HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-03-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Historic District Commission Minutes | 1 of 7
Minutes
Historic District Commission
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. Feb. 3, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Vice Chair Virginia Smith, Eric Altman, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Megan
Kimball and William Spoon
Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planner Justin Snyder
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Jill Heilman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Planner Justin Snyder called the roll and confirmed
the presence of a quorum.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Heilman read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
Snyder noted the addition of Item 7C, discussion on renaming Thomas Ruffin Street, which was not on the
public version of the agenda.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from remote regular meeting on Jan. 6, 2021.
Vice Chair Virginia Smith asked about a typo on Page 4, “MiraT09ec.” Snyder said he would correct the word
to “MiraTec.” Also on Page 4, Heilman suggested clarifying that the proposed shingles looked green on the
members’ computer monitors but were in fact gray.
Motion: Smith moved approval of the Jan. 6, 2021, minutes as amended. Member Megan Kimball
seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 7-0. Ayes: Members Eric Altman, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Will
Spoon. Nays: None.
5. Old business
None.
6. New business
Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 212 N. Occoneechee St. — Applicant Housewright Building
Historic District Commission Minutes | 2 of 7
Company on behalf of Bob and Terry Kern requests approval to construct a new 2890 square foot dwelling
with an attached side-entry garage and a detached 10’x20’ barn-style shed at 212 N. Occoneechee St. (PIN:
9864-77-9269).
Applicants Robert and Terry Kern and Allen Knight of Housewright Building Company were sworn in.
Motion: Spoon moved to open the public hearing. Kimball seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 7-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Heilman asked if anyone had a conflict of interest with respect to this application. None was expressed.
Heilman asked if all members were familiar with the application. Commission members confirmed they were.
Snyder summarized the staff report and entered it into the record.
Heilman asked the applicants if they had any updates or changes to add to Snyder’s summary. Knight said he
would discuss two minor changes as they came up in conversation.
Heilman asked if there were any public comments. Snyder read a written comment from Richard and Blair
Bradfords, the neighbors across the street from the property. Having reviewed the site plan materials, they
have no objections to the applicants’ plans. They expressed concern about the location of the proposed
driveway and its effect on traffic and asked whether the proposed driveway would be directly across from
their driveway or offset. Snyder confirmed the proposed driveway would be about 17 feet south of their
driveway. The Bradfords also asked whether power lines and other utilities would be buried, and Snyder
confirmed they would. Knight clarified utility lines would be buried from the overhead Duke Power line to the
house.
Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments about the site.
Spoon said the applicants had done a good job matching the distance from their house to the street to that of
the house being built to the south. He said both houses’ distances to the street are within 1 foot of each
other, and both houses’ heights relative to the street also are within 1 foot of each other. He further noted
that both houses will be about the same height as a neighboring house at Occoneechee and Tryon streets.
Spoon said that the resulting streetscape should be visually congruous.
Heilman noted that the shed is oriented front to back in the lot. She asked what the shed’s height would be
and whether it could be oriented a different direction, allowing that it could encroach into the setback if the
height was low enough. Snyder confirmed that detached accessory buildings under 12 feet tall can be located
5 feet from the property line. He said for each foot of height above 12 feet, the building would need to be 2
feet further from the property line.
Heilman asked the applicants whether that information was considered and whether there was any interest in
orienting the shed in a different direction.
Knight said the lot is somewhat difficult to build on because it drops about 40 feet from the street elevation to
the intermittent stream in the property’s rear. He said they are trying to retain a yard on the right side of the
Historic District Commission Minutes | 3 of 7
house with the retaining wall. He said the shed and the yard are important to the property owners. He said
the shed could not be placed elsewhere because of the property’s steep grade.
Heilman said she understands the difficulty in siting the shed, but she wondered whether they had considered
orienting the shed north to south, given the option to move it into the setback.
Knight said they had tried to design the shed to mimic the house in terms of materials, roof pitch and
orientation. He said the property owners wanted the shed’s doors to face the driveway for ease of moving
equipment in and out.
Kimball asked Heilman whether she was concerned with the tree located on the site of the shed. Heilman said
no. She said the proposed shed’s orientation is a little unusual, and she wondered what the applicants’
thought process was and how tall the shed would be. Knight did not remember the shed’s height off hand; it
was agreed to address height later in the discussion. Heilman said such sheds normally would be sited in the
back yard, but she understands the site’s constraints. She said the shed’s longer side often would be oriented
parallel to the street in such cases.
Knight agreed but said he was advised to position the shed so that its doors would not face the street. He said
they feel the orientation is in keeping with the Historic District’s intent.
Heilman said she understands and simply wondered about placing the shed doors toward the back, but she
acknowledged she was unsure of the dimensions. Snyder said the applicants added windows to the wall facing
the street to better meet the commission’s guidelines. He and Heilman agreed that the lot’s many constraints
present some difficulties. Heilman said that the shed’s placement might not be appropriate in a less-
constrained lot but that the commission may decide it is appropriate in this case.
Regarding the west elevation, Heilman asked whether there are additional columns closer to the house
behind the outermost two porch columns. Knight said that was not their intent. Heilman noted two columns
slightly overlap the front windows, which the commission usually recommends avoiding. Smith said the slight
overlap does not bother her. Knight said the overlap would not be noticeable because the columns would be
8 feet from the wall.
When asked, Knight confirmed the color of the house and trim would be white. He said the windows are
black. He confirmed the standing seam would have a smooth profile, not striated.
Regarding the east elevation, Heilman asked whether the chimney is taller than the roofline. Knight said the
chimney is above the back roofline ridge but not above the main roofline ridge. He confirmed the chimney
would not be seen from the front of the house.
Smith asked whether the lower columns are plain posts rather than columns like the upper posts. Knight
confirmed that they would be plain wood posts.
Heilman expressed concern that the windows on the rear and side of the house are different from the front
windows. She does not feel such a design aligns with the window guidelines. Knight responded that when he
had submitted these plans, the owners had voted for grids in the windows on the house’s front but not on the
sides and back. He said the owners have re-voted on this issue and now want grids in all windows except the
French doors and rear picture windows. He confirmed the house’s other windows would match the
rectangular grid pattern of the front casement windows.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 4 of 7
The commission discussed the different sizes of windows and muntin profiles. Knight confirmed the window
sizes and muntin profiles would appropriately match the house’s front windows. He said the rear dormer
window would be 9 lite, the lower-level rear windows would be 12 lite and the smaller kitchen window would
be 9 lite.
Heilman asked whether the commission members were comfortable with the mix of full lite and 9 lite
windows on the rear facade. Smith said the mix would bother her on any other side of the house, but she can
live with it on the house’s rear. Kimball and Heilman agreed.
When asked, Knight confirmed the basement would be unconditioned and unfinished.
Regarding the south elevation, Knight outlined the windows’ muntin profiles. He added the property owners
want to add two thin full lite window panels to each of the two garage doors, in the third panel from the
ground on each door. Kimball noted such a design in the commission guidelines. Spoon asked whether the
facade’s upper two windows could match in height and be joined in order to match the first-story double
window. Knight replied that the second-story windows are for different rooms and so could not be joined.
Knight also confirmed the chimney will have brick veneer and be finished with rowlock brick and a cap.
Heilman asked Snyder whether he could provide a final review showing the correct window sizes and muntin
profiles, noting that the submitted plans are not up to date. Snyder suggested that if Knight emails him the
window sizes, Snyder can sketch in the correct patterns and note the window sizes. Snyder and Knight agreed
to work together to confirm the sizes and patterns are consistent. Heilman noted that the commission’s
concern over the window sizes and muntin profiles has to do with the guidelines for New Construction of
Primary Buildings, primarily Guideline 8, which ensures patterns and details are consistent with those in the
district.
Regarding the north elevation, Knight confirmed all windows would have appropriate muntin profiles. Smith
asked whether the back porch wind beam would be clad in the same siding as the rest of house. Knight
confirmed it would.
Regarding the shed, Knight confirmed the wood storage area would be open on the north and south sides.
Smith asked how the board felt about the shed doors’ barn-style X pattern and wondered how such doors
have been handled in the past. Snyder said in the past the board has deemed such doors unacceptable, being
more appropriate to barns; he noted it is a barn-style shed without a barn-style roof. Cobb agreed with
Smith’s concern but said the shed’s placement and configuration make the design acceptable. Knight said the
X pattern would provide structural stability to the doors, which will be handmade and will open on a double
track. Knight confirmed the shed’s colors, windows and door stain would match the house.
Heilman asked Knight to clarify the number of columns on the front and back of the house, noting
discrepancies between the elevation drawings and the floor plan. The applicants agreed to six columns on
both the front and back porches. When asked, Knight confirmed there are no floodlights in the plan.
Knight clarified that the plan’s white textured brick wallpaper sample illustrates the chimney’s proposed look
but that wallpaper would not be used as a material. Heilman asked the board whether that visual technique
would create a false sense of history. Knight said the technique would be applied to the back of the chimney
and would be hard to see. Cobb referenced Masonry Guideline 9, which says it is “not appropriate to create a
false sense of history by adding conjectural features.” Heilman has concerns about painting the chimney brick.
Applicant Terry Kern said she is happy to leave the chimney unpainted.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 5 of 7
Cobb noted the large poplar tree to be removed and asked whether another tree could be replanted. The
Kerns said they are happy to plant a tree but do not want to plant another poplar as they tend to rot at the
root base as they age. Cobb clarified the replanting does not have to be a poplar. Robert Kern said they plan
to clear out the lot’s smaller, less desirable trees and replant oaks and hickory trees.
Spoon asked whether the back porch would be screened or unscreened. Robert Kern said a portion would be
screened, but they are still deciding on its configuration. Heilman wondered whether screening the porch
would add doors that the board needs to consider. Kern confirmed doors would be needed on the screened
porch’s north and south sides. Snyder confirmed the doors and screened portion could be approved later as a
minor work. When asked, Terry Kern confirmed there would be no faux hardware on the garage doors.
Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Kimball seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 7-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Kimball moved to find as fact that the Kern 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 New Construction of Primary Buildings; New Construction of Outbuildings
and Garages; Fences and Walls; Site Features and Plantings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-
Street Parking; Exterior Lighting; and Paint and Exterior Color. Altman seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 7-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Kimball moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 7-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: There will not be columns against the house on the front elevation, rather just the six porch
columns. The standing seam roofing will be smooth flush panel and not striated. The brick
chimney will not be painted, stained or whitewashed. There will be six columns on the rear
porch/deck as shown in the floor plan, not five as shown on the elevations. All windows will be
simulated divided lites with grille patterns as discussed. Staff will work with the applicant to
determine the correct scale and associated muntin profiles to be used. The second panel down
from the top of each garage door shall be replaced with full lite windows. The triangular portion
of the rear deck roof above the beam shall be closed in with fiber cement siding matching the
house. The screening of the rear porch shall require a minor works approval from planning staff,
including revised elevations. A hardwood tree shall be replanted to replace the poplar. The shed
doors shall be stained to match the front doors of the house. Complete as-built elevations shall
be required prior to a final inspection.
7. Updates
A. Update on grant process
Historic District Commission Minutes | 6 of 7
Snyder and Heilman gave a brief update on how the grant process is proceeding. Snyder said he and Heilman
met with the consultant, Hill Studio, and the State Historic Preservation Office, and they made a plan for how
to proceed initially. He said they have a follow-up meeting next week to go into more detail. The time frame
has been approved, and everything is on schedule. Heilman noted that Cobb and Kimball have agreed to serve
as a subcommittee during the process. Snyder added that Hillsborough Economic Development Planner
Shannan Campbell has agreed to be the commission’s liaison to the business community and to provide a
commercial business perspective. He added the commission also will conduct a public survey during the
process. Heilman said she provided Hill Studio with a list of best practices to consider.
B. Discussion on appeals process
Snyder gave a brief update on the appeals process. He said the commission has been asked to give a
recommendation to the town board on how appeals to commission decisions are handled. Snyder outlined
the current process, which sends appeals first to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment and then to Superior
Court. Snyder said the state’s revised standard now allows appeals to go directly to Superior Court.
Hornik gave a brief overview of each option’s pros and cons. He said the Board of Adjustment now has
experience with commission appeals and now is better able to handle them than previously. He said Superior
Court judges do not often receive zoning cases, but judges typically understand the applicable review
framework better, noting that has been a difficulty with appeals sent to the Board of Adjustment.
Heilman wondered whether sending appeals to Superior Court would present a higher standard of appeal for
applicants, as the court process could be more costly and time-intensive than a board appeal. Hornik agreed
there is more gravitas involved in a court proceeding than a board hearing. Heilman noted that future
members of the Board of Adjustment may not have as much experience with appeals as current members.
Kimball noted the commission currently has no significant recourse when the Board of Adjustment overturns
a commission decision. She said at issue is whether the Board of Adjustment or a judge would be more likely
to make a fair decision. Hornik said both the commission and Board of Adjustment might feel more
comfortable if appeals are sent to Superior Court, noting that boards of adjustment typically want to uphold
staff and commission decisions but may find it hard to do so. He confirmed that individual applicants could
represent themselves in a court appeal process but that a corporation would need to hire legal
representation. He added that if appeals go to Superior Court, there likely will be fewer appeals because a
court proceeding would prompt many applicants to hire a lawyer, making such appeals more costly.
Kimball wondered whether placing an economic barrier to appeals would unduly burden citizens. When
asked, Hornik and Snyder confirmed that applicants could reapply to the commission with modified plans.
Heilman said she does not want the commission’s appeal process to be overly burdensome, but she doubted
whether the current appeal process is working well. She said a judge may find it easier to uphold commission
decisions. Hornik said he thinks the Board of Adjustment might prefer not to hear commission appeals. Snyder
confirmed that Hillsborough Senior Planner Tom King will raise the appeal issue with the Board of Adjustment.
Cobb said she thinks the current appeal process is clunky. Hornik said judges may not be familiar with zoning
cases but agreed that Superior Court judges are probably more comfortable than Board of Adjustment
members with applying standards of review to appeal decisions. The commission discussed examples of ways
judges could rule on appeal cases. Hornik confirmed that North Carolina Superior Court judges are generally
pro-property rights, but he said judges must make decisions based only on the evidence in front of them and
must fairly apply the standards of review. The commission discussed the need to define and articulate in
writing those characteristics constituting the character of the Historic District. Hornik said a town staff
member would need to provide testimony in a Superior Court appeal.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 7 of 7
Dowdle left at 8:27 p.m.
Spoon noted that if citizens must hire legal representation to appeal a commission decision, only those with
money and resources to hire a lawyer would be able to appeal. He worried such a process would be less
equitable. Snyder added the town could find itself in a racial equity or economic inequality situation. Kimball
agreed, saying she feels conflicted about the tension between equity and what may be best for the
commission. Heilman said in her experience most noncompliance issues come not from the “little guy” but
from people with more resources who feel the rules should not apply to them. Smith agreed. Heilman feels
that a court appeal would be an appropriate next step for such a case.
Kimball suggested the board could find ways to work with citizens who cannot afford to meet commission
guidelines. She suggested future guidelines could be written in a more equitable way.
Heilman conducted an informal poll, asking each member to state whether they lean toward sending appeals
to the Board of Adjustment or to Superior Court. Altman leans toward continuing to send appeals to the
Board of Adjustment. The other members leaned toward sending appeals to Superior Court, especially if
equity issues could be addressed. When asked, Snyder and Hornik confirmed the decision could be changed
easily with an amendment to the town ordinance. Heilman wondered if grant funds might be available to help
people pay for Historic District requirements. Kimball suggested approaching the Alliance for Historic
Hillsborough about potential fundraising efforts.
C. Discussion on Thomas Ruffin Street name change request to Hope Lane
Snyder gave a brief update on the Thomas Ruffin Street residents’ petition to change the name of their street
to Hope Lane. He noted that while the proposed name does not fit with the town’s street naming structure, it
does have a good meaning and eliminates a source of racial insensitivity represented by Thomas Ruffin’s
legacy in the state. He said the petition will go to the town board for consideration. Heilman noted
commission members agreed several months ago that they support the renaming effort. Cobb noted that
100% of the street’s residents signed the petition.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Heilman moved to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Altman seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 7-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin Snyder
Planner
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: March 3, 2021