 Thank you very much, Helen. It was a terrific meeting. So good evening, my name is Angel Rosa and on the DRB chair and I'll call this meeting September 19th, DRB meeting to order. We have a very seemingly short meeting tonight. So that's a good thing. We'll proceed in the order on our agenda. Minutes from last meeting which was signed. Communications, everything that I know has been posted right into the first item, our agenda, which is the CPF 23-63, 16 Southwood New Ski Avenue, the Ronald McDonald House Charities, Christine Bickford seeking alternative confines to replace existing four-foot-high fence with 4.8-foot-high perimeter fencing. Is the applicant here? Oh, there it is, send out the question. So this agenda item is on our consent agenda item to means that we don't adapt all the public hearing on it. If all the board members are in agreement that this should be approved on consent. This is the second time we've seen this. We had a very vigorous debate about how we can find a way to pick a tall fence or unfortunately in the foreign-based code districts we're not going to volunteer to ask about our planning commission to look at that because it's now that it was, you were the first, we had a second go around on this issue. Is there anybody here in the audience who's going to speak on this agenda item? All right, any board members objecting to our consent? Just while we move that on CPF 23-63, we adopt staff, we approve the application and adopt staff signings and recommendations. So I think Jeff, all's in favor? Enjoy the fence. Can you do that? I'd say five. I don't think I'm going to do that. I don't think I'm going to do that. All right, moving right along here, our next item, which is also on the consent agenda is 15 Hayward Street, Sandra Delaney and Karen Miller. That's the applicant here. So again, this was on our piece of the agenda item. I didn't have any questions on it. Any board members have any questions on it? Nope. Anybody object to treating it on consent? Have you seen the staff's findings and recommendations? Do you have any issues or concerns with them? All right, so anybody want to move through this one? Jeff, I'm going to move on to CP23-659, which is 15 Hayward Street. I'm going to move for the adopt staff's findings and recommendations and conditions and second that, all those in favor? Karen, enjoy the walk. Thank you. So that brings us to the first hearing agenda item, which is Kingsland Terrace, CP23-9841 Kingsland Terrace, demolish existing simple car garage, listed within South Union Historic District and construct EDU, it's the applicant here. Do you want to move on? So let me explore here, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I have a connection with the applicant or other and even for the family who extended family members of your job, I'm done, I'll work for you, you're going to be in the past and most recently, not too recently, but I actually inspected this very property for one Kingsland Terrace back in 2007. So I heard the staff counts and I feel comfortable. I could be objective in this matter, but if the applicant or any member of the board feels otherwise, I'll be having to accuse what Mr. Chair decided that. No, I don't see that as an issue. You didn't do work on this particular application, right? No. And you don't feel that your prior work predestined you in any way to grant the application. Well, I don't know, I'm just having a concern. Small town. So why don't you tell us what you want to do? Well, I mean, it seems like a relatively simple project, the light to just hear your proposal for it. Mr. Chair, what you're doing? Yeah, it is pretty simple. The concept is just demolish the existing garage from the 20s that's somewhat decayed at this point and built in its place, an ADU, single-story ADU, ideally for my mother-in-law, has been fully agreed to moving in with that. Yeah, so that's the goal. And if she doesn't, then one of my parents will. Okay, that's a great question. Right, yes. Gotta work backwards here, but yeah. So that is a fairly simple street board project I think it's been described in, so it's really nothing more to it. So, it's a project, it's the same. And I think, let me speak up too, but I think our objective was to try to, really try to build on the same book, practicing existing garage as closely as it could. I had a question for staff. This was my question. Yes, you were right. Mary, there's a note here, under 5.2.3, a lot of coverage. We can exceed the maximum, because this is up to 650 square feet, but it was stress-bearing allowance. But what does it mean in terms of the area and satisfactory management of purge more than just stormwater? So that's just the standard. They also have to go to public works, right? Well, the stormwater engineer will be reading the plans. There is an EVSC that's been provided as well. And that is the standard condition that goes with this allowance. Okay, I'm just going to ask you some questions. I have more questions for the afternoon. Okay, so, maybe Mary, for you. I think we've confronted the stimulation of historic garage-type structures in the past. It seems like your analysis has gone through all the criteria. A lot of it is based on the public benefit of creating additional housing. Seems like a reasonable justification in the past. Yes, I mean, when these historic listings were done, the original ones, the 70s and 80s, they didn't include outbuildings. After that, in the late 80s, they started noting because there were so many carriage bars that were on the site, they would include uncertain, not fully understanding there would be implications, regulatory implications in the future. But it does make us look at these in the context and weigh the merit of them. And, you know, there are garages and there are sheds and there are carriage barns. There's quite an array, but we have to look at them if they have been identified in the historic list. Yeah, certainly not. We've confronted this where some are really of a particular carriage barn note that had a historic character. This doesn't necessarily seem to have that same. Yeah, I just wanted to have that discussion. I mean, I think the public benefit loan is sufficient to justify it. And I think this doesn't seem to have the quality of some of the other specific structures we've considered, although certainly not as dilapidated as some structures we've also seen. But I'm comfortable with that. Um, it also has already been live, but that was a good deal, I was just saying. And nobody on Zoom would turn? No. Are we anticipating on this one? I suppose we need to deliberate on it, but I'm sure we need to stay here and attend a meeting or group list. On ZP 23-948 which is 41, I think it was on the terrace. I think we'll adopt staffs and additions. Aside from that, all those in favor? I'm following you, E. Yeah, why are both mothers in class? Yeah, right. I'm not. We're just like we thought. We told my mother. So what she realized, she didn't believe it. Yeah. So what she realized, she didn't believe it. Oh, thank you. That's a reality. Good luck. Have a long time. Yeah. Well, that's it for the next three minutes. Good. That's what I'm talking about. Not right, thank you. That's close. It's pretty close. It's easy one. So yeah, no pickleball.