking at our rules of procedure. I think an abstention counts as a yes vote. And I'm not sure in a virtual environment, if that's different. So I'm gonna ask Ms. Coutrero to respond to that. I know that there's nothing different for that to come out. I haven't gotten to an rules of procedure, so I didn't know if you'd beat me there yet. Are you looking at the rules of procedure? Going through them right now. Okay, I'm gonna be looking at them too. Hang on. Okay, I think I found the applicable language. So the rules of procedure state in all other cases of failure to vote by a member who's physically present shall be recorded as an affirmative vote. So I mean, I think generally the way that the law works in North Carolina is that all members of quasi judicial boards have an obligation to vote unless they have a conflict of interest that provides for a recusal. And so I think that that's kind of the intent behind that language in the rules of procedure. So it is an abstention because you are present. Commissioner Feizelman would count as a yes vote. Thanks for the clarification. So much on passes eight zero. Thank you, Mr. Riddie for coming out and presenting your case today. And hopefully something comes of this 90 days. With that, would any of the commissioners be interested in a five minute recess? In fact, that five minute should allow me to avert an emergency and go beyond the 11 o'clock hard stop time that I mentioned earlier. Fantastic. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. With that, I think we can just make a five minute recess, right? We don't need to vote on it or anything. Fantastic. All right, thank you. And to the applicants for the next case, we will see you soon. As the commissioners return to the meeting, please turn your camera back on just so we can know when we've reached a quorum. We're gonna give the staff and commissioners just another minute to jump back on. I'm here Chair Hamilton. I'm just gonna turn my camera off. That's it. Thanks Grace. Commissioner Dale and another minute. While he's jumping on, I think we can go ahead and start the hearing with having the oath administered to the applicants. It looks like little diversified architectural consulting is the applicant of record with Jason being on, but I know we have a few others on as well. If you could state your name and that you agreed to the oath and the affirmative since we do have multiple applicants on this one that would be appreciated. Terry, could you administer the oath to the applicants? Sure. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by our own knowledge information or voice? I do. Beesh Evans, building owner, I do. Is there anyone else on the line who wishes to speak for or against this case? Joe Fitzsimmons is here. I'm here to speak in support of the case, also as representing that historic consultant portion of the project. Thank you, Joe. And then for all three of you, Jason, Nish and Joe, can you also affirm that you consent to this hearing being held in a digital platform today? Great, thank you. With that, we will turn it over to Carla Rosenberg with city planning to hear the staff report on this case. Carla Rosenberg, planning department, this is case COA 20000081. It's 310 East Main Street, addition of modifications. The applicant is Little Diversified Architectural Consulting represented by Jason Gable, the owner, 310 East Main, LLC. It's located on the south side of East Main Street between North Roxborough and North Queen Street. It's sewn downtown design core. It's a contributing structure to the downtown Durham Historic District and it's also a local historic landmark, the former public service building. So the applicant is proposing to replace a rooftop trellis in place with an elevator tower and also to reestablish some window openings on the rear of the structure as well as some basement openings at ground level along the East elevation. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present the case. Carla, this is Jason Gable with Little Diversified Architect for the project. And so the existing building is two stories with a basement. The second story is not the full footprint of the building. It's only the front 40% or so of the footprint of the building. So the primary facade on the East Main Street facade is a two-story facade with a very tall parapet but the back half of the building is only one story with a low slope roof and parapet back there. In order to make the building accessible, all three floors, basement, first, second, we propose to add a new elevator to the building. We've chosen a location behind the two-story portion of the building so that the elevator addition won't be able to be seen from the front of the building other than at oblique angles. And it happens to be between structural beams. So we won't have to make any modifications to a significant structure of the building. And it also happens to be in the location of an existing rooftop appendage. There's a canopy and a small rooftop deck on the one-story roof in this location. And so that is the synopsis of the elevator request and the rear of the building, the one-story portion of the building, a butt and alley at the back of the building had four existing window openings that have been bricked up at some point in the past. And we propose to re-establish those openings underneath the existing lentils and create a new rear exit at the west side, the left side over there, so that we can have the basement and the first floor have second means of egress, which are required for occupancies of this scale. And then the third thing Carla mentioned was we'd like to reopen existing horizontal openings that are on the east side of the building that are openings to the existing basement. So we propose a new intervention that would allow us to open those up but still keep weather out, allow daylight in, keep weather out. The new intervention would be below those window sills as you see there in that picture. So it'd be very low profile, but would, this is very important to helping make the basement spaces more viable for 21st century tenants. So those are the three things we'd like to accomplish and may have any questions. I just have a point of clarification. This building was originally built by the Durham Herald Company. The front part was the newsroom, the back where they're talking about taking the bricks out of the windows was the press and up top on that half story or half floor of third was the studios for WDNC radio. I'm pleased to see folks trying to put this building back in use. It's a great building. I worked in it in the seventies and early eighties and very familiar with that horrible basement and I think this is a great project. Thanks, Dan. Yeah, I don't have Ted's history with it, but I'm glad that someone is putting that building back to use again when the Havana restaurant was there. They had salsa dancing night. So that's my relationship with the building. Jason, this is Andy Goldsby. Wonder if you could answer a few questions for me to help me understand the plans a little bit. Sure. I'm looking at level two and that's the elevator plan. And what I see is a doorway out to the rooftop. Is that correct? Yes, so we propose to provide rooftop access since we're building this addition up there and we're gonna be above the level of the existing roof rather than have to access the roof by ladder or other means. We're just showing a door that out onto the rooftop. Okay, so that's a maintenance aspect. It's not a rooftop terrace for... And what I'm getting at is if it was and if new guardrails and things like that were needed, I think that would be part of the purview of this commission. Agreed, yeah, at present no rooftop plan. That red box and the image there that Carla's got up is in the location of a covered rooftop right now. There's a little, it's a wooden platform up there and the platform itself is larger than that rectangle but the canopy is about that rectangle which is how we arrived at that size. Okay, great, great. And the other question I had is with the elevations on the rear, from where I can gather from the existing conditions and the proposed, it appears you're actually enlarging the window openings from that. And with the criteria, I'm looking at F2 that states when window openings on non character defining, non street facing elevations are modified at it or removed, retain the overall rhythm and individual proportion of window openings on the structure. And I wonder if they are being enlarged if you could just speak to how your plan is keeping in the overall rhythm. Yep, no, you're reading it correctly, Andy. The opening on the right, the existing opening that has been filled with block and has a door in it goes down to like a little tagged on platform loading dock appendage, that opening under the lintel goes all the way to the first floor elevation. And we're proposing to take the next two openings plan left of that, the center two openings on the back and knock the sills out of those so they match the one on the right. And then the one on the far left is there are two openings there one is an opening into the basement and the other is just another window opening in order to get the exit stair in that location that is between the two levels since the basement floor level is below grade we need to connect that vertically to make that work in elevation and in section. So you're correct, we're proposing to knock the sills out to make them match the existing opening on the right from a proportionate standpoint. Got you, thank you. What material are you going back where the doorway is for the egress door? What material are you representing? So that is a dark gray. That is recessed, it's three and a half feet recessed from the facade of the building so that the out swinging exit door can swing out without being in the alley and it is metal studs and metal panel. The metal panel we're proposing the precedent that led us to that decision is the 300 building 300 each main building next door that has a metal panel addition on the side of it of that historic building. And is that the same that you'll use on the elevator? Yes, that's the intention that they match. Okay, thank you, Jason. As far as material, are you referring to what's called Alucabon plus, what is that? Alucabon is a brand name, it's a metal panel. Carla, if you go to the photo or the image we showed of the east elevation of the 310 building it shows the metal panel of that picture right there. Thank you, Carla. That addition in the background that you're seeing there is metal panel and that's what we're trying to approximate. So it won't look like the fish scale blue to do those things? Yeah, that was just a brochure panel we were asked to provide the material. It's going to look, we're suggesting a dark gray very similar to what you see on the 300 building there. Although we'll have much less of it visible on our building. And no color variation? Right, correct. We're proposing one color. Another reason to Andy's point about the window openings on the rear of the building, we are trying to bring daylight down into the basement as Tad alluded it's completely windowless at the moment because of the rear alley grade. So in order to help make it viable for lease we want to have as much daylight down there as we can. So by removing a small portion of the brick sills at the rear of the building and making those windows taller we're going to cut our sliver of the first floor right inside those rear windows and allow so it'll be open to the basement right there. Some of the plan views Carla, I think if you scroll back down keep going down on the left there on the, sorry, sheet left. Yeah, on that on the left, you can see there's a stair proposed stair parallel to the back wall of the building at level one street level that those windows there would be open that opens stairwell to the basement and they'll provide daylight to the basement there and in the location of the red boxes that we want to open the skylights. And where he's talking about the skylights there were originally when I worked there anyway there were openings in that roof to allow materials to go up and down and there may even be a crane arm still there on the side of the building. It is. That area was open to the basement in the past. Yeah, the yard arm is still there Tad and we propose to keep it there. We like it, it's a neat piece. So that yard arm was to, the Salvation Army was in there and that's when I worked there and we would bail rags in the basement. There was a huge baler down there and so we'd create these 500 pound bales of rags and we'd hoist them out of the hole there using that yard arm on the trucks and they would sell them. This is Laura Feaselman. I'm hearing, it seems like very thoughtful application. I'm hearing excitement from the commissioners that the building is going to be used and find a new life. May I be so pulled as to propose that we go ahead and vote? Yes, without we will close the public hearing and if no other commissioners have anything else that they'd like to add to the conversation I will entertain a motion by Commissioner Feaselman if you'd like, if you'd so choose. Should we do a staff recommendation first? Oh, I'm sorry. Carla, would you excuse us for our recommendation? Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of the application. Thank you. Commissioner Feaselman, do you like to make the motion or? I would but I don't have the text in front of me. Can somebody else do it, please? I can do it. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA<PHONE_NUMBER> East Main Street additions, addition and modifications, the applicant is proposing an addition and modifications to a landmark property. A rooftop elevator tower measuring 15 feet square and 15 feet in height. 15 feet square, 15 feet square and 15 feet in height will be constructed at the center right of the rooftop and the clad with flat dark gray metal panels and existing trellis at that location will be removed. Brick infill will be removed from four window openings on the south rear elevation and new metal frame window systems will be installed, matching the appearance of those on the front elevation. Sheet metal will be removed from two basement openings along with elevation at street level and replaced with stylings. Therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and quality of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report. And the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2000081 310 East Main Street addition and modifications with the following condition. Improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this CON. The improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required of relating to building construction site work and work in the right of way. And a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. The motion being made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Bouchard. Can we get a roll call vote please? Yes, Vice Chair Bouchard. Aye. Commissioner Dianne. Move. Commissioner DeBerry. Commissioner DeBerry. Oh, you're muted. Commissioner Feaselman. Approved. Commissioner Gulsby. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Cragar. Approved. Okay, motion passes 8-0. Thank you all for coming out and... I'd like to say one second before you conclude it. I wanna agree with April and Ted about this building coming back to life, which is wonderful, but also it's amazing to see Joe here again. Hi, everyone, I'm sorry, my internet connection this morning has been kind of wonky, so I've been quiet, but it's good to see all of you. I certainly empathize with your process here. It's very different from my time on the commission, but it's good to see you. Same here. Right. Well, thank you all, and it was good to see you, as always, Joe and Jason, and Nisha, it was great to have you as well. Thank you all. Great, thanks. Katie, if I could just add, Ted, the three of us, Joe and Nisha, I would love to hear any stories you've gotten, offline, by email or other means. We would love to know some firsthand experience of how the building functioned, and as an architect who does a lot of historic stuff and adaptive reuse, I always love to hear the stories from people who actually got to use the buildings in their previous iteration. So if you ever have opportunity, we'd love to hear from you. I shared my contact info, Jason, with Ted. I just sent you a message earlier. I'm not sure if you saw that or not, but I was gonna say the same thing. So, yeah, appreciate it. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I really appreciate it, Ted's reference, historical reference to the building. So that was helpful. I enjoyed that. Yeah, I was looking to execute that. There's a little bit of historic charm, obviously, on the interior of the building that we're working to preserve, but any of those stories, I would definitely appreciate that. I definitely want to take the perspective of a local developer from the angle of us being able to preserve these projects and really excited about the potential and its for this building as well. So thank you, Ted, and look forward to hearing a little bit more of your time. Thanks, Katie. Great, thanks. With that, I think we will move on to our last case of the day, which is COA 20000090, which is 709 Shepherd Street demolition of accessory structures. It looks like the applicants are on. You have two names for James Kopak. Yep, sorry, my fiance is the one that we needed without video. Great, great. But you'll be the only one presenting today. That's correct. Okay, great. With that, Terri, can you please have the applicant affirm the oath? Yeah. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public proceedings for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. And then can you also confirm that you agree to having this hearing done in this remote platform through Zoom? Yes. Great, great. And with that, I think we can turn it over to the staff to hear the staff report. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, this is case COA 20000090. It's 709 Shepherd Street demolition of accessory structures. The applicant, James Kopak and the owner, Nicole and Paul Votel. It's located on the east side of Shepherd Street between Jackson and Yancey Streets, Zoned Residential Urban 5-2 or Duplex, contributing structure to the Moorhead Hill Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to demolish two accessory structures. One is a contributing structure, a garage, and the other is non-contributing a shed. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Kopak to present the case. Hi, yes. So currently on our property, which we purchased in early 2017, there are two accessory structures on our site plan. One is listed as a shed and another listed as a carport. Both of those are built on brick pilings, which are essentially unsecure. And so as you can see in the photos here, there's plywood flooring, the water on the property currently when it rains goes underneath this carport or garage. And so whether or not it was built this way, currently there is, it's hollow underneath. And so it's essentially unsafe to put a car in or potentially even something such as a riding lawn mower. In the case of the shed, I've actually fallen through the floor of this one. And so as part of some plans, which we hope to run by you all next month, we are proposing to demolish these two structures. Thank you. Were there any questions from commissioners for the applicants on this one? So understanding that these structures are historic, clearly by sandbar and maps and everything else. Do you believe that at any point the materials have been replaced or are these the original materials to the best of your knowledge? So listed on the 1937 sandborne map is what appears to be something that is in the same general position as the carport. However, based on the scaling of the map, the building in the 1937 map is located, the centroid of that building is approximately 85 feet back from the street, proper street, Shepherd Street. However, the current carport is approximately 60 feet from the street. So it's reasonably unclear whether or not this is in fact that structure. As for the materials, it appears that the floorboards in the carport have been replaced at some point because they are sort of a pressed and laminated plywood, which was, if I had to put a guess to it, probably put in in either the 80s or so, around about when the skylights in the roof of that structure were put in. But again, having purchased the property with those two buildings in the state that they're in, it's reasonably unclear where or when these were built. Yeah, so I think also if you were to look at the multi-list for when we bought this property, there were other structures that were clearly built sort of haphazardly on the property. So it's difficult to tell when anything on the property was built, other than the primary structure. Do you feel that it appears the siding is wood and probably original to the structure? Do you think it is salvageable for reuse or is it, do you have any evidence that it is? The wood is at least in some places in disrepair. It has begun to fall off the side of the building. And so I have my doubts about the whole of the structures wood being able to be used. The brick on which it stands is potentially salvageable. And I believe in our application, we have made note that we would attempt to salvage the brick from the project. But the wood siding here, as you can see, is in various states of disrepair from the bottom to the top. It probably has termite damage, but without having that inspected structurally, we wouldn't know. The shed itself, which is the non-contributing structure, is clad in vinyl, but also built on brick pierce. And we are uncertain what is underneath the vinyl. We have been checked to see if there were siding on the underside of that. Were there any other questions from commissioners for the applicant or staff? Jonathan, I have two questions. One, the skylights are not original, right? Presumably, considering the first accessory structure shows up in 1937, I would guess that those skylights are probably from the 1960s. Thank you. And the applicants also mentioned that they do not need any use of a garage, but there are plans to build an accessory structure, or is there gonna be any garage in that structure? Yes, there will be a garage there. Estensibly in the same location, perhaps set back further from the deck, which you can see there. Are there any other questions for the applicant or staff? Question for staff. Carl, I know we've had this conversation in the past with respect to these sorts of garage structures. With respect to this particular structure, do you have an evaluation of any special significance it might have towards maintaining the historic character of the district? Well, Rosenberg Planning Department, it's a utilitarian garage. There were many of them throughout the district. In that sense, it lends to the character because it was the predominant form of garage, but in terms of special significance, I don't see any architectural value. And I think we reviewed the sandborn maps. It was not built at the same time as the primary structure. There were two properties. One appeared by 1937. The other one was close to 1950 from the research that I did. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant or staff and commissioners? All right, hearing none. I think we can close the public hearing and then discuss amongst ourselves the application for us. May I? So I don't see any reason that I can see for a delay. The only thing that does affect me a little bit is that in one place the applicant is saying that they don't need a garage and then they're building a garage. So if there's no use for the garage to rehabilitate it, why do they need to build another one? That makes sense. Am I allowed to comment or is it close to? Jonathan, do you pose that as a question for the applicant? Yes, for sure. Okay. You can respond to the question. In regards to, and at the moment, I don't have the language directly in front of me, but in regards to the garage not being useful, it is in generally related to the fact that it is neither deep enough to pull our car into or safe enough to put a car into. There are four brick piers on which the building is built. And so because the plywood flooring underneath it has started to degrade due to, I guess, water eroding it. It is, I certainly wouldn't recommend putting anything heavier than a lawnmower inside of it for fear of it collapsing. Is there any other discussion amongst the commissioners in support or against the intersisee of our day delay? I would support approving the demolition without delay. During no other discussion on the matter, I will entertain, oh, I will ask staff for a recommendation. Carla Rosenberg claiming the apartment staff would recommend approval of the application without conditions. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion? I'll move. This is Vice Chair Bouchard. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case to COA<PHONE_NUMBER>9 Shepherd Street demolition of accessory structures. The applicant is proposing to demolish a contributing accessory structure dating from the 1930s, post-dating the 1900s primary structure and a non-contributing accessory structure. The commission has determined each accessory structure to lack sufficient historical value or structural integrity to preserve it. The sites will be stabilized with grass seed and straw immediately following the demolitions or if new construction does not commence within three months. Therefore, in accordance with UDO requirements and North Carolina General Statutes 160A.400.14 the COA for the proposed demolition is approved without a delay. Thank you. With the motion having been made by Commissioner or Vice Chair Bouchard and seconded by myself, I believe. Can we get a roll call? Yes, Vice Chair Bouchard. Proved. Commissioner Dianne. Commissioner DeBaird. Proved. Commissioner Bezelman. Approved. Commissioner Gulsby. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Cragger. Approved. Okay, motion passes 80. Thank you very much and thank you to the applicant. With that, I think we just have new business. Correct, Carla. That's correct. Mailing. Right. Shall we? Okay, so the newsletter, we were I think all distracted many things in the past year. So we did let that project fall for 2020. Staff is gonna put its efforts into putting out a newsletter as soon as possible. Just in-house without you all, if that's okay with you, we're probably gonna highlight the new criteria and the new process in this newsletter. And then we'd like to start planning for the next 2021 newsletter. I believe we developed a timeline starting in February last year. And so I wondered if the same people who volunteered last year to lead last year's efforts would do the same for this year? Or if we want to elect new people to design- Was that all that last year? I think you were.  And then I was gonna do- Yeah, yeah, okay. I think Tad might have been, was it Tad and April, we were gonna- I think it was Tad, yeah, yeah. I don't remember what we were supposed to write about though. Was it a downtown district? Were we gonna do downtown? I think we had several ideas loaded, but hadn't decided on one yet. Okay. I think you had even floated on doing two separate- New letters, which if you can pull it off, more power to you. That's what it was. We were gonna do one for downtown and then one for residences because the downtown is so different than the residential districts. But in the service of educating, I think it could be worthwhile for residents, people in the residential districts to see what's going on in the downtown districts as well. It's the thing we can only put it out once per year. So it was Tad, Katie and me. Is that the team? I believe it was. All right, so when is it? So we want it out for February, 2020? I was starting to work on it in February so that it can be out. I think we usually put it out in September. So having it tied up neatly in August for printing in September and mailing. Yeah, that got dropped very hard with the COVID. I completely forgot. Yeah. I'm on board to do it again. Tad, are you still, I'm ready? Just let me know what to do. Okay. And then Karlie, y'all are just gonna go ahead and send one out this month. That's the 2021. That's kind of just a... Yeah, okay. Yeah, it will probably be a bare bones type of publication. Not a lot of pretty pictures, but we do want to make sure people are informed about the new process and the new criteria. Karlie, would you print an extra 50 or so that I can take to local real estate firms? Definitely. We are seeing more and more of these contributing accessory structures disappearing. And I always think about that case, the person who actually converted their garage into a studio. And I thought it might be nice to do a spotlight on that project. We sometimes do project spotlights that you really can reuse these structures. That one happened to be more prominent on a corner. People can see it from the street. But I just noticed this year, seems like every single hearing we're getting a new garage disappearing. Yeah. Thanks for mentioning that. It's something I've thought about a lot. And one thing that's tricky is that the ADU rules require minimum square footage of 400 square feet or whatever, you know better than I do. And most of these garages are much smaller. So anything that we can highlight for how to make that work or if there's a way to get around the rules in the case of a historic property that we'd like to preserve. I think it would be helpful to highlight as Durham goes in this direction. Right. Yeah. Apart from maintaining it on site and building another, not everybody has room for two accessory structures in the backyard. So. Well, I guess the point too of how cluttered do you want to be with accessory structures? Is that really what the character of the district was originally too? Very good point. Very good point. Pad landscape and trees at some point. I'm happy we haven't seen too many trees getting torn down this year, y'all. Those are always the worst. Yeah. Oh, with a round of rain we've had, it'll probably fall over, Katie. Yeah, exactly. That is a hundred. I heard about the trees in my neighborhood. I'm like, good grief. I will say that we did get a minor COA to remove 15 trees, but they are going to be replacing every single one with a new tree minimum DBH of 12 inches. Oh my gosh. The accessory dwelling rehab spotlight, are you gonna put that in this upcoming newsletter or did you want us to do that? Oh, the spotlight I just mentioned, that would be something to entertain for a next newsletter. Yeah. I don't know if you were with preservation Durham at that point when Wendy Hillis was director. She had put the accessory structures as actually an endangered sort of property in Durham on the endangered list. It is endangered because our cars don't fit in them anymore. People have two, three cars per house nowadays. And most of the time people really don't want to invest the money in rehabbing them. It's costly, but it is endangered. I don't know if we'll see too many originals in the next 20 years. Yeah. Well, that would be definitely a good topic, accessory structures and, because I think with the expanding housing choices, EHC, we're also gonna see a lot more new accessory structures. So it might be good to do like, how you can use your old historic structure and how you can build a new structure in keeping with the historic character. Yeah. Yep. We reached on that one. As long as they all don't look alike, I'm all for it. You meant to do that. Do we have a system of tracking, like in a district, how many new ones have been proposed? And are we getting to the point where there is like, you know, a threshold that's been, like I know it would kind of be our determination to make, but at some point the district character is off kilter if you have too many of the exact same structure. So do we have a way of like knowing, or like that in the staff report, it'd be like, this is the fifth time we've seen this exact structure in this district. So it would, it's basically our eyes on the page, I think. Every staff report has, you know, a title. So let's say new construction, accessory structure. So I'm happy to compile a list if you'd like, but we'd have to look through each one individually to see how they vary in terms of, you know, their elevations. Tag. Dig through archives to do it, but maybe just like a moving forward thing of keeping track of. I think it's fair to say that if our friend, Mr. Moncine comes back, that he deserves a little scrutiny just based on his activity thus far and his assertion that he's going to do a lot of these. Can I see, anybody hear me? Yeah, sorry. I didn't know who was trying to speak. I feel like whoever was talking got cut off and I didn't know whether it was April or Laura. Yeah. April, you want to, you said something? No, I didn't, but I will say something as far as keeping tabs and tally. When I worked as in Carla's position at Winston-Salem, we did used to keep a database on cases and it was very helpful when going back to look at how many of this type of situations have we had. So I think it is a good idea to probably keep tally, but I don't know how that works if we are tasked with reviewing each application on a case-by-case basis. Are we able to go back and, well, I don't know, that's just, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Right now we use the Carla database. And you all have your own longevity with the commission, Tad. Saw that himself, the similarity between those two accessory structures. So I'm happy to compile a list of the different types of work that we've had over the past year. Because I know like maybe two years ago, I was really concerned in the opposite direction that we were getting a lot of demolition of multi-family structures that were all getting converted into these like really large single-family structures. And I felt like we were messing with a character in the neighborhoods in that way. And now I feel like we're swinging the opposite direction to get all these accessory structures in, which is great, but I kind of want to just know, pulse check what's happening with the neighborhoods and are we keeping the character or is it getting changed one way or the other? Yeah, it does make a difference over time. We were supposed to be taking care of the overall character of the district. So we do kind of have to look at this carefully. I don't know how we just stuck a new problem. I don't know if it's a new problem, but yes. Yeah. Minor COAs, do we get any reports? I haven't seen any lately for minor COAs. Oh, minor COAs, Stevie. That's a good point. Terry? Yes. Minor COAs. I can run a report and have them ready at the next meeting. They're just kind of got slipped. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Are we, does anybody have any more comments? Are we ready to adjourn? Yeah, I think we are ready to adjourn. There is one other matter that I think slipped through the cracks. Do we need to select new officers for this year? Hmm. I feel like Matt and I both would support of that decision. The person has to do the introduction statement every virtual hearing. I wouldn't mind not doing it. Is that a January? You wouldn't have to do it. I don't think it is. Okay. I will, I'll look into that and if it needs to happen next month then what we can do it next month. Yeah, good. Thank you for bringing that up. No problem. Matt. Thank you. All right. All right. Well, with that, if there's no other business that any commissioners have, we can adjourn. Happy new year. Happy new year. Happy 2020.