WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=ZzoloP6FZpI NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: ZzoloP6FZpI): - 00:05:06: Meeting Called to Order and Introductions Made - 00:05:29: Public Comments, Quasi-Judicial Announcement, Swearing In - 00:07:22: Application 26.29: Schulz Window and Door Replacement - 00:14:49: Public Comment: Balcony Approval and Historical Accuracy - 00:24:48: Applicant Coleman Explains Window, Door Replacement Details - 00:29:34: Motion to Approve Application with Staff Recommendations - 00:32:20: Board and Staff Comments: Future Work Sessions Part: 1 1 00:05:06.739 --> 00:05:17.917 630. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Roll call please. Chairperson Rosinski here, miss Howlett. Yes, miss 2 00:05:17.917 --> 00:05:29.462 Kaplan. Miss Kaplan. Yes. Mr. Cadena present. Miss. Produce present. Thank you. Are there 3 00:05:29.462 --> 00:05:42.442 any public comments that do not relate to the item on the agenda? Okay, we'll move on. Quasi judicial announcement and 4 00:05:42.442 --> 00:05:53.452 swearing in of speakers. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the board acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the 5 00:05:53.452 --> 00:06:03.729 board's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact, based 6 00:06:03.729 --> 00:06:14.907 upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances in order to make a legal decision 7 00:06:14.907 --> 00:06:26.385 regarding the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial and relevant to the issues. If the competent, substantial and 8 00:06:26.385 --> 00:06:36.929 relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. By the 9 00:06:36.929 --> 00:06:47.640 same token, if the competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is 10 00:06:47.640 --> 00:06:59.251 required by law to find against the applicant. Does anybody have a ex parte communication to disclose any conflict of interest? No. If you're going 11 00:06:59.251 --> 00:07:09.262 to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the Heritage Preservation Board is the truth, 12 00:07:09.262 --> 00:07:22.275 so help you. Thank you, thank you. All right. Application number 26.29. Schulz certificate of approval for 13 00:07:22.275 --> 00:07:34.921 window and door replacement at 121 North Gross Avenue. Carolyn. Good evening. Caroline Lanford, 14 00:07:34.921 --> 00:07:44.931 principal planner with the City of Tarpon Springs. We have application 2629. This first slide is showing the location and land use context of the 15 00:07:44.931 --> 00:07:56.776 subject property on North Gross Avenue, just down the street from here. This slide is showing the location of the subject property within the 16 00:07:56.776 --> 00:08:08.588 national and local historic districts. The applicant is seeking a certificate of appropriateness to replace replace three wood windows with 17 00:08:08.588 --> 00:08:19.799 vinyl impact windows and French doors with single light sliding glass doors at the subject property, which is a circa 1919 18 00:08:19.799 --> 00:08:32.044 frame building. At 121 North Gross Avenue as a frame vernacular, but it also has some elements of the craftsman style, as you'll see from the 19 00:08:32.044 --> 00:08:44.256 photos. And this is just showing the property on the 1919 Sanborn map. This slide is showing the picture of the 20 00:08:44.256 --> 00:08:55.401 subject property from the Florida Master Site file. And this is the the east facade taken recently. The north 21 00:08:55.401 --> 00:09:04.076 elevation, South elevation. The slide. Just giving you a little context of the area that the 22 00:09:04.076 --> 00:09:16.288 subject property is located in. And again, the proposed project is to replace three windows. 23 00:09:16.288 --> 00:09:27.500 Two of the windows would be obscured by the screened in porch up front, and then the 24 00:09:27.500 --> 00:09:39.345 third window proposed to be replaced would be over here on the north elevation. The sliding glass doors that are proposed to replace the French 25 00:09:39.345 --> 00:09:50.656 doors are located at the rear of the property, and would not be visible from the public right of way. So this slide is just showing you a little snippets of the product sheets 26 00:09:50.656 --> 00:10:01.300 that are proposed. They would are proposing one over one, which is consistent with the original architecture of the structure. And here's some 27 00:10:01.300 --> 00:10:12.545 photos from the applicant showing those original wood windows that they're proposing to replace. And these French doors, while I do not think 28 00:10:12.545 --> 00:10:24.023 they are original to the structure, they are consistent with the architectural style of the building. And this is the window that would be visible 29 00:10:24.023 --> 00:10:31.530 from the public right of way. You can see from the photo that that is the original wavy glass that that we've had back in 30 00:10:31.530 --> 00:10:44.910 1919. So taken through our standards for review, obviously windows, doors and entries 31 00:10:44.910 --> 00:10:56.889 would be relevant to this case. The proposed replacement windows, although our best option is always to repair rather than replace or replace 32 00:10:56.889 --> 00:11:08.234 with original materials, the windows would retain the historic dimensions and replicate the style of the historic windows. Consistent with the original architecture, 33 00:11:08.234 --> 00:11:17.977 the doors would not be consistent with the building's original architectural style. However, they would not be visible from the public right of way. The proposed project 34 00:11:17.977 --> 00:11:28.754 with respect to neighborhood and district context, the proposed project is anticipated to have a negligible visual impact to the streetscape, as only one of those windows would 35 00:11:28.754 --> 00:11:38.164 really be visible from the public right of way. And the other two being obscured by the screen porch and then the doors being at the rear of the 36 00:11:38.164 --> 00:11:49.975 property, and our next relevant standard for review would be the architectural features. Again, we always want to repair rather than replace. And when 37 00:11:49.975 --> 00:12:01.019 we do replace, it's preferable to replace with original materials whenever possible. And the proposed project would replace original wood windows 38 00:12:01.019 --> 00:12:13.732 with vinyl windows. And so this is not the ideal solution. However, it would generally replicate the visual qualities of the original architecture. 39 00:12:13.732 --> 00:12:24.577 And, you know, having those those impact windows would help ensure the, the longevity of the of the subject property. 40 00:12:24.577 --> 00:12:35.721 With respect to the doors, again, sliding glass doors weren't around when the structure was constructed, but they would not be visible. And. 41 00:12:35.721 --> 00:12:46.532 There would be a minimal visual impact to the district because of that, because you can't really see it from from the street. With respect to adhering to the Secretary of 42 00:12:46.532 --> 00:12:56.609 Interior's guidelines, the project is not strictly comply with the the Secretary's guidelines, particularly that we would be removing 43 00:12:56.609 --> 00:13:10.388 distinctive original materials. We always want to repair rather than replace, and then any alterations, you know, we try 44 00:13:10.388 --> 00:13:22.568 to use original materials when possible. It would be possible. But we all know that wood, new wood windows are generally cost prohibitive for most people. 45 00:13:22.568 --> 00:13:34.446 With respect to conformance with other city code requirements. Again, we're not strictly compliant with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 46 00:13:34.446 --> 00:13:46.325 However, the proposed project is expected to be constructed in compliance with the Land Development Code and the Florida Building Code, and. 47 00:13:46.325 --> 00:13:57.102 Here's some just some snippets from the Design Guidelines Review manual stating that, you know, we, we, we don't want to use tinted glass. We always want to retain the style of 48 00:13:57.102 --> 00:14:08.314 window whenever possible. We would prefer to, to have original materials for windows. But and then again, we want to 49 00:14:08.314 --> 00:14:18.357 retain historic doors, but the doors would not be visible from the public right of way. With that. My recommendation is just 50 00:14:18.357 --> 00:14:30.970 that the HPV review, the information provided in this presentation and the staff report, and should the HPV approve the project, I would suggest the following 51 00:14:30.970 --> 00:14:41.113 conditions. Tinted glass would not be used and that the certificate of appropriateness would expire in three years of a building permit has not been issued for the project. The 52 00:14:41.113 --> 00:14:49.321 project was publicly noticed and no responses were received. And with that, I can take any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions for Carolyn? 53 00:14:49.321 --> 00:15:03.569 Yes. Go ahead. Carolyn, on this one picture, there is not the balcony. The balcony I don't think was ever approved back in the 90s by the Historic 54 00:15:03.569 --> 00:15:15.914 Preservation Board. Do you know whether it was or not? I am not sure that I know what you are referring to. The balcony or whatever they call it. They put 55 00:15:15.914 --> 00:15:27.659 it on top of the roof. If you could please speak into the mic. We need to have this on record. Any other windows been changed in that house during the 90s? I do believe some of the windows 56 00:15:27.659 --> 00:15:37.435 on the house are not original. I cannot, in fact, I know some of the windows on the house currently are not original. Was 57 00:15:37.435 --> 00:15:50.816 this the house a year or so ago? There they. We approved the removal of a door up on the second level, and I think there was a small balcony. No, that actually was. That was a very 58 00:15:50.816 --> 00:16:02.327 similar house though. Looks the same. It looks the same. Okay. Sorry. Same area. What I'm talking about here. Okay. I walked around the house twice, 59 00:16:02.327 --> 00:16:13.806 did not talk to the property owners or any neighbors and. I'm a stickler for keeping the old glass in windows. When they 60 00:16:13.806 --> 00:16:24.216 did the Ferguson building uptown, they threw them in the in the alleyway. They let it break and everything went in the trash. They're hard to find. Glass is hard to find. It's. 61 00:16:24.216 --> 00:16:35.527 It's expensive to buy. And if you can get it, good luck. So that was lost. I hate to lose this, but I could see in around 62 00:16:35.527 --> 00:16:45.804 the house. It hasn't always been kept in the historic preservation. What you go by. I'm not an expert, but I've 63 00:16:45.804 --> 00:16:56.582 been around it and I can see some stuff and. The sliding glass doors are not with the 64 00:16:56.582 --> 00:17:09.628 older historic homes. And when they changed the doors, did the French doors. I don't think that was approved either way back then may have been. So 65 00:17:09.628 --> 00:17:22.508 what we have is, and maybe the attorney can shed light on this. Our dilemma here in Tarpon is the houses are so old, have been changed. So much will this 66 00:17:22.508 --> 00:17:34.386 structure, if we approve this, will it still be a contributing structure or will they lose it? Or will we lose that as a contributing structure in the 67 00:17:34.386 --> 00:17:44.062 historic district? I could say from from my perspective, with my knowledge and abilities, that the replacement of the 68 00:17:44.062 --> 00:17:57.409 windows no, I, I think that ultimately we are moving away. We as preservationists are moving away from requiring us 69 00:17:57.409 --> 00:18:08.587 the retaining the original materials for everyday houses that are contributing to a district not individually listed because it's, it's 70 00:18:08.587 --> 00:18:20.832 really a balancing act. What we want is to maintain the historic fabric of our community and the look and feel of these historic homes. And 71 00:18:20.832 --> 00:18:33.045 because we live in an area that is so prone to natural impacts to structures, there has been a movement from the Secretary of 72 00:18:33.045 --> 00:18:44.556 Interior to be a little bit more lenient on things that will preserve the structures over time and make them more sustainable so that they can exist in the future. And that 73 00:18:44.556 --> 00:18:53.899 would be for a contributing structure within a district, not something that's individually listed. And we have in Tarpon, we do have a 74 00:18:53.899 --> 00:19:06.011 contributing altered category, which is is somewhat unique, but something like the wood windows, that is something that could easily be replaced in the future. If somebody wanted to 75 00:19:06.011 --> 00:19:17.055 go back and do a full restoration, they could go get wood windows and the old glass and and restore it back to its its original condition. Well, 76 00:19:17.055 --> 00:19:29.234 as this is more of a rehabilitation approach, trying to sustain the structure for the future, I do, and I'm asking these questions because I can see where we can set 77 00:19:29.234 --> 00:19:39.043 precedents, where people are going to start coming. And as you whittle away and whittle away things, you lose your historic. You do. But that was 78 00:19:39.043 --> 00:19:49.721 the fight we had with the old City Hall at town. But we won that one. The city did because they had to do the wood with the structure and keep the 79 00:19:49.721 --> 00:20:03.035 glass. The other thing I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman. Everything will be consistent with what's there now. And they're not going to enlarge 80 00:20:03.035 --> 00:20:11.877 anything or reduce any of the window sizes. And the doors are not where the people, the public, could see them. It's in 81 00:20:11.877 --> 00:20:24.990 the backyard. And the the screen porch hides two of the windows and the other one. No one's going to be able to go up there and see what it is. And 82 00:20:24.990 --> 00:20:36.568 they wouldn't even know. So. And it doesn't take away from the structural look of it. 83 00:20:36.568 --> 00:20:49.848 Let's see. Elaborate. It says this project does not strictly comply with the Secretary standards. Would you like on page four of 124? Can you 84 00:20:49.848 --> 00:21:01.393 elaborate on that a little bit? So to strictly comply with the Secretary of Interior Interior Standards, we would not be allowing the use of an unoriginal material like vinyl. 85 00:21:01.393 --> 00:21:11.937 Vinyl did not exist back when the structure was constructed. However, as I mentioned, the Secretary of Interior is starting to move, particularly 86 00:21:11.937 --> 00:21:23.348 in areas that are prone to natural disasters, as we are to allow some of these newer materials simply because it's 87 00:21:23.348 --> 00:21:32.824 getting to be cost prohibitive to use original materials. In some cases, they're simply not available, and it's really more 88 00:21:32.824 --> 00:21:44.202 of a bigger picture question of retaining the historic structure and and sustaining it for the future versus letting 89 00:21:44.202 --> 00:21:56.815 it continue to deteriorate. So I would say that really, it's the, the use of the non original materials, which is what would make it not strictly 90 00:21:56.815 --> 00:22:08.693 comply with the Secretary standards. This is very hard for me because you know how hard I am on historic historic 91 00:22:08.693 --> 00:22:19.670 preservation. But when it's been mixed as it has now, Mr. Chairman. Against my judgment, 92 00:22:19.670 --> 00:22:31.750 I'm going to go for this because there's no way you can correct it with what is already has been done. And it's sad. And we as a board at some point 93 00:22:31.750 --> 00:22:43.295 if point if the attorney says we can do it, we need to have a work session with historic preservation on homes and buildings, with our building department, our construction 94 00:22:43.295 --> 00:22:52.637 department, and get someone down here from Tallahassee to talk to us about all of this. Bring bring that up. When we're 95 00:22:52.637 --> 00:23:04.149 having comments from from our board as. So this is individually eligible for the National Register. And with this change, it's going to stay 96 00:23:04.149 --> 00:23:13.158 on the National Register. Or can it be taken away? Maybe the attorney can answer this too, I don't know. So the only time that that would be affected is 97 00:23:13.158 --> 00:23:25.770 if somebody were to come in and resurvey the property and the alterations are not so great that they would deteriorate the 98 00:23:25.770 --> 00:23:37.616 architectural integrity, integrity to a point where it would no longer be contributing to the district. Now, it may be up. It may be that it's been 99 00:23:37.616 --> 00:23:48.426 altered to a point where it would no longer be eligible for any kind of individual listing, but it still would be contributing to the district 100 00:23:48.426 --> 00:23:59.204 because again, my my standard is always is this something that can be reversed? Are we doing something irreversible? And we're not because, you know, 101 00:23:59.204 --> 00:24:09.781 these windows, at some point in the future, somebody could go and replicate wood windows like the original ones and fully restore the structure. We're 102 00:24:09.781 --> 00:24:21.560 not doing something that can't be undone in the future. So does the same go for the National Register District? Yes. So it would still be contributing to both the 103 00:24:21.560 --> 00:24:32.003 national and the local historic district. Even if someone were to come and resurvey it, they would say these alterations have been made to the structure. However, the building itself 104 00:24:32.003 --> 00:24:42.080 retains enough architectural integrity to still be considered contributing to the district. Okay, that's all I have for right now. Thank you, 105 00:24:42.080 --> 00:24:48.453 thank you. Any other questions for Carolyn? Okay. The applicant. Are you the 106 00:24:48.453 --> 00:25:04.736 applicant? Come on up. Over to the to the microphone over there. There you go. And then we'll need your name and 107 00:25:04.736 --> 00:25:15.180 address. And then just kind of explain the even though we've heard what you want to do, just give us your side of it, but give us your name and address first. So my name is John 108 00:25:15.180 --> 00:25:27.459 Coleman. I do live in Riverview. Okay. I've been in the business now for over 40 years. All right. I've worked on hundreds and hundreds of historical preservation homes. And the 109 00:25:27.459 --> 00:25:38.203 last thing I want to do, and yes, you're right. I would love to be able to do the would, however, would is never going to give the structure support that are required with the 110 00:25:38.203 --> 00:25:49.881 impact windows the way that they have to be today. I would love to be able to show my craftsmanship. I was trained by my grandfather who taught me how to take apart the weights 111 00:25:49.881 --> 00:26:01.259 and redo it, but unfortunately that can't be done to replace the glass. You're never going to find lead glass anymore. That's just never going to be made ever again. So you've lost 112 00:26:01.259 --> 00:26:13.171 that waviness that appeal. Trust me, when I do take out windows like this, I keep the glass as best I can. All right. I true love seeing these homes. 113 00:26:13.171 --> 00:26:23.281 I wish I could personally afford them, but the upkeep and maintenance of them would bankrupt me. But they are gorgeous. Okay, so we only use 114 00:26:23.281 --> 00:26:34.392 the product of p, g t, which is also registered with the Historical Preservation Society. I'm not going to do any of the changes to the interior 115 00:26:34.392 --> 00:26:44.469 woodworking that is already there. Why mess with something great? We're going to be taking out the existing sash and putting in the vinyl frames and 116 00:26:44.469 --> 00:26:55.280 sealing them. The only added thing, just like on this building, they did the metal cladding, which is going to give an additional performance value to hold against all of 117 00:26:55.280 --> 00:27:06.424 the water. All right, less upkeep for everyone involved. Okay. As per the doors, you can tell that those doors had been 118 00:27:06.424 --> 00:27:17.602 replaced sometime in the 80s. And no one has ever noticed. If you wanted me to go to a French 119 00:27:17.602 --> 00:27:29.814 door system that's there versus what the customer has chosen, I would lose a little bit in what's known as the design pressure ratings, because the doors lower themselves. When 120 00:27:29.814 --> 00:27:41.326 you have a slider in the interlocks and everything like that, it gives a little higher of a value against water infiltration. I'm not going to 121 00:27:41.326 --> 00:27:52.170 ruin anything you have. The entire exterior will remain that shape that you see right now. The only difference is I'm going to have a metal cladding on it, which will be a bright 122 00:27:52.170 --> 00:28:04.783 picture. If you even wanted me to use what's known as a PVC, which would give a wood grain texture to it, instead of it being a flat unit, I can 123 00:28:04.783 --> 00:28:14.459 upgrade that. It would be a call that I would expect you guys to tell me whether or not what you would want. Okay, so 124 00:28:14.459 --> 00:28:25.336 so you are confirming that the openings are all going to stay the same. Yes. So as Carolyn mentioned, if in 50 years a new 125 00:28:25.336 --> 00:28:34.679 owner wanted to restore the house, they wouldn't have to worry about redoing openings or anything. You would remove sashes, you would be able to 126 00:28:34.679 --> 00:28:46.657 remove the exterior cladding, remove all of the screws, cut the foam insulation that we put, push it out. And yes, I would love to be able to do it, but 127 00:28:46.657 --> 00:28:58.068 like I said, it'll the wood will never handle the impact glass which is required in this area. Okay. And the, the sliding doors are going to be 128 00:28:58.068 --> 00:29:09.380 going the same opening, same opening, no adjustments in size. We are doing a size for size change. Okay. And color. You're going to go with white for now 129 00:29:09.380 --> 00:29:22.160 to match the other ones. Yes. Okay. Anybody have any questions for the applicant. Nope. Nope. Okay. Thank you. 130 00:29:22.160 --> 00:29:34.439 Okay. Will we be getting a decision today or we're going to be voting now today. Yeah. So hang out. All right. I want 131 00:29:34.439 --> 00:29:45.149 to discuss it a little bit more. You've already said quite a bit, which is great. But in order to do that, I'm going to need a motion one way or the other. 132 00:29:45.149 --> 00:29:57.795 I'll make a motion that we approve this application. Due to the fact of the history of the House, the changes that have been made, and fitting it 133 00:29:57.795 --> 00:30:10.041 in with strictly historic and the glass at this time would not be fair to the applicant, because too much is always already been changed. Well said. I'll second that. Okay, we have 134 00:30:10.041 --> 00:30:20.518 a motion and a second. Chloe, you've got that. Okay, now we'll discuss if there's any more discussion. What do you 135 00:30:20.518 --> 00:30:32.730 feel about the cladding that he's talking about? Having either a smooth finish or a wood grain finish? Is that something we need to deal with? 136 00:30:32.730 --> 00:30:43.541 I'm not the applicant. I don't know what the how much money they want to spend. But I like your idea of the wood finish, as do I. Yes, because it'll 137 00:30:43.541 --> 00:30:56.354 fall in and you wouldn't have a problem with that. Okay, good. Okay, great. Any other a vote on that we were discussing. And 138 00:30:56.354 --> 00:31:07.799 then when we're done discussing, we're gonna vote, sir. So any other discussion on this item? No. Okay. Well, let's let's 139 00:31:07.799 --> 00:31:20.244 call for a vote. No. If I could over the Slack part. Oh, we don't have to. No chair. If I could, if I could, if we could 140 00:31:20.244 --> 00:31:31.823 perhaps revise the motion to approve with the conditions recommended by staff and the additional condition that the applicant consider the use of 141 00:31:31.823 --> 00:31:42.433 the faux wood grain. Yes. Are you good with that? I'm very good with it. And you're good with that? Yes. Seconding. Okay, Chloe, you can fix that. Yep. I'm doing it now. All right. 142 00:31:42.433 --> 00:31:53.811 Are we motion to vote? Okay, we'll still vote now. Miss. Yes. Mr. Cadena. Yes. Miss. Kaplan. 143 00:31:53.811 --> 00:32:08.893 Yes, miss. Howlett. Yes. Chairperson. Burzynski. Yes. So it's been approved. Thanks for coming, I appreciate it. Let us 144 00:32:08.893 --> 00:32:20.738 know. I'll bring you some lunch. Thank you, thank you. Okay. Okay. Now we have let me get to 145 00:32:20.738 --> 00:32:33.051 the now board and staff comments. Carolyn, do you have any more comments about anything? I do not have any staff comments at this time. Okay. We could now talk about 146 00:32:33.051 --> 00:32:45.496 anything if we want. If you want to bring up that business about having extra meetings, we could talk about that right now. If the attorney a work session. 147 00:32:45.496 --> 00:32:55.973 I didn't explain it right at the last meeting. Right. Mayor. And we talked about it after that. Yes. You could absolutely have a work session. We just can't talk about individual 148 00:32:55.973 --> 00:33:07.185 cases, understand, because those have the due process rights. But absolutely, you can have a work session and get some of this information that may help you in future cases. I don't know how the board feels 149 00:33:07.185 --> 00:33:17.962 about it. Mr. chairman, are you I go to the library day. I read the historic preservation magazines. I read the old home, old house magazines. I read the 150 00:33:17.962 --> 00:33:26.270 historic preservation of old homes, and I am. I wish the city would subscribe to those for us, but they don't. But I 151 00:33:26.270 --> 00:33:37.048 know that in Saint Augustine. Of course, Charleston, South Carolina, is bigger and has more money than we do. But a 152 00:33:37.048 --> 00:33:48.626 lot of these historic towns have work sessions. Every so often. I think Clearwater has had them before. Saint Pete in 153 00:33:48.626 --> 00:34:00.204 Tampa, and they would come down from the state historic and talk about preservation of homes and things. And the public is invited to hear and 154 00:34:00.204 --> 00:34:10.748 they need to. And I wish that we could have something like that. So because Tarpon is so unique that property owners would understand, I'm envious 155 00:34:10.748 --> 00:34:22.292 of anyone who has an older home. They're beautiful. You don't get the architecture in them that in today's homes that they have. But not everyone understands that. When you buy 156 00:34:22.292 --> 00:34:32.603 a historic home, you have an obligation to it. But I don't know how y'all feel about yeah, we've we've talked about that in the past, having some sort 157 00:34:32.603 --> 00:34:42.580 of you're calling it a work session. That's that's fine. Whatever we want to call it. I guess what I wanted to do was have at least the board get 158 00:34:42.580 --> 00:34:56.327 together to discuss not what we should be doing, but well, in a way, what we should be doing. Yeah. And we talked about this 159 00:34:56.327 --> 00:35:07.171 over a year ago, Carolyn, is, is that something we could if if we appoint Anita as the point person to work, to work 160 00:35:07.171 --> 00:35:18.749 with you, to put together, to put together some sort of session, some meeting, whether we make it public, maybe we do it with just us first. I think 161 00:35:18.749 --> 00:35:28.759 it will be public. It would have to be public. Okay. That's fine. So what I would suggest we do have two cases for next month. So we will have a 162 00:35:28.759 --> 00:35:39.970 meeting next month. But things tend to slow down a little over the summer. Okay, that'll be good. And if I can see that there's going to be a month where we're either just going 163 00:35:39.970 --> 00:35:52.850 to have one case or no cases, then I could also see if perhaps our historic preservation officer for the county could come down and talk with us. He's an excellent 164 00:35:52.850 --> 00:36:03.661 resource and has been very helpful. Let's try and make it when there's no case coming up, okay? I mean, it does happen. And usually there is a slowdown in the summer, one of the summer months where we don't 165 00:36:03.661 --> 00:36:14.372 have any cases at all. So. All right, well, let's, let's, let's work on that. Okay. I can do that. We have been talking about it for a while. We have been talking about it. Okay. 166 00:36:14.372 --> 00:36:25.983 All right. Great. Any any other comments from the board here? Okay. Then we are adjourned at 167 00:36:25.983 --> 00:36:49.240 701. Thank you all. Thank you, Your Honor.