mr. teague. but but but, uh, but but what was new information is that it's. thank you for asking it. uh, commissioner. and then i also hate you for asking it because it forces me to ask a follow up question. it was just disclosed that there is there is a bedroom up there and there is an apartment, uh, which is a separate apartment which is used, being used as an office when it's when it's not being used as a residence. is that correct? i'm sorry. say that again. so, so your your disclosure is that that unit which you want to which you want is a merger is currently not being used as a, a residential apartment, but it's being used as an accommodation by yourselves as owners, uh, for a, for a commercial purpose, that is to have houses office. correct. extension of our own personal space. we use it as part of our apartment. but it's still a separate. but it is a separate unit. it is apartment number two. apartment two. it's a separate unit because they won't let us combine it. yeah. i mean, a lot of

mr. teague, um, the. appellant's counsel spoke about, uh, the inappropriateness of a applying the residential design guidelines as, uh, you know, in the most recent, uh, doctor prosser. yes. uh, and also the, the illegality of applying the regs. so can you react to that? i think what he was referencing is, you know, um, updates to state law more recently along those lines, um, relative to the controls that are not objected live. so design guidelines that are not objective if the project is otherwise co complying. um the nuance there is that the decision the planning commission made was that the permit that was proposed. and that's before you here. what was proposed was not co complying because it violated the conditions of approval for the project prior and because the planning code, section 170 for those conditions became basically code requirements. right so you they basically said they rejected the idea that you could throw off objective conditions of approval just by filing a new permit for what they

mr. teague, would you address us? absolutely. a segue to my comments we are look at i'm definitely preservation planner and -- your purview is looking urn the standards. the districts the variance very much from -- does this project meet the 5 required findings. there is a bar to meet there. and this -- you know -- i think the design seems to be contextual to the challenges were. as mentioned the challenges i knowledge that00 autohone nothing you are doing the elements. i think from the variance perspective more so from c of a well are challenges. and -- discussed the building move in the 74. begin the nature of the building as it was. required a variance at that time to replaceod that lot. understandable. and then in 2007 does not fix under the variance was granted for -- and -- i understand the desirability of it but from variance perspective we are looking at extraordinary circumstances. hard helps and difficulties if not granted. and the existing building as is is over 4,000 square feet is a good size build and home that make

mr. teague, i just had a question about any comments from the planning commission.uh, or new comments or additions that maybe could inform our commission. sure um, nothing specific from the planning commission on since they've they haven't taken any additional had any additional conversations or actions since november 30th. um, i would say one point to, uh, to address miss childish's point, um, is that the ordinance creates two separate thresholds for a preservation violation to be into eligibility for this higher penalty. one is demolition, which is a higher bar. you have to do more work, theoretically to do more removal to cross that definitional threshold. but the other is significant alteration or damage, which kind of by definition is a lower threshold. and if you meet either one, you're in, you're in the penalty box, so to speak. so um, that's why we talked at the last hearing a little bit about that for non article 1011 resources that are qualified for this penalty. um we proposed for demolition using the proposed definition or the existing definition of de f

mr. teagues. sorry. i need water. don't worry. thank you for this list of looks like the scope of what would be amount for a large penalty. so how would you -- make this decision in terms of like what are these all of the priorities? do you have point system. i'm trying to understand how would you make this position. joy think that is understandable question. so ghaen is not determination we had to make in the pastment i thinksh force am the way it works now is you know everything is about leverage now. there is questions about how much we charge cost recovery is straightforward. penalty and it is amount daily penalty is how much we think we need to pressure to apply to get the issue abated. you know the purpose of these is in the that. the purpose this is to be a straight penalty. and disincentive to others to do this. i layer on top every case you know a lot of enforcement cases and the withins that have nothing to do can be complicated and nuanced there is context. and so the purpose of with we were putting forward you today is

mr. teague. thank you. just to speak briefly about the variances, um, there's three of them, but they're all relatively minor and they are very much responsive to kind of the unique property situation. and to the need for the for the canopy at the bottom for the wind. um which is also done in a way very much intended to meet the spirit of the underlying requirements. and so i'm supportive of all the variances. great. thank you. any other comments or questions from the commission? if not, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, i, commissioner ruiz. i commissioner diamond i commissioner. imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore, a commissioner president. tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. zoning administrator would say you close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the standard conditions. thank you, commissioners. i will place this under your discretionary review calendar. um, f

teague. wormley of starling medical college and capital university an he said that, yes, prosecutors said, ll kill youery quickly, usually within. or 20 minutes after ingesting it. remember, mr. systemic sick the day before and survived into the next day on june 3rd? followingsing arguments, judge graham delivers, a charge to the jury. he says you can either find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree of murder in the seegree of voluntary manslaughter. or you can find that he is not guilty of any crime crime. the jury retires at 1 p.m. and 4 hours later it returns with a finding of guilty of in the first degree. and what later learned is that when the jury is deliberating a crowd outside the courthouse and they start shouting, hang the -- dutchman. so dr. cooper is sentenced to be hanged by the neck until you dead. and just judge graham concludes, that sentence with the words and god have mercy on your soul wiiamold, who is cumberland county, yr oldourt crier clutches his chest forward and he's dead. he falls into the arms of some of the people around. and have a courtroom with a lot of doctors in it that he was dead, by the way, the courthouse is said to be haun

teague. wormley of starling medical college and capital university and. he said that, yes, prosecutors said, will kill you very quickly, usually within. or 20 minutes after ingesting it. remember, mr. systemic sick the day before and survived into the followin closing arguments, judge graham delivers, a charge to the j he says you can either find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree of murder in e second degree of voluntary manslaughter. or you can find that he is not guilty of any crime crime. the jury retires at 1 p.m. and 4 hours later it returns with a finding of guilty of in the first degree. and what later learned is that when the jury is deliberating a crowd outside the courthouse and they start shouting, hang the -- dutchman. so dr. cooper is sentenced to be hanged by the neck until you dead. and just judge graham concludes, that sentence with the words and god have mercy on your soul william gold, who is cumberland coty, 73 year old court crier clutches his chest forward and he's dead. he falls into the arms of some of the people around. and have a courtroom with a lot of doctors in it that he was dead, by the way, the courthouse is said to be haunted so may