HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-05-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Historic District Commission Minutes | 1 of 9
Minutes
Historic District Commission
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. May 5, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Vice Chair Virginia Smith, Eric Altman and Candice Cobb
Absent: 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 said he would like to discuss several minor housekeeping items. Heilman said she would like to discuss
the preservation awards, the special character of the Hillsborough Historic District, and the commission’s
governance of trees. There were no further changes.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on April 7, 2021.
Heilman noted three typos in need of correction. Heilman also said that on Page 8 she thinks the specific
guidelines should be cited in the first Axelbank motion. Heilman added that in the fifth paragraph from the
bottom on Page 9, the minutes should clarify that no commissioners had questions regarding the demolition
of the patio.
Motion: Member Eric Altman moved approval of the April 7, 2021, minutes as modified. Vice Chair
Virginia Smith seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Candice Cobb. Nays: None.
5. Old business
None.
6. New business
Historic District Commission Minutes | 2 of 9
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 404 N. Churton St. — Applicant is Kara Pittman on behalf of
property owners Timothy Werrell and Valerie Blettner requesting approval to construct a new 22.5-foot tall,
1,386-square-foot, detached garage with storage above facing East Union Street at 404 N. Churton St. (PIN:
9874-08-6269).
Applicant Kara Pittman, builder Zach McKinley and property owners Timothy Werrell and Valerie Blettner
arrived at 6:36 p.m.
Heilman introduced Item 6A and summarized the application. When asked, Snyder clarified that the proposed
garage would front East Union Street but would face North Churton Street.
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Cobb seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Cobb. Nays: None.
Heilman asked if anyone had a conflict of interest with respect to this application. None was expressed.
Snyder, Pittman, McKinley, Werrell and Blettner were sworn in.
Snyder summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. Snyder outlined several concerns. First,
Snyder said all windows on each elevation should be either 2-over-1 lite or 2-over-2 lite, rather than a mix of
both muntin patterns. Second, Snyder noted the applicants have proposed a carriage-house-style garage door
incorporating faux wood, which the commission has repeatedly denied in the past due to concerns that not
only is such a door out of character but also attempts to mimic a natural material through artificial means.
Snyder said staff recommends the door be wood or that the finish be pebble grain, stucco texture or smooth
texture. Third, Snyder said staff recommends the door’s decorative hardware be removed unless it is
functional. Fourth, Snyder said the entry door on the west elevation might be better integrated with a 4-lite 2-
panel door instead of a half-lite 2-panel door.
Heilman asked if Snyder, Pittman, McKinley, Werrell or Blettner had any additional comments for the
commission regarding the application. Pittman clarified that all windows in the proposed garage would be 2-
over-2 simulated divided lite windows to match the windows in the main house, not a mix of muntin patterns
as shown in the elevations.
When asked, Snyder said two neighbors had submitted comments supporting the proposed project.
Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments regarding the proposed
garage.
Regarding the front (west) elevation, Smith expressed concern about the material of the proposed garage
door. Smith said the doors should either be made of wood or have a pebble-grain finish rather than
incorporate faux wood. Smith added that the decorative hinges should be removed as they are likely not
functional, but she said a garage door handle could be functional in the event of a power outage. Pittman
confirmed the hinges are decorative and said both the hinges and handles could be removed. Heilman said
she does not object to the handles, as there are times when a handle could be needed.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 3 of 9
Smith also expressed concern about the style of the garage door, noting that the door’s 4-over-4 windows
shown in the front elevation do not echo the style of any other windows on the property. She suggested
another style from the same company might be more reminiscent of the garage’s 2-over-2 windows. When
asked, she clarified that fewer lites in the garage door might better match the garage’s other windows.
Heilman confirmed that the commission has consistently rejected the faux wood material of the garage door.
She asked whether the applicants have considered a wood door of the same style. Pittman said a wood door
would be prohibitively expensive and would not be as durable as an aluminum door.
Heilman noted that her own garage doors are of a nearly identical style without lites but made of gray
Masonite. She said they are six years old and she has been very satisfied with their durability.
Heilman asked whether any commissioners are concerned that the garage door appears to be two doors but
is in fact one single door. Smith agreed that two separate doors might be better.
Pittman said they chose the carriage house style because it looks like two separate doors. Pittman said the
alternatives available are unattractive and would not fit as well with the surrounding area’s structures. She
said their goal is to be more inclusive with the Historic District and to match the style of the main house.
Pittman said she had conducted an exhaustive search for an appropriate door that meets the guidelines and is
affordable. Pittman said the proposed door’s overlay slats are smooth, noting that the door has three-
dimensional depth. She said the wood veneer appears real unless one is standing very close to the door.
McKinley clarified they had chosen this style and finish due to the residential nature of the project. He said
other garage door styles meet the guidelines but would look more like commercial garage doors. When asked,
he confirmed the property owners require one single larger opening rather than two smaller openings due to
the width of the garage. He clarified that two openings separated by a post would limit access for getting
vehicles in and out of the garage.
Pittman clarified that the garage door windows will each be single rows of four lites, not 4-over-4 as shown in
the front elevation. She said the picture on Page 32 of the agenda packet shows the correct proposed style.
She clarified the lites would be of clear glass and the muntins would be raised. When asked, she confirmed
that the crossbeams and border are smooth. She also confirmed the panels would be three horizontal panels,
not the vertical beadboard shown in the front elevation drawing.
Cobb noted the doors pictured also show no hinges or handles. Werrell said he does not like the look of the
faux hardware and prefers the appearance of the door without any hardware.
When asked, Pittman confirmed the faux wood texture appears on the three horizontal panels underneath
the crossbeams and below the windows on each door panel. Heilman observed that the panels appear
smooth in the picture. When asked, Pittman confirmed the three panels would be horizontal, would not be
beadboard and would have a faux wood grain.
Heilman said she appreciates a number of the steps that have gone into the proposed garage. She said she
appreciates that the garage is detached, that the architecture largely is consistent with the house, that the
columns will match the house and that there is a quatrefoil gable vent matching the house’s gable vents. She
said she appreciates that there was a lot of thought put into making the garage architecturally consistent with
the house. Smith agreed.
Heilman asked the commissioners for their thoughts on the proposed faux wood material of the door.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 4 of 9
Cobb asked if the faux wood is a composite overlay material. Pittman and McKinley clarified that the door is
aluminum with solid composite overlays to create depth and a more traditional look.
Cobb noted that aluminum is an approved material within the Historic District, while composite is approved
on a case-by-case basis for new construction. Cobb said she has no problem with the design and features of
the door. She said she appreciates the 4-lite windows and the lack of beadboard, hinges and handles. Cobb
said she thinks the only thing to deal with is the composite material, saying she thinks the aluminum is fine.
Heilman noted that the aluminum sports the faux wood grain and said that also is approved on a case-by-case
basis. Cobb agreed that the commission generally does not like faux wood.
Heilman offered her own garage doors as an example of a similar style with smooth materials.
Snyder asked Pittman if she had identified any other potential doors without the faux wood material. Pittman
said she could continue looking for another door if the commission does not approve their choice.
McKinley said they could get an approved door but added it would not be a carriage door, which they had
selected to avoid the look of a commercial building. He said a plain 18-foot smooth door would meet the
requirements but would look like a shop door and would not fit the neighborhood’s character. He said in
meeting the goal of suiting the house and neighborhood’s character, the sacrifice was the door’s inlay panels
would have faux wood grain. McKinley added that the faux wood grain panels would be painted the same
white color as the rest of the door, making the faux wood grain invisible from the street.
Werrell agreed with McKinley. Werrell said his biggest concern is that the garage door not look like one in a
suburban cul-de-sac, which is why they had tried to be sensitive to the door’s design.
Heilman asked Pittman if she had explored exterior Masonite garage doors. Pittman said she is familiar with
Masonite as a company, not as a material. Heilman said it is an approved exterior material that is durable to
weather and smooth. McKinley said he has repaired a number of Masonite garage doors over the years. He
said he thinks an 18-foot Masonite door would lack integrity. He said that over time a Masonite garage door
only 16 feet wide tends to sag as water encroaches into the door. He clarified it would take about 10 years for
that to happen, but he added that he would not build a structure that he does not expect to last 10 to 20
years.
Altman said he is not bothered by the composite material in light of the many steps the applicants have taken
to meet the guidelines and stay consistent with the character of the Historic District.
Smith agreed with Altman. She noted that the issue of garage door materials comes up often. She said she
usually is very passionate about the topic, but she now thinks the commission may want to consider changing
its rules about garage door materials. Snyder said he would support such a change, noting he has done many
hours of research trying to find garage doors that meet the guidelines. Heilman agreed the commission could
have that discussion in the future.
Heilman suggested the members continue considering their feelings on the proposed garage door while they
continue discussing the rest of the project.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 5 of 9
Regarding the entry door on the front (west) elevation, Snyder confirmed staff’s recommendation that the
window in the door be 2-over-2 lite to match the windows in the rest of the garage. Heilman said she concurs
with that recommendation.
Pittman said the half-lite window shown was chosen to match one of the doors in the main house, noting that
none of the house’s rear doors match. Werrell said he and Blettner are indifferent to the number of lites in
the door and would be happy to change it. Pittman and McKinley confirmed they easily could obtain a door
with a 4-lite window. When asked, McKinley and Pittman confirmed the door is made of fiberglass. Heilman
confirmed fiberglass is an approved material.
Heilman asked whether commission members had any other questions or comments regarding the front
elevation. None was expressed.
Regarding the left (north) elevation, Pittman confirmed the windows would be 2-over-2 lite. There were no
other questions or comments.
Regarding the rear (east) elevation, there were no questions or comments.
When asked, Pittman confirmed the garage’s lighting would be recessed, with the front porch lit by two or
three recessed lights. She confirmed there would be no floodlights.
Regarding the south (right) elevation, there were no questions or comments.
When asked, McKinley confirmed that a K-style gutter is a standard seamless aluminum gutter, also called an
Ogee gutter.
Regarding the entry door on the front elevation, Werrell noted that none of the doors on the main house
would match the door if the window were changed to a 2-over-2 lite window. Snyder and Heilman clarified
the goal is to match the door’s window to the garage’s other windows.
Heilman asked the commission members for their thoughts on the proposed garage door. None was
expressed.
When asked, Werrell and Blettner confirmed they would be painting their house so that the garage and the
house colors match. They confirmed the siding color would be Bunglehouse Gray, the trim would be white,
the doors would be red and the garage door would be white. They confirmed they applied for a painting
permit last year and were approved.
Heilman summarized the modifications to the applications as discussed. Pittman, McKinley, Werrell and
Blettner said they accepted the modifications.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Altman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Cobb. Nays: None.
Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Blettner-Werrell application is in keeping with the overall
character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on
Historic District Commission Minutes | 6 of 9
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 Outbuildings and Garages; Site Features and
Plantings. Altman seconded.
Heilman clarified for the record that the commission is accepting the aluminum faux wood material for the
garage door in this particular case due to owners’ desire to maintain the overall historic character of the
building as well as the need for an 18-foot door with structural integrity. She clarified that this is a limited case
and that the commission will discuss further the materials allowed for garage doors.
Snyder called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Cobb. Nays: None.
Motion: Smith moved to approve the application as modified with conditions. Cobb seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Cobb. Nays: None.
Conditions: All windows on the garage shall be 2-over-2 simulated divided lite windows. All decorative
garage door hardware shall be removed. The porch entry door to the garage shall have a 4-lite
simulated divided lite window. The garage door shall not have any beadboard.
7. Updates
A. Preservation awards
Heilman gave a brief update regarding the preservation award to be given to the Colonial Inn, noting that a
poster and press release are being prepared. She asked the commission members whether they think a small,
outdoor public event should be held to present the award. Snyder advised against holding an outdoor public
gathering until the town board directs that it is safe to do so. Heilman noted that last year’s awardees have
not yet been recognized. The commission briefly discussed different ways to recognize the awardees. Heilman
said she would explore with the town whether it is appropriate to hold a small event at the end of May,
noting that May is Historic Preservation Month.
B. The special character of the Hillsborough Historic District
Heilman reminded the commission that the consultants helping draft the new Historic District Design
Standards have asked for the commission members’ thoughts regarding the special character of the
Hillsborough Historic District. Heilman asked commission members how they would articulate the special
character of the Historic District, noting that the definition will be a key element of the new guidelines.
Snyder recommended using a broad definition to build in flexibility for interpretation. He recommended
mentioning the Historic District’s diversity of age and architectural styles. He noted that the Historic District
has a defined commercial core. He noted that Hillsborough’s historic streetscape has not changed significantly
in 300 years.
Smith noted that Hillsborough’s Historic District is not frozen in time but is part of a living, growing and
changing town.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 7 of 9
Cobb shared a brief draft she had written about the Historic District’s special character: “The special character
found in Hillsborough’s Historic District represents a unique architectural and cultural heritage. Over 500
contributing residential and commercial structures showcase architectural periods and styles dating from the
late 18th century through the mid-20th century. Character-defining elements in the expansive district can be
found in its rich diversity of structures, settings and outbuildings, many of which are national landmarks.”
Cobb agreed it is important to note the Historic District’s stylistic diversity and the fact that the Historic
District is not frozen in time.
Heilman noted that the Historic District includes not only structures built through the mid-20th century but
also new construction. Snyder said the wording could refer to structures built in “modern times.”
Heilman said that if the Historic District’s primary defining quality is its diversity, it would be difficult to justify
disallowing anything. Cobb said it would be important for applicants to show their projects would remain
congruous with the surrounding neighborhood. Heilman agreed, adding it would be important for projects to
maintain architectural integrity within the specific site and also with other structures in the immediate
proximity. Snyder said the new standards could include a phrase about how materials should be appropriate
to the architecture of the structure.
Snyder said he thinks the commission members’ comments are a good start with which the consultants can
work. Heilman said the commission would see a draft of the new standards at the end of June. Heilman
invited members to email her any further thoughts they might have on the topic.
C. The Historic District Commission’s governance of trees
Snyder asked the members to consider whether the commission should be concerning itself with small tree
removals. He noted that requests to remove trees take up an inordinate amount of staff time. He said staff
has seen more requests to remove diseased and damaged trees in recent years, likely due to climate change.
He said that property owners in the Historic District generally value their trees and usually apply to remove
trees only when they are diseased or damaged. He noted that a layer of review would remain for applicants
wanting to remove a tree within the public right-of-way. Snyder proposed removing restrictions on most tree
removals, excepting Treasure Trees.
Heilman expressed concern that removing all restrictions would encourage people to remove more trees,
noting that more people may be interested in removing trees to utilize solar panels. Cobb agreed with
Heilman and said she thinks some rules need to remain. Heilman recalled one neighbor who removed a pecan
tree without permission because he did not like sap dripping on his car. Snyder noted that the commission
cannot control whether people choose to obey the rules. When asked, he said a person who removes a tree
without permission is fined $100 and required to plant a replacement tree. Altman said even a small
deterrent is better than no deterrent.
Heilman wondered how the commission could retain some review over trees, which she noted are part of the
significant features of a site.
Snyder said that removing a smaller tree currently is considered a minor work. He noted that a smaller tree is
any deciduous tree under 24 inches in diameter at breast height, or any evergreen tree under 30 inches in
diameter at breast height. Snyder proposed reclassifying smaller tree removals as exempt works. He said
larger tree removals still would come to the commission for review.
Cobb noted the result would be fewer minor works for staff. Snyder agreed. When asked, Snyder confirmed
that almost all of the tree requests he sees are minor works. Snyder and the commission members discussed
Historic District Commission Minutes | 8 of 9
the fact that most large tree removal requests are either in connection with new construction or are for dead
trees.
Heilman said she could agree to Snyder’s solution. Cobb agreed.
Motion: Heilman moved to amend the minor works to make all tree removal currently handled as minor
works now exempt works. Cobb seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Cobb. Nays: None.
D. Removal of cemetery boxwoods
Snyder reminded the commission members that he had emailed them about the boxwoods at the town
cemetery that are diseased and need to be removed. The commission briefly discussed that many boxwoods
around town are dying from nematodes and fungus. Heilman and Altman expressed regret that the problem
was not addressed early enough to prevent the boxwoods’ loss. Heilman said that as a general practice the
commission and town should be alert to the diminishing health of boxwoods and should seek intervention
early. The commission members generally agreed that the boxwoods’ removal is appropriate in this case.
E. Allowed driveway materials
Snyder noted that staff is working on a comprehensive driveways ordinance and said the Hillsborough Public
Works Department is looking for direction from the commission regarding allowed materials. Specifically,
Snyder asked if there are any surfaces the commission believes should not be allowed for driveways. He also
asked if there always should be a paved area within the public right-of-way to prevent gravel spillage.
Heilman said she thinks all new gravel driveways should be required to have a brick or paved pad at the public
right-of-way end of the driveway, saying she thinks the streetscape would look nicer. Heilman noted that even
if the end of a gravel driveway slopes away from the street, car tires still pull gravel into the street.
Snyder asked the commission members if there are any materials they would not want to see in driveways.
The commission briefly discussed permeable pavers and whether or not they are allowed. The commission
discussed a variety of other materials that are allowed, including gravel, asphalt, concrete, concrete pavers,
brick pavers, Chapel Hill gravel, chip and tar and grass pavers. Cobb said she thinks permeable pavers should
be allowed and wondered whether grass pavers are the same as permeable pavers. Heilman said permeable
pavers are not allowed but could not remember the reason. Snyder said he thinks permeable pavers should
be allowed as long as they are not plastic.
Heilman said she would ask Reid for the rationale behind disallowing permeable pavers. Snyder said the
commission could revisit the issue at the June meeting. Cobb and Smith requested Heilman also ask about
chip and tar, with which they are not familiar.
F. Equity statement and green energy standards for new Historic District Design Standards
Heilman briefly noted that she has asked the consultants helping draft the new Historic District Design
Standards to work on a statement regarding diversity, inclusion and equity. She asked that the commission
members share any thoughts they have on the subject.
Historic District Commission Minutes | 9 of 9
Heilman also said the commission should consider having discussions about green energy and what the
commission might accept or not accept. She said the consultants are researching the issue but said ultimately
such decisions will be up to the commission.
The commission briefly discussed the importance of equity and the considerations that will need to go into
such a statement.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Heilman moved to adjourn at 8:02 p.m. Altman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Heilman, Smith and Cobb. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin Snyder
Planner
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: Month X, 202X