Good morning.

It is 9 01 a.m.

on Monday, August 25th, 2025.

I am J.D.

Bartell, Chair of the Historic Preservation Appeals Board, and I'm calling this meeting to order.

This board meeting is taking place at the Houston City Hall Annex at 900 Bagby.

Although there is no longer virtual participation option Houston Television, HTV offers viewing options via their social media and web page.

Board members, please unmute yourself and respond by repeating your name and saying present when I call your name.

Truman Edminster present.

Rob Hellier.

Hell, you're present.

Libby Vieira Bland.

Viera Bland present.

And direct Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Williamson present.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

As chair would like to comment on how this meeting is to be conducted.

All speakers are asked to fill out a speaker request form, turn it in to the front desk, and each speaker will be heard in person when I call on you.

Historic Preservation Office staff will open with a brief introduction to the appeal that is before the board.

The appellant or the representative will be next and will be given a reasonable time to make their presentation.

The appellant may have time for rebuttal if desired.

Finally, board members may have questions or spee for the speakers, which will not count against their time allotted for speaking.

May I call for the director's report.

Commission members and the public, welcome.

I'm Robert Williamson, Secretary of this Commission and Deputy Director of the Houston Planning and Development Department.

I do not have any comments for the Director's Report this morning.

So in closing, if you have questions, you can call the Houston Office of Preservation Hotline at 832 393 6556.

Or visit our website at Houston Planning.com.

This can concludes the director's report.

Thank you.

The prior meeting minutes were posted with this agenda.

May I have a motion and a second to accept these minutes.

Administer second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Passed unanimously.

And the next item on the agenda.

And we had a request to move, it was item three, Kim.

Yes, we we I had originally requested item three be moved up.

I don't think that after speaking with uh Mr.

Rhymes counsel for that applicant.

I don't know that it will be extensively long.

That was my concern.

I think the board can take the items in whichever order they prefer.

Okay.

So with that consideration, um we'll continue with item two, consideration of and possible action on an appeal of the decision of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on July 17th, 2025, denying a certificate of appropriateness, a COA for window replacement at 1108 East 16th Street in the Norhill Historic District.

I submit item two at 1108 East 16th Street in the Nor Hill Historic District for your consideration.

The 1,474 square foot, one-story contributing bungalow style property was built circa 1928, situated on a 5,000 square foot interior lot.

The applicant is proposing to replace 12 original windows and replace them with double-hung primed pine wood windows by Sierra Pacific.

On July 17th, 2025, the HAC voted to deny the application.

Members of the board, the applicant, John May, is here to answer any questions.

I am also available to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

We have one speaker on this project.

And his name is John May.

Please state your name into the speaker when you approach the podium.

And uh I live at 1108 East 16th Street, Houston 7709.

And I'm here because I'd like to uh get some relief and have our windows uh accepted to be installed in our house at 1108.

Okay, the windows that we have now, okay.

I've gone back into like 1948 helping my father uh replace some of the cords and the weights and the fascia boards and everything like that.

And uh so I'm pretty familiar with it.

Okay, those windows are open for shatter uh if something comes off like hail or should we ever get any kind of hurricane and what have you?

So the windows that I'm proposing, okay, will be uh double hung that will look exactly like the originals, okay, and installed by professionals, painted and ready to go.

I'd like to also add uh that uh the Norhill group uh accepted our application and gave us permission to install the windows, okay.

And they are uh wooden windows.

I have uh the uh information in these two uh printouts for anyone that would like to see them.

Okay.

I also have some other information here uh that might be of importance.

Uh let's see.

Okay, I had received uh an email uh from uh Roman uh that said that uh everything was approved.

Okay.

And uh with that information, I contacted Gorman uh whose uh windows that we're looking to uh install and saying uh that uh and I can read uh you may uh let's see your next step is to go through the permitting process.

Permitting will need a copy of your COA instructions for uh the permitting process can be found by clicking on the following link, permitting services.

Okay, once at the website, scroll down and select the relevant guide, residential or other.

This document includes useful information regarding the permission uh permitting application process.

When you submit the plans, drawings, and other related documents into the project project docs.

You must also include your COA.

Please upload the COA and follows.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

Um, Mr.

May, do you have any uh that's just the instructions from the website?

Do you have uh something else in reference to the project?

I mean the appeals process.

Or any other commentary on the what you're doing for the or your request.

No, I just like to get approval to put the windows in.

Um does staff have any questions for Mr.

May?

Or does board have any questions for Mr.

May?

I I think I just have a quick question for staff based on Mr.

May's comments.

He said um Roman indicated that there was approval.

Yes.

Excuse me.

Sorry, for staff.

That's a question for me.

Oh, it's a question for me.

I'm sorry, what is a question for me?

Oh, I just need to speak in front of you very quick.

I'll stand back.

Okay.

So the email that uh John received is actually just the automated email that is sent out for every single applicant when their application is acted on by the HAC.

So it does not uh that's just an old email template.

We're actually working on fixing that, but it nowhere in the email does it say necessarily that it was approved, it just says you may review the action report and that your project was acted on by the HAC.

So that is uh just an automated email that gets sent out.

I have a question for staff.

Didn't I assume somebody went out to actually physically inspect the windows?

That was Roman McAllen.

Okay.

He's not here today.

And is there a report in here from him?

The condition of them.

No, no.

He did not include that in his uh staff report.

No.

Okay.

Um I believe in the transcript he did talk about uh going to go see them, but that's all that we have.

Um I he did mention Norhill uh had an approval.

I I don't know if she wants to speak on it, but um Miss Kelsey is here from Norhill.

If uh we want to have them say directly what they said, yeah.

Miss Kelsey is back there.

And I'm I apologize.

I know you signed up for the next one, but since you're here, I think for the record it's good just to have you directly say what Norhill's view was on this project.

So I'm Virginia Kelsey.

I'm the VP of Nor of Deep Restrictions for Nor Hill Neighborhood Association.

Um we have had a great number of people want to replace windows as windows are getting older.

And as a community, um although most of us on the board would rather people not replace their windows and not get rid of historic material.

We felt we needed to represent what the neighborhood was, and if they would replace windows with wood windows that match the style and character of the house, then we are approving them.

Um with no vinyl windows, very few select clad windows, and primarily encouraging wood windows.

These were wood windows, so we felt um it was important to support our neighborhood and support the windows.

Thank you.

Do we have any board members with a motion on this item?

I make a motion that we grant the uh appeal to overturn the HHC's decision.

Yeah, I would second that motion.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Um all those in favor, please state your name and aye.

Hell, you're aye.

Administer aye.

Bartel aye.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is item three, consideration of and possible action on an appeal of the decision of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission, HAHC on July 17, 2025, denying a certificate of appropriateness, COA for demolition and issuing a COR for the demolition at 1138 Fugate Street in Norhill Historic District.

And I have three speakers at this time signed up after staff.

Good morning, Chair and members of the HA HPAB.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item three at 1138 with View Gate, a once contributing home located in Norhill Historic District built in circuit 1925.

Staff has submitted the supplemental information received from the Rhymes Law Firm uh to you guys, and staff is also provided that information uh to you today.

Staff also has additional photos provided by inspections from the day of the collapse, which you guys have to be submitted into the record.

Along with the supplemental information.

Document camera.

Oh, we don't need document camera.

Never mind.

On July 17, 2025, the HHC ruled on the demolition COA for 1138 Pugate.

The result of the HHC meeting are as follows.

Staff recommended denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for demolition.

The HHC approved staff recommendations and added the following conditions.

Denial of the COA and issuance of a COR for the legal demolition of the property.

Any new construction must apply for a COA to be reviewed by the HHC, which must meet all applicable ordinances and codes.

And the new construction must comply with the illegal demolition provision in the preservation ordinance.

Staff recommended denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for demolition without a permit, which is customary practice for all projects that perform work without a COA COA and to a permit.

Chair, members of the HHC, I'm available for any question.

This concludes my presentation.

I was there a another project coming up at the HHC on this property?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

A new construction of following the procedure that was defined that we just you just described?

I mean, as far as they have to apply for that after this action.

Uh I don't follow.

Can you repeat that?

So you you already have an application that's coming before the HHC for the new construction on this address.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have um three speakers on this item, and I'm calling them in the order of which I received them.

Uh the first one is Keith Rhymes.

Please state your name at the podium.

Uh good morning.

My name is Keith Rhymes.

Uh I represent VET Renovation.

Uh Tabitha Hensley, the sole member and manager of VET, and Kevin Simmons, who is the general contractor for the project at 1138 Fugate.

Uh this project's been before the board once before on denial of the COA, and an appeal was granted uh for the COA with conditions.

I'm here on behalf of VET, Tabitha, and Kevin, because this is it's a legal question, strictly a legal question.

Uh what we're talking about is Section 33 uh 203, uh and in particular section 33203D, and our belief is that the Commission has misinterpreted that uh completely.

Uh the notice my clients had before the July 17th meeting was strictly uh for uh a COA at 1025 on the 17th, my clients received uh an email from Mr.

Jackson saying here is the link to the section of the ordinance being added to the report.

That section was 33203.

That's the first and only notice my clients had that there would be any consideration of enforcement and penalties.

That's the title uh of section 33203 enforcement and penalty.

So ignoring the fact that they didn't have any meaningful notice, uh the plain fact is that 33203 just doesn't apply in this case.

Uh and let me back up for just one minute.

On uh on some date before that, the structure collapsed.

So the demolition we're talking about was demolition after the structure collapsed.

Uh as opposed to just a straight up demolition.

I'm sorry, I am told I have 10 minutes to speak.

Who can continue?

I won't be 10 minutes, but I'll be a few more minutes.

Uh so on June 17th, after the structure collapsed, my clients had an email from Mr.

Jackson saying permitting historic preservation and inspections have all coordinated and have determined that it is best for you all to demolish the residence down to the foundation only.

Uh and I think Mr.

Stockton was involved in that.

I'm not sure, but and then on June 24th, Houston Public Works issued a permit uh that stated owner is allowed to demolish the property down to the existing foundation.

So looking at at 33203, it just wasn't intended to uh apply to a situation like this.

It has two parts.

The first part uh deals with the situation where a homeowner demolishes a house, just simply says, I don't have a COA, I'm gonna demolish this house.

Uh and listening to the meeting on July 17th, it sounds like that happened once before.

And was the only time it ever happened, and the only time 203 has ever been uh imposed.

The second is a situation where a homeowner neglects a property to the point where the city has issued a warning, and then subsequently the property has to be demolished.

So reading that part of 203D, if a contribute I don't want to just a bridge, if a contributing structure is ordered to be demolished by the city for public safety reasons after the property owner has received notice of neglect, uh the building official shall not issue a building permit, and nor the person shall issue any other city permit for the site where the structure was formally located for a period of two years after the date of demolition.

That's not what we're dealing with here.

We're dealing with a property that was being renovated by my clients and there was a collapse, the roof collapse.

Uh for the for the record, though, there was never any notice to my clients or to any previous homeowner that we're aware of of neglect.

Now, had the property been neglected?

Yes, severely.

When my clients bought the property, uh it was an awful condition.

It was a disaster waiting to happen.

And I think anyone objective would understand that.

So what we're complaining about is the issuance of a COR, and and pardon me for taking just a moment to read the definition of a COR, a current and valid permit issued by the HAHC authorizing the issuance of a building permit for demolition intended to correct action taken contrary to the requirements of this article.

Uh there was no violation of the article.

A COA, on the other hand, is a current and valid permit issued by the HAHC or the director as applicable, authorizing the issuance of a building permit for demolition required by this article.

So the city ordered the demolition.

The city issued a building permit, and our view is that a COA should have been issued and should have been issued without conditions, certainly not conditions that are strictly relying on 33203 D.

And for the record, uh what my clients did there was they purchased a house.

At the time of the collapse, they had spent over $50,000 in the renovation process.

Kevin Simmons, he was here, uh, and I would like to speak if if uh if it's necessary, uh, was working at the property on the day of the collapse.

In fact, he and his framing crew were working in the attic just a few minutes before the collapse.

Fortunately, Kevin ran out and picked up pizza.

They were sitting on the porch when the roof collapsed, or he would not be here today.

After the collapse, that came back and applied for a uh a COA for virtually the same project they were building, uh, as opposed to some different project.

Uh these are parties who were exercising their best effort to renovate this property.

Uh they were spending money.

Uh they were not people with any sort of sinister motive, they were not people being careless.

Uh therefore we're asking the board to issue a COA without condition.

Uh and that concludes my statement.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.

Okay, we we usually direct questions till after everybody has spoken.

I'll be happy to wait.

Yeah.

Uh did you have anything to add, Kim?

Okay.

I'll wait for questions from the board during your discussion.

All right.

Um the second speaker that I have signed up is Kevin Simmons.

Well, that that would be, if necessary.

Mr.

Simmons is the party.

Okay.

And then the final signed up party is Ms.

Virginia Kelsey.

I'm Virginia Kelsey, VP of Nor Hill Neighborhood Association.

On receipt of the owner's initial drawings, NA commented that they were not in alignment with the proposed Nor Hill Guidelines, which served as our measure for judging a project's harmony with our neighborhood.

The owner requested a meeting, which I attended along with the NNA president.

At this meeting, we resolved a number of design issues to bring the project into alignment.

However, the owner, who is also the contractor, or maybe he's not the contractor, but the contractor, um, made several statements that later proved to be false.

They claimed the brickwork was failing because of an absence of a grade beam.

As this seemed unbelievable, I asked if this had been confirmed.

And they assured us that they had investigated by removing a portion of the wall.

Given the extent of the damage of the brick work, we agreed they could remove the brick, but we were very clear that every salvageable brick must be saved.

Once demolition began, it was immediately apparent that a gray beam did in fact exist.

The owner then proceeded to dispose of all the original brick.

During the remodeling, the owner contractor removed significant portions of the ship lap and framing, which are historic materials, and failed to provide adequate bracing to support the remaining structure.

With homes built at this time, two by four studs were placed further apart than today, and the ship lap served to strengthen the structure.

Anyone familiar with these basic building practices understands that removing the ship lap would destroy the structural integrity.

Removing such substantial amounts of framing, including most of the interior walls, endangered the entire structure.

So they compromised the structural integrity and disposed of the original brick framing and shiplap, which suggests a disregard for historic material.

To help define harmony, the NA board adopted the Norhill Neighborhood Guidelines on May 27th.

These guidelines mirror mirror the city's neighborhood polling last year for their proposed guidelines.

Then the NA guidelines have been formally approved by the board, recorded with the State, and are enforceable.

All submissions to NA are reviewed for conformance with these guidelines.

While the city cannot enforce these guidelines, the owner is aware of them.

Instead of working with Norhill, they had their attorney send us two letters.

And on August 7th, the owner submitted new plans to the NA, not for a house.

You can continue not for a house in keeping with their original approved submission, but for a new 2895 square foot house on their 5,000 square foot lot for a.58 far.

This proposal is far outside the scale and harmony of the neighborhood.

Provision 33-203 was written to protect neighborhoods from illegal demolition.

If historic neighborhoods are to survive, there must be consequences for actions that result in the destruction of historic homes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim, did you have anything in reference to the code references?

My understanding of this Section 203 inclusion in the staff comments was that it was added after discussions happened.

I think Section 203 always applies, and it's a matter of public record.

This section is available online and anyone working in a historic district knows it.

Certainly has access and availability to it.

You know, the the it it appears to me that with the issuance of the certificate of remediation, the Commission acknowledged that, well, this happened, and they did not have a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the structure.

That was not the certificate of appropriateness that was granted.

They were given the then the certificate of remediation, which is an appropriate remedy also under Section 203.

So I'm not sure that a late notice of this applicability or when the applicant has the ability to know what the rules are because they are published on the website and have access to staff.

I I don't know that that's determinative of whether or not the HHC action was appropriate.

Okay.

And uh I see Terrence is at the front.

Can you restate um what the question is that we are reviewing?

Um you mean what on what grounds are they appealing?

What is the item three record?

The item is what we are passing action.

Oh, okay.

So the item is 1138 View Gate, item number three, eleven thirty-eight view gate.

And you are basically being asked to I I mean I can read you the results of of the COA.

Um the results of the HAC meeting, staff recommended denial of COA and issuance of a COR for demolition without a permit, and the conditions that the HHC placed on the um the COR, of course, the denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for a legal demolition of the property.

Um that's one.

Two revocation of the previously approved COA for an alteration addition.

And number three, any new construction must apply for a COA to be reviewed by the HHC, which must meet all applicable applicable ordinances and codes.

And finally, the new construction must comply with the illegal demolition provision in the preservation ordinance.

I have a question of staff.

Yes, sir.

Uh Commissioner Edminster, um, just as a timeline to make sure I understand the chronology here.

Okay.

Uh the uh this body approved uh a certificate of appropriateness in May.

Yes, sir.

Uh the applicant went to work on the project under that C of A.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

At the time of the collapse, that was the COA in existence.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

After that point in time, did the applicant make a new application for a C of A?

No, sir.

They didn't.

So no action was taken on their part?

No.

And and and they they had an approved COA to start construction on their home.

So I got that part.

Yeah, but but other than that, no, sir.

Collapse happened under that COA?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And so as we march forward to July 17th.

Yes, sir.

Isn't that COA the one that is still in effect at that point in time?

But we have a problem.

Yes because there's now not material there that was to be attached to for that C of A.

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

Okay.

So when staff was bringing this forward, that was it for the CO C of A to be acted upon because of demolition, or the C of A because it no longer matched and should be revoked?

It was it was a uh COA for the issuance of a COR for the demolition.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, wasn't it true that the city issued a permit and based on the city's findings, they said it needed to be torn down for safety reasons, what have you.

Is that correct?

Yes, but can I put that in context?

Sure.

Okay.

So the property is located on the corner of View Gate and Studiwood.

Right on the corner, there is a metro bus stop, right?

So inspections went out, and at this time, I believe the gate was unlocked, so it was it was a hazardous building.

And inspections made the call and said, hey, listen, we need to get this thing down now before someone gets hurt.

So that's when staff uh inspections and permitting all started communicating to say, okay, well, we need to get this down.

We know we don't have a COA.

Let's go ahead and get it down.

And then I contacted the owners and let them know, hey, we're gonna let you can tear this down and you'll have to apply for that COA as soon as possible.

Follow-up question on that.

You said the gate was unlocked, so that meant there was some type of security around the house and that there was an open gate.

Uh again, I'm um I believe so.

Well, I'm wondering why the gate just wasn't locked, meaning that we could tear down a house or we could lock a gate for safety reasons.

Right.

Yes.

I mean the house is gonna need to be demolished gate.

Say again?

Seems like it's a little simpler to lock a gate than tear down a house.

But anyway, the city met, conferred, and the city issued a permit for demolition to the foundation of the structure.

Yes.

Had the applicant made any request to that extent?

Not to not to the preservation office, no, sir.

Okay.

All right.

That's all the questions I have right now.

Did they comply with the demolition and leave the foundation but take everything and take everything else?

Yes, sir.

I have questions.

I see that you and and Pete visited the site the same day of the collapse.

Yes, sir.

And in part some points that Ms.

Galsley made and I'm observing the pictures, the collapse was due to perhaps a lack of understanding of balloon framing.

Shiplap is removed from walls.

Critical structural.

I'll argue about whether it's historical material since you can't see it, but it's definitely structural material.

And uh without doing proper shoring to the structure before that ship lap was removed.

Is that a that's fair for understanding?

Okay.

I have a follow-up question.

Then was there ever any notice during the remodeling of this house under the existing C of A that inspections came out and said there is a problem here and we need to stop activity?

No inspection had been scheduled at that point to my understanding.

So no, sir.

That's incorrect.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

May I come back forward?

Are there any other questions for Terrence since he's at the podium?

No.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, could we hear from Mr.

Rhymes, please?

Mr.

Rhymes?

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Keith Rhines.

And yeah.

I'd like Mr.

Simmons, uh, who's being talked about to be able to come forward as our expert.

But Mr.

Jackson just said, and he sent this email.

Permitting historic preservation inspections of all coordinated, have determined it is best for you to demolish the residence down to the foundation.

The city on the 24th of June issued a permit, so this was done pursuant to a permit.

There are two separate things.

There's the collapse and there's the demolition.

And and is it okay for Mr.

Simmons to come forward because he can talk about the structural issues there.

Yes, he can.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Kevin Simmons, owner of the property at 1138 Pew Gate.

I'd like to clear some things up.

We were here, I believe in May, on an appeals for the brick.

When we purchased the house, the brick was falling off of the house in multiple places.

He sent Pete out and looked at it.

We were saying, well, maybe there's no brick ties.

There was a reason the brick was falling off the house.

So we were told to remove the brick and uh get rid of it because we would never be able to match the brick.

We removed the brick, and then when we started the construction on the remodel, we did the same thing we've done on multiple houses before.

If you look at the pictures, you can see bracing on the inside of the house.

No walls collapsed.

Not one single wall collapsed.

The roof, upon inspection after it collapsed, had four layers of shingles on top of it with the original cedar shank shingles.

That's the reason it fell.

That's the reason the brick was being pushed aside away from the house, and we didn't notice that in the beginning.

So for someone to sit here and say we illegally demo the house, that's not true.

We spent money, we had inspections.

We had, I believe, four prior inspections before it collapsed, and an inspection the day of collapse to move forward with the project.

That's all.

I have a question for you.

And you stated that someone told you to remove the brick and dispose the brick.

Who was that person?

That was Pete Stockton and Terence Jackson.

And Pete was here earlier today.

Is he still here?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Can you repeat that question, please?

You stated in your commentary just a moment ago that you were told to remove the brick and dispose of the brick, and I asked who was the person that you took.

Pete Stockton and Terrence Jackson.

We can ask them both that.

Correct.

You stated that you had several inspections by the city.

At any time did the city mention, give you any other type of notice about a structural or lack thereof integrity of this house?

No, sir.

What inspections were done the day of, was it after the collapse?

The the day of and uh the day of collapse, we had a subfloor inspection to uh go on and put our plywood down.

Uh prior to the collapse, we had all our foundation, our footings, uh slab and concrete.

So obviously the ins the inspection the day of the collapse, the shiplap had been removed from the existing walls.

Uh the shiplap was only removed from the walls that were going away from where the addition started.

Okay.

And then after that inspection, additional shiplap was removed prior to the collapse.

Yes, sir.

The the shipwrep that had been removed off the house had been removed since the day uh we started the demo, which was in May, I believe.

So the part that collapsed, it looked like the worst of it was at the rear of the house where that wall was removed.

The part no walls removed.

I thought you said you removed the shiplap from the back wall.

The back wall was removed already, and there was a bracing.

The what collapsed, and I want to make this very clear, is the roof collapsed.

No walls collapsed.

It was the roof.

And once the roof collapsed, we noticed that it had multiple layers of uh shingles on it.

So the weight of the roof was excessive.

And then that made sense why the brick was being pushed away from the house prior.

Because there was too much weight on the top plate.

There are any other questions for Mr.

Simmons.

Simpsons.

I would just like to ask Pete a few questions.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Good morning, board.

Uh, my name is Pete Stockton.

I guess I only have one question is what's your take on when you made the inspection the day of the collapse, the cause was well, I try to avoid uh analysis and inference and uh make observations rather.

Uh the observations that I had made the day of the collapse was that uh there was a lack of debris underneath the areas that had failed.

There were no shiplap walls.

There was hardly any new framing.

Uh going back and looking at uh my photographs from a previous visit, I can see where uh it did not appear uh that there was very much shoring.

Um there was certainly little to no uh lateral or shear bracing.

Uh camera.

Huh.

Uh there was uh certainly no lateral or shear bracing uh visible in the photographs that I had taken previously.

Um that kind of answers my question.

But my my opinion from looking at the pictures is that there was inadequate bracing to hold that structure.

I don't think that it was like, oh, let's just let it fall down so we can replace it, because that's not going to be a cheaper route.

Getting back to what had been originally approved for that project would have been the oh, I didn't see any intent.

Yeah.

I absolutely didn't see any intent.

No, I didn't mean to imply it.

I saw a framing crew that had uh uh learned platform framing and had never done a balloon frame project of any size.

That's kind of what I felt.

Thanks.

Any other questions for staff or any of the speakers?

Do we have any motions of action on this item?

This is tough.

I don't know.

I'm not sure what to do with it.

So the HAHC, if I understand correctly, now wants them to rebuild the original house.

No, that hasn't that hasn't been decided.

I mean, I know there's reference to the the ordinance where it says an illegal demolition.

Right.

Um that's all that can be built on that particular property for two years.

That is an option, but I mean they're so what is I guess I'm not sure what the HAHC wants them to do.

Well, I I can't answer that, honestly.

I I don't I just make the recommendations.

Yeah.

You know, yeah.

Mr.

Chair, it may help.

I guess I'm a little unclear in assisting the commit the board in making a motion either way, exactly what it is that the applicant is desiring here from the um actions of the HAHC.

Is it the removal of the term illegal demolition?

I think we've you've heard testimony that it was not intentional or no one believes it was intentional.

Um so is it is it removal of that term so that perhaps they are not bound by the restrictions for illegal demolition in the code.

I'm not sure if Mr.

Rhimes can assist with that.

We're asking for the issuance of a COA without conditions.

If it's a COR without conditions, the the implication that there's an illegal demolition here is simply incorrect.

They did not demolish the property illegally.

You can talk however you want to talk about building practices, but they did not demolish the property illegally.

They had an order from this man and from others.

He just conveyed the order to demolish the property.

They had a building permit, and it's part of your package.

They had a permit from the city saying demolish the property to the foundation.

There was no illegal demolition here.

Again, you can debate their building practices.

I happen to disagree with the the idea that they were doing anything wrong.

I think they were doing it to the best of their ability, but that there was an illegal demolition, that there was a violation of 33203D simply isn't a fact.

And so that's what we're asking for.

COA without condition.

Which was which was what was on the agenda for HAAC that day.

You look at the agenda, that's what it says.

It was only as an afterthought that they decided they would consider uh 33203.

And I don't think they understood it.

I don't think they understood that.

33203 does not apply to a demolition that occurs after a collapse, after whatever does that disaster it was.

So yes.

Long-winded, sorry, but that's what we're looking for.

Okay.

I would suggest to that um section 203D may not have been the correct section to bring this in under, but it probably falls under 203E, which requires that if an activity that requires a certificate of appropriateness continues on to where you're acting outside that certificate of appropriateness, which is in essence what appears to have happened here.

Um the commission can issue a certificate of remediation.

Issuance of a certificate of remediation is always an option and is always contemplated again in the code.

Um so I don't think that that in and of itself is necessarily the issue.

I I I keep coming back to I I don't find a problem with the issuance of the C of R from a legal standpoint.

Uh to me, I think it hinges on the idea of is it an illegal demolition?

Again, I keep saying the same thing over and over, and I apologize, but it simply was not an illegal demolition.

It was a demolition that occurred because there was a collapse.

There was a public safety issue, no fence, doesn't really matter.

They were told to demolish the building.

They were told by the city to demolish the building.

Then they were told by the city, here's a building permit to demolish the building.

They demolished the building strictly in accordance with those requirements.

So we're talking about two different things.

Did you approve of their building practices?

Maybe you do, and maybe you don't.

I think if you weren't there looking at the condition of this property, it's hard to say that.

This is a property, and and this is in our original notice of appeal.

This was a property that had been under contract 11 times, and the buyer had walked away from it 11 times.

VET took the property, they were doing their best to renovate it.

Whatever happened, happened.

The demolition was a separate entity, and it was not illegal.

And and I don't see the applicability of E either, but because again, we're talking about uh an authorized uh and permitted demolition.

I think Mr.

Rhymes makes a a good point about being because it was permitted, the demolition.

And I'm gonna have to ask staff if what I suspect was meant by the illegal demolition was allowing this structure to collapse.

That's the illegal demolition to which is being referred.

Yes, sir.

That's it.

The staff and the preservation is preservation office's stance was that once the building collapsed, it was demolished.

There was you it was not going to be able to reverse.

I mean, so we it had to be a demo.

And also, if you look at that document, um that was filled out by the um owners saying that it was a demolition, and I don't remember what date that was, but that was prior to receiving the permit.

I have a question.

Um there have been no fines issued on this project.

Say that again.

There have been no fines issued on this at the end of the day.

Uh no, sir, not to my knowledge.

I mean, but we don't issue fines.

And they have been allowed to file for a C of A for the the proposed new construction on the property without any.

Oh absolutely, yes, sir.

We could we can't.

I'm not really I'm just kind of an agree here understanding why we're having to consider the defin that we're playing with the definition of a word, and there's been no penalty given to at this time.

So I'm I I'll ask him if she if the I'm that's what I'm getting is we're playing with the definition of a word at this point, but you have not been issued any fines, and you've not been prevented to do anything moving forward.

So I don't know what the grievance is, is what I'm basically.

I'm gonna jump in.

Uh maybe out on a limb on this, but it's the applicant was operating under an approved COA when the collapse happened.

Now, whether it however it happened, it changed the conditions under which that COA could be continued.

It would seem that rather since the city was the one that ordered the demolition, and not the applicant, they didn't apply for demolition.

It happened.

Now, how or happened, it's up for debate.

But it would seem to me that given the circumstances, the only option at that point is for the applicant to make a new application for a C of A.

So therefore, I'm not sure how to do this.

I need your help on this, but I'm wanting to essentially overturn the action at the HAHC, but remand it back to them for investigation and consideration of a new C of A.

And that's where I'm Fuzzy.

For a new C of A for the demolition?

No.

No.

Okay.

So for the C of A going forward, which I understand will be in September at the September meeting.

Because the applicant has not applied for the demolition.

The city ordered it.

If the applicant had applied for the demolition, I think that we have rules in Chapter 33 that cover all that.

And then when we get over to Section 203 for neglect, it only covers that which, hey, I was doing nothing, but they were actively doing something out there.

So I'm going to say that that section of 203 certainly doesn't apply, but the circumstances did change under it.

So to go issue a C of R at this point, when we have an active COA with change conditions, it seems like the applicant has to go back to the HAHC to apply for a new C of A because of the change in conditions, because it has now happened, not at their request, but at them being directed to do these things.

So as a consequence, I'm not sure that 203 is applicable in this point.

And so therefore, that's why I want to get this back in the hands of the HAHC so they can move forward again.

Now, whether it is a brand new building, they rebuild the old building, that is up to the applicant.

And that's up to the HAHC to investigate, but not this body.

So that's why I'm wanting to get this back in the hands, and I'm not sure how to do that.

If I have to overturn it to get it back, or if to make a motion to overturn to remand it back, or do we just can't I just remand it back?

And that being the action.

See the difference here.

I I do, and I think you can remand it back.

However, I point out and staff or Mr.

Stockton may need to jump in here, but uh let me give you another example of a situation where perhaps a historic structure is deemed to be an unsafe and substandard building.

And there is an exception where staff can go out and order that demolition without the applicant having to go to through a C of A.

I think that is more similar to what happened here.

Um they don't have to, they only then have to get a C of A for the new for any new construction on the site.

We recently had one, I think off of Alabama.

I say recently, probably 18 months now, but um yeah.

So I'm not sure you get the request for a demolition back to them.

I think the request from the applicant here from the relief they are seeking is the removal of the C of R in total or maybe in part as I've suggested, but but then it is going forward to the to the Historic Commission next month for action on their new construction, which would probably take into account the demolition and what occurred.

So in case I'm not confused enough on the status of everything, they had a C of A to do in addition remodel to this house, which met the approval of uh neighborhood association.

Um so hypothetically speaking, well on, I'm assuming that if it never collapsed, you ought to be still building what was approved.

So but that happened.

I don't think it's an illegal demolition because to me, and I don't know if there's any language in the ordinance that says it has to be willful uh demolition or by neglect where you just let weather in Mother Nature take its toll on a building.

Um regardless of how this our decision is.

You either get the C of A or you have a COR, is your is the plan to move forward in either case with the same project that was approved that you were working on?

Or now is it gonna be a completely different can I answer?

Uh Kevin Simmons.

Um we actually redesigned that from the original design.

Um not that we wanted to, we were kind of forced to.

Uh Nor Hill was they started out wanting us to remove a sunroom that was in the original house, which was an historic room, and they wanted us to put a full porch.

Once the house collapsed, North Hill contacted my wife talking about this sunroom being removed.

And at that point, I guess it didn't matter because it wasn't there.

So we did that and redesigned it.

And the house was originally designed at 2308 square feet.

And Terrence can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Well, we redesigned it with removing the sunroom and adding a porch across the front of the house, which brought the house to 2254.

Nor Hill sent my wife an email saying we do not allow anything over 2250.

You need to get rid of four square feet.

So and this goes along with previous interactions with them where I digress.

So we started looking into deed restrictions, guidelines, and whatnot.

I contacted Terrence asking which direction do I move forward?

Because I don't see anything for the city of Houston or historic preservation that gives me FARS or square footage or anything like that for that neighborhood.

For my neighborhood I live in, yes, we have those.

So it was really easy to design a house.

Terence's guidance was drive around the neighborhood, look on your block face was the first thing to see what would be comparable.

The only thing on the block face of 1138 Pugate is 1102 Fugate, which is a 2900 square foot house.

And I settled on one that was a 902 Key Street.

That was pretty much the same thing we submitted for next month.

So we designed a house that was similar to 902 Key Street, which was approved last year, I believe.

So that's why we're not going with the original design of the house.

Okay, that was all I want to know is are you going to build the original house or something else?

That was it.

And also I would like to um clear something up on your question.

Uh when the house collapsed, I called key or I'm sorry, Terrence and Pete right away.

They came out and looked at everything.

Um I was told, I don't think we're going to be able to use the same COA that we had been approved for, because now the house is probably going to fall under a new construction COA.

So we went on and I received a phone call saying that the house had to be demolished in an email.

Uh and then I was told, look, y'all need to apply for a COA for the demolition.

Even though it's already happened, we have to go before the committee to get a COA on the demolition.

So that's why we did everything.

We everything we did, we did because of the guidance of the historic preservation in the City of Houston.

We didn't intentionally say, you know what, we're going to start throwing stuff away, even with the brick.

We stacked the brick up and kept the brick for weeks until we were told to get rid of it.

And that bothers me because my wife's been attacked saying you're destroying historic material, disposing of it.

Virginia mentioned that earlier.

Everything we've done, we've done by the guidance of the city.

We've never thrown something away saying we don't care about historic material.

So that's the issue we have with what they said last month, saying that we legally demo the house, we throw historic material away.

That is untrue.

And that's what we're trying to get where when we go next month, I know we're going to have a problem next month because we haven't had any guidance on, hey, change your elevations.

No one's contacted us.

We've turned in all the paperwork, we do everything we need to do, but now no one talks to us.

And I'm tired of people attacking us saying, Oh, you're tearing down this house on purpose.

That is untrue.

That's all I have.

Okay.

So Mr.

Edminster's proposal or question about sending it back to HAHC.

Um and this is a question for legal.

One is can we do that?

They're asking to make a decision one way or the other.

And with a court reporter here, that tends tells me they intend to pursue the appeal up the chain of command if necessary.

So, and if we can send it back to the HAHC, I think the applicant has a right to demand an up or down decision on their request.

You are correct on both counts.

Okay.

The Commission has in the past deferred items back or referred items back to HAHC.

And yes, the applicant can request that you make a decision up or down on their on their stated request.

Okay.

So then I guess my question to the applicant is do you wish to pursue that up or down decision?

Keith Rhimes.

Uh we would certainly like an up or down decision.

But having this remanded for further consideration, we're happy to do that as well.

We didn't have the opportunity.

We thought we were getting a straight up rubber stamp on a COA.

That's what we were told until 1050 on the day of the hearing when my clients were not available.

I was not available.

We'd be happy to go back before the Commission and make our arguments there, if that's an option.

I'm sorry.

Did I answer your question?

Yes.

Okay.

I have uh we we need to tidy up some stuff.

Um since the Norhill board was brought up, Virginia, I would like her to be able to speak for herself, but I also have a fourth person signed up to speak named Tabitha is it Hursley or Hansley.

Huh?

She will not be speaking.

She's with us, no.

Okay.

So um just state your name in the Since you are brought up, I'd rather you speak for yourself than have someone else speak for the Mr.

Um Virginia Kelsey, I'm the VP of Nor Hill Neighborhood Association.

Several statements were made that I would characterize as not being accurate.

I am concerned about making comments about them as legal letters have been sent to us.

And there have been suggestions made.

I just asked the board to use your own logic and think about what we would have done.

Um not everything you're hearing, there are many different sides to the story.

How's that?

Yeah.

I don't think that will get me into trouble, will it?

Thank you.

Is there any other question or commentary before we we need to propose an action as well?

Yeah, just to get some of the thoughts out.

I um I think I'm also of the opinion that it is difficult to call it an illegal demolition when they were issued a permit and they were instructed by the city to move forward with demolition.

I'm not really interested in the intent of the construction practices.

And they're less interested in what the proposed future design is because we don't uh have any input on what the design of a building should or will be.

Um I think it is probably more appropriate that HAHC has a more thorough review of this.

Uh but if we need to make the updown decision, we can also make a motion that we reverse the action on the illegal demolition under the C of R that was issued by the HAHC, that this body overturned that action and remand this project back to the HAHC for further consideration.

I will second that motion.

May I ask for a clarification?

I'm of the opinion that there was that the C of R to be issued as an illegal demolition is inappropriate.

Okay.

I believe that when the applicant was directed to do so by the city and actually permitted for such, and to take it down to the foundation, which still exists today.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that since the conditions have changed, they are unable to actually execute the existing C of A.

And let's see, there was one other item.

So is this a recommendation for overturning the C of R with their those conditions and just issuance of the C of A for the demolition?

I wanted them to determine that, didn't you?

Yeah.

In my opinion, it's not there was no citing of the applicant on any practices that they were doing.

They were never put on notice.

So therefore, I believe that this whole process of COR is completely out of line, in my opinion.

So therefore, I believe that they have they have a situation, however it occurred, the situation is not the same as it was when the C of A that was issued by this body was going forward.

So therefore we can't have, you know, and the other thing that is gnawing at me is when it's after the fact and there's no house there, why would the applicant request for a uh C of A for demolition when it's already been demolished?

Uh as the action of the City of Houston and others by permit.

The pony is already out of the barn.

So, you know, I think that what the HAHC and from an opinion standpoint is that they need to be looking at a fresh set of circumstances of which from which they can issue a C of A for this property.

Okay.

And whether it be new construction, rebuilding the old thing, makes no difference to me.

But it's the HAHC that needs to vet that.

So therefore, that's why I am make the motion have making the motion to overturn the C of R as issued by the HAHC, but still remand this project back to the HHC for further consideration of a new C of A.

All right.

I second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please state your name.

Administer I.

I'm going to I have my own reason for saying no, but I'm gonna I'm gonna vote against it, but it would still pass by three to one.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is public comments.

No public comments.

Then I do have a comment, and it's just a concern.

Uh in the reading that I've done in the preparation of the last case, uh, it appears to me that new deed restrictions have been issued in this neighborhood, the Norr Hill uh neighborhood.

And I'm not sure if they're in the form of D restrictions, design guidelines or what have you.

The thing that I am concerned about just is for future um let's say a version of future problems, if those guidelines, if they are such, need to go up to City Council in the near future such that we can avert other issues inadvertently occurring that have really already been vetted by the residents in this historic district.

Yeah.

Just a comment.

I I can speak to that.

Um the we have uh very detailed guidelines that are in uh work in progress right now and expect to present them to the neighborhood and then ultimately to the uh HAHC and then City Council this fall.

So that should it's uh in the in the works as we speak.

Thank you very much.

So in light of that, my question is are this is staff starting to apply those design guidelines drafts to applications currently, which would not be appropriate.

No, sir, we're not.

I will say uh as uh in my personal business, I've had to work with the neighborhood on their deed restrictions, and there are moments of frustration, but they've been very amicable and helpful with the process of doing it.

I've had three projects, I think, go through with the new guidelines.

And we tend people when they come into historic district just have to, in a historic area, just have to understand that there's a different thought process you have to go through.

And you it's not a new neighborhood out in the suburbs, it's an older neighborhood, and there's language that you have to work with.

And sometimes that's a little difficult in your mind because you can't achieve a hundred percent of what you want, but in the end you come out with a more community-driven product, and I think it works out to all in the end anyway.

Um using the reference that was given today, four square feet to take off of a building is nothing.

Nothing.

Try 40.

Uh any other public comments?

Member comments, then I will adjourn this meeting.