[Applause] Robert you want to call the meeting to order I'll call to order this regular meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission it is June 17th I have 6:34 p.m. okay please be advised that in accordance with the open public meetings act notice of the time date in place of this regularly scheduled meeting of the Jersey City Historic preservation commission has been sent to the Jersey Journal Jersey City Reporter and Ellis basito on Thursday June 13th same notice has been provided to the city clerk's office office for posting on the bulletin board outside of the clerk's office in City Hall and for posting on the Jersey City website I have proof of this notice in evidence if we could Mark that please cool right we'll move to a roll call commissioner amuso here commissioner Gunther here commissioner sakong here commissioner blazak here commissioner griga is absent commissioner sand Camp is absent commissioner Cronin is absent Vice chair guara and chairman Gordon present okay there are six members of the Commission in attendance five affirmative votes are needed for the approval of a certificate of appropriateness next item is the we have two sets of minutes to approve this evening the first is the minutes for April 15th 2024 anyone have any questions changes Corrections okay hearing none staff recommends a motion to approve motion second okay I will do a roll roll call commissioner uzo I commissioner Gunther abstain commissioner sakong I commissioner blazak abstain okay commissioner gri is absent commissioner San Camp is absent commissioner cronin's absent Vice chair Garda and chairman Gordon I okay there are should I skip some one no I did not okay there are four votes in favor no Nays and two abens ions the minutes from April are approved right next are the minutes from May questions changes Corrections if not recommend a motion to approve motion second okay Paul I Brian all right uh commissioner Gunther hi commissioner sakong I commissioner blazak hi commissioner amuso I commissioner gri is absent commissioner San Camp is absent commissioner cron is absent Vice chair gucciardo okay and chairman Gordon I okay there are five votes in favor none against and one exstension the minutes from May are approved um copies of Correspondence application materials are linked on tonight's agenda for announcements um we have one announcement and that is case 11d which is the demolition review for 384 Communipaw has requested to carry to our July HPC meeting so we will not be hearing that application this evening all right moving down to open Public public comment staff sees no members of the public in attendance and recommends to open and close open public comment motion to open and close second all in favor I I okay we have no old business on tonight's agenda so that just brings us to our first new business case I will call case h24 d123 the applicant is Steven Joseph Esquire on behalf of Brenda and Joseph Paglia owners the address is 236 Montgomery Street this property is in the vanvorst park historic district the application is for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a full height rear yard Edition front facade restoration and interior renovation of a contributing fire damaged Italian 8 townhouse constructed Circa 1865 good evening everybody Stephen Joseph for the applicant great to see everybody again um the board I believe is familiar with this particular property um there was a unfortunately a fire at the adjacent building at 234 Montgomery um both buildings incurred substantial damage um the applicant had appeared before this board in the past requesting a complete demolition of uh the property which was uh denied um after many discussions with uh engineer insurance company uh and now an architect we we have a a proposal for uh maintaining as much of the building as we can and expanding the building note that there is no recommendation to planning board or zoning board here this is there's no variances no site plan approval associated with the application um let's get will sworn in and he'll walk you through what we're looking to do Jo testimony tonight it's GNA be the truth the home truth nothing but the truth yes I do sure it's William wenman last name we c k e n m a a NN staff notes will has previously been qualified in front of this board before thank you um thanks for your time this evening um uh so as as Steve mentioned the uh um property in question is uh 236 Montgomery Street um which is on the north side of uh Montgomery between uh Barrow and Grove Street um we are proposing um a uh partial demolition of the rear of the building um with a new rear yard addition um we're not proposing uh an increase in the building height we're just trying to um basically rebuild the structure and enlarge it to account for necessary code uh and egress upgrades um so the the existing building is is noted here um you'll see that there there was an addition that was that was put on the original building which is uh indicated here on the on the Block plan um we are proposing uh an extension um but uh we're not asking for uh re setback variants and as you can see here the the addition is in keeping with the depth of the existing buildings on on the Block so um on the left we have an existing site plan proposed site plan is on the right um in addition to taking down the section of the back of the building we are removing the uh the a gazebo that's there and uh a deteriorated patio in the back um so we are planning on on regrading and and Rel Landscaping the the rear of the property um moving on to the the site plan we are proposing a new Street tree along with the curb and sidewalk improvements uh we will also be Rel Landscaping the front yard um the existing fence and gate as well as the existing stoop and all the decorative iron work is going to remain uh not we're not proposing any changes to to the front yard aside from as I mentioned landscape uh and sidewalk improvements we are keeping the building at three stories um although we are uh proposing a roof deck towards the the rear of the building with a uh a bulkhead towards the center of the roof which you'll see on the elevations and the the section drawing um and then as previously mentioned we are proposing uh some landscap improvements for the rear yard these are just our standard utility details I'll skip over those as well as the engineering details for the sidewalk um there the building has an existing Cellar uh which we are uh keeping and enlarging part of the first floor unit um so the the first floor apartment will be uh a duplex apartment a two-bedroom two bath duplex apartment um as I mentioned the existing stoop will remain um as will the the the vestibule for the building uh we are proposing a new stair new ESS stair um for the upper floors um the ground floor apartment has two bedrooms towards the front one in the center Center um and then the living space towards the rear and that layout is uh maintained as we we move up the building um so again we have this stair in the in the center of the plan with uh bedrooms in the in the front one in the center and the living space towards the rear um the for the second floor we are proposing a a balcony as well the third floor unit is the same general configuration although we do have a little bit more space on the top floor so we are have adding a small Den or office Nook at the top of the stair um the stair will continue up to uh private roof deck for the top unit um and as I mentioned it is on the the back of the roof um set back from the from the front facade moving on to the elevations um as I mentioned we are maintaining all of the the railings and handrails um at the front we'll be um restoring the the stoop um we'll also be replacing the front entry door to match the uh tax tax photograph so we have a we'll remove the existing door and replace it with a a double door um the windows will all also be place we're proposing archt toop windows in each of the existing openings um the existing brick will remain and the existing lentils and window sills will also remain uh currently they're painted like a a light blue color so we are proposing that they be painted a um a brown which will match the the the stoop and the and the water table um at the seller level um the existing cornice and and brackets will also be uh repaired and any missing and deteriorated elements will be uh reconstructed to match the the existing and then finally you can see the the general outline of the stair bulkhead and and railing towards the rear of the roof the uh rear elevation is uh fairly fairly simple we're proposing a a lap siding for the sides and the rear of the building um with very simple um punched window opening on the on the rear elevation um there's also the the rear elevation will will be somewhat visible from Mercer Street extent to which is uh somewhat debatable it's a little bit hard to see when when you're kind of looking through the trees and all of the the structures that exist on the Block but this is approximately what what we uh what will be visible from uh from Mercer Street uh and it's really if because there's uh surface parking lot on on this property uh and that's why this will be slightly visible um moving on we have this side elevation uh with the this hatched area represents the approximate outline of the building next door um again we we're proposing lap siding for the side elevation um and then you can also see the the roof bulkhead and the U metal handrail that we're proposing around the roof deck we also have some uh General details here on the rear stale rear stair and the window openings uh this again the the opposite side elevation where we're stepping the building uh in a little bit around the stair uh so we have we do have a small courtyard on this side of the building and that allows for uh light and air into the second bedroom of those Upper Floor Apartments um and then um finally we have our our sight line diagram from from the opposite side of uh Montgomery Street um so you can see the the bulkhead and the the roof deck are set back uh substantially from the from the front elevation finally we have our uh material board here I do have a couple of samples if if anybody would like to see them um if you want to pass them we can do that sure underneath and this is uh the that concludes my presentation the only one I I don't have is the is the stucco so I think we're good on the sto I figured thank you an issue we can condition it I'd be more than happy to do a a a test for you and have you come out and see it okay um where is this oh I'm sorry that's that's an that's an extra that oh so that one shouldn't this is the that's the the clock board look on the sides in the back that's correct right and Stephen can you just make sure your mic is on uh that's the uh stair treads for the at the rear stair you handling the at the front of the building Sten please turn on your mic it doesn't go into the recording at the front of the property how are you handling the stairs and the water table what material and what color um it'll be a a stucco of parging and it'll be the brown to match the um the sample that I have indicated there so a dark brown um you mean that's the classic Brown okay got it I believe that that's currently um do do you have a detail of the stairs the rear stair or the the front stairs I'm just wanted to be sure that the form of them is the traditional form of the Brownstones you know okay there's a picture of it yeah I I don't have a detail but um that's close enough we're just going to be yeah we'll just be maintaining the existing the same look mhm it's actually not in that that bad of a shape so it's the idea is really just to repair it um where needed understood and the front windows are wood windows wood windows yes and so that that court is not existing correct that that's something you're you're adding in it's the building does step in at the side elevation um there is a a little bit of a there's currently a fire escape for the Upper Floor units so there is a little bit of a step in on the side there um it's we're not it's in the same general area as the existing Court um but really the building just kind of steps back towards the rear of the the existing building steps back towards the rear are you having to do additional demo to create the shape that you're talking about yes yeah so it's not this it's not taking that form and adding Windows you're re you're reconfiguring that side of the building yeah and that that was going to be a question that I had so on A1 on I guess you look at either the first floor plan or the or the seller on the left has existing 12in brick wall at the that the cellar and so that's going to remain and and then I see on the first floor then has existing frame wall so behind there and you I can see where it ends you have it hatched differently that's going to be new framing then that's right and so then on the opposite side what what is there currently on on the other side where I guess there's going to where it says the electrical meter so that's all new structure as well and what's and what's there now so currently there's a frame wall that is uh in it's it's really a mess it's it in sections it's shared with the neighbor so it's a party wall um in some sections there is some framing there are some sections of the building that are independent from each other you can see the the clapboard siding that's uh still on the side of the building but um this wall is is where most of the damage occurred during the fire so um it there's really not much of that that can be salvaged and and from a from a um uh fire safety um perspective it really uh we're basically building a new wall within inside of the old yeah okay okay that's kind of what I was yeah and and it's largely due to fire damage is what I'm hearing yeah it's it's a real mess um and then I think there were there was a reference later on I might not have it in front of me that that talked about um referring to structural drawings um I just want to be sure that staff would review that at at some point or or if if if you have already maybe they're included in thew yeah yeah they're included okay um admittedly I I did look at them I confirmed that they matched what was proposed um that is the extent of my engineering knowledge um we do lean pretty heavily on the building department to confirm that all the calculations are correct and everything but they did match the scope of work that was proposed okay and and just one other question I had so the I think there was one photo that you sent of the of the rear facade um that was it's not included in this set but it was uploaded I just want to be sure was looking at the the right photo and understanding it as well that the building that is in question is in the photograph it's the building on the right which is taller than the building on the left I do have a photograph for you so I can be happy to pull it up this is the the party wall by the way um and that's looking through to the other the other neighboring building so I do I I since this is already up on your screen well I think we do need to enter this as a exhibit because this was not on the on the portal thank you and A1 A1 yes yeah that that the it is the taller structure and I'm and uh yeah it's the build that's on the right so this is taken from the neighboring property okay MH and I see yeah it looks like it's it so I see how you mean it steps back too you mean and I the the whole build the whole addition is kind of like a half it's on full width of the the lot okay and over in this area here around the corner there's a fire escape that that comes [Music] down I we saw a photo of of a sideline drawing um of the primary elevation right across the street um where you you know the bulkhead is not visible is it visible from an angle if you walk east or west on Montgomery um that is a good question um we I don't believe it is because the the alleyway is is is very narrow it's it's about three or four feet and the bulkhead is set in from the from the side elevation so if it was if the me just skip to the um so you can see here it's set in about 3 and a half ft from from the side wall side elevation so um not only is it set back sufficiently it's also set in and I think that the bulk of the the front of the building will offset um the vast majority of that of that that bulkhead so portions of it may be obliquely visible um but uh a very small area thank you I have one question for you will you be doing anything to the primary facade as far as uh the brick face that's on there now sure um we would we're calling to um remove the paint and repoint the facade um we have not yet done a test of the brick to see what condition it's in um not brick-faced it looks like it's brick-faced it is it is Brick it it is because the 1938 photograph it looks like a brownstone in that picture versus this looks like Garden State brick facing on this on the current facade yeah it's it's definitely there's definitely several layers um on the the front elevation um as I mentioned we haven't done uh a full test probe yet of of the front facade um but we do believe that there is uh according to the the the documentation that we have we do there is a record of there being brick at one point so um we do have a little bit of of work to figure out what exactly is going on on the front of the building so does that mean that you might have to remove the brick face to get to the brick um it's possible um I think as a worst case scenario we would leave what's here and and repaint it repaint it um we would also be doing those tests from the um if possible from the inside to see what what we're dealing with uh before removing a section of the because 37 photo looks like brick Paul does look it does now that it's in Lodge it looks like see it's brick yeah I could see it's brick yeah and the the board may recall uh although I don't believe it was part of this application um that the the commission did retain their own expert during the demolition hearing who had similar testimony about the facade that there's there's multiple layers and we want to be careful not to destroy something by removing okay thank you the the other thing I want to call attention to just while we're looking at this photo is I think the the um clapboard on that west facing facade is probably original to the building and I think at at least the closest areas to the street we should try to preserve it I believe this was replaced since the fire maybe or no I think that the um well I I don't want to speculate um so but I I was told that there was exterior work done on on the side to repair and replace some of the siding I don't think we got an application for that so might want to strike that or confirm if that's true cuz I this is the first time we've got an application for this building and if you look well I don't know when this photo this photo looks like was taken since the fire this was taken since the fire yeah um and you can see you know towards the top of the building um if you yeah go up a little bit it looks like it's wood clapboard to me and it it's like I think it's probable that it's might be original to the building if it if it is and maybe the something staff can look into I think it for at least the first few feet maybe even if it's in good shape if it's not fire damaged maybe up to where that court is the the wood clapboard should be preserved and then Hardy can be further back you know starting at the court and at the rear that's fine Hardy plank is fine but I think it here I think it's it's something you don't see too often anymore downtown um and you think that would be important to preserve if it's but we could staff could look into the status of that the the applicant is is happy to work with uh staff on preserving as much as possible um information we have is that at some point in the past prior to the fire there was some work done on the side clearly there wasn't an application for that but there was something done maybe it was further back I'm just I'm just going on what I can see in this little sver here which is only a couple feet maybe yeah so maybe it's it's for further back you can't see it and that's fine so I sounds like we're focusing on a lot of the exterior materials on the facad of the building so a careful examination before removal yeah y absolutely I would like to chime in with a follow-up comment to Robert's question about the bulkhead I have similar concerns that it's possible it could get built and be slightly visible um so if the height could maybe be minimized it looks just on the drawings like it could be larger taller than it needs to be um and then especially because you're getting the glimpse of the back through that view corridor um and on that rear facade the sort of double door sliding door opening like that's partially visible I think that's a little strange I I wonder if that that couldn't also just be punched openings like you're doing on the first floor or even like a French even like French swing door sorry French outswing doors maybe would work better than a sliding door or even maybe just if it's tripartite because there's something about the proportions of it and because you're seeing part of it that seem a little off to me yeah we I I think uh yeah I have no problem changing that to a swing door with an adjacent window I think that's a a good comment and I I just had one last question and I I'm not an engineer and I'm just looking at the structureal drawings now and I actually I did remember I did look at this very briefly but um I guess my only question is if you know there's a lot of removal going on a lot of walls being removed um these look more like you know is there going to be any plan for any facade stabilization you know when when the work is ongoing associate with you know some if there's any walls being removed um you know I don't I wouldn't want there to be any facade issues with the facade during construction yeah that's that's the primary intent of the of the structural drawings is for to stabilize the the front facade okay um they're they're drawn as if the S assuming a worst case scenario where the um perpendicular sidewalls need to be removed so we're we're being a little bit overly cautious in terms of the engineering for for for stabilizing the front facade really the idea is to keep portion of the side walls the great as as much as we can to help kind of reduce the the impact to the to the front facade okay good thanks any other questions anything you guys want to close with ADD uh no that that concludes Our Testimony we do appreciate the board's time this evening sure I actually thought of one other thing the sidewalk material and is that sidewalk material going in behind the gate into the front yard um that's how we have it currently yes and is is that cement it's concrete yeah yeah so I mean there is an opportunity there to I mean at least within uh if not on the sidewalk you're not required to do blue stone on the sidewalk but I think possibly a uh a blue stone mat material uh within the gate might be more appropriate yeah sure that that makes sense I'm just writing that down okay in the meantime while I'm writing this down um as the applicant has concluded their testimony staff sees no members of the public presid if anyone wants to make a motion to open and close public comment I'll make a motion to open and close public comment all in favor okay so that brings us into staff comments um all right going to where is my staff report did actually print it but that appears to be not working in my favor anyway thanks all right so going down to the recommendations I mean the recommendation for this um is to approve with conditions it is consistent with all of the other rard editions that we see in the historic district in terms of bulk and height um it is one of the only ones we've seen as of late that is not extending beyond the existing height of the building so thank you for that um there also is not really a predominant rear yard set back on this side of the block um you have multiple buildings one adjacent to this one that have 100% lock coverage um however if you look at the Block site plan this uh rear yard this I'm sorry this addition to the building does not extend beyond any of the existing rear yards that do have some sort of a setback um the front facade restoration is consistent with what we see there is some more work that has to be done on that in terms of determining how exactly that will go about but but again this building needs to be stabilized first and approving this is the first step in doing that um so we do recommend the approval of a COA with our standard conditions um we do have a couple of conditions that were discussed that I wrote down that we can add in um the first being that the applicant shall work with HPC staff to preserve the clapboard on the western side of the building where visible to the extent feasible um the applicant shall minimize the height of the bulkhead to to ensure um no visibility the applicant shall change the balcony door at the rear facade to a swing door with a window to follow the proposed window fenestration of the rest of the facade and the applicant shall work with HPC staff to revise the ground covering in the front area y I get all of the conditions in there does anyone have any questions for staff very minor question Maggie um what what has um what's been our position on on uh minor things like the uh number plate on the building I didn't notice it being removed and and not put back in the drawings I wouldn't say that we have a firm position on them there's no specific guidance in our guidelines on the number plates um the number plates are generally not something that were there historically unless they're evident in the tax card photo um so the real only real opinion that staff has on them is that as long as they're installed in a reversible manner they're okay um in this case I actually think you guys are going the number you're I think is going back to being on the front door yeah that's right I mean I I professionally and personally don't really have an opinion on that if it's something that is evident on the 1938 we probably should keep it yeah it's not it's it's not it's not I think it's better above the door it was more from future sure reference it's in the doors too in the 1938 photograph yeah so if anything we're going back to something closer historically in general with I can't honestly can't think of any exception if there is a plaque on the building it was installed there by the property owner not at the request of the commission or staff there are of course a couple exceptions of plaques that the applicant had to put up for one reason or another to abide with conditions but for the most part if there's a plaque we didn't have anything to do with it great and um sorry one last question for the applicant um even though it's a little bit out of order um uh I didn't see an RCP or a detail but can you just confirm that the light fixture above the entry is is recessed as opposed to surface mounted yes thank you that's it for me okay any other questions comments do you need anything add additional concerning uh careful examination of the facade material before removal or is that already in your your requirements so there's no specific condition regarding um any type of investigatory or exploratory demolition of the front facade we can add one if the commission good idea since we're not sure whether it's brick face or the actual brick or all right let me just write something down first so I don't say something into the record forget what I said and then we have to backtrack okay how about the applicant shall work with HPC staff to ensure careful examination and exploratory demo of the front facade PRI prior to the um submission of construction documents good okay all right if there are no other questions for staff again the recommendation here is to approve a COA with conditions and those uh conditions are acceptable to the applicant I'll make a motion to approve at the conditions seconded okay Brian I have Austin uh commissioner song I commissioner blazak I commissioner amuza I commissioner Gunther I commissioner gri is absent commissioner s Camp is absent commissioner cronin's absent Vice chair guiard hi and chairman Gordan I okay there are six votes in favor none against no abstentions the COA with conditions is approved thank you all thanks for coming out just for us we appreciate it sure don't worry we have other things you guys don't get to leave yet thanks guys we do okay yeah we do all right um well could you actually hand me the dongle that is plugged into yeah got to actually is way more of a hassle than I thought it would be sorry way to do there usually is but thank you I really didn't think that would be that annoying I appreciate you guys humoring me there all right moving on on the agenda Robert if you want to call the next Item B under new business is review and recommendation of proposed amendments to chapter 105 entitled building demolition and chapter 345 entitled Land Development ordinance okay so we have the demo ordinance changes yay all right um so I think the best way to review this is to just kind of go through the whole document um all of the language in this chapter that we are removing is stricken everything that we are adding is underlined um just uh by way of background as you all know we um had an appell at Court ruling last July that um required us to make changes to our demo ordinance we have made those changes to the ordinance uh we have made those changes kind of administratively as we review things but now we are codifying them um so we'll just kind of go through there are a couple of minor things in here that um I will point out as we go just a a language change or two um that Jonathan and I discussed prior to the meeting um that will be changed but I just want to bring them to your attention as we're going through it all right um so there are two chapters that we are updating here chapter 105 which is our demolition ordinance and chapter 345 which is the Land Development ordinance um actually I'm sorry there are three chapters here because there's also 160 for Fe um we'll get to that but so historically chapter 105 has held our demolition ordinance um and that is even prior to the 2018 changes the largest change that we are proposing here is actually to take all of those HPC requirements out of chapter 105 and put them in 345 um that makes them enforcable by our zoning officer puts them with all of our other land use regulation puts them with all of our other things that the HPC reviews and also follows um the decision by the appell at court judge that said the HPC is acting out of order because this is not in your Land Development ordinance so um we can see here chapter 105 we are striking the original findings and purpose that talks about historic preservation and we are just keeping in all of the stuff that references the building code for 105 D2 for scope um we are keeping in the stuff about the building code and we are adding some language that we took out from a previous part of this that says it shall be unlawful for the applicant to intentionally remove destroy or deface historic components of a building Andor structure or to make changes to a building as to render it unfit prior to applying for a demo permit or while the application is pending in order to render it historically insignificant and or structurally unsound we that is language we that was already in our demo ordinance we just moved it up to a different part in the scope um and we also Ed with it a little bit to hopefully make it more enforcable for permit procedures again we just added language that clarifies um that you are applying for a demolition permit to the his division of City Planning with I'm sorry so number two here says applications for prior approval which is what that demolition approval is it's a prior approval as part of a demolition permit shall be filed with the division of city planning to the historic preservation officer and shall be reviewed in uh accordance with the Criterion set forth in the part of the chapter that we moved all of this review to um that random T will be going away um and in the next section it just says the historic preservation officer shall make a recommendation within 45 days of the application being deemed complete um being deemed complete also includes paying the fee for review um and we have 45 days to make a determination on it if we are determining that it should be recommended to be denied it will come to the HPC where the HPC has an additional 45 days to make a determination on an application um that 45 days obviously does not if that's just scheduling it of course um obviously it will need to be heard but for example if we have a situation like tonight where an applicant wishes to be carried that does not impact the 45-day review period um and then the other thing that we have added in to this ordinance that we have not had in any other previous iteration is number four the prior approval shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance um something that we have repeatedly seen is people coming in with old demolition approvals um sometimes as old as 2015 2016 which of course they don't count because that's an old ordinance right um but we have had people come in with a demolition approval from 2018 under the current ordinance and say oh I want my permit this never expired um and we have to I mean it's legal it's valid still um regardless of any changes that may have happened to that building right like in that time period we could have granted a demo on a building that had a bunch of historic fabric covered up you could have had an owner who went in uncovered all of it restored it sold it off for one reason or another and then the next person comes in and still has that valid demo approval so um we just followed the similar guidance for all other HPC approvals which is one year um and then the next section says Zoning Board of adjustment shall be the one to hear the appeals from the zoning officer denying which again follows our current procedure I just have a quick question sorry inter Magie 1053 is the bulk of of the ordinance in the process that we were trying to change so do does anyone have any questions about that about what the commission is recommending or or things like that process I just had a is wondering about the the 45 day timeline um where does that come from because it looks if I if I'm understanding this like if uh that 45 days isn't adhered to then they get a free pass to conduct the demo is that right the 45 day timeline comes from so that 45 day just the concept of 45 days comes from um the mlul so there's a very we have like the section for hpcs is very very very small in the ml but one of the things that makes it clear is our permit review our development application review our HPC review is all 45 calendar days um from the day that they submit it um so we took that 45 days and applied it to this um with any permit we do so anything anyone who applies for a cone anyone who applies for a COA fail that failure to report within 45 days sell constitute a prior approval permit without conditions and the zoning officer May release the application to the construction Ben official that just means that if someone were to apply so they they still have to apply to the zoning officer and say we did not get our decision within 45 days um you can bypass whatever the HPC says and you know give your recommendation to the zoning officer the Z I'm sorry give you a recommendation to the construction official not the zoning officer they are the zoning officer um that does not Bar zonings review right so the zoning officer can still say HPC like like they can still come to us and ask for our opinion and it's up to the zoning officer in general if they want to even do a prior approval release to be clear even if the zoning officer approves and says yes okay you can demolish they still need to go the applicant still needs to go to the construction official to get the actual demolition permit so we use demolition permit pretty broadly when we're colloquially talking about this but what the board what the commission is reviewing is a prior approval to a demolition permit application so one of the boxes that the applicant has to check in order to get their demolition permit is the zoning officer approved this and said yes this is an okay thing to do and because of the way our scheme works for historical properties and landmarks is the historic preservation commission is making the recommendation to the zoning officer if that makes sense it does you know I don't know what the track record is I don't know if any of these things have ever slipped through the cracks and and gone past the 45 days I mean I feel that administrative errors are all but inevitable even with the most diligent staff you know they go past 45 days pretty regularly so just being honest with you guys this is my first rodeo when it comes to a demolition ordinance I'll be candid but if this were some sort of a private contract I would want to build in some sort of option to cure which it sounds like May at the option of the zoning officer might exist the zoning officer could come back and tap the historic preservation officer on the shoulder and say hey did this one slip past you do you want to chime in before I go ahead and Grant this permit and that's exactly the relationship that's set up in this ordinance the zoning officer can still consult the HPC even though our 45 days have may have passed on something that word so that last sentence there and the zoning officer May release the application it doesn't require them to I I I just think it would be excellent if it said something like you know within the zoning officer can then go back to the hpo and have the HBO has five days to provide a response or you know they'll they'll default some something that gives us a second chance to respond before we sort of default Jonathan do you want to I my guess is that the ml does not let us do that that but if you want to look into that we can I was going to say off the top of my head I'm not aware but I would agree with Maggie is that the 45 days comes from the M anus law and I can certainly look into it and get back to you all about that just to be clear about your request is you want even if the 45 days are up the commission has an additional 10 days why not just make it 55 days at that point no I think I think the correct me if I'm misinterpreting this you want language in there that says even if the HPC surpassed its 45 days the zoning officer can consult staff yeah or another way of doing it would be to actually shorten the 40 days and say that at that point the applicant should um go directly to the zoning officer and the zoning officer can then approach HPC and see what you know because right now if we miss the 45 days that's it seems like that could conceivably be the end of it we we would sort of I me jurisdiction you're correct but for what it's worth that is for every single HPC application that we see that is something that is mandated in the mlul as if and it's not just HPC it's planning board it's zoning board it's not in the ml it's in the uniform construction code for the state you have a set time period to do something and if you don't the applicant has the ability to ask for it to be issued very rarely at least in my experience do people actually even ask for it to be issued I I have had in the 6 and a half years I've been here twice has someone said hey don't I get a prior approval now Ori like don't doesn't like doesn't my time period is up can't you issue this and both times with two different zoning officers the zoning officer has said I don't even know how to do that not saying that someone would then tell them how to do it but I think it's something worth looking into I can't promise that it would that it'll pan out but I don't see no reason why we can't check to see if that's possible I will certainly check and to hear you explain it I think that second way of have okay it's been 20 days within the 45 someone should get back to me about what we're doing to me it seems more of an administration of the ordinance rather than this is actually what needs to happen so I think setting up those I guess internal deadlines sort of is more of a how how the HBO and and planning want to enforce and administer the ordinance so I think it would be more of an internal conversation of this is what we're going to do these are the internal timelines rather than putting it in the ordinance um and I was going to say so you said that's happened two times and about how many demos come in a year a th not a thousand we we average between 300 and 450 demos per year so it's a small percentage but I understand you know and if let's say um an applicant the the applicant wasn't satisfied with that answer by the zoning officer saying I don't know I wouldn't even know how to do that anyway perhaps that's something they could sue over and you know that like that's like the worst case scenario right is like then they could say you know the HBC didn't take action within 45 days the zoning officer didn't take action that might be something that they could win on a lawsuit over maybe so to be fair I don't think the action there would be and this again truly all hypothetical I don't think the action here would be the zoning officer didn't take action the action would be the zoning officer said this is incomplete without your prior report or the construction official said I'm not processing this permit because it's incomplete because you don't have that prior report and then that puts them in a holding pattern of they have to wait for the prior report if even gets to that point which it doesn't but and like you said theoretic that that happens to any Perman any per staff level Perman that comes in correct that then goes to Z building department and Zoning yeah everything's 45 days from the day that they apply um for what it's worth just to clarify this process for everyone it's 45 days from the day that they submit something and then let's say 20 days later the applicant says oh by the way I have one more piece of information and they submit something else their 45 days restarts the day that they it's the from the date of the last submission and or the date they were deemed complete and you track and you obviously track that M yeah that is um one of the very few benefits of Tyler is that it automatically tracks um the timing sometimes it uh calculates the date wrong but that's an IT problem not the hpcs okay so we're going to look into that part um next section down is 1054 this was the section that had everything determination of significance and it is completely stricken per the Court's requ for the Court's mandate um said those are not legal under the ml all right 105 the next chapter powers of the construction official um the only thing we added was just language that Rey the construction official requested about imminent Hazard and a reference to the UCC 1056 which is what needed to be in a demolition permit application is stricken because when we had this section of the ordinance HPC was the one intaking the application um and therefore we got to set the requirements that were in there we no longer intake the application right it goes to the way the prior approval works is you apply to building for your demolition permit and it immediately comes over to May for the prior approval right um and that's all on the online system but because HPC is no longer the first people to get that application it goes to the building department they are the ones who set what is in the application um and everything that they require is already stuff that we required that part's not changing it's just being removed from the section of the ordinance any question and that language below um where it said completed application requires the Fay was moved up okay 1057 which is the section of the ordinance that had the meat of how we review stuff all of this was just moved to 345 so we will see this again um the unsafe structures and imminent Hazard language um you could see most of that was stricken with a reference to the UCC per the construction official um complaints and orders again we just have a reference to the UCC order to repair demolish unsaved structures again this language was changed at the request of the construction official to reference the UCA no no real changes to 1058 except for a reference change um 10 5-9 again there's one small change that the construction official requested that is not the purview of the HPA and same deal for 10510 or 10511 all right any and I'm sorry there's also it looks like there was a section Struck from one uh chapter 131 that talked about who hears the appeals is that covers that yeah that language is struck because it says that appeals from this body are heard by the municipal Council and that is not advisable and not what happens so yeah I don't know how that stuck around for many years but it did all right so those are the changes to 105 and 131 does anyone have any questions that we haven't answered on all of this I know this is a probably just about as dry as I can get all right chapter 160 fees and charges there is one change here so we have the H PC fee schedule the only change is that we are striking the fee for a determination of significance because they no longer exist so striking that there okay chapter 345 So This Is Our Land Development ordinance this is where all of the HPC stuff lives and officially it will have all of the HPC stuff because it'll have building uh damos so we are not changing anything until we get to 345 30 um this is where we have the application Criterion for or our review Criterion for what is required to be in an application so we have first we have e.1 application for demolition permit for properties not designated as local landmarks or within a locally designated historic district so this is where all of the stuff from 1057 was moved um we really did not make any substantial changes here except for one um in previously in 1057 we had two items that we had to certify individually we had to certify if it was in any component of the master plan and we had to certify if it was in our phase one or phase two surveys we've removed the reference to the phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys um a because they're in the master plan now we have 100% confirmation of that and two because based on that Court ruling the only thing the court cared about was whether or not it was in the master plan or not um third I forgot that there was a third reference to it um we have or will have more than just the phase one and the phase two surveys so it is much much much easier to update the master plan than it is to update an ordinance every time we do another survey so by saying it's in the master plan we are abiding by what the court said and we avoid having to update this ordinance every time we do a survey um other than that the language has stayed the same right so we have in these reports we're always going to have the age we think the building was constructed whether or not the building's in the master plan um whether or not we think the building is eligible under ABC or d whether the building or structure has Integrity of location design setting materials workmanship feeling or Association does anyone have any questions on any of that think microphone I'm sorry I I can hear you it just only picks up the recording from the mic um we've had conversations in the past about um buildings that that have historic significance that might be hidden by materials covering over them um is there anything in these changes that addresses no hidden historic significance no we don't um we have looked into that extensively and there really is just no way around it not being a takings if we're saying like the what the preservation elements have to be visible from the public right of way that's really the only way that we can do this um however by having it does give us more flexibility be in theory because we spent so much time on the historic resource inventory of the master plan we no longer have to rely on it being visible or being in the phase one or the phase two right if it's in that inventory we can pretty safely recommend denial if we think the building Rises to it whereas in the past we had it had to be in the phase one or the phase two and for it to re like functionally work on appeal it also had to be like the description had to be in there right so it had to say okay we know that this element has been changed but it has this has that and that helped us sometimes with things like um when a Cornus had been covered since that that's exactly what I'm thinking so like now by not having to worry about it only being in that survey it does give us slightly more flexibility there okay thank you okay um the next section so this is for application for demo permit for properties designated as a local landmark or within a locally designated historic district this is our when people come to us with demo applications for stuff in a district none of this has changed um the only section part of this that has changed is the title um to specify that it's for a landmark or in a district um and then a reference down at the bottom that if the application denied they follow the appeal process listed okay any questions on that all right the next section is applications and checklists so this is a small change to the general development application so this is what planning board and Zoning Board get um part of their checklist had been a determination of significance memo if they were proposing demolition um because we don't have determinations anymore that is stricken from this checklist but you will see that the demolition determination memo still stays in there and then the last thing is in the fee table that's in 34533 that fee table also is removing determination of significance because it no longer exists okay does anyone have any that is that's all the changes to the demo ordinance does anyone have any questions about what we just looked at how this will work I think at this point because we have done a couple of these demos it's a little bit more clear but I'm happy to review any of it if anyone has any question and for the record there are like a few type of changes we're making to this yeah I was going to say what is our opinion about the inconsistent use of the Oxford comma but I will seed that to people more expert than I I think that inconsistent use of the Oxford comma is a difference between legal language and the way I type which is pro Oxford comma by the way um I don't know I don't actually I could not tell you who's responsible for it I know the first time we wrote this demo ordinance I had a lot of different opinions on verbiage with John henan um so maybe I'm just pts I would say if if our concern is over inconsistent Oxford Comm use we have surmounted huge obstacles to get to such a minor concern agreed and applauded okay anyone have any um other questions all right so hearing none we do ask that you take formal action on this tonight which is to recommend to the planning board and to the city council to adopt the changes to Chapters 105 hold on let me make sure I get all of the correct chapters in the motion because I did not when I wrote the agenda clearly all right so we have chapter 105 chapter what is it 131 yeah 131 160 and 3:45 so where does my question come into it the that uh we're looking into I I don't want to hold this up for that so if we can make those changes we can still make them at the planning board level okay right that's fine um and the I do not believe so the reality of scheduling with the demo memo uh demo ordinance stuff is that this is probably not going to get to council until the absolute earliest first meeting of September just based on the council's schedule um because they only meet once in July and August um so I think we'll have time the commission is reviewing this because we're making we're proposing changes to chapter 345 which is zoning so which requires the planning board to review it and we're making a recommendation to the planning board so that's what's happening there you can include it in your motion right like perhaps something a resolution of approval with the condition that someone was looking into this and if that is something that we can do then we can make that change I would be fine with that okay it's certainly though if we do make changes to it substantive changes they will have to be made before it is introduced at planning and that's going to be one do you know um I don't right now planning board is scheduling in August so we have time we have time um do you want to make the motion Robert or yeah I I can make the motion I mean I think it's worth looking into but it also sounds like it's not all that not a major consideration so I as I said I wouldn't want to hold anything up um so that being said I'll make the motion to recommend uh adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapters 105 160 131 oh 131 yeah 160 and 345 105 160 3 131 sorry what is it chapter 105 131 160 and 345 yes that uh with the condition that uh someone somewhere will look into and inquire into whether it's possible to make Minor Adjustments to the timeline giving the uh historic preservation commission some additional um flexibility and ability to respond to these applications okay second second Stephen for the second all right uh commissioner blazak hi commissioner amuso I commissioner Gunther hi commissioner song I commissioner griga is absent commissioner San Camp is absent commissioner Cronin is absent Vice chair guiard hi and chairman Gordon hi right there are six votes in favor none against no extensions the motion passes right speaking of the demos we have a couple to review I was I was actually going to ask um did you ever send you were going to send us a like the language that we kind of use with the motion for the demos I was going to do that Jonathan will help us through I'll do it oh yeah just to speak about that I figured it would be best to just have a conversation about it while we're reviewing the ordinance and I had hoped that that that might kind of clarify the process of what we're actually doing or what you as the commission are doing with these motions so the commission is making a recommendation to the zoning officer on whether or not to Grant prior approval for a permit application to demolish a building so the law requires that the commission review the application and issue a written recommendation to the zoning officer so Maggie as the historic preservation officer reviews these applications and writes a memo to the commission saying here's what I think about this application in my professional capacity as the HBO so you as the commission can review that and say yeah we agree we want to recommend denial to the zoning officer or we we disagree and we want to deny so I think that the specific words that you use in the motion are less important than the procedural realities of what's Happening Maggie is making a recommendation to the commission the commission is reviewing it and the key is that you have to that's what the Appel division said is the commission has to review this and they have to have the reasons for why you're doing anything related to Historic property and that was another one of my questions so we have to have the reason so do we need to put on the record that we more than just that we agree with Maggie's memo and I think that's something you had brought up in the past as well yeah I think that it's advisable for you to say specifically which parts do you agree do you think this has a lot of historic value or a lot of the site and setting any of the reasons that Maggie puts in her Memo it's just it is it behooves the commission to put their reasons for doing things on the record and when you have these discussions about the value that the buildings give to the community that helps as we go through these demos tonight I will point out specific things in the memo that you guys could site as part of those reasons if you would like to before we get into the demo reviews are are we yeah we do um I don't have an update for the Boulevard or the temple Bethal 88 and 90 um were will be reviewed in July they submitted their uh revisions um on Monday not this Monday last Monday so we're not able to get them red in time to get them onto this meeting um but those are the updates on tabled cases no update on um Temple Beth microphone right on no update on Temple bethl no um they had they had mentioned that they were going to have a like the structural engineer um do some additional review of the drainage system and what it would take to support the building I haven't heard from them on it at all honestly um so I I will make a point to follow up with them as well so I'll call uh demo review a which is uh 17 van ripen B-24 d110 this was carried from the May 13 2024 regular HPC meeting at the applicant's request okay so we have two properties 17 van ripen and 15 van ripen that are actually right next to each other um and we're going to be reviewing both of them this evening just give me a second I will I pulled this up all right just so the commission can place them all right so we have van ripe and a the one with the Red Dot is 15 17 is right next to it to our right is Summit AV and to our left is the boulevard these are at the bottom of the screen you can see the Journal Square PATH station so they're about a block away from the Journal Square PATH station and then this is the submitted applicant photo for 17 van ripen it's the blue building here so following our review and Hunter researches review we did conclude that this building does have historic Integrity um it is listed in the master plan element in the historic resource inventory it is also um in the cataloged in the phase one survey as well um the phase one survey identified that it did have some changes like aluminum cladding but overall it retained its Integrity um because it still has its design intact its location intact um the setting is intact in relation to the buildings directly next to it obviously the setting in of Van ripen in general has changed of in recent years but the setting of the building itself it setbacks and everything have not changed um so we we do oh here I'm sorry here is also the 1938 tax card photo let me just scooch over a little bit and let's see if I can pull them up right next to each other oh look at that all right yeah so obviously there have been some changes right we lost some of the window detail on that third floor um and the interior columns on the porch have been replaced but overall it does still very clearly have its Integrity of design still has feeling still has uh the materials that in are intact like the corners of the brackets and things like that um do clearly show materials and workmanship as well is the chimney gone the chimney is hm great question can't really tell from there no you can't let me see if you can tell when I zoom in or is near map going to betray me um so you can see a tiny little smidge right above the hand there so that is some element of a chimney so I would go ahead and say that the chimney location is intact whether or not it is the same chimney with the same banding that is seen 3/4 of the way up is intact I don't know but we do at least have chimney location intact right so again the official recommendation on this for the commission is to um recommend denial to the zoning officer due to the fact that the building clearly retains historic cultural and Architectural integrity and that the building is listed in the historic resource inventory of the historic preservation element of the master plan make a motion to I'll make a motion to deny and I'll second that okay all right we'll move to a roll call vote um commissioner amuza I commissioner Gunther I commissioner sakong I uh commissioner blazak I commissioner gri is absent commissioner samp is absent commissioner Cronin is absent Vice chair gucciardo I and chairman Gordon I okay great there are six votes in favor none against and no extensions the motion passes should and yeah just pursuing to your comment before about it behooving us to Echo some of the reasons for denial um as outline in in Maggie's memo should we be should we be um literally repeating that in the either in the motion or the or the y or Nays as we go around no I don't think that you should do it that then I think that you should be having the discussion when you're reviewing like what Maggie just said run through that and then you're talking about the chimney and and seeing that it it clearly retains its historical things and so now that you made the motion for issuing the recommendation to deny to the zoning officer will draft a resolution that has carries the body of that discussion and then the chairman will sign it and then that will be issued to the zoning officer thank you and am I correct in thinking that the purpose of this is one so that we're not just simply rubber stamping the recommendations um and and also that by having a discussion and citing specific reasons it's subject to a pallet scrutiny yeah definitely your first point as well is that the municipal land use law gives this distinct obligation to the commission and the Appel division that Maggie is citing is saying that you can't delegate that task because it was given specifically to the commission and so the commission is empowered and encouraged sometimes to hire someone with specific review right like Maggie does to make these these reports and give you a recommendation um but you cannot delegate your sole decision-making Authority on what the final call is is in regards to the recommendation so that's why this is happening well just for the record since we're feeling our way through these initial applications just by looking at the 1937 photograph and the current photograph just by looking at those to photographs you can see that its historic Integrity is intact um you you don't have to be an expert to see that most of the um the materials are there and could easily be brought back uh to its full Glory with not much work yeah and and for whatever it's worth I I for one am am glad that um this is actually passing through the commission and not delegated to staff because I think this is that important so I'm glad we're doing it cool all right that being said Rob you want to call the next one the next one is the as you said Maggie the neighboring property at 15 van ripen b4- 642 okay so that one is where the red arrow is actually pointing this time and this is the subm photo for 15 van ripen um you can see there's a couple things added to the building due to its current use um but none of them really impact the overall Integrity of the building so upon review of this um it is identified in the historic resource inventory of the master plan and the building is mentioned in the phase one um historic sites uh the phase one one survey um again it also mentions that there were some changes to the building like aluminum cladding but it retained its overall Integrity um we do believe this building has Integrity of location it has Integrity of design setting um some Integrity of materials and workmanship again there have been changes to the building but it does retain some original elements um in this case it actually does have more integ U Integrity of materials and workmanship than the neighboring building at 17 um pull up the tax card photo oh beautiful let's zoom in on that and I will put this guy next to it so we can do a little bit of a side by side comparison right so again we did have some changes right you have the um rather colonial revival neoclassical element above the windows that was removed although that was probably a later Edition to be completely honest and you do have the pediment above the porch that was removed but again that also was likely a later addition as well um but the overall design very intact on this building window fenestration entry pattern exactly the same um there's even some windows that are remaining which is really that's really unusual for us to see in these and and all the stained glass too yep it's all intact yes so again the recommendation for this is to deny a a demolition application due to the building clearly retaining historic cultural and Architectural Integrity is defined by the standards outlined in chapter 1057 um and the fact that the building in question is listed in the historic resource inventory of the preservation element of the master plan and also this building definitely retains its its um its design its feeling Association sense of place maybe not in Journal Square or adjacent to Journal Square but it pertains a lot of that so I uh workmanship probably as well um I'll make a motion to recommended denial be issued to the zoning officer second okay all right roll call commissioner Gunther I commissioner sakong I commissioner blazak I commissioner uza I commissioner gria is absent commissioner San Camp is absent commissioner Cronin is absent Vice chair guiard I and chairman Gordon I okay there are six in favor none against with no extensions the motion passes uh demo review C is at 625 Newark Avenue it's B- 24- 676 okay so again because just for the record the 384 communa has elected to carry so this is our last demolition review we'll once again zoom in in so we can get some idea of setting and place for this so This is actually one block over um 15 and 17 are over here on Van ripen this is 625 nework so this is on the corner of Newark AV and Central AV um it is a oh I did not mean to zoom in like that but I'll run with it why not this is a 100% loot coverage building um that extends facing nework AV a central a to the back there Maggie this is a link that's not working on the open part portal is that going to be an issue no that's fair Jesus that is an issue not with um the agenda that is an issue with the portal okay thank you and it was not an issue up until about an hour ago Perfect all right so this is the photo that was submitted of the building it is not a great photo I am pulling it up here for the record I am actually going to pop us over to Google Maps because this is a much better photo um it is admittedly a little bit dated this is from November of 2020 but you can pretty clearly see the building here um so in this case this is actually a very good example of why the tax cards are important here so this is the tax card photo from 1938 you can see I mean it's pretty obvious the level that's intact here right you have your store Front at the bottom you have a slightly um you have a second story cornice and then you have all the ornamentation up at the top but if you look directly adjacent to this building on the left you'll see another building there and that is because Central AV orig orally did not go over here there was no extension here so that means that the side of this building thank you is not going to have much on it and that is because there originally was something there um so we're really looking at this front facade here that's the most important part of this building um even though it is only essentially a facade that has historic fabric we do still think it is worthy of a demolition denial um it is let's pull up the memo here so this building is in the um historic preservation master plan element it is on the phase one survey and it is also on the phase 2 survey it's in the phase 2 survey as a um building that is should be eligible because of its inclusion in the eligible new Yark AB Five Corners historic district which it was listed as a potential historic district um so we do think that this building has Integrity of location design setting um materials workmanship and uh feeling an association um does anyone have any questions on this also it's a corner property um which adds some I believe adds some significance to the building and other than the storefront area being you know change significantly the rest of the building is quite significant well and I know that Maggie made the comment that it's kind of just a facade but it's only feels that way because the other buildings were removed and If This Were a midblock building we wouldn't characterize it that way so true yeah right I my intent with that comment was mostly just to make sure that like we know that the side has been changed um it's okay yeah and cuz I was looking at this before you you went around on stre and and or actually before you even show the tax card and I was like that side facade uh is really altered but it makes sense it's not because there's was a lot of uh historic fabric that was stripped it was that there were other buildings there that have been demolished to make way for the Street extension so um I think that's a key thing to note here was the other the rear facade was that originally exposed it looks like that has less signific significantly let me see um honestly I don't know if it was originally visible or not my assumption is no because it would have been mid block but you never know doesn't look like there's any type of ornamentation on the back there anyone have any questions on this no um the once again the recommendation here is to uh recommend denial as this building clearly retains cultural historic and Architectural Integrity is defined by the standards outlined in chapter 1057 and because the building is listed as a resource in the historic resource inventory of the historic preservation element of the master plan I'll make a motion to recommend uh denial okay second all right we'll move to a roll call all right um commissioner Gunther I commissioner sakong hi commissioner blazak I commissioner amuza I commissioner gri is absent commissioner San Camp is absent commissioner Cronin is absent Vice chair guara I chairman Gordon uh I vote I largely because of that second floor corn us yep I would agree all right there are six votes in favor none against no abstentions the motion is approved all right let's finish out the rest I ask a very just a very very quick question yeah um when demo applications get carried to later meetings is there a general reason why they want that because sometimes like when this first came and one of the first applications table was like oh maybe they'll come they'll try to present their case that that hasn't happened is there like the the van ripens were originally supposed to be heard last month just I'm just curious the reason why this is happening my experience in it is that the applicants generally need some type like they they just need to get on the phone with me and for me to explain what's happening um and that it was the case for the one on 15th that carried for a while um 17 van right so for 17 625 and 15 are all owned by the same person which is why 15 and 625 were able to go tonight with no problems because I had spoken to him after I scheduled 17 and he understood the process there um it my assumption is that this is just kind of gr pains a little bit um but we do I mean we do our best to notify well in advance of the meetings and give them the opportunity to say if they're going to come or if they're going to present or not um no one I don't think anyone has come in attendance for any these yet have they no no no one has come in attendance yet um the it kind of remains to be seen I think most of the applicants um again it's really just kind of like a growing pain in understanding what they hbc's role in this because again we used to we were doing it all administratively right so someone would we would send off a denial they would get denied they would email us and say what happened here and we'd say oh come into the office let's talk about it um and I think that process just needs to be clarified for the applicants could they if they wanted to come in and make a make a case we when we so when we send I actually I don't have my email up or else I would just pull up an email when we send notification of these to the app applicants we say okay we're going to schedule it for this meeting if you would like to attend and you're not available contact us we'll move it to a different meeting um you are welcome to attend if you would like to bring professionals to provide testimony you're welcome to do that but the testimony has to be limited to the standards in the ordinance right like um don't bring a structural engineer to one of these meetings because that's not the standards that you guys are reviewing um and if they have questions that they can contact staff um and that also if they are going to attend the meeting and they are going to bring professionals they do need to notify us um at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting and that is for no reason other than if they are going to give you guys anything I need to get it up on the portal before the sunshine requirement so they just have to let me know by the end of the day on Friday okay thanks M okay um we have no resolutions to introduce or discuss no resolutions to memorialize uh no EX session and that just leaves us with adjournment motion to adjourn second okay it is 8:04 p.m. all in favor great