HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-05-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 7
MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2016, 7:00 PM,
Town Barn
Present: Chairman Anna Currie, Vice Chairman Reid Highley, Laura Simmons, Brad Farlow, Joe Griffin, Jill
Heilman, Virginia Smith
Guests: Bill Harris, Ben Dyer, Tim Watson, Jane Hamborsky
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 and explained the processes.
ITEM # 3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment
There were no changes or adjustments.
ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the Sept. 7, 2016, meeting
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved approval of the minutes with changes.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Changes:
Pg 3: 5th paragraph change to: This is an after the fact application so the shed is partially constructed.
Pg. 7: 6th paragraph change to: The board discussed stucco and Ms. Trueblood noted changes to the
materials matrix.
ITEM # 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Bill Harris to construct an open air,
hexagonal, gazebo structure with cedar posts and cedar shingles in the rear yard at 309
Mitchell Street (9874-17-7729)
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether any board members had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
Bill Harris was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 309 Mitchell Street.
There are a mixture of Contributing structures, Non-Contributing structures, and vacant lots in the
vicinity.
Page 2 of 7
Architecture: Non-contributing. c. 1952, 2007. Similar in form and detail to the neighboring house at 307
Mitchell Street, this one-story, side-gabled, Minimal Traditional-style house has been altered with the
modification of the main roofline to accommodate a full-width, shed-roofed dormer on the rear (west)
elevation. The house is four bays wide and double-pile with a projecting, asymmetrical front-gabled
entrance bay centered on the façade. The house has German-profile weatherboards, replacement six-
over-six windows, and a wide, tapered brick chimney on the façade. The six-panel door has a fanlight in
an arched surround and there is a small, six-light casement window to the right (north) of the door.
There is a side-gabled screened porch on the left (south) elevation that is supported by unpainted wood
posts. County tax records date the building to 1952. The higher roofline and shed-roofed dormer date to
2007 and the screened porch was added in 2009 [HDC].
Proposed Work: Construct an open air, hexagonal, gazebo structure with cedar posts and cedar shingles in the
rear yard.
Agenda packets included: notification information and vicinity map, narrative with materials list, site
plan and structure drawings, sample photo of structure.
The applicable Design Guidelines are: Site Features and Plantings.
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this
application. No one did.
Mr. Harris answered questions from the board. The structure will be all cedar with either a natural or
stone floor. He is asking permission this evening to do either. Ms. Smith asked whether it’s permissible
to have a natural floor. There was clarification that natural floor means “no floor.” Ms. Trueblood said
the gazebo is such a small diameter that if the board approved “no floor” and the Harrises found they
wanted stone, Ms. Trueblood could approve the stone under Minor Works.
Motion: Mr. Highley moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to find as a fact that the Bill Harris 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: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: none
ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Ben Dyer to add a 16’ x 19’ screened porch,
similar to one previously approved but never constructed but with a different roof
configuration, at the rear of 209 N. Occoneechee Street (PIN 9864-77-6136)
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 3 of 7
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
Ben Dyer was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 209 N. Occoneechee Street.
There are mostly Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Home: Non-contributing. c. 1953, 2011, This one-story, hip-roofed brick Ranch house has
been significantly altered with the construction of a large, two-story addition on the left (south)
elevation in 2011 [HDC]. The house is four bays wide and double-pile with two-over-two horizontal-
panel wood-sash windows. The six-panel door is sheltered by an aluminum awning on decorative metal
posts and a picture window to the right (north) of the entrance is flanked by two-over-two windows. A
large, two-story, gable-on-hip-roofed addition on the left elevation has a stuccoed exterior, paired one-
light French doors with a one-light transom on the east elevation and awning windows on the south
elevation that are sheltered by a flat-roofed metal awning at the first-floor level. County tax records
date the building to 1953. Shed: Contributing. c. 1953, Front-gabled frame shed with plywood sheathing
and a two-over-two horizontal-pane wood-sash window on the east elevation.
Proposed Work: Add a 16’ x 19’ screened porch, similar to one previously approved but never constructed but
with different roof configuration, at the rear.
Agenda packets included: notification information, vicinity map, site plan, elevations, previously
approved plan, photos of existing rear of home.
Applicable Design Guidelines include: Additions to Existing Buildings, Porches, Entrances and Balconies,
Paint and Exterior Color, Site Features and Plantings.
Mr. Dyer said they are trying to retain the view they enjoy of the backyard. Chairman Currie asked
whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the application.
Tim Watson, architect for the project, was sworn in.
Mr. Dyer and Mr. Watson answered questions from the board. Mr. Watson said the plan to use T1-11
was driven by cost. He is proposing using T1-11, well-sealed, on the vertical surfaces. There is a large
roof overhang that he believes will help preserve it. Mr. Dyer asked for alternatives. Mr. Highley said he
didn’t want to be the designer but Hardie panel is one alternative product. Mr. Farlow noted there
already seems to be Hardie board on the house and perhaps the porch could match it.
There was question of how the two rooflines meet and shed stormwater. Mr. Highley said there are
ways to do that.
There was question of whether the roofline stays below that of the original home. Mr. Watson said it
would be.
Mr. Dyer added that the contractor for this project is the same one who did the addition and is familiar
with the process. Ms. Trueblood informed the board that the contractor is her father, but she doesn’t
have a vote on the board so there isn’t a conflict of interest.
Mr. Watson summarized the porch pitch is derived to be visually complimentary to the low-pitched hip
roof.
Page 4 of 7
Chairman Currie summarized there was agreement on the project including changing T1-11 to Hardie
panel. Ms. Heilman added clarification that the peak ridge of the new roof stays below that of the
existing roof.
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Ben Dyer 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, Porches, Entrances and Balconies, Paint and Exterior Color, Site Features and Plantings.
Second: Mr. Highley seconded.
Vote: 6 to 1 (Nay: Simmons) – just checking, there was no verbal nay and she didn’t raise
concern during the discussion
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application with conditions.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: 6 to 1 (Nay: Simmons)
Conditions: Replace proposed T1-11 siding with Hardie panel-smooth side out-and peak ridge on porch
addition will be below original roofline, colors to be applied as discussed during the hearing
ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Caroline Vaughan and Jane Hamborsky to
build a new 2,650 heated SF home and 462 SF attached garage at 201 N. Occoneechee Street
(PIN 9864-77-7022)
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked the board whether anyone had a conflict of interest with this project. No one did.
Jane Hamborsky was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 201 N. Occoneechee Street.
There is a mixture of Contributing structures, Non-Contributing structures, and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Vacant lot. No information in inventory.
Proposed Work: Build a new 2,650 heated SF home and 462 SF attached garage. The house is oriented towards
N. Occoneechee Street and is situated in order to retain existing mature trees. There is a significant change in
grade from the east to west as the lot drops off towards the rear. The new house is of the farmhouse style and
includes architectural elements like dormers, a covered front porch, vertical siding, and metal roofing. Siding is
Hardieplank board and batten. Trim and soffit and cornerboards are Miratec. Foundation is stucco. Roof is
asphalt shingle and standing seam metal in places. Porch flooring, decks and doors are wood. Windows are
fiberglass clad. The garage door is paintable aluminum. Walkways are bluestone and driveway is asphalt.
Agenda packets included: notification information and vicinity map, narrative of proposed work with
materials list, photo sample list and associated photos, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, elevations.
Applicable Design Guidelines include: New Construction of Primary Buildings, New Construction of
Outbuildings and Garages, Site Features and Plantings, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking.
Page 5 of 7
Ms. Hamborsky introduced herself and shared that she has restored mill houses and a commercial
building in Carrboro and served on Carrboro’s historic commission for 10 years. With her experience,
she thoughtfully considered what’s appropriate for this lot. The lot is sloped and she didn’t want to take
out the trees, so she tried to work within those confines with her brother, the architect.
Chairman Currie thanked her for doing her part to preserve the tree canopy. She asked whether there
was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the application. There was no one.
Ms. Hamborsky answered questions from the board. The board and batten will be HardiePlank, smooth
side out. The skylight is on the screen porch and is low profile. Ms. Simmons raised concern about how
far forward the garage wall is proposed to be compared with the front door. Ms. Hamborksy said they
couldn’t get the garage in the back without changing the landscape or having steps up to the kitchen.
Ms. Simmons said she had to redesign her new house to get her garage and house approved. Ms.
Hamborsky said she didn’t want to disturb the existing trees. There’s an oak tree roughly 100 years old
and 49 feet tall. When asked, Ms. Trueblood said there are almost no examples of the wall of the garage
coming out farther than the front door. The Guidelines asks the board to consider traditional locations
and keep in mind the surrounding characteristics. Ms. Trueblood pointed out the side office wall is out
farther than the front door and the garage and that the characteristics on Cameron Street are very
different than on Occoneechee Street. Ms. Hamborsky said she plans to landscape in the front so it’s not
so obvious.
The board reviewed the materials. It was noted that glass block windows are not on the HDC’s materials
list. Ms. Hamborsky said she grew up with glass block on older homes. Board members expressed
concern that it wasn’t appropriate for Hillsborough.
Mr. Farlow commented that the garage door was too large for the house, proportionately. A board
member suggested making the door look like two doors.
Ms. Smith asked whether the maple would be disturbed. Ms. Hamborsky answered that it wouldn’t be.
There was discussion that approval of asphalt, concrete, or gravel driveways has been dependent on
characteristics of the neighborhood. It was discussed that for this house, concrete is more appropriate.
There was more discussion about the glass blocks. A couple of board members expressed that it was an
inappropriate material in the district and Mr. Farlow said he wouldn’t want to say it’s never allowed in
the district. Ms. Hamborsky would like to keep glass block on the north elevation. Board members said it
doesn’t seem appropriate with the style of the house. Ms. Hamborsky said they would like it on the
north elevation because they like the way light comes through it and they would like it for privacy.
Ms. Hamborsky answered a question about the front door glass and said she was thinking it could be
frosted. The board member who asked said she didn’t think frosted would be appropriate.
Chairman Currie cited Guidelines that building materials should be characteristic of the Historic District
and she doesn’t think the glass block is compatible with the design of the house.
Ms. Hamborsky said she doesn’t follow the thinking of not allowing glass block on the north elevation of
a new house.
When asked, Ms. Hamborsky said the house colors would be warm gray with white trim, brown roof,
natural front door, and probably yellow French doors on the back. Ms. Trueblood said changes to
exterior color can often be approved under Minor Works.
Page 6 of 7
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the Jane Hamborsky 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 Primary Buildings, New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Site Features and
Plantings, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: No glass block in the windows on the north and south elevations, garage doors will appear
to be two doors, and driveway will be concrete
Chairman Currie congratulated Ms. Trueblood on her promotion.
She then requested that if board members are planning to vote nay on an application, then they should
explain their objections or reservations about the application on the record during the discussion.
Chairman Currie would then know to ask for a nay vote after the yay vote.
ITEM # 8: Preservation NC Annual Conference debriefing
Brad, Laura, Jill and Virginia attended.
Ms. Smith shared her notes:
‘Like’ is a four-letter word. You can approve, approve with conditions, or not approve. Be sure to refer to
Guidelines when making a decision. We are quasi-judicial and if a denied application is appealed to the
Board of Adjustment, then that body will make its decision in part based on the evidence the HDC cited.
A petition from neighbors is considered hearsay. Treat an after-the-fact application as if the work hasn’t
already been done. Other jurisdictions increase the penalty incrementally if someone has successive
after-the-fact applications. Other jurisdictions ask for a person to meet with staff to discuss long-term
plans if an applicant has three Minor Works three months in a row. Regarding economic hardship
appeals, decisions must be based on the Guidelines. The original material was the one installed when
the structure was built. Be sure all residences know there are Guidelines to be followed. Some
communities send out postcards to residences at the start of the year. Some HDCs host an energy
efficiency workshop (example regarding windows).
Mr. Farlow shared they had the opportunity to see Temple Emmanuel, Trinity Episcopal Church, and
First Presbyterian Church. He noted it was neat to meet at Bennett College.
Ms. Heilman said she felt there were opportunities missed. While it was interesting with engaging
speakers, but there was no time in the agenda to discuss the keynote speech. Ms. Trueblood
encouraged her to give feedback to PNC.
ITEM # 9: Continue discussion about updates to materials list
Ms. Trueblood and staff reviewed the materials matrix regarding windows.
Page 7 of 7
ITEM # 10: Updates
Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie
The Alliance has updated its overtime policy and has created a nominating
committee. Ms. Trueblood asked if the Alliance had a definition for ‘partner’). There
was discussion about what the Alliance is now. Ms. Trueblood voiced that it would
be good for partners to have input in the strategic plan. She emphasized that the
HDC and the Alliance should make an effort to maintain a close relationship over the
next decade of growth in Hillsborough. Members expressed interest in hosting
workshops, working with the Alliance.
Historic Properties Book Committee: Virginia Smith
Next meeting was scheduled for Oct. 14.
Staff updates
COG grant paperwork is all in. Staff is sending out an RFP for the historic inventories.
Interviews are underway for the new planning board staff position. Board members
asked Ms. Trueblood to follow up on whether Robbin Taylor-Hall has done what the
board asked her to do to her house on Calvin Street. Board members raised vague
concerns about houses on Thomas Ruffin Street. Ms. Trueblood reminded the board
that Demolition by Neglect is initiated with a formal complaint as per the ordinance.
After a complaint is received a building inspector goes with the fire marshal and
HDC staff to evaluate the property and write a report that goes before this board
and this board decides if it may be undergoing demolition by neglect. Then a public
hearing is scheduled. There is a strict process involved. But, if citizens have a
concern, they can write a formal complaint. It is only for property inside the historic
district. Complaints like non mowed lawns can go to a code enforcement officer.
ITEM # 11: Adjourn
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to adjourn at 9:55 p.m.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous