[Historic Preservation Appeals Board on June 16, 2025.]
[00:00:19]
3:00 AM ON MONDAY, JUNE 16TH, 2025.I'M JD BARTEL, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
THIS BOARD MEETING IS TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX 900 BAGBY.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO LONGER A VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTION, HOUSTON TELEVISION, HTV OFFERS VIEWING OPTIONS VIA THE THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE BOARD, ME, ME MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
I AM THE CHAIR, JD BARTEL, AND I AM PRESENT.
AND, UM, DIRECTOR VON TRAN IS, UH, BEING, WELL, ROBERT WILLIAMSON IS SITTING IN DIRECTOR VON TRAN'S PLACE.
UM, THE ONLY ITEM I HAVE IS THE, I DID BRING SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME IMAGES.
I TRY TO SHOW THAT JUST SO THAT WE KIND OF GR GROUNDED ON WHAT THIS, WHAT WE'RE DOING IN PRESERVATION.
UH, AND TERRANCE HAS THE PICTURES UP AT THE FRONT DOCUMENT CAMERA.
I STARTED THIS LAST, UH, LAST SESSION.
UH, THE PRIMEWAY BUILDING AT WASHINGTON AVENUE WAS DEMOLISHED FOR A CHICK-FIL-A AND THESE ARE AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE THREAT IS NATIONWIDE.
THIS IS THE ALBEA HOUSE IN, UH, PHOENIX THAT'S BEING THREATENED WITH DEMOLITION AT THIS TIME, VERY SIGNIFICANT MID-CENTURY MODERN BUILDING.
THE ORIGINAL IBM BUILDING WITH THE ORIGINAL IBM LOGO WAS DEMOLISHED AT ENDICOTT LAST MONTH.
AND THIS ONE I FORGOT TO PUT LAST TIME, THE BIDWELL MANSION IN CHICO, CALIFORNIA BURNED TO THE GROUND ON DECEMBER 11TH, AND IT WAS A FULLY RESTORED MUSEUM.
UM, DUE TO STORM DAMAGE, ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT HOUSE IN JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI WAS DEMOLISHED.
AND THAT'S, THANK ALL OF THEM.
AS A CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO COMMIT ON, COMMENT ON HOW THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM, TURN IT INTO THE FRONT DESK, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN PERSON WHEN THEY 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.
I WILL THEN CALL ON ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO COMMENT.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL ALSO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY STAFF.
THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF DESIRED.
FINALLY, BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR SPEAKING.
I WILL SAY I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS AS OF YET.
HAS ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? OKAY, MAY I CALL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? GOOD MORNING.
CHAIRMAN BARTEL, COMMISSION MEMBERS IN THE PUBLIC, UH, ROBERT WILLIAMSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT THIS MORNING, AND THAT IS THAT ROB HELLER HAS SUBMITTED HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD SO HE CAN FULLY ENJOY HIS RECENT RETIREMENT.
WE WANNA SINCERELY THANK ROB FOR HIS 15 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND ITS APPEALS BOARD.
ROB, WE HOPE YOU ENJOY RETIREMENT AND WISH YOU THE BEST.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THIS AGENDA.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? MOTION VERA BLAND.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MINUTES.
[00:05:01]
CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON APRIL 10TH, 2025 FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS? THIS IS THE OLDER ONE.CAN YOU READ IT ROMAN? WHAT THE, 'CAUSE I HAVE THE, I HAVE AN OLDER AGENDA FOR SOME REASON.
IT IS THE, UH, IT IS AN APPEAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATES DENIAL FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING AT 1120 EAST 14TH STREET.
AND, UM, THE, JUST, I WANNA MAKE A NOTE.
WE'RE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH A, A HOUSEKEEPING THING.
WE HAVE A, AN, AN, AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THIS APPLICANT WHO DESIRED TO HAVE A COURT REPORTER HERE THIS MORNING.
AND, UH, THERE'S A COURT REPORTER HAD AN EMERGENCY AND ISN'T HERE.
SO I, NOT EXACTLY POSITIVE HOW TO PERF TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THIS ATTORNEY IS SEEKING TO HAVE THIS ITEM DEFERRED.
AND, UM, I, I HAVE TO CHECK MY TIMELINES HERE, BUT, SO I DON'T WANT TO FULLY PRESENT THIS REPORT, BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE IS, UH, THAT WE HAD AN APPLICATION FOR A C OF A FOR DEMOLITION, UH, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AND DEFERRED ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2025.
AND THEN IT WAS CONSIDERED AGAIN ON JANUARY 16TH AND DENIED.
AND HERE TODAY, I'M READY TO PRESENT, UH, THIS ITEM TO YOU, BUT I DO BELIEVE I, I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR SOME, UH, ADVICE FROM LEGAL ON THIS ONE.
MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UM, KIM MICKELSON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, ATTORNEY HAS TIME HAD TIMELY, UH, REQUESTED, UM, AND SOUGHT A, UH, COURT REPORTER TO PREPARE THE RECORD THAT'S REQUIRED FOR A POSSIBLE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE, THE APPEALS FROM THIS BOARD GO TO CITY COUNCIL IF, IF THEY ARE FURTHER APPEALED.
UM, THE COURT REPORTER HAS HAD A MEDICAL EMERGENCY OVER THE WEEKEND, AND THEY'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A SUBSTITUTE, UH, TO COME IN AT THE LAST MINUTE THIS MORNING.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, UM, YOU GRANT THAT THE REQUEST TO GO AHEAD AND DEFER THIS ITEM, UM, WITHOUT HEARING IT OR WITHOUT HAVING STAFF PRESENT THE, UH, EVEN STAFF REPORT, BECAUSE IT'S JUST FROM A DUE PROCESS STANDPOINT.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE, UM, A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS, IS THAT REALLY UP TO US? ISN'T THAT UP TO, UH, THE CITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED? PARDON? IS THAT UP TO YOU ALL TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED? I MEAN, I'M, I, WE NEVER DEFERRED ANYTHING BEFORE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO
YEAH, YOU, YOU CAN, UH, YOU CERTAINLY CAN WELL ACT TO DO THAT, BUT YEAH, IT'S, UH, ARE YOU TELLING US WE SHOULD, YOU, YOU ALL NEED TO VOTE TO EITHER DEFER IT OR NOT.
UM, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE DO, I'M GONNA ASK A FOOLISH QUESTION.
THIS IS RECORDED ON HTV, CORRECT? AND EVERY WORD THAT'S SAID HERE, AGAIN, GRANTED, I DON'T THINK IN LEGAL TERMS, BUT PRACTICAL ONES, THE, THE, UH, RULES OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE A COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT.
JUST ONE POINT OF, UH, OF HOUSEKEEPING.
I, I'M, I'VE ASKED, UM, STAFF MEMBER JACKSON TO CALCULATE THE 45 DAYS.
UM, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT SECTION C, MAY I LOOK, CAN I READ FROM SECTION C HERE? MM-HMM
SO SECTION C OF THE APPEAL NOTES THAT THE HPAB SHALL CONSIDER THE APPEAL WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR.
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, IF THE HPAB DOES NOT MAKE A DECISION ON THE APPEAL, WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR, THE DECISION OF THE HHC WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SHALL BE DEEMED AFFIRMED.
AND SO I'VE ASKED, UM, MR. JACKSON TO LOOK INTO, UH, WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD BE 45 DAYS.
SO FROM MAY WE HAVE, UH, THAT THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON MAY 14TH, 2025, AND THEN THEREFORE JUNE, UH, 28TH WOULD BE FOR, WOULD BE THE 45TH DAY, UM, IN A, IN A, IN INFORMALLY, IF UNOFFICIALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
AND SO WE ARE HERE, WE'RE AT, UH, JUNE 16TH.
SO I'M JUST FILLING IN THE PICTURE.
UM, DOES THAT FILL IN THE PICTURE? I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED BEFORE THEN.
[00:10:01]
QUESTION FOR, FOR ROMAN.AND I WAS TRYING TO FIND IT IN THE, IN THE ORDINANCE AND, OH, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DEFER TWICE, IF THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
IF YOU DEFER A SECOND TIME, THAT CONSTITUTES APPROVAL.
SO IT, AND THIS ONE WAS DEFERRED BY THE COMMISSION ONCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT SAYS A SECOND DEFERRAL BY COMING, ALTHOUGH COMING FROM THIS BODY CONSTITUTES ANYTHING THAT'S RIGHT THERE.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT, UH, DIFFERENT, UH, RULE, UH, FOR THE HAHC.
WITH, WITH, WITH REGARD TO THAT.
I THINK THE RULE ACTUALLY IS THAT IF THEY DON'T MAKE A DECISION BY THE THIRD MEETING AT WHICH THE ITEM AFTER THE FIRST MEETING, WHICH THE ITEM WAS CONSIDERED, THEN THAT ITEM, UM, IS CONSIDERED DENIED.
I THINK I HAVE TO CHECK THE WORDING ON THAT ONE.
BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT, UH, UH, RULE FOR H-P-A-B-H-P-A-B HERE, THE ITEM COMES FORWARD, UH, WE'RE, WE ARE READY TO HA TO DISCUSS THE ITEM AND PRESENT IT TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UH, AND, AND THIS WAS JUST BROUGHT UP TODAY BY THE ATTORNEY.
WELL, UH, I, IF, IF THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY WANTS US TO NOT CONSIDER IT TODAY, I THINK THEY SHOULD SAY SO ON THE RECORD.
AND I THINK THEN THE OPERATION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL DEEM IT APPROVED AT DAY 45.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE HAVING ANOTHER MEETING BEFORE THEN.
SO IF THAT'S WHAT THEY PREFER IS TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT, UM, APPROVED BY ACTION OF THE ORDINANCE, THEN THEY CERTAINLY CAN ASK TO DO THAT
I MEAN, I, I'M NOT GONNA DO IT IN MY OWN INITIATIVE TO DEFER IT.
AND THEN BECAUSE WE FAIL TO HAVE A MEETING, SOMEHOW IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT.
I MEAN, I'M, YOU KNOW, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY PREFER, THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS A 45 DAY, IT'S GONNA BE DEEMED A PROOF.
SO IF YOU WANT NO HEARING BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE COURT REPORTER OR CAN'T, THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
I, I, I MEAN I, THE COMMISSIONS APPROVED, THE COMMISSION STATEMENT HOLDS.
AND THEN DEFER AND THEN WE'LL JUST BE, HAVE DEEMED APPROVED IT 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T MET ON IT.
I MEAN, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH.
I MEAN, YOU'RE TELLING ME IS WE CAN DO SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO
WELL, THE, THE ISSUE IS, IS WHAT DOES CONSIDER MEAN? UM, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, DOES IT MEAN YOU HAVE TO ACT ON IT? YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE SECOND CLAUSE, SO IT SAYS YOU MUST CONSIDER THE ITEM WITHIN 45 DAYS, AND IF YOU FAIL TO CONSIDER IT WITHIN 45 DAYS, THE HAHC, UM, ACTION STANDS.
WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY CONTEMPLATES AN ENDLESS SERIES OF DEFERRALS AND CA I DON'T THINK IT CONTEMPLATES AN ENDLESS SERIES OF DEFERRALS EITHER OR EVEN ONE.
I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO KIND OF GET TO FINALITY AT A ON A DEADLINE.
THERE IS THE SECOND SENTENCE THERE THAT SEEMS TO, SO SAY THE 45 DAYS MORE FINITE THERE.
I'M SORRY, THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT, UM, WHICH SAYS, DOES NOT MAKE A DECISION, WHICH IS A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC AND THAT'S WHERE THE DATE, UM, YEAH, THE I AT ALL OF THOSE, IF THE HPAB DOES NOT MAKE A DECISION WITHIN THOSE 45 DAYS, IT'S THE SECOND 45 DAY REFERENCE.
WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, ON OUR OWN INITIATIVE, UH, TELL YOU ALL NOT TO PRESENT THE CASE.
I'M NOT GONNA TELL THE APPLICANT WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO THE CASE TODAY.
IF YOU KNOW THE PEOPLE PRESENTING IT OR MAKING THE APPEAL WANT US TO DISCONTINUE, TELL ME THAT AND I CAN GO HOME.
THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY IS PRESENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WANTS TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT.
I, I JUST FROM A HOUSEKEEPER COME, COME UP TO THE MIC AND I, UH, STATE YOUR NAME TO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MIC AND SPEAK ONLY INTO THE MIC.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE SCHEDULING ISSUES.
I'VE HAD THE SAME COURT REPORTER FOR OVER 17 YEARS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY, BUT SHE'S UNABLE TO BE HERE FOR A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
UM, I, I DID JUST GET WORD FROM MY OFFICE THAT SHE HAS LOCATED SOMEONE THAT COULD REMOTELY RE TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS IF THAT IS SOMETHING I HEARD THAT, UH, THIS IS RECORDED OR THIS IS BEING PUBLISHED, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD, AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PROCEDURALLY COULD WORK, THEN I THINK WE COULD PROCEED.
I, I AM COGNIZANT OF THE STRICT TIMELINES IN THE ORDINANCE AND KIND OF HAVE A HAND TIED BY BEHIND MY BACKYARD THIS MORNING AND I WANNA DO THE RIGHT THING, UH, AND ON MY CLIENT'S BEHALF.
SO, UM, IF, IF THE BOARD WOULD BE AMENABLE TO ALLOWING A COURT REPORTER TO REMOTELY TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS, THEN I THINK WE COULD PROCEED IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD WORK.
UM, BARTELL SPEAKING, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
YEAH, IF THE LEGAL, UH, ON OUR SIDE
[00:15:01]
HAS NO ISSUE WITH THAT.YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE RULES REQUIRE THAT SHE BE IN THE ROOM.
SO HOWEVER IT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED, I THINK WOULD, WOULD GET YOU THE, THE COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT.
UM, IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PUT HER NAME OR INDICATE ON THE RECORD WHO THAT IS AND, AND THAT IT'S BEING DONE THAT WAY.
WELL THEN IF, IF I COULD MAYBE HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION AND MAKE THAT HAPPEN, WE COULD, UH, HOPEFULLY PROCEED.
AND WE, WE CAN GET YOU AND HER THE LINK FOR WHERE SHE CAN WATCH THE MEETING WHILE IT'S ON HTV OR FACEBOOK.
I THINK THESE ARE DONE ON FACEBOOK AS WELL.
STEPH, STEPH AFFIRMS THAT, SO THANK YOU.
WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, IF ANYONE ON THE BOARD OR ANY OF US NEED TO USE THE RESTROOM OR ANY OF THAT, WE CAN, I WILL GO, I'LL MOVE SOME OF THE STUFF FOR DO, SINCE WE'RE IN THE FIVE MINUTE PERIOD, I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC, SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
UM, DOES ANY COMMISSION MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT THEY WANT TO BRING UP THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THE PROJECT AT HAND? SURE.
THANKS ROBERT FOR LETTING ME KNOW.
IT'S BEEN 15 YEARS SINCE, 'CAUSE MY MEMORY GETS A LITTLE FOGGY.
UM, IT'S BEEN A VERY INTERESTING PRO AND IF YOU FAIL TO GET THIS POSITION FILLED, I COULD PROBABLY BE HERE NEXT MONTH.
HOPEFULLY THERE'S NOT A MEETING.
BUT, UH, ANYWAY, BEYOND THAT, THERE'S NO GUARANTEES.
IT'S BEEN QUITE AN EXPERIENCE, UH, SERVING ON THE COM HISTORIC COMMISSION, EXCUSE ME, ON THE APPEALS BOARD.
UM, NOT IN A BAD WAY, BUT JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M GRATEFUL FOR IT.
YOU WERE HERE THEN WHEN THEY REVISED AND REDID THE ORDINANCE, CORRECT? YES.
WE, SIR DOUG, WERE YOU, I MEAN, UH, WERE YOU ON THE JD WERE YOU ON THE COMMISSION? I KNOW YOU WERE.
WHEN I FIRST CAME ON, I WAS ON THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
I LEFT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNTIL I HAD TO LEAVE FOR A COUPLE MONTHS TO WORK ON A, THE ALANI PALACE IN DOA.
AND THEN I CAME BACK AND THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE I WAS BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD.
SO YES, I WAS ON THAT, I WAS ON THE TASK FORCE TO SELECT THE FIRM THAT DID THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE HEIGHTS DISTRICTS.
UM, AT THAT TIME I LIVED AND HAD A BUSINESS IN HEIGHTS SOUTH.
PARTICIPATED IN ALL THOSE MEETINGS.
UM, I THINK WE ADOPTED, IS THAT THE RIGHT, WE'RE THREE OR FOUR NEW DISTRICTS DURING THE YEARS THAT I WAS ON THERE? MAYBE MORE.
WELL, YEAH, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME ROB, UH, SERVING WITH YOU.
YOUR VOICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY USEFUL AND SPECIFIC AND PRACTICAL.
AND, UH, IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN GOOD.
YOU ALWAYS IMPROVED ANY MEETING YOU'VE BEEN A PART OF.
[*A portion of this video is without audio* ]
[00:20:19]
[00:26:45]
UH, I READ THAT TO MEAN I HAVE TO HAVE A COURT REPORTER HERE.
UH, I HAVE HAD COURT REPORTERS IN MY PRACTICE TRANSCRIBE INTERVIEWS AND WHATNOT AFTER THE FACT.
UM, I, MY OFFICE IS TRYING VERY HARD TO GET SOMEONE FROM PLAINTIFF DEPOS TO BE ABLE TO LOG IN REMOTELY.
BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS INTERPRETED AND IF CITY COUNCIL WOULD ACCEPT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING THAT IS MADE BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER, BUT AFTER THE FACT, THEN MAYBE THAT'S A WAY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD MORE EFFECT EFFICIENTLY AND, UM, TRY TO RESPECT YOUR TIME.
KIM, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THIS? I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THE, UM, THE COUNSEL RULE AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THE, UM, UM, I DON'T THINK IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
I THINK IF THE APPLICANT IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE COURT REPORTER
[00:30:01]
PREPARING IT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE VIDEO, WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLINE, UM, AND I THINK THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S.AND SO IS THE VIDEO, IS THE VIDEO SOMETHING THAT IS PUBLISHED AFTER THIS IS CONCLUDED ONLINE? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT MY OFFICE NEEDS TO BE RECORDING RIGHT NOW AS IT'S LIVE? I DON'T KNOW HOW IT, HOW THE VIDEO WAS PRESENTED.
MAY I, UH, SPEAK HERE? YEAH, GO BY MIC PLEASE.
BUT I DON'T HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF ME.
I NEED TO DO IT FROM, FROM YOU.
UM, YEAH, NO, I KNOW THE, THE, UH, FROM THE, THE LANGUAGE I'M SEEING UNDER RULE 12 FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON IS, LET ME READ.
RULE 12 APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL.
IT DOES SAY UNDER RULE 12, UM, NUMBER TWO, THE PARTY MAY REQUEST IN WRITING THE PRESENCE OF A COURT REPORTER AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER NOT LESS THAN 24 HOURS PRIOR.
AND THAT IMPLIES, I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T, IT SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THE PERSON IS, IS PRESENT TO ME.
UH, NOW I'M NOT READING THIS IN, I'M GIVING YOU THAT ONE LINE THERE.
EACH PRESIDING OFFICER OR HEARING OFFICER SHALL GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO A PARTY, ANY PARTY APPEARING IN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT, UM, A COURT REPORTER IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A RECORD IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE PARTY MUST REQUEST IN WRITING THE PRESENCE OF A COURT REPORTER AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER, NOT LESS THAN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO SUCH EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
AND THE PARTY REQUESTING THE COURT REPORTER AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS OF THE COURT REPORTER, UM, FOR DOING THAT.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PRESENT PRESENCE? WHAT'S THE COMMON, COMMON MEANING OF PRESENCE? I WOULD THINK IT'S, CAN THEY BE VIEWING IT LIVE ON A TV SCREEN VERSUS SITTING IN THE ROOM? WELL, AND JUST TO PARSE WORDS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING SOMETIMES, IS WE DID REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF A COURT REPORTER WITHIN THE 24 HOURS.
AND SO I THINK WE'VE MET THAT LANGUAGE OF THE REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND THEN IF THERE'S A RECORD SUBMITTED, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF, IF YOU ALL JUST WILL GIVE ME ANOTHER MINUTE OR TWO AND I'LL JUST EITHER HAVE SOMEBODY BE ABLE TO LOG IN REMOTELY OR NOT.
SO I, AGAIN, I'M VERY SORRY,
SAY THAT NOW THAT EVERYTHING IS BACK TO LIVE MEETINGS AND NO REMOTE PARTICIPATION.
WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T TAKE TESTIMONY FROM SOMEONE REMOTELY.
THEY, THEY, THEY NOW HAVE TO BE IN THE ROOM.
[00:36:34]
THIS IS FOR THE REAR FOR THE AUDIO IN THE BACK.
THIS IS ROMAN MACALLAN TESTING 1, 2, 3.
THERE WAS A LITTLE GLITCH IN THE BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BACK ASKED ME TO COME OUT AND, AND MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL GOOD.
SO I ACTUALLY, UM, AND LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK THAT.
SO THEN I CAN CALL ITEM TWO 'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY COVERED ITEM THREE AND FOUR ON THE AGENDA.
SO WE CAN DO, GO BACK TO NUMBER TWO, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025 FOR A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, COA FOR DEMOLITION OF 1 1 2 0 EAST 14TH STREET IN NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING.
I'M THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
[00:40:01]
THE, JUST A SUMMARY OF WHAT'S WITH THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU, THE PROJECT, UH, AS, AS SEEN IN THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE WAS INITIALLY, UH, MADE FOR AN APPLICATION WAS INITIALLY MADE ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024.AND THEN THE, ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2025, THE HHC CONSIDERED AND DEFERRED THE ITEM.
AND ON JANUARY 16TH, THE HHC DENIED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION.
AND THEN THERE WAS A 90 DAY WAITING PERIOD.
SO YOU MIGHT WONDER WHY WE'RE HERE ON IN JUNE.
WELL, THERE'S A 90 DAY WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE WHEN YOU ASK FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION.
IF THAT'S DENIED, UNLIKE AN A TYPICAL C OF A WHERE YOU APPEAL WITHIN 10 DAYS, YOU MUST WAIT 90 DAYS AND THEN APPEAL WITHIN 120 DAYS.
AND OUR ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IT SHALL BE WORKING WITH THE STAFF TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO DEMOLITION.
AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS APPLICANT, WE MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO THEM, UH, DATING BACK TO SOON AFTER THE MEETING AND REQUESTED THAT THEY MEET WITH US.
AND SPECIFICALLY, I SUGGESTED THAT HE ACCOMPANY ME TO SEE OTHER HISTORIC HOMES SIMILAR TO HIS THAT HAVE BEEN RE REHABILITATED, INCLUDING SOME CURRENTLY BEING RESTORED.
AND I WAS HAPPY TO ARRANGE SUCH VISITS AND THE APPLICANT NEVER TOOK ME UP ON ANY OF THAT.
NOW THEN, SO IT WAS APPEALED THEN ON MAY 14TH WITHIN THE 120 DAY DEADLINE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 33, SECTION 33 DASH 2 53.
AND AGAIN, THE DESCRIPTION IS THIS IS ABOUT DEMOLITION OF A CONTRIBUTING HOME BUILT CIRCA 1926 IN THE NORTH HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE BASIS, AND IF WE COULD HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT HOME UP THERE, THE BASIS FOR THE HH C'S DECISION COMES FROM SECTION 33, 2 40 A THROUGH C AND TWO AND 33, 2 47 A ONE AND TWO, WHICH IS COVERED IN YOUR ATTACHED REPORTS.
NOW, I'D LIKE TO JUMP DOWN IN THAT REPORT TO ABOUT PAGE 1 28 AND PRESENT TO YOU WHAT SOME OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
SO ON PAGE 1 28, YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL STAFF REPORT PRESENTED TO HHC ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025.
AND THERE WE TALK ABOUT THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, UH, THAT, UH, WAS ADDRESSED.
AND SO ONE, ONE NOTE OUTTA SECTION 33 DASH TWO 40 ON PAGE 1 29 OF THAT PDF, IT IS UPON THE, THE BURDEN IS UPON THE APPLICANT FOR DEMONSTRATING THAT THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
NOW ON, UM, PAGE ONE 30, THE ISSUE THAT IT, IT GIVES YOU THE REASON THAT, UH, SECTION 33, 2 47, THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE, APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK PROTECTED LANDMARK OR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE SHALL BE GRANTED ONLY IF NUMBER ONE, THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR OBJECT HAS SERIOUSLY DETERIORATED TO AN UNSTABLE STATE AND IS BEYOND REASONABLE REPAIR.
AND STAFF FINDS THIS CRITERION IS NOT MET.
AND NUMBER TWO, THE HHC FINDS BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP UNDER SUBSECTION C OF THIS SECTION, OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION, STAFF FIND DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CRITERION WAS MET.
AND IN THAT REPORT, WE, I JUST NOTED A, A, A PROJECT AT 1 1 1 3 2 LANE, WHICH ALSO HAD AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION INITIALLY, WHICH ALSO WAS APPEALED TO THIS BOARD AND WHICH WAS DENIED.
AND SO ON THAT STAFF REPORT, UM, YOU JUST HAVE SOME IMAGES OF THAT HOME AND IMAGES OF ITS PREVIOUS, OF ITS CONDITION, WHICH WAS SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, WORSE THAN THAN THIS, THAN THE HOME AT 1120 EAST 14TH STREET GOING DOWN IN THAT STAFF REPORT TO THE OTHER CRITERIA ON PAGE 1 34 OR SEVEN OF 39 B, UH, AND C UH, B, THIS SUBSECTION IS A LIST OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AND SEE IS DETERMINATION OF AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA THAT THE PROPERTY IS INCAPABLE OF EARNING A REASONABLE RETURN REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RETURN IS THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COSTS OF MAINTENANCE OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY EXCEED ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE.
STAFF DID NOT FIND THIS CRITERION WAS MET NOR THE NEXT CRITERION, WHICH IS THAT THE OWNER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ADAPTED FOR ANY
[00:45:01]
OTHER USE, WHETHER BY THE CURRENT OWNER, BY A PURCHASER OR BY A LESSEE THAT WOULD RESULT IN A REASONABLE RETURN.THREE IN THERE THAT THE OWNER HAS DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PURCHASE TO FIND A PURCHASER OR LESSEE INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY AND PRESERVING IT.
AND THAT THOSE EFFORTS HAVE FAILED.
STAFF FOUND THAT NOTHING WAS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT TO INDICATE THAT SUCH AN EFFORT WAS MADE IF THE APPLICANT IS A NON-PROFIT, WHICH IS NON-APPLICABLE AS NUMBER FOUR D.
DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF UNUSUAL OR COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BE BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA THAT THE CURRENT INFORMATION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE HISTORIC OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR OBJECT OR ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE BUILDING AT THIS SITE IS THE BUILDING IN THE HISTORIC IN THE SURVEY WHEN NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS CREATED, THE SURVEY THAT CAME TO THE HHC AND THEN LATER CITY COUNCIL.
AND THIS IS THAT HOUSE WITH RELATIVELY FEW ALTERATIONS, WHETHER THERE ARE DEFINITE PLANS FOR THE REUSE OF THE PROPERTY IS NUMBER TWO, IF THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION IS CARRIED OUT, THE APPLICANT DID SUPPLY DRAWINGS FOR A NEW PROPOSED BUILDING FOR THE SITE AND THAT THAT PROPOSED HOUSE MINIMALLY DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE DISTRICT UNDER THE CURRENT CITY ORDINANCE, NOR IS IT SUPPORTED BY THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CERTIFICATE OF APARTMENTS FOR DEMOLITION.
AND THEN WE GO ON TO THE, TO THE REST OF THE REPORT.
UH, LEMME SEE IF THERE'S IN SUMMARY, I DO WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING, THAT THERE IS ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE C OF A FOR DEMOLITION THAT WENT TO TO HHC.
AND I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER LAST WEEK FROM JACK LONG WHO LIVES TO THE RIGHT OF THIS HOUSE, AND HE JUST WROTE AN EMAIL THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO RETRACT MY SEPTEMBER, 2024 LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE HOME LOCATED AT 1120 EAST 14TH STREET.
SO THERE'S NO, NO, NO LONGER ANY, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT THAT WE'RE AWARE OF ROMAN.
UH, CAN YOU PUT THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU JUST READ ON THE DOCUMENTS SURE.
READER, SO THAT IT'S VISIBLE DOCUMENT CAMERA.
SO I THINK I'VE COVERED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE REST OF THE PACK, YOUR PACKET IS A 460 PAGE REPORT.
UH, UH, BUT I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
I DO HAVE A STACK OF QUESTIONS, BUT BEFORE WE START DELIBERATING, I WANTED TO ASK KIM FOR THE AUDIENCE AND FOR ALL OF US TO DEFINE WHAT THE COMMISSION, UH, WHAT THE BOARD IS JOB IS AND HOW WE REVIEW THIS ITEM.
BECAUSE WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE WAY THAT WE REVIEW AN ITEM AND A DEMO IS A PERMANENT DECISION.
SO I WANT US TO BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT OUR PRIORITIES AND OUR JOB IS.
UM, SECTION 33, 2 53 ON APPEAL THAT GOVERNS THE ACTIONS AND AND STRUCTURE OF THIS BOARD, UM, PROVIDES IN SUBSECTION C THAT THE HPAB SHALL CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS, THE FINDINGS OF THE HAHC, THE HISTORIC COMMISSION, UH, WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING AT WHICH THE APPEAL IS CONSIDERED, THE HPAB SHALL REVERSE OR AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HAHC BASED UPON THE CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, AND SINCE WE'VE RUN A LITTLE LIGHT ON THIS MEETING AND EX I'M GONNA LIST OFF ALL MY QUESTIONS AT ONE TIME.
SO, UM, IN THE COMPS ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED, THERE WERE THREE RESIDENCES PROVIDED IN THE BY ADDRESS.
ONE WAS 1236 COLUMBIA, ANOTHER WAS 1140 WEST COTTAGE.
UH, BOTH OF THOSE HOUSES ARE, WERE IN A VERY DETERIORATED STATE.
I GAVE TERRANCE AT THE FRONT DRAWINGS OF THE APPROVED HHC REMODELING OF THOSE TWO STRUCTURES.
SO THOSE TWO STRUCTURES THAT WERE IN THE COMPS HAVE BEEN MOVED FORWARD AND ARE BEING RESTORED, RE RENOVATED AT THIS TIME.
UM, THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE, AND I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING CONDITION, WHICH IN BOTH CASES IS FAR WORSE THAN THE CONDITIONS OF THE PRO OF THE STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
UM, AND THOSE ARE SPECULATIVE ITEMS FOR PROFIT.
SO THOSE TWO PROJECTS, THEY'RE USED AS COMPS IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED ARE MOVING FORWARD ON A FOR-PROFIT BASIS, RESTORING AND PRESERVING THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
UM, THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE, I HAVE A
[00:50:01]
PROBLEM WITH WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION, MR. CHAIR, IF I, IF I CAN, SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS MAY BE BETTER ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT.YEAH, I'M JUST LISTING 'EM ALL OFF.
SO THEY CAN ALL BE AT ONE POINT SO SHE CAN ADDRESS THEM.
WHAT WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ROMAN CHAIR? I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER HANDY.
I'M GONNA NOTE THE QUESTION AND PULL IT UP.
SO MY QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO THAT WAS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ROUGHLY A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, CORRECT? YES.
IF THE PERSON PURCHASED THE HOUSE WITH GOOD INTENTION WITH THE, THE A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY, A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, HOW DO WE COME TO WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS OF SUCH GREAT SIZE COMPARED TO THE EXISTING BUILDING? IT MAKES ME QUESTION THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PRO OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
I I, THAT'S JUST MORE OF A COMMENT TO ME AT THIS POINT.
I KNOW THAT THE HOUSE A PROPOSED THE ORDINANCE, WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PROBIES FOR DEMOLITION, THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT YOU WILL SUPPLY, UH, PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE QUESTION STILL SHOULD BE, IN MY MIND, IS FOCUSED ON THAT STRUCTURE AND WHETHER IT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DEMOLITION.
IN THIS CASE, THOSE DRAWINGS WERE SUBMITTED AND, UH, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THE HEARING.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PRESENT, PRESENT A SPEAKER ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND, AND THEY EXPRESSED THAT THEY WOULD, THAT THAT HOME WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AS A NEW HOME IN THAT LOCATION.
'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THE CRITERIA IN D TWO IS REALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND BECAUSE THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH, ITS SEPARATE, UM, C OF A PROCESS WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
AND CERTAINLY FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, BASED ON THE PLANS, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THAT WOULD GET PASSED WITH, WITH THE NOR HILL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO IT.
AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD MEET ANY KIND OF DESIGN GUIDELINES.
I DON'T UNDER THE, THE RELEVANCE OF THAT, THE DEMOLITION SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS.
AND, UM, AND THEN THE NEXT PROJECT, THE SAME COMMISSIONER.
I THINK THAT THAT LANGUAGE COULD, COULD COMMISSIONER, I DO THINK THAT LANGUAGE THERE, THAT REQUIREMENT, IT'S PROBABLY FORESEEING A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.
IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A PROTECTED LANDMARK SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY AND, AND, AND SOMEBODY WAS THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY, I DO THINK THAT LANGUAGE AND THAT REQUIREMENT, UM, IS THERE POSSIBLY FOR YEAH, IF, UH, THIS IS A, A, WE HAVE THEM SUBMIT EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE ARE ACTUALLY KIND OF TWO WAYS YOU CAN GET APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION.
ONE IS THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND PART OF THE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES ANALYSIS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS, IS SHOWING WHAT'S GONNA BE THERE AS A REPLACEMENT.
UH, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF SHOW THAT YOU'VE GOT DETAILED PLANS THAT ARE KIND OF OVERALL KIND OF IMPROVEMENT.
THAT'S SORT OF A WAY OF LOOKING AT THE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, TO MY MIND.
SO IF, IF SOMEONE'S NOT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU SORT OF PRESENT THEM AN ALTERNATIVE AS YOU GO FORWARD AND IT'S UP TO THE HHC OR THE, THE CITY TO SORT THROUGH ALL THE EVIDENCE AND LET THE APPLICANT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT QUALIFIES UNDER ONE OR THE OTHER.
IF IT, IF IT'S REALLY NOT CLOSE UNDER ONE, IT IS SORT OF A, A WASTED EXERCISE TO GO, TO GO THROUGH IT ALL.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE, THEY'VE PRESENTED ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE, BUT REALLY THEY'RE, IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER, AN ALTERNATIVE.
AND, AND SO YEAH, I, I USUALLY IT DOESN'T IT COME UP, BUT IT'S, IT'S AN UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER IT.
I AGREE WITH WHAT ROB SAID ABOUT THOSE TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS, BUT I LOOK AT THE, WHAT, THE REASON I BROUGHT IT UP IS IF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SAY WAS 1700 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING CLOSER TO WHAT'S THERE, IT WOULD SPEAK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN IT DOES WHEN THEY'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S COMPLETELY OUTTA CHARACTER TO WHAT THE PROP, THE BLOCK FACE.
AND EVERY, IT TELLS ME A HINT OF INTENT FROM THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT IS LIKE THERE'S AN IN GENUINENESS IN THE DEMO SIDE BECAUSE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND I AGREE WITH, UM, PART OF WHAT HE SAID THERE, AND IT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS THAT I DIDN'T SEE, AND THIS WAS LIKE THE LONGEST REPORT I'VE EVER SEEN, AND, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S FOUR VERSIONS OF EVERY, YOU KNOW, WITH DEFERRED AND ALL DENIED, UH, WATERMARKED OVER THE PAGES.
SO JUST
THEY CAN'T CLAIM ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
[00:55:04]
FROM EVERYTHING THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED.AND, AND I BELIEVE WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A, JUST A POINT OF ORDER IF I MAY.
UM, UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND, AND USUALLY THE DISCUSSION HAPPENS AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT IT.
AND NOT THAT YOU'RE GOING TOO FAR, IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR FOR ME, BUT IF, IF, IF I HAVE QUESTIONS TOWARDS ME, I, I'LL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS AND I THINK THAT THANK YOU, BUT IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT HERE? WHICH IS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT I, YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF LIKE, IF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS HERE, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN JUST SOMEBODY REPRESENTING THE OWNER.
OH, THE OWNERS ARE ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL IS PRESENT, AND I'D RECOMMEND THAT YOU ASK THEM TO SPEAK.
AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE OWNER, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT MATTER TO FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, WITH HER, WITH HIS ATTORNEY.
WELL, UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ROMAN? UM, I DON'T HAVE A CARD, BUT I BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY'S NAME WAS MARY PARSONS.
UH, IF YOU COULD COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME.
UH, GOOD MORNING THAT MY NAME IS MARY PARSONS AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF HARPREET AND, AND, UH, APPEALING THE DENIAL OF, UH, HIS REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION.
UM, I'M NOT GONNA REHASH, UM, WHAT, UH, MR. MCCALLAN JUST SAID.
UM, BUT, UM, I DO HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE HERE, UH, TO APPEAL THE DECISION, UH, THE DENIAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
WE BE BELIEVE IT WAS ERRONEOUS.
UH, AND, UM, UH, AND I'M, I'M GOING TO COUCH MY COMMENTS IN TRYING TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS PRESENTED.
JUST, UH, TRY TO, UH, TO SAVE A LITTLE TIME.
UH, MY CLIENT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY TO LIVE IN IT.
UH, IT, UH, IT IS UNINHABITABLE AND HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE IDEA OF EITHER REMODELING IT WELL, THAT WAS THE INITIAL PLAN WAS REMODELING IT.
HE HAD A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S REPORT IS SUPPLIED IN OUR APPEAL.
IT WAS ALSO PRESENTED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE.
UM, BUT IT IS EXHIBIT FIVE TO THE APPEAL.
UH, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER LOOKED AT THE HOUSE AND SAID THE WINDOW SEALS FAILED YEARS AGO.
THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH MOISTURE THAT HAS COME INTO THE HOUSE THROUGH THE FAILED WINDOW SEALS THAT THE SIDING HAS COMPLETELY ROTTED OUT, ALLOWING EVEN MORE MOISTURE.
THERE IS ALSO MOISTURE THAT HAS COME IN FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WHICH WAS RAISED, UM, AND REGRADED FOR REMODEL, UH, WHICH FLOODS THE PROPERTY AT, UM, 1120.
AND SO THE FOUNDATION IS UNREPAIRABLE.
THE STUDS IN THE HOUSE HAVE ROTTED OUT AT THE BASE.
THE, THERE'S SO MUCH DAMAGE ON THE INTERIOR OF THIS PROPERTY THAT IT IS UNINHABITABLE.
OH, I THOUGHT, THOUGHT I HEARD A QUESTION.
UM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, AND, AND I, WE FULLY APPRECIATE THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, THE ORDINANCE, UM, I APPRECIATE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE SHOWN EARLIER ABOUT BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED TO MAKE WAY FOR CHICK-FIL-A'S AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE, UM, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING HISTORICAL TO PROTECT.
THERE IS NOTHING ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS HOUSE.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, THIS HOUSE WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED IN THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE, WHICH MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THAT AREA DO HAVE.
UH, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, NO TAPERED COLUMNS, NO BRICK BASE COLUMNS, NO LOW SLOPE OR LOW PITCH GABLES.
IF, IF, IF ANYTHING, THIS HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY MAYBE A FOLK VICTORIAN STYLE.
BUT THE PRIOR OWNER, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, DEMOLISHED THE FRONT PORCH, WHICH WAS THE ONLY ASPECT OF THIS ARCHITECTURE THAT BORE ANY HISTORICAL QUALITY OR CHARACTERISTIC.
THE PRIOR OWNER DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING PORCH ILLEGALLY WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S INSPECTOR CAME TO INSPECT IT FOR FINAL PERMIT APPROVAL, AND IT FAILED IT.
THE, THE PORCH WAS CONSTRUCTED SHODDILY.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PORCH DO NOT SUPPORT ITS OWN WEIGHT, MUCH LESS A HUMAN BEING THAT MIGHT WANNA WALK ACROSS IT OR SIT ON A CHAIR OR A BENCH.
UH, SO THE FRONT PORCH IS BRAND NEW, NOT HISTORICAL, DOES NOT BEAR ANY ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD MAKE IT LOOK THAT, THAT ARE WORTH PRESERVING AND IT'S STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND.
[01:00:01]
UM, AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A GARAGE IN THE BACK OF THIS HOUSE.A DIFFERENT PRIOR OWNER TRIED TO BUILD AN ILLEGAL SECOND STORY ALSO WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WITHOUT EVEN A PERMIT, THAT FRAMING WAS LEFT TO THE WIND FOR YEARS.
AND FINALLY THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE GARAGE WAS DEMOLISHED.
SO THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST ANYMORE.
ALL THAT IS LEFT IS A TINY LITTLE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BOX, WHICH IS STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND, WHICH IS IN, IT'S IN TERRIBLE CONDITION.
IT'S UNINHABITABLE, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CHARACTER THAT WOULD ADD TO THE APPEAL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE MANY OF THE NEIGHBORING HOMES DO.
MY CLIENT HAS PRESENTED TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTUAL SETS OF PLANS.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THERE ARE NO DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NOR HILL.
THERE'S BEEN FIGHTING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS TRYING TO PUT SOME IN PLACE.
UM, I BELIEVE THE CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRED GUIDELINES A LONG TIME AGO IF THEY WERE EVER GONNA GET 'EM.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THE GUIDELINES WILL EVER PASS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORS AGREE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PUT A SET OF DESIGN LINE GUIDELINES TOGETHER, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE AREN'T ANY.
AND SO ALL THAT'S LEFT IS THE CITY ORDINANCE STANDARDS.
AND MY CLIENT IS MORE THAN WILLING TO, TO WORK TOWARDS THAT.
AS WAS POINTED OUT, THAT'S A SEPARATE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH AND, AND FIND WHAT, WHAT CAN WE CONSTRUCT HERE THAT MEETS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MEETS THE ARCHEOLOGIC, I MEAN, ARCHITECTURAL FLAVOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SO THAT THE PROPERTY VALUE CAN BE ENHANCED, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN BE ENHANCED.
UH, AND THAT'S MY CLIENT'S GOAL HERE.
BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, HE HAS TO MOVE THROUGH THIS STEP BY STEP PROCESS.
IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION IS INCORRECT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
UM, AS I POINTED OUT, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORT IS, UH, IS NOT CONTESTED.
THERE'S NOT A, A INTROVERTING ENGINEERING REPORT THAT CAME OUT AND SAID, OH NO, THIS FOUNDATION'S GREAT.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SHORE UP OF THINGS THAT, THAT IS UNCONTESTED EVIDENCE.
UH, THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW, UH, VERY DETERIORATED CONDITION.
UM, LIKE I SAID, THE THE STUDS ARE COMPLETELY ROTTED OUT.
UH, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING HOLDING THE WALLS UP.
UM, THE REQUIRED APPRAISALS WERE PROVIDED.
THE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING MY CLIENT'S ATTEMPTS TO SELL THIS PROPERTY WERE PROVIDED THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LISTING HISTORY FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT LANGUISHED FOR YEARS.
THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT WAS LISTED FOR SALE, DELISTED LISTED PRICE REDUCED DELISTED LISTED AGAIN, FINALLY, MY CLIENT BOUGHT IT LAST SUMMER.
BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT A, A PROPERTY THAT HAS
UM, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE USES, BUT THAT REALLY DOESN'T APPLY.
THERE ISN'T REALLY AN ALTERNATIVE USE OTHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UM, MY CLIENT PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION, AND AGAIN, IN THE APPEAL, THE COST ESTIMATES FOR EITHER REHABBING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ADDING ONTO IT, WHICH IS WHAT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE ON THIS IN, IN THIS AREA, UM, COMPARED WITH THE COST OF BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE.
AND THE, THERE IS NO QUESTION IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLY EXPENSIVE TO TRY TO RESTORE WHAT LITTLE IS LEFT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE OF IN ORDER TO TRY TO BUILD SOMETHING ON TOP OF THE BACK OF IT.
AGAIN, WE, WE, WE RESPECT THE ORDINANCE.
WE THINK THE INTENT OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION IS WELL FOUNDED.
UH, BUT THIS HOUSE DOESN'T BEAR, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE CHARACTER THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND THAT THE CITY ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT.
IT'S AN OLD ROTTEN BOX OF WOOD
THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED WELL, DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROTECT, UM, THAT WOULD ADD, UM, CHARACTER OR CON OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT, UM, THIS BOARD REVERSE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION AND ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION.
AND IF I, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
UH, YOU'VE REPEATEDLY SAID IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY HISTORICAL VALUE.
UM, THE STRUCTURE IS DEFINED IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT WAS LOOKED AT BY PROFESSIONALS.
[01:05:01]
IT WAS DEFINED FOR ITS VALUE BY PROFESSIONALS.THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT STOOD UP AGAIN, HAS STOOD UP AGAINST THE DENIAL.
I MEAN, THE, THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING, THEREFORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SURROUNDING IT FINDS VALUE IN THE BUILDING THAT YOU SAY HAS NO VALUE.
SO I WOULD JUST SAY I RESPECT YOUR PROFESSION AND YOUR FIELD, BUT I, I THINK YOU CAN'T REALLY SPEAK FOR ANOTHER PROFESSION ON THAT TOPIC WITHOUT A PROFESSIONAL COMMENT FROM A PROFESSIONAL THAT DOES HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT, AND I WILL ALSO SAY IN REFERENCE TO YOU SAYING IT'S UN UNDOABLE AND UNMANAGEABLE.
I HAVE SITTING OVER THERE ON THE DOCUMENT WITH TERRANCE, TWO OF THE THREE HOUSES THAT WERE LISTED IN YOUR COMP LIST THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED WERE IN WORSE CONDITION IN THE HOUSE THAT YOU HAVE.
AND I CAN ASK THEM TO SHOW 'EM, BUT THEY ARE BOTH BEING REHABBED FOR PROFIT AND WITH ADDITIONS ON THE BACK.
IT'S NOT A TERRIBLY EASY PROCESS TO DO, BUT IT IS NOT, NOT DOABLE.
SO I HAVE BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS THERE.
I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INTERIORS THAT WE CAN SHOW SHOWING FOR THE PUBLIC RECORDS SHOWING THAT THEY WERE IN WORSE CONDITION THAN THIS BUILDING.
UM, MAY I RESPOND TO I I I, I, AND I APOLOGIZE IF MY COMMENTS WERE, UH, WERE NOT CLEAR.
I, I CERTAINLY WASN'T TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THERE'S NO HISTORICAL VALUE TO THE HOME OR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, MY COMMENTS MEANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR OWNER DEMOLISHED THE FRONT PORCH THAT USED TO HAVE THE, UM, THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH PRESERVING.
AND NOW WHAT'S LEFT IS JUST A, A PINE CONSTRUCTED FRONT PORCH THAT FAILED INSPECTION AND DOESN'T, WON'T EVEN STAND UP ON ITS OWN.
SO I, I DO APPRECIATE THE, THE VALUE.
UM, IT'S, I WAS JUST SPEAKING ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS.
UM, AND, AND I, I, THE HEIGHTS NOR HILL HEIGHT, A LOT OF THESE HOUSES ARE SORT OF UNREMARKABLE, TAKEN IN, IN ISOLATION, BUT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER COMES FROM THE ACTUAL KIND OF LAYOUT OF THEM THAT WHEN THEY WERE BUILT, THE FACT THEY WERE BUILT AS PART OF A, IT'S A HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.
SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, AS A CASUAL OBSERVER SAYING WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT THIS HOUSE? WELL, IT'S CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISTRICT IS KIND OF THE IDEA.
SO, UH, UM, AND I THINK, UM, I'D SAY SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, SO MUCH CHANGE HAS OCCURRED TO THIS HOUSE THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT IT WAS IN THE INVENTORY.
THOSE, I THINK WOULD GO TO THE IDEA ABOUT IS THIS UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BEEN SO ALTERED THAT IT REALLY MAKES NO MORE SENSE TO CONSIDER IT IN THE SAME WAY.
I, I DON'T THINK THE CHANGES YOU'VE DESCRIBED ARE, ARE, ARE SO DRASTIC.
WE'VE HAD HAD OTHER CASES WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'VE BEEN UNSYMPATHETIC OR UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO SOMETHING WHERE IT'S JUST, IT'S KIND OF A LOST CAUSE.
BUT I THINK THE HHC HAS REALLY LOOKED AT THIS MORE CLOSELY AND THOUGHT THIS IS, IS NO WAY A LOST CAUSE.
UM, I, I'D SAY ALSO, UH, ABOUT, UH, YOU HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS KIND OF QUALITATIVELY ABOUT THE NEED FOR REPAIRS AND DAMAGE TO THE HOUSE.
NONE OF THOSE ARE SHOCKING OR SURPRISING TO ANYBODY HERE.
UH, THAT'S PAR FOR THE COURSE FOR DEALING WITH A HISTORIC HOME AND TRYING TO RESTORE IT, WHERE KIND OF THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD IS TRYING TO QUANTIFY THAT.
SO YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS A COST ESTIMATE FOR RENOVATING JUST THE, THE BASE BUILDING, AND I I THOUGHT THAT WAS $261,000.
SO I THAT'S, THAT'S NOT TOO BAD
YOU KNOW, CAN YOU REALLY DO THAT? AND SO AS LONG AS THE MONEY YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SPEND UNDER THE ORDINANCE, WHAT YOU'RE LEFT WITH AT THE END OF THE DAY IS SOMETHING THAT'S WORTH MORE, THEN THERE'S NO HARDSHIP.
YOU CAN'T BE COMPELLED TO BURN UP MONEY IN A MONEY LOSING VENTURE.
BUT THAT YOU, WE DO NOT HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE, UH, OWNER OVERPAID FOR THE PROPERTY OR WHAT THEIR UH, COSTS ARE.
IT'S REALLY, IF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THEM TO SPEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO REHAB THE HOUSE, IN THIS CASE BY YOUR OWN ESTIMATE, $261,000, WOULD THE HOUSE AT THE END OF IT BE WORTH MORE THAN TWO $61,000? AND IF SO, THERE'S NO ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT, OH, THERE'S WATER INFILTRATION.
THE FOUNDATION'S NOT, YOU KNOW, REPAIRABLE, BUT WHEN THAT'S YOUR ESTIMATE, THAT'S THE NUMBER WE'RE GONNA USE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA USE THESE KIND OF QUALITATIVE, UH, UH,
[01:10:01]
DESCRIPTIONS OF, OF HOW BAD IT IS.SO, UM, THAT TO ME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, SETTLES THAT ISSUE PRETTY CLEARLY.
UM, IF I COULD JUST MAKE A COMMENT, 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN A KIND OF A, A BOTHER OF ME ABOUT THE WHAT KIND OF APPRAISAL IS REQUIRED.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY JUST THE FACT THAT A APPRAISERS AREN'T USED TO THIS CONCEPT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY THE ORDINANCE TRIES TO GET THEM TO LOOK AT IT AS THOUGH, UH, THE FACT IT'S IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WITH RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE, THERE'S A USE RESTRICTED.
AND USUALLY YOUR APPRAISER, AND YOUR APPRAISER DID TOO, KIND OF MAKES ASSUMPTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT MY PROPOSAL HERE IS EVERYTHING'S PERMITTED.
YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE USING COMPS FOR TEAR DOWNS AND VACANT LOTS AND, AND NON HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND TREATING IT ALL AS THOUGH THERE'S THIS CONCEPT OF LAND VALUE, WHICH IS NEAR AND DEAR TO THE HEARTS OF REAL ESTATE INVESTORS AND APPRAISERS, BUT DOES NOT APPLY AND CANNOT APPLY THE SAME WAY IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO IF THEY SAY THE IMPROVEMENTS ADD NO VALUE, AND HE'S APPRAISING IT BASICALLY AS LOT VALUE, THAT ASSUMES YOU CAN DEMOLISH THE HOUSE AND YOU'RE BASICALLY HAVE A, A IF YOU, IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND THE FACT IT'S CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, YOU CANNOT ASSUME THAT YOU CANNOT DEMOLISH THE HOUSE.
AND IN FACT, HAVING A HOUSE THAT'S IN DIRE NEED OF REPAIR AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, IT'S SORT OF A LIABILITY THAT'S ATTACHED WITH THAT PROPERTY.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE REASON WHY IT LANGUISHED AND THE PRICE WENT DOWN IS PEOPLE WENT IN THERE AND INVESTIGATED HOW MUCH IT WAS GONNA COST TO REHAB.
THEY KNEW IT WAS GONNA HAVE TO REHAB, PRICE CAME DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, AND THEN SOMEONE BOUGHT IT WITHOUT REALLY DOING THE INVESTIGATION, OR ASSUMING THEY COULD GET PAST THE ORDINANCE.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY PAID THE PRICE THEY DID.
IF THEY, YOU KNOW, PAID A LOWER PRICE, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE EVEN LESS CLEAR THAT THERE'S ANY PROBLEM WITH JUST DEVELOPING AND REDEVELOPING THE PROJECT.
SO, UM, YEAH, I JUST, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK THERE'S SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING POTENTIALLY COULD APPLY UNDER ONE OF THE CRITERIA, BUT THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP BY THE OWN EVIDENCE YOU PRESENTED, I JUST DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING AT, AT ALL.
A COUPLE THINGS I FIRST, I WANNA, UH, JUST ADVISE IF YOU'RE THINKING THAT THERE'S NO HISTORICAL, UH, ARCHITECTURAL HISTORICAL VALUE LEFT IN THE HOUSE.
THERE IS A PROCESS IN THE ORDINANCE TO GET PROPERTIES IN ANY HISTORIC DISTRICT RECLASSIFIED, CONTRIBUTING TO NON-CONTRIBUTING OR NON-CONTRIBUTING, UH, TO CONTRIBUTING.
UM, IN WHICH CASE, IF YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT, YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO DEMOLISH.
UH, THE OTHER THING I WANNA MENTION WITH RESPECT TO THIS, UH, ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, THE ONE THING MISSING FROM THE CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE IS THE PRICE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY.
I'M GONNA USE THE NUMBER, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE PAID FOR IT, BUT I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT WAS 500,000.
DIRT IS EXPENSIVE IN THE HEIGHTS.
UM, BUT I ALSO WANT US THE ADDITION THAT'S PROPOSED TO THE EXISTING HOUSE.
HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WAS THAT? THE, UH, THE NEW CON? I DON'T HAVE THE, THE, THE, WELL, THE, I I DON'T KNOW THIS, DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
UM, ORIGINAL ESTIMATE, THE FIRST ESTIMATE HE GOT WAS JUST TO REHAB AND NOT TO CR NOT TO MAKE AN ADDITION AT ALL.
UH, THEN HE HAS A SEPARATE ESTIMATE FOR THE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
UH, THAT WAS PROPOSED IN ADDITION TO THE 1000, NO, NO, NO.
THAT WAS THE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ALTOGETHER.
UM, AND I, UM, I, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, BUT I DON'T HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF ME, SO I, UM, CANNOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND THAT'S FINE.
SO MY POINT IS, IN DETERMINING ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, IF INDEED HE WAS INTENDED TO LIVE THERE, UM, YOU HAVE TO, AND, AND JUST REMODEL, RENOVATE, REPAIR THE EXISTING HOUSE AND USING THAT HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASE PRICE OF 500,000, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORTH 761,000 AND CHANGE.
AND SIMILARLY, UM, A MILLION ON THE RENOVATED HOUSE AND THE, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF HE PAID 500,000 OR $500 FOR IT OR YOU KNOW, SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT.
UM, AND THAT'S ALWAYS THE WAY IT'S BEEN ON EVERY DEMOLITION.
AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE PURPOSE, AN INVESTOR WILL GO IN THERE AND BUY THE PROPERTY WITH NO INTENTION OF EVER INHABITING IT.
AND, UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, CLAIM ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND TO THAT AS A NOW RETIRED BUILDER, UM, SHAME ON YOU.
YOU KNOW, FOR NOT DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, YOU KNOW, AND IF INDEED YOU'RE GONNA BE UPSIDE DOWN AND YOU MAKE AN OFFER FOR THAT PROPERTY JUST LIKE THEY DO OUTSIDE OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS BASED ON WHAT IT'S GONNA COST TO FIX IT AND WHAT IT'S WORTH AND ALLOWING SOME KIND OF PROFIT MARGIN, I CAN
[01:15:01]
ADD SOME NUMBERS.THE, UH, PRO YOU HAD THREE, UH, IN YOUR COMPS YOU HAD THREE PROPERTIES THAT WERE LISTED.
ONE WAS 1236 WEST COLUMBIA, 1236 WEST COLUMBIA.
I CALLED MY CLIENT, UM, 'CAUSE I'M THE ARCHITECT ON RECORD ON THAT PROJECT SO I CAN SPEAK DIRECTLY ABOUT IT 'CAUSE I'M DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH IT.
UM, THE REPAIR PRO ESTIMATE FOR THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE BUILDING, RESTORING AND DEALING WITH THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE BUILDING WAS AROUND $260,000, WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR NUMBER.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS BEING, HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED AND REFRAMED.
NEW ADDITION ON THE BACK, A NEW GARAGE IN THE BACK.
THE SALE PRICE FOR THAT BUILDING WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 1.7 MILLION.
AND THE SAME IS GOING FOR 10 40 WEST COTTAGE, WHICH IS A SECOND EXAMPLE OF THE THREE.
THERE WERE THREE EXAMPLES AND BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME NUMBER.
AND THE LAST, WHEN I TALKED TO MY CLIENT YESTERDAY, HE ALREADY HAS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN 10 40 WEST COTTAGE AT THAT PRICE POINT.
SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT HE WAS ASKING ABOUT NUMBERS, THOSE ARE REAL NUMBERS.
UM, SO I DON'T SEE THE $200,000 FOR THE REMODEL OF THE BUILDING AS OUT OF THE ORDINARY.
I LIVE IN AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE IN SIXTH WARD.
I HAVE SPENT $65,000, UH, JUST DO REPAIRING TWO ROOMS IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.
SO I DON'T, I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING HOW THESE NUMBERS ARE OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR THE, UH, FOR THE PROJECT.
I, I, AND IF WE NEED TO, I DO HAVE THE DRAWINGS THERE.
WE, AND I DO HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
WE CAN SHOW 'EM, WE CAN PUT 'EM ON THE SCREEN.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, UM, TO, TO MR. HELLER'S COMMENT ABOUT THE CHANGE OF DESIGNATION.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AN APPROPRIATE THING TO CONSIDER.
UM, BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED IN THIS, I BELIEVE MY CLIENT DID SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF DESIGNATION, AGAIN, BECAUSE THE PRIOR OWNERS HAD DONE WHAT THEY DID WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY CHANNELS OF REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY AT ALL.
AND, UM, AND HE WAS TOLD THAT WAS UNAPPEALABLE.
AND SO THAT'S, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S AGAIN, NOT, NOT SOMETHING THAT HE CAUSED, THIS WAS ALL DONE BY THE PRIOR OWNER, UM, ILLEGALLY.
AND UM, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, UM, BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T HAPPENED.
I HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH THAT VERY PROCESS MYSELF.
IT, IT'S, IT'S AN UPHILL CLIMB.
IT HAS TO, BUT I RECALL, AND I THINK THE PROCEDURE SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE APPLICATION TO THE PRESERVATION OFFICE FOR RECLASSIFICATION.
THE RECOMMENDATION HAS TO COME FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S ANY DIFFERENT THAT IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE SOMETHING THAT GO, YOU KNOW, MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, AND, UH, AND THEY MAKE THE DECISION.
ULTIMATELY, THEY DO DECIDE ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
SO WHY NOT JUST GO STRAIGHT AND THEN I'M JUST
I GUESS THE, THE, THE KIND OF TAKEAWAY POINT THOUGH IS THAT CURRENTLY IT'S A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND SO WE APPLY THE ORDINANCE AS, AS SUCH.
I, I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE HAD OCCASIONS WHERE SOMETHING IS SO UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING, YOU KNOW, AS IT GETS HERE TO THIS STAGE THAT WE CAN MAYBE CONSIDER APPLYING THAT PART OF THE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE.
BUT I, I THINK FROM WHAT THE HHC SAID AND WHAT, WHAT I'VE SEEN, THIS SEEMS VERY USUAL AND NOT COMPELLING WHATSOEVER.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING TIMELINE.
UH, IS IT TRUE THAT WHEN YOUR CLIENT PURCHASED THIS HOUSE THAT HE WAIVED ALL INSPECTIONS? UM, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I COULD SWORN I SAW SOMETHING IN THE, UH, FILE TO THAT EXTENT, AND SETH MAY WANT TO CONFIRM THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WAS BROUGHT IN AFTER THE FACT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PROPERTY HAD ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED AND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WASN'T CALLED IN FOR SOME WEEKS, MONTHS AFTERWARDS TO WRITE HIS REPORT.
IS THAT A TRUE, I I DO BELIEVE THAT MR. PRICKETT WAS RETAINED AFTER THE PURCHASE, UM, SO THAT, UM, HE COULD EVALUATE WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS HERE? SO, YES.
IT WASN'T PART OF MAKING A DECISION WHETHER TO BUY IT.
HE WANTED TO REHAB IT, HE WANTED TO RESTORE IT.
HE WANTS TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HE WANTS TO, UM, MAKE THE HOUSE NICE.
UM, AND THAT WAS HIS GOAL ALL ALONG.
UM, NOT HAVING, UM, HAD PRIOR EXPERIENCE
[01:20:01]
WITH HISTORIC DISTRICTS.I, I, HE MAY HAVE MADE A FEW MISSTEPS, UM, UM, IN THE PROCESS, BUT, UM, I THINK HIS INTENTIONS WERE, WERE, WERE SOUND, UM, NOT LOOKING TO MAKE A BUCK ON THIS.
UH, HE REALLY JUST WANTED TO, TO, TO TAKE, TO DO THIS.
HE NEVER DREAMED THAT THE PORCH WOULD BE STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND AND NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO HOLD ITS OWN WEIGHT.
I MEAN, FROM LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STREET, IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE CASE, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK UNDERNEATH IT, YOU SEE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, WELL, GOING BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION, ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTIONS WHEN A PERSON ACTUALLY BUYS A HOUSE THAT YOU HAVE INSPECTIONS DONE UNLESS FOR SOME REASON THEY'VE GOTTEN A DISCOUNT WAIVED ALL INSPECTIONS FOR WHAT HAVE YOU? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL SITUATION IS HERE AT THIS POINT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT NO INSPECTIONS WERE DONE, BUT YOU COULD WALK INTO THE HOUSE AND SEE JUST FROM THE GET GO.
I WOULD THINK THAT IT'S UNINHABITABLE.
I MEAN, GOOD GRIEF, THE MANY OF THE WALLS WERE SOMEWHAT OPENED UP HOLES ON THE FLOOR WHILE WATER HEATER WAS NOT ATTACHED.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT'S UNINHABITABLE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A KNOWN SITUATION FOR THE PURCHASER.
OH, BY THE WAY, I DID FIND ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, THE NEW HOUSE, THE TOTAL LIVING AREA IS, UH, 30, UH, 35, 37 ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
IT'S JUST THAT THE FLOOR PLATE IS, UH, IN THE 2000 RANGE, BUT IT'S A TWO STORY HOUSE, UM, WAVING ON INSPECTIONS.
IT WOULD SEEM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, TO ME, IT'S GOING TO THE INTENT.
IF IT WAS A KNOWN SITUATION THAT HE WAS GOING TO GO DO THIS UPFRONT, THEN, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE INSPECTIONS WERE WAIVED.
HE'S GONE AHEAD AND I GUESS MAYBE, PERHAPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, BUT HAS GOTTEN A NEW SET OF PLANS PREPARED BUT ISN'T, THAT'S A BLOCK WITH ALL ONE STORY HOUSES.
AND THIS IS A TWO STORY HOUSE THAT'S, UH, BEEN PRESENTED, UH, NOT ONLY FOR THIS BODY, BUT ALSO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, I CAN UNDERSTAND NOT BEING FAMILIAR WITH HISTORIC, UH, ZONES, BUT CERTAINLY IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, MAY, MAY, I, MAY I RESPOND PLEASE.
ACTUALLY, MOST OF THE HOUSES ON THAT STREET THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, HAVE HAD AN ADDITION THAT THEY'VE HAD A SECOND STORY ADDITION PUT ON THE BACK, LIKE A CAMEL BACK.
SO ALMOST ALL OF THEM DO HAVE TWO STORY HOMES WITH SIGNIFI SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN ON THE BACK.
THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, ACCORDING TO THE CLIMBING ELEVATIONS ON THE PLANS, THIS IS A TWO STORY IN THE FRONT AS WELL AS THE BACK.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT EVEN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE ON A REHABBED HOUSE WHERE THE ADDITIONS WERE PUT AT THE REAR, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS HIS, UH, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.
BUT AS ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCES, THAT THOSE ADDITIONS WERE TYPICALLY PUT IN THE BACK HALF OF THE LOT, WELL, HE DID GET PRICING FOR THAT PROJECT.
UM, THE REASON HE GOT THE, UH, CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IS THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED HIM TO PRESENT THAT AS PART OF HIS APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY HE HAD THE ARCHITECT DRAW UP THOSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, UH, JUST BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED IT.
UM, AGAIN, IT'S A, IT'S A STEP, STEP, STEP BY STEP PROCESS.
AND, AND JUST, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WAIVING INSPECTION, BUT, UM, THE TEXAS BOARD THAT GOVERNS HOME INSPECTIONS, UM, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, UM, ALWAYS JUST SAYS, I'M NOT A FOUNDATION EXPERT.
I'M NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
UM, I MEAN, THEY LOOK AT THE ROOF, THEY LOOK FOR OPENINGS, THEY LOOK FOR FOR PLUMBING THINGS, BUT MOST HOME INSPECTIONS THAT, UH, PEOPLE BUY WHEN THEY'RE BUYING A HOME FOR PURPOSES OF EITHER GETTING A MORTGAGE OR JUST INITIAL, UM, REALTY, HOME INSPECTIONS ARE NOT STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTS.
AND, UM, AND IN FACT THEY'RE, THEY, THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE INSPECTION REPORT THAT I AM NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, AND THIS IS NOT AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAIVED HIS JUST BASIC HOME INSPECTION, BUT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT, EVEN IF HE HADN'T, YEAH.
BEING A CIVIL ENGINEER THAT I AM, EVEN AN INSPECTOR WOULD GO DOWN TO THE CRAWL SPACE AND AT LEAST SEE WHAT TYPE OF FOUNDATION THAT IT IS.
UH, IF THERE WERE GAPS BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION, UH, PIERS AND THE STRUCTURE AND THINGS THAT ARE JUST OBSERVATION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ATTESTING TO THE STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS OF THE HOUSE.
AND IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN PURCHASING HOMES THAT
[01:25:01]
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DONE.AND WITH INSPECTIONS, THE THING THAT IS TROUBLING ME ON THIS WHOLE THING, BY THE WAY, ROMAN, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND A ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOUT THE WAIVING INSPECTIONS ON THAT? YES.
I CAN COMMENT THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY STATED IN THE, YOU'LL FIND IT IN THE MINUTES OF ONE OF THOSE TWO MEETINGS, AND HE STATED THAT HE HAD WAIVED INSPECTION.
THAT HE HAD NOT HAD THE YEAH, I DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD JUST DREAMED THAT ONE UP.
UH, TO ME, IT'S JUST SO GOING TO THE INTENT ON WHAT PURPOSE DID HE PURCHASE HIS HOUSE KNOWING THAT IT WAS UNINHABITABLE WHEN HE WALKED IN THE DOOR, IRRESPECTIVE IF IT WAS A NEW PORCH OR NOT, YOU KNOW, COULD IT BE RESTORED? UH, I'VE CERTAINLY BEEN THROUGH A RESTORATION AND IN FACT, UNDERTAKING OF MY SECOND ONE RIGHT NOW.
AND SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN EASY PROCESS, BUT IT, IT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S HEARTFELT, LET'S JUST PUT IT THAT WAY.
AND SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE INTENT DOESN'T, OR THE ACTIONS DON'T REALLY REFLECT WELL ON THE INTENT GOING INTO THIS.
I'LL ADD TO, UM, TRUMAN ASKED A QUESTION.
IT IS, I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY.
UM, IT IS A COMPLETELY INTACT BLOCK FACE THAT THIS HOUSE IS ON AS WELL AS THE FACING BLOCK FACE.
SO THIS, IF THIS WAS THE DEMOLITION, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST DEMOLITION OF A STR, A HISTORIC STRUCTURE ON THE BLOCK FACE.
IT'S ON AS WELL AS THE FACING BLOCK FACE.
I, I, I JUST, UH, THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT.
I DON'T, IT'S NOT A QUESTION, BUT, UM, AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE ABOUT THAT 90 DAY PERIOD, WHY, UH, THE APP APPLICANT'S REQUIRED TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS.
I THINK IT'S TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO FIND SOME OTHER OUT.
AND SO IF, IF THEY DON'T WANNA DO THE PROJECT, AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, SEE IF ANYONE ELSE WILL TAKE THE PROPERTY.
AND I JUST, THE, THE OFFERS THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY, IT, IT'S KIND OF TELLS AN INTERESTING STORY.
'CAUSE I THINK THE RECORD WAS THAT THE, HE PURCHASED THE HOUSE FOR FOUR $18,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I BELIEVE.
UM, AND EVERY OFFER HE HAD WAS HIGHER THAN THAT.
THEY, ONE STARTED AT FOUR 20, HE COUNTERED AT 500, AND THE, UH, BUYER WENT AWAY.
UM, AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, HE KEEPS INVITING HIM TO OFFER OVER 500,000, OR THEY'RE ON LIKE A, A TWO MONTH, THREE MONTH CLOSING TIMELINE, WHICH IS DIFFICULT IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO TRY TO EVALUATE THE COST OF RENOVATION AND SERIOUSLY TRYING TO RENOVATE IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I I, I, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO, UM, UH, I JUST THINK THAT ALSO KIND OF TELLS A STORY ABOUT, UM, UM, THE EFFORTS TO, UH, PRESERVE THIS HOUSE, YOU KNOW, OR, OR THE PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, THE MONEY'S THERE TO GET OUT OF THIS PROJECT, UH, AT NO GREAT LOSS, UH, MAYBE EVEN A PROFIT IF, UH, THEY WERE SINCERELY WANTING TO DO THAT.
AGAIN, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN APPLICANT GO THROUGH THIS.
BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD INFORMATION FOR THE, UH, THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION THAT, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S NO GREAT, UH, PROBLEMS WITH THIS HOUSE
UM, I THINK THERE'S EVEN A POSSIBILITY THAT THE, THE OWNER COULD SELL AT A, AT A LITTLE PROFIT AND SOMEONE COULD GET ON WITH THE RENOVATION.
SO, UM, UH, BUT I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, SUBMITTING THAT AND GOING THROUGH THE STEPS OF THE ORDINANCE, SO, OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OF ACTION ON THIS ITEM? UM, I, I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HHC, UH, DENYING THE C OF A FOR DEMOLITION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
I ALSO VOTE, UH, TO AFFIRM THE HHC COMMISSION'S, UH, RULING.
UM, WE'VE ALREADY DONE ITEM THREE AND ITEM FOUR ON THE, UH, AGENDA.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OR ANYTHING TO ADD? THEN I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING.