HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-06-2018 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 16
Minutes
Historic District Commission Meeting
7 p.m. June 6, 2018
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
Present: Chair Reid Highley, Vice Chair Brad Farlow, Max Dowdle, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons and
Virginia Smith
Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planner Justin Snyder
Guests: Heath Blackwelder, Drew Blum, Camille Cover, Bradley Curelop, Stacey Curelop, Jason Dell, Tony
Dowling, Justin Fejfar, Chuck Ferguson, Kathleen Johnson, Reed Johnson, Charles Nordan, Joe Phelps,
Carol Rosemond, Will Spoon, David Swanson and Don Wells
Item 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Reid Highley called the meeting to order at 7 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
There were none.
Item 4: Approval of the minutes from the May 2, 2018, meeting
Motion: Heilman moved to approve the minutes with changes. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Changes: Change “cast iron” on Page 5 to “metal”
Highley explained to the audience that the commission would not be accepting public comment this evening on
the proposed Colonial Inn renovations because the commission would only be making a preliminary review of the
plans and not considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at this time.
Item 5: (Old Business) Continuation from the April 4, 2018, meeting of an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Drees Homes on behalf of Elizabeth Walker to build a new 2,651-square-foot home with an
attached 479-square-foot side-entry garage and sunroom at 312 Mitchell St. (9874-17-9943).
Highley asked whether anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did.
Highley asked whether there was anyone to speak who had not been sworn in at the first hearing on this matter,
acknowledging that the hearing was still open. Heath Blackwelder was sworn in.
Snyder entered his staff report for this item into the record and reviewed the changes the applicant was
proposing based on the commission’s feedback at the first public hearing on this proposed house.
Highley invited Blackwelder to add anything he wished. Blackwelder said he is the general manager of the custom
homes division of Drees Homes and his team made changes based on feedback at the April meeting. The design of
Page 2 of 16
the house has changed from a two-story home to a ranch-style home, which would extend the footprint of the
home and require the removal of the mature trees.
Highley asked whether there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Highley said everyone would be sworn in regardless of whether they were sworn in at the April meeting.
Bradley Curelop was sworn in. He said he believes the proposed changes would address the concern about the
size of the house. He said the mature trees would have to be removed to fulfill the commission’s request that the
house be set back farther from the street, more in keeping with the adjacent houses. The landscape plan was
created by Drees and he and his wife wish to add several more trees to the plan, so they created their own plan
the previous evening. Bradley Curelop said his wife would be presenting their landscape plan.
Stacey Curelop was sworn in. She said the shrubs and trees Drees had proposed would remain except some
grasses would be replaced with gardenias. She indicated a plan to add more shrubs to screen the air conditioning
unit, an additional oak or maple, three crepe myrtles, and hydrangeas that would border the house. There was
clarification that the proposal includes removing a longleaf pine located close to the driveway and replacing it
with a hardwood.
It was clarified that the electric line for the house will be run underground.
Bradley Curelop said this is a custom-built house and a lot of features of this house would not be found on other
Drees Homes. He said although the roofline would only be about 3 feet shorter, the massing is smaller because
there would no longer be a second story. Also, the front porch would be extended out so the garage is not the
front feature of the house. The garage entry is now to the side. He showed photographs of houses in the area that
look to him to be more than 30 feet tall. He said in his opinion, his proposed house fits the character of the
neighborhood.
Highley invited others to speak.
Dave Swanson was sworn in. He said he and his wife live directly behind the proposed house. He said he has a
master’s degree in landscape architecture and he worked in Georgia for 10 years maintaining and enhancing
public areas. Swanson said the Drees development, Corbin Creek Woods, completely transformed the character of
East Corbin Street. Taking one of those homes and placing it in the older neighborhood would look out of place or
poorly conceived for the lot. This house belongs in a tract development and not on Mitchell Street, he said.
Swanson said the proposed house clearly does not meet the Hillsborough Historic District Design Guidelines. He
shared a list of points he had extracted from the guidelines:
• New buildings must contribute to and maintain the historical character of existing neighborhoods.
• New buildings must respect and enhance the visual and spatial character of Hillsborough’s historic district.
• Design new primary buildings to be compatible in height, roof forms, scale, massing, material, detail, and
proportion the street façade with surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic character of the
district.
• Protect any trees and replace trees with like trees.
• Use compatible window placement.
• There is an emphasis in the guidelines on immediate surroundings, which he thinks means to compare
with other houses on Mitchell Street.
Swanson said although the house is now designed to be less tall, the footprint has grown. The roof is still out of
scale with any house in the neighborhood, he said. The span of the front gable is 48 feet. The attic is larger than
most houses on the street. For comparison, the span of any gable on Mitchell Street is 16 feet less (32 feet).
Page 3 of 16
Swanson said he inventoried the footprint of every house in the area to compare with the proposed footprint of
this project. He shared his visual comparison.
Stacey Curelop disagreed with Swanson’s visual comparison and said there are houses with a larger footprint than
her proposed house.
Town Attorney Bob Hornik questioned the scale used for the visual because he did not see the marked differences
in the aerial photographs that Swanson was presenting in his visual comparison. Swanson could not immediately
explain why the houses do not seem to vary greatly in the aerial photographs.
Swanson noted the 400 block of Mitchell Street has larger ranch homes, but even those are smaller than the
proposed house. He said usually if there is a 48-foot span in a house, it is broken into smaller gables. He said until
you address the scale of it, to him, there is no point in talking about the details.
Chuck Ferguson of Drees Homes was sworn in. Ferguson said he disagreed with Swanson’s visual presentation. He
said Drees Homes also builds townhomes and yet is not building a townhome on this lot. He reminded the
commission this is a custom-built home.
Carol Rosemond was sworn in. Rosemond said she cannot see how the home was specifically designed for the
property because such a design would have accounted for the mature trees. Rosemond cited pages 34 and 35 of
the design guidelines, which state that new buildings should respect and enhance the spatial character of the
neighborhood. Rosemond asked the commission to consider whether this new building would respect and
enhance the 300 block of Mitchell Street, which would be its immediate context. She said the discussion about
massing and scale got lost at the April meeting among discussion of materials. She reminded the commission that
the 300 block is a much older section than the 400 or 500 blocks and the homes are a smaller size than the other
blocks. She said the proposed house is out of scale and does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Also, the
side fenestration does not meet the character of the neighborhood.
Rosemond said the landscaping plan is improved but does not meet the guidelines. Clear-cutting the trees is not
appropriate. Multiple trees more than 50 years old would be removed, and the proposal to replace them with
crepe myrtles and shrubs does not satisfy the guideline requirements. She noted there is the potential for new
houses to be built on six vacant lots in this neighborhood and asked the commission to preserve the uniqueness
of this neighborhood and the historic district.
Don Wells was sworn in. He said he is still opposed to the proposed house because of the reasons stated at the
previous meeting and above. He said he, his wife, Darlene, and some neighbors sat down with the Curelops after
the last meeting.
Bradley Curelop said he thinks Don Wells has more of a problem with the Drees Homes name than with the
proposed house. Curelop shared an email he received from Wells after meeting with him, which expressed
concern about Drees Homes building the house, he said. Curelop said he believes the proposed house would look
like a Craftsman-style house.
Joe Phelps was sworn in. Phelps said he is the real estate agent assisting the property owner in selling the
property to the Curelops. Phelps also noted he had served as Hillsborough’s mayor for 10 years and had
experience with the Board of Adjustment and Historic District Commission. Phelps said he thinks the
neighborhood residents who oppose the house are opposed to Drees Homes building in the neighborhood. Phelps
cautioned against accepting Swanson’s visual presentation as factual testimony because measurements taken
from the GIS maps are not accurate. Phelps said someone mentioned to Bradley Curelop after the last meeting
that he should talk with the homebuilder Charles Woods about building the house. Phelps noted that Woods also
Page 4 of 16
cut down the trees on his lot and that trees are often damaged during construction, so it is better to remove them
before construction begins. Phelps said Bradley Curelop had shared with him the email Curelop had received from
Don Wells. Phelps added that the commission cannot choose the builder.
Hornik agreed that the commission cannot prefer one homebuilder over another.
Phelps said he reviewed the minutes from the meeting when Charles Woods was seeking a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the house he is building on Thomas Ruffin Street. Phelps noted only two people from the
neighborhood spoke regarding that house and one spoke in support of the house. Phelps does not see much
difference between the Charles Woods house and this one. He believes the reason the neighbors are speaking
against this house is because the builder is Drees Homes. Phelps noted that Drees Homes employs many people.
Charles Nordan was sworn in. Nordan asked for a show of hands from the audience of who lives in the
neighborhood. He pointed out that Phelps does not live in the neighborhood. He said Swanson’s presentation was
from the heart. Nordan said the house he has lived in since 1986 is only 1,500 square feet and he raised two sons
there.
Blackwelder said he takes it personally that there is concern about Drees Homes. He has worked for Drees Homes
for 13 years. He thinks noting that Drees Homes built Corbin Creek Woods should be stricken from the record. He
said the custom home division is a separate division. He noted Ferguson and Phelps already noted that Swanson’s
visual does not appear to be to the correct scale. He said the trees have to be removed to set the home back on
the lot. Blackwelder said he wondered whether the plan would get this kind of reaction if another builder had
submitted it.
Highley said the email sent from the town planner to Drees after the April meeting, and included in the agenda
packet, would be used to make sure all the discussion points are raised.
Snyder reminded the commission that it can only consider factual testimony and not third-party testimony or
hearsay evidence.
Landscaping
Regarding landscaping, a commission member requested that the driveway be screened with plantings between
the driveway and the property line. Snyder checked with Stacey Curelop whether she wished to replace the Drees
landscaping plan with the one she presented. Curelop said the Drees landscaping plan is more accurate and she
was just adding to it. It was noted that Guideline 10 under Walkways, Driveways and Off-Street Parking states the
driveway should be screened with perimeter plantings. Stacey Curelop proposed an evergreen shrub border in an
L-shape.
There was discussion of keeping the cedar tree and conclusion that there was not a way to protect the tree to the
dripline of its canopy.
Commission members noted that the commission had requested the house be pushed back. Simmons asked how
the new distance from Mitchell Street compares with the neighbors’ houses. Snyder answered it would be in line
with the Wells’ home and about 5 feet closer to the street than Rosemond’s house. There was agreement that the
proposed location of the house is more consistent with the setbacks of adjacent houses.
Size, scale and mass of the house
Swanson explained he looked at the aerial photographs on the county GIS maps and used the tool on the county
GIS website to measure the walls of the houses. He then looked at the dimensions from the tax records. He said
some were wrong and went by the photograph instead of the written measurement. That is how he checked his
Page 5 of 16
work. He said sometimes the photographs are hard to see because of the shadows. Highley said the neighboring
homes look accurate compared with one another. He said if the proposed home is on the same scale, then there
is a big discrepancy. Swanson agreed.
Phelps said the shadows affect the measurements on the county GIS maps. He said the commission cannot use
Swanson’s visual presentation as factual testimony.
Snyder said the photographs are taken at different elevations so there is always some discrepancy. It’s the best
visual representation that the county can get of a large area. Planners do not put a lot of stock in it showing an
accurate scale, and the property lines are usually inaccurate as well.
Highley asked the commission whether there is concern that the house is covering too much of the lot. Heilman
and Highley said it does not seem to have too large of a footprint relative to the size of the lot. Vice Chair Brad
Farlow said the applicant did a good job of reducing the scale. Smith agreed.
Snyder reminded the Curelops that the HVAC units must meet the setbacks, be screened, and be located behind
the front line of the house.
Highley asked the commission for comments regarding the massing of the home. Simmons asked whether the
applicant would consider further lowering the roofline. Farlow said he thinks the 8/12 pitch is needed for the
Craftsman-style house. With a lower roofline, it would look like a ranch.
Highley said the north elevation is still a little difficult because it is 60 feet long with no break in the plane along
the higher elevation. That concern still remains. Smith said Page 35, No. 7 addresses this. Stacey Curelop
explained the bump-out to the right of the garage is a family foyer for hanging coats. She planned for a small
window to have room for a bulletin board, but she would be willing to install a large window that matches the
others. Commission members expressed a preference for that change to include a larger window. Smith
expressed a preference for more windows on the north elevation. Stacey Curelop said there is a small window on
that elevation to give privacy to the bathtub area in the master bath. Stacey Curelop said she could place a
window in the closet, but there would still be a straight wall. Bradley Curelop said that is why they would screen
the entire house with trees and shrubs. Simmons said that for privacy, the small window in the bathroom makes
sense.
Highley reviewed that on the south elevation, there is a suggested exchange of the small window for a larger
window like the triple window on the right. Smith said the photograph of the future garage door shows faux
hinges. Blackwelder said it was brought up last time and the faux hinges can be removed. Smith also said the
surface of the garage door cannot have a faux wood grain. It should have a smooth finish.
Highley said there are two concerns about the north elevation. One is for more windows. The other concern is the
length of the elevation without any variation. Highley asked if the casings on the windows would be flat. The
applicant answered positively and said they would be all-wood windows. Simmons asked what size the flat piece
of trim would be around the casings. She added that most of the homes in that area are trimmed with 3- or 4-inch
trim. The applicant said those windows can be trimmed. Farlow said one thing that helps the front side look like a
Craftsman-style house is the large horizontal piece of trim. He suggested continuing that around the sides and
back of the house to break down the size and scale of those elevations. Farlow wondered about placing board-
and-batten gable on the back of the house, too, to bring the scale down. The applicant agreed to make Farlow’s
suggested changes. Farlow noted if trim were added to the windows on the rear of the house, the windows may
have to be re-spaced to accommodate the trim. Highley checked that the applicant was willing to do that. The
applicant agreed. Blackwelder said the triple window may have to be changed to a double window to
accommodate the trim or the trim may have to be smaller with trim around all three windows. Stacey Curelop
Page 6 of 16
said it looks better with window trim around all three than around each individual window in the triple window
section. The commission agreed. Simmons asked for clarification on 3 inches or 4 inches of trim. The applicant
said the trim size would be 4 inches for all windows and doors on the home.
Highley noted changes to the east elevation (rear of the house) including trim consistent around all windows and
doors, the horizontal trim continuation around the sides and rear, and a board-and-batten gable.
Highley suggested discussing the west, or front, elevation before returning to the north elevation discussion. He
checked the intention of the brick spacing to look like columns that go all the way down. He wondered if it was a
rendering issue. Blackwelder said the front porch wall would be recessed between the columns. Highley said the
variation in plane helps. When asked about capping the columns, the applicant preferred rowlock brick to cap the
columns. A commission member reviewed that in April, the applicants proposed the three windows to have a
reflective barrier or coating. The applicant confirmed that these proposed windows would be normal windows
without that treatment. A commission member checked that the smaller window in the gable had also been
changed to a typical window. The applicant confirmed that. Highley checked whether a railing would be required.
The applicant said it would be, and that it would be pressure-treated wood and painted to match the trim. There
would be railings between the columns on the front porch, even though it was not on the elevation drawings.
Blackwelder showed a visual of 2-inch-by-2-inch square balusters.
The discussion then returned to the north elevation. Stacey Curelop proposed a trellis between the large window
and small window. Snyder said a trellis can be approved as a minor work. Highley said the commission wants it to
be a condition of approval. A commission member asked it to be the width of two windows. Stacey Curelop
agreed. Highley asked if there is a reason the head height is lower than the other window. When it was noted
there wasn’t a reason, he asked whether the proposed bottom of the window could stay where it is but the
window’s height be extended to match that of the other windows on that elevation. Farlow asked if it could be a
half window, with the same result that Highley was intending. The Curelops agreed to extend the height of that
window. Highley asked if, with those changes, the commission felt there was enough variation to be consistent
with the guidelines. Simmons asked for this window to be the same size as one on the west elevation. It would be
a four-lite window to match the rest of the house. Highley said the most important thing is that the top of the
window match the others on that elevation.
Highley continued to review the points listed in Snyder’s email and invited comments from the board. There were
no comments.
There was a question from the audience whether there could be further discussion on the setback of the house.
Highley said he thought the footprint moving a few feet in any direction would be approvable by Snyder.
Motion: Smith moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Drees Homes 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; New Construction of
Outbuildings and Garages; and Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-1 (Griffin)
Motion: Highley moved to approve as modified. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-1 (Griffin)
Page 7 of 16
Conditions: The applicants shall add landscaping along the driveway as noted to their modified plan presented at
the meeting as an overlay to the originally submitted plan; the HVAC units shall meet the setbacks,
be screened, and be located behind the front line of the house; the foyer window on the south
elevation shall be enlarged to match the size and pane configuration of one of the sunroom
windows, and the head height of the revised window shall align with the sunroom windows; the
garage door shall be a smooth texture and shall have absolutely no faux wood grain or faux door
hardware on the exterior; 4-inch flat wood trim shall be added around all windows and doors on all
elevations; the rear elevation shall have vertical board-and-batten Hardie siding matching that of the
front elevation as well as horizontal trim boards as drawn at the meeting on all rear gable ends; the
brick porch walls shall be recessed between the brick columns on the front porch; rowlock brick shall
cap all brick front porch columns; 2-inch-by-2-inch pressure-treated wood square baluster railings
painted the color of the trim shall be placed between front porch columns per the revised front
elevation submitted by the applicants at the meeting; a wood trellis shall be built between the small
window and the double windows on the north elevation as agreed to by the applicants; and the
small bathroom window on the north elevation shall be enlarged to match the size and pane
configuration of the window over the side-entry garage on the front elevation.
Item 6: (New Business) Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for CH Architects on behalf of Elizabeth
and Glenn Dicker to build a side and rear addition with MasterRib roofing and a stone chimney, to re-configure
existing window and door openings, to remove a concrete pad and shed, and to construct a new detached
front-entry, two-car garage at 318 W. Queen St. (9864-87-2602).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Highley said he needed to recuse himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.
Motion: Heilman moved to recuse Highley. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Farlow assumed the role of chair.
Snyder entered the staff report into the public record and summarized the application.
Reid Highley was sworn in to represent the applicant. Highley said it appeared the narrative did not make it into
the agenda packet. He said the MasterRib roof on the house is not old and, therefore, it makes sense to match the
existing roof rather than replace the current roof or have a mismatch of roofs. Highley said the stone was a client
preference and he thinks it is appropriate for this architecture. The marriage of stone and brick is common in a
Craftsman-style house. He shared examples in the district.
Farlow asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against this application.
William Spoon was sworn in. He said he wondered what was being done to prevent stormwater from running to
his lot, and he requested that any outdoor lights be directed down and/or interior to the lot so that light would
not spill onto his lot.
Highley said downspouts would be piped underground and drain to the ditch along the street. He said there
would be a lantern-style light next to the garage door and next to the front door. He was not aware of any
security lighting. He checked with the property owner who said no. William Spoon asked if the stone patio would
be lit. Highley said no lighting was planned at this time.
Page 8 of 16
Highley then answered questions from the commission. Heilman asked if Highley would consider not using
MasterRib on the garage. Highley said the thought with the garage was to be consistent with the main house and
that would be more appropriate. Highley said using a different roof may not only introduce a different profile but
also a different color and, therefore, may make the garage stand out more than intended. He explained where the
garage will be located on the site plan.
Heilman said it is such a pure Craftsman-style home, she thinks the stone chimney is characteristic of that style
home. She is very comfortable with it. Highley said one of the existing chimneys has been plastered over at some
point. When asked, he said the chimney would have a stone cap. Tapering the chimney is to reduce the bulky look
and is common to the Craftsman style, Highley said.
Highley said the concrete pad is approximately 8 feet squared and would be removed. He said someone wants to
move the shed to a site outside of the historic district. The shed is not historic in any way.
Regarding the proposed fencing, Highley pointed out where it would be between the curving brick wall and the
house, approximately 15 feet behind the front of the house, with another short section from the northeast corner
of the screened porch running to the wall of the garage. Between the garage and the existing privacy fence, the
Dickers would like to extend the privacy fence and that would screen their trash and recycling. Heilman said there
is a picket fence in front of this house and proximate to the location of the proposed fence. Highley said the
existing fence is only to screen the HVAC unit. Heilman asked why the applicant wouldn’t consider a wood picket
fence. Highley said it’s a client preference. Simmons said last month’s approval of a contemporary fence was for a
contemporary house. This is a Craftsman-style house and the picket fence would be appropriate. Heilman agreed.
Farlow agreed. There was consensus among the commission for a more traditional style of fencing. The owners
wanted to be able to see through the fence but were OK with pickets as long as they could be spaced far enough
apart to see through them.
Highley explained that a proposed smaller window was for a powder room. The door would be a Craftsman-style
paneled door.
Motion: Dowdle moved to close the public hearing on this item. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Elizabeth and Glenn Dicker 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: Additions to Existing Buildings; Roofs; New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages;
Relocation of Existing Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls; Windows and Doors;
Exterior Walls; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Paint and Exterior Color; Walkways, Driveways, and
Off-Street Parking; and Exterior Lighting. Smith seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to approve as modified. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: Proposed 5-foot aluminum fencing shall be replaced with 4-foot wood picket fencing in a Craftsman
style.
Item 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for William Spoon to screen in an existing carport and
add a wood landing and steps at the rear of 310 W. Queen St. (9864-87-4609).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Page 9 of 16
Vote: 7-0
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none.
Highley asked if someone was present to speak for this application. Spoon came forward.
Snyder read the staff report into the public record.
Highley asked whether there was anyone to speak for or against the application. There was no one.
Spoon answered questions from the commission. There is a framing plan for building the wood floor of the
screened porch. The steps would be all wood.
Highley asked if the screened door in the packet is what Spoon was proposing. Spoon answered no. Highley said
the decorative spindles in the photograph are what one would see on a Victorian house and suggested changing
the screened porch door to a simple design. Spoon agreed to that modification.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Farlow moved to find as fact that the William Spoon 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: Outbuildings and Garages; Exterior Walls; Porches, Entrances and Balconies. Smith
seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Farlow moved to approve the application as modified. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Conditions: The screened wood door shall be a 1-over-1 (two-paneled) design with no decorative spindles.
Item 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Tony Dowling to build a 384-square-foot shed and 4-
foot-tall wood picket fence at 328 Mitchell St. (9874-18-9223).
Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none.
Tony Dowling was sworn in.
Snyder read the staff report into the public record.
Dowling added that the fence on the east side, running from along the property line, is not a privacy fence. There
is a French Gothic style picket fence on the corner of Cameron and Caine streets. He said it is a standard style. He
likes the double pickets. On the side, he is happy to go to the property line, but visually he thinks it would have a
nice appeal if it ran halfway and screened the HVAC unit and recycling and trash receptacles.
Highley asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the application. There was no one.
Page 10 of 16
Simmons questioned whether a 42-inch fence would be tall enough to screen the trash and recycling receptacles.
Snyder noted that the applicant’s plans did not show the fence extending all the way to the house along the
Mitchell Street elevation. He asked the applicant to confirm that the fence would go all the way to the house and
Dowling said the fence would go in front of the concrete pad for the HVAC unit and would connect to the house.
The commission then discussed the shed. Regarding the red color, Farlow noted his shed and a shed belonging to
one of his neighbors are also red. The commission expressed reservations about approving a Classic Rib roof.
Commission members expressed a preference for a 5V metal roof. Dowling was amenable to making that
modification. He would prefer for the roof color to be gray or white and not black. Dowling plans to use a salvaged
door on the shed. He plans for the door and trim to be white. The window on the front of the shed would be a
salvaged window. Highley asked if he would be willing to bring the window to Snyder for approval once he finds
what he wants. Dowling said that he would and that he would like to find a leaded stained-glass window. The
commission members said that was fine.
Commission members said they were fine with the French Gothic style double picket fence.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Tony Dowling application is in keeping with the overall
character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the
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: Fences and Walls; New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages; Paint and Exterior
Color. Farlow seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application as modified. Farlow seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Conditions: Shed shall have white doors and trim; roofing shall be 5V galvalume finish; the leaded glass window
shall be approved by staff prior to installation; and the double picket wood fence along Mitchell Street
shall extend in front of the HVAC unit to the house.
Item 9: After-the-fact application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Bold Construction on behalf of
Kathleen and Reed Johnson to construct a boulder wall, to remove a tree required by condition to be retained
within the stream buffer, to change the front and side doors, to add a stovepipe chimney visible from the front
elevation, to remove a side roof projection and change the roof line, and to reduce the size of a screened porch
at 324 W. Tryon St. (9864-87-1005).
Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Farlow seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Highley asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did.
Jason Dell was sworn in.
Snyder read the staff report into the record, noting he would be summarizing at times because the staff report is
several pages long.
Page 11 of 16
Dell added that there is egress from the side porch. The texture on the garage door is not a stamped wood grain
linear pattern but a pock-marked grain pattern. It would be painted. Smith said the commission was not kidding
when it said no grain; that is what we tell everybody.
Dell said the lower boulder wall has been removed and the driveway has been shifted back to the left and to its
originally-designed width. He is surprised about the purported removal of the 22-inch oak tree, as it was not
shown as one to be removed and does not remember removing that tree. He would need to check his photo
documentation on that.
Dell said there was a mismatched grade line that brought the lower elevation closer to the front corner of the
house which compelled the builder to switch the garage to the left side in order to avoid having to build a
significant retaining wall.
Dell said regarding the chimney, the height cannot be reduced because it is the minimum height off the roof to
meet code for this specific fireplace. It is a wood-burning fireplace with additional technology that requires it to
be 5 feet off the roof, which puts it 2 feet above the ridgeline. Dell said he could build a chimney structure with
metal siding, which would leave 1 foot exposed if the Commission desired.
Highley suggested circling back to the garage door. He said a few months ago the commission approved a pebbled
texture on a garage door. He cannot tell from this picture whether it is faux wood grain. Highley said if it is faux
wood grain, then it was made clear the garage door could not have a faux wood grain. Snyder said he had also
sent an email reminding the applicant of this.
Kathleen Johnson was sworn in. Dell said the plan was to paint the garage door and make the wood grain go
away. Snyder re-read the condition of approval that there not be a grain. Highley asked the commission whether
it would be acceptable if the door is painted in a way that the wood grain is obscured. Commission members said
the requirement is for a smooth door and the paint would possibly not cover the wood grain.
Reed Johnson was sworn in. Johnson asked if he could try to sand the garage door and have Snyder come out to
inspect it. Snyder said he does not want to be in a position of determining whether the wood grain has been
sanded smooth. Dell proposed saying the door would be replaced with a smooth door or the grain would be
smoothed using a technique. The decision was made to require the garage door to be replaced with a smooth
door to meet the original approval condition.
Dell said the width on the screened porch was reduced by 6 feet and there is egress (it has steps). Highley said the
design is the same, but it is not as long. Commission members said Dell should have consulted Snyder about the
change, but it is not a substantial change. Snyder also asked about the egress from the porch that is missing. Dell
stated that they would be building that.
Highley said the angled side roof porch was changed. Snyder asked if the commission is OK with the new roofline
extended out. Highley did not object. Neither did other commission members.
Highley turned the discussion to the new front door. He said this is a very contemporary house with a lot of things
that are unusual architecturally. He does not think making the doors and windows like neighboring properties
would be appropriate. A comment was made that the intention of this house was to be a Craftsman-style house.
Highley said he would not describe this as a Craftsman-style house. Heilman said the door as originally drawn was
more consistent with the house’s overall architecture. Highley said he would agree with that. Kathleen Johnson
said she picked this door because it was more discreet than the door that was approved. Dowdle said the previous
door seems more in keeping with the character of the house and the neighborhood. Farlow said he originally
voted against this project and he is still against it. He said the house does not fit the character of the district
Page 12 of 16
overall. Highley noted the commission decided that the door has to be changed back to the originally-approved
door.
Highley asked for the commission’s thoughts on the double side doors. Commission members said the rain glass is
not appropriate as a window treatment. Dell asked if the existing doors would be appropriate if the glass is clear.
A majority of commission members said the doors could stay if they have clear or even frosted glass, or the
applicant could choose to replace the doors with the originally-approved doors.
Regarding the chimney, Dell had already explained that it has to be higher than he had originally thought. Highley
did not like the idea of creating a 2-foot-by-2-foot faux surround for the chimney. He would rather see the
chimney pipe. Reed Johnson said the chimney flue cannot be seen from the neighbor’s. Snyder said he took the
photograph from the neighbor’s property below the stream buffer.
Camille Cover was sworn in. She said she lives across the street and walks on this street frequently. She thinks the
chimney flue goes with the contemporary house and noted that the commission approved a contemporary house.
Commission members said they are OK with the chimney flue being taller than approved.
Regarding vertical posts added to the porch, Highley said it sounds like it was a practical concern. Dell said a
structural engineer said the vertical posts were needed. Commission members said the posts could stay.
Regarding the 20-inch oak tree, there was a letter from a certified arborist, so Highley said it seemed fairly clear-
cut. It was noted that Snyder should have been presented with the letter before the tree was removed.
Regarding the 22-inch oak tree, Dell said if it was on our plans to keep, we would not have taken it. He will look at
pre-construction photographs. Dell said the 15-inch oak is not on the original plans but on the revised plans. Reed
Johnson said there was extensive discussion about a diseased tree. The Johnsons said they tried to save a
diseased tree that ultimately had to be removed. They would not have knowingly taken out a healthy tree.
Heilman said a large area has been regraded and there is now a steep slope. There is no plan for replacing trees
and no proposal of what would be planted in the regraded area. Snyder quickly reviewed the revised landscaping
plan with Heilman. Heilman asked what size trees would be planted. Kathleen Johnson answered 1.5-inch caliper
trees. Simmons asked why the Johnsons were proposing to plant white oaks. Kathleen Johnson said an oak was
removed so she thought it should be replaced with an oak, and the white oaks drop acorns every year, which she
likes.
Heilman asked what happens to the steep slope now that the boulders have been removed from the lower
portion. Dell answered it is just a natural slope. Heilman said there are two trees on it and no plan to retain the
slope. Dell said that is correct. Kathleen Johnson said she would plant rye grass to temporarily hold the soil in
place and she would wait until the fall to plant replacement plantings. She would like to replace the plants that
there were there with plants such as Virginia creeper, natural viburnum, natural grasses and native ferns to hold
the soil in place. Heilman said that what is missing for her is a comprehensive landscaping plan. Highley said that
was not part of the original plan. Heilman said the original plan did not include disturbing this area. Kathleen
Johnson said she would bring the landscaping plan to a future meeting.
Regarding the retaining wall, part of it has been replaced by timbers, Dell said. Reed Johnson indicated which
portion of the boulder wall they planned to keep and where they planned to have a timbered terrace. The timbers
are proposed to be pressure-treated wood timbers, basically 6-by-6 railroad ties. Heilman asked if there was
thought to a masonry stone retaining wall to replace the boulders. Dell said we have thought about it and he is
not sure what the Johnsons would prefer. Dell said the boulder wall was chosen because it is natural and his
company uses it on other custom homes. Reed Johnson said there was a miscommunication about the boulders.
He said the Johnsons did not understand that Dell would bring in a lot of boulders. Smith cited Page 46 of the
Page 13 of 16
guidelines, specifically No. 8, that new fences and walls be designed and be compatible with other fences and
walls in the district. She said retaining walls in the district are usually not made of wood timbers. She cited a
recent example of a masonry wall built on West King Street, which was segmental block. Highley said this house is
woodsy and the intent is for it to blend in with its surroundings and a wood retaining wall would help it do that.
Smith said stone would be more in keeping with the historic district. Reed Johnson said he met with a hardscape
professional this week who is drawing up a stone wall plan. Commission members said that the wall design should
be tabled until the Johnsons can present those plans. Kathleen Johnson asked if this meant that they cannot move
into the house until the Historic District Commission approves the plans they need to bring back in August
(retaining wall and landscaping). There was discussion. Snyder explained the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be
issued until there is a Certificate of Appropriateness. Hornik said the Certificate of Appropriateness could be
approved tonight with conditions to bring back plans. Simmons noted there are stormwater approvals needed.
Snyder said he cannot sign off on the Certificate of Appropriateness until the stormwater division approves the
stormwater plan.
Heilman said she feels that there should be a comprehensive plan.
Snyder suggested a condition that the retaining wall be an engineered stone. Smith asked if Snyder could review
the retaining wall. Snyder said he could review it, but the commission needs to determine the material. Reed
Johnson expressed proposal for natural cut stone. There was agreement that Snyder would review the plan for
the stone retaining wall and approve it or send it to the Historic District Commission if he was not comfortable
approving it. There was agreement that the disturbed area would be temporarily planted with grass and that a full
landscaping plan would be submitted to Snyder.
Kathleen Johnson asked if they can keep the rocks that are original to the site. Commission members asked if they
are in their original places. Kathleen Johnson said no. Snyder suggested she include them in her landscaping plan.
Regarding the driveway and the little fence, Smith said the shorter fence height and split-rail design is
incongruous, but she understands them wanting to have something along the driveway. Commission members
suggested a vegetated border in lieu of a fence.
Highley said the stream buffer would be addressed by the stormwater division.
Regarding the steps from the driveway to the yard, Reed Johnson said the same stone used for the retaining wall
would be used. What is there now would be taken out.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Bold Construction 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: Roofs; New Construction of Primary Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Windows and
Doors; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Decks;
Fences and Walls. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-1 (Farlow)
Motion: Highley moved to approve the application as modified. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-1 (Farlow)
Page 14 of 16
Conditions: The garage door shall be removed and replaced with a smooth finish steel or fiberglass door with
absolutely no wood grain or texture; the area where the driveway was scaled back shall be restored
to a natural condition via a revised landscaping plan to be submitted for review and approval by the
Historic District Commission based on stormwater requirements for stream buffer mitigation; the
reduction of the driveway back to the approved location is approved; the removal of the lower
boulder wall is approved; the reduction in porch size is approved as submitted with egress via wood
steps as shown; the change in the roof line on the west elevation is approved as built; the front door
shall be removed and changed back to the original 5-glass panel mahogany wood door with clear,
etched, or frosted glass panes; the rain glass panes on the west elevation double fiberglass doors shall
be removed and replaced with clear, etched, or frosted glass (alternatively, the original design for the
doors may also be used with the same restrictions on the glass); the chimney flue may remain as built;
the additional vertical porch posts may remain as built; the 20-inch and 22-inch oak trees removed
without permission shall be mitigated by replanting a minimum of two 1.5-inch caliper white oak
trees on site; rye grass is to be planted where the additional driveway area was scaled back to
stabilize the slope and shall be supplemented with additional plantings to be approved by the Historic
District Commission as part of the revised landscaping plan submittal; all boulders not originally
located on the property shall be removed from the property, and an engineered plan for a natural cut
stone retaining wall shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to its construction along
with revised elevations and a picture of the stone to be used in the wall; the natural rock steps shall
be removed and replaced with natural cut stone matching the approved retaining wall stone and shall
be submitted to and reviewed by staff; original rocks on the site shall be shown on the revised
landscaping plan with the final location to be determined by the Historic District Commission; the
fence along the driveway as proposed shall be replaced with plantings to be shown on the revised
landscaping plan to be approved by the Historic District Commission; and finally, the Certificate of
Appropriateness shall not be approved until the stormwater manager signs it stating that stream
buffer impacts have been or will be appropriately mitigated; all other conditions and designs from
previous approvals shall remain as previously approved.
Item10: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Drew Blum to build a retaining wall in the front and
side yard at 310 N. Hassell St. (9864-87-8701).
Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Smith seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none.
Drew Blum was sworn in.
Snyder read the staff report into the public record.
Highley asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against the application. There was no one.
Blum answered questions from the commission. The wall steps back and he is not sure how much, but it is
shallow.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Farlow moved to find as fact that the Drew Blum 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
Page 15 of 16
Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines:
Fences and Walls; Site Features and Plantings. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Motion: Farlow moved to approve the application as submitted. Smith seconded.
Vote: 7-0
Conditions: None
Item11: Preliminary review of proposed modifications to the building and site at 153 W. King St. (9864-96-
8196).
Snyder reviewed the staff report. Hornik reminded the commission that this review is to gain feedback from the
commission before the Board of Commissioners votes on the special use permit.
Justin Fejfar was present to explain the proposed modifications. He explained the intent with the design was to
have space for outdoor weddings. Commission members asked questions and made comments.
General comments included:
• Non-security lighting needs to be low to the ground, pedestrian-scale, and inconspicuous. This lighting should
shine to avoid light infiltration on adjacent properties or the building.
• Proposed seating wall is appropriate.
• A visual barrier along the front property line to the edge of the handicapped ramp into the building should be
considered. This could be in the form of a brick or natural stone wall or wood picket fence up to 4 feet tall.
• A gate of appropriate materials (such as wood or iron) should be a considered addition at the front entry brick
walkway along with possibly adding an archway over the gate with a minimum of 8 feet of clearance under
the archway for pedestrians.
• The Historic District Commission will take into consideration upgrades and repairs to the lower front sidewalk
along King Street in front of the inn for improved accessibility. This would be dependent on the ultimate
design and scope of the proposed changes or repairs.
• The upper front sidewalk under the building’s porch should be only minimally repaired to allow for egress
from the building and to level as much as practical while maintaining the original materials and integrity of the
walkway.
• Fences around the proposed trash and recycling area may be up to 8 feet tall and shall be made of wood
privacy panels.
• Plantings should be green year-round as much as practical, so the applicant should replace proposed bushes
with native evergreen species, including but not limited to Catawba rhododendrons, holly, or laurels.
• Applicant should decide if gardens proposed would be “period” gardens or contemporary gardens and plan
the associated plantings accordingly.
• A brick or stone fountain should be considered to integrate into hardscaping perhaps at the end of the entry
brick walkway or on the existing rear patio.
• All of the proposed pergolas should be reduced in overall scale to be pedestrian-scale. Additionally, if the
gate and archway are to be constructed along King Street, the two pergolas over the entry brick walkway
should be removed.
• The firepit locations are appropriate since they are temporary, and all locations shall provide the minimum
separation from the building required by fire code and building code.
• The proposed entry door on the addition on the west elevation should be covered with some form of
overhang consisting of appropriate materials to break up the flat façade.
• All proposed railings on the site and in the right of way should match and be of a design approved elsewhere
in town and of wrought-iron or other high-quality metal. Applicants should consult with the public space
manager and North Carolina Department of Transportation regarding appropriate railing design options.
Page 16 of 16
• The original eastern wing should not be concealed per Page 39 of the design guidelines, No. 3. If feasible, the
applicant should consider separating the proposed eastern addition with a breezeway or courtyard to reopen
the original east façade.
• The projection on the flat roof in the center of the building should be reduced so as not to be visible from the
front elevation.
• The applicant needs to coordinate the requirements and comments from the State Historic Preservation
Office and the National Park Service with the Hillsborough Historic District Commission to reconcile any
differences in interpretation of the guidelines for the exterior of the building.
• Pavers as labeled would be regular bricks for interior hardscapes.
• The addition should not overwhelm the original building, so special attention should be paid to its scale and
form relative to the original building.
• New utility service lines on site, including electrical, should be buried.
• Attempt to recycle the large hand-carved wooden timbers in the existing building somewhere else on site,
including possibly for one of the pergolas.
• Consider wood siding on the rear building additions, as the interior materials will differentiate the age of the
building, but wood is more appropriate on this building.
• Consider possibly separating the new addition from the original building.
• If possible, reconfigure the rear building so that a small section of central roof is not visible from the front
elevation.
Item 12: Updates
The commission acknowledged it was Farlow’s last meeting and expressed appreciation to him for his service on
the commission. Snyder reported that there will be a full agenda for August and at that time a vice-chair will be
elected. He reminded the board that the town’s quarterly public hearing for consideration of the Colonial Inn’s
special use permit application would be July 19 and that a member of the commission, preferably the chair,
should be present to speak and present the commission’s comments as needed.
Item 13: Adjourn
Motion: Heilman moved to adjourn at 1:20 a.m. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 7-0