HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-06-2019 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 10
Minutes
Historic District Commission
7 p.m. March 6, 2019
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Chair Reid Highley, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons and Virginia Smith
Staff: Town Attorney Kevin Hornik, Planning Technician Taylor Perschau, Public Information Specialist Cheryl
Sadgrove and Planner Justin Snyder
Guests: David Cates, Donna Edwards, Will Senner, David Swanson, Atef Takla, Jane Vacchiano, and Charles
Woods
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Reid Highley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Planner Justin Snyder called the roll and confirmed the
presence of a quorum.
2. Reading of the commission’s mission statement
Highley read the statement.
3. Adjustments to the agenda
It was noted that Commission Member Candice Cobb wished to give an update on training she had attended.
4. Minutes review and approval
A. Minutes from the regular meeting Jan. 2, 2019
Cobb made a correction to Page 2: Diane Eckland was the architect and not the contractor.
Commission Member Jill Heilman made a correction to the Updates section: Heilman wanted to communicate
through the Public Information Office the status of the historic house located on the former Daniel Boone Village
property.
Motion: Commission Member Laura Simmons moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commission
Member Max Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Changes: Noted above.
5. Old Business
There was none.
6. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 108 S. Churton St. — Applicant Colleen St. John requests after-the-
fact approval to hang a printed aluminum sign over the public right-of-way in front of Saratoga Grill at 108 S.
Churton St. (PIN: 9874-06-4153).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Page 2 of 10
Highley asked commission members whether they had any conflicts of interest regarding this application. No one
did.
Donna Edwards and Jane Vacchiano were sworn in. They explained that Colleen St. John, who owns the Saratoga
Grill, could not be here this evening and they were representing her. They own the shop on the first floor of the
building.
Snyder reviewed the staff report for this application. He said the Historic District Commission had recently
prohibited this type of hanging sign because thin printed metal signage was appropriate only for flat mounting
against a building and not for hanging due to its light weight and pedestrian safety concerns. He referred to the
sign guidelines as well.
Edwards said St. John had replaced the existing sign with a similar sign and did not think she needed to seek
approval for a similar replacement. She had replaced the sign because it had begun to peel. Snyder said the
peeling is a main reason why that material is not permitted. He noted that wood signs and non-printed metal
signs are permitted.
Edwards asked which businesses have a wooden sign. Snyder and the commission named several businesses.
Vacchiano asked how this sign is different from the sign of Coldwell Banker. Snyder answered that some signs
were mounted before this Guideline was made.
Vacchiano said the previous sign for the Saratoga Grill had been hanging for about 20 years. Snyder said there was
no zoning permit issued.
Highley said it is understandable why St. John had thought that she could replace her sign with a similar sign. The
design guidelines change, and this is a case of bad timing.
Snyder said nonprinted metal hanging signs have been prohibited in the guidelines since 2014. He also explained
that all signs are subject to control of the zoning ordinance whether they are new or replacement.
Edwards said the new sign cost St. John a significant amount of money. Snyder said the commission unfortunately
cannot consider the cost to the applicant when weighing a decision.
Highley asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against this application. No one did.
Heilman asked whether the business owners have explored any ways to bring the sign into compliance. The
commission said there was no problem with the scale of the sign but only with the lack of durability and thickness
of the material. Edwards and Vacchiano were told the lettering on the sign would need to be painted or affixed.
Edwards and Vacchiano asked whether St. John could hang the old sign. Snyder said the sign had lost its
grandfathered status by being taken down and St. John could not come into compliance by rehanging it. Edwards
pointed out that the old one had just started to peel after 20 years.
When Edwards and Vacchiano asked what options St. John had, Heilman suggested a wood sign be made in the
same design. Snyder said painting or affixing lettering to a wood sign could be appropriate. Snyder said a local
woodworking teacher was creating a sign for a new restaurant for $100 and could be a good resource, or that St.
John could buy wood and stencil the letters herself to save cost.
Page 3 of 10
Edwards asked if the sign had to be taken down immediately or whether there could be a grace period until a new
sign is made.
Town Attorney Kevin Hornik said if the commission votes against the sign, it becomes a burden of staff to issue a
notice of violation. He would not say there is a grace period but said so long as staff is kept apprised of what is
being done, there is no reason why this cannot be resolved without civil penalties.
Snyder said 30 days is a reasonable amount of time.
Edwards asked if there is anything that can be done to the sign to make it appropriate. Cobb suggested that the
sign maker would still have the digital file for the lettering and the graphic for this sign, and that it probably would
not cost very much to make the same sign in wood.
Snyder explained that he would be the one to approve the new sign as a Minor Works. He explained how to find
the guidelines on the website that refer to signage guidelines. Vacchiano said that St. John had already paid $140
to the Town of Hillsborough for a zoning permit and late fee for this sign. Snyder explained the fee for another
Minor Works review is $10.
Smith clarified that some types of metal signs are OK and referred to Page 57 of the Hillsborough Historic District
Design Guidelines.
Motion: Smith moved to close the public hearing. Cobb seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Colleen St. John application is not 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 not consistent with the Historic District Design
Guidelines: Signage. Smith seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to deny the application. Smith seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: The applicant shall have 30 days to appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment, and the applicant
shall have 30 days from the date of the Historic District Commission’s decision to remove the non-
compliant sign or civil penalties will be assessed.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 233 Thomas Ruffin St. — Applicant Charles Woods on behalf of 223
Thomas Ruffin Street LLC requests approval to demolish a circa 1940, contributing house in order to build a
new 2258-square-foot, two-story home with attached breezeway and two-car garage at 233 Thomas Ruffin St.
(PIN: 9874-28-0083).
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. No one did.
David Cates, Atef Takla and Charles Woods were sworn in.
Page 4 of 10
Snyder reviewed the staff report. The first portion of the application is to demolish the existing house, which is in
a condition of squalor. There is mold, and the rear porch is falling down. The interior would have to be gutted to
the studs and refurbished to make it livable. The second portion of the application is construction of a new home,
which would be 32.5 feet tall. Snyder said the commission needs to look at the context of the surrounding homes
and consider the mass and scale of the current house. He described the proposal for the house, which is in the
staff report. Snyder pointed out a 6-lite window on the front elevation may not be appropriate because all the
other windows are 4-lite. The applicant is also proposing to remove a 15-inch tulip poplar tree. Snyder reviewed
the proposed landscaping plan.
Cates said that the hickory tree listed to be removed is no longer going to be removed. A neighbor had correctly
identified the tree as a buckeye tree, and Woods wished to move the driveway to keep the buckeye. Cates
explained the turnaround area could be moved north to accommodate the tree and said he would work with staff
to accommodate the tree.
Takla reviewed the deteriorated condition of the house. He said the foundation is in bad shape. There’s no way
for the ceiling to meet code; and when the ceiling, walls, and roof are removed, there is no way to meet code.
Heilman said she can understand from the photographs that the house needs a new roof. She said the inside walls
can be reconfigured however an owner wishes. She has seen homes renovated that were in such a state of
deterioration that the joists were failing. Dowdle said the house he recently renovated on the corner of West King
and South Nash streets was in this state of deterioration. Snyder said there are other examples of houses that
needed a lot of work, such as Tony Dowling’s house on Caine Street and Meagan Carmichael’s house on North
Occoneechee Street.
Takla said there is no footing for this house. Structurally, anything can be restored, but it is not economical to
restore this house, Takla said. Heilman said cost is not a factor the commission can consider. Heilman asked if
renovating the house is achievable. Takla said it is achievable with a lot of cost. Cates said anything is achievable
with no budget. Cobb said our decision is to consider whether it is the right thing to do. This house is not the
Colonial Inn. Highley said if you replace the entire foundation, siding and roof, it would almost be rebuilding the
house instead of preserving it.
Woods said the house is dangerous and smells of rot. Heilman asked Woods to secure the front door, which had
been left open.
Dowdle said he had to take his newly renovated house down to the studs. The commission is trying to preserve
structures, and this house is a contributing structure. Dowdle noted cost was an issue for him, so he did his own
digging to prepare the new foundation for his home renovation.
Highley said another consideration is the commission could delay demolition by one year at most.
Snyder said the delay would be intended to give the owner time to sell the structure to someone who would
preserve the house or move it offsite. He reiterated that this is a 1940s ranch house and is a contributing
structure.
Cates said the structure he moved and rebuilt was in bad shape, but he thinks the difference is that although this
building is contributing, it is not significant. Dowdle’s structure was significant. The cottage he moved was
significant. That’s the difference.
The commission shared thoughts on the demolition request. Dowdle said he could vote to approve the demolition
of this house because it lacks significance. Cobb said she could vote for demolition because so much work would
Page 5 of 10
be done to renovate it that it wouldn’t be the same house. Heilman would like to see renovation options. Highley
said the commission can only delay demolition a year, so demolition is an inevitability. He agrees with the
significance argument. Simmons said she could vote in favor of demolition because of health and public safety
issues of leaving the house as it is for another year. Smith is in favor of the demolition and noted that Guideline 3
on Page 64 encourages salvaging anything that can be salvaged. She advised Woods to salvage the fireplace
mantel.
Snyder said in general the commission discourages demolition. The commission could do more outreach, more
knocking on doors and talking to people to prevent demolition. Heilman expressed concern that smaller buildings
are considered less significant.
Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Charles Woods application for demolition of 233 Thomas Ruffin
St. 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: Demolition of Existing Buildings. Cobb seconded.
Vote: 5-1 (Heilman nay)
Motion: Smith moved to approve the demolition portion of the application as submitted. Cobb seconded.
Vote: 5-1 (Heilman nay)
Cates said he wanted to add to the narrative that in discussion about massing and coverage, it should be noted
that 320 Mitchell St. is located behind the back yard of this structure. He said 320 Mitchell St. is a full two-story
with a taller crawl space than what is proposed for this new house. He thinks the height of the proposed house
may be a little higher than the house he is referencing. The pitch of the roof is integral with the design, so he
would rather not reduce the pitch. The house he is referencing covers more of its lot than this proposed house
would of this lot. This house would use about the same portion of its lot as Charles Woods’ adjacent house does
of its lot.
Cates showed a photograph of a boxed bay window. It gives it a bit of historical feel or is an interpretation of an
historical feature, he said. It projects about 16 inches off the front of the house and it would be cantilevered. The
roof on it would look flat and would be copper. The house is modeled off the Cates’ house on South Wake Street.
The garage appears detached, which is more in keeping with the character of the district, but it is not detached.
Highley asked the board for concerns and questions.
Simmons said she is concerned that the proposed guest parking area would be on top of the large tree’s roots in
the front yard. Woods said he can remove the guest parking.
Cobb asked if Woods would be installing tree protection fencing while constructing the new house. Woods said
yes.
When Smith asked how the front line of the house lined up with that of the Swansons’ house to the south, David
Swanson asked to speak.
Swanson was sworn in. He said the distance to the street would be similar to his house. He appreciates that the
proposed house is a very similar footprint to the existing house. Cates showed an overlay of the existing house
and the proposed house. Cates showed that the new house would sit back farther from Thomas Ruffin Street than
the existing house. Hornik asked for the overlay to be included in the record.
Page 6 of 10
The board then discussed materials and elevations proposed for the new house.
Materials
Woods said all exposed foundation would be brick. The roof shingles would be black. The front door would be
mahogany. There’s a swatch for the other doors, which would be a light olive color called jalapeno.
Snyder reminded Woods that the floodlights need to be fully shielded and downward facing. Snyder asked why
one was proposed for the front. Heilman thinks a floodlight on a character-defining elevation is inconsistent with
the design guidelines. Woods said there does not have to be one on the front.
Woods explained he is proposing a 6-foot fence to screen the HVAC unit because he is also planning to install a
tankless water heater, which would be taller than the HVAC unit. Highley said there could be a condition that the
fence can be as tall as is needed to conceal what’s behind it but no taller.
The wooden steps to the screen porch would be stained. Woods said he may want them to be brick. The
commission said that could be decided later as a Minor Works.
The corner boards are 4 inches. The width of the Hardie plank reveal is 6 inches.
Front elevation
Simmons asked about the height of the porch above the ground. Woods said 21 inches. There would be three 7-
inch risers, which is exactly what it is at his adjacent house. Woods said the crawl space would be dug out and the
house sunk into the ground. Cates said most houses on Mitchell Street do not have many steps to the front door.
This design is in keeping with that.
Snyder asked if the small bathroom window upstairs would open. Cates and Woods said yes, it would be a
casement window.
Smith said she had a concern about the small window. She cited Guideline 8 on Page 35, regarding new
construction of primary buildings. She said she is concerned about this small window being dramatically different
from the other windows on the front elevation. Cates said the applicant could change it to match other windows
on the elevation. The smaller window was proposed because it is a bathroom. Highley said he reads that same
guideline to mean to consider whether the window is appropriate and not necessarily within a single elevation.
Smith said the small window is very incongruous with the rest of the front of the house; it would be more in
keeping with the guidelines if it were much more like the window to the left of it. Dowdle said that was especially
true because the boxed bay window is also proposed for the front elevation.
Cates showed an inspiration photograph of a house with a boxed bay window and two small windows on the
second story. Smith said two would make the small window more acceptable. Smith thinks the small window is
incompatible in proportion. Dowdle agrees. Simmons said in other houses on Mitchell Street, the bathroom and
kitchen windows are small. Smith said those small windows aren’t located above the front door. Heilman is
concerned, too. Heilman said in the inspiration photo, the 6-lite boxed bay window is consistent with the other
windows. She thinks in the proposed house, some of the incongruity comes from proposing a 6-lite boxed bay
window instead of a 4-lite. Woods said 4-lite would be OK.
There was discussion about the dimension of the windows. Cates said the proposed boxed bay window would be
a 4-by-6 window. The others would be 3 by 6, and the second story would have 3-by-5 windows. Cates also
agreed to change the boxed bay window to a 4-lite. Highley agreed this would be appropriate. Heilman said with
that change she was no longer concerned about the small bathroom window.
Page 7 of 10
Highley said he thinks having visual support under the boxed bay window would be more in keeping with the
district than having a cantilevered boxed window. Cates and Woods agreed to that change.
The gable vent was corrected on the plans; it was noted that the trim around all gable vents will match casings on
windows and doors.
Rear/west elevation
The gable vent correction was noted on this elevation.
It was determined that the wood posts on the screened porch would be white to match the trim.
South elevation
The applicant was reminded no faux grain can be on the garage doors. Woods said he would be installing the
same garage doors as he has on his adjacent house.
The gable vent correction was noted again.
Smith asked Woods whether he had considered swapping the plan so that the driveway is on the Woods’ side
rather than on the Swansons’ side. Cates said this plan keeps the massing of the house away from the Swansons
and creates an opportunity for a south-facing courtyard.
Woods said the utilities are located on his side, away from the Swansons.
North elevation
It was confirmed that there would be no overhang on the door. The crawl space door would be similar to Woods’
and would be at least 32 or 36 inches tall, as required by code. Cates explained the height and width of the crawl
space door is required by code.
The fence around the HVAC unit would be painted white.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Charles Woods 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; Fences and Walls; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking;
Site Features and Plantings; Exterior Lighting; New Construction of Primary Buildings; and New
Construction of Outbuildings and Garages. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Highley moved to approve the application with conditions. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: For the new construction, the driveway shall be modified to save the buckeye tree, and a new
drawing reflecting all required changes will be submitted to staff prior to construction; the projecting
bay window shall be a 4-lite window and shall have flat copper roofing, and it shall rest upon a brick
foundation extending to the ground; the guest parking space in front of the home shall be removed;
all vents shall have the same trim profiles as the windows; the front floodlight shall be removed, and
the floodlights in the side and rear shall be fully shielded and oriented downward; the HVAC fence
Page 8 of 10
shall be painted white and shall only be as tall as required to screen the mechanical items from view
and no taller; all exposed foundation shall be brick; all siding shall be smooth Hardie with a 6-inch
reveal; the screened porch framing shall be painted white, and the steps to the screened porch shall
be wood or brick; the garage doors shall have no faux wood grain; and tree protection fencing shall be
installed around all trees to be preserved to the edge of the drip line of their canopies prior to
commencing any site work.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 103 E. Queen St. — Applicants William and Kathryn Senner request
approval to relocate an existing interior yard, wood picket fence to the northern property line and north side of
the existing driveway and to construct a new full-length, front-yard, painted wood picket fence with three
gates along East Queen Street (PIN: 9874-07-6697).
Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest among the commission members. There was none.
Will Senner was sworn in.
Snyder read the staff report. Snyder said the intention of the request to place a gate in front of the house is to
protect the applicants’ small children, but there is a tremendous amount of fencing on this site already. He thinks
it would be more appropriate to place locks on interior doors rather than adding fencing. Snyder said staff
recommends modifying the proposal to move the fence back in line with the front of the house, but added that
staff was in favor of the proposed fencing realignment on the north property line.
Senner said the request to straighten out the fencing to match the rear property line is for safety when his sister-
in-law commences constructing her home on adjacent property to the north. Senner said the fencing he is
proposing in front of the house could be placed much lower than the porch.
Highley asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. No one did.
Commission members said it made sense to realign the fence along the northern property line.
Senner said he also would like to locate the front fence behind the stone knee wall in front of the house.
Heilman said she could not readily approve a fence in front of the house. There are a few fences in front of
houses, but it is not the general character of the district. She does not feel it is consistent with the fencing
guidelines. She thinks the fence should be located behind the front corner of the house on the east and west
ends. Highley asked Heilman if her opinion would change if the fence was shorter. Heilman said no.
Cobb said Guideline 10 on Page 47 says to site fences on the side or rear of the house. Highley said that guideline
states that simple utilitarian fences should be sited on the side or rear. This fence is painted and not a simple
utilitarian fence. He thinks there is leeway to approve the request. Highley said he has a hard time arguing against
this because he successfully argued for putting fencing in front of his house. There was some fencing in front of
his house, but he received permission to extend it. He also is taking into consideration that the proposed fencing
is so much lower than the house because of the topography in front of the house. Senner said the fencing could
be even lower. Snyder asked what the point of the fence was then if it was lowered.
Cobb said Highley’s situation was very different. She wouldn’t compare the two.
Page 9 of 10
Simmons noted concern that the child Senner is trying to protect has autism.
Senner said every child with autism is different. His daughter is 2½ and runs suddenly. He and his wife want the
fence for an extra 15-second buffer from the street to catch their daughter.
Simmons asked Hornik if there are Americans with Disabilities Act considerations with this request. Hornik said
that while individuals on the commission are naturally concerned with the safety of the applicant’s children, this
committee has to consider whether the decision meets the guidelines and that ADA does not apply to this
commission’s decisions.
Simmons checked whether the commission has the right to deny the request as long as the decision is backed by
the guidelines. Hornik said if the board finds that pushing the fence to the property line is not consistent, then the
committee can make whatever decision it reaches.
Heilman said the request does not meet Guideline 8 for Fences and Walls.
Several commission members said the fencing could be moved to align with the front of the house but could not
be placed in front of the house.
Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the William and Kathryn Senner 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. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Smith moved to approve the application as modified during discussion and recorded by staff.
Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions: The relocation of the stepped rear fence to the rear property is approved as submitted. The front
fence on the southern property line shall be modified to extend along the front line of the main
structure, exclusive of the front porch and may extend along that plane from the eastern property line
to the existing fence along North Churton Street. Revised drawings shall be submitted to staff prior to
issuance of a zoning compliance permit for construction of the fence.
7. Updates
A. Consideration of nominees for 2019 Local Preservation Awards
Snyder reviewed the list of projects for consideration. The commission selected numbers 1 and 4-6.
The commission discussed categories and decided the Dowdle project would receive an award for innovative
repurposing of an historic structure, the Brick Berry House project would receive an award for a well-done
addition to a significant historical structure, the Sedlacks project would receive an award for the preservation of a
minimal traditional house (underdog award), and the Dyers project would receive an award for going above and
beyond by investing in a new foundation by raising their house. It was agreed that Snyder would fine-tune the
wording and send his proposed language to the commission by email.
B. Demolition by Neglect discussion
Page 10 of 10
Snyder suggested that it would be helpful for the commission to invite Planning Director Margaret Hauth to meet
with the commission to talk about this topic.
Heilman shared that she had spoken with Emily Rebert, the community development planner for the City of
Washington, to explore how Rebert and her community have gotten ahead of demolitions. Rebert has sent
Heilman a great deal of information. Heilman wants to explore what would work for the Town of Hillsborough.
Heilman said the Washington Historic Preservation Commission created a commission that evaluated buildings
which were candidates for demolition by neglect. Of the 19 on that commission’s list, 13 have come into
compliance.
Snyder said some of those accomplishments are things like boarding up windows or putting a tarp over a roof.
Heilman asked to continue the discussion on the next agenda. Simmons requested a work session on this subject.
C. Unpermitted Work in the District
Snyder said there has been a lot of unpermitted work happening in the district, so the Board of Commissioners
would be asked to give him the ability to fine people $100 per day for unpermitted work.
Hornik suggested a mass mailing to sign makers so businesses do not pay for a sign that would not comply with
the guidelines.
D. Discussion on trees in the district
Snyder said a resident had asked for changes to the guidelines regarding trees. There was brief discussion, and the
commission decided there was no need to change the wording of the guidelines.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Dowdle moved to adjourn at 10:01 p.m. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0