[Historic Preservation Appeals Board on August 25, 2025.]
[00:00:19]
GOOD MORNING.IT IS 9:01 AM ON MONDAY, AUGUST 25TH, 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 AT THE HOUSTON CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO LONGER VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTION, HOUSTON TELEVISION, HTV OFFERS VIEWING OPTIONS VIA THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
I AM CHAIR JD BARTEL, AND I AM PRESENT.
TRUMAN EDM MINSTER TRUMAN EDM.
PRESENT, AND, UM, UH, DIRECT DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WILLIAMSON.
UM, AS CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW THIS MEETING IS TO BE CONDUCTED, ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM, TURN IT INTO THE FRONT DESK, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN PERSON.
WHEN I CALL ON YOU HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL OPEN WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE APPEAL THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD.
THE APPELLANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT AND WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
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 OR SPEAK FOR THE SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THEIR TIME ALLOTTED FOR SPEAKING.
MAY I CALL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR BAREL.
COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC WELCOME.
I'M ROBERT WILLIAMSON, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT THIS MORNING.
SO IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THIS CON CONCLUDES THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THIS AGENDA.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? SO MOVED IF MR. SECOND.
AND THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND WE HAD A REQUEST TO MOVE.
IT WAS ITEM THREE, KIM? YES, WE, WE, I HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED ITEM THREE BE MOVED UP.
I DON'T THINK THAT AFTER SPEAKING WITH, UH, MR. RIMES COUNSEL FOR THAT APPLICANT, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL BE EXTENSIVELY LONG.
I THINK THE BOARD CAN TAKE THE ITEMS IN WHICHEVER ORDER THEY PREFER.
SO WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, UM, WE'LL CONTINUE WITH ITEM TWO.
CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HU HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON JULY 17TH, 2025 DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, A COA FOUR WINDOW REPLACEMENT AT 1 1 0 8 EAST 16TH STREET IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
I SUBMIT ITEM TWO AT 1108 EAST 16TH STREET IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE 1,474 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY CONTRIBUTING BUNGALOW STYLE PROPERTY WAS BUILT CIRCA 1928, SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE 12 ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND REPLACED THEM WITH DOUBLE HUNG PRIMED PINE WOOD WINDOWS BY SIERRA PACIFIC ON JULY 17TH, 2025.
THE HAAC VOTED TO DENY THE APPLICATION MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THE APPLICANT, JOHN MAY, IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
[00:05:02]
UM, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THIS PROJECT AND HIS NAME IS JOHN MAY.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE SPEAKER WHEN YOU APPROACH THE PODIUM.
UH, MY NAME IS JOHN H. MAY SENIOR AND, UH, I LIVE AT 1108 EAST 16TH STREET, HOUSTON 7 7 0 0 9.
AND I'M HERE BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO, UH, GET SOME RELIEF, UH, AND HAVE OUR WINDOWS, UH, ACCEPTED TO BE INSTALLED IN OUR HOUSE AT 1108.
I'VE GONE BACK INTO LIKE 1948, HELPING MY FATHER, UH, REPLACE SOME OF THE CORDS AND, AND THE WEIGHTS AND THE FACIA BOARDS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND, UH, SO I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
THOSE WINDOWS ARE OPEN FOR SHATTER, UH, IF SOMETHING COMES OFF LIKE HAIL OR SHOULD WE EVER GET ANY KIND OF HURRICANE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO THE WINDOWS THAT I'M PROPOSING OKAY.
WILL BE A DOUBLE HUNG THAT WILL LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE ORIGINALS.
AND INSTALLED BY PROFESSIONALS PAINTED AND READY TO GO.
UH, I'D LIKE TO ALSO ADD, UH, THAT THE NOR HILL GROUP, UH, ACCEPTED OUR APPLICATION AND GAVE US PERMISSION TO INSTALL THE WINDOWS.
AND THEY ARE WI UH, WOODEN WINDOWS.
I HAVE, UH, THE, UH, INFORMATION IN THESE TWO, UH, PRINTOUTS FOR ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE 'EM.
I ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER INFORMATION HERE, UH, THAT MIGHT BE OF IMPORTANCE.
I HAD RECEIVED, UH, AN EMAIL, UH, FROM, UH, ROMAN, UH, THAT SAID THAT, UH, EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED.
AND, UH, WITH THAT INFORMATION, I CONTACTED GORMAN, UH, WHOSE, UH, WINDOWS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO, UH, INSTALL AND SAYING, UH, THAT, UH, AND I CAN READ, UH, YOU MAY, UH, LET'S SEE.
YOUR NEXT STEP IS TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
PERMITTING WILL NEED A COPY OF YOUR COA INSTRUCTIONS FOR, UH, THE PERMITTING PROCESS CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING ON THE FOLLOWING LINK PERMITTING SERVICES.
ONCE AT THE WEBSITE, SCROLL DOWN AND SELECT THE RELEVANT GUIDE, RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER.
THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES USEFUL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PERMISSION, UH, PERMITTING APPLICATION PROCESS WHEN YOU SUBMIT THE PLANS, DRAWINGS, AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE PRO PROJECT DOCS.
YOU MUST ALSO INCLUDE YOUR COA.
PLEASE UPLOAD, LOAD, THE COA AND FOLLOW US.
UM, MR. MAY, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, THAT'S JUST THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE WEBSITE.
DO YOU HAVE, UH, SOMETHING ELSE IN REFERENCE TO THE PROJECT? I MEAN, THE APPEALS PROCESS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTARY ON THE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR THE, OR YOUR REQUEST? NO, JUST LIKE TO GET APPROVAL TO PUT THE WINDOWS IN.
UM, DOES STAFF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAY OR DOES BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAY? UH, I THINK I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
HE SAID, UM, ROMAN INDICATED THAT THERE WAS APPROVAL YES.
EXCUSE ME, SORRY FOR STAFF, STAFF, STAFF.
SORRY, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME.
OH, OH, I JUST NEED TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF HERE RIGHT QUICK.
SO THE EMAIL THAT, UH, JOHN RECEIVED IS ACTUALLY JUST THE AUTOMATED EMAIL THAT IS SENT OUT FOR EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT WHEN THEIR APPLICATION IS ACTED ON BY THE HAC.
SO IT DOES NOT, UM, THAT'S JUST A OLD EMAIL TEMPLATE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON FIXING THAT, BUT IT, NOWHERE IN THE EMAIL DOES IT SAY NECESSARILY THAT IT WAS APPROVED.
IT JUST SAYS YOU MAY REVIEW THE ACTION REPORT AND THAT YOUR PROJECT WAS ACTED ON BY THE HAAC.
[00:10:01]
SO THAT IS, UH, JUST AN AUTOMATED EMAIL THAT GETS SENT OUT.DID I ASSUME SOMEBODY WENT OUT TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY INSPECT THE WINDOWS? THAT WAS ROMAN MCALLEN.
AND IS THERE A REPORT IN HERE FROM HIM IN THE CONDITION OF HIM? NO.
NO, HE DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN HIS, UH, STAFF REPORT, NO.
UM, I BELIEVE IN THE TRANSCRIPT HE DID TALK ABOUT, UH, GOING TO GO SEE THEM, BUT THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE.
UM, I, HE DID MENTION NOR HILL, UH, HAD AN APPROVAL.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WANTS TO SPEAK ON IT, BUT, UM, MS. KELSEY IS HERE FROM NOR HILL.
IF, UH, WE WANNA HAVE THEM SAY DIRECTLY WHAT THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, SO MS. KELSEY'S BACK THERE, AND I, I APOLOGIZE.
I KNOW YOU SIGNED UP FOR THE NEXT ONE, BUT SINCE YOU'RE HERE, I THINK FOR THE RECORD, IT'S GOOD JUST TO HAVE YOU DIRECTLY SAY WHAT NOR HILL'S VIEW WAS ON THIS PROJECT.
I'M THE VP OF NOR UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, WE HAVE HAD A GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WANT TO REPLACE WINDOWS AS WINDOWS ARE GETTING OLDER AND AS A COMMUNITY.
UM, ALTHOUGH MOST OF US ON THE BOARD WOULD RATHER PEOPLE NOT REPLACE THEIR WINDOWS AND NOT GET RID OF HISTORIC MATERIAL, WE FELT WE NEEDED TO REPRESENT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS.
AND IF THEY WOULD REPLACE WINDOWS WITH WOOD WINDOWS THAT MATCH THE STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE, THEN WE ARE APPROVING THEM.
UM, WITH NO VINYL WINDOWS, VERY FEW SELECT CLAD WINDOWS, AND PRIMARILY ENCOURAGING WOOD WINDOWS.
THESE WERE WOOD WINDOWS, SO WE FELT, UM, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SUPPORT THE WINDOWS.
DO WE HAVE ANY BOARD MEMBERS WITH A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT THE, UH, APPEAL TO OVERTURN THE HH C'S DECISION.
YEAH, I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AYE.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM THREE, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION HAHC ON JULY 17TH, 2025, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, COA FOR DEMOLITION AND ISSUING A COR FOR THE DEMOLITION AT 1 1 3 8 FUGATE STREET IN NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND I HAVE THREE SPEAKERS AT THIS TIME, SIGNED UP AFTER STAFF.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE H HA HPAB.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON.
AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM THREE AT 1138 WEST VIEW GATE, A ONCE CONTRIBUTING HOME CON, LOCATED IN NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUILT IN CIRCA 1925, STAFF HAS SUBMITTED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE RHYMES LAW FIRM, UH, TO YOU GUYS AND STAFF HAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION, UH, TO YOU TODAY.
STAFF ALSO HAS ADDITIONAL PHOTOS PROVIDED BY INSPECTIONS FROM THE DAY OF THE COLLAPSE, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD ALONG WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT CAMERA.
OH, WE DON'T NEED DOCUMENT CAMERA.
ON JULY 17TH, 2025, THE HHC RULED ON THE DEMOLITION COA FOR 1138 FUGATE.
THE RESULT OF THE HHC MEETING ARE AS FOLLOWS, STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR DEMOLITION, THE HHC APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR THE LEGAL DE DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY.
REV REVOCATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COA FOR THE ALTER FOR AN ALTERATION OR ADDITION, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST APPLY FOR
[00:15:01]
A COA TO BE REVIEWED BY THE HHC, WHICH MUST MEET ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND CODES.AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION PROVISION IN THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR DEMOLITION WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH IS CUSTOMARY PRACTICE FOR ALL PROJECTS THAT PERFORM WORK WITHOUT A CO COA AND OR PER PERMIT CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE HHC I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTION.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, I WAS IS THERE A, ANOTHER PROJECT COMING UP AT THE HHC ON THIS PROPERTY? YES, SIR.
FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS DEFINED THAT WE JUST, YOU JUST DESCRIBED, I MEAN, AS FAR AS THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT AFTER THIS ACTION.
UH, I, I DON'T FOLLOW, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? SO YOU, YOU ALREADY HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT'S COMING BEFORE THE HHC FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION YES, SIR.
I HAVE, UM, THREE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, AND I'M CALLING 'EM IN THE ORDER OF WHICH I RECEIVED THEM.
UH, THE FIRST ONE IS KEITH RIMES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AT THE PODIUM.
UH, I REPRESENT VET RENOVATION, UH, TABITHA HENSLEY, THE SOLE MEMBER AND MANAGER OF VET AND KEVIN SIMMONS, WHO IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT AT 1138 FUGATE.
UH, THIS PROJECT'S BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD ONCE BEFORE ON DENIAL OF THE COA, AN APPEAL WAS GRANTED, UH, FOR THE COA WITH CONDITIONS.
UH, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF VET TABITHA AND KEVIN BECAUSE THIS IS, IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION, STRICTLY A LEGAL QUESTION.
UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SECTION 33, UH, 2 0 3, UH, AND IN PARTICULAR SECTION 33 2 0 3 D.
AND OUR, OUR BELIEF IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS MISINTERPRETED THAT, UH, COMPLETELY.
UH, THE NOTICE MY CLIENTS HAD BEFORE THE JULY 17TH MEETING WAS STRICTLY, UH, FOR, UH, A-A-C-O-A AT, UH, 10 25 ON THE 17TH, MY CLIENTS RECEIVED, UH, AN EMAIL FROM MR. JACKSON SAYING, HERE IS THE LINK TO THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE BEING ADDED TO THE REPORT.
THAT'S THE FIRST AND ONLY NOTICE MY CLIENTS HAD THAT, UH, THERE WOULD BE ANY CONSIDERATION OF ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.
THAT'S THE TITLE, UH, OF SECTION, UH, 33 2 0 3 ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.
SO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL NOTICE, UH, THE PLAIN FACT IS THAT 33 2 0 3 JUST DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE.
UH, AND LET ME BACK UP FOR JUST ONE MINUTE.
ON, ON, UH, ON SOME DATE BEFORE THAT, THE STRUCTURE COLLAPSED.
SO THE DEMOLITION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS DEMOLITION AFTER THE STRUCTURE COLLAPSED, UH, AS OPPOSED TO JUST A STRAIGHT UP DEMOLITION.
I'M SORRY, I I'M TOLD I HAVE 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WON'T BE 10 MINUTES, BUT I'LL BE A FEW MORE MINUTES.
UH, SO ON JUNE 17TH, AFTER THE STRUCTURE COLLAPSED, MY CLIENTS HAD AN EMAIL FROM MR. JACKSON SAYING, PERMITTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND INSPECTIONS HAVE ALL COORDINATED AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT IT IS BEST FOR YOU ALL TO DEMOLISH THE RESIDENCE DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION ONLY.
UM, AND I THINK MR. STOCKTON WAS INVOLVED IN THAT, I'M NOT SURE.
BUT, AND THEN ON JUNE 24TH, HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS ISSUED A PERMIT, UH, THAT STATED OWNER IS ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY DOWN TO THE EXISTING FOUNDATION.
SO LOOKING AT AT 33, 2 0 3, IT JUST WASN'T INTENDED TO, UH, APPLY TO A SITUATION LIKE THIS.
THE FIRST PART, UH, DEALS WITH THE SITUATION WHERE A HOMEOWNER DEMOLISHES A HOUSE JUST SIMPLY SAYS, I DON'T HAVE A COA, I'M GONNA DEMOLISH THIS HOUSE.
UH, IN LISTENING TO THE MEETING ON JULY 17TH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT HAPPENED ONCE BEFORE AND WAS THE ONLY TIME IT EVER HAPPENED, AND THE ONLY TIME TWO OH THREE'S EVER BEEN, UH, IMPOSED.
[00:20:01]
IS A SITUATION WHERE A HOMEOWNER NEGLECTS A PROPERTY TO THE POINT WHERE THE CITY HAS ISSUED A A WARNING, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DEMOLISHED.SO, READING THAT PART OF, OF 2 0 3 D, IF A CON I'M GONNA JUST ABRIDGE, IF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IS ORDERED TO BE DEMOLISHED BY THE CITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS, AFTER THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS RECEIVED NOTICE OF NEGLECT, UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL NOT ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT AND NOR THE PERSON SHALL ISSUE ANY OTHER CITY PERMIT FOR THE SITE WHERE THE STRUCTURE WAS FORMALLY LOCATED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF DEMOLITION.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
UH, AND, AND THERE WAS A COLLAPSE.
UH, FOR, FOR THE RECORD THOUGH, THERE WAS NEVER ANY NOTICE TO MY CLIENTS OR TO ANY PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER THAT WE'RE AWARE OF, UH, OF NEGLECT.
NOW, HAD THE PROPERTY BEEN NEGLECTED YES, SEVERELY, WHEN MY CLIENTS BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, UH, IT WAS AN AWFUL CONDITION.
IT, IT WAS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN, AND I THINK ANYONE OBJECTIVE WOULD, WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO WHAT WE'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS THE ISSUANCE OF A COR AND, AND PARDON ME FOR TAKING JUST A MOMENT TO READ THE DEFINITION OF A COR, A CURRENT AND VALID PERMIT ISSUED BY THE HAHC AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION INTENDED TO CORRECT ACTION.
TAKEN CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE, UH, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLE.
A COA ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A CURRENT AND VALID PERMIT ISSUED BY THE HAHC OR THE DIRECTOR AS APPLICABLE, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE.
SO THE CITY ORDERED THE DEMOLITION, THE CITY ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT, AND OUR VIEW IS THAT A COA SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT CONDITIONS, CERTAINLY NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE STRICTLY RELYING ON 33 2 0 3 D.
AND FOR THE RECORD, UH, WHAT MY CLIENTS DID THERE WAS THEY PURCHASED A HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE COLLAPSE, THEY HAD SPENT OVER $50,000 IN THE RENOVATION PROCESS.
KEVIN SIMMONS, HE WAS HERE, UH, AND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IF, IF, UH, IF IT'S NECESSARY, UH, WAS WORKING AT THE PROPERTY ON THE DAY OF THE COLLAPSE.
IN FACT, HE AND HIS FRAMING CREW WERE WORKING IN THE ATTIC JUST A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE COLLAPSE.
FORTUNATELY, KEVIN RAN OUT AND PICKED UP PIZZA.
THEY WERE SITTING ON THE PORCH WHEN THE ROOF COLLAPSED, OR HE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY AFTER THE COLLAPSE THAT CAME BACK AND APPLIED FOR A, UH, A COA FOR VIRTUALLY THE SAME PROJECT THEY WERE BUILDING, UH, AS OPPOSED TO SOME DIFFERENT PROJECT.
UH, THESE ARE PARTIES WHO WERE EXERCISING THEIR BEST EFFORT TO RENOVATE THIS PROPERTY.
UH, THEY WERE NOT PEOPLE WITH ANY SORT OF SINISTER MOTIVE.
THEY WERE NOT PEOPLE BEING CARELESS.
UH, THEREFORE WERE ASKING THE BOARD TO ISSUE A COA WITHOUT CONDITION.
UH, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM.
WE, WE USUALLY DIRECT QUESTIONS TILL AFTER EVERYBODY HAS SPOKEN.
UH, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, KIM? SINCE MOMENT.
I'LL WAIT FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD DURING YOUR DISCUSSION.
UM, THE SECOND SPEAKER THAT I HAVE SIGNED UP IS KEVIN SIMMONS.
WELL, THAT, THAT WOULD BE IF NECESSARY.
AND THEN THE FINAL SIGNED UP PARTY IS MS. VIRGINIA KELSEY.
I'M VIRGINIA KELSEY, VP OF NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
ON RECEIPT OF THE OWNER'S INITIAL DRAWINGS, NNA COMMENTED THAT THEY WERE NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROPOSED NOR HILL GUIDELINES, WHICH SERVED AS OUR MEASURE FOR JUDGING A PROJECT'S HARMONY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE OWNER REQUESTED A MEETING, WHICH I ATTENDED ALONG WITH THE NNA PRESIDENT.
AT THIS MEETING, WE RESOLVED A NUMBER OF DESIGN ISSUES TO BRING THE PROJECT INTO ALIGNMENT.
HOWEVER, THE OWNER, WHO IS ALSO THE CONTRACTOR, OR MAYBE HE'S NOT THE CONTRACTOR, BUT THE CONTRACTOR, UM, MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS
[00:25:01]
THAT LATER PROVED TO BE FALSE.THEY CLAIM THE BRICK WORK WAS FAILING BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF A GRADE BEAM.
I ASKED IF THIS HAD BEEN CONFIRMED, AND THEY ASSURED US THAT THEY HAD INVESTIGATED BY REMOVING A PORTION OF THE WALL.
GIVEN THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE OF THE BRICK WORK, WE AGREED THEY COULD REMOVE THE BRICK, BUT WE WERE VERY CLEAR THAT EVERY SALVAGEABLE BRICK MUST BE SAVED.
ONCE DEMOLITION BEGAN, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THAT A GRAY BEAM DID IN FACT EXIST.
THE OWNER THEN PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE ORIGINAL BRICK.
DURING THE REMODELING, THE OWNER CONTRACTOR REMOVES SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE SHIPLAP AND FRAMING, WHICH ARE HISTORIC MATERIALS, AND FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE BRACING TO SUPPORT THE REMAINING STRUCTURE WITH HOMES BUILT AT THIS TIME, TWO BY FOUR STUDS WERE PLACED FURTHER APART THAN TODAY, AND THE SHIPLAP SERVED TO STRENGTHEN THE STRUCTURE.
ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THESE BASIC BUILDING PRACTICES UNDERSTANDS THAT REMOVING THE SHIPLAP WOULD DESTROY THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, REMOVING SUCH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF FRAMING, INCLUDING MOST OF THE INTERIOR WALLS, ENDANGERED THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
SO THEY COMPROMISED THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND DISPOSED OF THE ORIGINAL BRICK FRAMING AND SHIPLAP, WHICH SUGGESTS A DISREGARD FOR HISTORIC MATERIAL TO HELP DEFINE HARMONY.
THE NNA BOARD ADOPTED THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD GUIDELINES ON MAY 27TH.
THESE GUIDELINES MIRROR, MIRROR THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD POLLING LAST YEAR FOR THEIR PROPOSED GUIDELINES.
THEN, NNA GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD, RECORDED WITH THE STATE, AND ARE ENFORCEABLE.
ALL SUBMISSIONS TO NNA ARE REVIEWED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THESE GUIDELINES.
WHILE THE CITY CANNOT ENFORCE THESE GUIDELINES, THE OWNER IS AWARE OF THEM.
INSTEAD OF WORKING WITH NOR HILL, THEY HAD THEIR ATTORNEY SEND US TWO LETTERS.
AND ON AUGUST 7TH, THE OWNER SUBMITTED NEW PLANS TO THE NNA NOT FOR A HOUSE.
YOU CAN CONTINUE NOT FOR A HOUSE IN KEEPING WITH THEIR ORIGINAL APPROVED SUBMISSION, BUT FOR A NEW 28 95 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON THEIR 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT FOR A 0.58 FAR.
THIS PROPOSAL IS FAR OUTSIDE THE SCALE AND HARMONY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PROVISION 33 DASH 2 0 3 WAS WRITTEN TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
IF HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TO SURVIVE, THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTIONS THAT RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC HOMES.
UM, KIM, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN REFERENCE TO THE CODE REFERENCES? MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SECTION 2 0 3, UH, INCLUSION IN THE STAFF COMMENTS, UH, WAS THAT IT WAS ADDED AFTER DISCUSSIONS HAPPENED.
I THINK SECTION 2 0 3 ALWAYS APPLIES AND IT'S, IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
THIS SECTION IS, IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AND ANYONE WORKING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT KNOWS IT, UM, THE, THE QUES OR SHOULD KNOW IT, UM, CERTAINLY HAS ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY TO IT.
UM, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, IT, IT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, WELL, THIS HAPPENED, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO, UH, TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE.
THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS GRANTED.
UM, THEY WERE GIVEN THE, THEN THE, THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, WHICH IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY ALSO UNDER SECTION 2 0 3.
UM, SO I, I'M NOT SURE THAT A LATE NOTICE OF THIS APPLICABILITY OR WHEN THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE, UM, AND HAVE ACCESS TO, TO STAFF.
I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S DETERMINATIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE HHC ACTION WAS APPROPRIATE.
AND, UH, I SEE TERRANCE IS AT THE FRONT.
CAN YOU RESTATE, UM, WHAT THE QUESTION IS THAT WE ARE, UH, REVIEWING?
[00:30:02]
UM, YOU MEAN WHAT, ON WHAT GROUNDS ARE THEY APPEALING? NO, WHAT IS THE RESTATE FOR THE ASK TO TAKE? OH, OKAY.SO THE ITEM IS 1138 FUGATE, ITEM NUMBER 3 11 38 FUGATE.
AND, UM, YOU ARE BASICALLY BEING ASKED TO, I, I MEAN, I CAN READ YOU THE RESULTS OF, OF THE COA.
UM, THE, THE RESULTS OF THE HHC MEETING STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR DEMOLITION WITHOUT A PERMIT.
AND THE CONDITIONS THAT THE HHC PLACED ON THE, UM, ON THE COR ARE OF COURSE THE DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR LEGAL DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THAT'S ONE TWO REVOCATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COA FOR AN ALTERATION ADDITION.
AND NUMBER THREE, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST APPLY FOR A COA TO BE REVIEWED BY THE HHC, WHICH MUST MEET ALL APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND CODES.
AND FINALLY, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION PROVISION IN THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
UH, COMMISSIONER MUNSTER, UH, JUST AS A TIMELINE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY HERE, OKAY.
UH, THE, UH, THIS BODY APPROVED, UH, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN MAY.
UH, THE APPLICANT WENT TO WORK ON THE PROJECT UNDER THAT C OF A, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
AT THE TIME OF THE COLLAPSE, THAT WAS THE COA IN EXISTENCE? YES, SIR.
AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME, DID THE APPLICANT MAKE A NEW APPLICATION FOR A C OF A? NO, SIR, THEY DIDN'T.
SO NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THEIR PART? NO.
AND, AND, AND THEY, THEY HAD AN APPROVED COA TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR HOME.
BUT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO SIR.
COLLAPSE HAPPENED UNDER THAT COA? YES, SIR.
AND SO AS WE MARCH FORWARD TO JULY 17TH YES, SIR.
ISN'T THAT COA THE ONE THAT IS STILL IN EFFECT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT WE HAVE A PROBLEM YES.
BECAUSE THERE'S NOW NOT MATERIAL THERE THAT WAS TO BE ATTACHED TO FOR THAT C OF A YES, SIR.
SO WHEN STAFF WAS BRINGING THIS FORWARD, THAT WAS IT FOR THE COC OF A TO BE ACTED UPON BECAUSE OF DEMOLITION OR THE C OF A BECAUSE IT NO LONGER MATCHED AND SHOULD BE REVOKED? IT WAS, IT WAS A, UH, COA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR THE DEMOLITION.
NOW, WASN'T IT TRUE THAT THE CITY ISSUED A PERMIT AND BASED ON THE CITY'S FINDINGS, THEY SAID IT NEEDED TO BE TORN DOWN FOR SAFETY REASONS, WHAT HAVE YOU? IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
BUT CAN I PUT THAT IN CONTEXT? SURE.
SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF FUGATE AND STUDIOY WOOD, RIGHT ON THE CORNER THERE IS A METRO BUS STOP.
SO INSPECTIONS WENT OUT AND AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE THE GATE WAS UNLOCKED.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND INSPECTIONS MADE THE CALL AND SAID, HEY, LISTEN, WE NEED TO GET THIS THING DOWN NOW BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT.
SO THAT'S WHEN STAFF, UH, INSPECTIONS AND PERMITTING ALL STARTED COMMUNICATING TO SAY, OKAY, WELL WE NEED TO GET THIS DOWN.
WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A COA, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET IT DOWN.
AND THEN I CONTACTED THE OWNERS AND LET THEM KNOW, HEY, WE'RE GONNA LET, YOU CAN TEAR THIS DOWN AND YOU'LL HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT COA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT? YES, SIR.
YOU SAID THE GATE WAS UNLOCKED, SO THAT MEANT THERE WERE SOME TYPE OF SECURITY AROUND THE HOUSE AND THAT THERE WAS AN OPEN GATE? UH, AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I BELIEVE SO.
WELL, I'M WONDERING WHY THE GATE JUST WASN'T LOCKED.
MEANING THAT WE COULD TEAR DOWN A HOUSE WHERE WE COULD LOCK A GATE FOR SAFETY REASONS, RIGHT? YES.
MEAN THE HOUSE IS GONNA NEED TO BE DEMO A LITTLE SIMPLER, DEMO A GATE.
SAY AGAIN? SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE SIMPLER TO LOCK A GATE THAN TEAR DOWN A HOUSE.
BUT ANYWAY, THE CITY MET, CONFERRED, AND THE CITY ISSUED A PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION
[00:35:01]
TO THE FOUNDATION OF THIS STRUCTURE.HAD THE APPLICANT MADE ANY REQUEST TO THAT EXTENT? UM, NOT TO, NOT TO THE PRESERVATION OFFICE, NO, SIR.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE RIGHT NOW.
DID THEY COMPLY WITH THE DEMOLITION AND LEAVE THE FOUNDATION, BUT TAKE EVERYTHING AND TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE? YES, SIR.
I SEE THAT YOU AND AND PETE VISITED THE SITE THE SAME DAY OF THE COLLAPSE? YES, SIR.
AND IN PART, SOME POINTS THAT MS. CALLEY MADE AND OB OBSERVING THE PICTURES, THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO PERHAPS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF BALLOON FRAMING.
SHIPLAP IS REMOVED FROM WALLS, CRITICAL STRUCTURAL, I'LL ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S HISTORICAL MATERIAL SINCE YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY STRUCTURAL MATERIAL.
AND, UH, WITHOUT DOING PROPER SHORING TO THE STRUCTURE BEFORE THAT SHIPLAP WAS REMOVED.
IS THAT A THAT'S FAIR, VERY FAIR ASSESSMENT.
AND THAT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT'S HAPPENED.
I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN.
WAS THERE EVER ANY NOTICE DURING THE, UM, I'M GONNA SAY REMODELING OF THIS HOUSE UNDER THE EXISTING C OF A, THAT INSPECTIONS CAME OUT AND SAID, THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE AND WE NEED TO STOP ACTIVITY? NO, NO, NO INSPECTION HAD BEEN SCHEDULED AT THAT POINT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, SO NO, SIR.
MAY I COME BACK FORWARD? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TERRANCE SINCE HE'S AT THE PODIUM? NO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, COULD WE HEAR FROM MR. RIMES, PLEASE? MR. RMS? YES.
UH, I'D LIKE MR. SIMMONS, UH, WHO'S BEING TALKED ABOUT, UH, TO BE ABLE TO COME FORWARD AS OUR EXPERT, BUT, AND MR. JACKSON JUST SAID, I MEAN, HE SENT THIS EMAIL PERMITTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION INSPECTIONS OF ALL COORDINATED, HAVE DETERMINED IT IS BEST FOR YOU TO DEMOLISH THE RESIDENCE DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION.
THE CITY ON THE 24TH, UH, OF JUNE ISSUED A PERMIT.
SO THIS WAS DONE PURSUANT TO A PERMIT.
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
THERE'S THE COLLAPSE AND THERE'S THE DEMOLITION.
AND, AND IS IT OKAY FOR MR. SIMMONS TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE HE CAN TALK ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT ARE YES, HE CAN.
MY NAME'S KEVIN SIMMONS, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 1138 PEW GATE.
I'D LIKE TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP.
WE WERE HERE, UM, I BELIEVE IN MAY, ON AND APPEALS FOR THE BRICK.
WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE, THE BRICK WAS FALLING OFF OF THE HOUSE IN MULTIPLE PLACES.
UM, I CONTACTED TERRANCE, UH, HE SENT PETE OUT.
WE WERE SAYING, WELL, MAYBE THERE'S NO BRICK TIES.
THERE WAS A REASON THE BRICK WAS FALLING OFF THE HOUSE, SO WE WERE TOLD TO REMOVE THE BRICK AND, UH, GET RID OF IT BECAUSE WE'D NEVER BE ABLE TO MATCH THE BRICK.
AND THEN WHEN WE STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE REMODEL, WE DID THE SAME THING WE'VE DONE ON MULTIPLE HOUSES BEFORE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES, YOU CAN SEE BRACING ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE.
NOT ONE SINGLE WALL COLLAPSED.
THE ROOF UPON INSPECTION AFTER IT COLLAPSED, HAD FOUR LAYERS OF SHINGLES ON TOP OF IT WITH THE ORIGINAL CEDAR SHANK, UH, SHINGLES.
THAT'S THE REASON THE BRICK WAS BEING PUSHED ASIDE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.
AND WE DIDN'T NOTICE THAT IN THE BEGINNING.
SO FOR SOMEONE TO SIT HERE AND SAY, WE ILLEGALLY DEMOED THE HOUSE, THAT'S IS NOT TRUE.
WE SPENT MONEY, WE HAD INSPECTIONS.
WE HAD, I BELIEVE, FOUR PRIOR INSPECTIONS BEFORE IT COLLAPSED.
AND AN INSPECTION THE DAY OF COLLAPSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.
UH, YOU STATED THAT SOMEONE TOLD YOU TO REMOVE THE BRICK AND DISPOSE THE BRICK.
WHO WAS THAT PERSON? THAT WAS PETE STOCKTON AND TERRANCE JACKSON.
AND PETE WAS HERE EARLIER TODAY.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION PLEASE? YOU STATED IN YOUR COMMENTARY
[00:40:01]
JUST A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU WERE TOLD TO REMOVE THE BRICK AND DISPOSE OF THE BRICK, AND I ASKED WHO WAS THE PERSON THAT TOLD SIR YOU TO DO THAT? PETE STOCKTON AND TERRANCE JACKSON.WE CAN ASK THEM BOTH THAT CORRECT? YOU STATED, UH, THAT YOU HAD SEVERAL INSPECTIONS CORRECT BY THE CITY.
AT ANY TIME, DID THE CITY MENTION CITE YOU, GIVE YOU ANY OTHER TYPE OF NOTICE ABOUT A STRUCTURAL OR LACK THEREOF INTEGRITY OF THIS HOUSE? NO, SIR.
WHAT INSPECTIONS WERE DONE THE DAY OF? WAS IT AFTER THE COLLAPSE? THE, THE DAY OF AND, UH, THE DAY OF COLLAPSE, WE HAD A SUB FLOOR INSPECTION TO OKAY.
UH, GO ON AND PUT OUR PLYWOOD DOWN.
UH, PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE, WE HAD ALL OUR FOUNDATION, OUR FOOTINGS, UH, SLAB AND CONCRETE.
SO OBVIOUSLY THE, IN THE INSPECTION, THE DAY OF THE COLLAPSE, THE SHIPLAP HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE EXISTING WALLS.
UH, THE SHIPLAP WAS ONLY REMOVED FROM THE WALLS THAT WERE GOING AWAY FROM WHERE THE ADDITION STARTED.
AND THEN AFTER THAT INSPECTION, ADDITIONAL SHIPLAP WAS REMOVED PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE? YES, SIR.
THE, THE SHIPLAP THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED OFF THE HOUSE HAD BEEN REMOVED SINCE, UM, SINCE THE DAY, UH, WE STARTED THE DEMO, WHICH WAS IN MAY, I BELIEVE.
SO THE PART THAT COLLAPSED, IT LOOKED LIKE THE WORST OF IT WAS AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE WHERE THAT WALL WAS REMOVED.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU REMOVED THE SHIPLAP FROM THE BACK WALL.
OH, THE BACK WALL WAS REMOVED ALREADY, AND THERE WAS BRACING.
THE WHAT COLLAPSED, AND I WANNA MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR, IS THE ROOF COLLAPSED? NO WALLS COLLAPSED.
AND ONCE THE ROOF COLLAPSED, WE NOTICED THAT IT HAD MULTIPLE LAYERS OF SH UH, SHINGLES ON IT.
SO THE WEIGHT OF THE ROOF WAS EXCESSIVE.
AND THEN THAT MADE SENSE WHY THE BRICK WAS BEING PUSHED AWAY FROM THE HOUSE PRIOR BECAUSE THERE WAS TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON THE TOP PLATE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SIMMONS SIMPSONS? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK PETE A FEW QUESTIONS.
I GUESS I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION IS WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON WHEN YOU MADE THE INSPECTION? THE DAY OF THE COLLAPSE, THE CAUSE WAS, WELL, I TRY TO AVOID, UH, ANALYSIS AND INFERENCE AND, UH, MAKE OBSERVATIONS RATHER.
UH, THE OBSERVATIONS THAT I HAD MADE, UH, THE DAY OF THE COLLAPSE WAS THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF DEBRIS UNDERNEATH THE AREAS THAT HAD FAILED.
THERE WAS HARDLY ANY NEW FRAMING.
UH, GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT, UH, MY PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A PREVIOUS VISIT, I CAN SEE WHERE, UH, IT DID NOT APPEAR, UH, THAT THERE WAS VERY MUCH SHORING.
UM, AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY LITTLE TO NO, UH, LATERAL OR SHEER BRACING, UH, DOCUMENT CAMERA, HUH? OH, THERE, THERE WAS, UH, CERTAINLY NO LATERAL OR SHEARER BRACING, UH, VISIBLE IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I HAD TAKEN PREVIOUSLY.
UM, THAT KIND OF ANSWERS MY QUESTION, BUT MY, MY OPINION FROM LOOKING AT THE PICTURES IS THAT THERE WAS INADEQUATE BRACING TO HOLD THAT STRUCTURE.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS LIKE, OH, LET'S JUST LET IT FALL DOWN SO WE CAN REPLACE IT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GONNA BE A CHEAPER ROUTE.
GETTING BACK TO WHAT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR THAT PROJECT, UM, WOULD'VE BEEN THE, OH, I DIDN'T SEE ANY INTENT.
YEAH, I, I ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T SEE ANY INTENT.
NO, I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT I SAW A FRAMING
[00:45:01]
CREW THAT HAD, UH, UH, LEARNED PLATFORM FRAMING AND HAD NEVER DONE A BALLOON FRAME PROJECT OF ANY SIZE.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS? DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS OF ACTION ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS TOUGH.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
SO THE HAHC, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY NOW, WANTS 'EM TO REBUILD THE ORIGINAL HOUSE? NO, THAT HASN'T, THAT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED.
I MEAN, BUT I KNOW THERE'S REFERENCE TO THE, THE ORDINANCE WHERE IT SAYS IN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION, RIGHT? UM, THAT'S ALL THAT CAN BE BUILT ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY FOR TWO YEARS.
BUT I MEAN, THEY HAVE, SO WHAT IS, I GUESS I'M NOT SURE WHAT
WELL, I, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT HONESTLY.
I, I, I DON'T, I JUST MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I GUESS I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR IN ASSISTING THE COM, THE BOARD IN MAKING A MOTION EITHER WAY, EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS DESIRING HERE FROM THE, UM, ACTIONS OF THE HAHC.
IS IT THE REMOVAL OF THE TERM ILLEGAL DEMOLITION? I THINK WE'VE, YOU'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, UM, OR NO ONE BELIEVES IT WAS INTENTIONAL.
UM, SO IS IT, IS IT REMOVAL OF THAT TERM SO THAT PERHAPS THEY ARE NOT BOUND BY THE RESTRICTIONS FOR ILLEGAL DEMOLITION IN THE CODE? I'M NOT SURE IF MR. RIMES CAN ASSIST WITH THAT.
WE'RE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A COA WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
IF IT'S A COR WITHOUT CONDITIONS, THE, THE IMPLICATION THAT THERE'S AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION HERE IS SIMPLY INCORRECT.
THEY DID NOT DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY ILLEGALLY.
YOU CAN TALK HOWEVER YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT BUILDING PRACTICES, BUT THEY DID, DID NOT DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY ILLEGALLY.
THEY HAD AN ORDER FROM THIS MAN AND FROM OTHERS.
HE JUST CONVEYED THE ORDER TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.
THEY HAD A BUILDING PERMIT, A AND IT'S PART OF YOUR PACKAGE.
THEY HAD A PERMIT FROM THE CITY SAYING, DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY TO THE FOUNDATION.
THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
HERE AGAIN, YOU CAN DEBATE THEIR BUILDING PRACTICES.
I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THE, THE IDEA THAT THEY WERE DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
I THINK THEY WERE DOING IT TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY, BUT THAT THERE WAS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION, THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF 33 2 0 3 D SIMPLY ISN'T A FACT.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR COA WITHOUT CONDITION, WHICH WAS, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR HAAC THAT DAY.
YOU LOOK AT THE AGENDA, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
IT WAS ONLY AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT THEY DECIDED THEY WOULD CONSIDER, UH, 33 2 0 3.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD IT.
I DON'T THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD IT.
33, 2 0 3 DOES NOT APPLY TO A DEMOLITION THAT OCCURS AFTER A COLLAPSE, AFTER WHATEVER DISASTER.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
I, I WOULD SUGGEST TOO THAT, UM, SECTION 2 0 3 D UM, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT SECTION TO, TO BRING THIS IN UNDER, BUT IT PROBABLY FALLS UNDER 2 0 3 E, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IF AN ACTIVITY THAT REQUIRES A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONTINUES ON TO WHERE YOU'RE ACTING OUTSIDE THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH IS IN ESSENCE WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED HERE, UM, THE COMMISSION CAN ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION IS ALWAYS AN OPTION AND IS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED AGAIN IN THE CODE.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS, IS NECESSARILY THE ISSUE.
I I AM, I, I KEEP COMING BACK TO, I, I DON'T FIND A PROBLEM WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE C OF R FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
TO ME, I THINK IT HINGES ON THE IDEA OF IS IT AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION? SHOULD THEY BE PENALIZED IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT ACTION OR FOR THAT OCCURRENCE? THAT, YOU KNOW, THE,
[00:50:01]
THE, THE HAPPENSTANCE, UM, I'M WONDERING IF A, UH, IF A MODIFICATION OF THE C OF R IS A, A MODIFICATION THAT DOES NOT, UH, BRING IN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.AGAIN, I KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT IT SIMPLY WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
IT WAS A DEMOLITION THAT OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE WAS A COLLAPSE, THERE WAS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, FENCE, NO FENCE, DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
THEY WERE TOLD TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.
THEY WERE TOLD BY THE CITY TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING, AND THEN THEY WERE TOLD BY THE CITY, HERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.
THEY DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
DID YOU APPROVE OF THEIR BUILDING PRACTICES? MAYBE YOU DO AND MAYBE YOU DON'T.
I I THINK IF YOU WEREN'T THERE LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY, IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT THIS WAS A PROPERTY.
AND, AND THIS IS IN OUR ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL.
THIS WAS A PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN UNDER CONTRACT 11 TIMES, AND THE BUYER HAD WALKED AWAY FROM IT 11 TIMES.
VET TOOK THE PROPERTY, THEY WERE DOING THEIR BEST TO RENOVATE IT.
WHATEVER HAPPENED HAPPENED, THE DEMOLITION WAS, WAS A SEPARATE ENTITY.
AND, AND I DON'T SEE THE APPLICABILITY OF E EITHER, BUT BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, AN AUTHORIZED, UH, AND PERMITTED DEMOLITION, I THINK MR. RYANS MAKES A, A GOOD POINT ABOUT NOT BEING, BECAUSE IT WAS PERMITTED, THE DEMOLITION, AND I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK STAFF IF WHAT I SUSPECT WAS MEANT BY THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION WAS ALLOWING THIS STRUCTURE TO COLLAPSE AS THAT'S THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION TO WHICH IS BEING REFERRED.
AND THE PRESERVATIONIST PRESERVATION OFFICER'S STANCE WAS THAT ONCE THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, IT WAS DEMOLISHED.
THERE WAS, IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO, TO REVERSE.
I MEAN, SO WE, IT HAD TO BE A DEMO.
AND ALSO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT, UM, THAT WAS FILLED OUT BY THE, UM, OWNERS, UM, SAYING THAT IT WAS A DEMOLITION.
AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT DATE THAT WAS, BUT THAT WAS PRIOR TO RECEIVING THE PERMIT.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN NO FINES ISSUED ON THIS PROJECT.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO FINES ISSUED ON THIS AT THIS TIME.
I MEAN, BUT WE DON'T ISSUE FINES AND THEY'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE FOR A C OF A, FOR THE, THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY IMP IMPACT.
SO I'M NOT REALLY, I'M, I'M JUST KIND OF IN A GRAY AREA HERE, UNDERSTANDING WHY WE'RE HAVING TO CONSIDER THE DEF WE'RE PLAYING WITH THE DEFINITION OF A WORD, AND THERE'S BEEN NO PENALTY GIVEN RIGHT.
SO I'M, I, I'LL ASK KIM IF SHE, IF THE, I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING IS WE'RE PLAYING WITH THE DEFINITION OF A WORD AT THIS POINT, BUT YOU'VE NOT BEEN ISSUED ANY FINES AND YOU'VE NOT BEEN PREVENTED TO DO ANYTHING MOVING FORWARD.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GRIEVANCE IS, IS WHAT I'M BASICALLY, I'M GOING TO JUMP IN.
I MAY BE OUT ON A LIMB ON THIS, BUT IT'S THE, THE APPLICANT WAS OPERATING UNDER AN APPROVED COA WHEN THE COLLAPSE HAPPENED.
NOW WHETHER IT, HOWEVER IT HAPPENED, IT CHANGED THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THAT COA COULD BE CONTINUED.
IT WOULD SEEM THAT RATHER, SINCE THE CITY WAS THE ONE THAT ORDERED THE DEMOLITION AND NOT THE APPLICANT, THEY DIDN'T APPLY FOR A DEMOLITION.
IT HAPPENED NOW, HOWEVER IT HAPPENED, IT'S UP FOR DEBATE.
BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY OPTION AT THAT POINT, IT'S FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A NEW APPLICATION FOR C OF A.
SO THEREFORE, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO THIS.
I NEED YOUR HELP ON THIS, BUT I'M WANTING TO ESSENTIALLY OVERTURN THE ACTION AT THE HAHC, BUT REMAND IT BACK TO THEM FOR INVESTIGATION AND CONSIDERATION OF A NEW C OF A.
AND THAT'S WHERE I'M FUZZY FOR A NEW C OF A FOR THE DEMOLITION.
SO FOR THE C OF A GOING FORWARD, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WILL BE IN SEPTEMBER
[00:55:01]
AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT APPLIED FOR THE DEMOLITION, THE CITY ORDERED IT.IF THE APPLICANT HAD APPLIED FOR THE DEMOLITION, I THINK THAT WE HAVE RULES IN CHAPTER 33 THAT COVER ALL OF THAT.
AND THEN WHEN WE GET OVER TO SECTION 2 0 3 FOR NEGLECT, IT ONLY UH, COVERS THAT, WHICH, HEY, I WAS DOING NOTHING, BUT THEY WERE ACTIVELY DOING SOMETHING OUT THERE.
SO I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THAT SECTION OF 2 0 3 CERTAINLY DOESN'T APPLY, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES DID CHANGE UNDER IT.
SO TO GO ISSUE A C OF R AT THIS POINT, WHEN WE HAVE AN ACTIVE COA WITH CHANGE CONDITIONS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE HAHC TO APPLY FOR A NEW CFA BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN CONDITIONS.
'CAUSE IT HAS NOW HAPPENED NOT AT THEIR REQUEST, BUT AT THEM BEING DIRECTED TO DO THESE THINGS.
SO AS A CONSEQUENCE, I'M NOT SURE THAT 2 0 3 IS APPLICABLE IN THIS POINT.
AND SO THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY I'M WANTING TO GET THIS BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE HAHC SO THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AGAIN.
NOW, WHETHER IT IS A BRAND NEW BUILDING, THEY REBUILD THE OLD BUILDING THAT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT, AND THAT'S UP TO THE HAHC TO INVESTIGATE, BUT NOT THIS BODY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M WANTING TO GET THIS BACK IN THE HANDS AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO THAT.
IF I HAVE TO OVERTURN IT TO GET IT BACK OR IF TO MAKE A MOTION TO OVERTURN, TO REMAND IT BACK, OR DO WE JUST, CAN I JUST REMAND IT BACK AND THAT BEING THE ACTION, SEE THE DIFFERENCE HERE? I I DO, AND I THINK YOU CAN REMAND IT BACK HOWEVER I POINT OUT AND STAFF OR MR. STOCKTON MAY NEED TO JUMP IN HERE.
BUT LET, LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHERE, UM, PERHAPS A HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS DEEMED TO BE AN UNSAFE AND SUBSTANDARD BUILDING.
AND THERE IS AN EXCEPTION WHERE STAFF CAN GO OUT AND ORDER THAT DEMOLITION WITHOUT THE APPLICANT HAVING TO GO TO THROUGH A C OF A, I THINK THAT IS MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
UM, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THEY ONLY THEN HAVE TO GET A C OF A FOR THE NEW CON FOR ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE.
WE RECENTLY HAD ONE, I THINK OFF OF ALABAMA, I'D SAY RECENTLY, PROBABLY 18 MONTHS NOW.
BUT, UM, YEAH, SO I I'M NOT SURE YOU GET THE REQUEST FOR A DEMOLITION BACK TO THEM.
I THINK THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT HERE, FROM THE RELIEF THEY ARE SEEKING IS THE REMOVAL OF THE C OF R IN TOTAL, OR MAYBE IN PART, UM, AS, AS I'VE SUGGESTED.
BUT, BUT THEN IT IS GOING FORWARD TO THE, TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION NEXT MONTH FOR ACTION ON THEIR NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DEMOLITION AND WHAT OCCURRED.
SO IN CASE I'M NOT CONFUSED ENOUGH,
UM, SO HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING WELL ON, I'M ASSUMING IF IT NEVER COLLAPSED, YOU OUGHT TO BE STILL BUILDING WHAT WAS APPROVED.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION BECAUSE TO ME, AND I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S ANY LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE WILLFUL, UH, DEMOLITION OR BY NEGLECT WHERE YOU JUST LET WEATHER AND MOTHER NATURE TAKE ITS TOLL ON A BUILDING.
BUT REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS, OUR DECISION IS, YOU EITHER GET THE C OF A OR YOU HAVE A COR.
IS YOUR, IS THE PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD IN EITHER CASE WITH THE SAME PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED THAT YOU WERE WORKING ON, OR NOW IS IT GONNA BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, CAN I ANSWER? I'M SORRY.
UH, KEVIN SIMMONS, UM, WE ACTUALLY REDESIGNED THAT FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
UM, NOT THAT WE WANTED TO, WE WERE KIND OF FORCED TO, UH, NOR HILL WAS THEY STARTED OUT WANTING US TO REMOVE A SUNROOM THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, WHICH WAS AN HISTORIC ROOM, AND THEY WANTED US TO PUT A FULL PORCH.
UH, ONCE THE HOUSE COLLAPSED NOR HILL CONTACTED
[01:00:01]
MY WIFE TALKING ABOUT THIS SUNROOM BEING REMOVED.AND AT THAT POINT, I GUESS IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE.
SO WE DID THAT AND REDESIGNED IT.
AND THE HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AT 2308 SQUARE FEET.
AND TERRANCE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT.
UH, WHILE WE REDESIGNED IT WITH REMOVING THE SUNROOM AND ADDING A PORCH ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH BROUGHT THE HOUSE TO 2254, NOR HILL SENT MY WIFE AN EMAIL SAYING, WE DO NOT ALLOW ANYTHING OVER 2250.
YOU NEED TO GET RID OF FOUR SQUARE FEET.
SO, AND THIS GOES ALONG WITH PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH THEM WHERE, UM, I'LL, I'LL I DIGRESS.
UM, SO WE STARTED LOOKING INTO DEED RESTRICTIONS, GUIDELINES, AND WHATNOT.
I CONTACTED TERRANCE ASKING, WHICH DIRECTION DO I MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT GIVES ME FARS OR SQUARE FOOTAGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN.
SO IT WAS REALLY EASY TO DESIGN A HOUSE.
TERRANCE TERRANCE'S GUIDANCE WAS DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LOOK ON YOUR BLOCK FACE WAS THE FIRST THING TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE.
THE ONLY THING ON THE BLOCK FACE OF 1138 FUGATE IS 1102 FUGATE, WHICH IS A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.
TERRANCE TOLD ME TO FIND ADDRESSES.
WE'D PULL COAS AND LOOK AT COAS OF PREVIOUS STUFF THAT WAS DESIGNED.
I FOUND MULTIPLE HOUSES AND I SETTLED ON ONE THAT WAS IN 9 0 2 KEY STREET.
THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING WE SUBMITTED FOR NEXT MONTH.
SO WE DESIGNED A HOUSE THAT WAS SIMILAR TO 9 0 2 KEY STREET, WHICH WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR I BELIEVE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT GOING WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE HOUSE.
UH, WE FEEL AS THOUGH WE'RE BEING
THAT WAS ALL I WANNA KNOW IS ARE YOU GONNA BUILD THE ORIGINAL HOUSE OR SOMETHING ELSE? NO, SIR.
UM, AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, CLEAR SOMETHING UP ON YOUR QUESTION.
UH, WHEN THE HOUSE COLLAPSED, I CALLED KEY, OR I'M SORRY, TERRANCE AND PETE RIGHT AWAY, UH, THEY CAME OUT AND LOOKED AT EVERYTHING.
UM, I WAS TOLD, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO USE THE SAME COA THAT WE HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR, BECAUSE NOW THE HOUSE IS PROBABLY GONNA FALL UNDER A NEW CONSTRUCTION COA.
SO WE WENT ON AND I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL SAYING THAT THE HOUSE HAD TO BE DEMOLISHED IN AN EMAIL.
UH, AND THEN I WAS TOLD, LOOK, Y'ALL NEED TO APPLY FOR A COA FOR THE DEMOLITION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.
WE HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO GET A COA ON THE DEMOLITION.
SO THAT'S WHY WE DID EVERYTHING WE, EVERYTHING WE DID, WE DID BECAUSE OF THE GUIDANCE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
WE DIDN'T INTENTIONALLY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GONNA START THROWING STUFF AWAY.
EVEN WITH THE BRICK, WE STACKED THE BRICK UP AND KEPT THE BRICK FOR WEEKS UNTIL WE WERE TOLD TO GET RID OF IT.
AND THAT BOTHERS ME BECAUSE MY WIFE'S BEEN ATTACKED SAYING, YOU'RE DESTROYING HISTO HISTORIC MATERIAL DISPOSING OF IT.
VIRGINIA MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.
EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE, WE'VE DONE BY THE GUIDANCE OF THE CITY, WE'VE NEVER THROWN SOMETHING AWAY SAYING WE DON'T CARE ABOUT HISTORIC MATERIAL.
SO THAT'S THE ISSUE WE HAVE WITH WHAT THEY SAID LAST MONTH, SAYING THAT WE LEGALLY DEMO THE HOUSE, WE THROW HISTORIC MATERIAL AWAY.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.
WHERE WHEN WE GO NEXT MONTH, I KNOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PROBLEM NEXT MONTH BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY GUIDANCE ON, HEY, CHANGE YOUR ELEVATIONS.
WE'VE TURNED IN ALL THE PAPERWORK, WE DO EVERYTHING WE NEED TO DO.
BUT NOW NO ONE TALKS TO US AND I'M TIRED OF PEOPLE ATTACKING US SAYING, OH, YOU'RE TEARING DOWN THIS HOUSE ON PURPOSE.
SO MR. EDM MINSTER'S PROPOSAL OR QUESTION ABOUT SENDING IT BACK TO HAHC? UM, AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
ONE IS, CAN WE DO THAT? THEY'RE ASKING TO MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND WITH A COURT REPORTER HERE THAT TENDS TELLS ME THEY INTEND TO PURSUE THE APPEAL UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IF NECESSARY.
[01:05:01]
SO, AND IF WE CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE HAHC, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND AN UP OR DOWN DECISION ON THEIR REQUEST.YOU ARE CORRECT ON BOTH COUNTS.
THE COMMISSION HAS IN THE PAST DEFERRED ITEMS BACK OR REFERRED ITEMS BACK TO HAHC.
AND YES, THE APPLICANT CAN REQUEST THAT YOU MAKE A DECISION UP OR DOWN ON THEIR, ON THEIR STATED REQUEST.
SO THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT IS, DO YOU WISH TO PURSUE THAT UP OR DOWN DECISION KEITH RIMES? UH, WE'D CERTAINLY LIKE AN UP OR DOWN DECISION, BUT HAVING THIS REMANDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WELL.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD UNTIL 10 50 ON THE DAY OF THE HEARING WHEN MY CLIENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE, I WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
WE'D BE HAPPY TO GO BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND, AND MAKE OUR ARGUMENTS THERE IF THAT'S AN OPTION.
I'M SORRY, DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES.
I HAVE, UH, WE, WE NEED TO TIDY UP SOME STUFF.
UM, SINCE THE NOR HILL BOARD WAS BROUGHT UP, VIRGINIA, I WOULD LIKE HER TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR HERSELF, BUT I ALSO HAVE A FOURTH PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK NAMED TABITHA.
IS IT HURSLEY OR HENSLEY? HENSLEY SPEAKING.
HUH? SHE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING.
SO, UM, JUST STATE YOUR NAME IN THE, SINCE YOU WERE BROUGHT UP.
I, I'D RATHER YOU SPEAK FOR YOURSELF THAN HAVE SOMEONE ELSE SPEAK.
UM, VIRGINIA KELSEY, I'M THE VP OF NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
SEVERAL STATEMENTS WERE MADE THAT I WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS NOT BEING ACCURATE.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT THEM AS LEGAL LETTERS HAVE BEEN SENT TO US AND THERE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTIONS MADE.
I JUST ASK THE BOARD TO USE YOUR OWN LOGIC AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD HAVE DONE.
UM, AND NOT EVERYTHING YOU'RE HEARING.
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT SIDES TO THE STORY.
HOW'S THAT? YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL GET ME INTO TROUBLE WILL IT?
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION OR COMMENTARY BEFORE WE, WE NEED TO PROPOSE AN ACTION AS WELL? YEAH, JUST TO GET SOME OF THE THOUGHTS OUT.
I, UM, I THINK I'M ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO CALL IT AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED A PERMIT AND THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEMOLITION.
I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN THE INTENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES AND I AM LESS INTERESTED IN WHAT THE PROPOSED FUTURE DESIGN IS BECAUSE WE DON'T, UH, HAVE ANY INPUT ON WHAT THE DESIGN OF A BUILDING SHOULD OR WILL BE.
UM, I THINK IT IS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE THAT HAHC HAS A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW OF THIS.
UH, BUT IF WE NEED TO MAKE THE UP DOWN DECISION, WE CAN ALSO THEN I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REVERSE THE ACTION ON THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION UNDER THE COR THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE HAHC, THAT THIS BODY OVERTURNED THAT ACTION AND REMAND THIS PROJECT BACK TO THE HAHC FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
MAY I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION? I'M OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS, THAT THE C OF R TO BE ISSUED AS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION IS INAPPROPRIATE.
I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE CITY AND ACTUALLY PERMITTED FOR SUCH, AND TO TAKE IT DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION, WHICH STILL EXISTS TODAY, FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT SINCE THE CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED, THEY ARE UNABLE TO ACTUALLY EXECUTE THE EXISTING C OF A.
AND LET'S SEE, THERE WAS ONE OTHER ITEM.
SO IS THIS A RECOMMENDATION FOR OVERTURNING THE C OF R WITH THEIR, THOSE CONDITIONS? YEAH.
AND JUST ISSUANCE OF THE C OF A FOR THE
[01:10:01]
DEMOLITION.YOU WANT THEM TO, YOU WANTED, I I'M NOT YOU WANTED THEM TO DETERMINE THAT, DIDN'T YOU? YEAH, IN MY OPINION IT'S NOT, THERE WAS NO SIGHTING OF THE APPLICANT ON ANY PRACTICES THAT THEY WERE DOING.
THEY WERE NEVER PUT ON NOTICE.
SO THEREFORE I BELIEVE THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF COR IS COMPLETELY OUTTA LINE.
SO THEREFORE I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE A SITUATION HOWEVER IT OCCURRED, THE SITUATION IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN THE C OF A THAT WAS ISSUED BY THIS BODY WAS GOING FORWARD.
SO THEREFORE WE CAN'T HA, YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER THING THAT IS GNAWING AT ME IS WHEN IT'S AFTER THE FACT AND THERE'S NO HOUSE THERE, WHY WOULD THE APPLICANT REQUEST FOR A, UH, C OF A FOR DEMOLITION WHEN IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED, UH, AS THE ACTION OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND OTHERS BY PERMIT THE PONY'S ALREADY OUTTA THE BARN? SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHAT THE HAHC AND FROM AN OPINION STANDPOINT IS THAT THEY NEED TO BE LOOKING AT A FRESH SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHICH, FROM WHICH THEY CAN ISSUE A C OF A FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND WHETHER IT BE NEW CONSTRUCTION, REBUILDING THE OLD THING MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME.
BUT IT'S THE HAHC THAT NEEDS TO VET THAT.
SO THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY I AM MAKE THE MO HAVE MAKING THE MOTION TO OVERTURN THE C OF R AS ISSUED BY THE HAHC, BUT STILL REMAND THIS PROJECT BACK TO THE HHC FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF A NEW C OF A.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
I'M GOING TO, I HAVE MY OWN REASON FOR SAYING NO, BUT I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT IT WOULD STILL PASS BY THREE TO ONE.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THEN I, I DO HAVE A COMMENT AND IT'S JUST A CONCERN.
UH, IN THE READING THAT I'VE DONE, IN THE PREPARATION OF THE LAST CASE, UH, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NOR HILL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE IN THE FORM OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, DESIGN GUIDELINES OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT JUST IS FOR FUTURE, UM, OR LET'S SAY AVERSION OF FUTURE PROBLEMS, IF THOSE GUIDELINES, IF THEY ARE SUCH NEED TO GO UP TO CITY COUNCIL, UH, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, SUCH THAT WE CAN AVERT OTHER ISSUES INADVERTENTLY OCCURRING THAT HAVE REALLY ALREADY BEEN VETTED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
JUST A COMMENT, JUST A COMMENT.
UM, THE, WE HAVE, UH, VERY DETAILED GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN, UH, WORK IN PROGRESS RIGHT NOW AND EXPECT TO PRESENT THEM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO THE, UH, HAHC AND THEN CITY COUNCIL THIS FALL.
SO THAT SHOULD IT'S, UH, IN THE, IN THE WORKS AS WE SPEAK.
SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, MY QUESTION IS, ARE THE, IS STAFF STARTING TO APPLY THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES, UH, DRAFTS TO APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY? WHICH WOULD NOT BE NO, SIR.
I WILL SAY, UH, AS, UH, IN MY PERSONAL BUSINESS, I'VE HAD TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THERE ARE MOMENTS OF FRUSTRATION, BUT THEY'VE BEEN VERY AMICABLE AND HELPFUL WITH THE PROCESS OF DOING IT.
I'VE HAD THREE PROJECTS I THINK GO THROUGH WITH THE NEW GUIDELINES.
AND WE TEND PEOPLE WHEN THEY COME INTO HISTORIC DISTRICT, JUST HAVE TO, IN A HISTORIC AREA, JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
[01:15:01]
YOU, IT'S NOT A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD OUT IN THE SUBURBS, IT'S AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH.AND SOMETIMES THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT IN YOUR MIND BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ACHIEVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF WHAT YOU WANT, BUT IN THE END YOU COME OUT WITH A MORE COMMUNITY DRIVEN PRODUCT AND I THINK IT WORKS OUT TO ALL IN THE END ANYWAY.
UM, USING THE REFERENCE THAT WAS GIVEN TODAY, FOUR SQUARE FEET TO TAKE OFF OF A BUILDING IS NOTHING, NOTHING.
UH, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? MEMBER COMMENTS, THEN I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING.