I like the instructors a lot.

Okay.

Alright, I'm going to call the meeting of the historic preservation commission to order the um first item or the minutes from last meeting.

Make a motion to approve.

All right.

Second.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor?

Okay.

Okay, we just have the one item tonight, 245 Forest Avenue.

We have our Forest Avenue representatives here, uh David Brown and Janice Hoover.

And I'd also like to point out that Councilman Carlisle Kent is here tonight.

So Councilman Kent, thank you for coming.

With that, I'll call up who's gonna speak.

Courtney, yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Well well, as he's coming up, let me just explain what happened.

Uh everybody remembers we approved this project, and the application that we had had had limited demolition.

So between the time that we approved it and they got their building permit started construction, there was a lot more demolition than what was in our application.

And the city when the city building inspector determined it was more than they had permitted and issued a stop work order on the project.

So they're here tonight to explain what transpired, and then we'll have a discussion and the when there's an application that for demolition, we can't approve it.

We can only make a recommendation to the city council.

City council has to approve it.

So once we hear everybody out, I think there's some neighbors that want to speak as well, and we'll have a discussion and make a recommendation that would go to the city council, but we can't take an official app action on the application.

And we've already approved the original one.

So with that that's pretty much the summary.

I've uh reached out to all of you, spoken to most of you, I think.

Uh so that that's basically it.

We came through uh HBC, uh, I think first submission in uh September and then approval in October.

We filed for building permit a month after that uh in November.

Uh we were approved for building permit with no comments, and basically the month between uh HBC approval and building permit submission, uh myself, the general contractor, and structural engineer continued to coordinate and revise the drawings for construction beyond just the historic uh preservation committee meetings.

It was just it was determined that in adding the second story, the existing foundations were not going to support uh what we were doing.

This is a letter from our structural engineer uh here on the screen.

I'm not sure if you guys got this today.

Um the demo and the permit plans reflects that, and that is what was approved, and that's what we're following.

Uh if we talked, I told you on the phone, you know, it maybe looks like uh, you know, at best we tried to deceive you and it works outright lie to you.

Neither is the case uh in in that regard.

Uh it was just the advancement of the the drawings in order for you know to go in for permitting.

And so uh I think when we were here, both trips, neither time did we really discuss the demolition uh at that point.

And so it wasn't um honestly it wasn't even on my radar making the drawings to come back to discuss something that we hadn't discussed in the initial submission.

So uh that's that's basically it.

Boy, and Kate Clemen are the owners, they're here.

Um so yeah, that's that's where we are.

I have uh a couple questions as well.

Let me ask.

Um, the eventual project, whatever it gets coarse between being here and the the state now in the end point of this, it will look like the renderings that we approved.

Yes, sir.

Okay, so it will end up looking like we approved.

Correct.

Okay, um that's the most important question I can ask.

Uh the another thing is in terms of the demolition, uh, is and what uh what if you can show a picture of the sticks if you will of the just the framing that's there.

That picture there.

Uh is it any different what I'm looking at than it would otherwise have been without the structural problems?

It was is this how it would look uh your plan or what else was demolished that you didn't plan on?

Um that's a good question.

Uh I I I don't think much.

You know, I mean but the because the point is so the existing bricks that you can see in this photograph, it's a single wife brick uh with non continuous foundations underneath of it, and so that's what we went and looked to verify.

Uh and so it doesn't have a continuous footing under underneath of that single wall of brick.

So I don't know that my drawings specifically say tear down this brick wall, but we have structural engineering drawings which design new foundations.

Does that make sense?

So, yeah, and so to fulfill the the eventual construction with the renderings that were provided, you needed to do more foundation work for that to be fulfilled.

That was not anticipated.

It's like doing earth work and there's more rock than you thought.

Correct.

Yes.

And so to complete this project, you had to do this wouldn't work otherwise.

Correct.

And is there any more demolition to be done than has already happened?

Or is it already been done?

From what you see in the picture today, the existing brick walls will be removed.

The foundation will be brick faced.

Um, you know, so it'll look like uh it did before, but the existing brick walls will be removed and it'll be um you know what is currently you know, modern day uh concrete or CMU uh so to complete the foundation to complete the project, you need to complete the removal of this.

Yes, sir.

Otherwise nothing's gonna happen.

Correct.

Because like I said, there's no there's no uh footings underneath of the existing foundation, or at least limited footing just I should say.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I I know there's some um public representatives that wanted to speak.

I know the um the Brooks wanted to come up and make comments, correct?

Yeah, so you could you could come on though.

Well, they're coming up is there's some other people here.

Any of the rest of you want to make comments while you're here?

I mean you're certainly welcome to yes, no.

Okay.

Uh I'm Danny Brooks.

I live across the street from 245.

I'm where is it?

I know Roy and Kate.

Not a whole lot, but we know they've lived on Hunt Street for many years.

Um so that is not an issue of a neighbor at all.

It is an issue of the guidelines.

And right away I waited till I heard enough to realize we all knew about the footings on a two-story level from a single level that it is or was we understood that the demo would be limited, and what we witnessed, of course, was complete.

Obviously, the foundation would work for single level, but as you discovered it as we discussed several months ago in the yard, it was likely going to happen that you needed that structural um integrity to that foundation.

It it appeared to me based on the information I gave our representatives that I I didn't see how they were going to be able to work with any of this.

And apparently that got out to Roy and Kate.

I didn't intend that, because it wasn't anything about you.

It was about what I knew about that structure that I've been around for 30 years.

So it's just odd to me that the guidelines and the permit talk about limited, and we're looking at complete demolition.

I would not expect, even with that brick to stay there, that that would be wise to build a two-story structure on that foundation.

And I knew that from the beginning, and that's why my questions and concerns, which which I was asked about by David and Janice, I responded to, you know, I had that's all.

I I just was concerned about that.

Now, of course, we're personal about the property, but we're also personal about it because the neighbors that are coming, that's important to us.

You've got children.

So I want to state that to make that perfectly clear.

This is not about the people moving into this property.

We look forward to it.

Everybody knows we have grandkids, we love the Cecil's kids, we love kids, and they're bringing kids.

And our kids have played in that very yard on their go-karts and everything.

So please take the personal side of any of this away and just help us with the guidelines about the the foundation and why we're looking at a demo that's complete instead of limited.

That's that's all I mean we almost blame ourselves because we saw it coming down piece by piece in multiple dumpsters, and our concern or our sadness is where is the historic preservation?

Where is the historic thing footprint of this house?

It's gone.

That that was an add-on that she did in the back that's still there.

But the house is gone.

Every piece of it's gone.

And now also the brick's gonna be gone.

And I understand your leading questions, the appearance of it.

But that's not what we understood about the guidelines.

The appearance was more of the preservation, but you're you're thinking of it, and I'm probably wrong.

You're thinking as the preservation of the look.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as the preservation of the architecture, the structure, and everything that's good about that, even including the fireplace that's gone now.

That was one of the key focal points.

And that was on the inside.

We would expect people to do what they want on the inside, really.

But I see where you're coming from, but that's not the way I interpret the guidelines.

Let me help you.

I I I commend you on the way you handle this in your conscientious nature.

Well done.

And the city for having seeing an issue and bring it to all of our attention.

So this there should be a timeout.

So this is all I think part of the process, as is us up here trying to figure this out where we go from here.

Right.

So we're all in in a way in this together to do the right thing for everybody.

And it's not always easy.

Um I've been around this issue, and some of us have been for like 20 years thinking about this kind of thing and what the rules are and how you apply them.

And it requires some discretion and some imperfect world.

There's a natural tension between historic preservation and owners' property rights.

That's in it's just an inherent tension between the two.

And some who are willing into don't touch my house, it's mine, and people who think, well, we need to preserve it for all time and for all those reasons.

And there's some sometimes emotional aspects of that.

So in the guidelines themselves, the the way that in terms of the and as I see it, speaking for myself, um the uh uh latitude that we do have comes from the guidelines and the city code.

There is an allowance or an openness to uh allow improvements and whatever that means.

So changes to structure can happen, they're allowed, it's not simply a museum effect.

There can be additions, we've added second stories before, and so the the this body over the last 15 or so years has seen the to interpret this with some latitude for those things to happen, done well, preserve property, preserve look, but allowing improvements to happen.

So, in terms of how did this happen, it comes from some I'd call it legal latitude and how it's been applied.

So we've we have looked at I have looked at this as a balance between keeping it or allowing it to be improved.

This was in that arena to allow second story, we've done that before.

We denied it the first time.

They wanted to invest in their home, make it more livable, more space, more valuable, they wanted to do that.

And I and others here, I think it was unanimous, said, okay, and then the guidelines themselves, there is a stipulation for uh project with special merit.

I know that because I was part of how that got in there, and it it would override even historical preservation.

If there's something we think is a really great project that is not disruptive.

Let me interrupt.

Sure.

Let's let's not forget what we're putting them through.

If we play that kind of game where you know it's limited demolition, and it's understood to be complete demolition because a foundation issue came up, which I knew it was, and we've talked about it before, it seems like that ought to be the next step for them.

And now they're going through a third step to get to this.

And it almost feels like, and it's happened before, that hey, just take it on down and we can do what we want now.

I I think in the in the practical, I hear you, but in the practical sense, sometimes things just evolve.

I mean, this has had a for us, you know, this is news.

And we feel responsible for not speaking up sooner, not not against them, but for them.

I hear you.

The thing is we're at this point and we're in a few.

The February first letter, the the house was gone by then.

Well, I think the the for me, looking at it how did we go forward and not be and sometimes the words actually matter and to parse the words between limited or full or anything in between.

What is limited or full?

And if this is if we're at the point of it's having been in the pursuit of fulfilling the project, if that's what they were trying to do.

I'm trying to look at this in a balanced way.

If they're trying to fulfill the project, and it requires more, let's call it demolition, but more foundation work than what's anticipated, more than we knew about, and they couldn't finish the job as was approved without that, then it seems you know, maybe that's what's necessary to fulfill the project as we envisioned it, the final product.

We saw final product, and it's like without unspoken but understood, do what it takes to make that happen within the scope as best we can understand it.

Now it's happened.

And what do we you know?

And it's like in terms that's that's all I'm getting at.

I want this to proceed, period.

What I want to happen with the commission is to make sure that somebody is overseeing this as you've said, Christina, and making sure that if there is an issue like foundation, we catch it way before we commit to a full demolition, because there may have been something different that the designer could have done that would have maintained some of that structure.

I hear you.

I like that.

I like that.

I mean, I'd say, you know, if you look at our guidelines, you're right, we we should preserve as much as the historic fabric as possible, but our guidelines for the most part deal with the um what it's gonna look like and how it fits in with the neighborhood, and it's really not without within our charge to review projects, whether they're constructable or whether they're structurally sound.

So we're understanding why it's two-story.

That's not it's it's putting them through whatever we're putting them through, let's not go through them.

Let's oversee what we can oversee and then say, hey, you know what?

Submit a per submit for foundation right now, and let's get that approved, and let's notify the neighbors what's going on and so forth.

I like I like what you I think if we wouldn't be here, and again, I'm not I'm not faulting anybody, but had but had uh uh the Fleemans or Courtney or somebody knew at the time that the only way to build this project was to tear down the house that was there, we would have treated it totally different.

That's it.

And it would have been solved that, that's all I needed to hear.

Yeah, how we can solve that and make sure that it doesn't happen again when you are limited right in what your scope is.

Yeah, and I think that tells us why we need to be more community, more neighbor, more communication, more understanding.

Yeah, because I do understand what he's going through, and I had no intentions of coming across.

I don't want you there, because you're not doing the right thing.

No, yeah, no, no one thought that's it.

Let's get let's get to that point.

Yeah, what do we do now?

Yeah, I think you got to do what you got to do.

Yeah, but I but I appreciate you and the other neighbors, you know, taking an interest in coming here and letting us know about it because we we would have never known.

We we have an interest in this historic commission too, more than more so than you know, because we were asked to join it, and and so we've made it a part of our who we are in the community, right?

And they're about to be a part of it.

Right.

And I want that.

Yeah.

I mean, I want the bike riding, and I want the fun together and the get the ball across the street.

Let's not hold them up any longer, but but let's do a better job, yeah with what we're doing on this commission.

And if you want more input from us in the neighborhood, Forest Hills, absolutely.

No, I I agree that and what uh what I remind our my fellow commission members is that the residents of your uh Forest Hills vote revoted for to be in the historic district and voted for the guidelines, and it's our responsibility to ensure people comply with the guidelines.

We owe that to you as residents of the Forest Hills Historic District, and we at least and I try to make sure that that's what we do, you know, to fulfill that commitment.

I I'd like to add there's two good thoughts, and I like how you're thinking.

Um, about uh is our lesson learned, is there something that if it's going to go into a certain direction, the sooner you know the better, even if it ends up the same place.

And it might have ended up, you know, if this was known two weeks ago or two months ago, or whenever, at a at a better time, it might have proceeded to the same outcome.

Don't know that.

We won't know, but at least you had a chance, and so I don't whenever this was the stop work order, and whenever that came about, if if it could have happened sooner, the better.

Maybe we can learn from that.

I don't that when if there is an issue, there's a trigger point at some point sooner, which would lay one of your concerns.

And the other m good point you're making is like where do we go from here?

And that's where I'm coming from as well.

Absolutely, which is to fulfill the approv because they've already we said yes, and they got underway and went into a hole, if you will, and now what?

And so it's to to finish this as best we can, knowing what has happened, learn the lesson, but finish the the job as envisioned.

Can we save the branch at least there's something historic left?

Well that that's between that's between you and uh the homeowners.

Well, and and let me just make sure there's no misunderstanding.

Y'all can only act on what is presented to you and the application and whatever evidence is presented in the hearing.

At this point, um you don't it's really in the city council's purview now.

This board can discuss it, but it can't really act on anything now because it goes to city council.

So in terms of saving brick or whatever, I can't advise you on how to proceed, but perhaps that may be something the city council.

Could we uh I guess in the outcome of what is I think a great discussion um with it going to that arena um advise on what we think is how we go from here.

I mean, theoretically you could you could comment on what you'd like to see, but you've already taken your action.

Your action was to approve what was presented in the original application.

That I think actually there were some modifications after that.

But y'all approve that.

So it's sort of y'all have already done your thing.

There's nothing wrong with you having this discussion and giving opinions, but it's really up to the city council.

Could we is it I personally think that to the on the course of proceeding, it would be good to with whatever fine points or not fine points, but for structural re remaining property, however it looks, that's for them to decide, but to allow fulfillment of the project as envisioned.

I mean, that's there's really no mechanism for y'all to do that.

You've already acted on you can you can certainly make comments, but in terms of an official action by your board, you don't really have the jurisdiction to do that now, because it now is it's gonna be with the city.

I guess what I'm getting at is advisory versus compulsory.

I mean it it does it what it was.

I think you're free to make comments about what you would see.

Oh, you're all free to make those comments, but as far as taking any action on it, you don't really opinion is just a summation of what I've heard, which is there's a project we had we'd approved, it would be good to see it completed.

Uh do what's necessary structurally and retain within judgment and limit the things that are that remain for some historical uh uh visual part.

And I and I think it's safe to assume that you're just gonna have to do a whole new foundation.

Okay.

That so that's what I'm getting at.

And and that's clear to me.

I mean, I understand that.

And there may be a cost involved in uh doing what you got to do to make that foundation strong enough, which is probably you know, running rods down to the bedrock and having it hold it together, and that's probably uh a tremendous expense.

If that's the case, then if we know that kind of thing in advance, which we do in all these houses, this is not the first house.

We do know this, then we can have that discussion before we even go through the historic commission process, because you he's right.

Once it gets to the city, I understand exactly what you're saying, and and that's the right that they have, and and I support that.

I support that.

I really here to talk about those guidelines, or maybe even the processes and the approach, which we obviously can help you with, because we see things for 33 years or something.

Been here too long.

All right, well we again we appreciate your comments.

Did anyone else want to speak back there?

Did you no, no one else?

Okay.

Uh well, Steve, back to your comments.

I think the intent here is all this will be in the official record, and it'll be forward forwarded to the city council when they take this up for consideration, because uh they'll have to decide what the appropriate action is.

So I think the whole idea here is for everybody to have the opportunity like you have and the homeowners and the residents to make comments and you know, the city council act accordingly.

So I think the only thing we could do is make a recommendation that the city council consider that this might be a good thing as a mo I'm not ready to make the motion, but what would be a uh appropriate motion that we move that the city council take all of our comments at this meeting into consideration when they decide what the next step is.

You could do that in the form of a resolution, resolution.

That sounds reasonable.

I second that.

Okay.

All right.

Is that good enough?

And I think the way the reason it's going to council is I I would the technicality of a full demolition.

Correct.

That it crossed the line, and so it then there it goes.

I mean, that's that was the point, which is a technicality in a way.

It's a it's a definitional thing.

Right.

It's not bad faith, it's not when things happen, it's like it just got to a point that it needs to go to different armena.

Yeah, and y'all y'all don't you know it's really not y'all's place to weigh in on whether it's bad faith or not.

That's not really an issue.

What I'm hearing is that there are some opinions among you about perhaps ways to maybe mitigate what's happened or uh suggest to the city council what you would hope that they could do as a historic preservation commission.

There's nothing wrong with that.

They are not in any way bound by your recommendation, but there's nothing wrong with voting to approve a resolution along those lines.

Okay.

All right, so we have the resolution and the second.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor.

All right.

It carries um any other discussion?

Um I guess I was gonna wait until after, but I guess a thought for the future having I mean, I think most of y'all know what we went through with our house.

And maybe for any time we have a second floor edition is requesting a letter from a structural engineer saying that it's fine.

I'll say even when we started mine though, we had waterproof the basement, so our walls were covered, so they couldn't quite see it, but the structural engineer was like, Yeah, you're good.

But once we started, they started pulling everything back and all our supports are rotted.

So then they made us rip down all the waterproofing, and then they were like, No, you have to tear the whole thing down.

Yeah, that's so it's not a perfect science, but it could be a way anytime we have a second floor edition to say, hey, let's have a structural engineer later.

No, that's a great suggestion.

Janice David, any uh thing you want to comment on?

Uh no.

No, I mean as a contractor myself, I don't do the scope of work or to that depth of uh but I mean I I can't tell me how many times we've ripped off a roof or ripped off siding or ripped off you name it, and it's not what we thought underneath, or we have to pivot.

Right.

So I mean I I get it.

And we want you guys to be safe and I told Courtney the other day when we spoke, I said, dude, while you at it, you ought to put a basement in.

I think to Chris's point though, having having all of this ahead of time, you know, at the initial application.

Sometimes, you know.

Yeah, go ahead.

But I'm also interested in what that structure, how much of it can you maintain, especially on the so that's important to me too, not just to say, oh well, that's not good enough foundation, so we can figure it out.

How much of it can we really work with and maintain that that's part of the deal or still oldest closest sub the I know of areas where maintain that look and it it is going to be different.

But it's gonna change the look of the deal is not relevant.

I just want to be more proactive about okay, correct.

Let's try this one about that.

But I'll say like what David said too, that especially in Forest Hills, so many of these houses have had terrible handyman jobs, and you don't know what you're getting into until you pull it off.

And you can't come to a meeting every month and shut down your job while you're paying rent and mortgage and all these things.

So there's got to be some leeway with it too, because like I said, you can't be will be worth uh the value of their home will be excellent in space.

So I would I would understand that, but at the same time doing the right thing, and historic district still important being where we are now with you, but at the same time just thinking structurally, that's what that's what we would see from some of these 60 80 and 100 year olds, right?

Any other anyone else?

No.

I I was just gonna say to that, Danny, I I think a lot of these structures that are 60, 80 and 100 years old, they weren't done well to begin with.

So to save them, I don't see the value in that.

I see the value in preserving the overall appearance that it blends in with the neighborhood and it gives the effect of being a historic home.

If you want to comment, you'll need to come down and introduce yourselves, please.

I would disagree with that.

I think keeping the house the house is 147 years old and and the thought of tearing it down and trying to rebuild it to kind of look the way it should look from a historic perspective.

I think that's BS.

I think we need to do what we can do to keep the original um looks of the place that's our mandate here, you know, from our job is to help the owner um keep his house looking the way it's supposed to look, and in light of his request for additions and stuff, we need to take a look at that.

I am very disappointed that we didn't know about this structural problem at the get go.

If we'd had some structural engineer, somebody who really knew what they're talking about to tell us that that this might happen with a two-story structure, then I think things would have been a lot different.

Okay, introduce yourselves please.

Sure.

Um I'm Carol Vienn.

We have um been in Forest Hills for 42 years.

And um as I as I was listening to everyone speak, I was just thinking about one event that takes place every year in Marietta.

It's a huge event, it's advertised all over the country in decorator magazines, and we get people from everywhere, and that's the Marietta Pilgrimage.

And um our house uh Forest Hills was on the the pilgrimage um in 2019.

Okay, good for you.

Right before we all shut down, it was the last fun thing we did for a long time, and um so that was a whole new experience seeing it from that side, but I can tell you as I'm thinking about um all that has been lost inside the house, not just outside but inside.

Um when we think about historic preservation, we might not only think about now, but we might think about fifty years from now.

Because when you're on the tour or when you take the tour, always the thing that people are the most fascinated by the stuff in the house that is original, that's been there all along.

We have in our house a big patch in the floorboards in the kitchen over the well that's under the floor.

And they love to hear about the well, and we have a door, I mean a window inside the um the kitchen wall.

Because the house didn't have a a kitchen originally.

It was, I guess, in the backyard, you know, like they they are in many places down south.

And so when they built the kitchen, they built it on the old back porch.

And it was one of those back porches.

It's a coal fireplace house.

So it would have had the coal dump where you can see the the the little door is still in the cellar wall where you dump the coal.

And so the coal would have also probably been under the porch.

They just built the kitchen and the laundry room on the porch.

When we applied for a loan for that house, um the VA originally denied it because they said the back corner of the house th was sinking.

And I had to take them over there and show them, no, it's not sinking, they built it that way.

It was like a you know a four or five inch drop from the the middle down to the corner.

They just built it on the porch.

But it's also been standing there for I don't know, I don't know how long that edition's been there, at least 60 years.

So, you know, it's probably not going anywhere anytime soon.

I mean, we're it wobbles some, but we're used to it.

And one man during the tour told me, took me aside, he said, Do you know what I love the most about your house?

And I said, No, what?

And he said that you didn't try to make it perfect.

And which I thought, okay, well, thank you, I think.

But that's true.

We didn't.

We scraped every all six or seven layers of wallpaper and paint off the walls so that all the walls are original plaster walls.

And all the fireplaces are still there and all my heat is going right up the fireplaces because and they don't I'm I don't use them now because they're not safe, but there are eight of them.

And people love that.

And so let's as we go forward, I just would like to find a way to strike a balance that doesn't just involve accepting the fact that we just tear everything down and then build it back to look old.

That's not a historic neighborhood.

That's Disneyland.

And that's two very different things.

That's Helen.

That's all the places that have been built to look like cute little villages, but they aren't really.

So that's all I'm saying.

Let's try to preserve as much as we can.

Let's not make Marietta into a a Disneyland instead of a true historic community.

Thank you for your comments, Carrie.

I I think you're right on point.

Can spell your last name for me?

I think V and the victory I e N.

V I E N Yes.

Okay, I got it.

156 Forest Avenue.

And your name?

Uh Peter VN.

Oh, your career.

Yes, husband.

Okay.

I thought you were, but okay.

Sure.

Go ahead, Peter.

We've been here forty-two, forty-three years, and we've seen a lot of changes in our neighborhood.

All good.

But we've had exceptions.

And my concern when the issue came up about this uh demolition, uh, it reminded me of uh a number of years ago.

It could be 15 to 20 now, where we had a uh piece of property with a old structure on it.

It was two doors down the street from us, and uh it had been there for a long long time.

It was in disrepair.

Uh but uh as it turns out some of our neighbors uh because the owner uh the the owner of that property was going to uh tear down that pro that building they wanted to use it for a parking lot, is what I understood.

So they were going to go to court to prohibit uh hold uh off on any uh demolition of that building before that the judge heard that um request uh the owner of that property took a bulldozer and raised that building that day, and to this day we have an empty lot.

We don't have a a nice building commensurate with our neighborhood or whatever, it's been an empty lot from that time forward, half of which has overgrowth on it and whatever else.

And so when uh when we uh saw what was happening here, uh the disturbing thing to me was that uh we have a situation where someone may very well didn't know what the ultimate plan was that they would do something very similar to that, that is tear down the entire structure and build something that was not commensurate with our neighborhood.

And uh that bothered me because I don't know what the plan is and whatever.

Uh yes, I wish uh someone had looked a little closer at the structure and to see whether or not the plan was going to be workable, and uh and maybe you would have a little different recommendation as to whether you would approve it under the current plan that they proposed or had to modify it further, uh, given the circumstance.

So it's uh that is what is my concern.

And uh when they say I'm going to tear down part of the building as opposed to basically almost the entire structure, that to me is significant.

It's not like I have to change something for plumbing or a bathroom or this room or whatever.

And um, so I I find that to be a little disturbing as well.

That we would have get to a point where significant uh demolition has been done here without without the approval of the city council or at least acknowledged to the to this board.

And uh that that in my mind uh brings some questions about what is going to happen from this point forward.

I wanted it to go in the proper way.

If there's anything that can be preserved to reflect what this building really was like, or some parts of it was like, I would like that to be uh taken into consideration.

And uh the other thing that crossed my mind was when we first applied to become a historic district, so many homes in our neighborhood had to meet certain requirements, and I'm not I don't have the data right now to to show me whether this building in itself was one of those buildings that was considered a historic building in determining whether our neighborhood was a historic almost certain it was, yeah.

Well, I think well you're saying we did a survey of what we call contributing houses contributing structures, and yeah, this that the house was definitely a contributing structure.

So to me that you know that's important.

Yeah, so you made some excellent comments.

That's all I have to say.

Okay, I thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Friedman, could I just based on all this just to kind of make sure everybody understands this picture that you see right here is not what this board approved.

I just want to make sure that that's clear.

This board did not approve that.

So this board simply cannot go out every day and make sure that homeowners, contractors, whatever are following what this board approved.

So don't um I guess what I would say is I would caution people not to assume that this is what y'all wanted because this is not maybe you did want this, but this is not what was approved on the record.

That's why it's now gonna go before the city council, and they'll have to deal with it.

Unfortunately, this board doesn't really have the ability to do anything at this point.

This board did, and it approved a certain thing, and that didn't happen.

So now the city council will have to deal with it.

So with that, as I said earlier, um, it's not my place to advise y'all what to do.

That's not right because these are my clients.

This is my client right here, but that um city council does have public comment, and I'm sure they would be happy to hear whatever comments that you wish to make.

Well, the other couple, did you have any comments?

No, okay.

Anyone else?

Okay, well, thank you to the residents that showed up, and I personally want to thank you for supporting the historic district when we did that many years ago, and um, you know, we appreciate all your support tonight as well.

So thank you.

And with that meeting adjourned, thank you.