Historic and Environmental Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

One moment. Let me call to order the September 1st meeting of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board and ask our lobbyist to, I mean, ask our attorney to read a statement regarding lobbying.

Thanks. Now we can have a roll call, please.

Do we have any requests for absence waivers?

Okay. And we have no minutes for approval.

And how long are we going to keep the public comments open?

And so I don't believe, do we have any changes to the agenda?

Do you want to have any objections to the 13th? That's after what time?

Earlier is better for me, but the earliest I could do would be noon.

For the bundles of clarity, I'm available neither of those two days. I'm only available the 13th or the 15th. Let's definitely shoot for those days then. Just kidding, just kidding. If you guys, you know, if we have to have this meeting without me again, it's just going to be what it's going to be. No, we definitely should have him here this time. I appreciate you guys so much. Thank you.

Any objection to the 13th at 1? Do we need a motion? Yes. Do I hear a motion?

Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, so we're set for October 13th at 1 o'clock if we need it. Thank you. Any other changes to the agenda? There are no other changes to the agenda. No reports? I have no monthly updates at this time. Okay, then we'll move right into the agenda. When the agenda item is called by staff, the applicant will come forward to the microphone, give your name and address for the record. We'll start with a staff report, after which the applicant may provide additional information. And I would ask you to please limit your presentation to 10 min

Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add? No, thank you. Great. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Now I'll close the public hearing and I'm up to the boards for questions and comments and I'll start with Mr. Cawley.

Thank you. I won't opine on the aesthetic. I agree with my colleagues. I appreciate the work that you've put in to try to capture the slew of feedback that you received, and I appreciate that. I am taking a slightly procedural view, and I just want to get a few things right, considering that this is the rescission of a historic designation. I take it quite seriously, particularly because this overlaps some demolition by neglect provisions that become continuously applicable, particularly as this code was recently amended. So my questions are not for you. Don't worry about that. My questions ar

I appreciate that you need to go through it, so no rush on my end. Maybe while you look at that, I can ask Ken the other question, which is, could you walk me through the timing of the covenant? Why a year? Why not a condition of the rescission?

Okay, I understand. I think the way, and maybe it's just my lay reading of the conditions, but as I understand it, the covenant... and the rescission are not currently married. There is a time condition on the rescission, sorry, that there is a trigger by our decision that the property is rescinded, that the historical designation was rescinded, and separately he is given one year to confer the covenant. So as I see those, they're divorced items, and I think they should be married. And just a point for Mr. Cruz, who came and gave public comment. The house is no longer in existence. It would bu

My understanding is that the foundation of this rescission is precisely to allow the applicant to build a structure that is in fact larger and more mass than the property that was there previously. And under normal terms of a demolition by neglect, he would be constrained to build a structure that is confined by those parameters. So as I understand it, we as a board need to be satisfied of those two conditions, both of them, as I'm reading the code to apply.

I appreciate that, Ken. Where I'm coming from, I'm just simply reading the code, and it does seem that per the staff analysis, both thresholds are conveyed as a mechanism for the rescission. So coming to page nine of the staff analysis, As a caveat to the above, the HEP board also has within its power, as per 2362H2A, to rebut the presumption of demolition by neglect, and the board may allow for the addition, etc. And it states those two conditions, and those two conditions are unified by an and, not an or. Right. Because I understand... Sorry, go ahead.

And that's precisely... Sorry, not to cut you off. That's exactly why I wanted to bring this up and why I really wanted to get a full, thorough opinion because... there may be some blind spots in the code with regard to precisely this condition, where a negligent property owner allowed a historic resource to degrade to the point where it was demolished by the city because it was for whatever reason. I don't need to go into those details. He conveys the property and the new applicant, understandably and very equitably, cannot be held to the exact same level standards of care simply because they

Well, was it regularly inspected and in good condition prior to?

I mean, so actually, Hugh, I think that does sort of clarify this. So if you're of the opinion, you're a member of this board, and if you determine based on your knowledge of this site that it was regularly maintained or at least adequately maintained... You circumvent my concerns on this point.

Hugh, let me ask you this in plain terms, because I need to overcome this if I'm going to vote in the affirmative. Do you believe the property owner made reasonable efforts to inspect and maintain the structure free of structural deficiencies in compliance with the minimum maintenance statutes of the code?

The absolution that's conveyed by this decision.

My concern, just to state it clearly, we're entering a new phase. This code was recently amended with regard to demolition by neglect. It happened in the last few years. Given the development pressure within the city of Miami, I suspect we're going to be facing this frequently. I think it's very important that we get this right and that we understand... I THINK AS A BOARD AND ALSO FROM THE STAFF LEVEL, WHAT THESE GUARD RAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR BY THE CODE AND THAT WE LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE BOARD HAS DELIBERATIVE AUTHORITY. PER MY READING, WE ARE NOT GIVEN DELIBERATIVE AUTHORITY OV

This is not an encumbrance. So historic designation for many people is a... is a benefit people seek it um so i think from from a i appreciate profoundly where you're coming from i know it's a bit of a hackneyed adage to say that ignorance of the code doesn't absolve you of adhering to it i think that is very much the case here you know i think if you had gone into the city's gis portal and you had looked through the layers it would have been there not to say that everybody should do that every time they buy a property but you know your your sophisticated property developer or at least suffici

It does show up as a historic resource. Yes. It's the thing is your title company I don't think would find it because it's not attached to the title. It's a city's designation. It's part of its zoning, for lack of a better concept. So if you have a title search, they don't tell you that it's zoned T3R, do they? It doesn't. It just tells you whether the title is clear and you can acquire it without encumbrance. And again, I'm not trying to make this complicated for you, nor am I trying to belabor this massive agenda with a procedural point. But there's a lot of demolition yet to come on this ag

And if I'm not mistaken, it would be encumbered by the restrictions conveyed by demolition by neglect, meaning it would be restricted to the size, massing, et cetera, of the building that was once there, correct?

Which comes to this point, which comes to whether we believe the item meets the letter of the code. And that's the part A, which has that and between the two sub clauses. And that's what I'm struggling with.

Just for clarity, I think the concern here is whether, I don't believe we necessarily, pending opinion of counsel, I don't think we have the legal authority to grant this to you. That's where I'm at with this.

Let me be abundantly clear where I'm coming from. I don't disagree with you. I think you've done everything we've asked you to do. You have been a part of this process. You have come to us. You have been completely convivial with every element of this. I don't mean to say otherwise. What I'm saying, and provided we find a way to deal with this correctly, I'm perfectly on board with granting it. I agree with my colleagues. I think what you did is correct. I think the modifications are in the spirit of everything we asked you. Where I'm coming from is in rereading this application and going thro

Give me just one second. Sorry. I'll pause so I don't distract him.

Thank you. And just for the record, Mr. Powers is present.

No, it's not. My issue is that that's what we're being asked to do, and I appreciate that, and there are provisions in our code that allow us to do that. And it is in the powers that are conferred to us by the code, which is what I was citing to counsel, which...

I appreciate that. And I see that as well. My concern, and the way I read that, and maybe I'm misinterpreting that, and that was why the question was directed to staff and not a bully pulpit, soliloquy directed at the poor applicant, was I read that to be a reconstruction, an attempt to recreate the original structure. That's how I read that provision, and I might be misinterpreting that. I'm open to hearing... The different view but that's how that part of the code read to me and I figured in this constant since it is not a reconstruction of the original structure. It is a construction of a n

Right, but I don't see that as resolving the massing issue, which is addressed by the provision prior to it. And I might just have to be no vote on this and everybody else can go forward if we can't overcome it, but I just, I think it's important to be consistent and to make sure that we're understanding this because it is a little bit too gray for my taste.

Get a little closer to your microphone. Can you hear me now?

No, that's exactly the concern. All right, so thank you very much. It's simply that.

So in theory, we could just vote to rescind the designation. That was my question for staff. I mean, we are rescinding the designation, but as I read the report, this was determined as a demolition by neglect?

And that's what brings me precisely to this point, which is that we, as I understand it, and again, I do apologize for making this such a dry hearing. I'm trying... I'm just trying to understand this because this is a complex issue and I want to make sure that we're getting it right. So as I understand it, and correct me if I'm mistaken, because there is a presumptive demolition by neglect, because there is a pattern of neglect of the property, which may or may not have contributed to the fire, not for this panel to determine, that therefore these provisions of the code apply. Is that a correc

So I guess maybe it's for us to make a determination on this one exemption, whether we believe this was in good faith or not. Based on the circumstances, yes. So, counsel, would you help me in crafting a... Provisio to include on our potential motion that would ensure that any subsequent properties that try to approach this from the same angle, we could validly assert our deliberative powers on having determined the intent of the applicant or the particular case. We could give that some thought, maybe. Because that is my biggest concern. If somebody two years from now comes and says, you appro

Yes, Mr. Kennedy, I was going to recognize you for questions and comments.

Thank you. So what we're basically being asked to do today here is to rescind the historic designation of this property with the provision that what is presented to us by the applicant will be built. Correct. As per the plans. Correct. Not limited by what may have happened to the property before. Correct. If we do not approve the rescission, then that kind of makes us have to start all over again, in a way. Correct.

And the basis for the rescission is the house is no longer there. Correct. The resource is gone.

So let me just re-ask you a question then, Hugh. So based on your interpretation, having lived on that street, would you feel that that was maybe not a neglected property?

I mean, that's the... But it's gone for a different reason.

So in your role as a member of this board, as a well-qualified member of this board, do you – and I'm asking this legitimately because I agree with everything you said. I would like to grant this approval. I think it's merited. I think you went through every hoop you need to go through. I'm stuck on a policy point of the code, which makes me believe that I don't have the legal authority to convey it based on my interpretation. But if you think – if you – look at this provision of the code, and you believe that the owner made reasonable efforts, the prior one, reasonable efforts, in your interp

Is there a second? I'll second that. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?

Yes, two points of clarification. Yes, please. Okay, so the first is, could we amend the motion in the condition that clarifies that the covenant must be issued as a condition for the rescission?

Correct. Okay. Just can we add a bit of clarifying language to the condition that's currently written that clarifies that the covenant is a condition of the, not, so right now, as I mentioned, there are two things. One's a timeframe, one's a condition. So let's just marry those two items. And then my other point, Hugh, if you wouldn't mind adding to your motion that you're doing that on the basis that you found that the fire is the exculpatory point and that the... Yeah, yeah.

Okay. Najeeb, do you accept the amendments?

Well, first point, let's definitely change the date from June 2nd to September 1st. And then second point, I would state that I would just be expressly redundant in that first statement. I would say the owner shall, within one year, successfully proffer a covenant to construct the duplex as presented to the Historic Preservation Board at its final evaluation hearing on September 1st, 2026. And this would be prior to the rescission taking effect or something along those lines. Just a little bit, maybe the prose is inelegant, but sometimes elegant prose is ambiguous. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Got it. I'll take that.

Right. That is applicable to the maker of the motion in a second?

Thank you, and the applicant is present. Please give your name and address for the record. Please give your name and address for the record. Please give your name and address for the record.

Thank you, and we'll start with the Stanford Board.

Is there anything you would like to add to the staff report?

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this item? If not, I will allow the applicant some rebuttal time.

Okay. I will close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions and comments, beginning with Ms. O'Dell.

Thank you. Mr. Prieto-Aminos. Thank you. I'll be super brief. And if the members to my right don't want to get super bogged down into this either, I might propose a motion. if you guys would be willing to kind of move off of this 50-minute item that we spent a ton of time on a few months ago. I agree with you, Jordan. I think this is the most germane element of this item, determining what the most effective way of safeguarding the architectural guidelines that are very expressly stated for Charles Avenue is the most germane element of this discussion. And I think we previously acted on the adv

Someone to your left. How about someone to your left?

Yes, I would. Sorry. That's all right. So like you. I know I'm going to say something in the room. Let me wait on that. Mr. Campbell, you can go next.

Chris, they're already asking for a waiver for something else, so they didn't even think about asking for a waiver to make this more compliant.

Okay. So as we approach a motion, I think we need to take into account that we need to have some findings to back up our decision. So the maker of the motion should, for my preference, include some of the aspects of the plan that do not meet the guidelines, because I think our recommendation will be that this application does not meet the applicable guidelines and should then be denied.

I think I have a motion to that effect, Dr. Hopper. Please go ahead. Yes. So I would move to recommend denial on the proposed new construction site improvements and associated waiver on the basis that the design remains inconsistent with the scale, massing, porch form, fenestration, roof form, and character-defining features contemplated by the Charles Avenue and Village West District Guidelines. and on the basis that the applicant did not substantially address the board's prior direction, and because the change is necessary to compatibly constitute a fundamental redesign that should return to

I can do it myself. Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Is that okay? Absolutely. I accept the amendments to my motion.

Second. I don't know who was the seconder.

Mr. Campbell, do you accept that modification?

Isn't he the next item? You're finished.

Just for the record, could you give your name and address for the record again, please?

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Nothing better for item number three out of ten.

So you are changing your recommendation?

Yes, we are changing the recommendation. Okay, thank you. And by fascia, do you mean facade? No. No.

Is there anything you would like to add to the staff report?

Okay, thank you. Are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Would you adjust the microphone for her?

Thank you. Mrs. Schaffer, would you give us your address for the record, please?

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Not? Would you like a few minutes to rebuttal?

We'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions or comments. Start with Mr. Strachtenberg this time.

I have no comments of substance, just a request to the architects, which I think have the most comments. Do you feel confident that you can compile additional feedback for this to be reflected, or do you believe that this needs to be deferred? Because we've been on this item for an hour and 15 minutes, and we have eight more items to go. Do you guys think you can convey this? Is this capturable here, or does this item need to be deferred? I'll be happy to take a poll if the chair will indulge me in doing some procedural housekeeping.

Are you comfortable making that a condition resolvable by staff, or do you want to see that again?

So, I mean, I think that's slightly in contradiction to Jordan's comments. So I think that's something that could be left to be studied. Obviously, no one can.

Let me just get the rest of the feedback and then I'll come back to you. Bob, your comment about the Western volume, was that addressed by Najeeb's feedback?

Okay, if I may just kind of jump in, because I think the problem that we're dealing with, and I think the difficulty with an item like this is that we do have five people voicing. No, no, I'm not chastising you. I'm just simply trying to find a practical outcome. So we, in this instance, have two options. Either we can ask for them to try to incorporate what in some instances might be disjointed feedback, or we can just remand this to staff. But we need to decide one way or the other because this is becoming, I think, a cumbersome meeting and we have a whole lot of time to go. So anybody want,

Okay. I have a question for the applicant. In looking at the street, I noticed that all of the two-story houses were Spanish and or Mediterranean in character. And almost all of the one-story houses, I wouldn't go so far as to call them MIMO or ranch. I dislike calling them ranch because it doesn't say ranch to a Westerner. Why did you choose MIMO for a two-story house?

Well, so I would be, in order just to move this along, would be prepared to propose a motion on the basis that the architect, well, I'm sorry, Chris, I skipped you as well. So your condition was the preservation of the tree if possible? I just think you could study that just like you're doing. Okay. staff can handle it yep so um i i don't have all the architectural feedback compiled because it was a lot um ken do you feel confident that uh you have a sense of what each architect would you like everyone to give you very few words what it is they'd like to see let me try and run through it okay

I'll wait for the sideboard to end and see if Mr. Campbell and Trachtenberg agree.

It wasn't me to interrupt you. It's fine.

So that is conditions three then remains.

Then I would be very happy to make a motion with those amended conditions.

Any discussion on the motion? Do we need Ken to read the conditions again? Are we good with it?

They were just read in by staff. All architectural members agreed with them. I'm comfortable that Ken will be able to go and re-watch for your reference. This is hour three, minute eight for your future reference. So I don't need them read in specifically for my motion.

And the applicant is present. Please give your name and address for the record.

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Okay, thank you. Okay. Anything you'd like to add to the staff report?

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

I'm going to ask you to wait until the public is finished, and I'll give you a chance under the rebuttal. Please forgive me. It's all right. Yes, ma'am.

Anyone else from the public who should speak on this item? Now I will give the applicant time for rebuttal and now's your chance.

Okay. I'll close the public hearing and open up the board for questions or comments. But instead of going to the line, I'd ask each one of you to, if you have some specific thing that you can ask, that you raise your hand.

I think he's saying it's open format now. So through the chair, if I may.

Good afternoon. I'll start by saying you seem like lovely people, and I very much like the house that you presented to us. That said, and I think the way we need to consider this is sort of blind of who it is that's building it, whether you're building it for yourself or you're a developer or you're renovating your own house. And at the end of the day, we need to look at this on a policy point. We need to look at this through the prism of preserving the history of the neighborhood and the architecture of the neighborhood. So putting those two elements to the side. I have a very hard time. I ec

The tree was there. So I feel... Like, I might have a hard time being convinced that you were not going to purchase the property to demolish it or at least substantially remove large portions of the structure to build something else. The house was listed as a teardown. The house was very clearly in poor condition. You bought it with that intent. I mean, I appreciate that that's absolutely your prerogative. What I struggle with is the following. It is a contributing property in a historically designated district. there are very clearly defined parameters that need to be conformed to. Everybody

I will tell you that virtually without fail, every demolition that comes to this board is accompanied by an engineering report by a structural engineer who declares the structure to be an imminent threat to all involved. Was it submitted to the staff for their consideration, the structural engineering report?

At the end of the day, it's not for us to adjudicate structure. I am confident that a competent structural engineer can incorporate existing facets of that structure into their renovation. I'm not suggesting you live there now, but I'm saying that in terms of a renovation or restoration of the property, there is competent structure that can be incorporated into that program. I find it impossible to believe otherwise. I'm not saying it's safe at the moment.

But my point is simply that if we took every single engineering report that comes to us that says the structure needs to be demolished imminently, every structural property in Miami would simply take that tack because, and I don't mean to impugn the reputation of your structural engineer, but there are plenty of structural engineers in this city that can be compelled to sign their name to anything. So... We have to look at this through the merits of the historicity of the site, the historicity of the neighborhood, and the impact that this may or may not have on that fabric. And that's the pris

So I think at this point you have a bit of a sense of the tenor of the board, and I think you have two choices here. We can defer this for a substantial amount of time. Is that right, Ken?

So my suggestion, and I'm not going to guide you, obviously, it's for you to decide, but ultimately the decision point in front of you is to either have us vote now, and give you a decision one way or the other which is your right or you can choose to waive what's called your 60-day rights everybody's entitled to have a decision within 60 days of this hearing and allow this item to be deferred confer with your architects evaluate all the feedback that you've gotten here in terms of what this board considers approvable or not and come back to us when you're ready and i can assure you that every

We could come back to this after we hear the next item. We can give you some time to confer.

We have to have the decision tonight. Sometime tonight.

Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

We can't. We can deny it with findings. It's a denial of findings. And for the sake of it, my denial is on the basis that this is not conforming with the intent of the historic district and that this is an irrevocable loss to the architectural fabric of the Buena Vista East Historic District.

Any other discussion? We have a roll call, please.

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Okay, thank you. Anything you would like to add to the staff report? Is there anything you would like to add to the staff report? You good? Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and open up the board for questions or comments. Chair?

Second. Mr. Campbell seconds. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Can we have a roll call, please?

THANK YOU AS APPLICANT PRESIDENT. PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I'M SORRY WHAT? PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

THANK YOU. AND WE'LL START WITH THE STAFF REPORT.

When you gave your address, was that your personal address or the address of the property?

I'm asking you what your home address is.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, anyone else? Yes, sir.

Thank you. Anyone else? I'll give you a few minutes for rebuttal.

Yes, sir. That's it. Would you... You can have a few minutes for rebuttal. Sorry, what? You may have a few minutes to speak. Okay.

Close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions or comments.

Who has a... Who would like to go first? I would be very happy to take a quick stab. Would you mind giving me just a sense of... From your perspective, apart from the fact that it's non-contributing and that it's vacant, although it doesn't seem like it was vacant when you purchased it, what other affirmative evidence do you have that establishes a need for demolition other than you want to build something else?

Okay, but there's nothing wrong with the structure. There's nothing about the structure that requires demolition other than it doesn't suit your purposes.

So other than your philosophical views on the neighborhood's needs, there's no reason to demolish the property?

When you purchased the property, the intent was to demolish it and redevelop it with the plan that you've broadly presented to us today.

I think from my perspective, this is straightforward. I mean, ultimately, we're dealing with a 1936 property that, as far as I can tell, should absolutely have contributed, been considered contributing in the reporting process. And it's precisely in line with the historical character of the neighborhood that is intended to be preserved by this neighborhood historic preservation district that overlays it. And while I admit that what you're presenting is a lovely structure, I have nothing negative to say about it. As I said with the previous item, our task here is to preserve the historicity of

If I could give you, and that's absolutely your right, and I think that's something that I think we would all, entertained. I mean, truly, you came here so respectfully, and your presentation was so well put together, like, I feel awful denying you, but I mean, we have to be true to our mandate and to our belief. From a deferral standpoint, I mean, you understand this is an extensive, you see here that, you know, we are all viewing this as protecting the integrity of this neighborhood, and In order for you to build a program of that dimension there, within the confines of what we've articulate

Nothing is approved whatsoever. Yeah, there would be no demolition.

I think for the sake of this procedural matter, the item in front of us is demolition and new construction. I think it's very clear that as of where this stands, the board is opposed to demolition of the structure. At least that's the interpretation I took from my colleague's position.

If they come back with an application that broadly replicates what has been in front of us before or already, I think they can expect for that to be denied as well. And I'm sure they're not interested in having a protracted design exercise just for that to be denied or to end up with the same conclusion.

Comforted in knowing that we have a very similar view on preservation as do many of your constituents as do you as well? So I think you know take that as you will but I'm pretty confident that the applicant is well aware of where we stand on demolition of this property and If they come back with that same application, I think that the tenor will go very much in the same direction So I certainly would be entertaining willing to entertain deferral. I don't know where my colleagues land So what would be gained by a deferral?

What would happen with a deferral that wouldn't happen? What would we expect?

So our question to you is, when you come back, at whatever point that is, are you still going to be asking for a demolition of this current structure?

I think we're moving off the point here. So you would like a deferral? Yes. I would move to defer this item indefinitely. I move.

Oh, sorry. That's a great point. You are entitled to a decision within 60 days when you begin this process. For us to defer, you have to waive your rights to that decision. So the only way we can defer the item is if you agree to waive our obligation to render a decision within 60 days of the beginning of this process. You wave it? Yes. Say it clearly. Yes.

Okay. Second. There's a motion and a second to defer indefinitely. Any discussion on that motion?

Okay. So we have a motion and a second to defer indefinitely. Can we have a roll call, please?

Thank you. And great attitude, guys. You guys came here with the right approach, you know, truly.

Thank you. Would you like to respond to the staff report? Yes, sir.

Thank you. Are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you. Anyone else? I don't think you need any time for rebuttal, do you?

Okay, thank you. We'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions or comments.

Thank you. So procedural question. You have an application in front of us for demolition. This is just outright demolition. So coming to the action this board should take, a deferral of a demolition of a contributing structure, I think you have a pretty good sense that that's not something that the board is happy to entertain at this point. So if you are considering restoration, renovation, repurposing, whatever that is, I don't imagine that there's a modification to the demolition. That would be a new application, Ken, correct me if I'm mistaken?

Let me frame it differently, purely for the purposes of this deferral. If they don't wish to demolish the structure, there is no reason to defer the item. It's just better they can withdraw it or we deny it. Correct. Okay.

I would imagine that, just speaking for myself, and I'm sure my colleagues would probably align, I don't think anybody would approve partial demolition without seeing an in-toto change.

I'm just thinking purely from two sides. One, I appreciate the applicant's time. I also respect the board and the resident's time. So this is an item, we've discussed the points of demolition. It's clear as day to me that this board will not support demolition based on the evidence in front of it. And I don't think it's a particularly useful exercise to defer this on a, you know, we're a busy board. We have a lot of stuff that goes on our agenda. So if this is, if you're willing to read, continue studying this, At this point, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to defer to demolition.

And I think if there was a scenario or if there was a procedural element that made your life easier to keep that open, I think I'd be all for it. But considering that that silos to total demolition, and I certainly at this point would be very much against that, and I gather my colleagues would be as well, maybe just to spare you the denial, you can just withdraw from... Get us up to the applicant if the applicant wants to withdraw. I think it's more logical that way as well.

You were going to say something before...

Okay. Ken, would us granting a deferral give them an easier time to sort of placate code enforcement?

On that basis, it sounds like the withdrawal makes the most sense.

Woodrow? You guys are great. It's been a pleasure. It's a candid and great attitude. We appreciate the collaborative.

If you have problems, call Hugh. He's good at this stuff.

Okay, so that one was withdrawn. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. The applicant is present. Please give your name and address.

Thanks. We'll have the staff report first.

Are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this item? Now you have a few minutes for rebuttal.

Thank you. I'll close the public hearing and open up to the board for questions or comments. I'll notice that most of the pictures that you showed were of houses that originally had walls or fences when they were built. Before, it was a historic district, and some had fences that were added after they were built, but also before they became a historic district, and those were grandfathered into the account. So that's different than adding a fence or a wall or a hedge now.

Other questions? I have a comment, and it might be an unpopular one, but I firmly believe that we need to expand our historic districts as much as possible. I think it's incumbent on the city, particularly the development pressure that we have today, to broaden as much of our designated real estate as possible so that the continued development pressure doesn't erase every non-designated historic structure in the city in that same vein i think it's very important to respect quality of life issues that might overlap historic districts i don't see a fence that can convey security in the same vein

Being very familiar with that house, having been there many times, and acquainted with people who had raised children there during the 80s, without incident or problem, I'm just not inclined to agreed that that would be an improvement worth violating the historic guidelines for.

Those were either originally when they were built or they were grandfathered. Sure. As Mr. Powers was explaining, there was a large battle in the 90s in which the neighborhood developed walls, hedges, and fence guidelines with the intention that they would be followed.

Well, you're allowed five feet, one foot behind the facade of the house. Do you have a fence in your backyard?

Would it be possible to put a according to the guidelines, to put a fence across your driveway in the portico share behind the facade of the house to restrict entry into the backyard?

Any discussion on the motion? Can we have a roll call, please?

With the conditions as incorporated by staff, or as proposed by staff in the event of an approval.

As conditioned by staff with the five conditions included in the staff report.

And you probably wouldn't even need to come to the board.

Thank you very much. We'll start with the staff report.

The date of the tax photo was 1939. Hmm? 1939. 1939, okay. Would you like to respond to the staff report?

Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item?

Let her finish speaking, please. You'll have a chance. Sorry. Let her finish speaking and you will have another chance to speak.

Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Yes, sir.

Thank you. Anyone else? Sorry, anything you would like to add in rebuttal?

Through the chair. I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions or comments, starting with Mr. Powers, I think.

Our job in here is to protect the structure, okay?

There are community block grants available.

Because I want to speak first. Sorry about that, Dr. Hopper. I was just going to point out that that did happen once in Morningside, and it was after the fact. There was a building that's behind the building that's on Biscayne Boulevard that actually is part of the historic district, and they removed a concrete tile roof and put on shingles. without permission, because they didn't think they were historic. And the board allowed that one-time shingle roof so that the next time it was changed, it had to be changed into a bunker tile.

I just think it would be very brief. I think that we've been very consistent as a board in this item. This is by no means the first asphalt shingle roof we've discussed in Palm Grove. We've dealt with many. We've dealt with many that are homeowners, and we've dealt with many developers who are just trying to cut a corner. I think there is a very well-established provision in the code to allow us to establish the economic hardship that is exactly for this parameter. I don't think we need to overthink this. I think if we believe that there's an economic hardship, that it is unduly difficult for

Well, I think the point is it's in our discretion. And we're taking the facts in front of us. So I would be very happy to make a motion to allow him to proceed with his roof on the basis of an economic hardship. I'm validly convinced. And I don't know if we need to belabor this point any further. I'll second that.

So there's a motion and a second on the floor. Is there discussion on the motion?

And the provision is one time... If that's a condition you wish to add?

I mean, I don't feel like it's necessary because this is purely on the basis of economic hardship. But yeah, I think either we determine that it's economic hardship or we take a different tack. Question?

One-time pass. I'll accept the one-time amendment out of respect for Mr. Powers.

And who was the seconder? Jordan. Jordan, you accept? Any other questions on the motion? If not, can we have a roll call, please?

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please be quick, because we're about to expire from hypothermia. Yes.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions, comments.

I have just two quick questions, and I apologize. When I took these notes, I didn't give myself a breadcrumb trail back to where I found them, so hopefully this is sufficiently... explanatory, and you guys can find your way to them. So I note the demolition by neglect only addresses intentional allowance of a historical structure to deteriorate, whereas Chapter 23 includes unintentional within the demolition by neglect provision. So I don't know if that's, I imagine Chapter 23 supersedes the historic guidelines, but still I think it'd be good to align it.

And the other one, which is a supreme knit, but there's a complementary, which would be a complementary. I don't remember where I saw it. I just wrote it down.

You're planning to extend that to the other historic districts, I hope?

Perfect. Any other questions or comments?

I have a motion to approve if you'll entertain it. Yes. Second.

I think the economic hardship thing is sufficiently interpretive and broad to cover just about every circumstance. What do you think, Chris? Yeah.

So that's noted. We can't have a guideline for it if it doesn't exist yet. So we need to work on that first. But we have a motion to approve the guidelines.

I know. We're waiting to vote now. Thank you. Can we have a roll call, please?

Which we would have gotten if you hadn't had your pontification.

Anyone from the public wishing to speak on that? I don't see no one. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. There's a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Motion to adjourn.

Seeing that there's no more business, come before the board, the meeting is adjourned.