 All right, we are live. Good morning everyone. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this 4th of May, 2021. I'm Vice Chair Gulsby sitting in for Chair Bouchard who could not be present today. This commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such, all testimony will be recorded. Under this procedure, our meeting today will also be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the steps we have taken to ensure each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the statutes enacted in session law 2020-3 and codified at North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 166A-19.24, which allows for remote meetings and quasi judicial hearings during declarations of emergency. Second, each applicant today on today's agenda was notified before being placed on the agenda that this meeting would be conducted using the remote electronic platform. Every applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting a evidence theory hearing on the request using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each hearing that the participants in each hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to this matter proceeding in this remote platform, that case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to applicants and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to adjacent property owners, informing recipients regarding the remote platform and a general announcement via our website, informing the public of the same. The notice for today's meeting abides the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals listening to participate in today's hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement along with information about how to sign up to participate was included in the mailed notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. The information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the hearing or to this platform. That we know of, there are two objections in the proceedings today in which the city has been contacted by individual with objection to a case or the matter being heard on this remote platform. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of a presentation, document, exhibit, or other material they wish to submit at this hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of city staff presentations and documents were posted online prior to the meeting. The agenda and all materials should be discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda via Durham's Agenda Center. And finally, all individuals who registered to participate in a hearing on today's agenda, as well as city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in a hearing was notified that they must sign the oath form prior to today's meeting. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on record for today's meetings. Are there any members of this board that would have any conflicts of interest regarding to any of the cases before us today? And are there any early dismissals being requested? I knew Laura had an early dismissal. Are there any others? I need to be excused by 1230. So I don't know if that's gonna be an early dismissal. I'm hoping not, but just in case I do have to leave by 1230. I actually have a conflict of interest in 2103 Eaglewood. Katie, can you take over? Assuming that we're done or at that case before you're a departure. Yep. I'm not sure if all of it's on Melissa. Carly, it looks like Carly did respond to her. She wanted to talk about the case number in 19 and 22. But okay, so well, nevermind. Carly did let her know that her correspondence should be in person at the end. She needs to be present at the hearing. I hadn't read her email though. I'm not hearing any conflicts, but city staff, let me know otherwise. As the acting chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may be present, may present their evidence and the applicant may present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimonies should consist of facts each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence, pro and con, concerning the case. All decisions of this board are subject to the appeal of the Board of Adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. I think Terry is, Terry, can you please take attendance of the commissioners? Sure. Commissioner Dianne. Present. Commissioner Feaselman. Present. Vice Chair Gouldsby. Present. Commissioner Hamilton. Present. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Crager. Here. Commissioner Waders. Present. Commissioners, you have been forwarded several agendas for last several months. We'll take it step by step. Have, is there any adjustments to the minutes for the March 2nd, 2021 agenda? Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. I'd like to say that I haven't been on the meeting but I did have a question on one of the minutes. Sorry, I jumped too quickly. That's okay. This for the March 2nd? No, this is April, sorry. All right, let's close out March and then we'll address. All right, is there a second for the March minutes? Yes, I said second because this is Wanda. All right, thank you. Terry, may we have... Who was the first? Laura. Commissioner Feaselman. Okay. Commissioner Dayan. Approved. This is March. Yeah, yes. Commissioner Feaselman. Approved. Vice Chair Willisby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Craver. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Approved. Motion passes 7-0. And then to the second set of minutes, April 6th, 2021. Are there any adjustments? Jonathan, you had a comment. Yeah, there was... I'm looking for it right now. There was a part, I think it was 15. 15. COA 210015 805 Yancy Street. Says the commission has determined the accessory structure to laxifist an historical value or structural integrity to preserve it. But the case was on a non-contributing primary residence. Duplex. So maybe I'm missing something, but... Sure. So the first point is the applicant is proposing to demolish a non-contributing duplex structure dating from, but then the commission has determined that about the accessory structure. Yeah. So there's some language there that needs to be adjusted for that case. I'll go back and listen to it and we'll fix that. I can't even access these minutes through the agenda. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong every time I do. It just takes me back to the agenda. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong. Cause I don't get a hard copy anymore. Another edit to the April agenda, the members present list includes the two commissioners who were actually absent and are listed separately in the absent list. Okay. All right. Well, I'm going to move on to the next item. I'm going to suggest that we make, make the edits that are needed and then we'll revisit it next month. Remind me, do we need to make a motion to continue the minutes or do we just carry it on? No, you don't need to make a motion. Yeah. So we'll see these again. Updated for next month. Okay. Madam clerk, can you now please swear in any city staff that you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's cases? Do you members of staff swear from the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's cases? This is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief. Rosenberg. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Thank you all. We will now hear. Case. We will now hear. Case. COA. 2 1 0 0 0 1 2. 804 permanent court drive. This is a continuation from last month. Before we hear from staff to confirm whether there are any commissioners who may have a conflict of interest here in this case. Hearing none. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Terry keys. Swear in anyone who plans to speak for this case. Yes. Actually. The applicant actually emailed me to withdraw this case. So there's no one to swear in. I just need to report that the case has been withdrawn. If it's being withdrawn just so maybe you can in one sentence, someone update, because from the minutes I didn't understand what it was. Yeah. So Jonathan. What was presented to us and anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. There were a number of items that. Wanted to be pulled out of the application. And then one item adjusted to it without any. Drawings. Or further evidence to help support. So it got a little confusing. We asked to continue it. If they withdraw, do they need to wait to six minutes? The six months or they're fine. No, so it was withdrawn because once they went through the application, they had to go back to the application. And so once they, when they had adjusted their drawings, it actually kicked it into a minor. Status. And so they submitted a minor COA that was approved. And the major was no longer needed. Wonderful. Thank you. And so Carla, the changes that are outlined in the case that we have here that's being withdrawn right now. Are there no longer making those changes to the structure? Is that right? Yeah. A couple of them were made under the minor COA, but not all of them. Those drawings were from the previous. Period. I believe the previous hearing. Okay. So they made some of these changes. The ones that are. People can be made under the minor and the others. Correct. Off the table. Yes. Got it. Thanks. It's, it's my understanding that we don't need to take any action. I think that's a good point. So we can proceed with the, with the next case. Are there. Before we do any last comments. Okay. All right. We can now hear case COA. Two one zero, zero, zero. One four. One, six, two West. Ranger street. Again, this is a, another continuation from, from last month. Before we hear from, from staff to confirm, are there any commissioners who may have a conflict of interest here in this case? I'm Andy. It's the same as last month. I just want to make sure it's on the record that. Stuart does have working relationships with all the companies involved. And I am a commercial tenant. With Stuart in the crest building that is directly adjacent to this, I don't have any financial interest in this. So I have confirmed with staff that we are not having an actual conflict of interest. So I'm good to proceed. I just want that on the record. Okay. Thank you, Katie. Anyone else. All right. Terry, can you swear in anyone who will be presenting today? Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case? Is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. Okay. Mr. Arson, is there anyone else who was speaking? I know you had several others last time. There is not our. Okay. Only issue today is that we are still gathering. Some information for our project and revising some documentation. We've been in touch with Carla about this. So we would request that our case be continued until the June meeting. So that we have enough time to gather everything and get it to Carla in a timely fashion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for continuing the case. It sounds like we'll, we'll see different things in the following one. Carla Rosenberg planning department. I would just recommend continuing the case and just bringing up again that there is a six months from submit. Submittal. Deadline for submitting the case for approving. Or adjudicating the case. And maybe grace could clarify whether the six months is from time of applications of middle or from when the final documents that the applicant submits. Are complete. Hi. Grace Smith planning department. So that is correct. Typically the six months starts when the application is complete. Now that the applicant has made some changes, the, and the legal counsel can jump in as well. And if they have something to add, if Christa has another opinion, but I would say if the applicants making voluntary changes, then the six months. Which actually probably start over at that point, but it's at least from when the application is complete, but I will defer to legal counsel. Christa could grow city attorney's office. That's correct. I agree. Grace has said so we're, that six months hasn't started tolling yet. Well, before we have a motion just to catch up. Those who weren't here. This is case we heard last month. For a condominium. Behind Crescent. That will actually face Ramsey street. I think the applicant has several. Several other boards that they've presented at, and they're also looking at some things that we commented on. And it sounds like they'll make some adjustments and we'll hear. Some new evidence next month. So they had actually asked for us to continue their case. Last month and just like, just like today. Any questions from commissioners. Can I enter entertain a motion to continue. So move. Second. Okay. Christa could grow city attorney's office. Just for clarification. That's a continuous to the, the June meeting. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Dan. Commissioner Bezelman. Approve. Sure. Will be. Mr. Hamilton. Right. Mr. Johnson. Approve. Commissioner Craig. Approved. Commissioner waiters. Motion passes seven zero. Thanks very much. Look forward to seeing you next month. Thank you, Mr. Arson. Okay. Can city staff bring in the next. Applicants. And we will, we will now hear case. C O A. Two one zero zero zero one nine. This is 1106 ninth street demolition. Before we hear from staff to confirm, are there any commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? If not Terry, can you proceed with swearing in anyone who plans to speak. In this case, then maybe worth just to know who is, who's all on the call here. Okay. Do you swear our firm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief. I do. This is Tom. Tom Miller. I do. Thank you. I do. I do. Todd Addison. I do. And I think also we, we do need to confirm that you consent to this remote hearing. I can send. This is Tom Miller on behalf of the historic preservation society of Durham. I can send. This is canoe de bona owner of 1106 ninth street. I can send. This is Todd Addison designer of. 1106 ninth street. I can send. Thank you. And just for our clarification. Can I get a sense of who is speaking for. Or in opposition of the project. We'll be speaking for the project. Connor de bona will be speaking for the project. Todd Addison will speak for the project. And Tom Miller will speak against. All right. Thank you all. Carla, would you like to present. Present the case. Carla Rosenberg planning department. This is case COA 21, 00, 0, 19. 1106 ninth street demolition. The applicant is canoe de bona. The owner is de bona real estate LLC represented by canoe de bona. It's located on the east side of ninth street between West club Boulevard and Englewood Avenue. He's owned residential urban duplex. And it's a contributing structure in the Watts, and it's located on the east side of the street. And it's located on the east side of the district. The applicant is proposing to demolish demolish this structure. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. de bona to present his case. Just provide a brief summary of your intent. Okay. This is kind of de bona. I do have to say that. I've tried to make it clear in this. I kind of felt cornered into. Applying for a demolition quote unquote permit. When, in fact, I do not wish to demolish this existing structure or have it get to a landfill. I do wish to have it salvaged in whole or in parts for use. In other projects. And I understand. That preservation Durham has a very strict definition of what demolition is. Whether it's taking architectural components to be used for other projects. Or. Some other. Use. But what we all can agree is that we do not want to have this structure end up in the dump. So to that end, I'm pleased to report that. There are serious efforts to move the structure. And I feel that. And I appreciate Tom taking an interest in this property. Coming to see the property and, and, and hear out other options. That keep this from getting into the dump. So this move would save the structure. And it's something that I feel a lot of people could support. And, and I'll let Dr. Calhoun. Speak more on to the progress to that end. But to, to narrow this, this demolition permit. It was, I didn't know what else to do when asked. How do I, how do I get towards constructing the proposed. Home. The demolition permit seemed to be a very crude permit, but that's where we are. So I don't want to demolish it. I wish to have it moved. And as such, I think. Tom and I have come to a compromise. That would see this house preserved through a move. Despite. Demolition being part of this permit. Are there any questions from the board. From Mr. I have a, I have a question for staff, maybe. Are people allowed to apply for a move? Okay. I'm sorry. Colleen Berg planning department staff. I'm sorry. Applicants are able to apply for relocation. The criteria for relocation, only contemplate relocation within the district. They don't consider relocation outside the district. That in effect is a demolition. Within the district because the district is losing a resource. It's not a demolition. There are a number of different alternatives from the applicant. Regarding possibilities. He's suggested dismantling it. This for salvage, which would effectively be a demolition as well as relocating it outside the district, which would effectively be a demolition. The North Carolina state statutes treat. Relocations. And demolitions equally. So, I think that's a good point. I don't think that's a good point. I don't think it's going to be a good point. They can not be denied, but they can be approved with up to a 365 day delay. That delay reduced by the criteria outlined in the staff report. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And to the applicant. Could you pronounce your name? Divona. Yes. Kind of Mr. Kind of divona. Do you have a new location for it? Is that something in the works? Is that what you meant by. What's the, what's the plan for that? Yes, ma'am. So, um, the plans. Currently are to move this property, the existing structure at 1106 9th street. To 1107 North Mangum. Um, on. What, what, uh, to all accounts is an appropriate lot. On a, on a handsome and historic street in old North Durham. So house movers have been, um, reached out to. And, uh, This. Yeah. So. I will. Dr. Calhoun has actually been spearheading the efforts towards moving this property. So this is not a theoretical exercise. This is actually happening. And I'll let. Dr. Calhoun before, before you do, um, we do want to finish any questions for Mr. Debora. Um, from, from these mission, then we'll hear your testimony. Just one moment, please. Any, any other questions. From, uh, from commissioners. Jonathan. Um, from the report, it doesn't seem that there's a, uh, It's not repairable, but it does mention your financial, uh, uh, hardship. Can you elaborate on that? Well, when I purchased this property, um, I didn't even know what neighborhood I was in. I thought I was in old North Durham, not Watts Hillendale. Um, but I did purchase this to construct. A home for my boys and my mother. And this will be my personal, uh, residents. So, um, As soon as I bought it, I started to engage with, uh, with Todd Addison. In, you know, designing an appropriate, uh, Property or design for a construction. And I did not realize then that, um, I was going to be subject to the COA process and the commitment and time and additional efforts that, uh, that those permits were, uh, So this whole time I've been paying, um, Property tax insurance and a mortgage. Um, and that this, the delay from when I purchased it. Over seven months ago. Uh, was unanticipated and, uh, financially continues to be painful. So, um, Um, I am hoping for a resolution on both the move of this house. Now this is the path that we're going and the permission to, to build what is being proposed in the construction sooner rather than later. Um, so. You know, paying, paying every month for a property that I own, um, on what I think ultimately will be, um, a win for the neighborhood and, um, myself is something I want to, you know, get to sooner rather than later. So. Carl Rosenberg planning department. I just wanted to bring up that, um, the statute names the property owner as the, um, necessary entity to be experiencing that extreme financial hardship. Um, And I just wanted to make sure that when you speak of I, that you're referring to deep on a real estate LLC. Um, and perhaps Krista. Kukuro from the city attorney's office can clarify, um, how that should be read, how that statute should be read. Um, Krista Kukuro city attorney's office. Yeah. Thanks, Carla. Um, so when we're talking about a demolition, um, you know, the statute and our UDO provides up to 365 days for the delay and the basis for reducing that delay. Um, is the owner suffering an extreme hardship or being permanently deprived of all financial beneficial use from the property. And so we do have to focus on the owner, which here is deep on a real estate LLC. Um, Now with it being an LLC, you know, it's sort of a unique entity in that the purpose of that is, um, to sort of absorb the financial profits and liabilities. Um, those are essentially passed on to the members or the managers of that. Um, Entity, the limited liability company, which I know in this instance, um, Mr. Dubona is, um, the one of the managers, if not the only manager. So it's a, it's a bit nuanced, but I think, like Carlos said, when we're talking about the financial hardship of the owner, um, that does need to be framed within the LLC. Although I realize that, you know, depending on the exact structure here, um, there might be some kind of overlap ads between Mr. Dubona's, um, uh, liabilities by way of his management. Um, the company. So that's kind of down in the weeds, but I just want to, um, make a note of that on the record. I'm sorry. I didn't, I didn't clearly hear. Uh, so is it a soul's proprietorship or is it a, is it a, uh, A partnership. It's an LLC. Of which I'm the sole owner. And partner. So it is a sole proprietorship. Awesome. Well, it's an LLC. Okay. It is an LLC. Which I understand from the city attorney. It's the same thing, right? Um, well, there is, there is a, a legal definition, but in my case, uh, I am the business and the business is I, uh, the bank that I got this construction loan and purchase. Um, facilitates my transactions through the LLC. So member. It's more of a. You know, I, you know, the company owns it, but I own the company and the bank, um, requested that I submit it as my LLC just because that's how I've done business with this commercial. You are the sole member. Correct. Um, I have a question for you, Mr. community boner. Um, when you purchased a property, did you purchase it through a realtor or through the property owner? Through the realtor. And did the prop, did the realtor or even the previous property owner inform you that you were indeed in a locally, local historic district and what that meant. For you. No, no, that was not part of the discussion. And, uh, And I certainly would have, um, approached this differently. Uh, the previous owner who was, uh, out of state, uh, older retiree, um, had started some significant work to this property and the one next door. And so because of their experience of working on the house and had grand plans for changes, I never anticipated that there would be additional. Um, Requirements in trying to, um, Pursue what I wanted to do originally with the, with the place and still want to do the same thing, which is build a single family house. But, um, I'm now aware of, uh, The requirements that the COA is requesting. Fine in, um, Pursuing that appropriate path. Through additional knowledge after the fact. Uh, and so I'm okay with where we are. I just want to, um, Ensure that, you know, We continue making progress towards my ultimate goal of building this, uh, this house. Uh, that, that I've proposed in the other permit. Jonathan Danigan, do you have a timeframe? Uh, Estimated. Uh, if you're able to move the house. Uh, to relocate the house. Uh, for it to be completed. Uh, Uh, I am, I am trying to facilitate the move in any way I can, but I'm allowing, uh, At the moment, Dr. Calhoun and her daughter to be the point on contracting with the ultimate house mover. And making those arrangements on their end. So I've, I've made the house available for, um, For the move in a hope to ultimately save the structure. I've always come at this with. The desire not to demolish the house with a backhoe and put it into a landfill. So whether it's in parts or in whole, I want to support the idea of saving this structure. In some way. But the exact timeframe, I will defer to Dr. Calhoun. Who has been more intimately involved with. The ins and outs of the house mover and stuff like that. But from, from. From what I can tell, um, her efforts are ongoing. Are serious. And I suspect that this house will be moved within months. Oh, um, this is another question to staff. I'm just slightly confused. I don't know why I'm not understanding, but is this application changing from demolition to relocation? Because there's a lot of talk about relocation, but that's not what the, um, I don't, I don't think I really, I remember seeing a new site in the application or anything like that. Yeah. So April, I think we have to treat it as a demolition since it's being moved out would, you know, if it's being moved, I mean, I think we have to treat it as a demolition since it's, um, No longer going to be in the district. I forgot about that part. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, um, It is a little confusing because there is, um, there is a lot of talk about relocation, but we have to treat it as, as a demolition. And one thing to note, um, you know, if we put any sort of delay on it, relocation, relocation cannot happen until that, until that delay. Well, it's my, I'm hoping that there might be an opportunity to, I'll, I'll for the move. Uh, and I accept, um, a stay on any further construction until that move. Uh, is completed. So, um, I'm hopeful that if the commission decides that a stay is there recourse in the demolition permit as it's narrowly defined. Um, that's fine. But the move will make that stay of 365 days moved at point, at the point that the move is complete. Yeah. Your logic makes sense, Mr. Dabona, but we don't quite have the authority to sort of. Sequence things in that way. So. But, but I hear what you're saying. That makes sense. Well, can we limit the stay to. Um, mirror the timeline of the move. Well, we'll, uh, We'll discuss that as we, as we've heard all testimony and then, uh, this commission will have a deliberation. We'll be able to, to, to review that. So. Um, and I just have one last, I think, I think I have a, a last question for Mr. Kind of Dubona. Um, so, um, could you explain, is there a reason why you are not willing or you're unable to rehab the property to your liking? And if you need more space, potentially add an addition to the back or something like that. Is there a reason. Um, reasons why I can't. Um, cannot be rehab to save, to save the building because the purpose of these historic districts are to preserve historic buildings and preserve the historic, um, character and the feeling and these, these things. And, um, I just want a better understanding of the condition of the building, you know, why it needs to be moved or dismantled in the first place. Um, I certainly appreciate wanting to maintain the character of a neighborhood. The, the feel of a block face. Um, and, uh, and I appreciate. You know, some of the historical characteristics of these houses, but this duplex structure as existing, just doesn't, uh, doesn't lend itself to the vision that I have for my family. And as such, I. Don't diminish that it has value. It just doesn't have value to me in how I wish to live in the ultimate house that I, that I proposed. So that's why I think moving it or salvaging it in some way. Um, is very appealing. I just don't have a use or need for the duplex as it exists. So, you know, I, I flirted with the idea of trying to shoehorn the existing structure into my ultimate vision, but it just didn't seem financially viable or, um, worth the extreme effort to do so. So I think moving it, um, maintaining its, uh, it's all its charm and history and, and all that in Durham is something I want to support. But, um, you know, the. Maintaining the block face and the feel of the neighborhood. Uh, I think we'll be well, um, accomplished with what I'm proposing. So. Uh, it may not be original, but it's going to look very good. What, what I have planned. Yeah. Unfortunately, um, since that is another case, we have to consider it on its own merits. And so again, we're really focused on this house and its, uh, character. Um, and what it does. So. Well, essentially we've got to answer this one problem. And then we can get to the next one. Yeah. Um, I do want to be sensitive to, um, your, your other guests here. Um, Dr. Calhoun. Correct. Yes. Um, I know that you, uh, went to speak to it. I will remind you that, um, we are considering as a demolition, even though you are looking at efforts to, to relocate. Um, so if you can just speak to your, uh, favorability to, uh, to not having a delay or, um, speak, you know, to the demolition and not necessarily to what you had planned to do after we make a decision. Uh, good morning members of the commission. I am very happy to have an opportunity to speak to this. To the relocation of 1106. Ninth street to a vacant lot owned by my daughter, uh, Dr. Rob, Robin Burnett, uh, who would be here, but she is, uh, she works in Raleigh and she's a practicing physician with a case load, big case loads and she couldn't come. This in fact is a family project. Um, I'm, yeah, I'm Robin's mother and I'm serving a second term on the board for preservation Durham. My first term was about 10 years ended about 10 years ago when I moved, uh, um, I was appointed to the board about three years after I moved here from Washington DC, where I renovated several historic homes. And when I moved to Durham, I did the same. I moved into 510 Holloway street and renovated that upgraded it. And, uh, that was my initial residence in Durham, North Carolina. Um, I then, I did a lot of updating and, and, uh, finishing of that house and maintained this historic character. And then, uh, I looked across the street and purchased 519 Holloway and 523 and some of you might, if you were around and about 10 years ago, you might remember me as an advocate for Cleveland Holloway historic district. Uh, so I purchased, I had at one time, like I said, three homes, three houses in, uh, and, um, in, uh, Cleveland Holloway on Holloway street. So I renovated the other two that I wasn't living in and put them in responsible hands of, of homeowners. Um, and then I moved from Cleveland Holloway, after, uh, in 10 years and I was determined to do after 10 years and which is now I'm, uh, and before I resumed service on preservation Durham, I, uh, decided to do one more project. And so I was looking on Fayetteville street, which is a historic district and dire need of some help. And I picked out a house. And, uh, I was looking on Fayetteville street, which is a historic district and dire need of some help. And, uh, 1219 Fayetteville street, uh, which is the original parsonage of white raw Baptist church. And I have renovated it. I'm nearly finished. Uh, got some work to do on the exterior plants and bushes, et cetera. But, uh, that's nearly done and it has a plaque on it. It is a very historic structure in an African American community. And so that's my background. And my daughter lives at 11, 11 North Magnum, which was purchased in 2006, which is the year I moved down and purchased 5, 10 hallway. So we have big fans of historic preservation, historic homes, et cetera. So that's who is moving the house. Who wants to move the house? Okay. So, um, uh, Dr. Burnett purchased her home. In, uh, 2004 when I purchased 5, 10 hallway. And, and then she purchased a lot makes to her home on July 31st in 2007. It is free and clear. She owns nothing, owes nothing on that lot. And it has been the family's goal to, uh, that we would find an appropriate house, uh, in a historic community and move it to this lot. And so, um, all these years, you know, we've had that as a goal because we have an empty lot beside her house. Oh, the hot, the half of the light is grass and we, we just simply keep it that way and maintain it. The other half of the light is our parking lot and we just park on it, you know, and so, uh, this is what we're responsible homeowners. She has, uh, recently upgraded her home, 11, 11 North Mangum. And if you pass there, the front steps and all have been restored to the original, um, front steps, et cetera. And they're beautiful. So this is who we are and what we really want to do. And we couldn't, we had to do it when the timing was right. And when the, uh, when the, we found the correct house and the timing is right now to meet the family's needs at this time and the, uh, the house is the correct house as far as we're concerned. Well, we all were, uh, absolutely delighted to, to see this house and to go in it. It's a duplex. It's a, it was well built duplex, which means it is, uh, well, it has its problems on the inside, but it is, uh, and probably the roof, et cetera. But that doesn't scare us. And we, uh, you know, it's the two, the two units and the stairs going up, uh, on each side and all of that and some of the molding that's in it are absolutely perfect for what we need. My daughter has four children, two of them are grown. Um, and, you know, uh, doctor, her one daughter is a physician. And so she won't be, nobody's going to live in. Nobody, uh, is trying to move back home to, you know, to live. She's got two little ones growing up behind that, that, uh, right now in DA, you know, school. Uh, if I can, uh, yeah, okay. For a moment. Let me speak to you. All right. Just to remind you, we're focused on the, on the house and whether. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I want to let me, all right. Let me get to the point that you need right now, which is what are we doing to move this house? Okay. One, we have a general contractor, callus contractors located on Broad Street. Uh, we have ordered a survey by Cliff Cretel. If you know him, it's a person that does historic surveys. He's a third generation survey and whose office is within walking distance of the lot, where the house is going to be moved. Uh, the light is 0.2 acres, which is larger than the current placement of the house. We have a house moving company selection advisory team. I call it advisory. We have met. We meet on that house, including, uh, uh, Mr. Uh, the bono. The contractor, uh, that handle the historic preservation on Fayetteville street, and it's working on 1111 North Mangum is on the committee, on advisory committee. We are met with three firms. And we will interview one additional firm. Uh, each firm visits and the visits take, uh, uh, about two hours because they have to measure and go to two properties, et cetera. Uh, they have to plan their roots and the details of moving the structure. And so, uh, that's been going on. There's three firms with another one coming in. The first form, old house moving company came in, they can move the house and no questions about it. But their timeline is September. We don't want September. We want the house moved as soon as possible just as, as, uh, Mr. The bono wants. Um, we're very anxious to have that house move. Um, we have the other two contractors were waiting on a, is Blake movers and rigging, which will provide a space, uh, a price for us the day of tomorrow. Uh, the third move is James Brewington house movers. He was just there and he has the information. And I guess he will provide a price for us. Are we not scared of the price? Okay. So with your, Dr. Calhoun, but if, if I may, um, it just to help out our board a little bit, we, uh, again, the, the relocation piece, I think it's a little confusing with what the requirements are for, for the house. Um, so I think, I think we've heard. That yes, you, you want to, to move. And it is your, your goal. Um, if I may, uh, if we can move on to it, to another, um, uh, another person to speak for or against. Um, because I think, I think, um, as exciting as it is, I think, I think we got it. You want to, you want to move it, you know? Yeah. Um, okay. Uh, let's see. Mr. Addison, correct? Yes. Is there, is there anything you would like to speak for? Uh, and, and again, um, we're focused on the house itself, not necessarily what's coming or any sort of removing, but, um, you know, reasons why this house, uh, should not be held in delay for demolition. Yeah. Um, thank you. Uh, all of you board members and Dr. Calhoun and, and Kano for, um, uh, Thomas as well, um, for having me to, to be a part of this. Um, I can appreciate everything you're doing. And first of all, you know, having been a recipient of the George and Mary pine, uh, preservation award back in 2014, as well as the founders award for the Edward Kitter, Graham house in Chapel Hill. Um, I can appreciate preservation. Um, I would suggest having visited this place that. I would be for its removal for the sake of my client. Um, Kano Devona. Um, simply because currently it's a very small. Duplex. Every room is small. It would, it would really, in my mind, it would require gutting the whole thing to read, to read, redo it. And by the time you do that, you could, you could certainly build new. So why not relocate, uh, the building and start fresh. And in the, in the vein of trying to, to achieve an architectural look and feel for the street that is similar to what is there. So I guess that's all I've got to add. Uh, commissioners, do you have any questions for Dr. Calfoon or Mr. Addison? Hearing nine. Um, Mr. Miller, would you like to, to speak again? I believe you were in opposition to the project. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. And my remarks are on behalf of preservation Durham, which is the trade name for the historic preservation society of Durham. Uh, and then for the record, let me tell you a little bit about myself as the foundation and basis for some of the testimony I'll give. Uh, again, my name is Thomas R. Miller. I'm a licensed attorney and for 30 years, I was a head of the attorney general's office, real estate regulatory section. And part of what I did in that area was advise cities and counties on proceedings like this. And I also, um, advise the registers of deeds for the 100 counties in North Carolina. I'm also an architectural historian and I have done detailed house histories for dozens and dozens of houses and other buildings in Durham, North Carolina for various purposes. Uh, and so, uh, I offer that as a foundation for my expertise. Um, let me tell you a little bit about the history of this house since this is the historic preservation commission. Um, the, uh, subdivision here was platted in 19 eight by the, uh, Durham suburban and power company. Uh, this is a successor to the, um, Durham traction company, which laid out wall town that hence the numbered streets. Um, and, uh, these lots were, uh, Oh, the east side of this street was, uh, on the southern end in this block, uh, was not developed until the middle 1930s. Uh, in the 1930s, uh, the gentleman named, uh, Commodore Thomas council, who was the sea of BC headache powders, uh, purchased, uh, Uh, Five lots here, uh, and built duplexes on all of them simultaneously. Uh, the subject property at 1106 is the center duplex of five. All five remain today. Uh, and until recently all five were occupied. This one, uh, since Mr. Dubona's acquisition of the property has not been occupied. Uh, but it's in pretty good condition. And I'm very, very grateful to Mr. Dubona for, uh, taking us through taking me through a tour with me was Dr. Calhoun, who's a member of the preservation Durham board, uh, and members of her family. Uh, and I have to say that, uh, The interior of the building is quite charming, uh, in that it is so almost completely original. Um, the building is in good structural condition. Of course, it's a little bit aged on the inside. The, uh, pretty much all the finishes, the woodwork, the casing, the door knobs, the doors, uh, the stair rail, the banisters, the floors, all of its original, uh, is it a little worse for wear? Yes. Uh, wear and tear has, uh, and the maintenance that you would have for that, uh, hasn't been tended to like it should. And clearly the plaster work on the interior walls, uh, needs to be repaired. And in the, I noticed a significant plaster problem in the ceiling in the right hand unit as you face the property. Uh, but all of those things in, in our opinion could be, uh, corrected. So, uh, there's no sign of water coming in, no sign of any particular deterioration. Um, the house is clearly part of an ensemble of two story side by side, do two story duplexes. Um, and in that regard, it's our position that, uh, it is, um, uh, more than just by itself, a contributing property to the, uh, historic district, but it's part of an ensemble of buildings, which contribute to the character of the district. Um, now, having said all of that, um, I wanted to say, uh, it's the position of preservation Durham. Uh, first of that, this structure, um, under the terms and policies of, of historic districts should be maintained and rehabbed where it is. Uh, of course the problem with that is, and under the kind of very fault situation that you and me and all the parties are in, in a demolition case is, is that you can't require that. Uh, that is entirely in the hands of Mr. Dubona and he doesn't have to have a good reason for demolishing it. Uh, he is entitled to demolition. The question is, should there be a delay? Uh, we view removal of a, of a contributing structure from historic district is, uh, a remedy of last resort. Uh, and so, uh, it is our position that, uh, this house should be, uh, removed to another site only as a last resort. Of course, whether it's a last resort is up to Mr. Dubona. Now he and I have spoken, uh, and I respect his position. He does not want to have a duplex structure. He has spent a great deal of energy working with, uh, Mr. Addison, uh, to come up with a single family home for this site that he likes. And it's one that, uh, the design that they have worked together on is one that is informed by the district. That's the next case. And I'll defer on that for the moment. Um, so I appreciate all of those things. If in fact, uh, Mr. Dubona is not going to save this house, uh, the existing duplex at 1106, then the historic preservation society supports the removal of the house to the lot at 1107. And while it's not necessarily in front of us flowing from this application, uh, the criteria in, uh, the commission's, uh, standards for removal, I think are satisfied in that this house will leave this site. Uh, again, it's a last resort. It's not good preservation, uh, but it will go to a site, uh, which where, uh, currently there is a vacant lot where a house once stood, a period house once stood, and that this duplex, uh, in its, uh, current styling condition in time period, uh, is not far off the context of the historic structures surrounding it over in the, um, uh, Old North Durham neighborhood. Now that neighborhood is not a local district, but I believe, uh, uh, the site there is in a national registered district. So all of these consider considerations we think are pertinent. So with regard to what the, what the actual result of this case should be, uh, it's our position that Mr. Dubona has not made a very good case for demolition and that, um, uh, in terms of historic preservation, but setting that aside, that's his call. Uh, and if it is to be demolished, then we believe there should be a 365 day delay. Um, the criteria for reducing the delay, we do not believe are present here. Essentially, Mr. Dubona is saying that it's expensive delay, a delay is expensive, but he has not laid out the extreme hardship that he has to show that is different from any other property owner. We do not want the delay to serve as any sort of punishment. And this is always an issue with, with the delay case. The purpose of the delay is to create time to find alternatives to demolition. And those, there can be some alternatives are, uh, a change of heart by the owner, uh, or a change of plan or maybe a sale of the property to somebody who wants to preserve it in situ. Uh, all of those things might occur, but you need time to explore them. If in this case, Mr. Dubona is not going to sell it to somebody else and is not going to preserve it in sight, then we support its relocation. Uh, we believe a delay, uh, we'll serve that too. Uh, relocation of houses, moving houses is a big operation. And the farther, you know, the first problem with any relocation is finding a suitable lot. Fortunately, uh, uh, Dr. Calhoun and her daughter, Dr. Burnett actually have a pretty good lot to move it to the distance is, is far. And because it's a two story structure, the house at 1106 will probably have to be cut up. All of this is expensive. Uh, and I appreciate that Mr. Dubona is not charging, uh, Dr. Calhoun and Dr. Burnett for this structure, but proposes to simply give it to them and to cooperate, uh, in terms of time and, and access to the property, um, in order to facilitate the move. This is really good. Our biggest concern is, is that, um, we make a decision today, uh, without all the information that we need to know that the move is in fact going to happen. Uh, we would preservation Durham would feel a lot better if contracts were in hand and the various permits had been studied and that we were sure that we could get, uh, the house at 1106 over to the lot, uh, at 1107 North Mangum. Uh, so for, I've said all of that in order to explain that while we're asking for a 365 day delay, uh, we would propose to have the parties use that time to finalize their arrangements to move the house. And once those arrangements were finalized and the house was ready to be moved, we would come back with, uh, Mr. Dubona and join with him, uh, as an applicant to modify the delay, uh, to end it so that the house could be moved. Um, and we could do that on your, uh, regular schedule, uh, and I then I would leave it up to staff and staff's counsel as to whether or not we may so fashion an order, uh, that the delay could be cut short administratively. If it could be demonstrated that, uh, certain conditions had been met with regard to, uh, the contract and process of moving the house. In other words, we do not want to burden Mr. Dubona with waiting, uh, two, three, or even perhaps even four extra weeks while we found a spot on the commission's calendar. Uh, in other words, if we could, uh, write the order sufficiently, uh, with sufficient specificity so that Ms. Rosenberg could say, okay, you've met the requirements. We're cutting the delay off. We would be content with that. Um, and so essentially that's how we see this case. Um, as you know, I appeared before you a month ago on a property, uh, just down the Englewood Avenue, not very far from this one. Um, we're concerned about this historic district and the financial incentives that people are feeling to, to, uh, demolish, uh, uh, contributing structures in order to place new ones. Um, that one was a troubled property and reasonable people could differ about whether or not its preservation on site was practical. That's not the case with this, this one. This is a, uh, contributing structure. Uh, it's an important one. It's in good condition. It could be rehabbed as it is as a duplex and it could be converted into a single family home, uh, while maintaining the exterior of the house. Um, as a matter of fact, these five duplexes, uh, uh, no two are exactly alike. And some of the duplexes, which have the same general shape just to the north of it, some of those have a single front door rather than a double front door. Uh, and I believe that, and we would support a change to this building, to a single front door. If Mr. Dubona changed his mind and wanted to convert this property to the single family home that he wants to have here. So, uh, that's our position on it. We urge you to impose the 365 delay with the condition that, uh, if the parties can finalize their arrangements to, to move it, uh, that the 365 day delay will be cut short to facilitate the removal of the house from this lot to the, um, lot at 1107 north mangan. If there are any questions I'm available and I'm anxious to help the commission make a correct and, uh, nuanced decision in this difficult case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Um, are there any questions for Mr. Miller from commissioners? Andy, can I go back to a question for Mr. Dubona? Uh, yes. Go ahead. Was that Laura? Yeah. Commissioner. Um, Mr. Dubona of all the houses in Durham to demo and build a new one. Why, why, why this one? Why did you choose this one? Why did you buy a duplex? Which sounds like it's in relatively good shape with the intent to dismantle it. What about this property? Um, was a match for you. I love the location. Um, and, uh, it's the property that came up on the market. And I felt it was, uh, a good price for what I envisioned to be. Uh, a location for a single family home. So I saw no, you know, initially I saw no conflict with my idea of. Um, bringing a very appropriately designed house to that block face. And the market presented itself. Um, you know, there, so I wouldn't say of all the houses, of course, if I had my dithers, there'd be a couple others, but they were scooped up before I could get my hands on them. Um, so yeah, to make it short, the market presented this opportunity and I, and I wanted to take advantage of it. Thanks. I also have a question for Mr. Kano DiBona. Um, did you consider in the process? And when you learned that you were in a locally zoned historic district, which specifically has a, a design zoning overlay to protect it, to protect the, um, district and maintain historic properties as much as possible. Did you consider just selling the property? No, no, I mean, I, um, I am a hundred percent supportive of the idea of maintaining the character of a neighborhood, doing appropriate design, appropriate proportion. Uh, so I, there's no conflict in wanting to maintain the character of a neighborhood. And I've been involved in several properties. Um, where, uh, I've seen, um, where, um, I've seen, um, where either historic tax credits or other accolades for preservation were given. Um, in Trinity Park and some other places. But I've never, uh, gone through the COA process. So in other, in other projects. That were sensitive to character, design, and historical context. without going through the convoluted COA business. It was a much more simplified way of doing construction and remodeling. So I didn't know what I was getting into when I purchased this property. But now that I do, I see that there is a lot of overlap in appreciating the character in neighborhood. I mean, when I when I talked to Todd Addison about designing a house for this property, we spent a lot of time thinking about what's going to be appropriate. And after getting bogged down into the COA process and looking at the hundreds of pages of documentation that the Watts-Hillendale neighborhood had, the tree thing about which which trees we can put up, and then talking to Carla and going through all the the checklist. The house that I designed with Todd remains exactly the same. So that just speaks to how much overlap there is in sensitivities for what is appropriate. So again, Mr. Dubona, we have to be able to bring resolution to this before we can review, you know, you comment on sensitivities, but we can't review that until we've closed out this piece. So go ahead. Go ahead. I'd like to I'd like to speak. We are incurring quite a bit of monetary issues in planning for the move. And someone wants us to sign a contract with the mover without the approval to move the house. That's not fair. And I think that the we have hired a surveyor. We have hired someone to do the construction drawings. And we have expended a lot of money so far. And it's only been about three weeks, three, four, three weeks. So I understand Dr. Caldoun. Unfortunately, what the way that this the way that the statues read, it's so how let me just review this. When when we're making our decision today, we're weighing it against three criteria that are part of the North Carolina General Statues. But essentially, they're summed up as will the property owner suffer extreme hardship. So when we're looking at this, we're considering it under the LLC. And I know I understand and completely understand that a lot goes into the cost of even doing a project. I'm an architect. So I understand I see it every day. And other members of our board, but we do have to consider the property owner and their hardship ship to is the property owner will be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or the return of such property by the virtue of delay or three, the building has no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district. So those are the criteria that that we're reviewing this under. And so thank you for sharing. I just unfortunately, we can't take it on as part of our decision. If I may add the Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for a moment, I think Dr. Calhoun, though, does make a good point. And that has to do with how do we manage this issue of removal. And I'm just arguing from a preservation point of view and the position that the Board of Preservation Durham has taken. If in fact, we cannot save this house on this site. And let's just say that that's up to Mr. Debona and he doesn't want to do it. So that that answers that part of the question. The next thing is, is then we support its removal. We would like to we would like to know that the removal was a more of a sure thing than it is now. And we appreciate that. Though I want to say Dr. Calhoun has a fabulous record of historic preservation in Durham, and that heartens us. Also, we believe that she and her daughter are sincerely interested in this property and have the resources to make this happen. But removals are not necessarily just up to the people. All kinds of things have to happen like closing streets and lifting wires and all those kinds of things. We think that that is why a delay is appropriate. And but we want to make sure that your order, your decision contemplates cutting the delay short once this removal process reaches a certain level of certitude. And so that would be your call. But my suggestion was, is that once they have gotten to the point where Ms. Calhoun, Dr. Calhoun and her daughter entered into a contract with a mover to move the house. And then we could all come back to the Preservation Commission, which would probably be the cleanest way. But quite frankly, I would be content and Preservation Durham would be content if we wrote the order in such a way as that once that was in hand and it could be demonstrated to the city staff, Carla Rosenberg, that the delay would be ended without further discussion or debate by the Commission. Of course, you would have to be satisfied with that. Our point here is, if the best thing we can do to save the historic fabric of Durham is to move this house, then we're for it. If it's the best thing, then we're for it. And we don't want to delay the parties or make the removal more difficult. We want to become part of the moving process and its cheerleaders. And so the order that you create that facilitates that is the order that we want you to make and that we support. One thing that we need to do is to give Mr. DeBona opportunity to rebut the comments from Mr. Miller. But before we do, are there any last questions from board members for Mr. Miller? I have one. And Mr. Miller, it may be a comment for staff, too. Are the other duplexes on this block, are they contributing structures? I did not have the opportunity. So in the National Register nomination and in the documents for the creation of this historic district, all of them are contributing. They were all built at the same time by the same person. That's a remarkable story in itself, but it's probably not pertinent to this case at this point. They are all currently occupied. They are all in very original condition, at least on the outside. This is the only one of these buildings that I have actually ever been in personally. I was on the housing appeals board once many years ago. Another one of these buildings was the subject of a complaint on the housing code. It was fairly rough on the inside, but I don't remember it well enough to make a comment. But currently, the other properties appear to be in good shape on the outside. Two of the buildings, the southern most two buildings have been converted into condos, but are still two unit buildings. This property and the two above it to the north, which are architecturally more of a set, all appear to be in relatively similar conditions. Could you spruce them up? Yes, should you spruce them up? Definitely. But they're not in a deteriorating condition and they're all contributing and are identified as such in the district documents. A quick question for Krista Kukuro. Is what Mr. Miller is proposing technically and legally possible within what this group can do? Krista Kukuro City Attorney's Office. I believe that that would be legally possible. I understand that there's a lot of interests at play here. And I think if sort of the will of the participants and the commission is what Mr. Miller has described, I think that that is acceptable. I think I was talking with staff and I believe if the commission sort of goes down that road, I think we would eventually at some point during today's meeting need a recess to sort of discuss further as staff can come up with language. But from a legal standpoint, that's something that is appropriate. Thanks. What do you say? Is it all right if I say anything right now? Go ahead, Dr. Calvin. It's a chicken egg thing. I got to hire somebody to dig a foundation. That is just to break it up. That's significant. We don't want to dig a foundation and wait a few months so rain can go into the foundation before we move the house. We've got the survey. We're going to have this and that. I don't want to sign a permit for a contract for a mover and a significant amount of money to move a house and show the signed contract so you can approve the move. Why would I commit to that before I knew I could move the house? So I need to move quick. I need to move before September. It's in the best interest of my family and Mr. De Bono. So we need either approve it, the move, or let us know now that you're not going to approve it at all. I don't know why I have to commit a bunch of money to to contractors before you can approve. Andy, and I guess Krista, can we just make the shortening of the 365-day contingent on her getting those other contracts and so then it kind of all comes together at once. So the chicken and the egg both come in at the finish line together, as it were. Is that a possibility? I'm happy to speak on that. Krista, good girl city attorney's office. I certainly appreciate the efficiency of that approach. I think that that I think under the statute, that doesn't quite work because of the wording in regards to the delay and kind of what the commission has to consider and the intent and purpose of the delay is to sort of find the alternative. And I think we talked about that sort of in anticipation of today's discussion of staff, whether it could be the delay, could be shortened or conditioned on this arrangement of moving. And I just don't think that that is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that? Yes. And Mr. DeBona, if you want to take your moment to rebut Mr. Miller's comments briefly if there's any. Well, I didn't want to disturb this flow of consciousness here, but I will just say, look, we're all trying to shoehorn. Look, in the end, I think we can all begrudgingly or willingly or agree that saving the house is what we all want to do. Moving the house is a viable option that we can all support. But we're trying to shoehorn this against the backdrop of this 365 day delay. I don't think the delay is necessary. I can commit in writing or some other way to maintain the structure as is, to not do anything to the property until Dr. Calhoun and our daughter completes the move. And then the next permit application that we'll hear after this will start. So I'm not any, there's no risk of me mowing the house over. I can voluntarily delay without obbing together some peculiar 365 days minus so many days. And I want to give Dr. Calhoun the flexibility to move forward unhinged to any additional decision or whims that we might encounter down the road. So I can I can put my own stay on the property. We don't need a 365 day statutory kick in the head. I can just say, look, I'm not going to do anything with the property until the house is moved at which time this demolition, which we're not demolishing is such a narrow vocabulary until such time this the house is moved. And then this whole demolition thing is moot. We're trying to force a solution in this demolition permit, which seems such a pain in the neck. I would say, look, tell me what I need to sign to keep the house maintained, keep the grass cut and and allow and I will help facilitate the move. At such time then, you know, that's the end of this. Okay, understood. Understood. Is there anything else you'd like to comment on? Now, I'll just say, look, I appreciate the time and consideration that both Tom and Carla have put into this. I understand it's a little peculiar in that this demolition permit, as it reads, creates some some logistical and, you know, some additional paperwork. But in the end, I think moving the house makes any demolition talk moot, and I certainly appreciate their leadership and allowing me to kind of go down this path, no matter how convoluted it appears at the moment. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, again, please. I mean, our position is very much fashioned based upon our knowledge and understanding of what the rules require. I mean, our position is, is that that since all the commission may do is delay 365 days, and it may shorten that delay only on the showing of extreme hardship. That's the one that's pertinent. I mean, clearly, this property is historically valuable, and clearly it has, there is beneficial use flowing from it. Since there's no extreme hardship, there's no hardship here that's different from the hardship any property owner feels in owning a piece of property, hardly extreme. Our position is, is that the 365 days, it's not a punishment, but an opportunity to reset and rethink about what the disposition of an important historic property should be. Again, if that's ultimately going to be up to Mr. Dubona, and if he wants to wait out the time period, he can. But, but what we want to do is use the time period as the statute expressly contemplates. It says that if you order a delay, we are supposed to get together and look for alternatives to demolition. And one, the alternative for demolition we spent, we've been talking about here is moving. If, if we'd like to use the time delay, we're not just going to sit around on our hands. If we can bring this proposal to move this house up to that level of completion where we have confidence in it, then we are all for eliminating what's left of the balance of the delay so that the house moving project can go forward. If, however, in the time period, we discovered that the house moving project is not practical and will not happen, then we want the delay to stay in place so we can look at other alternatives. That's what the delay is all about. It's what the statute contemplates, what your rules contemplate. And so we want you to exercise your authority within your jurisdiction to accomplish the goals and policies of North Carolina with regard to local historic districts. And, and I really do appreciate it. But we would feel much more comfortably working within these rules rather than essentially taking the position that somehow the desire to move the house, however sincerely felt, however much resources are being put into it that makes this mood, it's not mood. The questions are very much alive and they challenge all the standards that the statutes and your own rules create. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I think we've exhausted some of the same points over again. So I'm going to go ahead and move us to to end the presentations by presenters and move to deliberation amongst commissioners. Is there is there anyone who would like to start us out and also note that Commissioner Pieselman had to leave. So we still have quorum, but just note that she is as well. Andy? Yes, please. Jonathan. First of all, I have to say thank you very much because what we're hearing here is both applicants, opponents, everything are people that care and want this done the right way. I understand we have to follow the statutes and we have to follow there's reasons for all this because not every applicant is like you. Mr. Dibona and Dr. Calhoun, they will look at this as a precedence and then we will have a problem to preserve. That being said, I agree that the chicken and egg that you talked about is an important one and that we need to maybe find a solution that does work here. And concerning keeping the property, you're going to keep the property because that's what you want to do with your property. I believe that there's no signatures. It's not in my opinion, it's not a deal to conduct with the Store Preservation Commission, but more of a policy that we have to follow. My question is to Steph. Is there a possibility because I don't see a way that we there is no hardship. I don't see a hardship here like Tom regarded to. Is there a way that we can commit that we have the 365 delay but the moment because we don't have any other options here. It sounds like Mr. Dibona will wait the 365 days and build his house. So the best option and I think Tom touched that too the best option would be is to make sure that this relocation happens as quickly as possible in the best manner. And it sounds like we have the best people working on it to accomplish that with all the capabilities needed. Can Steph commit to even if I know we have like a month before to submit papers for a review with the commission that we will attach it to any because we know we have discussed this once we see the plans once they have plans of specifically move moving that will satisfy also the historical preservation society. And it sounds like it will. Can we just advance them to the nearest meeting, even if they're not in the timeframe. Does that make sense. Well first of all I'll say we don't know for sure that Mr. Dibona won't have a change of heart or change of plan regarding building his house on the slot after it's been demolished or after the wait is up. And maybe he will reconsider sale of the property or rehabilitation. Which is the better alternative to relocation. So I just wanted to put that out there. Regarding bringing the application back for the commission we need basically a two month head headway. So if we knew in advance it's actually exactly seven weeks we could add them to the agenda. So it's not it's not a the very next time but it's basically two meetings afterward. And because of the staff report deadlines and notification. But if we we ask here but all we we need here really is just proof of relocation capability and scheduling and is it possible that we don't we can jump that step. That's when I'm asking. And then we can just come in the next meeting. I will defer to my supervisor on that. Ms. Smith would you like to speak on that. It's possible that we could we could shorten the seven weeks for something like this if we're not having to do a full staff report. We still have to meet the minimum notice requirements. And that's that's 100% outside of Ms. Rosenberg's control and my control. We still have to meet those. So I would say that the probably the least amount of lead time we could probably work with would be about five weeks. I mean I think we could shave two weeks off maybe. And that's about the time it takes for us to prepare the staff report. But we have to do notice and we do a little extra notice for these virtual meetings. So I would say five weeks. Would it be possible to it doesn't sound like a five week lead time for the applicants is they're going to need more than five week lead times once they close everything and they have all the dates and abilities. Will it be possible to have the conversation and this may be to the rest of the commission to read a look at plans and not well not plans but it's more than plans the ability to implement the plans with with specific timelines and vendors with that suffice. Hang on one second. We're having a chat about this. Hang on one minute. May I can I add a little one little thing quickly. Go ahead Mr. DeVino. Very quickly. Okay. If I may if I accept the 365 day delay can Dr. Calhoun and her daughter continue unabated with the move and then we return not for additional permission to move but we simply return after the move has completed and the petition will be simply for me to eliminate the remainder of the delay. Allow Dr. Calhoun and her daughter to complete the move and then I'll come back and petition the board to make the remainder of the 365 day delay null and void. So let's let's remove the the permission to move or proof to move the proof will be in the move. Once the move is complete then I'll come back to ask for a reduction in the delay that may eliminate a lot of this chicken in the egg business. I specifically have an issue with that because that's not we need to follow we need to follow the process and the product we can't right now you're the delay means we need to delay it and we can that's how I see it maybe another commissioner thinks the otherwise. Yeah I thought the actual relocation outside of the district was considered a demolition. A demolition. So you have to wait 365 or you know the district seems arbitrary I mean there was no such district when this house was made I mean it's being moved within the city limits I don't know when why we can say zoning is our arbitrary too. Mr. DeVino, Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller I'm going close that I appreciate your additional comments and we're going to tee you on with commissioner discussion but I do I do have an important question on this how you fashion your order and I invite you to ask your council whether or not a self executing order that does not require that this come back it is possible in other words Mr. DeBona does not want to come back and get back in the queue and wait and we don't want him to either so if you understood I think I think you've commented on that Mr. Miller and we will certainly take your consideration we are trying to find a solution for both parties thank you. Can you say a delay a little bit? Dr. Calhoun please make it brief. I'll make it brief. A delay I will lose contractors I will lose individuals that I had been working diligent with to get this done as expeditiously as possible and if you're going to unexpeditious me then I'm in trouble. Okay understood thank thank you very much yes ma'am all right okay commissioners are there any other comments or thoughts that we can review with staff or Grace you mentioned that you guys were talking about a few things or any outcomes? So it's virtually impossible to keep up with the conversation that's going on between the commissioners and the folks participating in the meeting and us have a conversation in the background so I think the best thing right now is we take a five minute recess staff can speak with the legal counsel because I can't keep up to be honest and so and just be honest and you have a few minutes to think clearly about this this is a very important issue so we would like to speak with our counsel if that's okay. Sure thing um can I entertain a motion for a recess? How long is the recess you say Andy? I would ask for at least five minutes if you can give us more that would be great. All right let's take a 10 minute recess and we will return thank you thank you Hey hey Tom can you hear me? I can. Hey I just wanted to say thanks for your last minute suggestion on trying to make this an automatic resolution. I don't know if they Yes not last minute it's it's frustrating because obviously this kind of thing doesn't happen but I believe it's a matter of just ordinary administrative law that the commission confession or an order that would be what we call self-executing in other words you come up with an empirical standard that when met the the 365 day delay goes away and I had suggested the contract with the moving company because it seems to me although I could be wrong is is that the first thing you do if you're going to move a house sign the contract with the moving company you don't take a foundation if you don't know if you're going to move it and so it seems to me if if if that's the first thing if Fay and Dr. Burnett can get that contract sign give you a copy you submit it to the planning commission Carla sees it and then the delay goes away no getting back on the calendar no scheduling a new hearing it seems to me that's the way to do this and I'm hoping that the legal counsel will advise staff that is that's the way it can be done clearly the statute says you know you impose the delay and you use the time of delay to find an alternative to demolition I think it is a strange way to read it is is that you have to wait all the way through even if in the second week of the delay you find the solution you still have to wait a year before you execute it that's not a fair reading of the statute and I believe how they've been have they been interpreting it that way I I don't know I don't think they get very many cases one of the things that has always bothered me a little bit and this is a funny place for you and I did discuss something like this is that the statute that can't may I interrupt we we can hear you all in the background it's oh you're just all right well we you would just give we can you sorry we didn't know you here's how do I mute myself I will I will meet all participants right now um and then if you can't unmute yourself when we return please just let us know and raise your hand and I'll make sure I give you those controls back sorry for the interruption everyone we will be back shortly staff is just concluding the project's for the delay staff is returning okay we will continue uh mind commissioners um please turn on your video cameras if you haven't um Grace or Krista is is there any information that you would like us to consider in our further deliberation uh christa kukra city attorney's office um thanks um so we talked about this um is and some of the kind of discussions about specific proposals how this might proceed um and I'll sort of walk you through staff's analysis um and and sort of suggestion on how the the commission ought to handle this case um so I think as a first matter um the statute is fairly specific on the scope of the delay and when that can be reduced um uh certainly there's time for for more discussion but in terms of um there being extreme hardship of the owner or being deprived of beneficial use don't think that that criteria has been met in order to reduce the delay um so I do think just based on what's been presented today um thus far I believe the board has a has an obligation it would be my suggestion that there be a 365 day delay um the intent of the delay is to find alternatives and I think you know Mr Miller spoke about this most certainly relocation is an alternative it's not the most desired alternative perhaps but it is um an alternative to just straight out demolition um and so what has what the board's been discussing I think is well what does that look like what is sufficient for the for the commission to believe that in fact um the relocation will happen and I think that's an area where more discussion needs to happen what what does the board feel comfortable in in terms of evidence um proof uh that the relocation will happen I know that there's been some work done um sounds like substantial conversations and a lot of effort in that realm and so just the board will have to decide exactly what it wants to to see in that regard um and then on in terms of a self-executing order um staff is of the opinion that that this would need to come back to the commission for any sort of amendment to reduce or eliminate the delay once the intent of the delay under the statute has been met that there's an alternative and the board feels comfortable with that um that is not something that staff would review administratively to eliminate or amend so I'll pause there answer any questions that is the suggestions of staff and most certainly Grace and Carl if you have additional comments to add feel free to jump in let me any oh please one other thing um you know I think one of the items that we talked about staff is that there was a case um last year 2020 is sort of a time where but um B street grocery you may recall I think over um near broad that there was a 365 day delay imposed um for the demolition of a contributing property and they decided to relocate it that was a conversation that sort of um accompanied the the demolition request but you know that was I don't think there was finality around that and then they got to a place where they were were sure they were going to be moving that site that property that building within the district um and so the application came back there was a revision to the coa and essentially the the commission voted to reduce the delay to eliminate what was remaining of the delay so that was a case not too long ago that I think is is analogous to this case and just wanted to refresh the commission's memory about that so we do have a recent example of something similar happening and I think we um could proceed similarly here thank you any questions from the commission yes please john I mean to Christa um the uh we have already before given staff the ability to um if a certain criteria ha occurs the ability to decide on our behalf without another commission meeting is that possible in this case um I think usually when that happens that's sort of grounded in the criteria um for you know modifications and amendments um sort of to the physicality of the property I think because of the um sort of the weight of this decision um and the sort of complexities behind it I don't think it's appropriate for this to go to staff for a decision Andy may I may I ask a question to the commissioners uh to see if this is fine because I think that will allow the stream lining it sounds like the the alternative is here we're not going to have a different alternative and it would uh Dr. Calhoun as a proposing is something that we haven't seen before with someone that really cares about historic preservation uh so I think that if we can find a solution that will help all this uh be facilitated quickly um we should do it that's my opinion my question is would it be possible to work on plans that they will have so they can continue their uh their work forward for this relocation and once they have set dates prices vendors they come back to us and that will still give the five weeks because the five weeks uh uh that we need according to uh to grace uh will uh well Dr. Calhoun and Mr. DeBona will need that five weeks anyway because they'll have that lead time and we can approve it before the move and not delaying their move if that makes sense are you saying continue the case for no no no I'm saying we need to delay it I I do believe we have to delay it this is a relocation out of the district I don't and from what we are hearing from uh sitting uh these attorney and we should not um we don't have any privilege here to change the this is a this is a demolition in every sense and how we should regard it I'm only asking if it's possible that if they have all the paperwork everything ready showing us that everything is done and the only thing needed now is that relocation itself to happen that we can convene in the fastest manner which would be a five-week uh a period and if the commission agrees to that so to summarize that too Jonathan you would you would vote for a 365 delay and then hope to see a amendment to that in the future that everything been able to work out and will be seen uh Mr. DeBona and uh Dr. Calhoun again in the future right for the alternative that we know is will happen but we just need more proof I I guess because otherwise we could approve that already now with that alternative um yeah I I agree with that but I just want us to be careful about stating making comments that this is the only option and there will be no option in between that time we don't know that you know people can agree to change your heart to change plans so let's because that's the whole purpose of the delay so let's not say that just because we have an option in front of us there's still other options and this relocation keep in mind relocation is still kind of on the bottom um and then outside of the if you're going to relocate relocate within the district and then um but this one is outside of you know you see what I'm saying so I don't agree with everything you said yeah the tears to tears to it so I agree with I agree with what you said Jonathan other than that um I agree with the 365 um um day delay I don't want to encourage people I don't want people to feel encouraged to do things like this um because the house doesn't fit their needs um there are alternatives if you can rehab it on the interior without us our review at all to fit your needs you can make this duplex a single family home people have done all sorts of things on the interior um and that would have been our preference right to it's still it's still maintain some of the character some of the characters a character as well and then maintain the exterior um to to continue to have that historical feel um so I don't want that to be your precedent um because we already see it happening especially in Fayetteville street you know people wanting to this is a historic black uh district we don't have that's the our only one and um if people feel encouraged to think this house doesn't fit my needs I can just remove it um and build something new anyway I agree it's not easy to relocate this is a unique situation with people yeah yeah it's not easy but it's possible yeah but it's it's still possible and I don't want to make people I don't want it to be easy and people to look at this case to say oh this person didn't like this house they were able to just move it um but anyway um I just wanted to say I agree so um my viewpoint is we don't really have um a legal all alternative at this point right like that's clearly been communicated by staff outside of 365 day play and then coming back to us so what are the criteria that they need to meet like specifically spelled out to the applicant knows coming back I need to have in hand you know you know Jonathan mentioned a schedule contractors like what I think we need to have that clearly spelled out so the applicant knows coming back what what we'd want to see to initiate a reduction in this delay I agree with you Katie on that yes very sure waiters go ahead I I agree with Katie and certainly Jonathan you've given some very careful very careful consideration April you've given some very careful consideration this is this is different and um so I um I must say that um Jonathan I think you've come up with uh the best possible recourse so if I if I may I I would just like to submit that a contract between the mover and Dr. Calhoun um should suffice as evidence of the move well um Mr. Dubona let us finish deliberating and um and figure out what that what that list is sure thank you um I I think I'm in agreeance to what my uh fellow commissioners that's spoken to one because we are potentially losing of residents in the district um and not being able to see it so I'm certainly for delay um and looking for alternatives during that delay that includes moving it outside the district but um with preservation Durham or other people looking for alternative that may include even rehabbing the house I mean don't don't shut the door on other um hope that the applicant will not shut the door on other possibilities um to see in this house be able to stay um but if if there is the uh if the alternative is to move the house outside the district then coming back uh another day and letting us review review that as the alternative Rosenberg planning department so to Katie's question what are some of the elements that would need to be shown at that future hearing um I understand that in a previous case um a timeline of um the work scope um the contractor for the project um joining the that future hearing um to confirm the plan those are just some pieces of evidence shown but you all can decide further yeah I think in the last case we saw um at the new plan for that uh where the structure was being moved um it was a site plan shown where it was going to be located um the contractor was there I think that that certainly would be the case here we we should hear from the contractor and tits to do the work um who can speak to the schedule and uh any uh complications that are associated with with the move that could damage the house further so Grace Smith here um I was the case planner for that former case because Ms. Rosenberg was out um on leave when it first came in um to come back to the commission and um you may not see a site plan unless you specifically asked that be part of the materials or act because this is a relocation outside of the district and the reason you saw that with B Street was because they were they were applying for a coordinating or separate coa for relocation at the same meeting so if that's something you want to see like a plot plan you really don't have any purview over that but if you want it as far as proof of due diligence you could probably ask for that I would defer to our council on that um but you you know the other things that the you're correct um chair goes be the other um the other things that you saw in the last case were a definitive timeline and the contractor that had been hired and retained came to the call and answered some technical questions about the movement and I think that would be important as well and our legal counsel is saying that you cannot condition um or a request that a site plan be provided because that's really not part of your purview for this one because it's going outside of the district but as far as proof of coordination between the parties and and the contractor being on the call I think that's reasonable well there would be an uh a permit application for that if I'm not mistaken correct dandy other wood but uh that doesn't have to go into effect until you know it can go after this meeting you know even site plan approvals and all that yes there is a moving permit required from the building inspections department but they may be hesitant to issue that during the 365 today to delay until all of this has worked out um so yeah I would just um I would just say that there are some other things that would have to happen as far as a legal legal permits for the mover but yes could I suggest in that sense that they come in not next to me probably the meeting after next which would be already uh july uh with all the plans uh because I otherwise they would if they need to submit permits more we're already getting to september after that right the the process for the permits I will I assume yeah and I think what I'm here in johnson is it's it's not something we can require but certainly the applicant to use it as proof of evidence um that they're doing the work yeah but they won't be able to apply for the permits for the relocation until we don't just we don't take off the delay is that correct as I was I was hearing from grace um yeah I know in the um I'm sorry I wasn't on me I was on me in the um last case because the coa for the demolition is um a condition on the property and so for 365 days nothing can happen with the property basically the inspection department would check with us before they would issue that permit so um I believe that that would be something you could not get at them I don't believe that that it's reasonable to ask them to produce that because I don't think they can obtain that no it's not to produce I'm looking at their timeline and trying to make everything uh it's facilitating so my question is if can they apply for the permit while we're in this process so they don't have to apply after we remove the delay and that will delay them further that's that was my my question it's possible that I got you it's possible they could apply for it and just be on hold um I we can talk to the inspection staff about that how they you know how they would handle that I can't answer that just right now on the call because I don't have the ability to speak with inspections right now but we can definitely look into that so so my experience has been that yeah it's certainly check the permit department um but that you can't apply for your permit but it can get held up because your weight on something in planning um like this coa being approved um and then when your your permit is lingering sometimes it kind of doesn't get forgotten but it's it's at the bottom of the list and so there's just a lot of hand holding you have to do to um get things back on track so are there any other uh comments from commissioners yeah I just I think we need to make sure that we're not getting into the you know the wet season as it were in North Carolina I know everybody will say that there's a wet season but there's like a really wet season and I'd rather not see the structure removed during that which I think is Jonathan's point of making sure we're not getting into too long of a delay when you know this building will be opened to the elements while it's being moved and doing that making sure it's done at a time where we're not dealing with you know 80% of the day's being rainy's probably a critical path item so Katie um with that is am I hearing that you would entertain a different amount of delay or is that a suggestion to the applicant to not not wait so long to come back yeah yeah so I mean I think we were at a 365 day delay but um the point of you don't want to get you know further and further into the fall after the coa and then going back to permits as Jonathan mentioned you know we're getting closer and closer to that wet season which is problematic for the actual success of this relocation when is when is the date that we can come back when is the next opportunity for us to submit um are just some of this information to get back in front of the committee. Carla Keith speak to that and Mr. DeBona just to remind you that we are in deliberation so please please let me know if you have a question and if it's a good time but Carla Keith speak to that or another city staff. Carla Rosemary cleaning department it would as understood Miss Smith said five weeks advance so if you know things were submitted tomorrow then it looks like we would be looking at July if things are submitted in June it would be August and so forth. And um can someone come I'm sorry this is Commissioner Johnson can someone confirm for me um I know I should know this I'm a North Carolina girl but what's considered rainy season what month so that is I think that's April right April's early spring is not Katie April was the driest month we ever had I think you know they say April showers bring me flowers um but um sorry no it's it's fall okay thank you it's late fall not early fall but late fall yeah great thank you sometimes with a lot of wind that comes with it in a circular motion or it gains Carla okay is there any other comments from commissioners if not um we'll hear from city staff on their recommendation but just to carry on or any other comments um I do I don't want this to hold up this discussion I am more than happy to move this discussion along but I do think it is important to note this year at hand is that it is going to not just a different district but a non-district piece of property I feel comfortable because it is Dr. Calhoun and you know her her experience I feel comfortable with that but in general the concept is problematic um and so normally in such a condition I would want to see you know I that the the applicant was working with preservation Durham maybe having you know preservation Durham puts come on April help me they put like um requirements on property that are outside of districts um protective preservation covenants thank you covenants that's the word um but I think you know Dr. Calhoun's um experience within leads me to trust her but I do think that's a an effort that's worthwhile um considering this is going outside of a historic district but I don't want that told up this conversation because that's really not germane to the demolition application at hand but um something worth considering moving forward all right so things I've heard that um you know if the applicant chooses to move the structure and come back to really reducing delay um we certainly would want to hear from the contractor doing the work um who can speak to schedule and present any other evidence um to support that that uh the structure is being moved be that plans or a site plan uh that that would be up to the applicant to decide what what evidence they want to show um certainly uh to Katie's point any uh if you do come back to reduce delay any covenants that are on the on the structure um may help support the case uh for for removal from the district but please take note of those things and with that I'm going to close our discussion and if staff will make their recommendation parallel Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of this application with the condition of uh or with the 365 day delay and I will entertain a motion yes Jonathan the dormitory preservation commission finds that in the case coa 21 00019 1106 9th street demolition of primary structure the applicant is proposing to demolish a contributing primary duplex structure dating from the 1930s the commission has determined the access the structure to it needs to be revised uh the commission has determined the structure to possess sufficient historical value and structure integrity to preserve it the commission has determined that the property owner has not shown substantial evidence of facing extreme hardship of being permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return from the property by virtue of a delay the site will be stabilized no therefore in accordance with udo requirements and ncgs statute 160d 9-949 the coa for the proposed demolition is approved with a 365 day delay for a second second but note that commissioner johnson second okay um commission that commissioner dam move let's see vice chair willsby approved commissioner hamilton approved commissioner johnson approved commissioner cracker approved commissioner waders motion passes six zero mr domona I know that you're coming back for another case but thank you for bearing through that with us as it's is a difficult subject trying to mitigate these districts so thank you in a year other attendees for speaking to that mr miller thank you and I know that we will see you all again okay we'll now move to case uh coa 21 000 22 uh again this is 11 06 9th street for the new construction and the question before we proceed um you know do we need to do anything different since there is a 365 delay or can't we still hear for new construction that's a question for city staff Carla Rosenberg planning department my understanding is that you would approve this as any other terry can you uh swear in those who will be speaking do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or information and belief and again we need each applicant or each person speaking to affirm that under Dubona owner of 11 06 9th street I do Todd Addison uh architectural designer for 11 06 9th street I do Tom Miller for preservation Durham I do thank you and to confirm uh do you accept uh this proceeding via the zoom platform I do condo Dubona thank you Tom Miller for preservation Durham I do Todd Addison I do again thank you all um Carla we present the case for the Rosenberg planning department this is case coa 21 0002 1106 9th street new construction the applicant again Connor Dubona owner Dubona real estate LLC it's located on the east side of 9th street between West Club Boulevard at Englewood Avenue sound residential urban duplex and as a non-contributing lot post demolition once it's demolished it will be a non-contributing um uh lot in the Watt-Tallendale Historic District so the applicant is proposing to construct both a new primary structure and an accessory dwelling unit on the lot that will be vacated by the structure heard in the previous case I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Bono to present his case Mr. Dubona yes thank you um so I'm I'm very appreciative of all the people that have helped create this uh plan for new construction um as uh as heard previously um you know I am I'm a proponent from for the continuity of the block face of classic design um using you know proportion and materials to continue being a structure that fits into not only the neighborhood but this this particular block um I've leaned on Todd Addison to come up with this this design and I feel really good about the character the proportion and the style and then also I appreciate Carla's help in supplying all the well-meaning ordinances and directives that uh insured compliance so I think you know what I'm asking for is just a vote of confidence on the single family house as proposed I believe it's an easy vote of approval um and see no conflict to obtaining um permission to move forward after the move is taken care of uh so I'm proud of the design as as proposed and and I look forward to uh to your support are there any questions for the applicant from commissioners Katie you don't have a question if not Katie I'll take it go for it so the two trees can you explain the need for removal um there there is uh in the front yard facing the house on the right is a tree that's um growing out from underneath the front porch the house movers have said that this will need to be removed and I was uh gonna have it removed because the position of the new construction will be the exact same place with the same setbacks as the existing structure as such that tree will be removed to facilitate appropriate construction but I do look forward to replanting street trees um along the uh at the curb would trimming branches not suffice unfortunately it would not are the roots affecting the that's my last question right now and we didn't speak about the second for you so I think you're regarded only to one of them are the roots affecting the foundations of the house current yes uh yes do you have didn't I missed it if you had proof if you put it in the paperwork and what what are you basing that on the fact that it's pushing the whole front porch up um is there a picture no okay I don't believe that can only uh let me see yeah I didn't take pictures of the trees I I just assumed that I would plant some in the front right but you're you're proposing to remove two trees yeah there's there's a there was a second tree in the rear um that is also in the in the footprint of the proposed construction what type of trees are each of these I believe they're oaks one up front looks like a willow there is no way oh sorry okay go ahead I was I was just lean towards there's we don't don't sound like we have the evidence to be able to speak to those things right now but John I think you had another question is there um any way to construct a house with keeping these trees not in my opinion no and and let me let me also add the the the tree in the rear of the of the existing property uh I started cutting down after I purchased the place so part of this coa application um I was uh I was encouraged to replace those trees and I and I felt that was appropriate so you know we're talking about two trees of which frankly there's only one now in the front which is compromising the existing foundation and would be in the way of the proposed construction despite that I am committed to replanting trees um and have consulted this very thick handbook of appropriate plantings and and I look forward to doing so are you still proposing to use crepe myrtles yeah my mom suggested it I don't have an opinion I'm open to whatever the city feels is appropriate I I like trees all about it mom suggested crepe myrtle but if we want to do something else that's fine oh it was a very planning department just to clarify so the applicant is proposing to replace canopy trees with street trees um so there is less height but staff feels crepe myrtles are an appropriate street tree it's just that the canopy trees will no longer be present and carla what while you're on here um I was checking over the uh minor versus majors I don't I don't see anything that says removal of your rear tree necessarily needed any any approvals is that correct it is a canopy tree greater than 12 inches dvh so it does fall under the purview of the commission is that what you're asking yeah I was going through the checklist of minor versus major and the one that caught my eye was in section two for site work planting or removal of trees and plantings of shrubs in the street yard required a minor but nothing's standing out for removal of anything outside of the street yard I know I know the section you're referring to in the um is it just a little bit of contradiction there I think with the criteria anything that doesn't meet the criteria comes before the commission so um thank you maybe what we're hearing here is maybe that they can come back with a proposal with the after a minor that you do right now on the trees and then they can come back with the without the trees to the commission um so I don't quite understand um if if a scope of work does not meet the criteria they would have to show they would have to prove um that the canopy tree was diseased or dying or not contributing to the historic character of the district um in order for it to be approved at staff level and if it does not meet those criteria then it's automatically part of it automatically goes to a major before the commission but because this is a new construction project I mean you guys have seen frequently tree removal is included in major projects of additions and new construction Katie what do you think about this um while I appreciate that the Durham landscape manual calls crepe myrtle street trees I don't I don't think they're sufficient um like even though it's a two for two issue like Carla is correct that um we're we're losing the canopy which is like a defining characteristic of these historic um districts so I would like to see a replacement in kind of the same tree um to ensure that you know this canopy is not lost over time as these you know other trees die and I mean I don't have um necessarily I mean I'm looking at google street view um and it is directly on the corner of the existing house and so I'm sure by the time relocating that house that front one is probably going to in the process of relocating that house which I can appreciate is probably more important to relocate the structure retain the structure um than it is to retrain retain that one tree I would just ask that the applicant if willing revise the application to include um the replacement of these trees with in kind trees one in the back and one in the front um and so it might end up that you have the crepe myrtles for the street trees and then another one in the back or something but um just two crepe myrtles do not equate to two oak trees when we're looking at what the district's character is from a landscape perspective okay can I uh can I just commit to planning another willow oak on the property as part of this permit we would make a condition correct to to this or uh amend our motion you are proposing this right this is not because this is your proposal mr. de bono yeah I'm I'm I'm all about finding a path to success and and uh I'm yes I am proposing to the current petition to add us willow oak onsite in addition to the two uh crepe myrtles street trees is is that is that good or do you want the crepe myrtles in the back and the willow oaks in the front we can't guide you huh we can't guide you you have to make your proposal I want total guidance I'm just looking for an approval I I could care what tree it is frankly um uh so which is a better idea willow oaks in the front or back and I will formally propose that um so I would say replace them without telling you what to do I would say um replacing them in kind with one in the front and one in the rear um and I don't know that we should specify willow oaks just maybe say oaks um because I haven't looked at the Durham landscape manual um to know street tree requirements and urban tiers uh but our art our oaks still being encouraged because they're so susceptible to problems like I don't I don't want 50 years from now to have the same issue now that this uh this oaks being beetle riddened and star for water um maybe we can just make a similar canopy tree Karla yeah Karla Rosenberg planning department yeah so the criteria read that um you know replacement with uh something as approved in the landscape manual as recommended by the landscape manual so um that could be part of the condition is that it be something selected from the um landscape manual as compatible with this location of urban tier and whether it's street yard or canopy tree you could specify like a height range or something like that at maturity as indicated in the manual yeah yeah so so uh if I may I I propose to amend the current permit with the additional planning of a canopy tree as um uh as uh offered within the street tree manual as recommended by landscape manual well we understand yes yeah only one I don't know how many do we need you're removing two canopy trees that's what you're proposing okay all right well we'll plant two canopy trees and two um crepe myrtles on on the on the on the site at at a minimum thank you thank you are there any other questions for mr debona from commissioners hearing nine are there others who would like to speak in favor of of this proposal hearing nine uh mr miller would you like to speak this is the this is for yeah yes dr capman yeah is this the proposal for the new house yes new house yes I would not have agreed on the move on the other house if I had not reviewed extensively the plans for the replacement house the front of the replacement house is identical to the the house that we are trying to to move and uh the uh there there is once you look at that there is absolutely no way that he could have um retain the structure that is there and and uh been able to to build the house that that he his family needs and and therefore I thought it was absolutely uh provable what he has designed what Todd Allison has proposed is is a beautiful structure is there a way to show the front of the new structure so that everyone can see okay the proposed new new structure yeah yep it's the same so that you know that uh I didn't see a problem with that I mean they can't get historic black that's for sure but but it is it is not going to be damaging to that block or the community thank you dr calvane mr addison do you have anything um I agree with what you guys just spoke about with the trees um I love large canopy trees and I'm I'm glad to hear that uh my client mr divona is is willing to replace those trees um you know as as he suggested along with the addition of of crape myrtles I think it's those will be really interesting thank you mr addison uh is there any questions from commissioners for either one of those testimonies hearing none mr millard um is there anything you would like to speak to yes thank you mr chairman um again my name is Tom Miller I'm speaking on behalf of the historic preservation society of Durham um and uh I also want to say that I live very nearby this area and I've lived in in this area within easy walking distance of this site uh for the past 38 years um and I will observe with regard to trees um that I tend to agree based upon having visited this property very recently and considered it as a as the in in terms of how it might be moved that the uh the hardwood tree that's right up against the house uh is an impediment to moving and since we've taken the position that uh failing keeping the house on the site moving is the best alternative uh then we believe that tree and the smaller tree on the other side those should go so that the current structure can be conveniently removed from the site the other observation I wanted to make is that for Englewood Avenue in the wats hospital hillard dale district at this end of the street uh and also along night street uh there have not been really large canopy trees serving as street trees as a matter of fact the tree that we're talking about is in my opinion probably a bird poop tree uh and was never planted on purpose I don't believe anybody would have wanted so large a tree so close to the foundation of the structure uh along Englewood Avenue and uh at times along this block of night street such street trees as there have been have been crape myrtles and they some of them are that are there that have survived are quite antique uh so I don't really see a problem in terms of historical appropriateness and substituting the trees that now are in front of the current structure with uh crape myrtles at some point in the future um now having said that it's a position of preservation Durham with regard to this application is that having just approved the COA for the demolition of the current structure and since we are now in a 365 day period where we're supposed to be seeking alternatives to demolition that granting an application to build a new structure on this site has a the tendency to dis-incentivize alternatives uh and frustrate the purpose of the delay um and we throw that out there I'm not asking you to take any particular action with this application you're aware of all the issues but we do point out in this case and in similar cases in the future um that the whole demolition procedure for historic preservation commissions is is awkward and false from the beginning and that to allow a parallel application that incentivizes the demolition and our opinion only increases the awkwardness and the false nature of the proceeding and and ask whether or not I ask you to consider that in your deliberations and also to consider whether or not in the future we ought to have a different approach to these sorts of things I I do note that and I forget who uh one of the commission members at the very beginning of this proceeding ask whether or not the decision in the previous case changed the the the commission's necessary posture with regard to this case indicating the sensitivity to the issue that I'm raising now and that's really all that preservation Durham has to say and I appreciate the opportunity to express it to you thank you are there any questions from commissioners for Mr Miller Mr Dubona is there anything you would like to say in rebuttal no I'll just I'll just add quickly that I can appreciate Tom Miller's conundrum in trying to be an advocate for preservation and being careful in any advocacy or opinion about um the appropriate design that I'm proposing and so I can certainly understand how uh future petitions and permit processes might be amended but I ask in this case in my case that we agree that the proposed construction as proposed uh is not only appropriate um but we look forward to if this turns out to be the ultimate solution for 1106 9th street that we can find um support for what's been designed and and I appreciate the uh the vote on the appropriateness of the proposed new construction is there any questions for commission from commissioners from sir Dubona hearing none I'm going to close uh this portion of the hearing and move on to commissioner deliberation is there anyone who would like to open something please many yes Jonathan down uh so I agree with the what Tom raised enough for this specific case in uh Carla I would or Andy I would like if we can put this on one of our next uh meetings not today to continue discussion on it it does present a question we should deliberate on um and I think that with the solution of the trees I have no issues with this application commissioner Hamilton I just um with the trees and I just have to note that on club boulevard almost every street tree is a willow oak which is in the historic district very close by I do agree that the one that is currently on the property um likely was not intended as a street tree so I'm fine with the street trees being crape myrtle's but I do think it is imperative that we maintain the canopy cover with both rear and street yard trees um so with that that change whether or not they are willow oaks um or another form of canopy tree uh I'm comfortable with it um I want to say I agree with um this is commissioner johnson I agree with commissioner um Diane um about the position this new construction request puts us in right after the demolition request and I agree with the speaker Mr. Tom Miller that it it it doesn't encourage the work we have to do in between time um in case there is another a better option but um I don't know what we can do about that um I don't know if there's a general statute that can prevent it um from allowing people to apply again for a new construction at the same meeting of a demolition um but with that said I'm okay with the tree changes and um I think the new design is compatible with the district any other comments hearing none um is there a staff recommendation um carlore's more planning department I just want to review what I wrote about size for them carlores more planning department staff would recommend approval of the application as amended as uh with the amendment of regarding the trees of adding two willow oaks in addition to the two crape myrtle's is there a motion um I can make it dorm historic preservation commission finds that in the case coa two one zero zero zero two two 1106 ninth street new construction the applicant is proposing a new primary and a new accessory structure on what may become a vacant lot the two-story primary structure will be set within the footprint of an existing primary structure to maintain consistent front and side setbacks the primary structure will be constructed with a brick veneer foundation wood lap siding cementitious fiberboard shingles six over one wood composite and cellular pvc windows modern metal roofing and architectural roofing shingles the accessory structure will be located at the rear of the lot and will be constructed with a brick veneer foundation and chimney cementitious fiber fiberboard lap siding and architectural roofing shingles lighting will consist of black metal wall sconces and a post lantern two canopy trees will be removed and replaced with two crape myrtles at the street as well as two canopy trees as defined by the durham landscape manual therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property's local review criteria specifically those listed in the staff report and the durham historic preservation commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case coa 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 11 6 9th street new construction with the following conditions the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plan the testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the coa the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals related to building construction site work and work in the right of way and a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in and kitty could you add the condition of the trees so that it can be signed by the applicant and an additional condition will be placed in which to canopy trees as defined by the durham landscape manual consistent in final height with the existing willow oaks will be planted on the property and i second at the record showed this uh commissioner waiters uh second and terry can you give us a roll call sure um commissioner dan vice chair willsby approved a commissioner hamilton approved commissioner johnson approved commissioner critiger approved commissioner waiters motion passes six zero thank you all and uh for sitting with us today i know it's been a long time so appreciate everything um the city staff bringing the next applicant now here case coa 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 3 england avenue this is a case in which i have a conflict of interest and will be sitting out um commissioner hamilton will be taking my place so once the applicant is brought in katie if you can take over it appears the applicants have been brought into the um hearing um with that are there any other commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case right hearing none we will proceed um madame clark can you please uh present the oath to the applicants and applicants when you affirm the oath please say state your name and then um that you consent to the oath as given in the affirmative do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief so you're immune i'm you're not your own i'm the property owner i do and i'm matt drutz i'm the contractor i do are there any others here who wish to speak for or against this case who uh need to consent to this as presented okay hearing none and can you also confirm that you consent to having this hearing done in a remote platform on this zoom hearing i'm you're not your own i do i'm matt drutz i do all right thank you very much with that we now may proceed with the staff summary and carla if you could present thank you hello rozenberg planning department this is case coa 21 00023 it's 2103 englewood avenue the amendment addition and modifications the applicant and owner is yonat shimran it's located on the south side of englewood avenue between caroline avenue and hill street zoned residential urban five it's a contributing structure in the wats hillondale historic district the applicant is proposing to amend a coa that you saw last fall that was also for an addition and modifications but the changes are substantial since that approval and so we have this new application for your review like to introduce this staff report into the record and invite miss shimran to present her case thank you um i am proposing actually a small change i would like to replace the existing uh sloping shed roof with a gable roof and to enclose a part of the approved structure um and cover the exist and replace the the deck with a screen porch the old uh back porch was torn down um a new uh back and the footings were already already in place um for a new 220 square foot addition um this is the old porch that was is now no longer there um a new addition will be will replace it and a deck that extended from here will become a screen porch i think i put in new photos too of the existing footings none of this i add will be viewed would be viewed from the street at all there we go there's the new um footings uh the part where the brick is underneath it that will become an enclosed uh area and the front part will become a screen porch under my request and um just to clarify there's been uh no change in footprint from the last approval through the historic commission um just to change in the amount of and the type of roof and the amount of roof over top do any commissioners have questions for the applicants or do the applicants have anything additional they wish to present okay um is there anyone here who speaks wishes to speak against this case hearing none um we will close no commissioners have any questions for applicants or staff at this time okay we'll close the public hearing and uh go to deliberations amongst the commissioners um and then we may call you back um as the applicant if we do end up having additional questions but um we'll address you if we do have them um is there any discussion amongst the commissioners about the application as proposed all right hearing none do we have a recommendation from staff for the Rosembourg planning department staff would recommend approval of this application all right thank you garland do we have a motion i can do it i haven't done in a while let's be here and close it up all right the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA 210023 2103 Englewood Avenue amendment additions and modifications the the applicant is proposing an amendment to previously approved COA 2000060 for an addition and modifications to a contributing structure the addition composed of conditioned space and a spring porch where we'll total 350 square feet and the rear deck will be reduced to 60 square feet the shed roof will be amended to a gabled roof with clip gable end and an original attic vent will be relocated to the same location on the new addition all of the elements of the COA will follow COA 2000060 therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property's local review criteria specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 210023 2103 Englewood Avenue amendment addition and modification the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached attached to this COA the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction site work and work in the right-of-way and a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein staff certifies that the site was posted and notification wait oh that's it sorry is there a second all second um is there uh can we get a roll call from the commissioner's madam clerk yes um commissioner i am commissioner um um hamilton approved commissioner johnson approved commissioner cragger approved commissioner waiters approved mission passes five zero right thank you to the applicants for coming out and representing your case and with that i will turn it back over to andy thank you i must say goodbye i have to leave i'm sorry yeah so i think that's the case for a lot of folks here so thanks johnson thank you bye so very very quickly uh is there any old business we need to attend to um the old the newsletter just keep in mind um we're looking for a september um release distribution um so yeah the newsletter if anybody has um some text that that they would like to submit for review um let me know i'll get that to you i think me and um who's the other person i haven't written some notes somewhere but yes we're supposed to be submitting things and i think we're we might be passed our deadline but um are we passed our deadline to submit something for you i think it was just um we wanted to have some text by this meeting but oh we could we can make it the next meeting um as well okay i think katie you were you were handling the layout um are we looking to keep it pretty much the same um two relocation two relocation or two not relocations but two um accessory structures yeah highlights yeah have we determined which ones we're gonna do um we have permission from the b street grocery and then i am seeking permission i have emailed um the owner of the property in morehead hill that um yeah okay hopefully that will come through did you want me to take those pictures carla um sure if you would if you wouldn't mind okay um if you can just i guess connect me with the applicants yeah i would play i can schedule a time that i'm not just like on their property yes yeah especially since one is in the rear yard yeah okay the other one's on the street corner so yeah um yeah and then i'll i'll have that by then i'll have pictures at least by the next meeting and then um i would assume that yeah we're gonna still stick with the trifold pamphlet to make mailing easy um and then then like highlight those two as you know two of the panels on the trifold and then basic information and like the breakdown of the different types so yeah yeah seems pretty much the same except for i think normally we only have one of those trifold panels being taken up by a project highlight so yeah okay thank you we'll get on it for smack the year i emailed carla i did oh we're good good for you i had it on the calendar and i was if there's something on my calendar and it says i'm supposed to do something and then that and just to let you know i um also finalized the the previous year's newsletter which is going out this spring and we're hoping to have that out in the next month um and then as part of new business uh that will be um paired with three we're looking to do three open houses with all of the districts um so people can see ask questions about the new criteria our new process and um yeah so that will be in June when we do those open houses and do we uh they're going to be virtual right yes okay are we good um also contact um we call realtors to help educate them good yeah and invite them to these open houses right yeah i mean i know there are a lot of them if we can at least hit the big ones um and the ones who are especially kind of seem to be especially in the historic districts it's you know we keep hearing these same stories but um whether or not it's true but somehow another the information is not being passed to the new buyers of these properties and they're not aware you know i've done a couple i know tom does it but um and go to the um real realtor meetings and educate them about the district but anyway we hear the word out about how many houses are we going to have a new tour and are we going to have a what i'm sorry on the tour housing tour open housing tour you know i know that um preservation Durham puts on housing tours um oh she was talking about your open houses uh miss wader she's talking about a virtual meeting educated people about the new criteria yeah yeah sorry we use the term open house because um we have that same concept for planning commission for people to actually come to um the meeting and and have questions faced at face but um we'll be doing it virtually and it's really just a question and answer well i'll do a short presentation um and then there's a question answer session afterward but a house tour would be cool i know i mean we we tried we're going to try again but if the homeowners they were they were a little hesitant about having people walking understandably yeah yeah um i was grateful that you were even um anyway that's uh outside of this meeting but um yeah any any other questions about the newsletter or open houses i don't have a question for this statement if you want to get it out to the realtors if you i forget the lady's name but at the Durham Regional Association of Realtors they have the email list for all of the Durham realtors that's right so if you um um i'm on their list and we just get tons of stuff like that so it just be a really easy way to get it to all the realtors in Durham and so that is a um it's yeah the yeah under like the licensing laws every realtor has to be a member of a regional association and it's generally where you practice or where you live so a lot of times they're going to be like members of all like a whole bunch of them but for the most part any realtor that's doing work in Durham is going to be a member of that perfect and there's a ton that are inactive so it's like you're going to get way more than the active realtors like everybody in real estate's going to see that okay April April i just wanted to say to you and everyone else i was not meeting an actual tour oh i'm still very much a COVID advocate and i thought they were thinking about something virtual so okay um i wanted to just mention something too um i didn't put on here minor coas but i'll send those out again like i've been doing great thank you all right is there any new business just to check that off i think jonathan you know went to be able to have some discussion in a future date um clarify some of our topics today maybe and clarify some some of the things he missed uh in our last meeting um thinking about the demolition uh so we talked about extensively at the last hearing um so let's let's try to figure out if it's next meeting or or following somewhere there's a like load case where we can deliberate a little bit more all right there's no other new business um you are so dismissed yes great job andy okay have a beautiful day guys say again bye