HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-03-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Historic District Commission Minutes | 1 of 12
Minutes
Historic District Commission
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. March 3, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Vice Chair Virginia Smith, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Megan Kimball and
William Spoon
Absent: Eric Altman
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 7 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
There were none.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on Feb. 3, 2021.
Motion: Member Candice Cobb moved approval of the Feb. 3, 2021, minutes as submitted. Vice Chair
Virginia Smith seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Cobb, Heilman, Megan Kimball, Smith and Will Spoon. Nays: None.
5. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 224 N. Occoneechee St. — Applicant is Housewright Building
Company to construct a new 2,555-square-foot, 1½-story single family dwelling with a front porch, rear porch
and two-car, side-entry garage (PIN 9864-77-9464).
Member Max Dowdle arrived at 7:03 p.m.
Motion: Smith moved to open the public hearing. Kimball seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 2 of 12
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: 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 and Applicant Allen Knight of Housewright Building Company were sworn in.
Snyder summarized the staff report and entered it into the record.
Heilman asked Knight if he had any updates or changes to add to Snyder’s summary. Knight said he would
discuss one minor change when it came up in conversation.
Heilman asked if there were any public comments. Snyder read a written comment from the neighbors across
the street. They expressed concern that the proposed house’s design is imbalanced, lacks symmetry and is out
of character with other houses in the Historic District. They do not object to a house being built on the lot.
With many changes in their neighborhood they would like to see a design featuring more compatibility with
historic homes. They noted they have worked hard to follow Historic District Commission guidelines with all of
their projects.
Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments about the site.
Heilman asked how the HVAC unit will be screened from Occoneechee and Queen streets. Knight said he is
willing to screen the HVAC unit with wooden fencing. Heilman clarified that Knight has other options. Snyder
confirmed the wooden fencing would need to be as tall as the HVAC unit. Knight said that is acceptable.
Spoon noted the driveway is located on a steep hill and asked if the design incorporates grading or a retaining
wall to compensate. Knight said there is a slight grade, but he sees no need to build a retaining wall. When
asked, he indicated the driveway will follow the curve of the current hill. He said the house’s finished floor
elevation will sit at about the elevation of the road and the garage will sit slightly lower. He said the driveway
should not need much grading.
Spoon noted the proposed house would be sited just up the hill from the house the commission reviewed
during the February 2021 meeting. He said this house would be about the same distance from the road,
creating a uniform look.
Heilman noted the driveway would use gravel. She said she assumes there will be no gravel washing into the
street because the lot slopes away from the street. Snyder confirmed that to be correct.
Regarding the limits of disturbance, Snyder noted the largest tree to be removed is a 20-inch oak.
Heilman noted the proposed removal of several trees approaching significant size. She wondered whether
there are plans to plant an additional tree along Queen Street or elsewhere. Knight said he was not proposing
any landscaping at this time, as he prefers to wait until the end of a project to see how it looks. He added that
the house has been sold to out-of-state buyers who chose not to participate in the meeting tonight. He
anticipates a landscaping plan in the future. He confirmed he understands he will need to consult with Snyder
regarding any future landscaping plan.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 3 of 12
Smith asked how the commission will know if he plans to replace any trees larger than 12 inches at breast
height. Knight noted most of the trees to be removed are dead. He said he is happy to add trees along the
street as part of the landscaping plan. Smith wondered if it matters that the trees are dead. Heilman said it
would be nice if Knight would commit to adding one or two hardwood trees to the landscape to replace the
loss of canopy. Knight said he could commit to adding a tree. Snyder advised Knight to plant any trees outside
of the town right-of-way to avoid bringing the matter before the Hillsborough Tree Board. The commission
discussed how many replacement trees might be appropriate. Heilman said she heard Knight to say he
commits to adding at least one tree to replace the loss of canopy.
Regarding the west elevation, Heilman noted there are comments from the community. She asked for
comments or questions from the commissioners.
Smith said she thinks the neighbors who submitted their written comment have a good point. She agreed
there are a lot of different elements on the front of the house. In her opinion there is a conflict with Guideline
6 on Page 35 of the Historic District Design Guidelines, which states a new structure should have a similar roof
form to nearby structures. She said the proposed design incorporates so many gables as to be very dissimilar
to other houses in the Historic District. She said it is also not similar in detail, adding that she considers gables
to fall under “detail.”
Heilman read Guideline 6 for the commission’s benefit. Snyder noted that this guideline is difficult to meet in
Hillsborough’s historic district, which incorporates many different architectural styles. He doubts
Hillsborough’s historic district has one style.
Smith said she thinks the Historic District’s style generally is cleaner than the proposed house’s design. She
noted that historically there have not been many extremely wealthy people in Hillsborough who could afford
to build large houses with lots of details, thus most houses in the Historic District have simple, flat fronts. She
said variation from that is not necessarily bad, but she feels the proposed design is very busy. She agreed with
the neighbor’s comment that the proposed design implies different units within the house. She noted there
appear to be three doors on the front of the house.
Cobb agreed with Smith. She said when she first saw the house design she thought it was an apartment
building. While acknowledging the Historic District’s mixed styles, she said this design has too much mixing of
styles and too many gables.
Kimball noted the guidelines, including Guideline 6, were drafted for Hillsborough and by Hillsborough
residents. She said as such the committee has to assume that Guideline 6 was drafted with some intent. She
said she could see Cobb and Smith’s concerns.
Heilman and Spoon noted that the guideline is difficult to assess in the proposed construction’s location, as
the streetscape is still forming with one home partially constructed and a second home only recently
approved. Spoon added it would be hard to find a home with as many rooflines and gables anywhere in
Hillsborough.
Cobb asked why the front elevation includes a single door next to a double door.
Spoon said Guideline 7 speaks specifically to door and window openings.
Knight said the house design is not intended to be symmetrical or a historic style but rather built for 2021. He
noted the house across the street is a colonial two-story house with a front porch; he said this house is not
Historic District Commission Minutes | 4 of 12
intended to look like that. He said he does not understand the concern with too many gables. He said he
thinks the house looks attractive from all elevations. He said the house is designed to be a modern, 2021
farmhouse style and as such is completely appropriate. He thinks it is scaled to the streetscape and is
compatible with the two houses next to it. He said the house across the street to the left, built within the past
several years, has a similar “busy” front elevation with many elements. He is not sure such a design is in
conflict with the guidelines. He understands the members’ concerns about the door elements. He said the
front door is the double door, and the other doors are secondary. He noted many houses have multiple doors
on the front. He is happy to take suggestions from members.
Heilman wondered why the door to the left of the front double door is not a window. She said making that
change could simplify one piece of the front façade. Knight said the door in question opens the living room to
the front porch. When asked, he clarified that the double front door opens into a foyer, not into the living
room. He said the door into the living room is not critical but helps the house’s flow.
Smith said she feels the door to the left of the front door is in conflict with Guideline 7 on Page 35 of the
guidelines regarding window and door openings.
Cobb agreed with Heilman’s suggestion to convert the door into a window. She said she appreciates that all
the windows match.
Heilman noted she would like to see documentation of the windows’ sizes on the elevation sketches.
Regarding the proposed house’s style, Knight noted a relatively new house around the corner that is very
modern and perhaps incompatible with styles surrounding it. He said there have been other houses built
recently that are clearly incompatible with the streetscape and surrounding houses.
Smith said the commission had indeed approved the house around the corner. She said the lot constraints
made building on that site very difficult, and the commission took that fact into account. Smith and Heilman
recalled that conversations about that site were challenging.
Snyder noted the window sizes are designated on the floor plan. The commission briefly discussed the
window sizes.
Spoon asked how the width of the proposed house compares to the two adjacent houses. Snyder and Knight
confirmed this house would be several feet wider. Knight noted this lot is 0.75 acres with 150 feet of road
frontage, wider than the other two lots.
The commission briefly discussed the proposed house’s height, which is 29 feet above road elevation. Spoon
noted that is similar to the two adjacent houses.
Heilman summarized that the proposed design’s multidimensionality and many gables has caused concerns,
first whether the home appears to be a single or multi-family residence, and second whether the style is
consistent with Historic District guidelines. Knight acknowledged the house’s multiple doors could give the
impression of a multi-family residence. He said the door to the left of the front door could easily be converted
into a window compatible with the windows to the left of it. He said the door next to the garage enters into a
laundry room and is the only other grade-level place to locate a door. He said that door could be distinguished
visually from the front door.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 5 of 12
Spoon suggested that removing the center board-and-batten gable in favor of a straight front porch would go
a long way toward making the house more compatible with other houses in the district. He asked if that was
possible architecturally. Knight said that center feature is where the stairwell is located. Heilman noted that
Spoon’s suggestion would require Knight to push the stairwell back into the living room.
The commission briefly discussed the sizes of the windows and doors.
Cobb asked if the right board-and-batten gable could somehow be flattened instead of the center board-and-
batten gable. Knight said that is the location of the garage; he said that gable feature would be much easier to
alter than the center gable feature. Heilman noted the commission needs to look at the design currently
before them rather than designing on the fly; she said Knight could consider those options as they continue
their discussion.
Regarding the south (right side) elevation, Smith asked for clarification on the garage doors’ color. Snyder and
Knight clarified the doors will be pebble grain. Knight further clarified he is not proposing windows in the
garage doors.
Spoon said he considers this elevation appropriate and similar to those the commission normally sees. Smith
agreed.
Cobb noted this elevation incorporates welded steel handrails. She asked if welded steel is an approved
material, noting it is not listed specifically in the approved list. Snyder said welded steel has been used before
in the Historic District. Heilman and Cobb agreed welded steel is similar to metal pipe, which is allowed on a
case-by-case basis. Snyder said the railings at the apartment building on Tryon Street have welded steel.
Regarding the east (rear) elevation, the commission discussed the single, double and triple doors included in
the design. Heilman noted the poured-in-place concrete retaining wall, also visible in the north (left side)
elevation.
Regarding the north (left side) elevation, Smith asked whether the concrete retaining wall would be painted.
Knight confirmed it would be unpainted.
When asked, Knight confirmed the cluster of three windows on the right side would be in the master
bathroom. He confirmed they would be clear rather than frosted.
Cobb noted this side of the house includes four windows that are all different shapes and sizes, which is
incompatible with guidelines 7 and 8 on Page 35. Smith and Heilman agreed. Heilman wondered if the two
windows flanking the transom window could be more consistent in size and shape with other windows in the
house. Knight asked whether all the windows need to be the same size, noting that this same window
configuration was approved for the house next door. Heilman said the commission does not typically see
designs including four windows of different shapes and sizes on the same elevation. The commission
discussed the similar window configuration approved for the house next door, which is similar but features
three windows of the same size and shape. Spoon noted the need for bathroom privacy while also
maintaining consistency of appearance. Dowdle pointed out that this elevation faces Queen Street, while the
adjacent house’s similar window configuration does not. The commission discussed several ways Knight might
adjust the windows to be more similar to each other. Knight agreed that the window over the bathtub could
be converted to a double window, with the two halves having the same dimensions of the left-most window.
He said the window over the toilet could be eliminated. Heilman said those changes would address the issues
with guidelines 7 and 8. Spoon and Smith agreed.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 6 of 12
Regarding proposed materials, Smith appreciated the color of the siding.
Heilman returned to the concerns about the west (front) façade and asked members how they felt about the
issues that were raised.
Kimball said she is of two minds about the front façade and Guideline 6. On one hand, she thinks one of the
most striking parts of Hillsborough’s historic district is the large number of architectural styles, which she
would like to see continue going forward rather than restrict the district to past architectural styles. On the
other hand, she said the guidelines as written may make that difficult. She briefly read through Guideline 6,
noting that in her view the proposed design is compatible in many aspects, including height, size and
materials. She said the roof’s many gables are not a deal-breaker for her. She wondered what other members
think.
Smith said she would feel comfortable approving the design if the garage gable were eliminated or otherwise
blended into the main part of the house. She said without that change she feels strongly the design does not
meet Guideline 6.
The commission reviewed the front elevation and floor plan, noting the seven different façade planes along
the front of the house, which Cobb said contributes to the look of a multi-unit building. Spoon said the design
would be much more consistent with other Historic District designs if there were only one façade plane from
the garage to the living room. He said he understands that is difficult to accomplish with the stairwell located
where it is.
Cobb noted the commission is not in the business of designing. She said eliminating at least one gable would
help with the design’s compatibility with guidelines, as would flattening the front façade’s planes. Spoon
agreed, noting that the commission is not trying to design on the fly but rather offering Knight options.
Heilman said for her the issue is how far the center front gable extends from the front porch. She said that is
another item Knight would need to think about.
Knight said his understanding of the ordinance is new construction specifically is not supposed to appropriate
historic styles. He said he is unsure why the gables are incompatible with other gables in the Historic District,
including those on the houses next to it and across the street. He said he thinks the correct number of gables
is subjective and arbitrary. Heilman said the front façade’s design contributes to a sense that the house is a
multi-family dwelling, which is not typical in the district. She clarified that the gables’ design and the
crenulation of the façade contribute to that sense. Dowdle and Kimball agreed. Kimball said that looking at
Guideline 6, she does not think the front façade’s crenulation is compatible with the massing of surrounding
buildings. She also thinks the number of gables is incompatible with the roof forms of surrounding buildings.
Cobb suggested the commission could table this item. Snyder said that would be his recommendation if the
commission is not ready to move forward.
Heilman summarized the items Knight and the commission had agreed on, including: a screen will be built
around the HVAC unit no taller than 6 feet but exceeding the height of the unit; at least one tree will be
planted to replace the trees to be removed; the door to the left of the front double door will be replaced by a
window of Size B equaling the other windows on the ground floor; the garage door will be pebble gray; the
commission is comfortable with the welded steel railings; no window will have frosted glass; on the north
Historic District Commission Minutes | 7 of 12
(left) elevation, the large square window will be converted to a double window of Size B, while the transom
window will remain and the window closest to the street will be eliminated.
When asked, Knight confirmed all windows are full lite and that there is no exterior lighting proposed other
than recessed can lights in the front porch.
Spoon said that looking at Guideline 6 he does not think the design is compatible with the detail and
proportion of surrounding buildings. Heilman, Smith and Cobb said they do not think the roof form is
compatible with surrounding buildings.
The commission members agreed they did not have consensus to approve the plan as presented because of
the concerns presented referencing Guideline 6. At Knight’s request, the commission agreed to table Item 6A.
Knight agreed to work with Snyder to address the commission’s concerns before presenting a modified
application at the commission’s April 7 meeting.
Motion: Spoon moved to table the application until the April 7 meeting. Cobb seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 118 Warner Lane — Applicants are Anders and Alexandra Nelson
to demolish an existing 1,152-square-foot concrete block contributing house and to utilize the existing
foundation to construct a new 1,682-square-foot, two-story, single-family dwelling with a front porch,
attached workshop and screened-in porch (PIN 9864-98-8733).
Snyder introduced Item 6B.
Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: 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.
Applicants Anders and Alexandra Nelson and builder Peter Gaudette were sworn in.
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. Alexandra
Nelson said that they are excited to live in the Historic District and that their goal is to minimize changes to
the lot and stay within the existing structure’s footprint to create a new, elegant, modern board-and-batten
home. Gaudette clarified that they will save as much of the current structure’s foundation as possible,
although he is uncertain how much will be salvageable.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 8 of 12
Regarding demolition of the current structure, Snyder noted that the applicants have documented the current
structure with photographs prior to demolition.
Kimball expressed reservations about approving demolition. She wondered if the applicants had thoroughly
considered all other options. Referencing Page 63 of the Historic District guidelines, she said she would like
details about why it is impractical to renovate the existing structure. If the issue is financial, she wondered if
the applicants have looked into using tax credits to offset some of the cost. If the issue is not financial but
related to the site, she wondered if they had explored selling the property to someone who could renovate it.
Kimball said the commission has talked previously about equity issues, and she thinks this structure is a prime
example of a modest home that may not get the same level of protection as other buildings in the district. She
said the Colonial Inn had been in a similar condition of disrepair. While there was a clear economic advantage
to renovating the Colonial Inn in contrast to a modest home that may be expensive to renovate, she said the
commission should still take extreme care when considering demolition of a home like the one proposed. She
referenced a 2017 commission report to the town calling for more information to be gathered on homes
similar to this structure; she said this is one of the few examples of such homes in the Historic District. She
concluded that she would like to see more information and documentation from the applicants about why it
is impractical to renovate the home.
Heilman and Snyder said Gaudette could speak to Kimball’s questions.
Gaudette said the Nelsons initially planned to renovate the current structure. He said several issues made
renovation more expensive than replacing the structure. Because the building previously had been gutted,
meeting buildings codes and energy codes would be very expensive. He said he consulted with experienced
framers about repairing or rebuilding the roof and ceiling, and he found they would have to be removed by
hand, a very expensive procedure. The current windows are single-pane and inoperable, and many are
broken; they would need to be replaced with custom windows to fit the openings. He said the walls are not
insulated, thus the insulation contractor would need to build a second wall layer inside the existing concrete
block walls to have enough space to insulate, taking away a significant portion of the interior floor space.
Gaudette said the floors are not framed properly and are sagging, and the wiring had previously been gutted.
He said given all these factors, unfortunately it would cost more to renovate the house than to rebuild. He
said he did not see how anyone could renovate the current building in a way that would make it truly
affordable and accessible because the structure is rotting. He noted the roof and all the exterior woodwork
would have to be replaced. He said he and the Nelsons spent a fair amount of time trying to make the current
structure work, but a better option would be to build a house from scratch that is modern, properly done and
sustainable.
Dowdle said he had faced the same issue with a dilapidated cinderblock structure on his own property. He
said although he intended to renovate the structure, three inspectors told him he would have to replace so
much of the building that it would essentially become a new construction.
The Nelsons agreed with Dowdle’s assessment. Alexandra Nelson said they had spoken to several structural
engineers and found that the rear wall with the fireplace would need to be completely removed, as it is not
structurally sound. She said in order to renovate they would need to tear down at least half of the house,
which did not make sense to them. Anders Nelson added that they had spoken to several builders who said
their ideas for renovating the current structure were not realistic.
Heilman said she presumed that because the structure is cinderblock it cannot be moved. Gaudette confirmed
that is the case.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 9 of 12
When asked, Dowdle said the structure at his property had been unsalvageable and he had demolished it and
constructed a new building.
Spoon asked if the applicants plan to incorporate any features from the current structure into their new
design. Alexandra Nelson said the doors are not in good shape and the windows are all broken, but there is
some shiplap in the roof she would like to keep if possible.
Smith asked if some of the cinderblocks might be used to build a low wall, perhaps for a garden. Gaudette said
that reclaiming the cinderblocks after demolition may be difficult, but they will try to keep as much of the
foundation as possible. He said if possible they are trying to design the new house around an interior wall of
the foundation. He said finances are an important factor, as are not overly disturbing things and reusing as
much as possible.
Cobb said she appreciated that they will keep the yard’s camellias and transplant them to another part of the
yard. Smith agreed. Cobb said she appreciated Kimball’s points about being careful when approving
demolition. She said that is one of the hardest parts of their jobs as commission members and that they never
like to see demolition requests. She agreed that the current structure is a great example of a type of house
not prevalent in the Historic District, representative of a specific window of time in Hillsborough. She said
although it is tragic, everything she heard indicates there is not a way to prevent the demolition. Smith agreed
with Cobb.
Alexandra Nelson said they had every intention of renovating when they purchased the property. She said
they do want to use the existing structure’s footprint. She acknowledged the building is on a small lot, and she
said they do not want to intrude on neighbors.
Kimball thanked the applicants for sharing their information. She agreed that renovating does not make sense
in this case. She asked the applicants if they were aware of the tax credits available to people renovating
historic properties. The Nelsons said they were not. Kimball said the commission should find a way to do a
better job making sure people are aware of that option.
Spoon asked Snyder if the application contained enough information to satisfy the five considerations for
demolition on Page 63 of the Historic District guidelines. Snyder said he thinks so, especially considering the
builder is available to answer questions as sworn testimony. Town Attorney Bob Hornik reminded the
commission that the considerations are not binding rules.
Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Nelson Warner Lane 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: Demolition of Existing Buildings. Cobb seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Smith moved to approve the application for demolition as submitted. Heilman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 10 of 12
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Heilman asked the commission for questions regarding the site plan.
Spoon asked whether the existing structure’s footings are worth using for the new construction. Gaudette
said he had spoken to an engineer who said the footings are probably reusable. He noted that minimizing
trenching and use of heavy machinery during construction will minimize any damage to the lot and the
existing trees. He said the applicants want to minimize disturbances to the lot and save as much as possible of
the footings, although he noted they will not know for certain how much they can save until construction is
underway. Anders Nelson added that the ideal shape and location for the new house is where the current
structure stands.
When asked, Snyder confirmed that the evergreens surrounding the HVAC unit would be tall enough to hide
the unit.
There were no questions regarding the landscaping plan.
Regarding the east (front) elevation, Smith asked whether the angles of the two gables could be made more
equal. Alexandra Nelson explained the second-story gable’s angle is more extreme to give the house a cottage
feel, while the workshop gable is shallower to allow the bedroom windows to fit above it. Gaudette added
that the choice of a shallower gable over the workshop was made to draw less attention to that space. Anders
Nelson added that the angle of the workshop gable matches the angle of the front door overhang; he said a
mismatch between the two probably would look more jarring than the two different gable angles.
Kimball said the workshop’s placement at the front of the house is unusual, and she wondered what the other
commission members thought about it. Snyder and Heilman said they had both thought it unusual until they
saw how well the workshop is incorporated into the overall structural plan. Snyder added that the use of the
space is immaterial because the commission is more concerned with how the space is integrated into the
structure. Kimball said that having a space such as a garage protrude from the front of the house is not typical
in the Historic District. Anders Nelson said the workshop dimensions are not as deep as a garage. Alexandra
Nelson said they wanted the workshop to look like another room of the house and so avoided using garage-
style or barn doors.
Regarding the west (rear) elevation, there were no questions.
Regarding the south (left) elevation, Gaudette confirmed there are no floodlights. He confirmed there is a
gooseneck light at the front door and a down-facing wall lantern over the back steps and door.
Regarding the north (right) elevation, Spoon asked if the spacing between the screened porch columns is the
same on the front and sides. Gaudette said the columns are spaced slightly wider along the back of the
screened porch.
Snyder noted the down-facing light over the workshop door. When asked, he confirmed there is a similar light
next to the front door. Snyder noted the cantilevered overhang over the front door. Gaudette confirmed the
side of the overhang would be covered in smooth Hardie panel.
Snyder noted one public comment from neighbor Sam Griffith, who owns a house adjacent to the Nelson’s
lot. While he mostly approved of the site plan, Griffith expressed concern about the proposed color of the
new house. He wrote that his house sits slightly lower than the Nelsons’ lot, and he worried the very dark
Historic District Commission Minutes | 11 of 12
color on a taller, two-story house will appear to loom over his small cottage in a glowering way. He preferred
the second proposed paint scheme, Acacia Haze, which he feels is more in keeping with other houses in the
Historic District. Cobb said she agrees with Griffith.
Before discussing the color palette, Heilman asked the commission members if they feel the application meets
Guideline 6 for new construction with respect to mass, scale and rooflines, noting that the new construction
would replace a one-story building with a two-story building on a small street. Heilman said she feels
comfortable that the new construction does meet Guideline 6. Kimball agreed, noting that the houses on
Warner Lane are all different heights. Kimball appreciated that the applicants kept the design small and kept
the original structure’s footprint. Smith said the new house is an appropriate size for a small lane; she thinks
the design is tidy and elegant. Heilman agreed.
Regarding the color palette, Smith said Guideline 9 on Page 35 indicates a lighter color would be better,
although she thinks the dark color is very chic. Kimball agreed; she said she would like to see the district allow
for more modern looks such as darker houses, but she said the guidelines currently do not allow that. Heilman
noted there are a few darker homes in the Historic District but said a lighter color would be much more
consistent with the district overall. The commission members agreed they could approve the lighter Acacia
Haze color but not the darker Iron Ore color, although they noted the guidelines are being revised and in the
future may allow a modern home to be painted black.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Kimball seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Nelson 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; New Construction of
Outbuildings and Garages; Site Features and Plantings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street
Parking; Exterior Lighting; and Paint and Exterior Color. Smith seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: The house will be painted with the Acacia Haze color palette rather than the Iron Ore color
palette.
6. Updates
Preservation Award Nominees
Historic District Commission Minutes | 12 of 12
Heilman introduced two potential candidates, the Colonial Inn and 322 W. Queen St. Snyder noted there are
not many candidates this year due to construction slowdowns from COVID-19. Heilman proposed nominating
the Colonial Inn for a preservation award. Snyder added the commission might also want to nominate the
Colonial Inn for a Preservation North Carolina award later in the year. The commission also discussed
nominating 322 W. Queen St. for its addition, as well as several other locations. The commission members
agreed to nominate the Colonial Inn, as its preservation holds great significance.
The commission briefly discussed email communication procedures with Snyder.
7. Adjournment
Motion: Kimball moved to adjourn at 9:13 p.m. Spoon seconded.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin Snyder
Planner
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: April 7, 2021