Loading...
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