HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-02-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 10
MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2016, 7:00 PM,
Town Barn
Present: Chairman Anna Currie, Vice Chairman Reid Highley, Laura Simmons, Brad Farlow, Joe Griffin, Jill
Heilman, Virginia Smith
Staff: Stephanie Trueblood
ITEM # 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chairman Currie called the meeting to order at 6:57 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 made a correction to the Item 6 description: parallel to the road and not perpendicular to the
road.
ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the Oct. 5, 2016 meeting
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the minutes with changes.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Changes:
Page 6: Start a new paragraph after…”Trueblood on her promotion.”
Page 7: ‘compliant’ should be ‘complaint’ and ‘ta’ should be ‘a’
ITEM # 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Cedar Grove Maintenance on behalf of
David Knox to replace the existing wood front door with a new wood front door at 226 S.
Churton Street (9874-05-4679
Randy Harris, a supervisor with Cedar Grove Maintenance, was sworn in.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing on this item.
Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 226 S. Churton Street.
There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, c. 1950s: This small, one-story, masonry building has a stuccoed exterior and
a parapet that steps down toward the rear of the building with terra cotta coping. The nine-light-over-
Page 2 of 10
two-panel door is flanked by nine-light metal windows and there are three metal windows on the left
(south) elevation. The building does not appear on the 1943 Sanborn map and was likely constructed in
the 1950s.
Proposed Work: Replace the existing wood front door with a new wood front door. Narrative from the applicant
notes that the existing door is not original. The existing door has insulated glass so it was likely installed in the
1970s or 1980s. The existing door handle and deadbolt lock will be reused. The brass kick plate can also be
reused. The property owner would prefer to not reinstall the existing brass mail slot.
Agenda packets included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative, specification sheet for new
door, photos of existing door and evidence of the water damage.
The Applicable Design Guidelines include: Windows and Doors.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against this project. There was
no one.
Mr. Harris then answered questions from the board. He explained the owner didn’t want a mail slot in
the door due to concerns that it provided unwanted access to the building. He is thinking a tenant would
rent a post office box. A couple of board members advised if the owner is worried about unwanted
access to the building, perhaps an alternative to the deadbolt he has chosen would be safer. Mr. Harris
explained there isn’t a tenant yet, so he doesn’t want to spend a lot of money at this time.
Mr. Harris said he didn’t research what the original door might have looked like. Ms. Trueblood said she
doesn’t have any photos or information about what it would have been.
There was a suggestion to put the building number where the mail slot would have been. Mr. Harris said
the address could also go on the business’s sign.
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Chairman Currie moved to find as a fact that the Cedar Grove Maintenance 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:
Windows and Doors.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Chairman Currie moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: none
Page 3 of 10
ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Mary and David Knox to install a single-
sided 20 square foot sign made of sandblasted wood applied to MDO sign board and wood
posts parallel to the road in front of the business at 121 W. Margaret Lane (PIN 9874-05-2897)
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
Mary Knox was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 121 W. Margaret Lane.
There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, c. 1931: This one-and-a-half-story, front-gabled house is four bays wide and
double-pile. It has plain weatherboards, exposed rafter tails, replacement vinyl windows, and two nine-
light-over-two-panel doors on the façade. A near-full-width, shed-roofed porch is supported by large
square posts on square wood piers and has a low gable centered over the entrance and a replacement
railing. There is a full-width, shed-roofed wing at the rear (north). Bellinger dates this house to 1931.
Proposed Work: Install a single-sided 20 square foot sign made of sandblasted wood applied to MDO sign board
and wood posts parallel to the road in front of the business. Narrative from the applicant states the height of the
sign is approximate, and will not exceed, the height of the porch railing so as not to obstruct the view of the
house. The sign will be placed at the left of the primary walkway, between the path that leads to the side of the
house and the front porch and meet the setback of 10 feet from the property line and right of way.
Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity map, narrative with sign specifications and
material list, site plan, sign specification sheet, mock-up photo showing proposed sign placement.
The Applicable Design Guidelines include: Signage.
Ms. Knox said the trim on the sign will match the blue on the house shutters and the white on the sign will be
the same as the white on the house.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this project. There was
no one.
Ms. Knox then answered questions from the board. She is thinking of putting the address numbers on the post
or on the building. Ms. Trueblood reminded the board that address numbers don’t fall under “signs.”
When it was suggested that the sign might be pressed against the hydrangeas, Ms. Knox said there should be
about 1.5 feet between the sign and the hydrangeas. If the sign is moved any closer to the street but still behind
the walkway, it will run into the walkway. Ms. Knox said if it is moved to the street side of the walkway, we’re in
the 10-foot limit, Ms. Knox said. There was a question of moving the sign to the east of the building instead of in
the middle.
Board members expressed concern about the mass of the sign. Chairman Currie cited Guideline number 5 on p.
56 of the Design Guidelines regarding introducing signs in traditional locations. Normally signs are installed
perpendicular and not parallel. And the Guidelines call for the sign to not diminish the historic character of the
property or the district. This scale is pretty big. Chairman Currie said it doesn’t meet the number 5 Guideline.
Other board members agreed that they had the same concerns.
Page 4 of 10
Vice Chairman Highley cited Guideline 6 regarding signs in residential areas, which encourages owners to keep
signs as low as possible. Vice Chairman Highley said as long as the sign is being kept reasonably low, it could
meet that particular guideline.
Mr. Farlow asked if the sign has an edge on the top and bottom so that it doesn’t look like plywood on those
edges. Ms. Knox expects the coating would be applied on those edges as well to prevent splitting.
Ms. Knox said when they looked at orienting it on the library side, it looked awkward.
Several board members stated that they have concerns about the proposed location and massing of the sign.
Ms. Knox asked that the application be tabled. David Knox asked if it would make a difference if the sign were
lowered.
Ms. Trueblood reiterated that the board is saying that monument signs are usually away from the building in the
front of the property so that, with the distance, it is compatible. When you put it up close to the building, it’s not
a traditional relationship. If you’re going to have a big sign for drivers to read from their vehicles, it needs to be
closer to the road. If you have a pedestrian sign, it needs to be more on the wall and in scale with the building.
Those are the two traditional choices. Ms. Trueblood said it can be 10 feet from the property line. Most
downtown businesses choose wall signage. Ms. Trueblood said that there are options for minor work approval
of monument signs on the Exempt and Minor works list.
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to table the application until the HDC meeting scheduled on
December 7, 2016.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 5 to 1 (Nay= Griffin)
ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Fred Stewart on behalf of Maureen and
Anthony Cunningham to construct a 6-foot tall, perforated brick garden wall, relocate and
extend existing privacy and chain link fencing, and construct a 700 square foot cobble
concrete patio in the rear yard at 314 W. Tryon Street (PIN 9864-87-3063)
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.
Fred Stewart was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 314 W. Tryon Street.
There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, c. 1900 home, c. 1950s garage: Sparrow House: This triple-A-roofed, I-house
is three bays wide and single-pile with a wide gabled rear wing. The house has plain weatherboards,
vinyl windows, and diamond vents in the gables. The two-light-over-three-panel door is sheltered by a
full-width, shed-roofed porch supported by replacement turned posts. A hip-roofed extension of the
porch wraps around the left (west) elevation as a carport supported by turned posts on a brick knee
wall. There is an exterior end brick chimney in the left (west) gable, low decorative gables on the side
elevations of the rear wing, and a projecting bay window on the right (east) elevation of the rear wing. A
sign in front of the house reads “Sparrow House c. 1850” and county tax records date the building to
1921. However, the architecture is consistent with that of turn-of-the-twentieth-century house. Garage:
Page 5 of 10
Side-gabled, two-bay, concrete block garage with aluminum siding in the gables and two overhead vinyl
doors on the south elevation.
Proposed Work: Construct a 6-foot tall, perforated brick garden wall, relocate and extend existing privacy and
chain link fencing, and construct a 700 square foot cobble concrete patio in the rear yard. Narrative from the
applicant states the existing wooden privacy fence will be relocated closer to the property line and positioned to
avoid removing any significant trees. An iron fence will be relocated and new matching iron gate will be
installed. The chain link fence will be relocated and new chain link added. The azaleas will be relocated. A small
portion of the retaining wall will be removed to facilitate the new retaining wall. A cobble concrete paver patio
will be constructed within the new garden wall.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, site plans with narrative and
materials list, enlarged plan, photographs of existing property condition and examples of brick wall and
pavers for project
The Applicable Design Guidelines included: Fences and Walls, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street
Parking, Site Features and Plantings.
Mr. Stewart said the chain-linked would be replaced with welded wire and he has samples of the materials with
him this evening.
Chairman Curried asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the application.
There was no one.
Mr. Stewart answered questions from the board. The height will be 4 feet. Board members pointed out that the
fence must have the “friendlier” side of the fence facing out (facing the neighbors). Ms. Trueblood advised that
sometimes people double up the fence so that both sides are “friendly”.
It was acknowledged and appreciated that consideration was given to keeping a significant tree on the property.
Mr. Stewart answered that from the street at the southeast corner of the property, a passerby would see the
new brick fence. The wrought iron fence is already there but is being moved forward. It’s still behind the front of
the house. It will be on top of a new low retaining wall. The brick wall be stepped at the pilasters rather than
sloped to maintain approximately 6 feet of grade at the top level. The same thing will be done with the welded
wire fence (stepped). All tops will be level between the posts.
The azaleas are staying on the property.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the Fred Stewart application on behalf of
Maureen and Anthony Cunningham 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: Fences and Walls, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking,
Site Features and Plantings.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 6 of 10
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as modified with conditions.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: All chain link fencing is replaced with welded wire fencing framed in wood with top and
bottom rail as pictured in meeting materials
ITEM # 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Douglas Peterson to construct a 288
square foot shed, a 500 square foot brick patio with a stacked stone wall, install 195 linear
feet of wood privacy fencing in the rear yard and 215 linear feet of wood picket fencing in the
front yard at 404 Calvin Street (PIN 9864-75-6398)
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.
Doug Peterson was sworn in.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this
application. There was no one.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 404 Calvin Street.
There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, c. 1921 house,: House: This one-and-a-half-story, side-gabled house is typical
of early twentieth-century vernacular and mill housing. The house is three bays wide and single-pile with
a one-story, shed-roofed rear wing. The house has a stuccoed foundation, weatherboards, six-over-six
wood-sash windows, paired on the façade, and an interior brick chimney. It has wood cornerboards,
soffits, and fascia and the six-light-over-three-panel wood door is sheltered by a full-width, shed-roofed
porch supported by square posts with an original wood railing. There are small six-over-six windows and
an exterior concrete-block chimney on the rear wing. A later, unpainted accessible ramp is connected to
the right (east) end of the porch and there is a shed-roofed addition at the rear of the shed-roofed wing.
County tax records date the building to 1921.
Proposed Work: Construct a 288 square foot shed, a 500 square foot brick patio with a stacked stone wall, install
195 linear feet of wood privacy fencing in the rear yard and 215 linear feet of wood picket fencing in the front
yard. According to narrative submitted by the applicant, the new 12’x24’x15’ shed will mirror the look of the
current additions to the original property with silver 5 seam steel roofing and Hardieplank siding installed
smooth side out. The brick paver patio will be installed off the back deck and require a small 2 foot high and 50
foot long stacked stone wall. A 4 foot wide brick walkway will be installed from the front steps to the road. The
6’ wood privacy fence will enclose the rear yard and the 4’ picket fencing will enclose the front and side yards.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, narrative, site plans, example photo
of proposed outbuilding, outbuilding elevation drawings with specifications, fence drawing with
specifications, example of picket fencing.
The Applicable Design Guidelines included: Fences and Walls, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street
Parking, Site Features and Plantings, New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages.
Page 7 of 10
Ms. Trueblood clarified that the outbuilding doesn’t have to match but should be compatible to the
main structure.
Mr. Peterson answered questions from the board. The door will be steel. The fence will be friendly side
out. He intends to put the picket fence down the east side of the driveway and join it with the six foot
privacy fence in the back. Ms. Trueblood advised if the HDC is inclined to approve this fence then the
board needs to state for the record why because it could come up in conversations with other
applicants. There are times when front yard fences are deemed compatible, but the “why” needs to be
stated. The HDC has approved and denied front yard picket fences in the past.
It was noted that there are picket fences in the vicinity but they are backyard fences. Mr. Peterson
amended his application for the front yard picket fence to be three feet tall. Mr. Farlow suggested that
the pickets look like they are a little far apart.
Mr. Peterson said the two outer sides are more important than the front picket fence. He indicated on a
drawing.
Regarding the spacing of the pickets, Mr. Peterson said he wants them to be aesthetically correct. Vice
Chairman Highley said it’s generally less than the width of the board.
Chairman Currie summarized that the pickets will go down the east and west sides, will be 3 feet high
and have one and a half inch spacing.
Mr. Peterson confirmed he is not taking down any trees.
The old outbuilding was not restorable and has been removed. The new outbuilding will have the same
boards as the addition.
Mr. Peterson plans to paint the picket fence white.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Vice Chairman Highley moved to find as a fact that the Douglas Peterson 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:
Fences and Walls, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking, Site Features and Plantings, New
Construction of Outbuildings and Garages.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Vice Chairman Highley moved to approve the application with modifications listed under
the “conditions” below.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: Side yard picket fence will be 3 feet tall and there will be no picket fence along front
property line or along west side of driveway and spacing for pickets on picket fencing will be
1 ½ inches.
Page 8 of 10
ITEM # 9: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Andrew Remaley on behalf on Sarah
Palmer to build a new 2,133 square foot home, with attached carport, concrete walkway and
patio, and a stone driveway at 311 N. Occoneechee Street (PIN 9864-77-8893)
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
Andrew Remaley was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 311 N. Occoneechee Street.
There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures in the vicinity.
Architecture: Vacant lot. No information in inventory.
Proposed Work: Build a new 2,133 square foot home, with attached carport, concrete walkway and patio, and a
stone driveway. Proposed exterior materials list from the applicant indicates the home will have 7” smooth
Hardieplank lap siding painted green, trim will be ivory, 16” Hardie soffit, wood covered aluminum fascia,
pressure treated 5/4”x6” decking, pressure treated exterior framing, wood and aluminum or fiberglass clad
windows and doors, ‘Weathered Wood’ colored asphalt shingles and ‘Buckskin’ colored metal roofing, washed
stone driveway, and concrete walkway and patio.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, site plan, detailed elevation
drawings, foundation details, drawing of home with square footages, materials list, photo of vacant lot,
siding color example, metal roofing color sample, Hardieplank example, gravel images and details,
shingle specs and color, porch example photo, handrail example photo, screen porch example photo,
example photo of wood covered with aluminum from house located at 405 W. Queen Street.
The Applicable Design Guidelines included: New Construction of Primary Buildings, Walkways, Driveways
and Off-street Parking, Site Features and Plantings.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against the application. No
one did.
Mr. Remaley then answered questions from the board. The windows are intended to be centered on the
west elevation. The door on the west elevation is intended to be steel or fiberglass. Ms. Heilman asked if
there is a possibility of orienting the door so that it’s not street facing. Mr. Remaley said it could go on
the end so that it opens to the north elevation. The front façade is the same as the one he has already
built on West Queen Street but that house didn’t have a railing and this one does. Mr. Remaley
explained he placed a railing here because the porch wraps around and on the side it’s needed. Board
members asked whether it’s possible to move the front door and Mr. Remaley answered no. Ms.
Heilman said the columns block the windows as currently presented. Mr. Remaley said it looks that way
only straight on. The posts are 10 x 10 on the house on West Queen Street and nobody has ever said
they can’t see the windows. The railings are all wood. Chairman Currie explained that brick and stone
chimneys are usually approved – not stuccoed chimneys. Ms. Trueblood said metal pipes have been
approved. Mr. Remaley said the stucco would be ivory color which would match the trim. Vice Chairman
Highley said regarding the front door placement, Guideline 7 under “New construction of primary
buildings” states that the placement of doors and windows should be in the character of the district. Mr.
Remaley said that his house is less than a block away and it’s the exact same configuration. Vice
Page 9 of 10
Chairman Highley said we have to consider the district as a whole as well as considering the houses
nearby. Usually doors and windows are centered in the columns. Mr. Remaley reminded the board that
his house was approved. Chairman Currie said Mr. Remaley has to understand that the people sitting on
the board now have to give their interpretation of the Guidelines. Mr. Farlow said there are differences
between this house and your house like the size of the columns and the differences in the roof.
Mr. Farlow asked whether the 8-inch block masonry foundation at the bottom would be painted or
stucco. Mr. Remaley answered stucco.
Mr. Remaley answered that the windows are individual casement windows.
On the east elevation, the four windows are single windows. Mr. Remaley explained this is the back of
the house facing the woods and there are stretches with no windows to have placement for a bed, a
closet and a shower.
Everything on the exterior is pressure treated lumber.
On the south elevation, there are double doors. They are not sliding doors. Ms. Trueblood said the
operation of a window or door is not within HDC authority but sliding doors are not common in the
district. Mr. Remaley said the intention is to have one swinging door and one stationary door. There
would be no divided light. These doors would look like the other door on the south elevation with a
frame. The reason there is a transom over that other door is because there are eight foot doors within
the house with ten foot ceilings. The double doors might need a transom over it if he can’t get eight foot
doors.
Regarding the north elevation, it was clarified that the masonry foundation will be stuccoed on all
elevations. The access door will be pressure treated wood. The stucco on the foundation will be off-
white as well. It was noted that the post would be in front of the door on this side. Mr. Remaley said he
would be open to having two posts instead of a center post. Mr. Farlow said having three bays instead
of two would be a more consistent look. On this side, Mr. Remaley is proposing double hung windows
because casement windows crank out and could block wheelchair access, which is needed on this side.
Mr. Remaley clarified that for the fascia, he is proposing aluminum covered wood (not wood covered
aluminum). The board clarified that this is considered exterior trim and is not on the approved materials
list. Mr. Remaley challenged the notion that the board will approve a window that’s clad in aluminum
but not a fascia clad in aluminum. Ms. Heilman asked Mr. Remaley to consider fiber cement for the
fascia boards to be more consistent with the materials list.
Chairman Currie asked Mr. Remaley, regarding the chimney, would you be willing to consider modifying
your application for a stuccoed chimney? Mr. Remaley asked if cultured stone has been approved. The
board didn’t think so. Ms. Trueblood clarified that the board either wants it to be a real weight-bearing
chimney or a stovepipe. Since it’s going to a stove, a stovepipe would be appropriate. Mr. Remaley said
he would modify the application to be a stovepipe.
Regarding the windows and doors, Ms. Heilman asked Mr. Remaley to narrow down the materials. Mr.
Remaley answered the front door would be wood. The windows would be a combination of aluminum
clad and real wood windows. The doors out of the bedroom and the laundry door would be steel or
fiberglass. That clarification met the materials list.
Chairman Currie led a review of the modifications and clarifications. Ms. Trueblood suggested the
applicant submit updated elevations displaying all of these modifications and an updated materials list
to staff before a Zoning Permit is issued
Page 10 of 10
The board asked Mr. Remaley to move the columns so that the doors and windows appear centered
between the columns. He agreed.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Chairman Currie moved to find as a fact that the Andrew Remaley on behalf of Sarah
Palmer 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, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street
Parking, Site Features and Plantings.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Chairman Currie moved to approve the application as modified with the conditions
below.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions:
Fascia will be fiber cement board
Chimney will be replaced with stove pipe
There will be 4 columns (3 bays) on north elevation
Utility door on west elevation will be relocated to north elevation
Windows on west elevation will be centered in gable
Windows will be aluminum clad or wood frame
Columns on west elevation will be shifted to center windows and doors, column spacing will be
consistent along wrap around porch
Front door will be wood
Side and rear doors will be steel or fiberglass
Updated elevations displaying all of these modifications and an updated materials list will be submitted
to staff before a Zoning Permit is issued
ITEM # 10: Continue discussion about updates to materials list
Moved to December.
ITEM # 11: Updates
Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie
Historic Properties Book Committee: Virginia Smith
Staff updates
Moved to December.
ITEM # 12: Adjourn
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
Second: Ms. Heilman
Vote: Unanimous