HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-06-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 9
MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 6, 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: Jeffrey Smith, Tony Dowling, Jane Montgomery, Erin Eckert, George Sagar
ITEM # 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chairman Currie called the meeting to order. 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 statement and explained the processes.
ITEM # 3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment
No changes.
ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the June 1, 2016 meeting
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to approve the minutes with changes.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Changes: 4 changes:
Pg 2 change ‘Ms.’ to ‘Tori’,
Pg. 6 remove ‘I guess that’s a done deal’,
Pg. 7 change ‘to allow yourselves the liberty to think beyond a little section that’s damaged.’ to ‘since’,
Pg. 8 remove ‘A couple of board members said they wanted to revisit this topic at a later meeting. ‘
ITEM # 5: Continuation of 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)
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
Mr. Highley said he needed to recuse himself.
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to excuse Reid Highley from this application.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 2 of 9
Jeffrey Smith was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 106 S. Churton Street.
Vicinity: Mixture of Contributing, Non-Contributing and Vacant lots in the vicinity.
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.
The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Signage, Exterior Walls.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against this application. There
was no one.
Mr. Smith shared a sample sign. Using this example, he explained that it would be affixed to the wall in
such a way that it would take pressure off the wall. He confirmed the lettering would be metal.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the application by the McCorkle Sign Company
on behalf of 106 Churton Street LLC 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: Signage, Exterior Walls.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: none
Page 3 of 9
ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Tony Dowling to replace the existing, non-
original, concrete slab porch with a new brick and fieldstone porch on the west elevation of
103 E. Queen Street (PIN 9874-07-6697)
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone has a conflict of interest regarding this project. No one did.
Tony Dowling and Jane Montgomery (architect) were sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 103 E. Queen Street.
Vicinity: Mostly Contributing structures in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing. c.1786, c.1840, c. 1900. William Whitted House (Mrs. Beaty's boarding
house, The Old Harris place)(c.1786, c.1840): This rambling house late eighteenth-century house faces
East Queen Street with an ornate c. 1840 Italianate-style addition facing North Churton Street. The
earlier two-story structure is two bays wide and single-pile with a massive stone chimney with brick
stack in the east gable end. The building has plain weatherboards with flush sheathing under the hip-
roofed porch, which is supported by octagonal porch posts with a geometric railing between the posts.
It has two-over-two wood-sash windows on the first floor and six-over-six windows at the second-floor
level. The four-panel door retains original hardware and six-light-over-one-panel sidelights. The first
floor interior retains six-panel doors, raised panel wainscot and one decorative Federal style mantel with
reeded pilasters and an egg-and-dart molding. In the late nineteenth century, a two-story, side-gabled
triple-A-roofed wing was added to the left (west) elevation of the original house, perpendicular to the
original house and facing North Churton Street. This section of the house is five bays wide and single-pile
with weatherboards, two interior corbelled brick chimneys, and four-over-four wood-sash windows with
wide segmental-arched Italianate surrounds. The decorative center-bay entrance has double-leaf arched
one-light-over-one-panel doors within a round-headed decorative surround similar to those found at the
Parks-Richmond House on West King Street. The entrance is sheltered by a single-bay, hip-roofed porch
supported by square columns with a wood railing at the roofline and a double-leafed arched door at the
second-floor level that opens to the porch roof. There are paired brackets along the roofline and two
one-over-one windows with pointed-arch upper sashes in each gable. There is a two-story, hip-roofed
porch at the northeast within the ell created by the two wings. The metal-roofed porch has been
enclosed at the second-floor level with weatherboards and nine-over-nine windows. The first floor
porch is supported by square columns. The original owner was William Whitted. Noted Kernersville
designer Jules Körner, who remodeled the Parks-Richmond House and a number of other houses in
Hillsborough, may have been responsible for the Italianate-style addition. Mrs. Eliza Beaty operated a
well-known boarding house here in the late nineteenth century and the addition may have been added
for her. Early twentieth-century owners were James M. Hedgpeth and Edward M. Harris, and in the
1940s it became the local American Legion Post. It is now a private residence again. Shed (c.1900): One-
story, two-room frame building has a hipped roof with later skylights, weatherboards, an interior brick
chimney, two-over-two wood-sash windows, and a two-light-over-three-panel door on the west
elevation. It may have been as quarters, but has been connected to the north gable end of the main
house. Shed (c.1900): One-story, gabled-roofed frame shed with stained board-and-batten sheathing.
Wellhouse (c.1900): Brick well is sheltered by an octagonal hipped roof with finial on square wood
posts.
Proposed Work: Replace the existing, non-original, concrete slab porch with a new brick and fieldstone porch on
the west elevation.
Page 4 of 9
Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, elevation
drawing and project plans, photos of existing conditions.
The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Porches, Entrances and Balconies, Masonry, Wood, Paint and
Exterior Color, Site Features and Plantings.
Ms. Trueblood said many houses in town with concrete porches are experiencing deterioration along
the wood sills and siding where water hits the concrete and splashes back. It has been reported that’s
the situation here.
Mr. Dowling said the large concrete slab was added at a later date. It sags in the middle. An inch or two
of water sits on it when there’s a heavy rainfall. The only place the house has really sagged is in that
area. He’s had 13 piers added under the house but couldn’t get to this area because of the concrete
slab. He thinks the new porch will be in keeping with the character of the house. There’s a lot of field
stone here already – the foundation of the house is field stone.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the
application. There was no one.
Ms. Montgomery said the slab is for a much larger prior porch and is disproportionate to the existing
porch. The existing porch won’t be changed. The proposal is to exchange the huge concrete slab for a
smaller slab. Currently, the columns are encased in the large concrete slab. The columns will be in the
corners of the new brick and fieldstone porch.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to find as a fact that the Tony Dowling 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: Porches, Entrances and Balconies, Masonry,
Wood, Paint and Exterior Color, Site Features and Plantings.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Mr. Highley seconded.
Vote Unanimous
Conditions: None
ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Erin Eckert to remove a mature Bradford
Pear tree from the front yard at 107 S. Nash Street (PIN 9864-76-2003)
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone in the audience had a conflict of interest regarding this
application. No one did.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 107 S. Nash Street.
Page 5 of 9
Vicinity: There is a mixture of Contributing, Non-Contributing and Vacant lots in the vicinity.
The architecture: Contributing. c.1911, 1940s. House (c.1911): Similar in form to the house at 105 South
Nash, this one-story, side-gabled house is three bays wide and single-pile with a gabled ell at the left
rear (northeast). The house has vinyl siding, but retains six-over-six wood-sash windows, two interior
brick chimneys, and a 5V metal roof. The three-light-over-two-panel front door is sheltered by a near-
full-width, shed-roofed porch supported by decorative metal posts. A side-gabled porch on the left
(north) elevation has been fully enclosed with an entrance on the left elevation. There is an inset porch
on the left elevation of the rear ell. County tax records date the building to 1911 and the building first
appears on the 1924 Sanborn map. Shed (1940s): Side-gabled, frame shed with German-profile
weatherboards, a batten door and four-light casement window on the west elevation, a brick chimney in
the north gable, and a metal roof with exposed rafters.
Proposed Work: Remove a mature Bradford pear tree from the front yard
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, narrative submitted by property
owners, property photos indicating conditions in the area and photos of the tree, email to staff with
photo.
Applicable Design Guidelines: Site Features and Plantings
Ms. Trueblood said the Bradford pear tree is multi-trunked. The lot is small and the owners don’t feel
they have the space to re-plant.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against the project. There was
no one.
Ms. Heilman commended the applicant on providing a thoughtful review of the Guidelines and reasons
why the applicant does not feel that replacing the tree is possible on this small lot.
There was a question whether a smaller tree could grow in this space. Ms. Eckert answered that in the
front because of the water lines, they didn’t feel it was safe to put one back. In the back yard, there was
no space. Ms. Simmons suggested a flowering shrub. Ms. Eckert said she owns the house next door and
said she’s had some success with shrubs there.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Highley moved to find as a fact that the Erin Eckert 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: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Highley moved to approve the application as submitted.
2nd: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: none
Page 6 of 9
ITEM # 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for George Sagar to construct a 16’ x 50’
carport with wood posts and an asphalt shingle roof at 242 Thomas Ruffin Street (PIN 9874-
28-3240)
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest. No one did.
Ms. Trueblood stated this application is regarding 242 Thomas Ruffin Street.
Vicinity: Mostly Contributing structures in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, Non Contributing. c.1951, c.1965, c.1980. House (C) (c. 1951): This one-and-
a-half-story, side-gabled Minimal Traditional-style house is three bays wide and double-pile with a
projecting, asymmetrical, front-gabled entrance bay centered on the façade. The house has aluminum
siding, eight-over-eight wood-sash windows, and an exterior brick chimney on the façade. The six-light-
over-two-panel door is sheltered by an aluminum awning and there are awnings over the windows on
the façade and right (south) gable windows. A shed-roofed wing on the right elevation has grouped six-
over-six wood-sash windows. A two-story, gabled wing at the left rear (northeast) has an interior brick
chimney and there is a one-story, shed-roofed section at the right rear (northwest). A one-story, shed-
roofed wing at the rear has eight-over-eight wood-sash windows. County tax records date the building
to 1951. Shed (C) (c.1951): Side-gabled, frame shed with German-profile weatherboards, paired six-
panel doors on the west elevation, and an exposed truss in the right (south) gable. Carport (NC)
(c.1965): Front-gabled frame carport supported by square posts with diagonal braces. The north end has
been enclosed with wood lattice. Shed (NC) (c.1980): Front-gabled frame shed with vinyl siding, mostly
obscured by wood fence.
Proposed Work: Construct a 16’ x 50’ carport with wood posts and an asphalt shingle roof.
Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity map, narrative, dimensioned plans and
elevations for proposed carport, and site plan.
Applicable Design Guidelines: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Site Features and
Plantings, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking.
Mr. Sagar added that he is intending to build the project compatible with the form, scale, materials and
detail of the historic character of the surrounding buildings. Also, he will accept any recommendations
that the board chooses to make.
Chairman Currie noted there was no one left in the audience to speak for or against the application.
Mr. Sagar answered questions. The current carport will remain. He was planning on concrete for the
new portion of the driveway but he is open to the suggestion of brick. He laid the current brick
driveway. Ms. Smith said based on the Guidelines, isn’t 50 feet long compared with the house. Mr. Sagar
answered it’s the back of the house and wooded. The picket fence will be retrofitted into a gate. He is
not removing trees as part of this project. He plans to stain the carport white.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 7 of 9
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the George Sagar 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: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages,
Site Features and Plantings, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions:
Driveway extension will be brick or concrete
Slab under carport will be concrete
Carport will be stained white
A matching gate will be installed in fence
ITEM # 9: Continue discussion about updates to materials list and Hardieplank as a replacement
material
Materials- add to next month agenda
Chairman Currie said she has reviewed the Guidelines again. Her reading of the Guidelines is that on existing
buildings that were wood originally, even if the wood is deteriorated, it should be replaced with wood because
that was the original material. She quoted, under Exterior Walls, the last paragraph on p. 17, number 5 on p. 18,
and number 9 on p. 18. Also, she quoted, under Wood, number 7 on p. 12 and number 2 on p. 12. Chairman
Currie suggested the board discuss this because a lot of houses in town have vinyl or aluminum siding over the
original wood siding.
Ms. Trueblood reminded the board that without a Certificate of Appropriateness home owners can replace ‘like
with like’ without triggering a permit. Replacing vinyl or aluminum with the same product does not constitute
an exterior change.
Ms. Simmons said in her experience once you strip the vinyl or aluminum off, she has found you can’t get paint
to stick to the wood siding. She had difficulty matching German siding on a house she owned on Mitchell Street.
She would have preferred Hardieplank. Are historic boards accepting Hardieplank? Ms. Trueblood answered
some are. There are some places that have a lot of dilapidated, vacant buildings. The only way they can entice
people to buy them and renovate them is to let them use materials that require less maintenance. There are
other commissions that allow Hardieplank only for new construction and additions and some that do not allow it
at all. Ms. Simmons said she wouldn’t want to see Hardieplank on Ms. Smith’s historic house.
Chairman Currie asked Ms. Trueblood what the State Historic Preservation Office has to say on this topic. Ms.
Trueblood said in a recent conversation with Mitch Wilds he explained that for tax credit projects they would
not allow Hardieplank to replace original wood siding.
Ms. Heilman said she doesn’t dispute any of the Guidelines Chairman Currie read this evening. She asked for
clarification on the draft materials list. Ms. Trueblood shared that it is intended to show precedent, although
there are always special circumstances and outliers. Ms. Trueblood encouraged the board to think about
whether it is appropriate to replace wood with a fiber cement product in Hillsborough’s historic district.
Chairman Currie said she feels very strongly that our Guidelines reflect the keeping of the wood. If we decide as
a board that Hardieplank is an appropriate replacement, then we need to change our Guidelines.
Page 8 of 9
Mr. Griffin said he thinks Guidelines need to be changed to approve the Hardieplank because it preserves the
structure longer. Mr. Highley said I have yet to be convinced that it will outlast wood. On the coast, it becomes
brittle and shatters. Wood is infinitely maintainable. I’ve got 250-year-old siding that is in better shape than a lot
of siding on 10-year-old houses. It’s something you can maintain forever. The maintenance argument doesn’t
win it.
Ms. Smith said maintenance is a big issue and when you buy an old house that is built of wood in a historic
District that has a historic district commission with rules, caveat emptor. We should strongly encourage people
who have bought an old wood house to keep it wood except in very unusual circumstances. I don’t like the idea
of people replacing their wood siding with Hardieplank siding in a patchwork fashion (perhaps starting with the
east side where the sun is damaging the paint).
Ms. Heilman said she doesn’t disagree with Ms. Smith.
Mr. Highley said he doesn’t want the materials list to become a bible but rather general guidance.
Ms. Trueblood said she often gets questions about options for installing Hardieplank on dormers or other places
that are hard to reach. She said that applicants in the past have claimed that there is an equity issue.
Ms. Smith asked what are the equity issues. Ms. Trueblood said what she hears from people is that they want to
be able to stay in their homes as they age but when they retire and have a limited income, they can’t afford the
wood. Wood requires more maintenance and constant upkeep. Some people claim that there are life situations
where it becomes too expensive and they ask how I can stay in my house if I can’t afford to maintain it, such as
divorce. She said many times she can sift through this kind of question before it becomes a COA application and
can convince people to use like materials.
Chairman Currie said we have to take the personal side out of it. If an elderly couple lived at Twin Chimneys,
would we want them to take the wood siding off and replace it with Hardieplank.
Chairman Currie asked other board members to express their opinions.
Mr. Highley said he would like the Guidelines to stay the same as they are to discourage people from making this
change. I wasn’t here for last month’s discussion, but I do understand that there are circumstances where the
board will approve it. Ms. Smith said she agreed with not putting up a brick wall because there are
circumstances this board may not have considered.
Mr. Griffin asked shouldn’t the board make a distinction between houses like Ms. Smith’s and houses built in the
1950s. There was recognition that sometimes the siding on the mid-century houses is not the same type of true
wood siding that is on older houses.
Chairman Currie said it’s important that the board not feel threatened by a homeowner who says they’ll just
replace with aluminum siding.
Frustration was expressed for situations when a homeowner throws away the original siding before seeking a
COA. Ms. Smith said she’d like Ms. Trueblood to remind people to not remove all their original siding before
checking with her. Ms. Trueblood said it’s unusual for someone to remove it all.
There was brief discussion that Hillsborough’s historic district is a bit unusual in that it is so large and eclectic.
Mr. Highley suggested as the agenda allows it, each month the board discuss some of the categories on the draft
materials list.
Page 9 of 9
Ms. Trueblood suggested that next month the board start at the top of the list. She encouraged the board to
think about siding (first category) between now and the next meeting.
ITEM # 10: Updates
Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie
Chairman Currie said the Alliance is encouraging the submission of project ideas for
the Alliance and fundraising ideas for their programs that aren’t tourism related.
Ms. Smith shared she’d met with Peter Sandbeck and others regarding the book
project on the architectural history of Orange County and Hillsborough. She will be
working on the town portion of the book. There are at least four people working on
the county portion. The Alliance is supporting this project financially, as is the Town
Board. The book will share how the architecture of the house reflects changes in the
community and how it reflects our history as people.
Staff updates: CLG grant applications were submitted and funded for the cemetery
workshop and Old Town Cemetery and for inventorying historic properties outside
the historic district. Ms. Trueblood is writing a job description for a preservation
planner to be hired in late summer/early fall. The new round of interpretive signs are
nearly complete and will likely be ordered this month. The train station funding from
the state was in jeopardy but all is well. There is a Department of Transportation
survey that gives Hillsborough residents an opportunity to rank projects in Orange
County.
There was brief discussion about cars parked on grass in the DOT right of way on
South Churton Street.
ITEM # 11: Adjourn
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous