HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-07-2018 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 17
Minutes
Historic District Commission Meeting
7 p.m. Feb. 7, 2018
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
Present: Chair Reid Highley, Max Dowdle, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons and Virginia
Smith
Absent: Vice Chair Brad Farlow
Staff: Planner Justin Snyder and Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood
Guests: David Cates, Tim Lyons, Zach McKinley and Sara Pittman
Item 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Reid Highley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Planner Justin Snyder called the roll and
confirmed the presence of a quorum.
Item 2: Reading of the commission’s mission statement
Highley read the commission’s mission statement.
Item 3: Adjustments to the agenda
Highley suggested moving the minor works discussion to the end of the meeting, after the public
hearings for the Certificate of Appropriateness applications.
Item 4: Approval of the minutes from the Nov. 1, Dec. 5 and Dec. 6, 2017, meetings
Simmons noted on Page 10 of Nov. 1 minutes, second paragraph, the question was asked, but not by
Simmons. Member Jill Heilman requested adding the word “over” on Page 3 of the Dec. 5 minutes after
“expert testimony.” Regarding Dec. 6 minutes, Page 7, bottom of the page, in the next to the last
paragraph, there was clarification that removal of the tree was granted in the context of the addition.
Planner Justin Snyder said the minutes need to reflect what was actually said and let the board know
that minutes of this meeting and future meetings will be shorter. An audio recording can be provided to
anyone who asks for it. Snyder said it can be noted at this meeting that Heilman meant that the
approval for the tree removal was in the context of approving an addition to the house at 329 Mitchell
St.
Simmons requested that it be noted for the record that in the Dec. 6 minutes the stone had not yet been
chosen for 220 W. King Street. Smith noted for the minutes under the same item that Kate Faherty’s
house is on Hillsborough Avenue. Simmons also noted a house to the east of the proposed house is the
same height. Snyder noted the changes.
Motion: Member Virginia Smith moved to approve the minutes as amended. Member Laura
Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Changes: As noted above.
Page 2 of 17
Item 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for CH Architects on behalf of Jennifer
and Mark Solomon to remove and replace a wood deck and add a rear wood screened
porch with stainless steel chimney and a flat white TPO membrane roof at 110 E.
Queen St. (9874-07-8332).
Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Member Max Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley said he needed to recuse himself to make the presentation for this application. He asked if
anyone else had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one else did.
Motion: Heilman moved to recuse Highley. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Heilman agreed to serve as the acting chair since Farlow was absent.
Highley was sworn in as the applicant.
Snyder stated that this application is regarding 110 E. Queen St. He noted that the architectural
information is on file and read the staff report.
Staff Report: This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for CH Architects on behalf of
Jennifer and Mark Solomon to remove and replace a wood deck and add a rear wood screened porch
with stainless steel chimney and a flat white TPO membrane roof at 110 E. Queen St. Currently, the
south (rear) elevation of the house has a wood deck with stairs, railing, and diamond lattice that has
deteriorated and needs to be removed. The applicants wish to demolish this existing wood deck and the
brick patio, and in its place, they would like to add a doorway off the rear of the house from the
sunroom and build a new wood-framed screened porch in place of the deck. The screened porch would
measure 12 feet, 6-inches by 13 feet, 11 inches and would have double solid-wood doors that would
open onto a new wood raised deck. The roof of the new screened porch would feature a flat design due
to the location at the terminus of two downward sloping rooflines from the sunroom and master
bedroom. The applicants did not wish to introduce further roof pitches into the already complicated
roofline, so they felt the best thing to do based on the runoff and current orientation of slopes would be
to go with the flat roof design. Because of the flat roof feature, the TPO membrane was proposed for
the roofing material to avoid pooling and potential leakage, although this type of roofing material has
been featured more traditionally on commercial buildings. In this instance, because of its rear facing
location, as well as its flat design, the white membrane will be only minimally visible from the ground.
Finally, the applicants wish to have a wood stove in the new screened porch, so they have proposed a
new stainless-steel chimney on the roof of the screened porch. The new deck would not have any
lattice, but rather would have vertical stained wood slats for skirting. There would be a wood stairway
leading up to the deck with a wood railing and wood railing surrounding the perimeter of the deck as
well. Finally, at the bottom of the stairs, the applicants will use bricks relocated from the removed patio
to re-construct a new landing.
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, site plan,
elevations, materials descriptions, and photos.
Page 3 of 17
The applicable design guidelines included: Decks; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Roofs; and
Additions to Existing Buildings.
Highley added that this design was driven by an intent to not add to the already complex rooflines that
exist on the back of this house. He indicated the three-dimensional rendering of the back of the house.
He added that, aesthetically, the design is intended to be quiet and to not create more issues with
water.
Heilman asked if there was anyone else to speak in support or opposition to this application. There was
no one.
Commission members asked questions, which Highley answered. The roof will be slightly tilted so that
water runs off. TPO is also located on the roof of Stuart Paynter’s office. The membrane roof is plastic
and it has no seams. The lifespan is 25 to 30 years, if not more. It will not be visible to the street.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Jennifer and Mark Solomon application is in
keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of
evaluation based on the commission’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 the Historic
District Design Guidelines: Decks; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Roofs; and Additions to Existing
Buildings.
Second: Member Joe Griffin seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Smith moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Griffin seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Conditions: None
Highley resumed the role of chair.
Item 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for David Daniel RND Architects on
behalf of the Town of Hillsborough to remove a few mature black walnut trees around
the parking lot perimeter and an additional mature tree in the grading area for the
Town Barn Addition at 101 East Orange St. (9874-08-8727).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest among the committee members. There were
none.
Hillsborough Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood was sworn in.
Snyder stated that this application is regarding 101 East Orange St. and read the staff report.
Page 4 of 17
Staff Report: This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for David Daniel RND Architects
on behalf of the Town of Hillsborough to remove an additional mature 26-inch diameter hardwood tree
in the grading area for the Town Barn addition at 101 East Orange St. This tree was originally omitted
from the Certificate of Appropriateness approval for the Town Barn addition because as many trees as
possible were to be saved, but later the architect realized that because of the excavation exceeding the
drip line of the tree, the damage to this tree would be extensive enough to certainly damage and likely
kill it based on its relatively young age, and thus the best thing to do would be to go ahead and take it
out now based on its proximity to the proposed addition and potential to fall on the barn. The three
other trees originally approved to be removed (a 12-inch dogwood, a 16-inch oak, and an 18-inch cedar)
would still be removed.
The second part of the application is a request by the town public space manager to remove three
mature black walnut trees from the perimeter of the public parking lot on Town Hall Campus due to
recurring damage to employee vehicles and a significant liability risk on behalf of the town. These trees
are fast-growing and do little to contribute to the historic or aesthetic character of the campus and have
quickly become a nuisance by dropping their fruit, which ranges in size from that of a golf ball all the
way to the size of a softball. As a result of this fruit, the town has seen several broken windshields and
numerous dents to vehicles as large as the size of a fist. Additionally, these fruits pose a significant
safety hazard for pedestrians, so the town is requesting removal of these trees. Tree Number 1 on the
south side of the lot is a double-trunk tree with 19-inch and 19.73-inch diameters. Tree Number 2 is a
single trunk 19-inch-diameter tree on the north side of the lot by the barn. Tree Number 3 is a single
trunk 28.64-inch-diameter tree on the northwest side of the driveway behind the human resources
building.
Finally, due to the significant amount of mature tree canopy on site and the upcoming planting of a red
maple (not a dwarf species, but a full-sized species), as well as recent plantings of several chestnut trees,
staff is asking that no re-planting be required by the Historic District Commission to mitigate the loss of
these trees. Based on the interior site location of the trees to be removed, there is already dense
mature tree canopy, and no significant change to the historic streetscape will occur. Adding new trees
elsewhere on site in addition to the ones already planned for would create over-competition for canopy
and root space, which is not beneficial to the historic streetscape or the health of the trees and would
be counterproductive.
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative, site plan, and photos.
The applicable design guidelines included: Site Features and Plantings.
Trueblood said the town does not usually remove trees until they are dead, but limbs have dropped in
the parking lot and black walnuts have hit several pedestrians this year. The town plants many more
trees each year than it removes, and no good spots are left at Town Hall that don’t already have young
trees in them or plans for future tree plantings.
Trueblood answered questions from the commission members. Foundation grading for the Town Barn
addition will occur in the root zone of the hardwood tree. The plan for the addition was approved by the
commission roughly three years ago. The Certificate of Appropriateness is still valid. Trueblood said. The
Tree Board would be considering removal of the these additional trees at their next meeting, but had
already approved removing the trees from the original COA application.
Page 5 of 17
Highley asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the application. There
was no one.
Highley said the application makes sense to him because the black walnuts are causing property damage
and the likelihood of the hardwood surviving the construction is fairly small.
It was noted for the commission to have a discussion at the end of the meeting about Certificates of
Appropriateness holding validity years later.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Dowdle moved to find as 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
based on the commission’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 the Historic District
Design Guidelines: Site Features and Plantings. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Dowdle moved to approve the application as submitted. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: None
Trueblood asked to clarify something from the earlier discussion of the length of minutes. She said
although audio recordings can be provided upon request, the minutes are the official record of a
meeting and would be scrutinized in court. The motions carry more weight than the discussion, so if a
decision is based on a critical fact, commission members should make sure that fact or detail is wrapped
into the motion or findings of fact. She said all boards have been asked to shorten their minutes to save
staff time.
Item 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for David Marion Trust to remove a
contemporary rear addition and construct a new 703-square-foot rear addition, 218-square-foot deck,
and retaining wall at 326 W. Margaret Lane (9864-86-1032).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked whether anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
David Cates was sworn in.
Snyder stated that this application is regarding 326 W. Margaret Lane and read the staff report.
Staff Report: This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a contemporary rear
addition and to construct a new 703-square-foot rear addition, 218-square-foot deck, and retaining wall
at 326 W. Margaret Lane. Currently, the house is in poor condition. The front portion, which is older
Page 6 of 17
than the rear portion based on the age of building materials and intrinsic evidence, requires structural
repair to the brick porch piers, steps, porch rafters, and wood columns, the repair or replacement of the
wood fascia and trim, as well as extensive interior renovation. The rear portion, however, has been
modified numerous times and the ground rises above the foundation in the rear, which has caused a
number of drainage and structural issues in the home. Previous residents attempted to excavate the
hillside to address this issue, but lack of funding to complete substantial interior renovations ultimately
contributed to much of its existing dilapidated condition. As a result, the applicants propose removal of
this non-original rear addition and replacing it with a new 703-square-foot addition with fiber cement
siding, Miratec trim and fascia, and a 5V tin roof, which will go on both the addition and the original
house to replace the asphalt shingles. The windows in the addition are shown to be 6-over-1 aluminum
clad wood simulated divided lite windows, and they will be slightly larger in scale than the front
windows which are 9-over-6 divided lite and the east and west windows on the original portion of the
home, which are 6-over-6 divided lite. All proposed doors will be made of wood.
The addition would extend back mostly within the existing footprint of the front portion of the building
and would wrap around to the east side of the property where it would have a new 218-square-foot,
pressure-treated wood deck constructed with wood steps and wood railings with metal “hog wire” cable
design. Finally, the applicant is proposing the addition of a front gravel parking pad to be 20 feet wide by
25 feet deep to accommodate two cars since this home does not have adequate space for a garage and
the current driveway access is limited to the grass in the yard at this point. Because of the existing layout
of the house on this lot, and due to its topography and the woods in the rear, the front is the most
appropriate location for such a parking pad to limit disturbance of the site features. However, the
guidelines for Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking do recommend that the applicants provide
some measure of screening around the perimeter of the parking area to minimize its visual impact on
the streetscape and its visibility from adjacent properties. To meet this guideline, the applicants propose
to plant eight Ilex compacta holly planted at 42 inches on center with an offset along the eastern side of
the pad. The parking pad will then connect to the steps on the deck of the proposed addition via a brick
paver pathway.
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, site plan,
elevations, materials descriptions, and photos.
The applicable design guidelines: Paint and Exterior Color; Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Roofs;
Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Decks, Additions to Existing Buildings; Fences and Walls; Demolition
of Existing Buildings; and Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking.
Cates noted a correction that the existing front windows are 9-over-6 but the other two windows on the
east elevation are 6-over-6.
Highley asked whether anyone was in the audience to speak for or against this application. There was no
one.
Cates took questions from the commission. There are no plantings planned to obscure the driveway to
the west because it is partially obscured by the front porch, and no homeowners are to the west, and
the steps would obscure it to some extent. Also, the portion of the park that is to the west is a huge
gulley. The cottage behind the house is a separate property. The materials for the retaining wall would
be brick. The “hog wire” was chosen for the front because black hog wire virtually disappears as
opposed to wood, which Cates thinks would stand out more. Hog wire would reduce the visual impact
Page 7 of 17
and would not attract as much attention away from the actual front. Snyder said steel cable has been
previously approved in the front. Commission members noted that hog wire is not on the list of
approved materials. Cates clarified that the hog wire is vinyl-coated metal.
It was noted by a commission member that decks are usually only approved on the back or side of a
house but this is an unusual house where that is not possible. It was noted that this addition is well
behind the front of the house so it doesn’t “read” as a front porch. Cates suggested planting hollies on
either side of the pathway to screen the proposed deck. Cates explained the proposal is to rebuild the
addition in place but to pull it in a little on the east side so that the original structure is more defined
than it is with the current addition. The west side already has a 2-foot jog, which would be reduced to
even up the west and east sides. The existing shutters are plastic. The homeowner is willing to replace
them with wooden shutters on the old portion: two in the front, one on the east, and one on the west.
The Miratec would only be used on the new addition. Some of the brick foundation is currently painted
red and some of it is not. The stairs are painted. The front of the brick columns are painted as well. The
homeowners would prefer the option to paint the foundation, brick columns and stairs. It was noted
that the commission has recently approved painting existing surfaces that have been partially painted in
the past. It was agreed to leave the color of the painting to Snyder to approve as a minor works.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the David Marion Trust application is in keeping with
the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based
on the commission’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 the Historic District Design
Guidelines Paint and Exterior Color; Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Roofs; Porches, Entrances, and
Balconies; Decks, Additions to Existing Buildings; Fences and Walls; Demolition of Existing Buildings; and
Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions. Smith seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: The retaining wall will be brick; bushes or trees are to be planted in front of the
proposed deck on both sides of the walkway to provide screening from the street; the plastic shutters
on the four windows to remain on the original house will be replaced with wood shutters; all trim on the
original portion of the house will be wood; and the east elevation is to change to reflect a step-back as
drawn at the meeting.
Item 9: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for CH Architects on behalf of Linda
and Ken Ostrand to demolish a non-original 1930s addition and build a new wood and
brick addition with a brick retaining wall, gravel pathway, and 4-foot perimeter fence
at 208 W. Queen St. (9864-97-3626).
Motion: Dowdle moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application other than his own.
There were not.
Page 8 of 17
Vote: Heilman moved to recuse Highley. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Heilman served as acting chair for this item.
Snyder stated that this application is regarding 208 W. Queen St., known as the Berry Brick house and
read the staff report.
Staff Report: This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish a non-original 1930s
addition and build a new wood and brick addition with a brick retaining wall, gravel pathway, and four-
foot perimeter fence at 208 W. Queen St. While the original portion of the Berry Brick House is all brick,
this non-original shed-roofed addition was added sometime in the late 1930s by the McLartys and is
made of wood. It has been altered throughout the years with new windows, paint, and by having a
corner porch enclosed in 1988 to be used as a sunroom/dining area. Architecturally, the non-original
addition has an awkward interior layout, and its framing sits mere inches from the ground, which
creates challenges to replacing pipes and ductwork. As such, the applicants wish to remove this addition
entirely and to construct a new 10-foot, 6-inch-tall addition that will run the length of the original house
in the rear and would consist of a painted wood-framed section with a standing seam metal roof at a
pitch of 12:2 that will be similar in color to the Burwell School’s roof, as well as a painted wood door
with a transom window above, and a single four-lite aluminum clad wood window scaled to match those
on the original house on the north elevation.
Behind this addition to the northwest will be a taller brick addition at 17-foot-8-inch with a brick
chimney and an asphalt shingled roof. The brick and roofing colors will match the original home as
closely as possible. On the west elevation, the applicants propose a single six-over-six simulated divided
lite aluminum clad wood window with decorative flat brick arch above and a wood gable vent, as well as
a slightly flatter roof pitch than the main structure at 12:9 instead of 12:11. Between the brick addition
and the main brick structure, the wood addition intervenes and offers an architectural break in both
design and materials. On the east elevation, the applicants propose a single four-over-four aluminum
clad wood window with a decorative flat brick arches above, a wood gable vent, a six-panel wood door
with a brick step and a decorative brick arch over the door as well. On the north elevation, the
applicants propose two four-lite aluminum clad wood windows on the brick addition flanking the
chimney on each side, again with decorative brick arches above the windows. Due to the topography of
the backyard, the applicants will also construct a brick retaining wall with brick steps leading down to a
gravel pathway on this elevation. Finally, the applicants propose the addition of a four-foot tall wood
and welded wire fence and a four-foot tall wood picket fence with a four-foot gate. On the western
boundary, the post and wire fence would begin four feet behind the front of the house and run north to
the property line where it would turn east and run the entire length of the rear property line. On the
eastern boundary, it would begin approximately 31 feet from the front of the house and run north to
the rear property line. The picket fence would run parallel to the street on the west, four feet behind
the front line of the house between western side of the house and the western property boundary. The
picket fence would also run parallel to the street starting 31 feet behind the house at the eastern edge
of the new wood-framed addition, and it would run to the eastern property boundary with a four-foot
gate proposed for yard access in between. No other changes are proposed to the south elevation, and
this addition would only be slightly visible from Queen Street, so impacts to the streetscape will be
minimized.
Page 9 of 17
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, site plan,
elevations, materials descriptions, and photos.
The applicable design guidelines included: Masonry; Wood; Paint and Exterior Color; Windows and
Doors; Roofs; Additions to Existing Buildings; Fences and Walls; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street
Parking; and Demolition of Existing Buildings.
Highley said the existing addition is too small. The house is charming on the inside until you get to this
addition. The downstairs bathroom is at the end of the entry hall. Replacing the addition would allow
them to take care of circulation issues. Also, the existing addition is on the ground with no way to access
the space below the floor, including the electrical and plumbing elements of the house below the
addition. The most important aspect is to get a cooking fireplace in the kitchen because that is a keen
interest of Linda Ostrand. Knowing that and knowing that the Ostrands needed more space than the
existing addition space allowed, Highley wanted to make something special out of the kitchen. It has its
own form and gabled roof. The rest is a simpler, shed-roofed structure. It would have a rusty red metal
roof. He shared photos of the mill supervisor’s house and the Burwell School to indicate how the roof on
the kitchen portion of the addition would be similar.
Heilman asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. There
was no one.
Highley answered questions from the commission. The kitchen portion would be brick to nestle it into
the dirt to make it a portion of the retaining wall. Where that piece ends, the brick retaining wall would
be extended to make the transition back to the lower grade. Commission members noted the old bricks
have been lime washed and asked how bricks for the addition would be selected. Highley said once the
contractor is on board and has a mason, then he and the clients would go to a brick yard and select brick
samples and have mock-ups built on site to help choose the right brick. The old weathered brick cannot
be matched, and patchwork repairs have been done over the years. The intent is to match the mortar
color (buff) and the tone of the brick. The new brick would not be washed. The new owners have no
intent to do anything with the original house at this time.
A commission member raised concern that a false sense of history would be created here because the
kitchen addition would look like a Williamsburg kitchen. Highley said he anticipated that might be an
issue and the Ostrands wanted this structure to look that way. Highley thinks it would be a false sense of
history if this brick addition were built and then the owners tried to distress it with washes to create a
patina that is impossible to recreate. He acknowledged it has traditional detailing. I don’t think we
should necessarily assume that’s off the table for anything in our district, he said.
Another commission member said she thinks the windows look contemporary so it looks like a
contemporary rendition of a Williamsburg kitchen. Highley said if the entire addition were brick, it
would look like more of a deception of history. Highley said the detailing of the addition is historical but
not an exact reading of the original house because he did not want it to look like a small replica of the
existing house.
Commission members directed the applicants to bear in mind the possible existence of any architectural
remains of historic outbuildings.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Page 10 of 17
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Simmons moved to find as fact that the Linda and Ken Ostrand application is in keeping
with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation
based on the commission’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 the Historic District
Design Guidelines: Masonry; Wood; Paint and Exterior Color; Windows and Doors; Roofs; Additions to
Existing Buildings; Fences and Walls; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; and Demolition of
Existing Buildings. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Simmons moved to approve the application with conditions. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Conditions: The applicants are to bear in mind the possible existence of any architectural remains of
historic outbuildings.
Highley resumed as chair.
Item 10: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Kara Pittman to build a new 1625-square-
foot house with a gravel driveway at 216 W. Orange St. (9864-98-2720).
Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked whether anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest regarding this application.
No one did.
Kara Pittman was sworn in.
Snyder stated that this application is regarding a vacant lot at 216 W. Orange St. and read the staff
report.
Staff Report: This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to build a new 1625-square-foot
house with a gravel driveway at 216 W. Orange St. This lot was split off the front lot in 2016, and the
applicant is proposing to build a two-story cottage style home with a 275-square foot porch on the front
(north) elevation that will span the length of the home. The double porch columns will be made of
wood, and painted white. The windows on the front elevation lower level will be two-over-one
simulated divided lite aluminum-clad wood, evenly distributed on either side of a 6-lite wood door to be
stained English Chestnut. The wood porch floor will be covered by a silver galvalume standing seam
metal roof with a 12:3 pitch. The steps leading up to the porch will also be wood. The second floor has
three evenly spaced three-lite transom aluminum clad simulated divided lite windows, and the second-
floor roof, which extends 22 feet, 8 inches above grade and has a 12:6 pitch, is shown to be covered
with pewter grey asphalt shingles. The siding is to be fiber cement lab board smooth side out painted
white, while the trim, fascia, and soffits are to be Miratec or equivalent and painted white. The skirting
for the porch is to be horizontal painted wood, and there are grey natural stone pavers that will be used
to create a pathway from the front porch to the proposed half-inch grey granite wash stone gravel
driveway.
Page 11 of 17
The left (west) elevation shows the same materials and colors as the front elevation, except the
foundation consists of stucco rather than horizontal wood planks. There are two three-lite transom
windows shown to the left of a double black full-lite sliding glass door. These doors were originally
shown to be vinyl, but staff suggested to the applicant that she modify the material to an appropriate
material since vinyl does not meet the commission’s guidelines for appropriate building materials. She
has since modified the material to be aluminum clad wood to match the window materials. Below the
glass doors is 12-foot by 12-foot pressure-treated wood deck with a single six-foot wide wood step
down to grade. If railings are required, they would be horizontal wood. Finally, a chimney is shown on
this elevation with a stainless-steel chimney cap, and it will be flanked on either side by 3-lite transom
simulated divided lite aluminum-clad wood windows.
The right (east) elevation has the same fiber cement siding, Miratec trim, fascia, and soffits, and stucco
foundation. There are three two-over-one simulated divided-lite aluminum-clad wood windows
proposed on this side. There will also be a three-lite transom window and a half-lite wood door to be
painted black with white trim. This side entry door will lead out to a covered stoop with 12:6 pitch and
asphalt shingled roof covering a wood landing with two vertical wood columns painted white, and wood
steps. The railings on the landing and steps will be wood with vertical square-shaped pickets and posts,
and there will be horizontal wood skirting similar to that of the front porch. The stone pavers to be used
on the front elevation are also shown to extend from this landing to the proposed gravel driveway.
The rear (south) elevation has a 12:6 pitched roof with asphalt shingles, the same fiber cement siding,
the same trim, fascia, soffits, and flashing as the east elevation, and the foundation will once again be
stucco. There are two slightly larger three-lite transom windows on this elevation, as well as two two-
over-one simulated divided-lite aluminum-clad wood windows. There is a wood crawl space access door
proposed on this elevation as well that will be painted Functional Grey to match the stucco foundation
wall. The HVAC unit is also shown to be located on this side of the house, and it is to be screened by
gardenias and dwarf boxwoods per the applicant’s landscaping plan.
Finally, the applicant proposes an 18-foot wide easement containing a 14-foot wide gravel driveway to
run along the western edge of the front property line, which she also owns, and which will require
recordation of an ingress-egress easement. The driveway will run to the back lot where it eventually
widens to 20 feet. It will have two pull offs for parking, one of which is in front of the proposed house,
and the other which is behind the proposed house.
The perimeter of the house will be planted with flowering shrubs, small evergreens, gardenias, and
ornamental grasses with mulch on top. The area outside of the mulched landscape that is disturbed will
be seeded for grass. The applicant expects tree removal on both lots to be minimal as a result of
driveway and house construction. Where the house is being located, a 20-inch hickory, 16-inch twin
hickory, and 18-inch maple are to be removed. Undisturbed areas are shown with tree protection
fencing to preserve a 60-inch diameter hickory, a 26-inch-diameter elm, and an 18-inch-diameter cedar
to the west of the house, as well as 12-inch, 14-inch, and 16-inch hardwoods in front of the house to the
south and a 20-inch twin oak to the east. On the front vacant lot, the driveway clearance will require
removal of an 18-inch diameter elm and a 20-inch hardwood just before the driveway reaches the rear
building lot where a 14-inch hickory is to be removed due to its poor condition and proximity to the
proposed driveway. However, a 20-inch and a 22-inch oak tree will both be preserved on the front lot
near where the driveway is planned. A maple tree will be planted north of where the driveway makes its
first pull-off for shade. The remainder of the northern and southern boundaries will remain “natural,”
except for the area shown for the driveway.
Page 12 of 17
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, site plan,
elevations, materials descriptions, and photos.
The applicable design guidelines included: New Construction of Primary Buildings; Site Features and
Plantings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; and Decks.
Highley asked if anyone was in the audience to speak for or against the application. There was no one.
Pittman then answered questions from the commission. The front porch faces south to West Orange
Street. The driveway will be on the east side.
A concern was raised by a commission member that if a house was built on the front parcel, the two
homes would be stacked with this proposed home facing the back of the other home.
Zach McKinley was sworn in. McKinley said the properties to the east are oriented that way. There is a
large white stucco-like building, and properties are behind it. A commission member noted there is a
different orientation for those. One of the guidelines is the orientation of the homes in the community
and what their references are.
Snyder said for orientation on the lot, you don’t want to have one pushed way up on the lot and another
pushed way back. Heilman said the guidelines are referring to orientation to the street as well.
McKinley and Pittman continued answering questions from the commission. The front lot is lower than
the back lot. The back lot is fairly flat. For drainage purposes, along the east side of the driveway, the
intent is to keep the natural swale. There will be one culvert on the front lot on the boundary line.
McKinley said the intention is for drainage to go along the driveway and then turn under the driveway to
a large culvert pipe on the front lot.
It was noted that there is a better picture of the proposed front door in the packet. It’s a six-lite door.
A commission member noted that chimneys are traditionally made of masonry and this proposed
chimney looks like it’s hovering which is good practice for a wood-sided chimney. Was there any
consideration for doing any masonry on the chimney? Pittman said she would consider it. The
foundation is stucco. She would want the chimney to match the foundation. It was noted that the
application was being changed to reflect this.
Heilman raised concern that the sliding glass doors did not meet Guideline 7 under New Construction of
Primary Buildings because it would be an expanse of windows visible from the street. Highley said the
function of the door is not in the purview of this board. Snyder said the commission approved sliding
doors on the rear of Steven Petrow’s house. Heilman pointed out these sliding doors would be visible
from West Orange Street as approaching from the west.
Pittman passed around the color palette. She plans for the house to be white with black windows, a blue
porch ceiling, a metal roof in the front, a gray tongue-and-groove front porch, and a greenish gray
foundation with the chimney matching the foundation.
Page 13 of 17
McKinley said before the meeting he had thought only a standing seam roof was permissible but now
that he knows 5V galvalume is permissible, he would like to change to that because one was approved
earlier tonight. Commission members said 5V was permissible. Pittman noted the color would be a
metal silver color. It was noted this 5V roof is a change in the application.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Simmons moved to find as fact that the Kara Pittman application is in keeping with the
overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on
the commission’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 the Historic District Design
Guidelines New Construction of Primary Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Walkways, Driveways,
and Off-Street Parking; and Decks. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-1 (Heilman opposed, stating she felt her concerns regarding Guidelines 1 and 7 under
New Construction of Primary Buildings had not been adequately addressed)
Motion: Simmons moved to approve the application with conditions. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-1 (Heilman opposed)
Conditions: Front porch roofing material changed from standing seam to 5V galvalume, the chimney
is to extend to the ground and will be parged stucco masonry painted functional grey to match the
foundation, and the orientation of the front porch is to face south on the site.
Item 11: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Volume Hillsborough, LLC, on
behalf of Knox Enterprises, LLC, to install a gooseneck commercial light fixture to illuminate existing
wall signage on the front facade at 226 S. Churton St. (9874-05-4679).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked whether there were conflicts of interest regarding this application. There was no one.
Highley asked if there was anyone present to present the application. There was no one.
Snyder proposed being allowed to approve this as a minor works.
Commission members asked how big the light fixture is and whether the gooseneck light would block
the sign.
Highley said we have examples of other similar light fixtures in town including at Radius Pizzeria & Pub.
Snyder noted that the adjacent Weaver Street Market has these light fixtures. Snyder said the
application probably could have been treated as a minor work but he had added it to the agenda to
gauge Commission’s feelings about outdoor lighting in general as minor works.
Snyder said in general, outdoor lighting is so easy to change out. It could fall under things previously
approved and be approved as a minor work by staff. Highley asked if the wiring would be from the
inside as opposed to running conduit on the outside. He would not like for the wiring to pop over the
parapet and come down.
Page 14 of 17
It was asked whether a mark would be left where the sign used to be when it is moved. Snyder said it
would be no different if any other business moved in there but he will let the owners know that if
there’s a mark, touch up the paint.
Commission decided to just vote on it, having opened the public hearing.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Volume Hillsborough, LLC, application is in
keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of
evaluation based on the commission’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 the Historic
District Design Guidelines for Signage. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Highley moved to approve the application with conditions. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: Wiring for the new light fixture shall come from inside the building with no exposed
conduit on the face of the building.
Item 12: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Tim Lyons on behalf of 114 West
King St., LLC, to install black wrought iron safety railings parallel and perpendicular to an approved
concrete ADA-accessible ramp at the front entrance of 114 W. King St. (9874-06-0383).
Motion: Smith moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none.
Tim Lyons was sworn in.
Snyder stated that this application is regarding 114 W. King St. and read the staff report.
Staff Report: This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a black wrought iron
railing perpendicular and parallel to an existing storefront at 114 W. King St. The railing would extend
out approximately five feet from the building along the eastern edge of the step and would turn parallel
to the building, where a small section would extend 8 inches from the corner of the ramp to provide
pedestrians with notice of the step. The developer would then leave an opening approximately 7-foot-2-
inch wide in the railing to allow for ingress and egress for the bar, and then a final section of railing
would be constructed parallel to the building to terminate where the sidewalk meets the end of the
ramp at grade. The railings would be 42 inches tall and would exactly match the design of the railings
along Churton Street in front of Saratoga Grill. The reason these railings have become necessary is
because the town felt that the liability risk was too great with the addition of a 5-inch platform along a
busy public sidewalk outside of a bar to allow just a perpendicularly-hung railing or no railing at all. The
owner of the building, George Horton, had liability concerns as well. The town had wanted the railing to
extend the length of the entire ramp, but in conversations with the developer about obscuring the front
of this historic building, this was determined to be the best compromise available to provide safety and
Page 15 of 17
yet maintain the look the business owner is seeking for the front of the building and to allow free-
flowing ingress and egress to and from the building for patrons.
This option also definitely calls out the fact that there is a step in the sidewalk area, which will hopefully
help prevent people from exiting the bar and walking straight out off of the step and potentially falling
into the public sidewalk. Since the railing is not an opaque structure and will blend architecturally with
the design features of the building that Lyons had approved as part of his Certificate of Appropriateness
to renovate the exterior of the building, staff is of the belief that the guideline to not conceal character
defining elevations of buildings can be met. Most importantly, however, is that the safety of the town’s
residents will be preserved while still meeting ADA-accessibility requirements.
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, photos
and elevations.
The applicable design guidelines included: Accessibility and Life Safety Considerations; Public Rights-of-
Way; and Storefronts.
Lyons took questions from the board. The railing turns on the corner on the east side. The plan is to
make the railing even on both sides and not obscure the front doors. A commission member noted that
the commission went through the application for the railing exhaustively before and wished that the
property owner had said he had liability concerns at that time. Snyder said Horton spoke with him about
his liability concerns as a property owner and wanted perpendicular railings, but Lyons did not want
them to obscure the front of his business. It was noted that the commission had already approved
perpendicular railings. Lyons reviewed that the railing was not required for code but the town wants the
parallel railing for safety. A commission member said she could see someone stepping off and getting
hurt. Snyder said we just want to get the business open and keep people safe.
Trueblood said she wanted to speak to this as the town’s public space manager. She said throughout the
process she had said there needed to be a rail out front. She had been fairly certain that the North
Carolina Department of Transportation would not allow a ramp without a railing because in her 15 years
of experience building sidewalks within NCDOT right of way, she had never seen NCDOT allow a step in
the right of way without a handrail 42 inches tall. Lyons wanted to get his application in for a Certificate
of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission quickly and not hold up construction. The
commission approved the perpendicular railing and said Lyons would have to come back if there is a
condition later that a railing has to run parallel to the building. Around the end of the year, NCDOT said
it would not require the railing. But there is a three-party agreement, so the fire marshal, town safety
and risk management officer, public works director and Trueblood discussed and decided they were not
comfortable signing off on an encroachment agreement without a handrail because the sidewalks are
town property in the NCDOT right of way. If someone falls there, the town is just as liable as the
property owner, Trueblood said. The town is sorry for the time it has taken, but the handrail is required
in order to move forward with the encroachment due to a duty to protect general health, safety and
welfare, Trueblood said.
A commission member asked Lyons what the alternative is if the commission does not approve this.
Lyons said this is what’s in front of us that everyone in the town has agreed upon. There were other
options to make a border. Trueblood answered she could not see how the commission would have any
right to deny the handrail because it is the same handrail for the same purpose as one already installed
Page 16 of 17
on South Churton Street. Commission members expressed that they would have preferred a different
solution.
Highley asked if there was anyone else to speak for or against the application in addition to Trueblood.
There was no one.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Simmons moved to find as fact that the Tim Lyons application is in keeping with the
overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on
the commission’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 the Historic District Design
Guidelines Accessibility and Life Safety Considerations; Public Rights-of-Way; and Storefronts. Heilman
seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Simmons moved to approve the application with conditions. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: Railing will be installed so as to not obstruct the front doors.
Item 12: Adoption of proposed changes to the Site Features and Plantings guidelines and minor
works.
Simmons said members of the Hillsborough Garden Club who live in the Historic District but were not
able to attend the meeting this evening have expressed concerns about these amendments. Also,
Simmons said she does not think it is a workable ordinance.
Other commission members were comfortable with adopting these changes and monitoring how the
changes worked. Snyder said the standard remains that a property owner has to produce a letter from
an arborist indicating that a tree needs to come down for any tree over 24 inches that is not clearly dead
or dying. Highley said these amendments have been out there for months. The town attorney has
reviewed them and Simmons is welcome to vote against the proposed changes. Simmons raised
concerns that the wording is not clear. Snyder and others pointed out these are minor works guidelines,
to which staff will refer, not the general public. Trueblood said the North Carolina Cooperative Extension
has an arborist who will come out to a homeowner’s property to evaluate the health of a tree for free.
Trueblood pointed out the minor work does not require planting another tree but going before the
commission usually results in that condition. Therefore, it would be good to add that a tree may be
required to be planted to replace one taken down.
Motion: Highley moved to approve the minor works text amendments with the changes
discussed.
Second: Heilman seconded.
Vote: 5-1 (Simmons)
Changes: Add the line to Minor Works 11, 33, 39, and 40: “Staff will require a replacement tree
planting for each tree to be removed that will grow to similar size and species at maturity unless staff
determines that site conditions prohibit such a planting.”
Page 17 of 17
Item 13: Updates
Staff updates: Snyder reported that —
• The owner of 319 W. Queen St. has done substantial work to the outside of the house. Snyder
has notified the owner that he needs to come before the commission for painting the front
concrete porch without applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness or he needs to remove the
paint from the porch.
• The town needs at least two members to go to certified local government training May 18 in
Chapel Hill. He does not yet have the agenda.
• He is working on rescheduling training and a presentation by State Historic Preservation Officer
Amber Kidd, who was on the agenda for the January meeting.
• The Colonial Inn has been sold to a development group in Raleigh. When asked by Smith,
Snyder said they plan to keep the floors and staircase. Snyder is trying to organize a tour of the
existing building for the commission. There was brief discussion with Trueblood about getting
the group in for a tour without having to bring unlimited public in.
Jill Heilman said she would like to set up a time for people to informally ask the commissions questions
and invite some of these new property owners. Trueblood said the commission would have to be careful
that owners are asking the questions and not the other way around. She said there are usually lots of
questions about the Historic District Commission at the town’s annual citizens academy. Trueblood
advocated for holding a meet-and-greet event as outreach. Snyder asked if Highley can be the
representative to the Citizens Academy; Highley will check his calendar. Heilman offered to work with
Simmons on an outreach night and will bring ideas to another meeting.
Snyder continued his staff report —
• He has thoughts of breaking up minor works into categories like landscaping and hardscaping so
that the requirements are easier to find. The commission said that was fine.
• Materials list discussion will be on the next agenda.
Heilman asked for clarification about the validity of a Certificate of Appropriateness after a year.
Heilman said she thought Town Attorney Bob Hornik had said at a December meeting that it expires if
substantive work has not started after a year. Snyder said the certificate is renewable. Heilman said it is
not good forever. Trueblood said it is not renewable if the design guidelines have changed. But if the
guidelines are the same and nothing has changed about the plans, then the zoning officer updates the
permit before the zoning permit is issued. Snyder added if there were significant changes to the
surrounding properties, then the applicant would have to come before the commission again. Heilman
said she would like to talk further about how those people who hold old Certificates of Appropriateness
could be informed that they may need to return to this commission. She requested more discussion
about that at another meeting. Trueblood said if it does not require a building permit and does not
require a zoning permit, it would be difficult to follow through on that. Snyder said he has added the
statement in the letter that goes with newly issued Certificates of Appropriateness that the permit is
good for one year.
Item 14: Adjourn
Motion: Heilman moved to adjourn at 10:19 p.m. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0