HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-04-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 5
MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 04, 2016, 7:00 PM,
Town Barn
Present: Chairman Anna Currie, Vice Chairman Reid Highley, Laura Simmons, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman,
Virginia Smith
Absent: Brad Farlow
Staff: Stephanie Trueblood
Guests: Robert Vandemark
ITEM # 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chairman Currie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Trueblood called the roll and confirmed the presence
of a quorum.
ITEM # 2: Reading of the Commission’s Mission Statement
Chairman Currie read the Commission’s Mission Statement.
ITEM # 3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment
Ms. Trueblood said she had learned that the applicant for Item 5 couldn’t be present this evening but the
applicant would appreciate the board reviewing the application. She added that there was a member of the
public present to speak on this item.
ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the April 6, 2016, meeting
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the April 6, 2016, minutes.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
ITEM # 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Tori Reid on behalf of Tryon Investment
Group, LLC to remove two trees from the rear of the property at 114 S. Churton Street (PIN
9874-06-3362)
Motion: Mr. Highley moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board felt he or she had a conflict of interest regarding this
application. No one did.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 114 S. Churton Street. There is a mixture of Contributing
and Non-Contributing structures in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing. c.1930, 1944. 116 S. Churton Street: This one-story, parapet-roofed
commercial building has two replacement storefronts and two bands of header-course brick on the
parapet, which is topped with terra cotta coping. The right (north) storefront has a centered entrance
with narrow transom and flanked by plate-glass display windows. The left (south) storefront has an
Page 2 of 5
angled recessed entrance on its right end with three plate-glass display windows on the left. Each
storefront has a one-light-over-two-panel door and the display windows are set on a low brick knee wall
with paneled blind transoms. According to Bellinger 112 South Churton Street was built in 1928 and
incorporated with 114 South Churton Street when it was built in 1944, forming one building.
Proposed Work: Remove two trees from the rear of the property. These trees are causing issues in regards to
drainage and roots breaking up the hardscaping. Ms. Trueblood noted that the Maple tree requires a COA but
the Crepe Myrtle does not although the board has expressed interest in amending the Guidelines to address
multi-trunked trees like Dogwoods and Crepe Myrtles.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, a narrative submitted by the
applicant, photos of the trees and damage caused by roots.
Applicable Design Guidelines include: Site Features and Plantings.
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone was present to speak for or against the application. Robert Vandemark
was sworn in. He stated that he is a neighboring property owner. He is supportive of taking out the Maple tree
because it has a negative impact on his property. His building has a basin behind it and the tree drops debris for
much of the year. The back gutters on our building get clogged by the debris, he said. About 2 years ago his
building had $5,000 of damage due to water intrusion in the back.
Ms. Smith said in consideration of the patio, it’s a nice little area but the trees are really messing it up, though.
Looking at the Design Guidelines, number 5 under site plantings, should they retain and repair the patio? Can we
encourage them to repair it? Ms. Trueblood said she thinks that’s the intent because they are not asking to
remove it. She thinks they can’t repair the bricks with the roots there.
Ms. Heilman said there are two distinct situations with the trees. You’re talking about the Maple. Ms. Smith said
it doesn’t look like the Crepe Myrtle is doing that.
Ms. Simmons asked about replanting. Ms. Trueblood said there’s no replanting plan included in the application.
Chairman Currie said she has problems with removing these trees because there’s no replanting plan. She cited
the Design Guidelines that specify that removed trees should be replaced with those of similar appearance. She
wondered whether it was possible to remove a little more of the concrete or brick and install grating for the
trees. I worry about losing our tree canopy one tree at a time, she said.
Ms. Simmons said deciduous trees cause obvious problems.
It was asked whether the applicant can plant a tree in front. Ms. Trueblood answered no because it’s the town
right of way and there is a streetscape plan approved for that area already.
Ms. Trueblood said regarding that Design Guidelines, many times this board has approved removing without
planting a similar species on the same property when it would be difficult to do so. It’s a large tree species
growing where there isn’t room to replant.
Chairman Currie asked if there was a possibility to grind down the trunk of the Maple and plant a tree right
there and work the patio around it.
Ms. Heilman said she hears and appreciates what Mr. Vandemark is saying but she thinks the absence of a
replanting plan is a hurdle. She doesn’t see motivation to remove the Crepe Myrtle. Ms. Trueblood reminded
the board that the replanting plan is not a missing piece of the application; the applicant has intentionally put in
Page 3 of 5
an application without a replanting plan. Ms. Trueblood suggested if the board is leaning toward denying the
application, then it would be best to table the application until the applicant can be present next month. She
reminded the board that the Crepe Myrtle is smaller than 12” in diameter simply because it is a multi-trunk tree.
There was brief discussion that the board could let the applicant know that the board encourages keeping the
Crepe Myrtle.
Mr. Griffin said he thought the large tree should be removed because it’s a nuisance tree. Ms. Smith agreed that
she believes the applicant should be allowed to take the Maple out.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to find as a fact that the Tori Reid application is in keeping with the
overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on
the Board’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in section 3.12.3 of the Unified
Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with Design Guidelines: Site Features and
Plantings.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: 3 to 3 (Nay: Heilman, Simmons, Currie)
Motion doesn’t pass. Ms. Trueblood explained the board needs to table the item because of the tie
vote. Perhaps next month seven members will be present and the tie could be broken.
Vote: Ms. Heilman moved to table this item until the June 1, 2016, meeting.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: Applicant should bring information about any landscaping plans for after the tree is
removed.
Ms. Trueblood let Mr. Vandemark know that his testimony carries to the next time this item is reviewed.
ITEM # 6: Nominations for 2016 Preservation Awards
Ms. Trueblood answered a few brief questions about the presentation process and noted who would be
available to attend the May Last Fridays.
Motion: Chairman Currie moved to award 106 S. Churton and Cemetery Committee with 2016
Preservation Awards as specified.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
ITEM # 7: Discuss materials updates and materials list regarding recent interest in limited applications of
PVC products
Ms. Trueblood said this is coming up nearly every month particularly for areas that are prone to rot. PVC
materials are paintable but synthetic. Ms. Trueblood explained quality varies. Mr. Highley explained that
contractors like it because they can work with it like wood. There was brief discussion about how you’d
write guidelines to ensure the board isn’t approving the flimsy stuff.
Page 4 of 5
Mr. Highley suggested allowing simple trims and requesting samples for wraps, etc. Ms. Smith said she is
concerned with approving it to hide an historic wood feature. Mr. Highley agreed that it’s not
appropriate for that but rather for new construction. Ms. Trueblood said she was thinking of restricting
it more than that such as restricting it to back decks and north sides of garages (prone to rot, not very
visible).
There was a little more discussion and Ms. Trueblood asked whether the board was thinking of allowing
it for new construction, additions and outbuildings but not for existing wood. She asked when a soffit on
a house keeps rotting are we saying it’s ok to replace that with PVC with a COA or only for an
outbuilding?
Chairman Currie would not like to replace wood. Ms. Simmons shared that when she was building her
house she couldn’t tell the difference between PVC and Hardieplank for column wraps.
Mr. Highley said he’s thinking on an older house, it would look strange that the PVC feature wouldn’t
age.
Ms. Smith is thinking there should be definite limitations on where it can be used – can be used on new
construction, maybe specific parts of trim on the main house or outbuildings or additions and as
replacement for another synthetic product. There was recognition that there are houses in the district
with vinyl over wood siding and just vinyl not covering wood. Mr. Highley said as far as he’s aware,
there’s no PVC siding product.
There was some discussion about decks. There was emphasis that it would be for new construction and
additions not for existing, not even for replacing existing decks.
Mr. Highley said he’s ready to send out his suggested materials list update. He hasn’t finished writing
comments for each material but it’s time to start gathering feedback.
This item is continued to a future agenda for continued discussion.
ITEM # 8: Updates
A board member requested to discuss multi-trunk trees in the Design Guidelines (#33). This would not
apply to the open application discussed this evening and tabled to the June meeting.
The board looked at Design Guidelines Minor Works #33 and agreed to amend it to say:
Removal of single trunk trees larger than 12” in diameter measured at 4 feet above the ground and
multi-trunk trees deemed by staff to be mature that have been severely damaged or brought down by
disease or extreme weather. A letter from a certified arborist must be submitted to verify the
deterioration of the tree.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the Minor Works amendment.
Second: Chairman Currie seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie
Chairman Currie said the Alliance finished its work with consultant Dan Becker
(Heritage Arts). He compiled a new set of bylaws. The biggest change she noted was
calling each person partners instead of members and going from 11 to 9 (5
Page 5 of 5
designated and 4 at-large). Ms. Trueblood added that she thought it would be good
for Sarah DeGennaro to speak first at Last Fridays about the importance of
preservation in order to give the Alliance more visibility. Ms. Smith said she has
made efforts to get the white signs in front of historic buildings replaced and it
hasn’t been a priority. She’d like to try again. Ms. Trueblood suggested looking into
a façade grant program.
Joint Public Hearing update on SUP/CUP text amendments: Anna Currie
Chairman Currie reported that she read the HDC’s statement at the Joint Public
Hearing. The Planning Board will discuss the amendments in May and make a
recommendation to the Town Board. The Town Board will vote on it at the June
meeting.
Staff updates: Interpretive Signage, CSAIP, CMAQ, etc.
Ms. Trueblood reviewed that the content of the sign is not in their purview. She
reviewed where the new signs will be placed. Ms. Trueblood said CSAIP and CMAQ
construction will likely go forward late winter or early next spring.
ITEM # 9: Adjourn
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to adjourn.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous