[0:00] My name is Robert Vice. I'm chairman of the Landmarks Commission. And presently, we are joined by commissioners

[0:07] Pondis, Dutric, Haskins, Blue, Stottman, and that may be an, oh, yeah, anamidi, sorry.

[0:18] So and I understand that Commissioner Wheater's honors way she has called in and I think

[0:24] we're expecting a couple of others as well.

[0:26] So we will, our agenda today has a couple of items on it.

[0:32] Some routine we need to approve, review and approve the minutes from our last meeting

[0:37] in June and then we have a public we will then move into a public hearing on a designation

[0:42] request for a local landmark if we ever the commissioners want to take a minute and review

[0:50] the minutes from June we can do that and then if there aren't any comments we'll accept

[0:57] a motion to correct or amend and if not we'll accept a motion to approve and we've now

[1:04] I've been joined by Commissioner Wheater.

[1:12] We also had received requests from Commissioner Kurt Storfer and Owen to be excused absences

[1:22] and while we're reviewing those we can all accept a motion to excuse those two absences.

[1:28] So moved and a second.

[1:30] Thank you all in favor, please say aye.

[1:32] Thank you.

[1:33] Motion is approved.

[1:34] But

[3:23] the minutes be approved as submitted.

[3:26] A second.

[3:27] Okay, thank you all in favor, please say aye.

[3:31] Any opposed?

[3:33] Thank you, the motion is approved, the minister approved.

[3:36] We are now ready to move into our next item of business, which is a public hearing for

[3:43] the designation of the Powell Smith House.

[3:48] The public hearing date was set on July 18, 2016 by the Commission Chair and accordance

[3:55] This was Section 32-260-D2 of the Metro Court code of ordinances.

[4:01] This decision was made following a review of the recommendations from the Commission's committee on local landmark and preservation district designation special meeting on July 11th, 2016 is required by Section D2 to receive testimony and consider the question of designation of the Powell Smith House as an individual local landmark.

[4:22] The action was taken pursuant to the requirements of Section 322-60 of the Metro Code of Ordnances entitled Designation of Districts and Local Landmarks, as amended in August of 2012, which requires a commission to conduct a study and hold a public hearing after it receives a written request of an owner or owners of a structure or property or a petition requesting designation containing the verified signatures and addresses of no fewer than 200 residents.

[4:52] of Louisville Metro and provided that at least 101 of those verified signatures and addresses

[4:59] are residents or property owners within one of the following boundaries. One, a one mile radius

[5:05] to the council district in which the proposed landmark is located or three, the cumulative area

[5:12] formed when the boundaries of one and two are combined. A petition meeting these requirements was

[5:17] received on June 10th, 2016, and subsequently verified on June 16th, 2016.

[5:24] Notice of this public hearing was duly published in the Courier Journal in accordance with

[5:27] chapter 424 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes on August 6th, 2016, being at least 7 and

[5:35] not earlier than 21 days before the date of this hearing.

[5:39] Additionally, further requirements of the Metro Court of Ordnance's 32 to 60, D2, notice

[5:45] was sent to the required and applicable subsection, persons listed in subsections eight, excuse me eight

[5:51] through each of that ordinance. Additionally, Assign was posted on the property proposed for landmark

[5:57] designation no less than 14 days prior to the public hearing. I would like to ask Cynthia Johnson to

[6:04] present the draft designation report. Good morning, Cynthia.

[6:11] Good morning, commissioners.

[6:17] My part of the

[6:20] The staff has reviewed the petition received on June 10, 2016 to determine that they contain

[6:26] at least 200 signatures of Louisville Metro residents, with at least 101 names being

[6:30] residents or property owners of District 8, as required by the ordinance. Per section 32.260d2,

[6:39] the commission chair directed staff to prepare a draft designation report on June 17, 2016.

[6:44] Staff has drafted a preliminary findings concerning the Powell Smith House qualifications

[6:50] for designation.

[6:51] The draft designation report was prepared and published on the Planning and Design

[6:55] website within 18 days of the petition's submittal.

[6:58] The report was published on June 27, 2016.

[7:02] The pre-hearing conference section 32.260d2 was held on July 11, 2016.

[7:09] The published notice of this public hearing also included an address for the Louisville

[7:13] Metro Planning and Design Services website, which posted information on the following subjects.

[7:18] Local preservation districts and individual landmarks, design guidelines, national

[7:22] registered districts and national historic landmarks, and an application for a certificate

[7:26] of appropriateness.

[7:28] Additionally, the homepage link provided in electronic form a notice of the public meeting and draft

[7:33] designation report prepared in accordance with the landmark's designation provisions of

[7:42] We'll go ahead into the presentation of the draft report,

[7:54] of course obviously the location

[7:56] in of the property is here is in the Hayfield Dundee area of the upper ironwinds.

[8:04] It's at 2833 Tremont Drive and see the of course Bardstown Road is here and this is the

[8:10] water sin, there's Farmington, there in Gardner Lane Shopping Center over here,

[8:18] it's for

[8:18] your orientation.

[8:20] It's an aerial view of the property to give you a sense of the parcel.

[8:26] It was subdivided last year and it's a minor plat, so this parcel is actually not under consideration

[8:33] for the designation.

[8:34] It is this parcel here.

[8:37] This is the north facing facade, roughly speaking.

[8:41] This would be the south side where the pool area is, the east over here and the west side

[8:47] here, so that just to give you some orientation as we go through the photographs of what the

[8:52] actual house looks like. We'll go ahead and do that. This is a view looking at the north elevation,

[8:59] looking south.

[9:02] Here's a closer up view of the north elevation, which is the orientation of the main

[9:08] entrance at the current time.

[9:12] It is a federal style building that does have craftsman bungalow,

[9:17] colonial revival neoclassical elements to it over time as it added. It shows a kind of a

[9:24] northeast orientation and you can see the octagonal addition over here.

[9:31] It's a close-up view of that.

[9:33] Some of the different types of windows that these are casement windows here.

[9:40] There's a view of that octagonal addition,

[9:49] and this is on the west side of the house.

[9:56] And then this is the south elevation.

[9:58] There's the octagonal addition on this side.

[10:02] There is a doorway over here.

[10:05] This is the 1870s carriage house.

[10:09] It was built obviously after the period of the initial construction of the house.

[10:15] And then this is the swimming pool, it's located in the backyard.

[10:21] So come in some of the high points about this property, I know you've read the designation

[10:26] report, but just to kind of go through kind of the major themes about this property, it's

[10:30] first that it is related to early development, suburbanization, along Bart's Monroe corridor,

[10:37] that Bardstown Road turnpike being a major link between downtown Louisville and to the farm areas south and

[10:45] south to Bardstown obviously and as the development in the early 1800s occurring there were a lot of

[10:53] farms of course Farmington being there around 1810 so to see this land subdivided in 1830s is an

[11:02] an interesting development as far as thinking that downtown Louisville is about two miles

[11:06] away and there's suburbanization starting to occur in this area. There are lots. This

[11:12] is the Ward Place plat. They were divided into 40 acre plates. And so the property that

[11:21] Strupal developed was lot number 10. This is the 1859 atlas. So it's a little bit later that

[11:29] is subdividing but there's this and the property was likely speculatively developed that Mr.

[11:39] Powell had put an advertisement in the paper after he built the structure on the site and

[11:44] advertised it as either an institutional use or a dwelling space so or dwelling but had

[11:50] had enough property on it that there would be orchards and other land use development going

[11:55] on that property. And then this is the 1879 atlas, right around here where it's this glazed

[12:02] book, is where the property is. So you can see that there's increased development in

[12:06] this whole area of Bardstown Road. That's occurring by the late 19th century.

[12:13] And then this is

[12:14] into the 20th century. I'm probably not going to see where my property is. Here it is.

[12:22] So this

[12:23] This is the property here.

[12:24] Tremont drives, it was not shown yet, it's going to be developed along here.

[12:29] So imagine the parcel actually didn't have Tremont by sifting it a little bit later.

[12:36] And here's when the later suburbanization starts occurring and there's Tremont.

[12:42] This is the property here.

[12:45] It's still a larger parcel, it's about 20 acres at this point.

[12:48] So it will further be cut down to two acres and then the property that's under the consideration

[12:55] for the designation is less than an acre, so that is a correction in your draft designation

[13:00] report.

[13:03] It's not the full two acres.

[13:06] Bishop Smith is a person associated with the property and he's the first Episcopal Bishop

[13:12] for Kentucky.

[13:13] He also was the third superintendent of public schools in Kentucky and he operated and

[13:19] in the first in Lexington and then here in Louisville,

[13:23] some school spokesman here for girls.

[13:27] Calorama is the school that was associated

[13:29] with the site that we're looking at today.

[13:31] There was a study that he had also on the site right here.

[13:37] There were letters and talking about the students

[13:39] being at the property.

[13:42] They've likely lived in the first story and then studied.

[13:47] And so the study is associated

[13:48] related with the Bishop Smith's running of the school.

[13:51] This study is no longer located at the site, so it is relocated, but it's still intact

[13:59] in a different place.

[14:03] Here's a photograph, a stork photograph.

[14:06] Notice that the octagonal addition was on purers and now has a masonry foundation and is enlarged

[14:16] from what it is today. I mean, it has been in large today on what it was. This, another photograph,

[14:25] close up from the school period, and just to talk about, let's see, the proposed boundary

[14:34] again, is this parcel here, not the full parcel since it was the minor plat.

[14:43] Just to go through,

[14:45] I wanted to also address integrity as well that the building was built as a

[14:51] federal style structure. It does have alterations for the craftsman style from

[14:58] from the... really...

[15:00] 20th century. It wasn't considered for integrity of craftsmanship, but it was considered for integrity

[15:09] of location, which it still has the same location. The materials are intact as far as the

[15:18] basic framework of it, but it does have diminished integrity of design, feeling and association

[15:27] due to those craftsman architectural style changes.

[15:30] Also for this site has been reduced over time

[15:34] in the suburbanization of the area.

[15:37] So it is obviously no longer the 48 or a lot

[15:40] that it was originally.

[15:41] So it's a consideration as far as that aspect

[15:44] of the significance.

[15:47] And I'll go through the designation criteria as well.

[15:52] It does meet a, its character and interest or value

[15:56] as a part of the development or heritage of Louisville Metro Jefferson County and the Commonwealth

[16:01] or the nation is representative and to Bill and period in Jefferson County.

[16:05] The palace, Smith House constructed in circa 1836, relates to a significant period in the

[16:10] development of Jefferson County.

[16:11] This is a period when the urban core is growing and increased development along Louisville

[16:16] Bard's town term bug is occurring.

[16:19] It meets B. It's an exemplification of the historic aesthetic, architectural, archaeological, prehistoric

[16:25] or historic archeological, educational, economic,

[16:29] or cultural heritage of Louisville and Jefferson County

[16:32] in the commonwealth where the nation.

[16:34] I should go back and say something about the archeology,

[16:37] do you mind if I skip back?

[16:41] If the archeology on this site, of course,

[16:44] it relating to that early development

[16:47] along Bart's Town Road and the types of properties

[16:49] of farm properties and early suburban properties,

[16:52] is likely yield a lot of archeological information.

[16:57] So there are other properties around Jefferson County

[16:59] that have been surveyed archeologically over time.

[17:02] This is a parallel property too.

[17:04] So it does have archeological,

[17:06] likely to yield archeological significance as well.

[17:10] That is in the report.

[17:12] So back to be, the house is associated

[17:14] with the Girl School established by Bishop Smith,

[17:16] known as Calorama.

[17:18] The site is likely to yield significant archeological

[17:20] information about the antivellum period of development, including a possibility of enslaved

[17:24] person's dwellings. It does not meet C, which is location as the site of a significant

[17:30] historic event. There were many identified. D, it's identification with a person or person

[17:37] who significantly contributed to the culture and development of Louisville, Metro, Jefferson

[17:41] County, the Commonwealth, or the nation. Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith was the first

[17:50] state government and served as superintendent of public schools for the state of Kentucky.

[17:55] It does not make e. It's embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type

[18:00] or specimen. It does not meet f. It's identification as the work of an architect, landscape, architect,

[18:07] or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of Louisville Metro Jefferson

[18:12] County, the Commonwealth, or the nation. It does not meet g. It's embodiment of elements

[18:17] or architectural design details, materials, or craftsmanship, which represent a significant

[18:21] architectural innovation.

[18:24] It meets age, its relationship to other distinctive areas, which are eligible for preservation

[18:30] according to a plan based on its historic cultural architectural motif.

[18:34] The palace in the palace is enclosed proximity to Farmington, which is an early example of

[18:38] federal architecture in the area.

[18:40] Palace in the palace is a surviving example of the development in the area as a suburban

[18:44] development rather than a plantation house. This shift in land used indicates the growing

[18:49] development of Jefferson County is an urbanized area. 2011 Kentucky Historic Resources Survey

[18:55] Form indicating that the building is eligible for listing the National Register of Historic

[18:59] Places as part of a group of multiple resources and to clarify what that means. This area was subject

[19:07] to a survey in 2010. There was a 20th century survey that was conducted and this neighborhood

[19:13] was surveyed at the people doing that work.

[19:17] We're looking at properties that have been early dwellings

[19:21] that become enveloped around suburban 20th Century

[19:26] development.

[19:26] So there are a number of these properties in this vicinity.

[19:30] So that's what they mean when I say it's part of a group

[19:33] is that it's related to those multiple resources.

[19:36] It's not that it was, so there's a distinction as far as

[19:39] it's not the individual eligibility it's part of a group.

[19:42] And

[19:46] it meets I, its unique location or physical characteristics representing an established

[19:51] and familiar visual feature, which reinforce the physical continuity of a neighborhood

[19:55] area or place with the Louisville Metro.

[19:58] The house was constructed in 1836 by Dr. Powell and sold as a speculative property.

[20:04] It represents an early example of community development.

[20:07] It is a surviving example of the settlement period in Jefferson County along Broughtton-Barthstone

[20:12] Road.

[20:14] And that's my report.

[20:16] If you have any questions, be happy to answer them.

[20:20] Thank you, Cynthia.

[20:22] Before we take any questions from commissioners,

[20:24] I would like to note that we've been joined

[20:26] by two additional commissioners, Jones and Hartman.

[20:32] And I think that's, oh, good.

[20:36] And as I speak, we're also joined by Commissioner Jackson.

[20:40] Good morning.

[20:41] Are

[20:47] there any questions for Cynthia from the commissioners?

[20:56] I do have a couple of questions just to help me get oriented.

[21:00] I am having a hard time reconciling the orientation of the 1911 photo, which if you, since

[21:11] there's writing on it, I know it can't be reverse negative, like we didn't flip it.

[21:17] but that octagonal addition is in the front right.

[21:22] But when you look at the North elevation and addition,

[21:27] if it's the same one I don't know, is in the rear left.

[21:32] So is the, so is the octagonal addition in the 1911 gone

[21:36] and is the addition in the modern photo, a newer addition.

[21:42] Looking at the building evidence, the modern edition, the octagonal edition that's there

[21:48] now, I mean, of course, first of all, there's the change in the foundation that was on

[21:51] peers here, and then it's on this brick foundation now.

[21:56] It also, let me get to that picture.

[21:59] If you see in this picture, the sort of the plane of the facade and this window here appear

[22:06] to be basically in the same plane.

[22:12] But when you consider that they and this photo there's a

[22:18] screen porch that projects out and this wall meets that it's no longer flush with the original

[22:24] masonry wall. So my read on the building is that that addition has been changed.

[22:30] I think it's a different addition.

[22:33] I mean, it's on the wrong side of the house.

[22:35] I mean, unless that's the old front of the house.

[22:37] Right, which is the other possibility,

[22:39] as far as did this orientation change of this house.

[22:44] There are two doors, there are two, it's a central passage,

[22:48] so it has two federal style entrances on each side.

[22:53] The staircase is oriented towards the entrance on this side.

[22:58] So, when you walk in on the north elevation, the staircase is facing the back door, what's

[23:05] now the back door?

[23:06] So, there are questions.

[23:07] I talked to the person that did the survey form as well, Janie Rice's brother about

[23:12] that, because looking at the building, I was trying to figure out what is the orientation

[23:17] of this.

[23:18] And, she said that sometimes federal staircases would be oriented to the back like that, you

[23:23] seen that before, but she didn't have a distinct conclusion herself about which was the original

[23:30] facade. But in the last photograph, of course, when there's chimneys here, and then in this

[23:39] last picture, there's a chimney here. So it's in the backside, and there's another chimney over here

[23:46] on this side, I don't know, on the current building, but, you know, it looks like that

[23:53] could be the original facade, this is the south facing facade, but it's, it's debatable.

[23:59] In other words, this would have faced the pool.

[24:01] Yes.

[24:02] Is that what you're suggesting?

[24:04] Right.

[24:04] But I also take your point that the, if that is, that if we are looking at the south facade

[24:11] in the modern photograph. That addition has certainly been changed because as you said,

[24:17] it extends now beyond the porch and the porch extends beyond the facade.

[24:22] Okay,

[24:25] thank you. That's

[24:27] helpful. Is the facade still brick? Yes. It's a common bond. You mentioned some modern window openings,

[24:36] do you know offhand? And as soon as the dormers are also added.

[24:40] Right. Yeah. The dormers are added on this facade.

[24:45] Obviously there's been some changes in the window patterning here

[24:49] versus what's there in the photograph.

[24:52] You know that there's the two flanking windows and now it is

[24:57] right about this. Those windows are gone.

[25:00] On the west elevation, those windows are intact.

[25:03] In fact, there was some alteration of windows on the east elevation, on the north elevation

[25:09] the windows are there, other than that there's a dormer on the second part of the, on the

[25:15] roof line.

[25:16] And it's hard to tell from the shadow, but you see where the awning is on the left there.

[25:22] Is that wall flush with the wall, but that's inside the screen, you know?

[25:27] Well, the way that there's this engaged pile-aster here, it was around root call, I can look

[25:32] in my phone. Make sure I have I may have a closer up photo I could show you. I mean, I just can't tell if that's all part of the

[25:38] property. I'll be able to clarify that aspect for us. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I'm just trying to figure out which side is it.

[25:45] There's been such so many alterations. It's hard to tell which was the original front of the house. Right. All right. Any other questions?

[25:57] question about the windows the the windows were original on I mean obviously not

[26:09] all of them are but right but on the main facade or the main facades on the

[26:14] north elevation exactly the button pattern as well yes so it had it so it was a

[26:18] single light on the bottom sash originally six the six over one there you just

[26:24] can't see it because of the screen. Yeah. So it's still six over six. On the front on the north elevation, I'll verify that for you.

[26:32] Okay.

[26:41] I guess I do have another. Well, I tell you what, I'll hold the question when we get into more discussion, but I suppose at this point, are there any other

[26:49] questions of commissioners before we hear from the petitioners and the homeowner.

[26:57] Okay, I think perhaps at this point, then, Cynthia, unless you have anything else to add, we'll go ahead and move into the public testimony.

[27:05] Okay, that's fine.

[27:08] First, I'd like to recognize Ted Stone, representing the petitioners.

[27:18] Yeah, sure.

[27:19] Yeah, if you just identify yourself with the record, thank you.

[27:22] Good morning, my name is Ryan Fenwick, attorney for the petitioners.

[27:25] The

[27:30] Powell Smith House is an exceptional link to this county's history.

[27:34] I'm here this morning representing over 800 signatories to the petition asking this

[27:39] commission to review whether this structure is historically significant enough to be designated

[27:43] as a landmark.

[27:45] Obviously, only a small fraction of them could be here this morning, but it's 9 o'clock

[27:50] on a Thursday, so we're doing pretty good.

[27:53] The commission has an opportunity today to save this unique property for future generations

[27:58] of the city and it's very important that they take this opportunity and allow the needs of the

[28:04] many, both today and the county and the future residents of our county, toutway the needs of the few.

[28:11] Despite some later additions, the house remains an excellent specimen of its style.

[28:16] Its location and the history behind how it was built and how it remains standing today

[28:21] is an important part of what makes this building historical. The property meets numerous

[28:27] interest criteria that the commission has been asked to consider this morning.

[28:31] The structure represents the development of the county along the Bardstown Road Turnpike.

[28:35] It's the transition from a plantation style of development along the Turnpike to a suburban

[28:40] style development along the road.

[28:42] The building also is the side of a historical girl's school.

[28:46] This school, this school educated many young women from important families in the city at

[28:53] at a time when education for women was necessarily

[28:56] provided by such boarding schools.

[28:59] The building also, and underneath the parcel,

[29:04] there were likely to be many important architectural details.

[29:08] In fact, there's even anecdotal evidence

[29:09] that the Underground Railroad tunnels

[29:12] connected to this property.

[29:15] Furthermore, the buildings identified

[29:17] with Bishop Benjamin Smith, who was the first

[29:21] Episcopial Bishop of Kentucky.

[29:24] Mr. Smith was a man who rode for over 40 years in a saddle

[29:27] across a primitive Kentucky spreading

[29:30] his Episcopial faith across the state.

[29:32] Both in his role as Bishop he rode

[29:35] and also as an early superintendent of the Kentucky's

[29:39] public school system.

[29:40] In this role, he fought rampant illiteracy across the state

[29:44] and made great strides in the history of 19th century

[29:48] Kentucky.

[29:50] The house is also in close proximity to the speed's plantation house Farmington at one half-mile distance between the two parcels.

[30:00] There was quite a bit of contact between the owners of the two houses, and without a doubt, Bishop's

[30:06] speed influenced what happened on Farmington. Finally, the house is unique in the area

[30:12] and familiar to neighborhoods. Already, just in this process, 800 signatories have come

[30:20] together to ask this commission to save the house. People recognize the house, and the more

[30:25] they learn about it the more significant it becomes to people as an indicator of where

[30:30] the counties come from. So the research done just to prepare for this petition has already

[30:38] been elucidating for many of us including myself who's learned important facts about the past

[30:43] of Louisville Jefferson County. So I'd like to ask today that the Landmark Commission landmark

[30:48] this property and protect it for the future. I'd like now to ask Mr. Smith to come up

[30:52] and present the details of this petition.

[30:57] Thank you, and if you would identify yourself

[30:59] for the record, thanks.

[31:00] I'm Bishop Smith.

[31:02] No, I'm Ted Stone.

[31:04] I had a handout, or a handout, and I

[31:07] wanted to put the map up, because it's kind of instrumental.

[31:10] Maybe with the handout, you can look at it as we go.

[31:36] So I am Ted Stone.

[31:38] I appreciate the opportunity to come.

[31:41] I'm a neighbor.

[31:42] I'll admit that.

[31:43] And it was a history major actually many years ago.

[31:47] but you know this thing we got into it and it's just everything we dug into it was more,

[31:54] not less. I mean they're dead ends but it was pretty curious and lightning experience to

[32:00] to go into this. So for starters, Kalorama, I think the south side is the old front because Kalorama

[32:11] means beautiful view. And if you look out to the south, you would have seen the hill descending

[32:18] and what became orchards and so forth.

[32:25] A little bit of serendipity, my wife started looking

[32:28] into Bishop Smith and fortunately his name was Bosworth. So when you go looking, you don't want

[32:38] a bishop Smith, you want a bishop Bosworth Smith, and sure enough she found

[32:44] an old bit for a guy in Savannah, Benjamin Bosworth Smith, who had died just a

[32:52] few years ago. Checked him out, his descendant, the bishop's descendant is Burton

[32:59] Smith, who lives four daughters down from my mom in the Episcopal Church home

[33:05] period of legal. So he cast a long shadow.

[33:18] How do I make this thing change?

[33:21] Scroll.

[33:26] We took a more

[33:29] historical perspective, I guess. I know architect, I understand the criteria to a degree, but what we

[33:37] found was history, history, history. And when we scratched more, we got more. So it was important to

[33:44] understand the relationship of this property,

[33:47] the site to the character and heritage of the area,

[33:53] not just Louisville, but the state and the US

[33:55] because of the nature of the Bishop

[33:57] as a national figure.

[34:01] And this map is indicative of a relationship

[34:04] to the adjoining properties, many of which were slaveholding,

[34:09] and not just slaveholding, but large slaveholding properties.

[34:14] So, he's, the bishop is right in the mix, pre-civil war, antebellum of all this stuff going on.

[34:24] And in the midst of that, he comes down from Lexington, establishes a girl school which is there for 20 years

[34:31] and has got to be influencing the folks around him as we'll get into.

[34:37] He was the first Episcopal bishop.

[34:40] This is one of his down in Lexington.

[34:42] He was made bishop in 1832.

[34:46] He relocated to Louisville when things in Louisville

[34:49] really started popping.

[34:52] And it may be that he did that because it was a superintendent

[34:56] of public schools.

[34:56] He was all over the state on horseback.

[35:02] Meanwhile, when he's made Bishop, he said,

[35:05] And how am I going to start churches with no ministers?

[35:08] So he establishes a seminary in Lexington

[35:11] to populate the churches he's going around the state.

[35:16] As not a bad record for superintendant of public instruction,

[35:20] doubling the number of students in two years.

[35:23] What kind of charismatic guy does it take

[35:25] to talk to local officials and make that happen?

[35:28] Then he becomes the ninth presiding bishop of the United

[35:31] States.

[35:32] So

[35:37] in 1836, we have Dr. Willem Powell, we believe, building this structure on the 40 acres.

[35:46] Benjamin Bosworth Smith in Lexington, he gets named, he establishes a seminary, meanwhile

[35:51] he's also got to make a living and he has a school, a girl school down there, and one of

[35:56] his first students is a daughter of Henry Clay.

[36:02] He gets down, oh, just a side note, the longest known Episcopid in the Anglican Church.

[36:12] That rose back to Henry VIII.

[36:16] So now he comes down to Louisville.

[36:19] In 1837, he lays the quarter stone of St. Paul's Episcopal Church.

[36:23] This would be the second church of Louisville, after the Cathedral.

[36:27] Lays the cornerstone, the speed family, and the well and power will charter members of the church.

[36:37] Then he becomes superintendent of public instruction, goes around the state and so forth.

[36:43] Calorama itself operates for 20 years.

[36:49] In his time as Bishop, he establishes more churches, more Episcopal churches in the state than exist today.

[37:00] again this guy was no slacker.

[37:08] I have some orientation slides which I think we

[37:11] pretty well covered but you can see it's very proximate to Farmington. We

[37:16] decided early on that we would seek landmark designation not for the entire

[37:25] property but just the house property. We just didn't want to be overly ambitious.

[37:31] we understood there's infield development, it's going to happen, that's a natural thing.

[37:37] And we weren't really opposed to that, but as a cultural landscape,

[37:41] that's pretty instrumental as well. But we limited our analysis and

[37:47] work to petitioning just for the House.

[37:55] As a side note, those in the neighborhood really

[37:59] understand what a cultural institution this was. The Ertans lived there 50 years. Easter Sunday,

[38:04] Christmas thanks given there were 50 people over there if not 80 there were cars everywhere we watch

[38:09] 4th of July from our front porch we didn't go downtown because they're shooting off rockets over there

[38:15] on the site in the middle is a pecan tree they're not really this is the northern limit of their

[38:23] growth area but there is about a 90-foot pecan tree there there was another one until Hurricane

[38:29] night came through a few years back. And so that's a little bit of an anomaly, and I don't know how old it is, but it's very old, and couldn't possibly relate to go back to 1860.

[38:42] On the right's a mulberry tree, the white mulberries and introduced species for silk production. Again, it's really old. We had one in our yard, and when it got knocked out by stormers over 100 years old.

[38:56] And on the left is the sassafras grove, now in production, in the lot out front.

[39:02] So if anybody needs a sassafras tree, I know where you can get one.

[39:11] This is the Hancock Cradock Platt 1834.

[39:16] It shows Dr. Lowellan's property.

[39:22] Obviously, this is deedbook 00.

[39:26] That tells the tale all by itself.

[39:28] some

[39:32] historic context, and this is where the map, the bourbon map is instrumental.

[39:39] Bashford Manor's there in 1817, 1996.

[39:45] That's the home back of the large town road.

[39:49] Trost Springs is there.

[39:52] That's the Clark home built by Fajanathan.

[39:57] and that's where some of the stuff

[40:00] from the William and Clark expedition got sent to.

[40:04] Farmington, we know about that,

[40:06] large hemp plantation, and Daniel Dubb,

[40:10] his house was likely present there.

[40:15] So in the midst of all these large-track farms,

[40:18] plantations, they plot for speculation.

[40:22] In 1837, there's a panic, why is there a panic?

[40:27] The president, Andrew Jackson, decides he doesn't like the bank and this goes back in time.

[40:33] But he pulls all the money out of the federal bank and puts it in state banks.

[40:38] The state banks start lending wildly and speculatively.

[40:44] And so all through this period from the time of the early plating, a lot's going on.

[40:51] Money is flowing and pretty crazy things.

[40:54] The Turnpike gets completed in 1838.

[40:58] The 1840 and 50 census is enumerate the numbers of slaves and it's clear that, you know, it's largely a slave holding air.

[41:06] Meanwhile, 1841 Lincoln comes and visits Farmington when he's on the outs with Mary Todd.

[41:15] And he goes to see his friend Joshua Speed, who is at Farmington, obviously.

[41:22] We don't know whether Lincoln might have seen the bishop speak, but he might have, because

[41:28] he did that, down at St. Paul's, which was the speed's church.

[41:34] A little while later, Hayfield develops that's a little farther away from Bard's town road,

[41:41] and it was occupied by short, Charles Short, who was a world-renowned botanist.

[41:48] and I'll touch on him again in a minute but again there's just there's a whole

[41:53] web of fabric of history in this media area and and certainly when we got

[42:00] into correspondence from the time period of the speed family the bullet fan

[42:04] they're talking slavery it's just a constant topic and here we have a guy right

[42:09] in the middle of that who's anti-slavery so I'll pause here for a second here's the

[42:19] The Bray property, Farmington, the Bishop right in the middle, Daniel Dupes was the

[42:24] wealthiest reported to be the wealthiest man in Jefferson County at the time.

[42:31] This is Taylor'sville and Bardstown.

[42:35] The Waterson comes through here.

[42:38] This is Dr. Short's property.

[42:41] This is the Chamberlain property.

[42:42] They're the descendants of Clarks.

[42:45] So you can see the historic context here.

[42:52] So in 1836, the bishop is quoted.

[42:57] He's an activist, I guess you could say it away,

[43:00] and he's interested in homicides in the violence in Kentucky.

[43:03] And his article says, he believes,

[43:08] thoughts on the frequency of homicides in the state of Kentucky.

[43:11] That's the name of the article.

[43:12] He starts statistics and found from these returns it appears that in 27 counties there

[43:19] have been within the last three years of homicides of every grade, 35, not only 8 convictions.

[43:27] So he's decrying the situation and he goes on to say he thinks slave holding is an instrumental

[43:35] factor in this.

[43:38] are not some of the direct influence of a system, the existence of which amongst us can

[43:43] never be sufficiently deplored, discoverable in these affairs, the phrase, are not our

[43:49] young men more hetty, violent, and imperious in consequence of the early habits of command.

[43:55] Is not in temperance more social, more inflammatory, more pugnacious, where a fancied superiority of

[44:02] gentleman character, gentlemanly character is felt.

[44:06] And he was not reappointed superintendant

[44:10] of public instruction, because it came about

[44:13] that he was critical of a grand jury somewhere in the state

[44:16] that had no literate individual sitting on a grand jury.

[44:20] And again, he was a crusader for education.

[44:29] We know this because he tried to keep

[44:35] on as a superintendent of public construction partly for financial reasons and he writes

[44:40] Henry Clay and says, can I continue? Can't you influence the outcome of this? And he

[44:46] says, you know, if I was thrown out because I was so critical, so be it. But because my

[44:54] sacred office as long since taught me that the surest way of making an enemy is to tell the truth.

[44:59] So that?

[45:00] That's the kind of guy this guy was. He was not an abolitionist, a number of historical records

[45:06] demonstrate that, but he did support the American Colonization Society, which was the, started

[45:14] much earlier, Henry Clay was president for a time, Lincoln was a supporter earlier in

[45:18] this career, but it basically said, it's an unfortunate state of affairs slavery and the

[45:25] best situation, best solution is to send the slaves back to Africa. That's what the American

[45:30] Coalination Society stood for. In a book called Fifty Years of Slavery in the United States

[45:37] of America, there are a number of narrations by a former slave. Among those, he says that

[45:46] one, Briscoe, who's the neighbor to the north on the map, if you see the Bergman map, was

[45:53] beating his slaves, and he was kind of the guy. If you had a recalcitrant slave, he took

[45:59] it over to Briscoe, and he'd straighten it out for you. So the bishop, here's all this,

[46:07] basically, tortured one on, and he comes over, and after praying on the poor man, told Briscoe,

[46:13] if he ever struck the man again, he prosecuted him to the fullest extent of the law.

[46:24] And in

[46:25] Bishop Smith was recruited a minister for St. Mark's Episcopal Church Collard and ordained

[46:35] the first black Episcopal minister in the state.

[46:43] So here we have the young man and the elderly man in his role and again on the left that

[46:51] photo was provided by his great-great-granddaughter who left here in the wood.

[46:58] Looking at these pictures, you can see why the girls at the school called him Tunic affectionately.

[47:11] We don't know as much about the school as we wish,

[47:16] sorry.

[47:20] There were ads in the paper that we have found and we have found some correspondence

[47:24] and this notebook on the left shows the enrollment based on what's written in one of the girl's schoolbooks in 1849.

[47:37] Who's the woman behind the man? Harriet Staplesmith. She was the daughter of the

[47:44] gentleman who was the first instructor of the private law school that became

[47:48] Yale. She ran the school obviously the bishop is out running around and she's

[47:56] got to be the person at home making sure everything works so she's

[47:59] corresponding with parents keeping the kitchen in order their servants and

[48:04] slaves at some point and a whole place to manage and it's no small task.

[48:17] So the Bishop

[48:18] really had a lot going on. He established more churches in Kentucky than exists today.

[48:24] He was instrumental in bringing the south, the southern churches back into the fold after

[48:29] the Civil War that didn't happen in other denominations. He sketched churches during

[48:35] and his travels that you can see on the right.

[48:37] That was what was on the inside of Lansdown,

[48:41] which was that little study that Cynthia showed

[48:44] that's migrated to the Speed Museum

[48:46] and then out to Francis in the fields today.

[48:50] He was responsible for establishing all these churches.

[48:54] He's actually designated as the architect

[48:58] of the Herod'sburg Church on the left.

[49:02] And he was known as the Whittling Bishop, so he did sketches, but he also did carvings.

[49:07] And he carved the altar at the Herod's Bird Church.

[49:12] So he's a many-faceted guy.

[49:14] He also was responsible for the churches in Senthiana, Georgetown, and Henderson, all on the

[49:21] National Register.

[49:26] His grave is next to Daniel Boone, down in the Frankfurt cemetery, overlooking the Kentucky

[49:32] River.

[49:32] His

[49:37] students held him in high esteem.

[49:40] He was their guide, philosopher and friend.

[49:45] He evidently was area-dite, but he had a way with the kids, and he could lead him out

[49:50] on expeditions in the local area and bring back things, and they would learn from their

[49:56] studies.

[50:01] Cynthia's noted the archaeological aspect.

[50:05] In fact, we know that there was a kitchen, a stable, a greenery, and a smokehouse.

[50:11] There had to have been cisterns.

[50:12] This is not on the well.

[50:14] Farmington, not on a spring.

[50:17] Farmington's on a spring, trough spring.

[50:20] Most of the properties in those days were associated with the spring.

[50:25] So they had to have a large water collection system.

[50:29] To what extent that overlaps a tunnel, we do not know.

[50:33] We haven't been able to look, but my wife went on a tour by Dr. Erdogan before he passed

[50:42] away a number of years ago, and he told us that the tunnels were related to the Underground

[50:50] Railroad, and he went so far as to say, one tunnel went to Bardstown Road.

[50:55] Later, his daughter said they were cemented up as a safety factor, but when we got started

[51:02] on this whole exercise. Everybody in the neighborhood, Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[51:09] All these people came forward and they said, oh yeah, so and so he knows about those tunnels.

[51:13] It's a little confusing because there are some sewers there, like storm sewers and I know my

[51:19] daughter played in there, but I think there's more to it. And certainly there's cisterns and what

[51:24] not there. And Jeff Parr did come forward and he said he saw the entrance to a tunnel under the front

[51:32] approach.

[51:36] So ours has been primarily a concern for history. It's slipping away in every direction,

[51:42] particularly in this kind of situation. You see a lot of change downtown, but this is kind of a

[51:50] unique. We've got a house dating from the 1830s, not the 1860s, not the 1880s, the 1830s. That's really

[52:00] old. There is no competing economic interest here. It's a house. The issue is tearing down

[52:08] a house to build another house. We think that is a sad state of affairs. And we believe

[52:18] the history demonstrates that the landmark criteria are met. And I thank you very much for

[52:25] or the ability to present today.

[52:29] Thank you very much.

[52:32] At this point, I'd like to recognize

[52:34] the property owners, Genevieve Gillford,

[52:38] or Clifford, I'm sorry, Genevieve Clifford,

[52:40] and I think she has counsel with her team, Heather.

[52:43] I

[52:51] am Tina Heather, and I'm the counsel,

[52:52] but I'm not speaking, Genevieve is gonna present

[52:54] and Sean Clifford is gonna present.

[52:57] Okay, well thank you very much.

[52:59] And Genevieve, if you would mind

[53:00] just identifying yourself with the record, please.

[53:02] Sure.

[53:02] Hello, everyone. Thank you for letting us speak. My name is Genevieve Clifford. I go by

[53:08] Jenny, so I know the papers have said Genevieve, but I go by Jenny. My husband, Sean, along

[53:14] with our two children, Jack and Caitlin, own the property on Tremont Drat. Let me start by

[53:22] saying that I'm not a public speaker in this entire situation. It's very overwhelming,

[53:26] But as the owner, I feel like it is our responsibility to talk about our property, 2833 Tremont Drive.

[53:34] The last year has been a very trying time in our family.

[53:37] We have made head to make some very difficult decisions that has taken both emotional and

[53:42] financial toll on us.

[53:45] So let me try to explain how we got here.

[53:47] Last August, we got word that the Tremont property was going to be listed for sale.

[53:51] We were really excited because I grew up just a block away from the house and it was

[53:57] always intrigued by that property.

[54:01] We heard from a listing agent that there were a lot of developers and contractors who

[54:06] were eager to get their hands on the property.

[54:09] And so when we toured the home, he said, if you're interested, I'm encouraging you to get an

[54:15] offer in quickly.

[54:18] We liked the idea of the house, but we did recognize that there was a lot of work that needed

[54:22] to be done, but we felt like we could not pass up this opportunity.

[54:30] We also know that the House was old and could immediately tell that it needed some significant

[54:34] structural alterations.

[54:37] So I did check with both the listing agent and I called the preservation office to make

[54:42] sure that the House was not on the historic registry.

[54:48] The sellers also did not disclose about the 2010 survey that was conducted with the House,

[54:54] and they also didn't provide us any paperwork or say anything about it being

[55:00] historically eligible.

[55:05] Although we can certainly appreciate historical homes, it

[55:07] was not our intention to buy one. We were just looking to create our forever home

[55:12] in an area that we love.

[55:16] We certainly would not have stretched ourselves so

[55:19] financially to that extent if there had been any restrictions or easements in the

[55:24] house. We closed on the house late last September. And over the next two months I spoke with about

[55:32] a half a dozen architects and contractors meeting them at the house, trying to figure out how we

[55:36] were going to make this house work for our family. It wasn't until we started meeting with them, did we

[55:42] really realize the true condition of the house. There were major structural repairs, for example the

[55:50] kitchen slopes, that kitchen addition, that's where the kitchen is.

[55:55] And they suggested that you just remove it and rebuild it in order to get it to where

[56:00] it needed to be.

[56:02] The same with the garage, it's crumbling and they said it was unsafe and we shouldn't

[56:06] even go around it, and it too should be removed and rebuilt.

[56:11] Amongst other things we were disappointed to learn that we were unable to change the layout

[56:15] out of the house because of how it was originally constructed.

[56:20] This restricted us from being able to have that open concept,

[56:22] living family that we had desired.

[56:27] All of the contractors suggested that we either add an addition

[56:31] to the back or the side of the house in order to get that

[56:34] created for us.

[56:37] Our other main concern was the second floor.

[56:41] That's where the bedrooms are located.

[56:44] The ceilings are only seven feet tall

[56:46] and the doorways are even shorter than that and so when they came in they said

[56:53] that the only thing we could do is to raise the roof which would change the

[56:56] look of the house something that you know everybody liked that front porch it

[57:03] wasn't enough just to bring the house up to code what we found out you know

[57:08] you know we knew we'd had to add central air because it didn't have that we'd

[57:12] have to update the heating system we later found out it cost about $800 a month

[57:16] to heat the place, updating the plumbing, electric, the expenses just kind of started

[57:23] adding up.

[57:24] And it was clear after meeting with these experts that this and hearing that same thing

[57:28] over and over again, that this house was just not going to meet our needs.

[57:33] And it was going to cost a fortune to repair.

[57:36] So we created Plan V. We thought we'll try to sell the house, hoping to find someone with

[57:41] more resources than us that could maybe invest in the property.

[57:46] The house was on the market for over six months with a well-known realtor, and we never

[57:51] received an acceptable offer and continually heard the same thing.

[57:55] The house needed too much work.

[57:57] And as a young working family, we certainly cannot afford to let this house sit on the market

[58:02] indefinitely, so we created Plan C. When that demolition notice went out, our lives returned

[58:08] upside down.

[58:10] We had anticipated that some people in the neighborhood would be upset about our decision,

[58:17] but nothing could have prepared us for the last four months.

[58:21] We are not developers, and we did not buy this property to develop the land.

[58:27] We are not public figures and did not expect to be in the front page of the career journal.

[58:33] And we certainly were not prepared for the nasty comments from strangers that have known nothing

[58:39] about us or our situation. It has been a brutal four months. I've lost a lot of sleep, missed

[58:46] a lot of time with my kids that I could have been because I've been tied up in this,

[58:51] and we've suffered financially because of this delay. This process has created our tremendous

[58:57] stress on us and our children. We thought that last August that our dreams had come true,

[59:03] that we get to live in the highlands around the corner from my mom and stepfather,

[59:07] down the street from my sister and her family and within walking distance to

[59:12] most of our family and friends. We could not have been happier. But that was a

[59:17] year ago and that dream has turned into horrific nightmare. We have always

[59:23] tried to make sound financial decisions based on our family and our future and

[59:28] there were never any limitations or restrictions when we bought this property.

[59:37] And as

[59:37] since we were married we had a dream, we had been working towards that dream since that day.

[59:44] We both work hard and Sean especially his missed holidays and

[59:48] birthdays and other events because he's trying to provide for our family and help us attain those dreams.

[59:55] Just a dream of a simple home that we can have a family

[1:00:00] Raise our children, where we can enjoy the fun times with friends and family, and just enjoy those moments that life has blessed us with. We know that we are supported with many of those here today, and we hope that you consider us when making your decision. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:00:18] Yes,

[1:00:28] Sean, do you want to speak as well again, just identify yourself with a record?

[1:00:33] Yes, sir.

[1:00:37] Can I ask a question about the order of the presentations?

[1:00:41] You'll go to four next and then against?

[1:00:44] Just as the order of the original presentation.

[1:00:47] Okay.

[1:00:48] Additional preceded.

[1:00:49] Right.

[1:00:49] We have some people who may have to leave.

[1:00:52] Is there a way you can call those when the against starts before?

[1:00:56] What time do they need to leave?

[1:00:58] 11.

[1:00:58] I'll watch that.

[1:00:59] and how many do you think there are that have to leave?

[1:01:01] Just one, I think.

[1:01:03] Well, we'll see how the time goes,

[1:01:04] and yeah, and if you've seen me forgetting that,

[1:01:07] just lay that in the air.

[1:01:09] Thank you.

[1:01:10] I'll let Ms. Johnson pass out our materials here

[1:01:13] that if you wouldn't mind,

[1:01:14] hit some of my talking points.

[1:01:16] And I want to be as respectful of your time as possible

[1:01:18] so that a B is synced as possible.

[1:01:24] Good morning.

[1:01:24] My name is Sean Clifford.

[1:01:25] I'm the owner of the property on 2833 Tremont Drive and a representing wife Jenny who just

[1:01:31] heard from my son Jack who's back there in Caitlin, Jack 7 and he's starting the second

[1:01:36] grade at St. Agnes and Caitlin just started pre-K at Strathmore so we're very proud of them.

[1:01:43] As Jenny noted the last few months have been very difficult time for a family and it feels

[1:01:48] like we've had a very biased narrative directed at us or delivered against us in very public

[1:01:54] forms. Much of the information was spread with speculative, incorrect, and even

[1:01:59] outright lies. And we are happy today to share our story with you. And it's

[1:02:06] amazing and heartwarming to see such support for us here today. We really

[1:02:09] appreciate all you guys showing up and you can never thank me for everything you

[1:02:12] all have done for us. So while Jenny told you more about our family struggles over

[1:02:18] the last year, I want to discuss some of the nuts and bolts of the designation

[1:02:22] report. I want to offer alternative assumptions to claims presented in the report. I want to

[1:02:29] discuss the local landmark criteria in relation to this dwelling.

[1:02:34] So the first assumption of the report is that the property located at 2833 Tremont is the

[1:02:40] actual house purchased from Dr. Powell by Bishop Smith. The historical evidence behind this

[1:02:46] is actually very weak.

[1:02:49] Page 4 of the designation report, so I'm

[1:02:51] going to refer to the designation report.

[1:02:52] Page 4 of the designation report lists

[1:02:53] that pal own lot number 10, list in hand

[1:02:57] cock and critics' plans.

[1:03:00] Nextuality, he owned lots 10 and 11.

[1:03:03] And that is why the advertisement

[1:03:05] he placed in Louisville Daily Journal in 1836 states 40

[1:03:09] acres of first-rate land.

[1:03:11] And just as a size reference, if we're going by our five zoning

[1:03:14] restrictions today, 40 acres can almost encompass 300 houses at this point, so it's a very,

[1:03:21] very big area as my point. The house pile was advertising may have been located anywhere

[1:03:27] on those 40 acres, and like many other houses from that period, it could have disappeared

[1:03:31] at some point when the property changed hands. On page five, the designation report notes

[1:03:37] that Bishop Smith likely resided in from 1841 to 1860, but did show that he actually purchased

[1:03:44] just 20 acres from Powell in 1845,

[1:03:46] likely running the house before buying.

[1:03:49] Page 10 of the reports suggest

[1:03:51] that the dwelling was likely constructed

[1:03:52] as speculative real estate by Dr. Powell.

[1:03:56] In fact, Smith could have rented a house

[1:03:59] anywhere on those 40 acres of Dr. Powell's land

[1:04:02] and then purchased 20 acres off the side in 1845.

[1:04:06] We know from the 1840 census

[1:04:07] that Dr. Powell lived somewhere on those 40 acres.

[1:04:10] If Smith rented from Powell until 1845, and Powell lived on the property, so would likely

[1:04:17] suggest that there are multiple structures somewhere on these 40 acres.

[1:04:22] Page 10 of the report introduces Samuel Thomas' The Architectural History of Louisville,

[1:04:26] which identifies the dwelling structures, Colorado, and identifies it as Bishop Smith's Boarding

[1:04:31] School for Girls.

[1:04:32] He includes a photograph from 1911 that we've seen.

[1:04:35] The only evidence of a connection between Smith and the structure currently at 2833 Tremont is the 1911 house that is pictured as Calorama.

[1:04:46] Of note, Samuel Thomas is the only historian that attaches the address of 2833 to Tremont on that picture.

[1:04:54] And if you look at his sources, his source to do that is this in the 1836 advertisement I just discussed.

[1:05:00] Reverend W. Robert Inscot, the major historian for Smith's life, also shows a 1911 picture

[1:05:06] of Kaloram in his work, but he does not pinpoint a specific address.

[1:05:10] Regardless, there is no evidence that Smith and the picture.

[1:05:14] The house in the picture is the same as the house referenced in the 1836 advertisement.

[1:05:18] It's complete speculation.

[1:05:21] Until your point, Mr. Vice-Murler.

[1:05:23] Not only that, I would argue that the house in the 1911 picture is not the house currently

[1:05:28] currently on 28-33 Tremont.

[1:05:31] Is it possible that alterations from the house that included tuna and porches, a modified

[1:05:35] roof line, a demolished and then significantly enlarged side addition, modernization of the

[1:05:40] windows and doors, multiple dormers, alterations in the e-detail, that's possible all those

[1:05:46] changes occurred, but maybe the alternatives of the house pictured is not the house on Tremont.

[1:05:51] When the base house from the picture is scaled to the actual size house, the height to width

[1:05:56] ratio do not match. And the horizontal and vertical window spacing does not appear to match either.

[1:06:02] The Petitioners Report and the Designation Report, as we've heard today, they suggest the 1911

[1:06:07] picture demonstrates the south elevation of the house. The south elevations, but we will

[1:06:12] consider the back of the house today as they've already stated. If that is the case, as you

[1:06:17] mentioned of, you had several specific questions. Why did some of the windows disappear only to be

[1:06:26] all the windows changed in a house with a brick frame

[1:06:29] that is 16.5 inches thick.

[1:06:31] Was a walk-out staircase and door

[1:06:33] from the basement, a later addition.

[1:06:35] That's not in the 1911 picture.

[1:06:37] These details just don't add up.

[1:06:38] And where's the carriage house?

[1:06:40] A structure that was reportedly built in the 1870s.

[1:06:43] It's not seen in that 1911 picture from far away,

[1:06:46] and it certainly would have been in the angle of view.

[1:06:49] So to repeat, there's no evidence the house

[1:06:52] in the picture is the same as that house in the 1936 ad.

[1:06:55] And not only that, I have significant doubt that the house in the picture is the current

[1:06:58] dwelling on Tremont.

[1:07:01] On page 5, the designation report states that Bishop Smith sold the property to the

[1:07:05] Hornsby family in 1860, and the property was an investment property for that family.

[1:07:10] If you look in the deed, the deed from Smith to Hornsby, Hornsby agreed to build two houses

[1:07:15] in the city for Smith's sons.

[1:07:18] We know the Hornsby family owned the property for about seven years, and if this was an investment

[1:07:23] property for them, and their work was actually building houses, it's certainly reasonable

[1:07:28] suggests that they may have built structures on that 20 acres.

[1:07:32] So again, there's no proof that the 28-33 structure is the one occupied by Smith.

[1:07:38] The Hornsbees are possibly builders of the house, of course that's speculation too, but

[1:07:42] it's a reason for speculation.

[1:07:44] So while the house may be old, it may have no connection to Bishop Smith.

[1:07:49] The second assumption of the designation report is that the 23-tremont structure is the

[1:07:54] actual building that housed a school called Calorama.

[1:07:58] Page 10 of the designation report states that while living at the property, Smith operated

[1:08:03] a private school known as Calorama.

[1:08:06] We know in the advertisements from the Currier Journal that when Bishop Smith sold the 20 acres

[1:08:11] in 1860, he referenced the entire property as Calorama.

[1:08:15] We know that the area was slightly known as Colorado prior to the purchase of the property

[1:08:20] as evidenced by letters from young school girls writing from Colorado Kentucky instead

[1:08:25] of writing from Colorado school.

[1:08:27] Page 9 of the report states, the 1850 census shows that not only was Smith's family residing

[1:08:33] in the house, but also several young girls were boarding at the house as well.

[1:08:39] In my report, I gave you, you see the Filsen Club records from 1849 that showed that 40

[1:08:44] women were enrolled in the school. Certainly, at the school had 40 students. The

[1:08:50] Tremont property could not have accommodated this large family in addition to 40

[1:08:55] students. As reasonable suggests, there was another structure that did not survive

[1:09:00] at the school. So where could this school have been? When you look back to the

[1:09:05] historical street names in the city of Louisville, you will see that Winston

[1:09:08] Avenue, which is two-box away from Tyler Lane, very close to the property, was

[1:09:13] actually referenced as Calorama Avenue until 1938. So it seems reasonable that

[1:09:18] the school may have been located on Calorama Avenue. Of course it's speculation

[1:09:22] just as all the other arguments or speculation from their side. So while the

[1:09:26] house may be old it could have no connection to Bishop Smith or the school. The

[1:09:31] third assumption the designation report makes is that the house on Tremont was

[1:09:35] built in 1836. Page two of the report states this is a 1.5 story

[1:09:41] in masonry structure constructed in circa 1836

[1:09:44] in the federal style, except for the completely

[1:09:48] circumstantial evidence from the 1836 ad

[1:09:50] about a dwelling somewhere on the 40 acres.

[1:09:53] There's no evidence that the 2833 dwelling

[1:09:55] was built in circa 1836.

[1:09:57] That's where the date comes from, 1836 ad from Patel

[1:10:00] from the William Powell.

[1:10:02] Page 11 of the report.

[1:10:04] Built as a federal style structure,

[1:10:06] it does have visible evidence of the craftsman style

[1:10:08] updates that is unrelated to the period of significance

[1:10:11] related to Dr. Powell and Bishop Smith.

[1:10:14] If you look carefully at the detail of the current house,

[1:10:17] it actually has features that closely resemble the colonial

[1:10:20] revival style that's popularity rose in the latter 1800s.

[1:10:24] Page two of the report, there is a garage structure located

[1:10:28] to the southwest of the dwelling.

[1:10:30] It is thought to date to the 1870s.

[1:10:33] It is possible to the current dwelling

[1:10:34] with features that match a popular building

[1:10:36] style in the late 19th century.

[1:10:38] could have been built circa the 1870s,

[1:10:40] concurrently with its carriage house.

[1:10:42] Instead of assuming it was built in one style

[1:10:44] and then continually modified to another style.

[1:10:48] So while the house may be old,

[1:10:49] it may not be as old as some suggest.

[1:10:53] Fourth assumption, the palace Smith house

[1:10:56] has a potential for containing archeological resources

[1:10:58] and its representative of the Antebellum period

[1:11:01] of development in Jefferson County.

[1:11:04] H-10 of the report.

[1:11:06] Although the lot is rather small,

[1:11:07] The remnants of domestic outbuildings and artifact middens associated with domestic activities are likely present on property.

[1:11:16] The current property at 2331 is only 0.8 of the original 20 acres,

[1:11:21] whether there are any artifacts on this property is completely speculative.

[1:11:24] These artifacts may have been disturbed during the property's farming days,

[1:11:28] when it was subdivided over and over again, when a carriage house was built,

[1:11:32] when a pool was built, when a large driveway was installed, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:11:36] It's just as likely that artifacts exist in the backyards of any other house on Tremont

[1:11:40] and beyond.

[1:11:42] Page 10.

[1:11:44] Some local stories suggest there are brick tunnels under the property.

[1:11:47] If they stand, the brick tunnels could potentially yield archeologic information.

[1:11:51] There's also potential for slave dwellings on sites in Spishop Smith was identified as

[1:11:55] owning nine enslaved African Americans in the 1850 slave index.

[1:12:00] There is no evidence there are tunnels under this house.

[1:12:03] I will tell you, there are no tunnels.

[1:12:04] This is urban neighborhood legend just as there's a goat man that lives under the Pope

[1:12:08] lick railway trust.

[1:12:10] Neither history, geology, nor basic common sense support the logic of underground tunnels

[1:12:15] extending from this house to barge town road.

[1:12:18] We know the underground railway wasn't underground and it wasn't a railway, but that's besides

[1:12:23] the point.

[1:12:25] In actuality, the property was surrounded by slave owners and artifacts are just as likely

[1:12:28] on the opposite side of Tremont.

[1:12:30] the Hook Neighborhood, Gladstone, Winston, or any property in the area.

[1:12:35] And of course, if Bishop Smith's residence was at another location, then any RF acts from that era could be on adjacent lots.

[1:12:44] Page 10 suggests that the building of the property at 2833 marks a change in land use during antebellum period of development in Jefferson County.

[1:12:51] The plantations and farms were now being joined by smaller parcels demonstrating a move from the grain land use patterns

[1:12:57] to increasingly suburban development as Jefferson County and Louisville's

[1:13:00] urban corps was growing.

[1:13:04] So we know that the 20 acres of Bishop Smith, the

[1:13:07] Bishop Smith owned was not subdivided until 1908. It's 1908. It was still being

[1:13:12] farmed in 1877 as evidence by the 1877 bankruptcy auction reciting the

[1:13:18] fruits and trees on the property. So this is not a change during the

[1:13:23] antebellum or pre-civil war period in Jefferson County. It's after that period.

[1:13:29] So

[1:13:30] It may not be as old as the prior owner indicated and the location of any artifact from the 1830s could be anywhere on the 20 acres.

[1:13:37] Now I'm going to discuss an error in the designation report.

[1:13:42] On page two, the designation report states, a

[1:13:45] 2010 historic resources survey form indicated that the building is eligible for listing in the national register of historic places as part of a group of multiple resources since Johnson mentioned that earlier.

[1:13:56] The survey is also used in the petitioner support, but the survey is misguided and reliance

[1:14:01] on its problematic for numerous reasons that I'll get to.

[1:14:05] First of all, the survey indicates that the only source of information as to the age

[1:14:09] and ownership of the property was the prior owner.

[1:14:12] The prior owner stated that Bishop Smith was the original owner of the property and that

[1:14:16] he built the property.

[1:14:18] Neither of these statements are correct.

[1:14:20] It estimated a construction date that did not document one.

[1:14:24] It stated that the octagonal kitchen was a late 19th century edition, whereas the 1911

[1:14:29] picture, if you believe that is the actual house, did not have that structure attached.

[1:14:35] It stated that the house was built in Georgian style, while arguably it was built in a Federalist

[1:14:39] or Colonial Revival style.

[1:14:41] It states that the 20-acre farm encompassed the Hook Subdivision.

[1:14:45] This is not true.

[1:14:45] Hook Subdivision is to the east of the property.

[1:14:48] So, the final report, the summation of these surveys,

[1:14:53] Janie Rice-Brother, Jennifer Ryle, J. Stottman, entitled,

[1:14:56] they came, they saw, they bought, the 20th Century Housing

[1:14:59] in the middle of it.

[1:15:19] I will finish with a short discussion of the local landmark designation criteria, the structure

[1:15:29] reportedly meets. Criterion A, its character, interest, or values as part of the development

[1:15:36] of heritage at Louisville Metro, Jefferson County, the Commonwealth of the United States.

[1:15:42] The draft report states that this criteria is met because the house is representative

[1:15:47] of the antebellum period in Jefferson County. This is a period when the urban core is growing

[1:15:51] and increased development along the Louisville-Barge town turnpike as a crime.

[1:15:56] In actuality, the change in land use of this property came after the significant period

[1:16:02] of changes for the rest of the area.

[1:16:04] We know the 20 acres weren't subdivided until 1908 and we know it was a working farm until

[1:16:08] at least the late 19th century.

[1:16:10] So this is not an example of Antibell and change in land use.

[1:16:14] Criterion B.

[1:16:16] It's exemplification of the historic, aesthetic, architectural, archaeological, prehistoric or historic

[1:16:22] archaeologic, educational, economic, or cultural heritage of Louisville Metro, Jefferson County,

[1:16:27] the Commonwealth, or the nation.

[1:16:29] Sorry, it's a mouthful.

[1:16:30] The designation reports states that the house is associated with the girls school established

[1:16:34] by Bishop Smith, known as Colorado.

[1:16:36] The site is also likely to yield significant information about the antebellum period of development,

[1:16:40] including the possibility of enslaved persons dwellings.

[1:16:44] So once again, there's no proof that this was the actual site of this school, that this

[1:16:49] This was even the actual resonance of Bishop Smith.

[1:16:52] There are reasonable alternatives as I have presented.

[1:16:55] Also it is speculative, the 0.8 acres, but the original 20 has any significant archeologic

[1:17:01] information.

[1:17:02] Complete speculation.

[1:17:04] It could be speculated that all dwellings and proximity to Barth's town road could have

[1:17:07] these findings.

[1:17:09] Criterion D.

[1:17:11] It's identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture

[1:17:15] and development of Louisville Metro, Jefferson County,

[1:17:18] the Commonwealth, or the nation.

[1:17:21] The designation report states, Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith

[1:17:25] was the first Episcopal Bishop of Kentucky.

[1:17:27] Bishop Smith was also involved in the state government

[1:17:30] and served as the superintendent of public schools

[1:17:32] from the state of Kentucky.

[1:17:34] We do, and looking through all this history,

[1:17:36] we believe that Bishop Smith was an important person

[1:17:38] and religious and educational figure in the state of Kentucky.

[1:17:42] And he's been, he's been memorialized

[1:17:44] and various cities throughout the Commonwealth.

[1:17:47] Less the petitioners continued to insist

[1:17:49] he was a champion of African-Americans, he was not.

[1:17:53] He was a known slave owner in both Lexington and in Louis.

[1:17:57] He maintained nine slaves in Louis in 1850,

[1:18:00] since he had seven females, two males, ages two to 45.

[1:18:05] I'll talk about Underground Railway shit in there.

[1:18:09] While I believe Bishop Smith lives somewhere

[1:18:10] on the 20-acre plot that we've been discussing,

[1:18:12] There's no proof that he actually lived on the structure of this currently, 28-33 Tremont.

[1:18:18] Or that the structure on Tremont served as a boarding school for girls.

[1:18:21] We know that several other large antebellum dwellings nearby have not survived.

[1:18:27] The house on Tremont certainly may have been built after the bishop arrived,

[1:18:32] possibly by the horns we said it, as I discussed earlier.

[1:18:35] Criterion H. It's a relationship to other distinctive areas,

[1:18:39] which are eligible for preservation according to a plan based on an historic, cultural, or architectural motif.

[1:18:45] The designation report states, the palace Smith House is in close proximity to Farmington,

[1:18:50] which is an early example of federal architecture in the area.

[1:18:53] The house is a surviving example of the development in the area as a suburban development rather than a plantation house.

[1:19:00] This shift in land use indicates the growing development of Jefferson County is an urbanized area.

[1:19:05] Funny enough, even the petitioners in their report did not argue this criterion had been met.

[1:19:10] The House being close proximity to Farmington is a very weak argument for meeting this criterion.

[1:19:15] If that is the case, the need dwelling on Bardstown Road, Newberg Road, Taylor's Road could

[1:19:21] all be considered close to Farmington and fit this criterion.

[1:19:24] And we know the property was a working farm until the late 1800s that keep repeating it was

[1:19:28] not subdivided until 1908, thus arguing against this role in Jefferson County's early urbanization.

[1:19:35] Criterion I, the unique location or physical characteristics representing an established and

[1:19:40] familiar visual feature of which reinforced the physical continuity of a neighborhood

[1:19:44] area, a place within the rural metro.

[1:19:47] The designation report states the house was constructed in 1836 by Dr. Powell and sold as

[1:19:53] a speculative property.

[1:19:54] It represents an early example of community development as a surviving example of the settlement

[1:19:59] period in Jefferson County, Lombard, Center.

[1:20:01] Once again, even the petitioners do not consider this criterion to be applicable to the property

[1:20:07] in the report.

[1:20:09] And in reply to the designation report, there's no proof that Dr. Powell bought or sold

[1:20:12] the property is speculative to the property.

[1:20:14] You know that he lives somewhere on the 40 acres and his house may have been large enough

[1:20:19] to renovate and accommodate the 40 students referencing fields and club records, and that's

[1:20:23] in relation to Dr. Powell, not Smith.

[1:20:26] Guys, thank you for bearing with me through all that.

[1:20:29] I know it was a lot to sit through.

[1:20:31] This hearing is a vital importance to my family.

[1:20:35] Implications have an enormous impact on our future.

[1:20:39] We are completely invested in this.

[1:20:41] This is our life.

[1:20:44] While the petitioners are championing their calls to Azure,

[1:20:47] they have no skin in this game that they forced us to participate in.

[1:20:51] And their arguments from a historical perspective are very weak.

[1:20:55] From Powell to Smith to Hornesby to Harris to Maryweather

[1:21:00] to Glazedbrook, to Chase, to Curse, from the numerous owners from the 1920s to 1960s through

[1:21:07] the Ertems. This property has been unburdened. We purchased this property unburdened. Much

[1:21:13] of what lies in the designation report and links meeting to the meeting designation criteria

[1:21:20] is based off of assumption, speculation, folklore, and inaccuracy. In the end, this is an old house

[1:21:27] in very, very poor repair.

[1:21:30] Is it reasonable to retroactively take away properties rights,

[1:21:33] property owners rights based off speculation, assumption,

[1:21:36] and folklore?

[1:21:38] Thank you.

[1:21:39] Thank you.

[1:21:45] Can I just ask a quick question?

[1:21:48] I assume that you were giving us a lot of information there

[1:21:51] and I was flipping through the handout you gave us.

[1:21:54] I assume that everything you were discussing is included

[1:21:56] in this handout so we can reference that.

[1:21:59] Thank you very much.

[1:22:01] Okay, we are at 10.30 and I think there's another meeting in here later today.

[1:22:07] What time is that next meeting?

[1:22:09] 1 o'clock.

[1:22:10] Okay.

[1:22:11] Well, we have several speakers who have signed up to speak.

[1:22:16] And I think what we'll do is allow those, we'll move to that next.

[1:22:21] As you all know, when you came in, there was a sign in slip of paper if you wanted to speak.

[1:22:27] and so what I'd like to do is we've got people speaking for the designation, it looks like there's a half a dozen, and I'd like to let them speak, and Tina, I'm aware of the time here, just like I said, if it gets too close to lagging.

[1:22:43] But let's go ahead, the first person to speak in support is Leslie Sissle, if she's here.

[1:22:50] I'll

[1:22:57] identify myself, Leslie Siffle.

[1:23:00] I'm going to start with the remarks that I had prepared and obviously there's been

[1:23:04] information presented that I didn't know until I was sitting here today, so I'm going

[1:23:08] to address that after my prepared remarks.

[1:23:12] And I want to start by saying that I do appreciate that there is a waiting period when an application

[1:23:17] is received to demolish a structure that's eligible for the National Register of Historic

[1:23:22] Places.

[1:23:23] I have told people during this process, nobody's doing anything illegal here.

[1:23:28] The owners are allowed to request a permit to demolish, and the petitioners are allowed

[1:23:33] to request that it be designated a local landmark.

[1:23:36] We're all following the rules here.

[1:23:39] When I first learned of the intent to demolish, I walked over to the home because I walked

[1:23:44] by it many times, and my thought was, over my dead body.

[1:23:50] Now, I don't want to give anybody any ideas, but that's how strong my reaction was to it.

[1:23:59] As I researched the home and its occupants, my respect and my admiration grew.

[1:24:05] It's almost 200 years old.

[1:24:07] It has stood in the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st centuries.

[1:24:13] It's a remarkable testament to the ability to adapt and to remain relevant.

[1:24:18] It's clear to anyone who sees it, that it's a historical property representing a farm

[1:24:24] of yesteryear, but it's been integrated into suburbia by adding current architectural

[1:24:29] details.

[1:24:31] It is a touchstone for the area, and it's an important link to Louisville's historical

[1:24:36] heritage.

[1:24:37] It exemplifies you can't know where you're going until you know where you've been.

[1:24:43] It helps the young understand that what went before, it helps the young understand what

[1:24:49] went before and it stores appreciation in adults.

[1:24:54] I'm not the only person who had such a strong reaction to the demolition news.

[1:24:59] It prompted a similar reaction in many people who had any association with the house at any

[1:25:04] time and at any age.

[1:25:06] I

[1:25:09] mentioned the architectural details that have been added to keep it relevant as the area evolved.

[1:25:16] And one of the questions early on from Mr. Vice was about the addition.

[1:25:20] And the reason that addition is there, it serves currently as the kitchen.

[1:25:25] When the house was built, one of the slides indicated there was a separate structure as was common at the time.

[1:25:31] There would have been a different building that housed the kitchen for fire reasons they

[1:25:36] didn't usually have it inside the house.

[1:25:38] But now that addition houses the kitchen.

[1:25:43] I want to reiterate that the history that the house represents is remarkable, having been

[1:25:48] the home of the first abyscable bishop in Kentucky who went on to serve as the presiding bishop

[1:25:54] of the United States.

[1:25:56] It also served as a private school for young women from throughout the South, not just the state

[1:26:01] of Kentucky, and the bishop traveled extensively, not only domestically, but internationally,

[1:26:08] and he spread the word about Calorama.

[1:26:11] That's what he called it, but the name stuck because in the 1911 photo, it is captioned

[1:26:18] as Mr. Vice noted, it has handwriting, it's still called Calorama.

[1:26:22] That's 50 years after the bishop lived there, so that is really a historical legacy.

[1:26:29] One of the things that I want to address is what I consider to be an elephant in the room.

[1:26:35] As my shirt indicates, I live in the upper highlands.

[1:26:38] I don't live near this house.

[1:26:40] I live six blocks away.

[1:26:43] Any development or construction on that site is not going to affect my home at all.

[1:26:49] But one of the things that I've heard is there's a perception neighbors don't want the property

[1:26:56] developed because nobody wants development next to them. I have never heard that

[1:27:03] concern from the petitioners, and I have had numerous conversations with them.

[1:27:10] No one who lives next to this property, the petitioners have not mentioned,

[1:27:14] don't want construction, don't want development. The petitioners are

[1:27:19] are truly driven by a desire to preserve an important historical landmark.

[1:27:26] Their only motivation is an abiding love of the property and the people and history

[1:27:31] it represents and that is what they want to protect.

[1:27:38] The House is worthy of being designated a local landmark because it bridges the past and

[1:27:43] the present.

[1:27:44] It's vital to demonstrating the development of the barge town road turnpike as Louisville

[1:27:52] repeat, it meets the criteria of exemplifying the historic and cultural history of Louisville.

[1:27:58] It's an established and familiar visual feature and it reinforces the continuity of the area.

[1:28:04] It's identified with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development

[1:28:09] of not only Louisville, but also the Commonwealth and the nation.

[1:28:14] It possesses character interest and value as part of the development and heritage of Metro

[1:28:19] Louisville and Jefferson County, and finally, its location near Farmington shows the transition

[1:28:24] of the area from plantations to urban development as growth occurred from Louisville's core

[1:28:30] along the Bartstown Road Turnpike.

[1:28:34] I know a previous speaker mentioned that it wasn't urban development or perhaps wasn't

[1:28:40] suburbia.

[1:28:41] It was an urban farm which was far different than the plantations that were dotting the

[1:28:47] area.

[1:28:47] And that is the type of development we are talking about.

[1:28:50] It is a piece in the development of the area,

[1:28:53] plantations, urban farms, and then as it got further subdivided into what we typically call suburbs.

[1:29:02] I implore you to recognize the importance of this historical place and designated a local landmark.

[1:29:08] At this point, I was going to say thank you, but I'm going to continue, as I said,

[1:29:13] But there has been some information brought up that I didn't know was going to be offered here.

[1:29:19] And I want to say a few things, I was going to say facts, but I'm going to instead going to say these are things I know.

[1:29:25] I cannot ascribe intent to any other person, all I can say are things I know.

[1:29:33] I have no doubt that as the owner said, they are under tremendous stress, they've paid a lot for the property.

[1:29:40] They bought it for 605,000 and they closed on its September 30th of 2015.

[1:29:47] One of the things that they didn't mention is, as you know, the designation is only being

[1:29:54] sought for the parcel where the house is.

[1:29:56] It's not being sought for what it's now a-

[1:30:00] So, that's a separate parcel. When the owners bought it, it was all one parcel. And they closed on it September 30th. And then November 23rd, they submitted to Metro Government application to subdivide the property. And that is when they then asked for what served as the front yard of the property. It's half acre, 0.55 acres with, there's no structures on it. They asked to go ahead and make that a separate parcel.

[1:30:28] So they bought it September 30th, and November 23rd,

[1:30:30] they went ahead and applied for that vacant part

[1:30:33] of the front yard to be a separate parcel.

[1:30:36] And then they left the house on 0.8 acres.

[1:30:39] That's what's remaining 0.825 acres is what the house is on.

[1:30:43] So after they subdivided the property,

[1:30:47] they went ahead and relisted it.

[1:30:49] And I'm getting this information off Zillow,

[1:30:52] which is a common website.

[1:30:53] I can't verify that it's 100% accurate.

[1:30:56] it's used across the country, and this is what it represents.

[1:31:00] It says August 27th of 2015, House went on the market for 650,000.

[1:31:06] Virtually immediately, the House is pending.

[1:31:09] That it's got a contract on it.

[1:31:12] The closing is on September 30th.

[1:31:16] Then, the House is re-listed for sale on November 5th of 2015

[1:31:22] at a price of 550,000.

[1:31:24] So they paid $605 for the whole thing.

[1:31:27] They have since subdivided it, taken off a half acre,

[1:31:30] and then they re-listed it November 5th for $550,000.

[1:31:34] And they kept it on the market.

[1:31:36] The listing was finally removed April 23rd of 2016.

[1:31:39] In that time, it started at $550,000,

[1:31:42] and it got down to $500,000 according to Zillow

[1:31:45] by the time it was taken off of being listed.

[1:31:50] And again, I know they're under tremendous stress.

[1:31:52] I have they they did know how all of this would go when when they started this process, you know, I don't want to interrupt you

[1:32:03] But we are running short on time and I don't I mean does any of this speak to the designation criteria?

[1:32:10] only to

[1:32:12] The emotional estate and and what what was going on at the time

[1:32:16] I should have yeah, I should have preceded your comments and fairness to you by saying we don't want repetitive testimony

[1:32:23] And we want testimony that addresses the designation criteria just because there's a bunch of speakers and I'm not trying to be I will change to is that the house that Bishop Smith had and is that where the school for the girls was.

[1:32:36] You saw the study in the slides that since been moved but the person who moved it lived in the house.

[1:32:44] Sunshine Harris her parents bought the house in 1867.

[1:32:49] Bishop Smith sold the house in 1860.

[1:32:52] There's seven years difference.

[1:32:54] She talks of that house being the Bishop's house,

[1:32:58] and that study, his study,

[1:33:00] and it was on the land of that house.

[1:33:02] She used the study as a play house.

[1:33:04] She loved it, she saved it.

[1:33:06] She moved it to the Speed Museum,

[1:33:07] and she's now, it's on a church grounds.

[1:33:10] That's one of the connections that we have to say, yeah.

[1:33:13] That is the house where the Bishop was,

[1:33:15] and that was his school,

[1:33:16] and that's where his study was.

[1:33:19] Let me make sure that there's nothing outside of it.

[1:33:22] And that cited in the record, by the way, just to help us put together a timeline that

[1:33:26] the quote you were just referring to, was that in one of the records, either in your

[1:33:31] petition or in their designation report, her statement about the study.

[1:33:36] I have to go back and look, is it in your report?

[1:33:39] I know you have a picture of the study.

[1:33:41] Is it in the petition?

[1:33:43] If it's not, if you would get us that information.

[1:33:45] Okay.

[1:33:45] Well, we'll double check the petition,

[1:33:49] and

[1:33:54] this

[1:33:58] is a difficult one.

[1:34:00] I understand what you said that you only want to know about things that have to do with

[1:34:03] declaring a historical landmark.

[1:34:06] I bring this up because my husband and I made an offer on the house to the owners.

[1:34:11] So we were willing to buy it in its current condition, and we have history with historical

[1:34:20] homes, and the last one we did was 1865, the earliest was 1810, so we believe we can use

[1:34:29] the home as it is. We did not offer their asking price, which is currently back to $550,000,

[1:34:35] but it's not for lack of interest in the home. We believe that it is structurally sound.

[1:34:47] Okay, thank you very much, and let's see, I tell you what, it's quarter to 11, and Tina,

[1:34:52] I just want to, I don't want you all to be concerned about your person has to leave.

[1:34:58] And I think you told me the woman's name that, okay, well thanks, appreciate it.

[1:35:04] If you would identify yourself, then I'll pull you out of this list of speakers that signed

[1:35:09] up to.

[1:35:09] Thank you.

[1:35:13] Good morning, Mr. Commissioner.

[1:35:14] My name is Joe Clawzand.

[1:35:16] K-L-A-U-S-I-N-G.

[1:35:20] Thank you and fellow commissioners for your time today.

[1:35:24] Appreciate you all listening to this interesting argument.

[1:35:29] I've been on how much resident grew up there for 23 years, moved when I got married, out

[1:35:35] of the J-town and moved back.

[1:35:36] Still a resident.

[1:35:38] I too live close to the property and I'm fine with the demolition.

[1:35:41] doesn't affect me one bit, I'm thankful for this case because I do a lot of

[1:35:49] civil law and I very rarely look at the fifth amendment. You know I always think

[1:35:54] you have the right to remain silent. Well the fifth amendment also says as

[1:35:57] that no private property shall be taken to taking clause and that's what the

[1:36:02] petitioners are asking today but they're not asking it based on anything sound or

[1:36:09] have a foundation. What we've heard today is we do not know. These are quotes. Don't know

[1:36:15] as much as we like. He might have seen Lincoln speak. Could possibly. I think, anecdotal

[1:36:20] evidence, which we know is not evidence. There may have been many additions. I'm confused

[1:36:25] by the House. I'm confused with the front door is. I'm confused by the additions likely

[1:36:30] with said seven times. In fact, the House may have been 180 degrees rotated. If it were, in

[1:36:35] the house, which we don't know. The property that they're saying, the whole

[1:36:39] property could fit 300 houses on it. Think of that, 300. There's what? Three, six,

[1:36:46] there's 10 of you all up there. 30 times as many as your old homes could have

[1:36:50] been with this gentleman lived. We've got litany of mistakes in the report. The

[1:36:57] designation where it was eligible in 2010 has been proven to be inaccurate and what

[1:37:03] What we have here is a slippery slope.

[1:37:05] We're asking, or we're not, the petitioners are asking for this commission to retroactively

[1:37:10] designate a citizen's private property as a store, as a landmark.

[1:37:17] There's architects on this committee, there's real leaders on this committee.

[1:37:22] You all understand the costs needed to make changes.

[1:37:26] You understand the costs needed to get permits.

[1:37:28] It also would open up a floodgate of litigation.

[1:37:33] Think of the 300 homes that this property could have sat on.

[1:37:36] Think on it.

[1:37:37] Every realtor, when they sell a home, they have a disclosure.

[1:37:40] And within that disclosure it says, has that anything been

[1:37:44] due with, you know, landmark status.

[1:37:48] Here's another disclosure from the GLAR contract.

[1:37:50] Do you know anything that would affect the value of this property?

[1:37:54] Well, I guess it could be a historic landmark to use their criteria.

[1:37:57] Ontario, it's close to Farmington, well so are a thousand other homes.

[1:38:02] Well, it's where Bishop Smith may have lived. Well, so are 300 homes. Well, you should have known that.

[1:38:09] What we're doing here is what they're requesting you do is very dangerous. The evidence does not support that.

[1:38:15] When we're talking about a taking, talking about a taking, landmark status should not be arbitrarily given out,

[1:38:25] especially to private property landowners.

[1:38:29] It should be based upon strict scrutiny.

[1:38:32] Strict scrutiny is the highest standard

[1:38:34] constitutionally that one can have.

[1:38:37] It's not to be based upon allegedly

[1:38:42] unconfirmed data.

[1:38:43] Speculation, what could be one in 300?

[1:38:46] What is that, a .03 chance that it could be?

[1:38:49] Could it be, we don't know.

[1:38:51] It's not to be based on historically eligible properties

[1:38:53] that are now being to be incorrect based upon inappropriate information.

[1:38:58] It's based on facts and to discussions of, well, could have been a storm sewer or could

[1:39:04] have been the underground railroad, is not a fact.

[1:39:07] That's not a strict scrutiny.

[1:39:10] You all are tasked with upholding a strict scrutiny of a private property owner.

[1:39:15] And the evidence before you today does not arise to evidence.

[1:39:19] To use an own attorney's word, it's anecdotal.

[1:39:21] Well, we wish we would have known more.

[1:39:24] There may be stuff underneath it, we don't know, we can't explain what this happened.

[1:39:29] This is not the case for this commission to retroactively apply a landmark status to

[1:39:36] a privately held owned property, where it's never been deemed landmark before.

[1:39:42] No petitions ever been any for this property before.

[1:39:46] There's any questions I'm happy to take those, but thank you for your time today.

[1:39:49] Thank you.

[1:39:52] Let's get back to those who speak and support the next person is Reverend James

[1:39:59] Wilkinson.

[1:40:12] And if you would, just identify yourself for the record, please.

[1:40:15] Thank you.

[1:40:16] Okay.

[1:40:18] Thank you very much.

[1:40:20] Good morning, everyone.

[1:40:21] I am James R. Wilkinson, historiographer of the diocese Kentucky of the Episcopal Church.

[1:40:27] I work out of the Bishop's Office for the Bishop of Kentucky here in Louisville.

[1:40:37] First of all, I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to speak about the significance

[1:40:45] of the place called Colorado,

[1:40:49] the house of an extraordinary churchman and citizen of

[1:40:53] the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith.

[1:40:57] us.

[1:41:00] I also want to thank all of those who have worked so hard in researching facts and

[1:41:07] gathering signatures for the petition to recognize his house as an historic landmark.

[1:41:16] Colorado is a Greek word that may be translated a view of goodness. It was indeed a view of

[1:41:26] goodness at Benjamin Bosworth Smith brought to Kentucky. Born in 1794 in

[1:41:33] Rhode Island, he had already demonstrated his potential as a young man as a

[1:41:39] journalist and communicator by being the editor of the largest church

[1:41:43] publication in the nation at that time, the Episcopal Recorder in Philadelphia.

[1:41:50] Only in his 30s when he came to Kentucky as a young married man with several

[1:41:55] children to be the director of Christ Church Lexington. He also immediately was

[1:42:02] challenged by the cholera epidemic. In that tragic event, he was tireless in his

[1:42:09] ministry to the sick. His wife died in the epidemic, leaving him to be a single

[1:42:16] father. The city government in Lexington recognized him at the time with an

[1:42:22] inscription and silver. When we were sick, you visited us.

[1:42:32] His ordained ministry of 67 years

[1:42:35] included 52 years as the first bishop of Kentucky from 1832 onward, culminating in his service as

[1:42:44] the ninth presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church from 1868 until his death at the age of 90 in 1884.

[1:42:51] for. His many accomplishments during his long and distinguished ministry over a lifetime

[1:42:58] have been well documented and recorded and are referenced in the petition. I will not

[1:43:07] be able to mention all of his accomplishments now. I will use this time given to me this

[1:43:14] morning to focus our attention on things that happened while he was a resident in his

[1:43:21] home here in Louisville, around about that time from 1841 to 1869 when he became the presiding

[1:43:31] bishop of the Episcopal Church. By events in his lifetime, during this time, I will show

[1:43:38] how he distinguished himself while at Colorado in three ways as an educator, as a

[1:43:47] reconciler, and as an architect. In 1841 he establishes a home here at what he

[1:43:57] called Colorado in Louisville, Kentucky. Bishop Smith was an educator prior to

[1:44:04] residing in Louisville, Bishop Smith established one of the first Episcopal

[1:44:08] seminaries west of the mountains. First at Lexington and later at Shelbyville.

[1:44:17] He established in his home aboarding school for girls.

[1:44:23] He had been appointed

[1:44:25] Superintendent of Public Instruction in February 1840 and served until the

[1:44:40] for years after that to operate the school for young ladies at their residence

[1:44:46] Colorado near the barge town road in the east end of Louisville. Bishop Smith

[1:44:53] was a reconciler his vigorous ministry to and among blacks

[1:45:00] And Kentucky was well known.

[1:45:04] When the dioceses in the southern states broke with the Episcopal Church during the Civil War, he did not allow the diocese of Kentucky to be one of them. And both during and after the Civil War, he sought reconciliation and reunion in his church. In 1865, he accepted a priest from the Confederate diocese of Georgia.

[1:45:29] In that same year, he had managed the Dyson Convention of Kentucky, convened at St. Paul's

[1:45:37] in Louisville,

[1:45:40] to resolve to receive with open arms the southern bishops are deputies

[1:45:45] that might return to take their seats in the upcoming general convention.

[1:45:52] The Dyson Convention passed the following resolution, resolved first that the sentiments

[1:46:00] experts expressed in the foregoing extract from the bishop's address are especially in the

[1:46:04] present crisis of the church in our country a very noble illustration of the true spirit

[1:46:09] of Christ, intimately worthy of a bishop in the Church of God, and have the cardinal approval

[1:46:16] of this convention resolve second that this convention disapproves of uncharitable sermons, addresses

[1:46:24] and church newspaper articles against the bishop's clergy and laity of the south.

[1:46:29] As tending inevitably to greatly impair, if not to destroy, the true Christian policy

[1:46:37] enunciated in the extract from the Bishop's address.

[1:46:42] So the 37th Annual Council of the Dice of Kentucky was held at St. Paul's in Louisville.

[1:46:50] Bishop Smith addressed to the Convention was unusually optimistic.

[1:46:55] He could report with satisfaction that St. Mark's mission for colored people in Louisville

[1:47:01] was conducting a day-in-night school.

[1:47:04] The high point of his dress was an appeal to those whom the convention would elect as

[1:47:09] deputies to the forthcoming general convention for them to receive with open arms.

[1:47:16] Any Southern bishops or laity who might return to take their seats in that body.

[1:47:21] In 1868, the Reverend Francis McNeese Whittle,

[1:47:29] director of St. Paul's Louisville, was elected as one

[1:47:33] of the deputies to General Convention.

[1:47:36] At the General Convention, he moved the resolution originally

[1:47:40] passed at the Dawson Convention to seat Southern deputations.

[1:47:44] This action led to the reconciliation reunion

[1:47:47] of the Episcopal Church as the Civil War.

[1:47:51] A similar resolution and speech was made by the Reverend George David Cummins of Illinois,

[1:47:58] who was later nominated and elected the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky.

[1:48:04] In the House of Bishops, the resolution introduced by Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith's self-bishop

[1:48:10] of Kentucky was adopted, and the Southern bishops and attendants were officially seated in

[1:48:16] the House of Bishops.

[1:48:18] It was, you see, primarily the leadership of Bishop Smith from Kentucky that secured

[1:48:27] the unity of the Episcopal Church after the Civil War.

[1:48:31] Also in 1868, hearing Kentucky, he ordained the first black priest ordained in the Diocese

[1:48:40] of Kentucky.

[1:48:42] The Reverend Francis Riddle resigned as Rector of St. Paul's to become the assistant bishop

[1:48:48] of what had been outside the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Virginia during the Civil

[1:48:53] War.

[1:48:56] After holding several cures in Virginia and serving as chaplain of the Confederate Army,

[1:49:00] the Reverend Edmund Taylor Perkins was elected and accepted in the Diocese of Kentucky

[1:49:06] as the Sixth Rector of St. Paul's in Louisville.

[1:49:11] Finally, Bishop Smith was an architect himself.

[1:49:16] Having traveled to England, he learned and copied designs for church building.

[1:49:22] Several churches in Kentucky were built on his designs, including St. Philip's, Harrisburg,

[1:49:28] Grace Church, Hopkinsville, and the Church of the Advent, Senthiana, which are all good

[1:49:35] examples of his Gothic revival style. Certainly it would be appealing to me for a

[1:49:45] house called Colorado to be recognized as an historic landmark as a building

[1:49:52] fabricated at least in part by hand to suit his purposes as a retirement home for

[1:49:58] himself and as a boarding school for girls.

[1:50:03] Perhaps some future use of such a

[1:50:06] The building may take advantage of its 16-inch interior brick walls to provide a fire retardant

[1:50:15] environment for archives of a significant part of Kentucky history.

[1:50:21] That in preserving this place, we have done something to preserve for those who come

[1:50:27] after us a view of goodness.

[1:50:32] What would be more fitting?

[1:50:34] Thank you for allowing me to participate in this appeal to recognize Colorama as a historic landmark.

[1:50:45] I strongly support this petition.

[1:50:49] And I hope the desire, hope and desire, will be favorable.

[1:50:56] Thank you.

[1:50:57] Thank you very much.

[1:51:00] Again, I've been an update here on our time situation.

[1:51:04] We have to give up the room at 12.30 because the next planning commission needs it at 12.30

[1:51:10] to prepare for their 1 o'clock meeting.

[1:51:12] So we've got about 90 minutes down and a little take that long, but we do need to move this

[1:51:16] along a little bit because we have quite a few speakers who have signed up.

[1:51:20] Again, as a courtesy to others, if please try to limit your remarks to whether you're in

[1:51:27] support or opposed and try not to repeat information that's already in the record.

[1:51:32] But we do appreciate your participation.

[1:51:34] The next person to speak is Ryan Fenwick and these are still speaking in support of the

[1:51:41] petition.

[1:51:43] Oh, sorry, I missed that.

[1:51:44] Yeah, sorry.

[1:51:45] Okay.

[1:51:46] Cynthia Cook.

[1:51:57] Good morning.

[1:51:58] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[1:51:59] My name is Cynthia Cook.

[1:52:01] I'm the owner of a historic landmark as well.

[1:52:04] the historic break place is built in 1796 and I just want to say I totally

[1:52:11] empathize with the family that own this house because as an owner of a

[1:52:16] historic property it is an ordeal to make it what you want it to be and I want

[1:52:22] to say that it's an opportunity to make it great it's an opportunity to work with

[1:52:27] the structure to make it what it can be for the service of the family that's

[1:52:33] occupying it. So that's basically what I wanted to say. It would be great if the

[1:52:37] preservation community would provide more support for people who do own

[1:52:42] historic properties. I understand the tax credits and I think they're very

[1:52:46] valuable and I haven't personally taken advantage of them. I did everything on my

[1:52:51] own in preservation and I feel good about that. But it is really wonderful if like

[1:52:59] commission's and preservation communities can really support families who do

[1:53:03] take on projects of this scale so that they feel really good about the

[1:53:07] projects and good about the property and think about it really seriously is

[1:53:12] there forever home. Thanks so much. Have a great day. Thank you.

[1:53:18] The next person is

[1:53:19] Peter Moran.

[1:53:39] Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm the director of

[1:53:43] of the Speed Art Museum, and I have a lifetime of study

[1:53:48] in art and architecture history.

[1:53:51] And I am totally convinced of the legitimacy

[1:53:54] of the draft designation report

[1:53:56] and the legitimacy of the recommendation

[1:53:59] for local landmark designation of this property.

[1:54:02] I would disagree only slightly with the report

[1:54:05] in saying that I think there is an argument

[1:54:09] for architectural significance,

[1:54:10] both in the scale, the citing and the character

[1:54:13] of the building. It really is a remarkable example of early suburban development.

[1:54:23] I hope

[1:54:24] that the building will be preserved and that the cultural legacy of future generations

[1:54:29] is not diminished by the demolition of the building. Demolition is forever preservation

[1:54:37] is a bold and important step. I do hope too that stronger provision for designation of

[1:54:43] historic properties in advance of the building's possible demise might someday be a reality

[1:54:51] here in Jefferson County. It certainly would save a lot of heartbreak. Thank you very

[1:54:57] much for the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you very much.

[1:55:04] Martina Khaniki.

[1:55:17] Martina Khaniki,

[1:55:18] president of neighborhood planning and preservation, 2729 Northwestern Parkway.

[1:55:27] I come speaking in two capacities as the president of a preservation organization here

[1:55:33] in town, and also as the former director of exhibits for the Kentucky Center for African

[1:55:38] American Heritage, where I was responsible for all the content that was supposed to accompany

[1:55:43] those exhibits.

[1:55:46] You're going to have a lot of folks make the case in a lot of ways that are not germane to

[1:55:51] what your job is here today.

[1:55:53] you just look at the rules, you just understand how many criteria this house has

[1:56:01] passed and only one is required and therefore and as a historian I would

[1:56:07] argue that perhaps there should be five because we can't say for a certainty

[1:56:12] what did or did not happen in historic significance in this very historic

[1:56:18] historic community. That's the way historians talk. I know that some folks want more clarity,

[1:56:27] but historians deal with the greater deal of leeway in terms of interpretation.

[1:56:35] Here's something I want you to consider.

[1:56:42] Property owners who buy property that they later find or

[1:56:47] challenged by historic constraints, often argue that it's their right to do with the

[1:56:55] property as they see fit, it's property rights. So I would like us as a community to understand

[1:57:03] that argument, but also to understand that the property rights of people who have lived

[1:57:08] in the community for decades, who have loved their homes, have loved their community, who

[1:57:13] brought their homes and took care of their community in a way that was consistent with the

[1:57:18] ambiance of the community and with the reason they bought that home.

[1:57:23] The efforts of this neighborhood has been significant in terms of trying to protect

[1:57:29] a piece of history that they admire and that lends to the value of their homes.

[1:57:35] So let's think about all the property rights of everyone.

[1:57:38] And in the final analysis we have to ask ourselves, is are the wishes of people who wish to force

[1:57:48] themselves into a neighborhood that they are trying to change significantly against the will

[1:57:54] of their future neighbors, is what important to them, born important to the 800 or more people

[1:58:03] that signed that petition and said please do not destroy our history. I know for a fact

[1:58:09] that the Kentucky Trust and others have reached out to these property owners. We don't want

[1:58:16] them left holding the bag. I know the Kentucky Trust and others have reached out to them

[1:58:21] to try to figure out a way to either help them with the property or purchase the property.

[1:58:26] they have options and I'm not so sure that their options are anymore.

[1:58:34] I don't

[1:58:35] think that the current neighborhood should be put at risk because of the

[1:58:40] wishes of folks who obviously do not respect the neighborhood. It's history and

[1:58:45] want to change its character. Thank you.

[1:58:50] Okay, that is the last speaker that I

[1:58:53] show that signed up in support and we'll now switch and hear from people who have signed

[1:59:01] up in opposition to the designation. The first one I have is Laura Clifford and

[1:59:19] if you

[1:59:19] identify yourself. Thank you for letting me speak to this committee and before I, my

[1:59:24] name is Laura Clifford and before I begin my speech I'd like to comment about what the last

[1:59:29] speaker just said by saying, and I know she wasn't here for earlier speakers, but we're

[1:59:36] all from the Highlands. We're not forcing ourselves into this community, the property

[1:59:41] owners grew up in the Highlands. We're all from the Highlands. So we all are vested

[1:59:47] in this area, not just the petitioners. If we had a petition for the other side, I have

[1:59:52] no doubt for what we could get 800 signatures. So once again, my name is Laura Clifford. I was

[1:59:58] as an American history teacher.

[2:00:00] I love everything historical, including historical properties. When Jenny and Sean first came to us to look at this property in this house, I was very excited. From the outside it looked nice. But my excitement soon faded when we entered the house. I was shocked by the alterations that had been made and by how historically compromised it was. It was chopped up, it was changed, and it was unidentifiable as to historical era.

[2:00:30] I had some really serious doubts that it could ever be restored, but Sean and Jenny were

[2:00:38] excited. They thought that they could make something of the south that they could work it out.

[2:00:44] Unfortunately, as you heard after many months of trying, they found out that they could not

[2:00:49] work things out and that no one else was interested in restoring this property. So they had to do

[2:00:56] do something so they decided that it was best that they tried to demolish the house.

[2:01:04] And of course that's when the people with the petition started and Bishop Smith was

[2:01:09] resurrected.

[2:01:10] As I said before, I was a teacher of American history as a matter of fact, I taught American

[2:01:15] history for more than 36 years.

[2:01:17] I was the social studies specialist for the Jefferson County public schools.

[2:01:22] I was the project director on three large federal grants teaching American history grants and trained many other teachers of history.

[2:01:31] I served on several local and state committees, including the Lewis and Clark committees, the Jefferson County Committee on the Kentucky Bacentennial, the Kentucky Bacentennial Committee, the African American History Advisory Committee.

[2:01:47] I've worked with noted state and local historians like Dr. John Cleaver, Dr. J. Blaine Hudson,

[2:01:55] Jim Cleaver of the Philson Club, and I have never heard of Benjamin Bosworth Smith.

[2:02:04] I would venture to say that before this petition, not two people in this room had heard of him.

[2:02:10] He is not a significant historical person and the Highlands are in the local community.

[2:02:18] Bishop Smith's association with this property is brief and not related if he was a property

[2:02:26] owner here and it's not related to his religious work.

[2:02:32] It is mentioned in some of the historical research that I've done that he was pro-union, but

[2:02:39] But most of us who know about the Civil War know that pro-union was not necessarily the

[2:02:43] same thing as anti-slavery.

[2:02:46] He was not necessarily anti-slavery.

[2:02:49] It made sense to be pro-union if you lived in this area at that time.

[2:02:54] We were still part of the union.

[2:02:57] The census records show us that Bishop Smith was a slave owner in Lexington and in Louisville.

[2:03:06] He may have been part of the back-to-Africa movement.

[2:03:10] That's not necessarily a big hallelujah in historical works today.

[2:03:16] Even with Henry Clay, we kind of shove that one under the carpet these days.

[2:03:20] Even if he did live on this property, there's little about him.

[2:03:24] There's enough important historical note to deny the rights of these property owners.

[2:03:31] In this nation, property owners have reasonable rights as to the use of their property.

[2:03:39] When purchased, the property owners, this property had no easements and no historical information.

[2:03:45] And when asked the previous owners, told the buyers there was none.

[2:03:50] The current owners tried for many months to sell the house and the larger portion of this property.

[2:03:56] But no reasonable offers were made.

[2:03:58] I get it, I understand that some of the neighbors loved the previous owners.

[2:04:03] It was party central there for maybe 30 years.

[2:04:06] I know Mr. Stone mentioned that.

[2:04:08] They swam in the pool, they had big parties, they had fireworks.

[2:04:12] That's not a reason to deny the rights of these property owners.

[2:04:17] I love old homes too.

[2:04:19] I love history.

[2:04:21] Good memories does not make it mandatory that you preserve a home.

[2:04:25] I ask that you rule in favor of the property owners.

[2:04:34] Thank you.

[2:04:35] The next person is Juliet Dillon.

[2:04:45] Hi, I'm Juliet Dillon.

[2:04:46] Everybody's pretty much covered in anything

[2:04:48] that I wanted to say, so we can just move to the next person.

[2:04:52] Thank you.

[2:04:56] I'm opposed to designating in a landmark.

[2:04:59] Well, thank you very much.

[2:05:03] The next person is Greg Pike and the speakers

[2:05:08] that follow you, thank you, too.

[2:05:14] Good morning, if it is still morning.

[2:05:18] Thank you for the opportunity commissioners

[2:05:20] to speak with you and to allow me to share

[2:05:23] some of my concerns regarding this petition.

[2:05:26] Just so that you are aware and to be totally transparent

[2:05:29] with you, Jenny is my stepdaughter, Sean is my son-in-law

[2:05:34] and the two kids that we showed mercy to

[2:05:37] and let them leave are my grandchildren.

[2:05:39] My wife Nancy and I have lived

[2:05:42] to 2026 Tyler Lane, we live at 2026 Tyler. Our property is probably less than about 200 feet

[2:05:53] from 2833 Tremont. We have been neighbors to this property for quite some time. Nancy has

[2:06:01] lived in this home, Jenny's and Julie's the family home for over 25 years. Myself for the past 13

[2:06:11] years since Nancy and I married. But I actually have about 50 years history with this block. Two

[2:06:18] of my very best high school friends grew up, one grew up at the corner of Tremont and Tyler,

[2:06:27] and in a home, the Meyer home that was built in the early 60s. My other friend, Tom Barrett,

[2:06:35] actually lived in the home that Nancy and I lived in at the other block on the corner of

[2:06:40] white way and Tyler. I took this to both of my friends. We have remained friends

[2:06:49] all these years. I showed them what we have here, the Powell Smith House and

[2:06:55] Calorama. And I said, guys, did you ever hear any of this growing up?

[2:07:10] Did

[2:07:10] They weren't even remotely aware of any alleged historical significance.

[2:07:15] It was just another old house in the neighborhood with a really great front yard to play sports in.

[2:07:22] I also asked Bruce since his parents were the original builder and owners of the house,

[2:07:28] which is directly in front of 2833. I said, when that basement was dug,

[2:07:35] you almost really had a lot to talk about when archaeological things were found.

[2:07:40] He didn't know what I was referring to.

[2:07:42] He said nothing was found.

[2:07:46] Petitioners tell me that we are doing this because of our love of the neighborhood.

[2:07:51] My point here is, where was this love for the past year?

[2:07:55] Where was it a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago?

[2:08:00] Why wasn't this information shared?

[2:08:03] Why wasn't this home celebrated?

[2:08:06] Why wasn't some action taken cooperatively with the owners, the previous owners who had this home for, I believe, 40 years and helped them land market?

[2:08:21] Why now is this being done after it has been sold to a new owner as an unencumbered property?

[2:08:27] My second point has to do with not in my backyard syndrome.

[2:08:32] A neighbor, not knowing my relationship to the owners, leaned over in a meeting to me

[2:08:40] and said, you know, we moved here 20 years ago for the peace and quiet. I don't want new

[2:08:46] homes being built next to me. I'm sorry, but that's not concerned for a historical home.

[2:08:54] That's an example of resistance to change. Neighborhoods need to be dynamic and able to grow

[2:09:01] with the times to meet the needs of its residents, both old and new residents.

[2:09:07] If 2833 Tremont is landmarked, an opportunity for positive change will be lost,

[2:09:14] and both the immediate neighbors, me included, and especially Jenny and Sean will be the losers here.

[2:09:22] I too love this neighborhood, and I want it to continue to grow and be a vibrant, beautiful area.

[2:09:31] I also know that preservation can absolutely be a part of this, and I respect that.

[2:09:37] An example is Farmington.

[2:09:39] It's beautiful and deserved to be landmarked.

[2:09:43] It has the documented history and the physical attributes that are needed for landmarking.

[2:09:50] Factually, ladies and gentlemen, 2833 Tremont does not.

[2:09:55] The petition for landmarking is based on suppositions and assumptions.

[2:10:01] We know that 2833 Tremont has been severely modified from when originally built to the

[2:10:07] degree that has lost any historic character.

[2:10:10] The criteria for landmarking deemed to met are marginal, marginal at best.

[2:10:17] Lastly and most importantly, 2833 Tremont was purchased by Jenny and Sean Unencumbered.

[2:10:24] To reverse this after the petitioners and past owners literally had decades to seek this designation,

[2:10:33] yet didn't, would be unfair to Jenny and Sean and truly a violation of their property rights.

[2:10:41] Thank you very much.

[2:10:47] Thank you.

[2:10:48] The next speaker, buddy, mattingly.

[2:10:59] Obviously, I'm going to curtail my remarks somewhat because all of it has been discussed.

[2:11:03] Yes, I do have anything I want.

[2:11:05] Yeah, I didn't mean interrupt.

[2:11:06] You need to state your name too.

[2:11:08] My name's Buddy Mattingley.

[2:11:10] I'm a 40-year resident of the Upper Highlands.

[2:11:13] And I'm here to express my support for Ginny and Sean Clifford.

[2:11:16] And they're desire to remove a house and build

[2:11:20] a home of their dreams.

[2:11:23] I think they should be allowed to create new memories.

[2:11:27] In that part of Louisville, they so love.

[2:11:29] It's just a stone throw away from Ginny's house.

[2:11:31] and again I'll give you these remarks but I'm not going to repeat everything Sean I just will say

[2:11:36] I sat in my office for two weeks thinking about this and writing this up Sean sat somewhere

[2:11:44] and came up with the same conclusions I haven't talked to Sean we have not any I read their report

[2:11:53] I did disagree with most of it I would suggest that it is vague like Greg just indicated so I'll try

[2:12:00] to skip all the evidence of the new porch, the new design, everything that's been changed

[2:12:05] about that. I will just go to my comments. I believe the statements in the report actually

[2:12:13] support the conclusion that the criteria have not been met rather than been met. There's

[2:12:20] numerous statements that would indicate maybe likely could potentially a brick tunnel,

[2:12:26] No definitive evidence to support that.

[2:12:30] And I don't believe the commission should make any determination as to whether to preserve

[2:12:35] an old house and put a tremendous burden on Jenny and Sean based on words like likely

[2:12:44] could potentially our definitive evidence.

[2:12:47] It's my opinion there are times we simply need to move forward and stop trying to preserve

[2:12:53] an idea.

[2:12:54] The 1836 House does not exist, the House has been altered, modified, modernized, and in

[2:13:03] the case of the school study actually removed.

[2:13:06] Those residents in the subdivisions bound by Tyler, Dahlia, Tremont, and Barghtown Road

[2:13:14] should be thrilled that the residents living there long ago didn't prevent Dr. Powell and

[2:13:21] owners, the old past owners, from selling off that valuable property, 40 acres of first

[2:13:27] rate bear grass land, whatever bear grass land is, from ultimately selling off all the

[2:13:34] two acres. Many of the people today, that's you people and you people, would not be living

[2:13:41] there if the residents had stopped progress. I've heard a lot about Bishop Smith. He

[2:13:51] did a lot for the church. I'm not so I haven't heard what he's done for the

[2:13:55] state. It can tuck you the city of Louisville, the Commonwealth, and the

[2:14:00] nation. I don't believe homeschooling is that significant. I don't believe that the

[2:14:08] building that you would homeschool in that doesn't look anything like the

[2:14:13] pictures of the 1911 is that significant. The bishop spent less than 20% of his

[2:14:19] life here less than 20% Jenny and Sean have lived in this community much longer and are making

[2:14:26] significant contributions towards its welfare. So what should you be preserving in my opinion? I

[2:14:34] believe you should be preserving the spirit of the upper highlands that spirit not defined by a

[2:14:41] house one lives in rather by the people who continue to be part of the community that is bounded by those

[2:14:47] four streets I mentioned. That spirit comes from people like Sean and Jenny who have

[2:14:53] to live their entire lives as your neighbors.

[2:14:58] That couple who is contributing.

[2:14:59] Thanks for watching.

[2:15:00] So much community in their roles in the healthcare industry hope to raise their family as your neighbors. I encourage you to allow them to remove that modern structure, modern structure, and let them build the home of their dreams. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[2:15:22] Perry Lyons is next.

[2:15:28] Perry Lyons 11503 Main Street, Middletown, Kentucky. Thank you for the opportunity to come up here and speak about this. Let me say first I met Jenny.

[2:15:37] at that house to look at remodeling it to see and we went there with the idea

[2:15:44] of remodeling the home, not tearing it down. I spent quite a bit of time in

[2:15:49] there, looked at it structurally, I looked at it architecturally and there

[2:15:56] are a lot of issues with the house, some of which when we look at the pictures

[2:16:00] in here, the house has been altered drastically and I'm very familiar with

[2:16:06] historic properties. I owned a property in Middletown. It was built in 1792. We

[2:16:13] restored it completely. I owned another property in Middletown that was built

[2:16:18] in the 1920s and we again restored it. One that we wanted to remove but they

[2:16:27] wouldn't allow us to do it. I eventually became chairman of the Middletown

[2:16:31] historic commission because of my knowledge about historic property.

[2:16:37] So, I would say that this property, I think you should take a very hard look at it.

[2:16:42] It's got some significance, but does it meet the landmarks?

[2:16:49] I mean different than your report here.

[2:16:52] When I look at item D on page 16, its identification with the person or persons, know a lot about history,

[2:16:58] have spent a lot of time in the field of historic properties and I've never

[2:17:07] heard of this gentleman. Now that doesn't mean I hear of everybody but I had not heard.

[2:17:12] So the identification with that person, I'm not sure that there's a significance

[2:17:15] there that I probably would have had to exhaler here on it does not meet.

[2:17:21] On item age page 17, when it talks about the house in proximity to a relationship with

[2:17:30] other distinctive areas, it would be tough for us and I will say that I'm a builder

[2:17:37] developer but it would be tough for me to ever look at a piece of property because any

[2:17:41] property within a designated area can find a piece of property that we could say has

[2:17:49] some significance with another piece of property.

[2:17:53] I live in a home that I built 40 years ago.

[2:17:56] I'm a builder and a developer, and does that make it,

[2:18:01] I mean, would my property be considered a significant property?

[2:18:05] I think that's what we look at.

[2:18:06] I'm not discounting the farming and I don't discount all the properties on Tyler Lane over there.

[2:18:12] Some of which were built in the 1950s, 60s, 70s.

[2:18:16] So I would say that again, just strictly from a landmarks commission, I would question H whether whether or not that should should have that it would meet or not meet.

[2:18:30] And then on page 18, the unique location in physical characteristics.

[2:18:39] I go back to the physical characteristics.

[2:18:41] If you look at the pictures, it has been altered.

[2:18:46] There's been some question as to whether it's the same building or not.

[2:18:51] The building may have been turned.

[2:18:52] I couldn't tell you that.

[2:18:54] I didn't get into to the take anything apart on the foundation.

[2:18:58] We just looked at it to try to see whether the foundation was, whether we could actually salvage the home and the salvation was structurally sound I didn't take any part of that apart so I can't really say whether the house was turned or not but I tell you it has been it has been altered the dormers definitely have been added to it I think the overhangs on the on the the properties are on the property has been altered significantly from what you look at in the pictures.

[2:19:28] and I would question the validity of this particular house and it is a need house.

[2:19:34] I went there with the thought of trying to save it, but I've got two very, very detailed

[2:19:42] estimates and I can tell you that if you try to put it on the landmarks, it may sit there

[2:19:48] for 50 years in deteriorate.

[2:19:50] We've seen that happen, so I would ask you to look at not putting it on the landowner.

[2:19:56] Thank you.

[2:19:57] Okay.

[2:19:58] Thank you.

[2:20:02] Adam Gallagher.

[2:20:05] Well, thank you.

[2:20:06] Okay.

[2:20:07] All right.

[2:20:07] But you are.

[2:20:08] We just have you down as being opposed.

[2:20:10] Thank you.

[2:20:10] All right.

[2:20:12] And Ben Robbins.

[2:20:21] How are you doing?

[2:20:22] I'm Ben Robbins.

[2:20:23] I'm opposed.

[2:20:24] I'm an architect.

[2:20:26] I've been an architect for 15 years.

[2:20:29] I'm licensed in Kentucky.

[2:20:32] Most of my experience was 10 years in Atlanta working

[2:20:35] for, I'd term it the traditional,

[2:20:40] the premier traditional architect in the Southeast,

[2:20:44] Harrison Design Associates.

[2:20:47] I want to make two quick points.

[2:20:50] If you look at both of these pictures,

[2:20:53] what sits there now and the original house,

[2:20:58] This is not a historic specimen.

[2:21:04] This house may be the original house, but what's there now has no semblance to that.

[2:21:12] I can't really figure out there's a second floor on what's there now,

[2:21:18] and there's obviously not a second floor on the original house.

[2:21:23] And walking the house yesterday, the second floor just, it doesn't seem safe.

[2:21:34] It was obviously added, the head heights are 6'11", on the second floor, the door heights

[2:21:39] are 6'3".

[2:21:43] Those obviously don't meet code in today's standards and the floor system was added on the

[2:21:50] second floor ceiling joists. So the floor system is not structurally set up for, you know,

[2:21:59] what you would expect, you know, the live and dead loads on a second floor. And you'd

[2:22:04] have to tear off the roof and increase the floor system size. So I just don't see renovating

[2:22:13] this house and bring it up to code without significant alterations. It just, it didn't

[2:22:19] going to work. So those are my points. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:22:28] Nancy Pike.

[2:22:33] Oh,

[2:22:33] did she have to leave? Okay. Well, we'll record hers being opposed. Shelly Snyder.

[2:22:46] Hi, I'm Shelly Snyder. I live at 1904 Dillon Drive just down the street from

[2:22:51] Heyfield Mansion. My sister is Jenny Clifford. My brother-in-law is Sean, my niece

[2:22:57] and nephew, our Caitlin and Jack, the people that have spoken before have much smarter than

[2:23:03] me, and no much more about this as do you. But what I can tell you is that if this is deemed

[2:23:09] a landmark, the hurt that it will put on our family, who has, regardless of what we have

[2:23:15] been called, greedy, murderers, apparently, it's just untrue. We grew up in the neighborhood,

[2:23:25] neighborhood. We love the neighborhood. We all want to grow back, go back, and raise

[2:23:30] our children there, send our kids to school and walking distance. We are not here to

[2:23:35] destroy the neighborhood as someone has stated. We love this neighborhood. We want to live

[2:23:40] here for 100 years, but we have to live in a home that is safe. And fits our family, is

[2:23:46] up to code, and just makes sense for the neighborhood. And I can tell you if what is missed is going

[2:23:54] to be the family fun. Our family is a lot of fun. I promise you that you will not go without that.

[2:24:04] When this all started, I had just learned I was pregnant with my son. He is now four and a half

[2:24:08] months old. This has been going on too long. It has cost thousands upon thousands of dollars for

[2:24:16] a family that works hard for our community. You can ask their students. You can ask their patients.

[2:24:23] When Jenny called me after getting the call from the reporter, she was leaving the hospital,

[2:24:28] having cared for patients all day to get a call from a reporter about this.

[2:24:32] And I thought, there's no way that this is a story.

[2:24:35] This is a family home and a decision of private property owners.

[2:24:39] I am shocked at the people who have commented against our family and as Sean said, and Jenny

[2:24:45] said, have no idea of truly the history and what has gone on to bring us to this point.

[2:24:51] And just one last thing, a really truly regardless of the pain that you have put our family

[2:24:58] through and the financial strain on my sister.

[2:25:02] You will still be invited to watch the fireworks that will happen on 4th of July on this

[2:25:07] property when Jenny and Shawn build a beautiful home that is only going to add to the neighborhood

[2:25:11] and the property values and the fun that is meant to be what neighborhoods are about.

[2:25:16] out. And that's why I'm 100% opposed to making this landmark. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:25:27] The next speaker is Marilyn Burr.

[2:25:38] Hi, my name is Marilyn Burr. I just have a quick

[2:25:43] little comment. We live on Winston Avenue and the Crossbars Town Road. And in our block,

[2:25:53] there was there has been a new house built we have these you know houses like

[2:26:00] ours that are 80 years old and this

[2:26:09] one is lovely the person the young

[2:26:13] person who has built it has a baby she and her husband and this child and they

[2:26:22] I built a house that on some property that was there and it's a different looking house

[2:26:29] but it's very welcomed and they have been very welcomed by the community around us and

[2:26:36] I think we should think of it that way.

[2:26:39] I also am related to Jenny.

[2:26:43] She has been my niece all of her life and she is a gentle, wonderful person and they have

[2:26:52] suffered and should not suffer anymore. I am against this. Thank you.

[2:26:59] Thank you.

[2:27:03] Rick Wepplin, please.

[2:27:13] Hi, my name is Rick Weppler. I'll be very, very brief.

[2:27:17] I've known Jenny and her family for 45 years. I've known the Clifters, I guess for the

[2:27:22] last 15 years since they they've been part of the family, but I just want to make

[2:27:26] quick comment in the summary, but pretty much this couple, the owners, they've been

[2:27:31] deceived when they were deceived when they bought this

[2:27:34] piece of property by the sellers and I think that needs to be

[2:27:37] emphasized. They bought this in good faith to be able to do

[2:27:41] with what they wanted to with this property. Now the

[2:27:44] petitioners have created stories and a number of speculations

[2:27:47] and assumptions which we've talked they we've heard

[2:27:50] discussed today. My I implore this committee you all have a

[2:27:56] responsibility to be 100% certain before you all place a

[2:28:01] burden on this young family who I think you've seen has already taken on a

[2:28:06] burden that anybody in this in this room here wouldn't want to have to

[2:28:10] undertake. So I please make the right decision and let them create the dream

[2:28:15] house that they want to create. Thank you.

[2:28:23] Okay, thank you. The next speaker and

[2:28:26] the last person I have signed up to speak in opposition is Mike Ward.

[2:28:36] Thank

[2:28:36] you so much. My name is Mike Ward and of course I'm no stranger to

[2:28:42] to public speaking, and I appreciate the opportunity

[2:28:45] to be here today.

[2:28:46] But today, I'm not here as a politician.

[2:28:49] I'm here as Uncle Mike.

[2:28:52] Jenny is my niece.

[2:28:54] Her aunt, my wife, Dean Heverin, who is her attorney today,

[2:28:59] is a volunteer attorney.

[2:29:01] That has not been very luckily for Jenny and Sean

[2:29:05] and all the financial burden this has caused.

[2:29:08] Not a burden they've had to bear.

[2:29:10] They've gotten a free lawyer.

[2:29:13] You know, a couple of points, if this was Bishop Smith's house, and that has not been

[2:29:19] established 100 percent, there are already in Kentucky for other historic sites, for

[2:29:27] other historic sites in Kentucky related to Bishop Smith.

[2:29:33] And his vice chair, the vice chairman vice, that would be nice.

[2:29:39] As Chairman Vice has said, the house is not very clear, it is not very clear that this

[2:29:47] is the house that's in those pictures.

[2:29:51] I have looked at those pictures a hundred times, I've been with Sean when he's measured

[2:29:56] to see if the windows are in the right place and it does not

[2:30:00] Aye. Match up, especially if what we're seeing as the front of the house and the Calorama picture is really the side with the pool on it. If you look at the side with the pool on it, it isn't even close to what the front of that house looks like. As you pointed out, Bob, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, the distant, you know, there is an offset in that facade of the house. The kitchen that is on the left,

[2:30:29] as you're facing what is currently the front of the house with the front porch isn't there.

[2:30:36] It is not the same as the building that's on the right of the house in the photograph you see.

[2:30:43] So it is simply not clear that this is the house that they have referred to this whole time.

[2:30:52] There have been a number of mentions to 800 signatures.

[2:30:55] Well, I've done a lot of petition gathering.

[2:30:59] I've done a lot of door to door work in my political life and I can tell you that if you

[2:31:05] go to a door and have a reasonable explanation, we need you to sign this petition because

[2:31:11] we don't want this house torn down, you're going to get a lot of signatures.

[2:31:16] You'll notice there are not 800 people here speaking to designate this as an historic

[2:31:22] property. In fact, there is a fellow out front before we started who said, is this

[2:31:28] where the meeting is? And I, of course, immediately said, where are you here in

[2:31:32] favor or opposed? You know, I was going to tell him the wrong room. And he said,

[2:31:38] well, I live directly behind the house right next to the pool. And I'm concerned

[2:31:44] that they're going to build condos there. So, well, where did you get that idea?

[2:31:47] This is my niece's house. She wants to build a new house on that site and make it the home for her children.

[2:31:55] And he said, well, that's what I heard when the people came to my door.

[2:31:59] Now, I don't know what anybody said at any door, but I can repeat to you exactly what he told me this morning.

[2:32:07] He couldn't stay. He had to go to work because he was going to get up and make that point.

[2:32:14] Jenny and Sean called to find out if this was an historic property. That was a concern

[2:32:21] to them. They called to find out and they were told it was not. Then they bought the house.

[2:32:31] They fell in love with this house. They saw it as something they could fix up with their

[2:32:36] an egg at eye and make a home for their family.

[2:32:40] Well, you've heard from the builder and the architect,

[2:32:44] not just a couple of people off the street,

[2:32:47] a builder and an architect who have come in and told them

[2:32:50] it doesn't make financial sense.

[2:32:53] Now, I know the designation of an historic landmark

[2:32:56] does not rely on the economic underlying situation,

[2:33:00] but it's certainly a factor.

[2:33:02] this house cannot be restored. You probably couldn't get a mortgage on it if you

[2:33:09] put the money in it that you needed to because it wouldn't appraise for the

[2:33:13] value you needed. You've heard from Ms. Cecil that she made an offer on the house

[2:33:19] that's true. Barely half of the purchase price and barely half of the asking price

[2:33:27] it's a $550,000.

[2:33:30] So there is not.

[2:33:31] Six months is a pretty good opportunity

[2:33:35] for someone who felt this could be done

[2:33:38] in a way that made any economic sense at all to find out.

[2:33:43] There isn't.

[2:33:45] It just doesn't work financially.

[2:33:47] I've been through, my dad was an architect.

[2:33:51] I've gone through old houses since the time I could walk.

[2:33:53] he specialized in revitalizing things and I have a great appreciation for our

[2:34:03] community's history because of that. This house cannot be done in a way that

[2:34:09] makes it allows you to get a mortgage to pay for the house and then lastly the

[2:34:14] decision that you have in front of you I know is a tough one but remember these

[2:34:19] people don't want to build condominiums they don't want to put a shopping

[2:34:23] center there. They want to build a new home for them and their family. Thank you.

[2:34:29] Thank you.

[2:34:34] And we did have one speaker who signed up Shelly Snyder that didn't

[2:34:39] indicate for her pose but she signed up to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, you already

[2:34:45] spoke. Okay, sorry about that. Okay, they just lot of names. Is there anyone else at

[2:34:50] this time? This is everybody who has signed up. Is there anyone else who wishes to

[2:34:54] speak before we conclude the public hearing portion.

[2:34:59] Okay, if Tina, if I'm gonna let him have some or bottle and I'll give you the same, okay.

[2:35:06] Yes.

[2:35:09] Sir, I'm going to advise the, you also have written testimony and received that I was up there

[2:35:16] and just to make sure that we have that acknowledged for the record as well, that I receive 58 emails

[2:35:22] in support and 27 opposed.

[2:35:25] And you have provided copies of those here.

[2:35:29] They've been floating around, although it's, yeah.

[2:35:30] Okay. Thank you.

[2:35:33] And yeah, come on forward.

[2:35:37] Of course, I'm deeply sympathetic with the family.

[2:35:40] And I'm sure that everyone who's given very recent comments this morning

[2:35:44] would probably be willing to apologize to the family for this sharp comments

[2:35:49] directed toward them in the part in this process.

[2:35:52] However, this is the correct process to make sure that we aren't about to demolish

[2:35:57] important part of the city's history. The history is pretty clear as we have it before us.

[2:36:04] Our historical preservation officer is painstakingly provided a reasoned and measured study based

[2:36:09] on historical fact. If you'll look at the 1859 survey in your packets, you'll see we're very

[2:36:16] clearly this home is identified as the Smith House. Bishop Smith lived in this house.

[2:36:23] The personal interpretation of history that's been offered today is largely irrelevant.

[2:36:29] Whether the people testifying today find Bishop Smith's life to be important or not is irrelevant.

[2:36:35] You've heard plenty of evidence today to see that Bishop Smith was a very important person

[2:36:40] in the history of Kentucky.

[2:36:42] He was a superintendent of public schools in the early days of our state.

[2:36:47] Additionally, he was the state's first episcopal bishop.

[2:36:51] Furthermore, this house will not remain empty for 50 years should you give it to the landmarks designation.

[2:36:57] The Kentucky Historical Trust is offered to buy this property.

[2:37:01] There's at least one other person in the room who's offered.

[2:37:05] Thank you very much for your consideration.

[2:37:07] Thank you.

[2:37:09] And I said Tina, but actually, if there's somebody else, you or someone else that wants to robot on behalf of the homeowner.

[2:37:16] Or have another comment, I should say, yeah, thank you.

[2:37:19] I should have another comment.

[2:37:22] My name is Tina Haveren, I'm familiar with the landmarks ordinance.

[2:37:26] I think that it's important to remember that this area of the upper highlands is not a designated landmarks district.

[2:37:35] It doesn't have the characteristics of a landmarks district itself.

[2:37:40] And it probably, we really believe that this house,

[2:37:43] because you cannot demonstrate that this house is actually the house referred to as Vicious

[2:37:48] Smith's home in the historic record.

[2:37:52] As my husband said, Mike Bord, office close, four churches across the state of Kentucky

[2:37:59] are part of, have been designated on the National Register of Churches that have been associated

[2:38:04] with Bishop Smith.

[2:38:06] Those are appropriate facilities to honor a major religious figure in the state of Kentucky.

[2:38:16] A house he may have rented for a while, he may have lived in for a while while he was

[2:38:22] traveling, he didn't really have a lot of time to live there since he was on a course going

[2:38:27] across Kentucky a lot is not necessarily the correct kind of remembrance of a religious

[2:38:36] figure.

[2:38:37] We think he has been honored across the state of Kentucky and this house really doesn't

[2:38:41] need to be preserved for that purpose.

[2:38:43] Thank you.

[2:38:44] Okay.

[2:38:45] Thank you.

[2:38:49] Well, if there's no further comments at this time then we will conclude the public hearing

[2:38:55] and the Commission, although it's now quarter till 12,

[2:39:01] the Commission will now consider the question of designation

[2:39:05] and the record of the hearing is going to be entered

[2:39:09] with one of the reasons we meet in this room,

[2:39:11] as you all know, is because of the technology now we can,

[2:39:14] it's all on record, it's video and audio,

[2:39:18] and I think at some point it probably gets uploaded to a website.

[2:39:22] Yeah, thank you.

[2:39:23] So, we now will now conclude the public hearing and engage in discussion questions by the

[2:39:31] commission based on what we've heard from Cynthia in the designation report and also what

[2:39:38] we've heard from other speakers.

[2:39:42] First of all, are there any commissioners that have questions of either further questions

[2:39:48] of Cynthia now that we've heard everything, or even questions of the petitioner or the

[2:39:53] property owner that would want to speak, you know, Commissioner Mahan, and you need

[2:39:57] that.

[2:39:57] We got to turn.

[2:39:58] Thank you.

[2:39:59] I'm having a hard time reconciling the photographs we have, the two, it appears that there are two

[2:40:07] photographs that we have that are labels as a Calorama home, both of the same side of

[2:40:13] the home.

[2:40:13] And the one that we've seen from farther away,

[2:40:17] but there's one that's closer.

[2:40:19] Right, the one that's in the PowerPoint presentation

[2:40:21] is closer.

[2:40:22] Right, right.

[2:40:23] But it's the same perspective, because of that.

[2:40:27] Right, I'm having a hard time reconciling

[2:40:29] that with the photographs we have of the current home.

[2:40:33] I wonder, does a 1905 sandborn, does it go out this far?

[2:40:37] No.

[2:40:38] That's too bad.

[2:40:39] Well, then other than, I don't really think we have enough information at this point,

[2:40:46] especially given the new information provided by the applicant, I mean by the homeowner,

[2:40:54] it seems to me that I would like personally to take a look at the home physically myself,

[2:41:01] to get a picture, to better understand.

[2:41:04] and I think there are things that you could see on site

[2:41:09] that would help me at least get a better idea

[2:41:12] whether these are the same building.

[2:41:18] Thank you, Commissioner behind us.

[2:41:20] Any other comments from other commissioners?

[2:41:22] I have a question, Cynthia.

[2:41:25] Regarding the windows again,

[2:41:26] because when I looked through the report from the survey,

[2:41:34] It shows those windows as having a single light underneath.

[2:41:40] Yes, I did confirm that from my phone.

[2:41:42] Pictures too that I took when I was at on site.

[2:41:43] The ones that are on the north elevation are 6 over 1.

[2:41:46] The raised basement windows on the west elevation have the 6 over 6 pattern.

[2:41:52] And there could be, I mean, there's that porch that's built out.

[2:41:54] I don't know if the windows are still there from the raised basement piece on the north elevation.

[2:42:02] So it's hard to say those are from and I didn't go in the house when I was there on the site, but where the there's a door way that raised basement part. So there were no windows of evident six or six on the lower part of it.

[2:42:20] on the, on the, there's the federal doorway on the south elevation, then there's another

[2:42:26] doorway that's a basement, or a French doors, so could have been a window.

[2:42:35] We think that the windows have been modified, though, that might not be right.

[2:42:42] Although there are the lentils on the north elevation, bullseye lentils.

[2:42:49] I have a number of comments, but I'll wait two week to finish asking questions to staff and then present those.

[2:42:56] Thank you.

[2:42:57] Sure.

[2:42:58] Are there other questions?

[2:43:02] Well, while you're thinking about that, actually, Cynthia, I do have a question that is sort of intriguingly just because of my other experience professionally with historic buildings.

[2:43:13] and I may even offer the Joanne Weeter concignment on this.

[2:43:20] I've had experience in the past where, for tax credit purposes,

[2:43:23] we've tried to get properties listed on the National Register

[2:43:26] that had been substantially altered.

[2:43:28] And we couldn't get them on because they've been substantially altered.

[2:43:33] And the only way, for example, we got the Howard Hardy House on in downtown Louisville,

[2:43:39] which was at that time only one of three remaining residences in downtown

[2:43:42] was to prove to the keeper, and I didn't do it, I wasn't the architect, but the firm

[2:43:47] that did had to prove to the keeper that they could do enough architectural archaeology

[2:43:52] on that building to show that there was something under the old Miller cafeteria that could

[2:43:58] be restored and listed on the national register, and they eventually did prove that, but it

[2:44:04] was a substantial effort, and frankly some risks, because they had to take off whole sections

[2:44:10] of that building that had been added because the keeper wasn't going to list it as it was.

[2:44:17] And I just question whether as it sits today, that house, and I don't, again, I want to

[2:44:26] figure out if I'm not sure that the house we're looking at today is the house in this photograph

[2:44:33] and if it is how it's been altered, but as it sits today, could that house be listed on

[2:44:38] the National Register and I know that's speculation and we're not the keeper of the National Register

[2:44:43] although we are a local preservation district and we do review and approve National Register

[2:44:49] nominations. But and if this House were a tax credit project they'd be asking us to designate

[2:44:55] and of course again that question would come up. I just wonder if you have an opinion about this.

[2:45:00] And I hope that's not a very question. No, my prior life, I was a national registered consultant before coming to the Landmarks Commission. So I did 13 different nominations over that time. In my experience, those buildings to me in historic integrity and the significance are intertwined. And the buildings, I would make the argument, historic context is demonstrating why a building was significant and then demonstrating the integrity of the building that is representative of

[2:45:30] of that significance.

[2:45:31] So I wouldn't want to speculate with the National Register

[2:45:34] would do with this particular property.

[2:45:37] But an individual level of a nomination integrity

[2:45:43] is just as important a significance I would argue.

[2:45:46] I do have one nomination that I did do in Winchester, Kentucky

[2:45:50] that had had some alterations.

[2:45:52] But they're still recognizable from the particular,

[2:45:56] the primary facade, you could still,

[2:45:59] from its original period of significance.

[2:46:01] So that's my, and I don't know less about the experience

[2:46:03] with National Register, look, and Joanne may have.

[2:46:06] And I'm trying to do the debate, but it's just that we're

[2:46:09] sort of confronted here with the building

[2:46:10] that appears to have been substantially altered.

[2:46:14] I would characterize it slightly differently.

[2:46:19] Instead of characterizing it as significantly altered,

[2:46:23] I would characterize the house as a, you know, property that dates from potentially around 1836 that has evolved over time.

[2:46:36] From a federal-style house into a craftsman bungalow with neoclassical detailing and I would submit that there are too many to count national register properties that are, you know, craftsman bungalows,

[2:46:52] that appear as craftsmen bungalows now.

[2:46:55] I think that when you have a structure that dates to the early 1800s,

[2:47:03] it is certainly not unusual for houses to change.

[2:47:08] It was fashionable for a house to change just as today.

[2:47:12] We sometimes change portacos or ad garages and things of that nature to update.

[2:47:19] So I see it as an example of a federal house that has evolved into the craftsman bungalow

[2:47:27] that it is today, and I would submit that that's part of the natural evolution of the

[2:47:33] house.

[2:47:35] I

[2:47:41] had Cynthia had one other question, I'm sorry I forgot to ask it earlier.

[2:47:44] I'm sorry on on your page 26 you have an enlarged version of the of the photograph

[2:47:53] 1911 photograph yes to the right of the building there appears to be a

[2:47:59] building in the background a two-story building do you have any idea what that

[2:48:04] is there's a there's a window there's a window pattern I do not know

[2:48:11] Yeah, that seems to be that's two-story building.

[2:48:15] And it's far enough in the background to be maybe

[2:48:19] on a separate piece of property or some large out building.

[2:48:23] Right.

[2:48:24] I mean, I see there's two lower or potential openings there.

[2:48:30] Yeah, but there's one on page 26.

[2:48:34] There's one to the right of the tree that appears

[2:48:37] to be on the second floor.

[2:48:38] Maybe that's something else.

[2:48:40] Yeah, yeah, it's hard to tell if

[2:48:47] I could just jump in with a with a thought

[2:48:51] Cynthia, I wonder have you did you have an opportunity to look at the Park Areal survey photos that date from

[2:48:59] I would

[2:49:00] Submit

[2:49:00] 1928

[2:49:02] They're about didn't have a chance to find them yet. I think that

[2:49:08] Perhaps the staff needs a touch more time

[2:49:13] to evaluate and I guess provide some validity that the house there is today was indeed the

[2:49:27] the Bishop Smith House and I think that the Park Aerial Survey images would would verify that.

[2:49:37] Well, it's a valid point. I'm not familiar with that document, but are you talking about

[2:49:41] aerial photographs? The Park Aerial Survey Company was housed in the Old Bowman Field,

[2:49:47] and they are the, to my knowledge, the oldest aerial photography company in the nation,

[2:49:54] and so they would, they certainly in the Louisville area, I'm not sure whether they go out quite

[2:50:00] this far in the rural area but it would have been in the 20s but they photographed to my knowledge

[2:50:09] the entire city of Louisville and that might provide some additional data.

[2:50:15] Thank you. I also had another question trying to unravel the orientation of this house and all that.

[2:50:22] And I think in the report and also in the material that I think that the petitioners provided there's a this is probably opal logic.

[2:50:34] Yeah, we actually we have the great. Okay. So on this. Well, yeah, it says logic. So I assume this is the carriage house or the garage down here in the corner.

[2:50:45] And which where the which where the doors facing on that building.

[2:50:48] they face towards the south elevation.

[2:50:51] So they face away from the house?

[2:50:53] They face toward the house.

[2:50:54] Oh, they face toward that south elevation.

[2:50:56] Oh, they face the south elevation house.

[2:50:58] Okay, so if this was the front of the house,

[2:51:01] if we were looking at the front of the house

[2:51:04] like the 1911 photo at the south,

[2:51:07] the carriage house would have been

[2:51:08] to the photographers' right rear facing the house.

[2:51:15] Potentially, they could have been in between the house

[2:51:17] and the carat house, but the other thing to consider it could still be the north elevation

[2:51:23] is the primary elevation.

[2:51:26] If you look at, you know, I mean, that's what it's a mystery.

[2:51:30] If you look at the north elevation of the house and imagine the porch is taken off, then

[2:51:34] you can see the window pattern and the federal style door, then the raised basement.

[2:51:41] The octagonal addition is what I think makes why the orientation seems like this must

[2:51:48] be the south elevation because that's on the right side.

[2:51:51] But another option could have been that got torn away at some point because we pretty

[2:51:55] sure that the octagonal addition that now serves the kitchen is not the original picture.

[2:52:04] So I looked at it several times too, I went back and forth which is the primary elevation.

[2:52:09] I mean, you know, it's, that's, it's hard to tell, but the, and the, because the entry

[2:52:16] ways are, is ornate on both sides, yeah, and so much like Farmington itself or, yeah,

[2:52:23] the central passage house, yeah, so, and it's possible that the staircase, you know,

[2:52:28] with everybody's acknowledging there's been alterations on the interior, maybe somebody

[2:52:32] moved the staircase at some point, or that's where the staircase was, and it's just that,

[2:52:35] because there's a little while I just could see from looking in the window while the jets out on it.

[2:52:41] So reading the building from those elements too, it's hard to definitively say which elevation was the front at a certain time.

[2:52:52] Okay.

[2:52:52] There are references that Tyler Lane was the address as well.

[2:52:56] Okay. Well, thank you. I'm just trying to understand what I'm looking at.

[2:53:00] Okay. Thank you very much.

[2:53:01] Mr. Chairman.

[2:53:02] Yes.

[2:53:03] I chair the board of Riverside, the Farnsley-Morban landing.

[2:53:09] Our house was built in 1837 and the pictures identified the house as it looks now.

[2:53:21] There was a kitchen built and when we restored the house, that kitchen was removed but the

[2:53:31] The house is still identifiable from 1837 and looking at these pictures, it's hard to

[2:53:41] think that this is the same house.

[2:53:47] Thank you.

[2:53:49] Other questions or comments of the commission?

[2:53:53] Sure.

[2:53:54] Yeah.

[2:53:55] The commissioner is talking.

[2:53:57] First, let me say I appreciate everyone coming because that's what this process is all

[2:54:02] about.

[2:54:03] Everyone being able to say what they want to say during this process and my heart definitely

[2:54:08] goes out to the family.

[2:54:11] I probably would do the same thing if I was in your situation, but we do have to remember

[2:54:16] as a commission that we have to treat everyone the same.

[2:54:22] So, whether it's a developer worth millions of dollars standing there against this petition

[2:54:28] or someone in your situation, we have to be fair and treat them the same.

[2:54:36] And, unfortunately, that's the way it is.

[2:54:41] I will say that the issue with the orientation of the House, I think that it's very well

[2:54:51] likely that this is the house. It's not unusual for houses for their

[2:54:55] orientations. The change, and that doesn't mean physically taking the house and

[2:55:00] turning it around. It means that you just make the back door the front door and

[2:55:04] the front door the back door. And this has happened many times. You know, and if

[2:55:08] that was an exclusionary for being a landmark, then Locust grow would not be a

[2:55:13] landmark. Same thing happened there. And so this is something that happened all the

[2:55:18] time especially with these kinds of houses because that's the way they were built.

[2:55:24] So these orientations change all the time.

[2:55:27] It is not unusual and I can see where the elevations are just just with sides in this case.

[2:55:36] Certainly, there's been a lot of modification.

[2:55:38] I think people made the point that these buildings have been all over time.

[2:55:43] Thank you, Joanne.

[2:55:44] Again, some of our most notable landmarks, because they were changed over time, precluded

[2:55:51] them from becoming landmarks, they would not be landmarks, just because they look differently

[2:55:57] today, because they've had all that stripped away and they're preserved to a particular

[2:56:01] time, doesn't mean that it's really much different than this particular case.

[2:56:08] To me, this is a textbook example of what's happened to buildings over time.

[2:56:11] And then our discussion today is also a textbook example of how history works.

[2:56:18] It's amazing how you can take these pretty much the same information and have two people

[2:56:24] look at it through different lenses and get completely different answers.

[2:56:29] And that's the nature of history.

[2:56:32] We're never going to know the past and as a professional in the field, we're never going to know exactly

[2:56:38] what happened.

[2:56:39] That's the way it is.

[2:56:40] And we write history in the present, but we have to take what gives us the most information.

[2:56:47] And is it going to be evidence that supported in the court of law?

[2:56:51] No, because this is not a court of law, history is not a court of law.

[2:56:55] And so, while this is much to the detriment for attorneys, that's not how history works.

[2:57:03] We make interpretations based on the best available information, what supports information, what supports

[2:57:09] interpretations the most. And when I look at this, I see that there is more information

[2:57:17] that supports of being Bishop's Miss House than not. And while you can take the complete

[2:57:25] history of any property, let us go, Farmington, Riverside, and you can poke holes in that,

[2:57:31] just like you did here. It doesn't make that history invalid. It brings up questions.

[2:57:38] questions that we have to investigate.

[2:57:41] So it's not going to be a 100% factual thing,

[2:57:46] because if that was a standard that we have to live by here,

[2:57:48] then we would not need this commission

[2:57:50] because there would be no landmarks

[2:57:52] because no historic building or no historic property

[2:57:55] could attain that.

[2:57:58] That's just the nature of what we do as professional historians

[2:58:03] and architectures and architectural historians,

[2:58:07] and switch, by the way, is different than an architect.

[2:58:11] So that's what we have to live with.

[2:58:13] Now, I do want to speak something to about the archaeology,

[2:58:17] because that is my particular field of study.

[2:58:20] And that's one of the reasons I'm on the commission.

[2:58:23] When you look at a designation, it's not just one thing.

[2:58:28] It's a culmination of a lot of different things.

[2:58:30] So a decision is not going to be made

[2:58:33] that it may have archaeological resources.

[2:58:36] It may add a little bit to that, it's not going to be made because someone famous lived

[2:58:44] there.

[2:58:44] We will landmark many places because famous people didn't live there.

[2:58:48] We would not have any landmarks of African Americans if that was the standard.

[2:58:54] So, it's a combination of things that makes a place significant.

[2:58:59] Archaeology is just one of them.

[2:59:00] Now, yes, there's a good chance you can find archeological remains in your yard, no matter

[2:59:07] where you live in this community, that could happen.

[2:59:11] But I think I have to explain so people understand why this place might have more potential.

[2:59:18] And that's what we talk about, that it has potential.

[2:59:21] Has anyone gone there and dug and found anything?

[2:59:23] No.

[2:59:24] It's possible there may not be anything there.

[2:59:28] But when we see a property that's been preserved within development, then it has a better

[2:59:35] chance of preserving things because there's been less movement of the dirt on places like

[2:59:41] that.

[2:59:41] When they built a subdivision even in the 1930s, they took bulldozer to it and spread

[2:59:46] around everything and changed that landscape.

[2:59:50] usually if there's an island of a property within those where a historic

[2:59:55] building is that hasn't happened so places like the

[3:00:00] House, places like many historic buildings in the middle of newer subdivisions. Those are little islands of preservation for archaeologists because once you move artifacts around, it has very little, very little archaeological significance left, very little integrity left. So that's the way we think about it. So, yes, when you have a property that has been there for 100 years and hasn't really been affected by the development around it.

[3:00:29] that it has a better chance of containing archeological resources.

[3:00:33] So that's what we think about it in that sense, and that's what we mean by that.

[3:00:37] Now, the whole tunnel thing, I'm with you there, every historic house I've ever heard

[3:00:41] of, someone said there's a tunnel there, and then they always think it has something to

[3:00:45] do with the underground road.

[3:00:47] I've never found a tunnel.

[3:00:49] I've found lots of things that people might think are tunnels, but is it the most important

[3:00:53] thing?

[3:00:53] No.

[3:00:54] It's not.

[3:00:54] and a decision about this house based on tunnels

[3:00:57] and its condition on the ground railroad

[3:00:59] is not going to make one difference one way or another.

[3:01:03] So just think about that with regards to some of the things

[3:01:09] that have been brought up.

[3:01:12] Now my main concern is the integrity.

[3:01:15] I think the history is pretty solid.

[3:01:18] Certainly, you know, there are some liberties taken here there.

[3:01:23] But my read of it is that I think it's pretty solid history on this and it's probably, and it is most likely a Mr. Smith out so we say most likely and probably and things like that because we know that if we say definitive things, you know, someone who doesn't understand history is going to call you out on that and say, well, we produced a photograph that says you're wrong.

[3:01:47] That can happen.

[3:01:48] So that's why we say those things.

[3:01:51] It's the nature of our business.

[3:01:54] It's the nature of what we have to deal with because it's constantly evolving and changing.

[3:01:59] But I do have a problem with the integrity or have some issues with the integrity of the house.

[3:02:03] And that is the main concern, I think, for the designation of this property.

[3:02:09] Does it retain enough of its original fabric?

[3:02:14] Can we tell that there's enough of it left there that it warrants preservation?

[3:02:20] I think there are some questions about that.

[3:02:24] For me personally, I think there probably is enough left, but I want to make sure that

[3:02:29] everyone understands that what we're really doing here is not denying somebody their rights

[3:02:34] or their proper rights or telling them they can't build, tear it down, because that's not

[3:02:43] the case. What we have to decide, well, and Bob can probably speak to this, but the

[3:02:49] landmark process has been upheld and is perfectly legal and no one's rights are being taken

[3:02:56] away. And that has been challenged in court before and it's still here. But we have to

[3:03:06] I think about this property as does it deserve an extra level of consideration when a demolition happens?

[3:03:14] Because we limit, I think one of the emails sent a list of all these properties,

[3:03:19] where there used to be historic buildings that got torn down and they built beautiful new homes in their place.

[3:03:25] Why do you think those places have new homes in their place?

[3:03:28] Because there was no one say of the old houses.

[3:03:32] And this is a way that we have to do that, to give more scrutiny to historic buildings

[3:03:40] that deserve a little extra attention towards making the decision about a demolition.

[3:03:48] And that's what we need to decide, as a commission, is does this building have, does it deserve an extra level of review,

[3:03:57] to an extra level of consideration before a demolition is made.

[3:04:04] And so we have to be careful about this process that we have.

[3:04:10] We have to maintain the integrity of that process.

[3:04:14] So let's think about that because just because it's designated doesn't mean it can't be demolished,

[3:04:21] doesn't mean it can't be modified.

[3:04:23] It just means there's a higher level of scrutiny to do that, to make sure that we are protecting

[3:04:30] things that we don't want to lose, so 100 years from now we're going, wow, why isn't that

[3:04:36] building here anymore, which we could have kept that building, like we do now, with lots

[3:04:41] of buildings that are not here anymore.

[3:04:44] And so that's why we have this.

[3:04:45] And I'm sure it depends on your perspective on where you are and how great the people

[3:04:54] who are in this unfortunate situation are.

[3:04:57] I'm sure they're really wonderful people, but we have to keep our focus on this resource

[3:05:04] and what we are here to do as a landmarks commission.

[3:05:08] If for some reason or for whatever reason it is designated landmark, you can still apply

[3:05:15] for a demo.

[3:05:16] You can go through economic hardship.

[3:05:17] You can make your case for that was made today about the financials of it all and about

[3:05:26] what can and can be done with the property.

[3:05:31] Thank you.

[3:05:32] Any other comments from other commissioners?

[3:05:36] I guess I would like to make this comment, especially at 1215, candidly I think enough questions

[3:05:44] have been raised about the historical significance of the house and its connections, I just need

[3:05:52] to understand that timeline personally and what the connections are.

[3:05:56] and then I'd like for the staff to follow up maybe to see if there's some other

[3:06:06] evidence that we can gather, aerial photos, whatever. But I'm not comfortable

[3:06:12] myself making a decision today and as you know we can table this and take it up

[3:06:19] at our next meeting in September. But I would like to review, I mean we've got a

[3:06:25] a lot of information from the homeowners and while he spoke to most of this I'd like

[3:06:30] to go through it more carefully.

[3:06:33] We've got more, we had other evidence from the petitioners that I would like to receive

[3:06:38] and I'm, excuse me, review and this is an important question and there's, I don't feel comfortable

[3:06:46] but I've got a fair enough command of all that right now to make a decision today.

[3:06:51] So I would prefer that we table this and take the decision up at our next meeting, but I may be the only person that feels that way, but I would welcome any other comments that people might have on that.

[3:07:04] I would move that we table it until the September meeting.

[3:07:08] I agree.

[3:07:09] Second.

[3:07:11] So there is a, I'm sorry, your question.

[3:07:18] Well, it's our next schedule meeting.

[3:07:26] I don't know, I can look at that.

[3:07:28] But I wasn't prepared to address that.

[3:07:30] So I'll amend my motion to say.

[3:07:32] I move that we table the issue until we successfully have a quorum

[3:07:38] or at our September meeting.

[3:07:40] Or at our next meeting as well.

[3:07:43] Or I mean, we can discuss the email and see if we can get a quorum on a date.

[3:07:46] before that. Okay. Yeah. Well, and it would also seem to be a good idea for us perhaps

[3:07:54] to meet on site to do a little bit further investigation. Is that an issue? You don't

[3:08:01] mean a landmarks commission meeting but just a separate meeting. A separate meeting on site.

[3:08:06] Is that an issue Cynthia? I think it's the owners who would have to consent to that too.

[3:08:10] And also for the record, obviously we have the great recording equipment here.

[3:08:16] So I don't know, I mean, it's maybe our county attorney could advise us on that question.

[3:08:22] You do have the open meetings requirements, so if you have a certain percentage, you would have to meet the open meetings.

[3:08:28] And we would have to notice that meeting on site.

[3:08:31] I think people could, again, it's private property, so I think we'd have to work that out if the owners were even willing to consent.

[3:08:43] I would just like to suggest that we may want to table it to the next regular meeting

[3:08:48] simply because then we don't have to re-notice everything.

[3:08:52] But then if the commission decided to hold a meeting sooner, then we'll go ahead and notice anyway.

[3:08:58] Okay, so generally it works better.

[3:09:00] Right. If we just table without a date, then we have to start over in term noticing.

[3:09:05] Okay, so we would, we would, we would table it to the next schedule meeting, but if we can find a time to meet before that, we can always do that at your point.

[3:09:15] Okay. Any other comments? I think there is a motion on the table. Commissioner Harbin, would you restate it just because we talked about a couple of different ways?

[3:09:25] So I move to table this issue until either we establish that a quorum can be made at a meeting time before a September meeting or then by default until our September meeting September 15th, 9 o'clock in this building.

[3:09:43] Okay. Thank you. And there is a second.

[3:09:47] That's so second. Mr. Chairman, do you want to consider closing the record at this point?

[3:09:53] Or do you want to leave it open, pending the...

[3:09:55] I think we might have to leave it open. That's a good point.

[3:09:58] John, because I think one of the things we want to do is get some additional information,

[3:10:02] which means we need to receive that information.

[3:10:06] And we may have additional questions.

[3:10:07] Yes, are the commissioners allowed to meet with staff between now and the subsequent meeting, whether it's a special meeting or a regular schedule meeting to work through to walk through.

[3:10:22] I mean, there's a lot of information that I'd like to just ask some questions of staff.

[3:10:35] Okay, thank you.

[3:10:37] Any other comments or questions on the motion?

[3:10:41] Just about the possibility of a site visit.

[3:10:44] We could do what we did with colonial gardens,

[3:10:47] because we were able to make a visit

[3:10:49] and expect the building.

[3:10:52] I think we just went at different times

[3:10:56] and showed up not a particular meeting time

[3:11:02] to take a look at the building, I don't, that can be arranged and of course that would be completely up to the property owner whether they want to do that or not, so, but just that possibility might be there, right?

[3:11:14] Well, we don't have to decide that question now, but if they're welling and all that that can be coordinated later, right?

[3:11:21] Thank you. All right, we'll call the question all in favor of the motion, please say aye.

[3:11:26] All right.

[3:11:27] Okay.

[3:11:28] All opposed.

[3:11:29] None.

[3:11:30] Okay.

[3:11:30] The motion carries.

[3:11:33] And Bob, I know that we had another item but we'll carry that to the next meeting if

[3:11:37] That's okay.

[3:11:38] Or the next.

[3:11:39] Okay.

[3:11:39] All right.

[3:11:40] Although I am anxious to see that presentation.

[3:11:43] Any other business before the commission?

[3:11:45] Is there a motion to adjourn?

[3:11:46] No.

[3:11:47] Okay.

[3:11:48] Second.

[3:11:49] All in favor, please say aye.

[3:11:50] Aye.

[3:11:51] Thank you.

[3:11:51] And thanks to everybody who participated today.

[3:11:53] Okay.

Historic Landmark & Preservation Dist. Commission

Transcript