HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-01-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 11
MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 1, 2016, 7:00 PM,
Town Barn
Present: Chairman Anna Currie, Laura Simmons, Brad Farlow, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Virginia Smith
Absent: Vice Chairman Reid Highley
Staff: Stephanie Trueblood
Guests: George Horton, Alice Seelye, Eric Hallman, Elizabeth Woodman
ITEM # 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chairman Currie called the meeting to order at 7:01 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
There were no changes or additions.
ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the May 04, 2016, meeting
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the minutes from the May 04, 2016, meeting with
changes.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Changes: pg. 4 fix indent and change ‘next’ to ‘future’
ITEM # 5: Continuation of 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: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
George Horton, the owner of the building, was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this is a continuation of the public hearing opened at a meeting the previous
month. She had read the details regarding this application at the first public hearing and this evening
highlighted some of the below information:
Address: 114 S. Churton Street
Vicinity: Mix of C and NC in vicinity
Page 2 of 11
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
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.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, a narrative submitted by the
applicant, additional narrative information, photos of the trees and damage caused by roots, and
maintenance, repair and janitorial service invoices
Applicable Design Guidelines: Site Features and Plantings
Mr. Horton stated that he is here to answer any questions. Also, he stated that he owns a number of
properties in Hillsborough and maintains the buildings and the grounds very well; this patio does not
exemplify being well maintained, he said. Mr. Horton said the patio is likely not safe in its current
condition. The large tree has cost him in excess of $4,000 to clear the leaves and unclutter the gutters.
The trees were never planted there; they just grew there over the years. They need to be removed and
it’s just a mess. A tenant would like to plant flowers and make it a welcoming place for people to eat
lunch, he said.
Chairman Currie asked the board for questions. Ms. Heilman said the patio area around the Crepe
Myrtle appeared to be in good shape, so she questioned its removal. Mr. Horton said it’s just a matter of
time before it breaks up the patio, too. A board member asked him to consider a large planter. Mr.
Horton said it’s whatever Tori. Reid wants to do. Mr. Horton said it’s a major cost. He’s likely to trim the
Cedars back for now and eventually take them out.
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against this project. No
one did.
Ms. Simmons asked Mr. Horton to replace some greenery after taking out the large tree – putting in an
evergreen. Chairman Currie said the Guidelines said that you need to plant a new tree of similar size and
species. Ms. Trueblood said the word “significant” is important in this guideline. Ms. Trueblood said
sometimes trees have been allowed to come out if it’s the wrong species in the wrong place. And
sometimes applicants have not been required to replant a tree.
Under Site Features, Ms. Smith said, the patio is being destroyed by the tree and yet the patio is the site
feature that needs to be maintained. Ms. Smith said the trees are relatively small and are in an alley of a
commercial district and therefore don’t contribute to the overall canopy very much.
Mr. Horton said planting a tree in a pot would be temporary. He has had a flood in his building and the
Panciutto owner has had a flood in his building (due to the debris from the large tree).
Ms. Trueblood explained that the board can deny, approve, or approve with conditions.
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Griffin and Mr. Farlow spoke in favor of approving removal.
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons 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: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: none
ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Alice Seelye to enclose the area under an
existing rear deck adding a window and two doors at 132 W. King Street (PIN 9874-06-1470)
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board felt he or she had a conflict of interest. No one did.
Ms. Seelye was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 132 W. King Street. There are mostly Contributing
structures in the vicinity.
The architecture is: Contributing. c. 1905, 1950, garage c. 1950, cupola c.1920: House – Cole Hotel c.
1905, c.1920: The two-story, side-gabled Cole Hotel (now a private residence) is three bays wide and
double-pile with weatherboards, cornice returns, an interior brick chimney, and a 5V metal roof. The
house has two-over-two wood-sash windows in arched wood surrounds. A double-leaf one-light-over-
two-panel door with a molded surround is centered on the façade and is sheltered by a one-bay-wide,
front-gabled porch supported by square columns. There is an uncovered brick terrace on the right end
of the façade and a flat-roofed porch on the right (east) elevation is supported by square columns and
has a wood railing at the roofline. There is a one-story, gabled screened porch at the right rear
(northeast) and a two-story, shed-roofed wing at the left rear (northwest) with a second-story wood
deck to its north. The building first appears on the 1905 Sanborn maps as a one-story residence with a
rear ell. By 1911, the building is labeled as the Cole Hotel, a portion of the area within the ell had been
enclosed, and the building is shown as one-and-a-half stories (though it is likely that the building had
been constructed with one-and-a-half stories). By 1924, the building had been enlarged to a full two
stories and had a porch that wrapped around both ends of the façade. Before 1943, the building
reverted to a residence and sometime thereafter the wraparound porch was removed [1905-1943 SM].
Page 4 of 11
Garage c. 1950: Side-gabled frame garage with beaded weatherboards, a standing-seam metal roof,
eight-light awning windows, and an entrance on the west elevation.
The applicant is proposing to enclose the area under an existing rear deck adding a window and two doors.
Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity map, email correspondence with staff, deck
closure elevations with material list and narrative, photos of existing garage.
The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Additions to Existing Buildings, Exterior Walls, Windows and
Doors, Paint and Exterior Color, Porches, Entrances, and Balconies.
Ms. Seelye said she intends to paint the enclosed area the same color as the rest of the house.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this
application. There was no one.
The back wall will just be siding.
Ms. Smith wondered about the really big window Ms. Seelye plans to install. Ms. Smith wondered about
two windows that are similar to size to the rest of the house rather than one large one that is out of
character with the rest of the house. Ms. Seelye said she has the large window so she would like to use
it. No one will see it but her neighbors. Ms. Seelye added the doors won’t match the other doors in the
house, either.
Ms. Simmons said the problem is in window configuration. Ms. Smith said it’s a super modern window.
Ms. Smith suggested she use two windows that are more in keeping with the character of her house
rather than the really large window. Ms. Seelye said she and her husband picked up the large window at
some point.
Ms. Smith asked if the siding is the same as the rest of the house and is painted to look like the rest of
the house, it wouldn’t be obvious that the enclosed area was new. Ms. Trueblood explained that there
will be corner boards according to the plan.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Alice Seelye 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: Additions to
Existing Buildings, Exterior Walls, Windows and Doors, Paint and Exterior Color, Porches, Entrances, and
Balconies.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 5 of 11
Conditions: none
ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for McCorkle Sign Company on behalf of 106
Churton Street LLC to install one 7 SF, flag mounted, double-sided sign on the front elevation
at 106 S. Churton Street (PIN 9874-06-4156)
This application is regarding 106 S. Churton Street. There is a mixture of Contributing, Non-Contributing
and Vacant lots in the vicinity.
The architecture: Contributing. c. 1924: Similar in detail to the neighboring building at 100 South
Churton Street, but constructed with a slightly different colored brick, this two-story brick commercial
building is three bays wide with a corbelled brick parapet and a band of soldier-course brick at the
cornice and between the first and second floors. It has thirty-two-light display windows on the first floor
and groups of three six-over-six wood-sash windows on the second floor, all with arched transoms
composed of four three-light Craftsman-style windows in a segmental-arched brick surround. Transoms
on the first floor have been painted over. The center bay on the first floor is a later recessed entrance.
The 1943 Sanborn map indicates the building was used for “Auto Sales” so the center bay may have
originally been a vehicular bay. A different building is shown on Sanborn maps from 1911 and earlier.
The building was constructed shortly after 100 South Churton Street, as the 1924 Sanborn map notes
“from plans” next to the building. The parapet extends slightly over the parapet of the neighboring
building at 108 South Churton Street, indicating that it was built after that building as well.
Proposed Work: Install one 7 SF, flag mounted, double-sided sign on the front elevation.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, a narrative submitted by the
applicant, sign specification sheets, photo of exterior of building with measurements and sign
installation location indicated.
Applicable Design Guidelines are: Signage, Exterior Walls.
There was no one representing the applicant present.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to table the application for July 6, 2016.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
ITEM # 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Fred Stewart on behalf of Elizabeth
Woodman and Eric Hallman to amend the previously-approved Certificate of Appropriateness
to exchange wood siding and trim for Hardieplank on the existing house at 121 N. Wake Street
(PIN 9864-96-4798)
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board felt he or she had a conflict of interest. No one did.
Eric Hallman and Elizabeth Woodman were sworn in.
Page 6 of 11
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 121 N. Wake Street.
There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures in the vicinity.
The architecture is: Contributing. c. 1921, garage ca. 1930, well shelter ca. 1930: House - This one-and-a-
half-story, side-gabled bungalow is three bays wide and double-pile with a wide, shed-roofed dormer on
the façade. The house has aluminum siding, six-over-one wood-sash windows on the first floor and in
the dormer and six-over-six windows in the gables. The one-light-over-one-panel door has one-light-
over-one-panel sidelights and is sheltered by a full-width, engaged, shed-roofed porch supported by
tapered wood posts on brick piers with an original wood railing between the piers. The porch piers have
been painted, but the brick foundation and two interior brick chimneys remain unpainted. There is a
shed-roofed ell at the right rear (northwest) and a deck at the left rear (southwest). County tax records
date the building to 1910, however, the architecture is more consistent with that of the late 1910s and
1920s and Bellinger dates the house to 1921.
Proposed Work: Amend the previously-approved Certificate of Appropriateness to exchange wood siding and
trim for Hardieplank on the existing house
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, photos of existing house,
elevations, narrative, material list, email correspondence with staff, and brand name lap siding and
accent trim specification pamphlet.
The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Exterior Walls, Wood.
Ms. Trueblood explained once they removed the aluminum siding and found mostly deteriorated lap
siding, they removed the wood siding and are applying to use Hardieplank siding instead.
Mr. Hallman said when interior renovations got underway it was discovered that the siding is stapled to
the framing and it made it problematic to put in a vapor barrier and insulate the house. The only
German lap siding was a relatively small amount on the front porch and the rest was plain lap siding. It
was not in great shape. The siding has been pulled off and sheeting is up. We’re asking to put up plain
lap siding and to use Hardieplank or another fiber cement product.
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone was present to speak for or against the application. There was
no one.
Ms. Smith asked whether all the original siding was damaged while it was being removed. Mr. Hallman
answered it was unsalvageable. Ms. Smith said she has some concerns on sections of wood and exterior
walls in the Guidelines, p. 11, which states to replace in kind any portion of a wood feature that is
damaged. Does this count as not technically feasible to replace in kind? The idea is to retain and
preserve exterior wall materials that contribute. Also number 3, maintain material surfaces of exterior
walls, which was wood. Mr. Hallman pointed out it was aluminum siding over wood. Ms. Smith asked
Ms. Trueblood whether there is precedent to replace all of the exterior material of a contributing
structure. Ms. Trueblood said Hardieplank has been allowed as a replacement for aluminum. Ms. Smith
asked whether a building loses contributing status when you switch out that much material. Ms.
Trueblood said it depends on the individual listing. There are some houses with vinyl and aluminum
siding that are considered contributing in the inventory. Hardieplank is now used for additions and new
construction for tax credit projects. Some districts allow Hardieplank as replacement material. In
general, this board has required wood to be replaced with wood.
Page 7 of 11
Ms. Heilman asked if they planned to repair or replace the German lap siding on the front porch. Mr.
Hallman said with the windows and door, there was only a handful of German siding. Mr. Hallman said
there were small sections around the doors and windows. Ms. Heilman asked whether the applicants
have considered retaining the German lap siding that was in good condition in that location. Mr.
Hallman said it would give us two different profiles on the house. We had intended to make the house
look like it had before the aluminum siding. Ms. Simmons asked if the dimensions of the siding would be
the same. Mr. Hallman answered affirmatively.
Chairman Currie said p. 18 number 5 replace in kind any exterior wall, match original in material. Limit
replacement to damaged area if possible. It is feasible, to replace with wood.
Ms. Woodman said in a normal town this house would be a tear-down. Only the front porch will not be
completely reconstructed. We basically have to rebuild this house. Few projects have come before you
that are this extreme. She asked for the flexibility since it’s the entire house.
Ms. Smith asked is it not feasible to replace in kind. Ms. Trueblood gave examples of technically not
feasible for instance metal roof tiles that are no longer manufactured. But we know wood siding is
feasible, she said.
Mr. Hallman asked that they not undo the precedent of using Hardieplank by denying us the ability to do
the same.
Mr. Farlow believes this would have been a different situation if they hadn’t had aluminum siding on the
house. Ms. Trueblood affirmed that the applicants could replace the siding with aluminum without a
COA since it would not be considered an exterior change.
Chairman Currie said the Hardieplank product will weather differently and age differently. That’s
something we’ve always kept in mind.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Eric Hallman and Elizabeth Woodman
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 Exterior Walls, Wood and because in this individual case the house had
aluminum siding.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: 4 to 2 (Nay=Smith and Currie)
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: 4 to 2 (Nay= Smith and Currie)
Conditions:
Page 8 of 11
ITEM # 9: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Town of Hillsborough to install four
interpretive signs at the following addresses 101 E. Orange Street, 150 E. King Street, 201 N.
Churton Street and 200 S. Occoneechee Street (PIN 9874-08-8727, 9874-16-3117, 9874-06-
4966, 9864-75-6746)
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest. Ms. Smith said she did because she
worked on the signs.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to excuse Virginia Smith from this item.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Ms. Trueblood noted for the record that the HDC members received in their packets the inventory
information for each:
Address: 101 E. Orange Street, 150 E. King Street, 201 N. Churton Street, 200 S. Occoneechee Street
Vicinity: Mix of C, NC and Vacant in vicinities
Architecture: Staff indicated that the following inventory information is included in the packets but did
not read it into the record because it is lengthy.
101 E. Orange Street – Ruffin-Roulhac House (Town Hall) c. 1821: The Ruffin-Roulhac House, also
known historically by several names including "Francis C.P. Hill's House," "The old Ruffin place," "Little
Hawfields," and the "Home of W.S. Roulhac," is one of the best preserved of the elegant small Federal
houses surviving in Hillsborough, which include Heartsease and the Berry Brick House. Additionally, the
property is one of a small number of houses in Hillsborough that has retained its large original lot and
numerous outbuildings. The Ruffin-Roulhac House is a one-and-a-half-story frame, Federal-style house
that is five bays wide and double-pile with a brick foundation, beaded weatherboards, and nine-over-
nine wood-sash windows with molded hoods. There is flush sheathing in the pedimented end gables and
three gabled dormers each on the façade and rear (north) elevation have flush sheathing and fixed
twelve-light windows. A window on the left (west) elevation has been covered with flush sheathing. The
double-leaf three-panel door centered on the façade is flanked by two-over-two wood-sash windows
over a fixed panel in lieu of sidelights and has a blind arched transom. The entrance is sheltered by a
one-bay-wide, front-gabled porch supported by slender Tuscan columns with decorative, scalloped
shingles in the gable and there is flush sheathing under the porch roof. There are two interior brick
chimneys in the left (west) gable and an exterior brick chimney in the right (east) gable. A shed -roofed
porch extends across the right three bays of the rear elevation. It is supported by round brick columns
on low brick piers and there is flush sheathing under the porch roof. A hip-roofed flower house
projecting from the right elevation has brick piers with fixed multi-light windows between the piers and
multi-light awning windows at the upper part of the wall. There is a fifteen-light French door and
weatherboards on the rear (north) elevation of this wing. A one-story, gabled wing at the right rear
(northeast) corner of the house was constructed as a serving room; it stands perpendicular to the house
and is connected to a side-gabled kitchen wing via an exterior hip-roofed porch supported by slender
columns. Both wings have plain weatherboards, six-over-six wood-sash windows, and modern six-panel
doors. There is an interior corbelled brick chimney in the east gable of the kitchen building. There are
two small gabled additions on the left elevation, each with weatherboards, flush eaves, and an entrance
Page 9 of 11
on the west elevation. The interior of the house is detailed with fine Federal mantels, wainscoting, tr im,
and an elegant ramped John Berry staircase similar to the one at Sans Souci. The original house, built
about 1821 for Martin Hanks, consisted of the west three bays. In the 1830s Francis L. Hawks and
Frances C. P. Blount Hill purchased the house and added the eastern part consisting of two rooms on the
first floor and one above incorporating the earlier dwelling into a unified elegant residence. The house
was sold to Thomas Ruffin in 1865 who named it "Little Hawfields." Ruffin died in the Northeast roo m of
the house on January 15, 1870 and his wife Anne inherited the estate. Upon her death in 1875 the
estate passed to her children and a grandchild. In 1904, the wife of William Sterling Roulhac acquired
the estate and made several renovations to the property, including relocating the outbuildings to the
rear of the house in a formal straight line. In 1972, the house and property were acquired by the Town
of Hillsborough and were renovated for use as the Town Hall and offices. Barn c. 1972: Located
northeast of the house, the two-and-a-half-story, front-gable, frame barn has plain weatherboards, six-
over-six wood-sash windows with beaded surrounds, paired batten doors on the south elevation, a
single batten door in the south gable, and an exterior metal fire stair in the north gable. Carriage House
c. 1972: Located north of the house, the one-and-a-half-story, front-gabled, frame carriage house has a
shed-roofed wing on the east elevation. It has plain weatherboards, six-over-six wood-sash windows,
two pairs of batten doors on the south elevation, and an exterior stair on the north elevation. Slave
Quarters c. 1850: Located north of the house, the one-and-a-half-story, single-room, frame building has
plain weatherboards, a single four-over-four wood-sash window on the façade, two-over-two windows
flanking an exterior brick chimney in the west gable, a modern exterior wood stair in the east gable, and
a six-panel door sheltered by a hip-roofed porch on slender columns on the south elevation. Meat
House c. 1850: Just west of the Slave Quarters, the side-gable, single-room, frame structure has plain
weatherboards and a single five-panel door on the south elevation. Outbuildings: Several outbuildings
remain: all were reconstructed in 1972. Two Room Office c. 1850: Located north of the house, the one-
story, side-gabled, two-room, frame office has plain weatherboards, four-over-four wood-sash
windows, a central corbelled brick chimney, and a modified double-leaf three-panel door sheltered by a
three-bay-wide, hip-roofed porch supported by slender columns. A modern wood ramp connects to the
east end of the porch. This office is where Sterling Ruffin and William R. Ruffin lived for some years.
Wellhouse c. 1972: Just west of the house is a reconstructed side-gabled, frame wellhouse with plain
weatherboards, a four-panel door on the east elevation, and an open bay supported by square posts
and sheltering a well box on the north elevation.
150 E. King Street – Alexander Dickson House [Orange County Visitors Center] c. 1790, 1983: This two-
story, late-Georgian-style house was moved to its present site in 1983 from the junction of I-85 and
Highway 86, just outside of Hillsborough, and now serves as the Visitors Center. The side-gabled house is
three bays wide and two bays deep with a rubble-stone foundation, beaded weatherboards, an exterior
Flemish-bond brick chimney on a stone base in the left (east) gable, and a wood-shingled roof. It has
nine-over-nine wood-sash windows on the first floor with six-over-six windows at the second-floor level.
The raised six-panel door is sheltered by a reconstructed, full-width, shed-roofed porch supported by
chamfered posts. There is a one-story, gabled ell at the left rear (southeast) with a combination of six-
over-six and four-over-four wood-sash windows and a shed-roofed porch along its right (west) elevation
that is supported by chamfered posts. A modern access ramp leads to an entrance on the left elevation
of the rear ell. The interior, a three-room plan with a center-hall and enclosed staircase, retains much
original fabric, including wainscot, doors, and mantels. The house became the property of Alexander
Dickson around 1839. In 1865, General Joseph E. Johnston used the house as his temporary
headquarters. Shed c. 1990: One-story, side-gabled, frame outbuilding has a concrete-block pier
foundation with stone curtain wall, weatherboards on the lower three-fourths of the house and wood
lattice on the top one-fourth. It has a wood-shingled roof and batten doors on the north and east
elevations. It was constructed in 1990 as a public restroom [HDC]. Office/Kitchen c. 1850, 1983: One-
Page 10 of 11
story, side-gabled, frame building was likely an exterior office or kitchen. It has a stone foundation,
exterior end chimney in the south gable end, weatherboards, a four-over-four wood-sash window and
batten door on the east elevation, and a wood-shingled roof. Bellinger dates the house to the mid-
nineteenth century; it was moved to the site with the house.
201 N. Churton Street – Confederate Memorial Building [Former Orange County Library/Orange
County Museum] 1934: Constructed on property formerly occupied by the Session House for
Hillsborough Presbyterian Church, this one-and-a-half-story stone building was erected in 1934 as the
Confederate Memorial Building, which housed the town's public library (originally Confederate
Memorial Library and later Orange County Library). The design of this WPA project reflects a Colonial
Revival dwelling, with a raised basement, side-gable roof with cornice returns, and four gabled dormers
on the facade. The building has exterior stone chimneys in the gable ends, a wide denticulated cornice,
and wood shingles on the gabled dormers. Eight-light casement windows on the main level and four-
light casement windows at the basement level are grouped and have cast-stone headers and
windowsills. There are twelve-light windows in the dormers, paired eight-light casement windows with
eight-light transoms in the gable ends, and quarter-round multi-light windows flanking the
chimneystacks. The replacement front door has an original surround with eight-light-over-one-panel
sidelights and three panels separating the door and sidelights from the multi-light arched transom. The
entrance is sheltered by a pedimented front-gabled porch supported by grouped Doric columns with a
denticulated cornice. “Confederate Memorial 1934” is written in the pediment. The building now houses
the Orange County Museum.
200 S. Occoneechee Street – Margaret Lane Cemetery pre-1852-1931: Located on the south side of
West Margaret Lane between South Occoneechee and South Hillsborough streets, the cemetery was
established as a slave cemetery. It is situated on a small hill with historic hardwoods dotting the
otherwise open, grassy parcel. Brick wall mark the corners of the cemetery and form the formal
entrance to the cemetery from South Occoneechee Street. Plaques placed in 1987 on a brick wall and a
large stone in the center of the cemetery state: "Margaret Lane Cemetery, Before 1852 to 1931” The
plaque on the stone also reads “The names of persons found hereon are known to have been buried at
this sacred site. Due to varying circumstances, the exact location of most of their graves is not now
known. Names subsequently discovered may be placed by town authorization on this plaque or another
appropriate marker” and lists the names of forty-one people and dates where known. In addition to the
plaque there are also individual markers, the oldest legible marker is for George W. Hill (1844-1900).
Only some five stones survive: four headstones and one obelisk, all with dates in the late 19th-early 20th
centuries. A small plot at the southwest corner of the cemetery is marked by a Victorian wrought-iron
fence.
Staff indicated that the proposed work includes installing four interpretive signs (6 total but 4 in district).
Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity maps, a narrative submitted by the applicant
with material list, numbered map of proposed locations for Riverwalk Interpretive Signage, mock-ups for
each sign, scaled conceptual draft for sign mount.
There was discussion that this resin material is appropriate for these signs because of its unique ability
to convey a large amount of textual information (the size of the font). Unlike commercial signs t hese are
at human level and are touched.
The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Signage, Site Features and Plantings.
Page 11 of 11
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the Town of Hillsborough application is in
keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of
evaluation because the material of these signs is uniquely capable of conveying a large amount of
textual material and withstanding public interaction 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: Signage, Site Features and Plantings.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: This application was found in keeping with the Design Guidelines because the resin material
is uniquely capable of conveying a large amount of contextualized material and withstanding significant
public interaction
ITEM # 10: Updates
Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie
Chairman Currie reported there was an annual meeting instead of a regular meeting
that informed every one of the new mission and vision statements and new logo.
Update on SUP/CUP text amendments: staff
Ms. Trueblood reviewed that the Planning Board recommended it favorably to the
Town Board for approval.
Staff updates: SUP/CUP text amendments, materials list, etc.
Ms. Trueblood briefly reviewed the fire at the Bellevue Mill.
Chairman Currie raised concern about clarifying the reasoning for the vote on
allowing the Hardieplank at the home on Wake Street. There was discussion about
that particular scenario.
In additional discussion not related to the Hardieplank, Ms. Trueblood reminded the
board members that they can ask for information and if the applicant isn’t able to
present it, the application can be tabled.
ITEM # 11: Adjourn
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to adjourn.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous