Historic Preservation Board on 2026-02-04 5:01 PM - Feb 04, 2026

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board, February 4th, 2026. And please call the roll. Peter Dwyer? Here. Carol Perez? Here. Benjamin Baffer? Here. Vladimir Matrescu? Here. Richard Kassar? Here. Chris Cabezas? Here. John Miller? Here. Full house tonight. Are there any changes to the agenda? No. Okay. Minutes. November 5th, 2025. To approve the agenda. Anybody want to make any comments or motion approval? I think we've got to approve the agenda. You asked if there were any changes, but no motion. All right. Like somebody make a motion? Motion to approve the agenda. Okay. I'll second. Second. Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes. Moving on. November 5th. Make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Okay. Motion to second. Any comments? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Okay. If anybody here plans on speaking on one of the quasi-judicial hearings tonight, if you could please stand up and be sworn in. If you think you may or may not speak, just on the side of caution, please stand up. Please raise your right hand. By the authority vested in me as the notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay. Thank you. At this point, item six, if there's anybody, a member of the public who would like to comment on anything that is not on the agenda tonight, now is your opportunity. Three minutes. HPB board, how are you? Good evening. Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc. This is a public service announcement. I'd like to invite everybody in the room, the board, the staff, and the audience, to the second annual Build Del Rey Lego event. It's for family and kids of all ages. We're all kids. But, you know, for our teenagers and kids who love to play with Legos, it was a wild success last year. Sponsored by the Preservation Trust. The concept is we've developed a gigantic map of the city of Del Rey Beach, like a street map. And on that map, we've identified 50, excuse me, 60 historic sites throughout the city that are of historic significance, and we allow kids to come in and select the site that they want to build or have some affinity to, and then they get to try to replicate that building based upon photographs, et cetera, of that building. And so it was wildly successful last year. So this is the second annual. We invite all architects in town, and last year, Mr. Gary Eliopoulos, here in the back row, brought his entire staff and dominated the competition. So the pressure's on again this year. It's held in the Old School Square gym, and it's on a Saturday, a couple Saturdays from now, February 21st, I think 10 o'clock in the morning. But until you're all invited, Commissioner Angela Byrne showed up last year, brought a big team, and had a ball. The Downtown Development Authority is a co-sponsor, along with the Preservation Trust, and it's a win-win situation. And we hope to expand the program, and next year, we've got a couple of surprises up our sleeve to make it a little bit different than the first two. But please, you know, bring your kids, your grandkids, your nephews, everybody that you can grab and try to come to the event. You'll have a ball. Thank you. Thank you. Didn't know you could win at Legos, Gary. Everybody's a win. Anybody else? Moving on. So we're moving on. Item seven, quasi-judicial hearing items. I'm going to read the rules for a quasi-judicial hearing. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach's quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each, or for a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission, board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. Okay, we're going to move on to 7A, variance HP 311-2025. Okay, for the record, I'm Katharina Palavota, Senior Historic Preservation Planner. I'd like to enter HP 311-2025 into the record. It's 453 Palm Square, and it's a variance. I'm going to ask if there's any ex parte communication on any board members' part for this item. Okay. I believe the applicants are here to present. How's it going today? Thanks for hearing me. My name is Issa with KER Construction, and I'm here to talk about a variance for 53 Palm if possible. And have you been sworn in? I have. Okay. And have you been sworn in? Are you planning on speaking? Possibly. Okay, if you want to just go ahead and get sworn in. And if there's anybody else that hasn't been. Anybody else who came in after we did that? All right, great. By the authority vested in me, is the notary of the state afforded? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The home will undergo a small renovation that, overall, it doesn't exceed 25% of the full value of the property, which means the land and the house. We're trying to get a variance because we're at 5 foot and 3 quarter inches currently. FEMA is asking for us to lift it to 9 feet. We're worried that if we lift it to 9 feet, it's going to cause damage to the house. And at that point, we're going to have to rebuild, which is not good in the historic district. We're trying to maintain and preserve everything within the property. We've been under the property. We've checked the property thoroughly, and there's no damage to the property after all these years. The house was built in 1940, so it's been 80-something years that the house has been there. So we're asking for the variance to see if we can get past this FEMA regulation and be able to continue with construction. The historic district has already approved the work to be done, but it's just the FEMA regulation card is what we're trying to get past now, if possible. Shane Ames, architect, 203 Dixie Boulevard, Ames International Architecture. We've been working on this addition for quite some time, and it's a very, very small addition. So you can see up on the drawing, it is just an old back porch that was enclosed. It's about 99 square feet. It's not affecting the rest of the house. The slab was already there, and we're just expanding the roof out to incorporate a breakfast room for the house. All right, I'm sure we'll have some questions for you. Thank you. Thank you. You can sit for now, because staff's going to go ahead and give their presentation, and then we'll call you back up. Thank you. So the request is for the property located at 53 Palm Square. It's located in the Marina Historic District, and the request is a variance. So just for the record, the property did have an application that was approved by HPB on February 7th, 2024. It was a Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance. It was file number 2024-054. It was a request for an addition and exterior modifications to the existing contributing structure. It specifically approved two additions totaling 102 square foot. It was an addition to the rear of the home, installation of a pool and a deck in the rear of the property, replacement of an existing cardboard awning, replacement of an existing paver hardscape in the rear of the property, and a variance to reduce the required south interior side back from 7'6'' to 5'9'' and 5'8'' inches. So as the project was approved, it went to building permit, and that's where, because the building department did the review and it determined that the percentage of improvements made to the structure exceeded the required 50% threshold of what was called substantial improvement, they were required to comply with the FEMA finished floor elevation requirements. Therefore, the request to keep the existing structure at the existing finished floor elevation, which the FEMA regulation requirement is 9 at the requirement, and they're requesting to keep it at the existing 5' 3'4'' inches. So this request is not before the board. So we can see the location of the property located in the Marina Historic District. Okay, this is the front elevation, it's facing west. This is the side, south elevation, rear east. Side north. And then here, the applicants did note the area that you see in red to the right. Those were the approved additions made to the structure. Here we can see the existing front elevation and then the newly approved elevation. The items highlighted in red were the changes that were made and approved. To the left and the right, you can see what the existing finished floor elevation is, and the bottom where it's noted already approved, there's no change to the existing elevation, as well as there's no change to the existing mean roof height. It's also the same for the existing north elevation to the left. So the red also notes the addition that was approved. Here we can see the new rear elevation, all the red is what was approved. No change to height or the finished floor elevation. And so here is the variance request. Attached to the staff report, this also includes the findings that they needed to determine whether or not the variance would be appropriate to the structure. This is also a screenshot from our staff report. We noted that the additions would allow the interior, the small addition would allow for the interior renovations to the historic structure while also maintaining the historic home. As you can see from the previous approval, they were very minor, and majority of the additions were in the rear of the structure, so they weren't in the public right away. They weren't visible. In addition, because of the substantial improvement, which we've continuously been seeing with historic structures, you can either raise the structure or because of the FEMA exemptions for historic structures, they can request this variance in order to keep the existing finished floor elevations. Granting the variance request would keep the existing finished floor elevations, but would also retain the overall character of the existing single-family structure. These are site plan technical items, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? Not yet. Seeing none. Any cross-examination or rebuttal by the applicant? If you have something to respond to what they said, please come up here and speak from the microphone if you're going to. This has been a very long process for us. It's been ongoing for probably two years, trying to get this little cottage fixed up and put back into use again. We put new kitchens in, new bathrooms, updated everything on the inside, and working with an area that we could eat, and when they put the new pool in, it needed a little breakfast area. So the existing patio that was there just got enclosed another four feet going out. It was a very small area. And I am very sensitive to the historic, because I'm in one of the oldest buildings in town, 203 Dixie on the corner there, which turned 100 years this year. So I've been through this process many times when I redid the entire structure over there. Okay. And it's very sensitive to being that. Anything in particular about staff's presentation, though, that you would choose to rewrite? Staff presentation was perfect, because it's been going on and on for quite a long time trying to get through this hoops. I'm sure we're going to have some more questions for you. Okay. So, all right. Staff, any rebuttal? No rebuttal from staff. Okay. Yes. Rebuttal from staff? Just to note that the project was approved on February 7th, 2024, so we are nearing two years since the original board approval. And there are other concerns, too, relating to expiration of projects and things like that. So I just heard you say that, and I thought we should probably touch base tomorrow on some of those items. But also that the substantial improvement was triggered less because of the additions in the rear and more because of the interior improvements that are happening, the remodel on the inside. I don't think any of us anticipated that when it came through in 2024 and then when it went through permitting, building flagged it. So that's why they're before you with the variance. That's what's going to be my first question. I mean, obviously, this is a small addition. How was that calculation made? And this board really doesn't have any purview or interior. Yeah. So we've had a few projects we've looked at very closely. If I could just go back here and show you, you know, this is the back elevation, right? And so you can see it's a very small area. And when they do the substantial improvement breakdown at the building department, the general contractor submits a permit with a valuation. How much is that job going to cost? And if that is more than 50% of the value of the house alone, that triggers a substantial improvement, which by FEMA's definition means the building has to be vertically elevated. We've looked at some other properties across the district, and I was kind of surprised that the value of the structure here was so low. I was going to say that's subjective, isn't it? Well, it's set by the property appraiser. So that was a bit of a surprise. We've seen applicants come in with much bigger projects that haven't triggered this substantial improvement. So, you know, the applicant could always get a private appraisal and go through that process with an appraiser, but the land here is more valuable than the house. We've had some on Nassau Street over on the beach side where it wasn't triggered. So, you know, we never know until they actually move through getting the GC quote on the project, and that doesn't happen until the time of permit. Okay. Any other comments or rebuttal? Okay. All right. We're going to move into board discussion at this point, unless you have any rebuttal to her rebuttal. I know it's been taking quite a long time, and the property appraiser is notorious for under-evaluating properties, especially old ones, because they just don't update them constantly. All right. Thank you. All right. Who would like to start? I said a question, so we are talking... Staff or applicant? No, so for staff. Okay. Question for staff. So we're talking about this board tonight, we're talking about the variance, right? We're not talking about the additions, or that's already been approved. Correct. So we're just talking about the variance. This is strictly variance for finished floor elevation. So instead of going to what results in nine feet in this area, for them to remain at, what is it, five and three quarters inches or something like that, to remain at the existing. So what are the rules for historic properties? Historic property, there is an exemption, right? Yes. And so would you like me to talk about that? Yes, please. The Federal Emergency Management Association, or agency, has an exemption in place for historic properties. To retain the character of the building, you can not have to elevate. Some cities choose to keep a list, and staff handles it administratively. Our city chose to put the regulations in the LDRs and require the applicants to come through to this board to ask for the exemption as a variance. So it's a little loose on FEMA's side on how they do it. They will come in and quality control and pull this permit after it's approved, and they come in and check all of those permits. FEMA does. So there's a double-check system. But yes, it is in place through FEMA's own regulations that we've adopted, and we've created the variance process for such. So we've had a handful or more get this in the past. The closest one is the Marine Villas, directly south of this, on the corner of Marine Way and First. They also received variances to finish floor because they were adding less than 100 square feet, I think, per structure for new bathrooms. So I hope that answers your question. Thank you. I have a question. The applicant mentioned that there was no signs of flooding ever on this property. Do you know the history of flooding in the area? So we do know that Marine Way itself is the street that floods the most, and the city is working on that capital improvement project to increase the resiliency to flooding over there. I have not heard reports of flooding happening at this property or severe issues happening on Palm Square, where this is. That doesn't mean it's never happened. I just have not heard about it. So the need for this variance really resulted from the stated value on the permit application that then was 50% over what the value is at the time of permit from the property appraiser? Of the structure, yes. Of the structure. Can I ask everybody when you speak, just speak into the mic so then the recording can pick it up. Thank you. So it was 50% of the improvement value or of the total value? So if the contractor estimates that the project is going to cost $200,000, that estimate gets put in with the building permit. And if the value of the home is $400,000, we're right at the threshold. But if the value of the home is less than that, they trigger the threshold. And that's the total value, not improvement of the house. That threshold contemplates the improvement value as well as the land value. No, it does not include the land value. So it's just the improvement value. Yes. Okay. And there's where the discrepancy lies in some of these properties. Yeah. And then question for the applicant. So on the permit application, I guess the value of the work was, let's say, over the 50% of the improvement value. Sorry. The house value is $150,000. Okay. Our improvement value is close to $600,000. Oh. Because the whole interior needs to be done. I mean, today you could barely do a bathroom and a kitchen for what 50% is of the property value. Yeah. Yeah. I think the most recent, I looked on Papa and the improvement value on this property right now is about $121,000. Yeah. I mean, very low. The overall is $1.5 million, I think. But the house itself is. Yeah. Yeah. And just back to Steph. So if we approve the variance here, it starts and stops here with us. FEMA then doesn't have to come in or the city doesn't have to come in and then give their input. So the board can approve the variance. The applicant then can proceed with the permit. We can approve the permit. And just to note, in the back of the staff report, there are three items known as site plan technical items. These are taken directly from the code. They must record the variance with the clerk at the county, Palmage County, then provide us a certified copy of that recorded document. Then the city's floodplain administrator provides a letter to the applicant specifying the difference between the base flood elevation requirement versus what they're going to retain, right? No change. And notifying them that the cost of federal flood insurance is going to increase because there's an increased risk should they flood here. So that's all gets filed with the final permit by the time the permit's getting ready to issue. So it's a double check system, essentially. But yes, once this board approves, should you choose to approve, technically we still have to run through the city commission appealable time frame, which takes about 30 days or less. Provided it doesn't get appealed by the city commission, then we can approve the permit. Or the applicant. Or if the applicant chooses to appeal a decision of the board, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. I have a question. There's also mention of a side yard. Is that created by what? Did you say there's mention of a site plan variance? I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry. That was approved previously, I believe. The setback. I thought it's part of the variance. That was previously approved in 2024. Maybe what we decide that has nothing to do with this because it says, it says, if I read the report, it seems to say, that that is, I thought it was part of it. Maybe you're looking at page one. Yeah. There was also this discussion of the site. So, yeah. Okay. That was part of the February 7th. Yes. No worries. No worries. On page one, it does describe the previous approval. So that was approved. Yeah. Okay. Then the other question I have is more of a general question to you. I mean, we both went to the seminar, right? It's nothing they're required to do in order to mitigate a little bit for the problem of flooding, potential flooding, because there's a serious difference in elevation. It's not just a little. So, um. And so, just to say that I don't know in terms of materials if using anything that can be, can sustain flooding. I mean, that was one of the benefits of the old construction. They were resilient, you know? Yeah. If you were to replace everything with sheetrock, new one, basically not helping much, you know? On the exterior. But if we seal in the exterior properly, it protects the interior. So, some of the things that we're trying to use, like we were trying to use hardy backer planks for the exterior, but we still have to go through the city to see if they're going to approve that portion. So, um. Maybe if I could. Yes, please. Because you held up the, if you could hold it up again. Um, what Mr. Dumitrescu here is holding, we can also provide you a link to this, um, document. Yeah. This is the Secretary of the Interior Standards, um, as it relates to flood adaptation. Okay. Um, and there's several methods of flood adaptation for properties that range from, uh, having a trench system around the site all the way to elevating the site. So, there's different approaches. As far as, um, materials, you know, should the applicant be looking to use hardy boards, say, around the, the bottom four feet, they would have to come back to the board for that approval because technically the structure has wood. Um, but I'm glad that you brought that up. We can, um, discuss that with the applicant about methods that they can take. Uh, there's a lot. There's a lot of options. And we can even let the water go through. That's right. There's more than one. It's just, and also, I'm just curious in general because this area is prone to potentially that problem and probably other areas too, but, um, when it says that it's really not causing damage to the surrounding and all that, it is not expected to, how, if it does happen. What do you do? Yeah. Yeah. Who, who's paying for it? Who's repairing? Who's... The owner will. Or their insurance company if they can get that insurance. And that will cover no other damage to other properties and further that. That's the risk they take with getting the variance in that letter I described. I see. That they have to pay an increased premium for flood insurance because of the variance. Right. But there certainly is, uh, options or are options in the book that you're describing that we could review with the applicant. And if you wanted to go so far as a board to make that direction to the applicant, that they work with us to review those options. I think it's, I think it's, it's good for everybody. Sure. Can I make another comment? I was just told that in the landscaping plan, we do have almost like a French drain system going around where the rocks are located to where they're going to dig down and fill that area with rock. So in that way, it will appease the comment that you made about the drainage system. It'll be able to catch some of the water. And as a reminder to the board, those plans don't typically get reviewed until the time of permit. Right. Um, we don't review them at the board level, but we could go over them with the applicant in advance just to make sure we're troubleshooting any potential pitfalls. We're in your realm, so we got to make sure we abide by your rules. Yeah. So. Any other questions? Anybody else? I have a question for the applicant. I'm curious why somebody would spend $600,000 and leave a structure four feet below the present flood elevation. I mean, just, I'm not sure how much more it would cost to lift it. It's a small structure. It's almost $200,000 to lift the structure. Okay. But it's not just lifting the structure. I understand, I'm a general contractor. I know what it takes. But, um, again, it begs the question, this is a lot of money to spend on a small structure to leave it. I drove by, I mean, the thing, that whole street, everything on that street's going to have to be raised at some point, sooner than later. I mean, I know we like to keep the character, but the best way to preserve a structure is to keep it out of the water. So, you know, I have some feelings about it. I just think we've got to be practical. It's a beautiful home and don't want to hold you up, but, I mean, it's something to consider. Okay. Anybody else? Anybody want to make a motion on this? I, my feelings are, you know, they know the risks. Um, that's why the city sends the CYA letter. And, um, you know, I, I would have concerns if this is, it's none of our purview, but if it, you know, it gets flipped to somebody who doesn't know the history of it and they move in and think that it's all good and meets everything and they could have a problem down the road. Cause that area, like Pete said, it's flooded before it will flood again at some point down the road, uh, no matter what the city does. So, um, but as far as it goes here tonight, I'm in, I'm in favor of approving the variance, but how about with some conditions of some mitigating, um, um, items with staff, uh, working with staff? I mean, like that's blood vents or something still going to probably come through to us at some point. That's, is that on the table tonight? Kelly or, yeah. I think it's difficult to condition it on something that will have to be approved by you guys. But if you, you know, if you just condition you, I mean, you can instruct staff to discuss other options with them that hopefully they can bring forward. I just don't know that you could be like, I condition it on flood vents when you have to approve flood vents. You know, that's all I'm saying. Flood vents are typically utilized for non-habitable spaces and there are none here. There's no garage. Um, it's only a carport. We wouldn't, wouldn't typically see flood vents as part of the habitable space. So the crawl space is already vented? Yes. I mean, they, the... I mean, I'm just, I'm just concerned we're, we're answering questions. We're not being asked here tonight. So... I'd like to make a motion. Okay. I'd like to move approval of variance HP 311, 2025 for the property located at 53 Palm Square Marina Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations. Second. Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Please take the vote. Chris Cabezas. Yes. Peter Dwyer. No. Richard Kasser. Yes. Benjamin Baffert. Yes. Vlad Dimitrescu. Yes. Carol Perez. Yes. John Miller. Yes. Good luck. Here you go. Okay. All right. Moving on to items. Now, can we discuss items B, C, D, E, and F concurrently? Yes. I have a plan. All right. Approved by law. Legal. And so, you can come on up. I'm going to introduce the project and then get their application queued up. So, first, Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner for the record, and I'd like to enter files number HP 424, 2026, 423, 2026, 422, 2026, 421, 2026, and 420, 2026 into the record. These are five applications. Each application is a COA with a variance and a waiver. This is for the Magnolia Place project. That's five lots. Individual approvals for each of those. It's not a unified development plan. They were approved as duplexes. And the applicant is coming forward to request relief from the code for improvements made to the property. Mr. Gary Iliopoulos is here. The property owner's architect and the property owner, Mr. Tom Ladani, is here as well. And did you already open these? It's in the back? Yeah. Oh, it's this right here. Okay. So, if Gary's at the podium... He is. He can begin. And I just want to make one quick comment about it. They can be presented all together, but I would just let the board know, caution you guys, to just consider that each one is separate, and you will have to make a motion on each one at the end. And there'll be a separate vote, yeah. And some of the variances, while they're very similar applications, there are variances to the variances. Variations to the variances. Variations to the variances. So, just keep that in mind as you're going through until you can keep each one straight. Before we start, I do want to ask if there's been any ex parte on this item. Yes. Yes. I was on the site. I went to check it out, and Pat White, one of the owners of Seaside, was there, so he gave me a tour. I've walked by it. No. No. I drove by, and I spoke to Kristen Finn about it. Okay. Mr. Chair and board members, my name is Gary Leopolis. For the record, address is 1045 East Atlantic Avenue. We are GE Architecture. As Michelle stated, our owner rep, as far as the developer, Tomlin Downey, is here, should you have any questions for him. We've obviously been here before for several things, and we are hopefully here at the end to wrap this up. The project is pretty much completed, and tonight we're here for something that's kind of unique, and they kind of overlap. The variances in the waiver are about, basically, we're dealing with artificial turf. Let me see if I get this right here. Our location, so we are in the southeast corner of the Oshad district. It is a unique area in the sense that we abut on the east side to the CBD. Just to the north is actually CBD with an overlay of historicness within our block. To the south is residential, and when you go to the west, you actually have mixed use. You have commercial, you have multifamily. So, again, we're kind of in a neat little area there. We feel that, you know, when we did this project, it was like a transition. You were coming from the high-rise next door, which were five stories, and you were going west to the lower ones. The lots are right here. I'm going to go through these. There is going to be a correction that I'll show in the presentation that we came up with that I do have to work with staff should this move forward. So here's our location. We've got southeast 1st Avenue and southeast 2nd Street, and then, of course, we have the alley on the west side. And there are the five lots. So as you go through them, we're dealing with the open space requirement. So 25% is required. When you see lot 1, we are actually down to 9.3. That would be the request that we're going from 25 to 9.3. The artificial turf, by code, what we are allowed to do, and I know there's some landscape architects up here that can correct me. We can do three square feet on lot 1. As you go through them, lot 2, we have 25 open space down to 10.9. We could do 26 square feet of artificial turf. And as you go through, you see the numbers. They're pretty much in that range. So what happens is with the artificial turf and the way the code is, you have to meet your 25%. Anything over the 25% of open space that you have, 15% of that can be artificial turf. What I think is there's a little issue there is that this is a code that's for the entire city. So, you know, it's one blanket code, and it doesn't change where you are. I would tell you that in an urban setting, it is more appropriate to actually rethink this code and see how it should be for smaller lots versus a large lot that might be on the ocean. Now, here was the mistake that we did do on our calcs. We didn't realize this is all artificial, I mean, a real sod. When we went back out there, they had finished this portion and installed it. So those calcs have been put into the numbers. And so when you see lot 1, there was an extra 545 square feet. It raises it to 17.2%. As you go through them, the rest are pretty much at that 14%. I bring that up because if we were actually right across the street, we'd only be required 10%. Now, I know we're not in the CBD, but that's how the code does work in an urban setting. Sorry, can I stop you for a second? So are you asking for a decreased variance on multiple lots? Well, it technically would be, yeah. But if it's going to mess up tonight, I won't. Okay. So you're going for the full variance even though you have portions that are sodded. Right. Okay. Just because if it changes, it would have to be re-notified. Right. Yeah. No, no. This was just conversation. So right here what you have is lot 3, 4, and 5. Off in the distance in the upper corner, you can see the other commercial building that's being built right now. Again, it is a unique area in the sense that we felt this was a good transition to the neighborhood. Kind of one of the comments that or one of the things you look at is what we are requesting, is it going to change the character of the neighborhood? For what we feel is what we're talking about tonight, you don't actually see it. It doesn't affect the character of the neighborhood at all. This is one of the pool settings that we have. Another unique thing about this property is that, you know, most projects can't afford to be doing the splash pools. They don't offer it. It's a nice little amenity. It gives you the feeling that you do have a little bit of a privacy yard, even though, as you can see, across the street is a five-story structure. This is just showing you across the street what we are having. It's not stating that we're complaining about the neighborhood, but it is in an urban setting. That is a ramp going into a parking garage. This is what we were here at the end of last year, the signage. You can see how the project has developed, how the landscape is all coming in. One of the things is, again, is the visibility. Is the artificial turf visible by the public right-of-way? Another setting right in here. So what you do see from the street is actually real turf, but that is in the swale, so it's not part of our property, but that's actually the only thing that's visible. Again, another shot straight on. And right here, one of the criteria that we have to do for the city engineering is demonstrate, is this pervious? So one of the criteria that you look at with the code of Del Rey is that it has to be, the drainage, the permeability has to be 30 inches per hour. We actually are at 100. So we well exceed the drainage counts for this property. We also had to submit other criteria to the city with regards to how the turf is made, how it meets everything. So right here, you've got a lot of items that come into play with the waiver when you're talking about the artificial turf. We are requesting a full waiver from all of them. But I was highlighting some of the things of saying, obviously, we were going in for permits for this. We have other items here where we're looking at it with the artificial turf as far as at the rear. It is in the interior portions of the lot. We did not do them in the driveways, so that was one of the criterias that you could do. When you're talking about properties that are in the actual historic district, again, it's only allowed in the rear and the sides. We have those, but I would state that even though we have it in the front with the fencing and the landscaping, you do not see it. As far as the recycling of it, the materials of it, we satisfied all that. We did submit all the specs on it. When you talk about the percolation of it, we're fine there. When you talk about the demonstration of how it feels in the yard, we actually had staff out there. When you walk in it with bare feet and everything, this feels just like grass, if not better. When you talk about warranties, eight years is what the city requires. We have turf that's installed that's ten years. I'd actually be happy to see if any of my grass lasted that long. I can't keep it that long. That is one of the good things about this. When you start talking about what it's installed over, we have it installed over sand and rock. Again, that's what makes it so pervious and it drains so well. You start talking about, again, that was the criteria that the city has. We exceed that. Again, the comfort of walking on it, how the blades are. Then you talk about where you install it. We do not have it abutting up any trunk trees or anything like that, so we are satisfying that. With regards to the material base underneath, everything is going to be and has been inspected. Of course, you have to maintain it. We will be having an HOA that will be maintaining all these properties and keeping them up to the criteria that is set in the code. The variance. Basically, again, what you're talking about is that this is something that is not considered open space. So that's really what we are talking about. The character. I would state that I don't believe this is going to be changing the character of the historic district. I really do believe that it's not even visible. You know, there is no, as far as historicness to the site that we were changing with regards to structures or anything like that. And the little interpretation, we feel it's not going to, again, alter the historic character of the district. It's not diminishing the neighborhood by any means. And as far as the E, it's not really applicable because we're not really affecting a historic structure. This right here just happens to be it's not law. It is just stating that the state of Florida is actually looking at this. This has not been adopted. It's actually been sent to DEP right now. They are reviewing it. One of the things they are looking at is that any property, an acre or less, can have full artificial turf. Again, it has not been approved, but that's what they are looking at. So here, in conclusion, what we have. The proposed artificial turf. Let me go back. How do you go back there? Let's just go with the fact that artificial turf, you do not water it. You do not cut it. You do not fertilize it. It is actually eco-friendly. When you talk about an urban setting, I do believe that this is appropriate for the downtown area. Some would say, well, geez, there's not a lot of property there. Well, that's when it's actually totally appropriate. That's when you should have it. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions should you have them. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to say one comment as well. I know it was just conversational, but I would just ask the board to ignore the portion about that they have filled it with sod because, you know, the open space variance will be that variance and that runs with the land. So, you know, if you're approving that variance as is, you have to imagine it is as is as well. For the record, Michelle Hewitt, Senior Planner, and once again, this is for a COA variance and waiver request for lots one through five of the Granolia Place project. Here we have an aerial with the subject properties outlined in blue. Southeast First Avenues to the east, Southeast Second Streets to the south, and south, and there's an alley to the west. I'm going to go over a brief background of the property approximately roughly two years ago. The historic preservation board reviewed and denied a COA request that included variances and waivers for the construction of 5G plexes at the subject locations outlined in blue up there. The variances were for lot coverage and for the swimming pools, and there was a waiver for building height plain. The applications were appealed and approved by the City Commission at the February meeting. A building permit was issued for the subject property, and the project is near and completion. However, artificial turf was installed, where sod was approved, and permitted. Subsequently, a COA application with a waiver and variance were submitted for the following. So, a waiver is submitted for the artificial turf entirety of the section, and then a variance is also requested to allow reduction in the minimum required open space. That is 25%. So, here is the addressing of the lots as they are now. Again, they're duplexes, so there's two addresses for each unit, and then those five lots. Going through some photos here, at the top left corner is lot one. The front unit, this space is Southeast First Avenue, and then in the middle there, you can see where the main area that the artificial turf is located around the swimming pools. And then at the bottom left is the rear unit. This space is the alley, and then the swimming pool, again, on the right for that rear unit. And then you can see where the sod is in the alley between lots one and two. Here we have lot two. Again, the top left is the front unit, and then the subsequent artificial turf on the pool. Bottom is the rear unit, face is the alley, and then the pool on the right. And then in between the properties. This is lot three. We can see the front and the location of the artificial turf around the swimming pools. And then between the properties. Here's lot four, again, front unit, rear unit, and then their pools in between. And then we have lot five, the most north unit, and their swimming pools. So with the installation of the artificial turf, this is kind of like the process of installing the turf at the, I believe it's a subgrade, and the type of material that they use being permeable. And here it's kind of how it is in the field during installation. And this is how all of them were installed in this manner. So I'm going to go through all five of the site plans, where you can see the building is outlined or highlighted in red. The pool is in blue. Any sort of hardscaping is in gray. The yellow is representing what's on site in yellow for the artificial turf. And then the green is sawed. So here is the most south unit. This is at the corner of southeast 2nd Street and southeast 1st Avenue with the alley to the left. This is lot two. Again, building in red. Artificial turf, yellow. And then the natural, the grass in green, lot three, and most north unit. So typically, the board doesn't review landscape for single-family and duplex structures. But because the request before you pertains to landscaping, we did a brief analysis for the artificial turf section. So the installed artificial turf does not meet the open space requirements, nor all of the appropriate artificial turf requirements. Thus, the wave invariants were submitted to address the after-the-fact installation. As this concerns historic review, there is concern with the use of artificial turf in the front and side street areas of the property. These specific turf sections were developed to allow the use of turf where it would be sheltered from view, such as rear and side yard areas. Given synthetic material, it's typically discouraged for use within historic districts. And then just a brief section from the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The standards do recommend approaches when it comes to the use of materials at the ground level. So using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving site feature or that is physically or ecologically incompatible is not recommended. So if a material was to be installed, it's recommended that it's considered ecologically compatible and from a drainage perspective that it can percolate and as well as the appearance of the artificial turf. And then here are the section I just read. And then looking at the visual compatibility standards, given the nature and design of the site, which included variances and waivers to reduce setbacks and exceed lot coverage, there are limited areas where natural open space was to be accommodated. The applicant has indicated that the installation of sod is not feasible from a maintenance perspective around the pools. And while artificial turf is installed in all areas where sod was to be placed, it is noted that there are landscape areas surrounding the perimeter of the site that incorporate hedging ground cover entries. So going into the variance requests, as previously mentioned, this variance request is to reduce the minimum required 25% open space for the newly constructed duplex sites. Just something to clarify, in the artificial turf section, artificial turf itself does not count towards your 25% minimum open space. The 15% artificial turf item that was mentioned earlier is for any remaining lot area after your open space has been calculated, open space lot coverage, all of that. It's the additional lot area, no more than 15% of that can be artificial turf. So you can see here on the table, each of the proposed variance requests, the reductions with lots 2 and 4 being the same because they're the same type, and then lots 3 and 5, and then lot 1 at 9.3%. So here are the variance findings that were used to analyze the request. So going through the open space and variance requirements, the variance would allow for the reduction of minimum open space, the standard applicable to all properties within the subject historic district. It requires that it's consistent and compatible with the overall historic district, as well as the structures within the district. As previously mentioned, open space requirement cannot be met due to the use of artificial turf, and it is for historic structures reserved for use in the rear-end side of the property. There is concern that the large production is open space that may not be granted for other sites in the same zoning district. Looking at the waiver requests, as previously mentioned, the entirety of the artificial turf section is requested to be waived. However, they are meeting portions of the artificial turf section, which I'll show on the next slide. First, waiver findings. So here are the sections that are currently being met. They are meeting a lot of the technical portions of the artificial turf in the LDRs. So items such as the rate at which the water percolates, the type of base that's being utilized, and that artificial turf in the code is considered pervious. So there's no concern that it will affect drainage calculations. Additionally, staff went out there and conducted a site visit and determined that the appearance and material and feel of the turf was appropriate to meet the emulation of natural turf or sod. So going through the waiver analysis, it is contained within the boundaries of the site, so it's not anticipated to impact any neighboring areas or properties. There are a few instances where turf is utilized in historic districts, and it is either not visible from the right-of-way or placed prior to the addition of the artificial turf LDRs. So this is very particular to this request. Should the property be required to comply with current landscape regulations, the turf could only be located in the rear or side interiors and or side interiors. Proposed waiver may not be granted to another applicant or owner under similar circumstances because it also involves approval of a variance to reduce the required open space. However, it does emulate the appearance of real grass, and its configuration creates small areas that could be seen as difficult to maintain. Here are the Secretary of Interior Standards and Visual Compatibility Standards, where we use the relationship of materials, textures, and colors to analyze the request, and the Certificate of Appropriateness Findings. Here we have some site-line technical items for the request, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? For the record, Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc. I don't know if you're supposed to give your address or your zip code these days, but I'll do both. 701 Southeast 1st Street, I think the zip code is 33483. I had no intention of coming up and speaking on this item, but I'm going to. Listen, there is much more use than maybe staff is aware of the installation or artificial turf out there, and very much specifically within historic districts. Mr. Tom Cocker's home is at 73 Palm Square, has it all over the front yard. Whether you've got a permit to install it or not may be irrelevant, but it's in use out there. It's the wave of the future. It's what our clients demand. It's what these very high-priced homeowners, buyers demand. So it is far more permeable and eco-friendly as some of the competent and substantial evidence given earlier. It drains better because you can control the sub-base that it sits on versus a natural turf that has to sit on an organic material that has no drainage capabilities whatsoever. So it's very hard to criticize the use of artificial turf in any installation, let alone what they're proposing tonight. I would just ask you to support the waivers, the variances, the reduction in percentages. In this particular case, it is very urban and in a much different environment than if it were a single-family home sitting out in a PUD or something. So you're reducing the noise of the maintenance that's required that would have to take place if it were real grass. No blowers and loud motors. And listen, when leaves fall from trees and bushes and surrounding shrubs, it looks just like it's brand new, real live grass anyway. I find, you know, zero drawbacks to its use, and I hope you guys feel the same. I think it's a perfect use for it. I think you should support it. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. Any rebuttal? No rebuttal? Yes. Oh, yes. Just a few notes. The LDRs on artificial turf were created not long ago. In fact, we brought them to this board and asked for specific guidance. It's not exactly a blanket code across the city. I could see where the applicant, where Mr. Eliopoulos would say that when it comes to, like, lot size. That might be how things are looked at across the city, but there are specific requirements for historic. Michelle already touched on the open space piece. Oh, the DEP. So the Florida State Legislature has created some type of regulation about what's going to be done with turf, but they're referring it down to DEP to come up with those regulations. So we are in a holding pattern. It's possible that they may create regulations that say you can't have regulations in your city controlling turf. Or they may create some more stringent types of requirements than even we have. So it really can't be a factor in the case, the cases before you. We did discuss that with our city attorney's office ahead of bringing it to the board to be sure that we weren't stepping out of our control. So that just can't be part of the consideration tonight. You have to utilize the LDRs that we have in place per the request. And I did walk the site with my team, with the director of our department, as well as director of public works, took my shoes off. It does feel soft. It wasn't hot. That's why, you know, we put that in the staff report and does appear to emulate a natural type of sod, but it is not. And, you know, we have additional pictures here that are somewhere hidden if you want to look into it more in depth. That's all I had for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments? All right. Moving into board discussion. Anybody want to start? I have a quick question. Was this work is already done? Yes. And was it permitted? No. No. So the approval was to have sod here. And is there a protocol for permitting turf in the city? They do have to submit a landscape plan with their building permit. And so that plan has to identify what they're using. So they'll have to alter or revise that plan. They are at the point of beginning to get CO for these properties. So they're going through the TCO process, which is a technical CO, almost temporary in nature, because they have some items to address, including this, reduction of open space. The permit that was submitted had sod. Correct. Yeah. And then quick question for the applicant. So when you installed the turf, did you know that you were going to have to come here and request a variance for it? That's a good question. Well, I didn't install it, but... When the owner installed it. Yeah. No. It would have to go to the owner. He can tell you what happened. Okay. Yeah. I can speak to that. Come on, Tom. I don't know if he was sworn in. He was. I was sworn in. Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Ladani. I'm the owner of Seaside Builders, 185 Northeast 4th Avenue, Delray Beach. I've been a developer here in this city for 28 years. I've developed many, many projects. This project is one of the more challenging, but one of the most attractive that we've done, thanks to the help of the historic staff and the development staff and Gary Ilyalbasara architect. At the time when we installed this turf, it was not installed in any kind of a malicious way or way that indicated that we were trying to avoid any kind of a process. We've gone through several iterations of permit adjustments as well as the fact that we came before this board a while back and just for a request for use of the signage, if you recall, that was granted. And I greatly appreciate that. I did have the pleasure of having the senior staff members come out with Michelle. And as she indicated, they were very pleased to see the quality of the product as well as the turf. The turf is not hot. It's very pervious. It's the most practical application because of the fact that we're in a confined area, gated for the small spa pools. If you looked at some of the videos that we've seen earlier, what you see as you drive down the street is you see natural turf. You see natural turf in the swales. You see natural turf in the open areas adjacent to the garages. Mr. Dwyer, I think you were there. And maybe you witnessed that yourself. I spoke to the – I spoke – I'll be grateful. Mr. Ladone, just as to the question that he's asked at this point because they're in board discussion, so just limit your answer to what he's asked about the – Did I answer your question? No. Okay. What was your – No. The question was I am not – I did not intentionally avoid a permit for this turf. I never contemplated that this would not be considered to be a pervious surface, and I never contemplated that we would be violating the open space requirements because I think that this product meets the open space requirements. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the mayor of Ocean Ridge today, Jeff Pugh, and he indicated that they just changed the LDRs in Ocean Ridge just for this very reason. So I think it's something that's being addressed locally because of the practicality of the use of it and the high demand, as Mr. Cope indicated earlier. So I hope that answers your question. So just to sum up, you installed the turf, everything was fine, and then you found out that now you're going to have to come in for a variance because of it? And the way I found out was when we were going through the CO process, the landscape inspector came out, or the associate landscape inspector came out, and he indicated, to my surprise, that we did not meet the criteria. So therefore, it sent us into a process of coming before this board for a waiver and a variance. It was not something done maliciously or intentionally. When I got the phone call, I said, oh, wow, this is unbelievable. I didn't expect this to happen. So I've been doing business here, Mr. Cesar, for many, many years, and all my projects have been done successfully and without any deceit in mind. Okay. Thank you very much. We may have some more questions for you. Sure. We concur that is how it happened, was identified during a site inspection. Thank you. There's a little mention before, but this is actually for staff, I take it. Why is not an open space? What is the question? Why is it not considered an open space? So like we said in the staff report, there have been advancements made in the construction of artificial turf, but not all turf that's on the market is pervious. So open space is really designed. It's kind of a hinging type of setup with our code that you need a minimum of 25% of green area. It's natural green area is what's identified in the code section. All areas of natural plant communities are areas replanted with vegetation after construction, such as revegetated natural areas, trees, shrub, hedge, ground cover, plantings, and lawns. Water bodies and artificial turf areas cannot be used to calculate open space areas. This is primarily because there is a requirement for natural, but there is also a requirement for percolation, for drainage, so that these sites don't flood onto adjacent property or rights of way. So artificial turf historically has not been in that category. This turf, one of the requirements that we made as part of the submittal was to show us what part of the artificial turf section do they not meet and what part do they meet. And one of our non-negotiables for our city engineer was the percolation. So the minimum requirements for water percolating through the turf into the subgrade had to be met. And if that wasn't met, that was going to require a different type of request. It would look different. They'd probably have to do trenching and whatnot. So they do meet that requirement and they submitted those documents. Okay. And it's still kind of creating a conflict. I mean, if you could find a way to condition the percolation and then allow this, as long as it's a good quality material, then there are several very considerable. And when this came before the board, when we reviewed artificial turf, because before we added the, I don't remember if you were on the board, Mr. Dumitrescu. No. So the city brought through a land development regulation amendment to specifically add regulations for turf into the code because we started to see a proliferation of its use across the city. And so we had the board weigh in and say, what would you think is appropriate for a historic district? And that part of the code says that turf is to only be used in the rear and side to preserve the historic front. While, yes, this is in OSHAD, these are new constructions. So I could see where there might be a dilemma for you and how the board deliberates on this. So, all right. Do you, anybody knows what that warranty covers? That would be best for the applicant to answer. I mean, any, like, health issues or something like that that could be still? We would like the applicant to answer that. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. So the warranty actually covers if, in fact, this gets damaged, you know, whether through the sun. Like, I think somebody mentioned, Roger might have mentioned, you know, when leaves and stuff like that come on it, does it actually change its color? So the actual product itself. So the warranty covers that. They basically give you the product back. They do not install it. So that owner would have to install it if it did fail within the 10 years. So, you know, it's kind of guaranteed that it doesn't cause any health problem. No, yeah, no. Now, the warranty does not do that. Well, it talks about how it was made and everything. And their testing doesn't suggest it would ever cause any. I've got to believe that fertilizing is way worse than this. Europe has some strict controls about some of it, as long as it has. And we are, I'm not sure exactly how well we know if this is as healthy as I'd like it to be. Got it. You know, the owner makes that decision. He's signing for it. He likes it. As long as, in terms of setting, in terms of the historic district, it's actually contributing buildings. Are you, where you stand in terms of, I know it's supposed to be only on the side and the rear. Is it acceptable? I don't know how to call it that. Well, the code says it's to be in the side and the rear. So any deviation from that would be this board deliberating on its use in a front yard. So I think we'd have to do a case-by-case basis. If it were coming through for a contributor, where is it being installed? It's hard to postulate on that. Basically, you're still going to have to apply those variant standards and the waiver standards. It's similar to the glass, if you reflect the glass or colored glass and roofing that is not appropriate. All that needs to be discussed. That would be, you know, I see the analogy that you're making in this instance. But I would hesitate to say, yeah, it would be okay. And then have something come through that's like 10,000 square feet of artificial turf in a front yard. I would have to see the proposal. And ultimately, our analysis is just that, an analysis of does the request meet the code or does it not meet the code? And what instances, you know, we don't provide a recommendation in these staff reports. We provide you the analysis and the guidance. There are other things in the, sorry, I'm flipping fast just because I, things like this. So while the Secretary of the Interior standards don't specifically touch on artificial turf, the standards talk about substitute materials that does not convey the same appearance of a surviving site feature or could be ecologically incompatible. This is site related and setting related. So it was, to me, applicable, but it could also be seen as somewhat of a stretch because we're not talking about a fountain, right? A historic fountain or historic site wall, like we saw with Sunday Village. So it's up to the board to make the decision here, ultimately, if this is appropriate for use and is it appropriate to reduce the required open space. Okay. Well, I'm glad that there is a control factor. Yeah. Thank you. Nothing really important, but in the report there's a misspelling on the title. It says, you're missing an I and an artificial turf on the third page. On page three? Yeah. Thank you. Very important. Yeah. Thank you. Was it only one? No, only one. It's only the title. Just one? The title. At the very beginning. I feel like we did pretty good then. Yeah, on page three, yes. Yeah. Thanks, Bob. Nothing gets past you. I'm glad. That shows me he's reading the report. So there is another spelling error on the first page. I defer. Anything, comments from our landscape architects here? Do you want me to go? You want me to go? Go ahead. Okay. Yeah, I mean, it's a big subject. I mean, I think we do have to look at these situations on an individual basis. This is an urban area. In these townhomes, the front yard kind of becomes the backyard. I mean, it's just a different situation. I'm in favor of using the artificial turf in this situation and for this application. I think it will look nice. I think it is screened from the street. And there's letters from the civil engineer saying that it's going to percolate and drainage will not become a problem, which is what the city has this open space calculation for, which I've dealt with this before, too. The artificial turf calculations are really prohibitive for small lots like this. And I've come up against it. You're up against it. I do not feel that all homes should have a huge area of artificial turf in front of them. So, again, I'm just talking about this on a site-specific situation for this project. What else? I mean, my biggest problem is the sustainability. And in 10 years, you know, I know a lot of artificial turf is going into a landfill. So that's what bothers me. But I think it will look nice. It will always be green. And, yeah, there's tradeoffs. If it was real turf, you would have to fertilize. You would have to mow. And you'd have to replace it several times over because with all the shade and everything, you know, the sod gets shaded out and it dies. And then you see dirt. So, actually, this will probably look better than real turf because it's hard to maintain that in small areas like this. Oh, and it's hard to mow small areas like that, too. Okay. That's it. Yeah. Actually, I totally agree with that. Those are my same thoughts. You wouldn't want to see a lot of artificial turf in the fronts of lawns. You know, if everything turned plastic, that would be a shame. But this is a special case. It's behind the wall. Overall, I'm in support of this. I do think the code is a little restrictive right now with artificial turf because it is used a lot. And there are circumstances in backyards where it does make sense to use it. It's kind of an unknown item right now. It's a little bit like we don't know the long-term effects. We don't know if there is health effects. When it gets middle of summer, it's, you know, 95 degrees. There's no shade. There could be fumes that come up. I think there needs to be more study on it. But it is used a lot. It is very practical. I think it looks very nice here. It creates a sense of green and life, even though it's plastic. So, yeah, overall, I'm in support of it. I do wish there was more native plants maybe around the project that might enliven the space a little bit more. Some sables would have been nice, but that's another topic. So, overall, I'm in support. Pete? Anything? I did go to the site and have a firsthand look at it. So, it looks good. So, visually, I think it's compatible. Also, you're really not going to see it unless you look over the fence and go jump in the pool. But I think it's a reasonable accommodation for an unusual site. You don't have a backyard. So, this becomes the backyard for the people living there. So, I'm in support of it. Okay. Yeah, the maintenance aspect of it, I can appreciate. No sprinklers. You know, the water use, the appearance, it's green. I guess you could, you know, call it that. But to me, there's no authenticity about it. But I don't think it's appropriate in the historic district in this setting. And, you know, this property was a clean slate. It was scraped clean. It was started from scratch. There's no reason, in my mind, for a lot of variances in waivers for something that you're not working around a historic structure. You're not trying to save anything and, you know, give a little bit because of that. So, you know, I'm not in favor of it. But we're going to have a vote. We'll see where it goes. Anybody want to make a motion or anybody have any other comments? Just the motioning of it has to be each individual. It does. Yes. And I think, yeah. Michelle will pull up one for each. So, this is, I have five. So, this is lot one. These are your four options. You can choose from. When you're done, I'll move to the next. Somebody want to start? When they get tired, we can move on? Somebody else? I'll make a motion to approve certificate of appropriateness variance and waiver, HP 4242026, for the property located at 171 to 176 Southeast First Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations. I second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Please call the roll. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Vlad Dumitrescu? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. John Miller? No. Okay. Lot two? Do you just want to approve the certificate of appropriateness variance and waiver, HP-423-2026, for the property located at 160-166 Southeast First Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations? A motion, a second, or a motion? Any second? I'll second. Second. I have one comment. One other thing that I forgot to mention was the plan set aside, and this was installed as turf. So this was a conscious decision. It wasn't a last-minute thing. The irrigation system had to support this type of thing. So that's another reason why I don't think it's appropriate. Okay. Call the roll. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Vlad Dumitrescu? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. John Miller? Nope. Three. Who's next? Make the motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, Variants, and Waiver for HP-422-2026 for the property located at 150 to 156 Southeast First Avenue Old School Square Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations? Second. Motion, a second. Any discussion? Please call the roll. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Vlad Dumitrescu? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. John Miller? No. I'd like to make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, Variants, and Waiver HP-421-2026 for the property located at 140 through 146 Southeast First Avenue Old School Square Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land. and set forth in the land development regulations. We have a second. I'll second. Motion, second. Any discussion? Please call the roll. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Vlad Dumitrescu? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. John Miller? No. Best one. I'll make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, Variants, and Waiver HP-420-2026 for the property located at 130 through 136 Southeast First Avenue Old School Square Historic District. By finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations. I'll second. Motion, second. Any discussion? Call the roll. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Vlad Dumitrescu? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. John Miller? No. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Consistent. All right, item eight, legal training. What do we have in store tonight? Okay, am I able to use that? Okay, great. Thank you. Yes, it was in the agenda, but it was a very small item. Very small. I'll try to be quick. All right, what do we, okay, you'll explain. It can be the easiest one. Okay, perfect, sounds good. Okay, yeah, the reason we're bringing this here is just because back when Michelle was doing the FEMA floodplain elevation training, I meant to bring this to you, but unfortunately I ended up getting sick, and so now we're bringing it back to you, which is now three months later, but we just kind of wanted to go back through some of the guidelines for legal stuff, the ethics, the, you know, your meeting requirements, sunshine law, those kind of things, and then I also wanted to just kind of look at, like, our design guidelines and our LDRs a little bit and just kind of talk to you about, like, the way that the, when you're reviewing a project, the way that, you know, you can talk about these projects to kind of come in line with those design guidelines and make sure that, you know, when you're creating a record up here, you're creating a record explaining the reasons that, you know, you're seeing that actually go from a historic preservation standpoint versus whether, you know, if you like it or you don't like it, if you think it doesn't fit, that's okay, but why doesn't it fit, and does it meet one of those guidelines that it doesn't fit, does it, you know, not fit with the streetscape of the project, so I will try to go through this quickly, I know that you guys have seen some of the public records law, sunshine law, I'll try to, you know, kind of cruise through it, and if you have any questions, obviously stop me, and we did put it at the end just because we were actually trying to be respectful of your time so that if it was going late, because it looked kind of like a long agenda, you know, I would skip that and come back on another time, but fortunately we're at 630, so things are looking good, so, okay, I am, can I go back on this, I'm not going to, I'm just going to leave it, I kind of went through what I was going to go through with you, public records laws, our office actually does the public records, so what you guys need to know really is that it's a really broad definition, anything that is related to city business, related to your service on the board, if you anticipate that an agenda item might be talked about, anything that you're creating a record, it could, it is a public record, and those are things that you need to keep, and you can also send to our office as well so that we're keeping them, or if you get a request for a public record, you need to make sure that you reach out to us, and we'll create it in our system, and then we will release those records, I mean, we might have to ask you for those records, but we'll release them out of our system, that way we have a record of it, and we're tracking it, there is, there are very strict laws about public records, and we have to fulfill them within a reasonable time frame, so, you know, the moment you get them, if you can let us know, that way we can kind of be tracking that, it could, it could really be anything, you know, if you're commenting on a Facebook post about something that will be related to your board service, an agenda item that's coming before you, something like that, that can be a public record, so just be mindful of that when you're, you know, interacting with people. So what about, like, notes taken during a meeting? So notes, if they're not shared, are not public records, but the moment that you are sharing them with the, with the public, then you are creating a public record, so they're, they're considered like draft notes. Well, like, for example, I, something comes to my head, I'm going to forget it, if I don't write it down, I write it down, then I ask a question, so it's that kind of a comment. Well, the question's going to become a public record in the video camera and that kind of stuff, but if you're, you know, if you take those notes, you go send them to somebody and you're like, this is, you know, this is what I think about this item, those are public records, and we, you know, but generally speaking, those will not become public record unless shared. I mean, there could be some minor exceptions to those rules, court order kind of things, you know, but. I don't have to keep them for seven years or anything. No, I mean, I would recommend keeping them, you know, at least your service, but generally speaking, though, you know, I mean, if, if you had that note and you kind of just like showed it to Benjamin, you know, or like, obviously for me, it would be Benjamin, but for you, Carol, then, you know, that could, that makes it a public record at that point, so I don't think you're doing that, so I think you're probably okay. I know. All right. Yeah, all correspondence, email, that kind of stuff. There's no unfinished business, so if you're sharing drafts of things, those become public records. And, yeah, you have your own city email address. We do keep track of those, so, like, if we got a records request for just city email address emails, we could pull them ourselves. If you get them for, like, but we will generally, if they ask for personal and city emails, then we would reach out to you and say, like, we need your personal emails related to this, if you have any. I'm sure most of you guys are operating under your city email. We suggest that because that keeps it on the server. However, less likelihood that you could lose those emails and an easier retrieval for us. Florida Sunshine Law, this is based on the premise that, basically, Florida wanted to make sure that everything was in the sunshine. People aren't operating in back rooms, making decisions before they get to the dais, so you guys have to keep everything kind of in the public, and that requires three different rules, which is that they have to be open to the public, the meetings, reasonable notice has to be given, and minutes of the meetings must be taken. Because of that, outside of this room, you guys should not be communicating about anything that will come before you. Your discussion of that will be out here. Um, so, you know, if you guys, I guess, even if you go out, like, say you go out for drinks or something, you guys are friends outside of this, that's fine, you just can't talk about any agenda items that are going to come before you. Um, another thing, like, if you guys ever email, if you try to, um, like, blind CC everyone, if you were going to, I don't know, like, I'm not going to be here for some reason. That's why we actually do it on, um, the, like, board email, so that you guys don't have that option to just, like, reply all. That way you're not, now you're, like, in a meeting with each other, and if you talk about an agenda item, then it could become a sunshine violation. So, just be careful of that kind of stuff. Even Facebook posts, like, if you start communicating back and forth with a board member, somehow, even if it's, like, a couple down, you know, you're possibly violating the sunshine law. So, just be careful of that kind of stuff. Um, yeah. It can't, the public meetings can't be held at anywhere that discriminates. I mean, we always have them here in the chamber, so you guys don't have to worry about that. Um, and yeah, what I, what I just said. Um, ethics and financial disclosures, you guys are always required to do that ethics training video. Um, also, the financial disclosures, if you guys have any questions about that, like, what forms you have to file. I know it got switched from, like, being sent to your home versus online recently, so that caused a little bit of confusion with people. So, if you have any issues, if you want to call over to the clerk's office, I do have their number at the end of this presentation. So, just make sure you're keeping up to date with that. Um, okay. Voting issues. Voting conflicts. If you guys ever have any fear, well, what is a voting conflict? I guess, you know, if you're, if you're here and you don't have a voting conflict, you have to vote on it unless either you have a voting conflict or, um, there is one Florida statute exemption, 286.012, which actually allows you, if in a quasi-judicial setting, um, there is the appearance of impropriety. The whole world knows that you worked for that company and you did some other, I mean, that actually might be a regular voting conflict. I would recommend you call me anyway. But, like, if for some reason people think that it's a potential voting conflict, it's actually not a voting conflict, but it looks, it looks kind of bad for you to vote. There is 286.012 that you can, um, rely on. It's not a required abstention, but it is something that you can, can do. Um, if there's anything that's close, I would just recommend you call me. I'm always, I'm always happy to hear conflict questions before the meeting, you know, um, if you guys can get them to me in advance, you know, that's why we always, like, encourage you to read your agenda when you get them. That way you can just see, like, have I ever had any, like, any dealings with this, this person, company, um, is this in my neighborhood? Is this my next door neighbor? Is this going to affect me financially? Those kind of things so that you can make sure that you're doing that in advance to try to, um, if we need to, we can get you an ethics opinion, um, or we can do some research and see if there's some, some opinion that's already out there that we can provide you that follow that, that meets that. Um, so what is it? Um, it's, you can't vote on anything that would ignore to you a special private gain or loss. So no matter if it's, you know, if it's helping you financially or it would hurt you financially, um, still an issue. Um, also if it's any principal by whom you have been retained or that of any relative or business associate. So just keep that in mind. Um, this mouse, um, misuse of public office. You can't try to influence others to take action on your behalf or do something, um, take action because of others, um, because you're in your position. Um, and for all of these people. So I can send this out to you guys if you want, so you can look at it a little closer during your ethics training. You also have to acknowledge that you read the ordinance too, which I can send to you as well. Uh, crop misuse is basically just like with a wrongful intent. So you may have, the other ones, like you may misuse it. You can't do that to help somebody out. This one's, you can't do it with a wrongful intent. So, uh, all right. What, what do you do if you make the voting conflict? Obviously I've told you, please call our office. If I can't help you, somebody else there will. We will make sure that we either are able to get you an opinion, find you a, a, a letter or we figure out something to tell you, you know, we think it's in your best interest to abstain or we think dah, dah, dah, you know? So, um, if you are told that you do have a voting conflict or you know yourself that you have a voting conflict, you just need to make the oral declaration on the dais. And then, um, you say like a brief description of the conflict, and then you will just walk out there and not have any participation with it. Um, then you'll have to file the form 8B, which, um, the city clerk's office can help you with. Um, that's within 15 days. So just after you've done that, I mean, you might be like, I'm all done, but you still got the form to file. So just make sure you do that. Um, again, there's our office number. You're always welcome to call, email, whatever you need. Um, gifts law, you know, it's always, it's always best to not accept any gifts, um, that seem like they're related to your service. You know, you want to, gifts can only be accepted up to a hundred dollars in the aggregate and then you have to actually report them. So just make sure that, you know, that, that can add up, you know, you're doing coffee with someone five times and then somehow it's a hundred dollars cause you went to Starbucks, you know? So, um, just keep that in mind. You really want to be cautious of doing that. Wasn't it 50? It went up inflation? Um, I'm not sure when it did. It's been a hundred for a little while, but, um, maybe that, that might be state $50. So there's a, I know there's a lot or the lobbyist one, actually, I think might be $50. So, um, okay. Uh, yeah. Report gifts. We got that. Um, I already talked about that. Um, quasi judicial hearings. Obviously you guys kind of know what's going on in a quasi judicial hearing, but you are sitting here acting somewhat like a judge. Um, that's why they call it quasi judicial. Um, you are, while it doesn't have the exact same evidence provisions, the, the applicant does have due process. So, um, that's why we go through it in a very, you know, matter of fact way. We have the quasi judicial procedures read. We have, um, the applicant, the introduction of the file, the applicant, and then it goes back to staff and then, you know, they get the opportunity to rebut. There's public comment and then it comes to the discussion. Um, the reason is obviously like these are, these are like their private, this is their private building, their private land, you know, we're applying law to them. So we want to make sure that they have the ability to, you know, give their case really. Um, so because of this, of that, this becomes a lot more formal. This can be appealed. In this case, it gets appealed to the commission, but then the commission's decision can be appealed to circuit court. Um, then they get to decide whether we met the requirements. Um, ex parte communications. You guys know the drill with that. Um, but I know some people, I walked by it. If you're walking by it for the purpose of, of this, this meeting, then it's definitely an ex parte communication. If you're walking by it because you live in that neighborhood, it's not an ex parte communication. Ex parte communication is really, you're doing something because you're reviewing this application and you want to make a decision on it. Um, and it really applies to any, any communication that you have, whether it's an applicant or it's a friend, it's a, somebody who works at the historic society, who works at the city, you know, you got to just close those. That way, again, because of due process, they're just allowing the applicant to know all the things that you guys know. Um, okay. So I think when I was talking about like how to just apply these things, I think sometimes, you know, it comes easy to be like, oh, I like the way that looks, or I think that's a good project. I, I appreciate what you guys are doing. That sounds like a great thing. But when it comes down to it, you want to apply, you know, the guidelines, the secretary of the interior standard, the historic guidelines, the, um, LDRs and the, um, sorry that I'm blanking on that word, visual compatibility standards, which are part of the land development regulations. Um, so I've got some of them up there just thinking like, you know, if you have something where it's like, let's say somebody adds ornamental, um, like ornamental, um, things on the window treatments or something like that, or near the windows on the door, um, you've got like a masonry modern house and that doesn't really fit within the historic, um, guidelines. So when you're seeing that, a lot of you guys, a lot of people, not just you guys, I'm just saying an experience that, um, a lot of people will say, you know, like that doesn't really fit. I don't like that. This, that looks out of place to me. But if you look at your report, you're always going to have these standards listed out. So you can really lean into those standards, make sure that you're saying, you know, this is giving a false sense of historic development. That wasn't there. That doesn't fit with this project. You know, you're trying to act like this is partially Mediterranean and it's actually a masonry modern that was built in the seventies or something, you know, I don't know, but, um, really well though. What? Yeah. I've been paying attention. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. So, um, so I think just going back to always kind of looking through your report and making sure that you're seeing like, like even like the variance standards, when you are looking to determine whether variance is met, you want to go back to those and say, Hey, I actually don't think that this, um, I think that this would affect the neighboring properties. And for that reason, if it's not meeting all of them, it's not, the variance isn't allowed. So just going back and actually stating the reason in the land development regulations or the standards, it's going to make it so that you have, I know this one doesn't necessarily go to court. It goes to the commission. But if you were on like a board of adjustment, which does go straight to circuit court, this makes it so that you have defensible decisions. Like I didn't say, I just like it. I said, I think that, you know, the rhythm of solids to voids matches what it was in its historic character, you know? So I think like when you're looking at that and you're saying, okay, they've removed eight windows and now it looks completely different than what it was meant to be. Think about that standard, which actually comes in the visual compatibility standards, um, and make and draw attention to that. You know, um, if you think that the massing, is that this one? Or let's go with the height. If you think that the height is too tall, you got visual compatibility standards that say, you know, the existing structures around it are all two stories and you want to put in a four story building, that's, that's not going to fit with the landscape that we're here on. And it's not visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of the other existing structures. So just making sure that you're kind of drawing the line between what you're seeing, which you guys are all like have such great eye to all the things that are wrong with buildings and stuff, but if you can, if you can, or, or great with buildings, not even saying that it's necessarily like a negative or anything, but if you can point to the reason legally that that doesn't meet our land development regulations and that doesn't meet our visual compatibility standards, or it does, you know, all of those things help to support the record and show everybody, you know, we're not, we're not just applying these willy nilly. It doesn't matter if we like your project or not. We're making sure that we're protecting the historic preservation of the city and we're applying the things that we're supposed to be applying, which is the land development regulations, visual compatibility standards, secretary of the interior and the historic guidelines. I put them all in here. I think you guys kind of get the point. You know, open space, open space between. So like if you're looking at that, obviously they were here for a variant, so it doesn't really apply because they're, they're not meeting this and they're asking to not meet it. So, but if you were, if you were seeing that at first and they were like, you're deciding whether they meet the open space and you're going to lean in on your rhythm of buildings on streets and see if the open space is visually compatible with the surrounding area. And I mean, to an extent you kind of did that in the variants because you're like talking about whether it's urban and it's surrounded by other things, you know, and that kind of goes to, it's a special condition that, you know, that property has. So all of these things, I'm just saying like when you, honestly, the staff report always lays out all of these things. And if you just kind of choose the ones that fit with the thought that you're making, it will help create defensible decisions. And that, you know, helps in the long run. And I know, again, it goes to the commission for this and it's de novo reveal. But if you were in a scenario where you're on the board of adjustment or the commission, which then gets appealed straight to circuit court, those things get looked at by the court and they determine, you know, did, did they give them due process? Did they have substantial confident evidence to make the decision that they did? And you guys saying those things and saying why you're making the decision that you are and what you're basing it on will help make for a better record so that you can prove that you guys were, you know, following what you're supposed to be doing. And that's really it. If you guys have any questions, I tried to talk really fast. Hopefully I did. I was expecting longer. So it was very good. Awesome. All right. Well, if you have any questions, again, please always reach out. I'm here. And so are a bunch of people in our office. So we're here for you. And I have a bunch of numbers and emails on here. I can send these to you guys after. That way you have it. Okay. And thank you guys so much. Thank you so much. Problem. All right. Any, seeing no legislative items? No. None. Reports and comments? Oh, yeah. Reports. And this one? At the dais, I believe, Brittany, you put the year schedule there for you all. Yeah. And then there's also development services accomplishments. So it's just a quick two-pager at a glance of the things that our department has accomplished in fiscal year 24-25. I think one of the most impressive things is the number of building permits you see that we are processing. Now that our system is fully digital for permits and development applications, we were able to track the timing. I will say that we have applications that are sitting in the queue, meaning they're trying to get sufficient enough for a development review. And we are talking internally about how we can even improve that and make it easier for the applicants because we have some things sitting out there that we feel like they're all going to drop at once. This is likely the reason why we didn't have many cases in December and January, and those meetings got canceled. But you can see here that the list, 40 COAs were processed in the year, 21 approved administratively, 32 waivers and variances were analyzed, the overall department, 37,600 building inspections were done. So we really are cranking. There's two-day average turnaround for our review with permits. That's the whole department. And then development applications. One of our biggest numbers are in the ZCU and BTR. So this is when somebody wants to come into the city and open a new business or move their business. They have to get a business tax receipt. We process 3,899 business tax receipts for all businesses in the city, 91 sidewalk cafe permits, five tax exemptions, 13 plots. The requirements for plots change at the state level too. So that's going to become more of a ministerial task, administrative level. And then you can read a little bit more about the LDRs and the planning studies and community initiatives that we've undertaken. So again, if we end up having to reschedule, we always look first to the third Wednesday of the month. That's our backup day. And I will ask availability on email. So I appreciate it. A lot of you email me separately and let me know that you're coming to the meeting. You don't have to, but I do appreciate that you do that. Or, you know, you let me know when you're not coming to the meeting, which helps us plan. We can't require or ask you to do that, but we appreciate the courtesy that you do that. And then I think, Mr. Dumitrescu, do you have an announcement to make? Okay. This is my last attendance to the meeting. It was a super interesting experience. I learned a lot and I appreciate everybody. I'm traveling abroad for a year or two. So obviously I cannot. We're not Zooming that much. So, yes. But this is... We did the Zooms. We did the Zooms. That's right. Well, yeah, for COVID. But I really appreciate my time here. This is not the only board that participated. I was in adjustment in SPRAB about it. And it was always very, very interesting. I'm not sure exactly how much I brought in, but it's very nice that the city has this concern and good people to try to find the best way to do the right thing for the city. And the city shows it, I think. You know, it has a nice, sort of develops nicely, even though not everybody likes it. But I think compared to other cities, it's very powerful, very complex and kind of a nice mixture of, you know. Personally, I hope there will be more control about some of the U.S. historic buildings. I'm sorry for Swinton. Swinton is, like, left out and a lot of buildings there will be gone. And that's not nice, not good. I mean, beautiful properties. But I understand the reason. A little bit of Atlantic also is having some problems, some of the buildings that they're not protected. So I'm not exactly sure how well they'll do. But overall, I think it's a very successful development, the city. I appreciate it. I like it. As a kind of, and I'm sure to say, like, a funny note, I went to school, obviously, almost 50 years ago. So we studied ecology back then. That was part of it. I didn't understand much, but at that time, there was a very talented architect in that school. This is in Chile, not. And he was creating those cartoons that were very, very funny and very to the point. And I cannot not remember his, he has one that, for me, is a resonance. I had to kind of bite my tongue not to, and to vote in a certain way because it was reasonable. But I remember that cartoon a lot. There was a small, you know, drawing showing a view of a city from far, far away, full of just buildings everywhere, and windows, windows, windows everywhere. And far away, there was a window open, and there was this grandmother knitting on a desk, and nothing else. You know, you couldn't see just buildings and little windows, and this one person. And the text saying, like, son, they said on the radio that spring is here. Why don't you go out and buy a plastic flower? That's that. Well, thank you. As chair, I want to thank you very much for your service, and your comments are very much appreciated. So thank you so much. Thank you, guys. I hope that you will. Sorry, Carol. Do you want to say something? I just said safe travel. Yes. Yes, yeah. I'm going to France, actually. I kind of hope that you maybe will send a photo here and there so we can give the board updates, like, where in the world is Vlad's rescue? Actually, I'm going to a region that I did not know well, and it's kind of remote in France. I mean, remote but not, but it's, like, not so urbanized. It's just villages, small villages everywhere. I'd love to see the pictures, architecture, the history. I'll definitely, I have tons already. Yeah, send us some, and then at each meeting, I'll put a picture or two up of where in the world is Vlad's rescue. Okay, I'll try to do that. Exactly. Exactly. Well, wish everybody luck and a good future. Yeah, I want to say thank you so much, too. And Michelle and I were talking about how you've always been, like, willing to learn anything that's before you, and, like, we can always tell that you take this very seriously, and, you know, we are going to miss you here on this board, and we appreciate your service, so thank you very much. Well said. So is that vacancy being filled this month, or? We're working on it. City Clerk's Office handles that. It has to be a qualified professional because Vlad, there's five of you, and without Vlad, we don't have five. So the City Clerk's Office is reviewing their applications. If any of you know anybody that would be from the qualified backgrounds, please encourage them to apply. You can do that on the city's website to apply for a new board member position. So if you know someone, tell them. They have to be an architect or a realtor of some type, or real estate lawyer. I've realized lawyers aren't actually in the list for our board, but GC, architect, engineer, landscape architect, historian, planner, I think that's everybody, but real estate professional is not there anymore. That was taken out. Oh, okay. All right. The code was changed to align with the requirements for the state of Florida. Okay. Also, I think it's the, maybe you could speak more to this, in a previous mix of the board, when Mr. Chard was on the board, he was asking about a tour of Sunday Village, and I think Tom Warnke is going to be doing some walking tours. He's had several of them already. Yeah. I saw there were several dates. If you all aren't signed up for the Historical Society's e-blast, they send a nice email out with their upcoming events. And if anyone's interested, you can go walk Sunday Village. It's open to the public. The main block is right now. But I believe if you're interested in the guided tour, it's Mr. Warnke with the Historical Society. We'll be doing a guided tour. Yeah. Just be careful if you are together amongst other board members that you don't talk board business. And let our office know if you think that there are going to be more than one of you together. We may need to notice it. The tours are offered a couple times a month, and it's Sunday Village, A1A, and Atlantic Avenue, three different tours. There is a cost for members. It's like $10, and for general public, it's like $15. So future members. Okay. That was all I had. I don't know if anyone else has anything that they'd like to share. Real quick, I noticed there was a lot of land clearing up by the McKinney, old McKinney's old place. I noticed that, too. Is there any... There's no application in process. Okay. All right. Yeah. It's Tunerville Trolley's cartoonist... What was it? Fontaine Fox. Fontaine Fox. It's right over on the south end of the public beach. North end. North end. North end. Sorry. George Bush. Right? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Just south of George Bush. Is that Franklin McKinney's old house? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It looks like they cut the... It used to be the tree house. It used to be the tree house. Yeah. Yeah. It used to be the tree house until he came before the board to remove the tree house. Well, he installed that tree house without approvals to begin with. And then he had to fight to get it built. Yes. And then he put plumbing and electric in. Yes. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. It was a whole thing. I've read through that file. It was quite a bit. Lawsuit and everything. And then now it's gone, I think. I think the tree house is gone. Yeah. Yeah. And then all the sea grapes are gone. He came before the board with renovations. He doesn't own it anymore. And then he sold it right after he... It's a new owner. Yeah. So I was just wondering if that's something... There's nothing in process with us. There's no permit that I'm aware of. Maybe they're just clearing landscaping. I know that neighbors had been complaining about vagrants. It's individually designated. Vagrants. Neighbors had complained about vagrants. So hopefully they're taking steps to make it easier for the police to monitor the site on a drive-by. Okay. Yeah. All right. That's all I got. Thank you. All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.