HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-07-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 1 of 14
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. July 7, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Eric Altman, Candice Cobb, Megan Kimball
and William Spoon
Absent: Max Dowdle and Vice Chair Virginia Smith
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
There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented. Later in the meeting the commission members
added Item 7D to discuss updates regarding the preservation awards, a lecture on equity, and concerns that
have arisen with the Axelbank project at 330 W. King Street.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on May 5, 2021.
Motion: Member Megan Kimball moved approval of the May 5, 2021, minutes as submitted. Member
William Spoon seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Eric Altman, Candice Cobb, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.
5. Old business
There was none.
6. New business
Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 112 N. Churton Street – Applicant is Kate Carroll on behalf of M&L
Dubose, LLC, requesting approval to construct a new 13-foot-tall, 828-square-foot detached outdoor patio
structure over the existing patio. (PIN 9874-06-6435)
Heilman introduced Item 6 and summarized the application, noting that the application is for a patio structure
at Radius Pizzeria.
Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Altman seconded.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 14
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Cobb, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.
Heilman asked if anyone had a conflict of interest with respect to this application. None was expressed.
Snyder, applicant Kate Carroll of Radius Pizzeria and M&L Dubose, LLC, and Bradley McClung of Summit
Design and Engineering Services were sworn in.
Snyder summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. Snyder noted the proposal would provide
Radius additional covered outdoor seating without compromising the integrity of the building, as the
proposed structure would be freestanding. He said the proposed structure would sit back approximately 5
feet from the front of Radius and be about 1 foot below the roofline of Radius, which would help make it a
secondary structure that would not overwhelm the primary building; he said the structure also would tie in
design elements from surrounding architecture such as the metal archway facing Churton Street. Snyder said
all materials and features appear to be compatible with the commission’s Exterior Materials Compatibility
Matrix without compromising the integrity of the site or the streetscape. He said that the proposed planter
boxes are temporary, movable features and so are not within the commission's scope of review, but the
applicants would need to work out the planters’ locations with the town Public Space Division staff if the
planters would be located within the public right-of-way. Snyder said staff has reviewed the proposed lighting,
heaters and materials with the Orange County Building Inspections Department, the fire marshal and other
agencies; he said the proposal appears to meet all such requirements.
Heilman asked Carroll and McClung if they had any additional comments for the commission regarding the
application. Carroll said the application is designed to meet the increased demand for outdoor seating in the
current climate of uncertainty surrounding the pandemic. Carroll said that Radius’ capacity for expanding the
use of their outdoor space is tremendous, given the current uncertain trajectory of the pandemic. She noted
that while the public health situation has improved, other Covid-19 variants could still crop up. Carroll said it is
her hope that the proposed design will complement the site’s existing buildings. McClung said he and Carroll
have tried to design a structure that fits well with the scale and design of existing structures.
When asked, Snyder said all of the public comments submitted regarding the application have been positive.
He noted positive comments from George Horton and Gregg Pacchiana, both of whom own nearby buildings.
Snyder said all comments have supported the application.
Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments regarding the application.
Heilman noted that the proposed roof appears to be available with or without striations. She asked if the
proposed roof would have striations. McClung said he does not think the roof is large enough to need
striations, which he said are used to prevent oil canning, a visual phenomenon that makes metal panels look
wavy or distorted. He said the roof could be flat between the battens and look very much like the photograph
on Page 15 of the agenda packet. Heilman said her vote could more likely be secured for the application if
there are no striations on the metal roof. Carroll said she is fine with the roof not having striations.
When asked, McClung said the proposed outdoor heaters ideally would be hung from the frame or trusses of
the proposed structure, not hung on the existing building. Carroll said it is her understanding that the reason
the structure is proposed to be freestanding is because the commission does not want such structures
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 14
connected to the buildings on either side. She said the structure would include beams designed to support the
heaters so the roof would be completely freestanding with no additional units connected to the buildings.
When asked, McClung confirmed that the awning currently over Radius’ side entrance would be removed.
McClung also confirmed the proposed structure’s brick piers would match the brick and mortar of Radius’
building as closely as possible.
Heilman asked if the structure’s rainwater capture system would be integrated into the design and whether
there are details not shown on the submitted plan that facilitate the rainwater capture. McClung and Carroll
confirmed the water would be captured inside the structure’s piers, which would incorporate spigots, and
they confirmed there would be no additional elements other than what is shown in the plan. When asked,
McClung said a 6-by-6-inch tube column likely would be sufficient, with piers that are 2 feet wide on both
sides.
When asked, McClung said the plan calls for the structure’s skylights to not be visible from the front or rear.
He said the skylights could be hidden by building up the fascia around them as needed. Heilman said she
thinks it is important to hide the skylights from the front and rear.
McClung confirmed the structure’s planned colors are black and dark bronze for the metal and the roof. He
said they are flexible if there is a problem with those colors. Carroll clarified that from an environmental
standpoint she would prefer the roof’s exterior not be a dark color because it would attract more heat. Carroll
said she would prefer the roof be painted to match the lighter color of the concrete of either of the flanking
buildings. She said she is flexible if that is a problem. Snyder said there are lighter-colored silver and gray roofs
in the district, adding that he would avoid a white roof because it would reflect a lot of light back into the
atmosphere.
Heilman noted that a good deal of the roof’s underside would be visible through the framing. She said a black
or dark bronze color would create a more seamless structure. Snyder said a light brown or clay color could
work, noting there are similar roofs in the Historic District.
Spoon asked if the roof could be different colors on the underside and exterior. Heilman said roofs come pre-
colored. McClung said the galvanized metal comes pre-colored but said it would be easy to paint the roof.
When asked, Snyder confirmed the commission has a set list of permissible roof colors, specifically muted
earth tones and silver. Altman agreed a muted earth tone could work.
Heilman said that if the supports and trusses are black or dark bronze while the roof’s exterior is silver or
otherwise not black or bronze, then she thinks the roof’s underside would be best served as black or bronze.
Spoon asked if the roof’s underside would be visible from the general streetscape or only if one were standing
close by. Heilman said she thinks the underside would be visible from the street, noting that the structure
would be quite long. Snyder agreed. Heilman noted the structure would be similar to the Eno River Farmers’
Market pavilion. Snyder said lighter tan colors could be matched from either flanking building. Snyder noted
the color could be revisited as a minor work if it is not determined tonight. Heilman agreed.
Carroll agreed she would like more time to think about the roof’s color. She noted she does not want the
feeling inside the structure to be too dark. She said their goal is for nothing about the structure to stand out.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 14
Spoon noted the 3-D rendering on Page 30 of the agenda packet shows the roof’s underside as aluminum or
white. He said he thought the lighter color would conflict with the dark pillars, but he said it does not look bad
to him. Heilman noted the skylights would be brighter than in the rendering except at night. Snyder noted the
applicants probably should avoid Galvalume on the roof’s underside as it could reflect light into customers’
eyes.
Heilman summarized that the roof’s exterior probably would be a lighter color and match the stones or
concrete from the flanking buildings, while the color of the roof’s underside is to be determined. She directed
the applicants to work with Snyder on the underside color. Carroll agreed.
Cobb agreed that sounded like a good plan. She added that she thinks the architect did a nice job making the
structure’s design compatible with other downtown buildings. Cobb said she particularly likes the design of
the metal arch. Heilman agreed.
When asked, McClung confirmed that none of the columns and piers would block the doors or windows of
either adjacent building.
Spoon noted that the applicant should not shift the design from hollow brick piers built to collect rainwater
toward a system incorporating a rain barrel. Carroll agreed and said a rain barrel would be unattractive and
take up too much space. Heilman clarified that if the rainwater collection design needs to change in the future
for an unforeseen reason that the applicant should return to the commission for another conversation. Carroll
agreed and said the rainwater collection system is designed to decrease the restaurant’s water draw while
being self-contained and invisible.
Heilman noted that the awning currently mounted on the front of Radius’ building is not shown in the
architectural renderings. When asked, Carroll and McClung confirmed the awning would not be removed.
Heilman noted that the building looks attractive without the awning.
Heilman summarized that the skylights would not be visible from the street; the heaters would be suspended
from the roof structure rather than the adjacent buildings; the metal roof would not have striations; Carroll
and McClung would work with Snyder to finalize the roof’s exterior and interior colors, returning to the
commission if such colors are not deemed a minor work; and Carroll and McClung would return to the
commission if the rainwater collection system cannot be contained within the brick piers.
Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Kimball seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Cobb, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the Radius/Carroll 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 Outbuildings and Garages. Altman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Cobb, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 14
Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application with conditions. Heilman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Cobb, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: No striations shall be between the raised roof panel seams. Any modifications from the
approved plans require review and approval by staff. Applicants are to follow up with staff on
which colors the roof panels shall be.
7.Updates
A.Discussion on driveway materials, painting masonry, and allowing faux wood grain on garage doors due to
limited material availability and design options.
The commission discussed Item 7D before discussing Items 7A, 7B and 7C.
Heilman introduced Item 7A. Snyder referenced the Exterior Materials Compatibility Matrix on Page 33 of the
agenda packet, noting he highlighted in yellow the areas needing discussion.
Regarding aluminum and vinyl siding, Snyder said questions about mobile homes had arisen. He asked
whether the commission would want mobile homes in the Historic District to have brick, wood or Hardee
siding, noting that mobile homes often are constructed with aluminum or vinyl siding. When asked, Snyder
said there are mobile homes in the district. Heilman said manufactured homes would be the more correct
term. Snyder agreed and said there are single-wides and double-wides in the Historic District. When asked, he
confirmed a new double-wide manufactured home would be permitted in the Historic District, though a
single-wide would not be permitted.
Snyder asked the commission members whether they want to allow manufactured homes as they are
commonly built or if they want to require different siding. He noted the decision has an equity and inclusion
aspect.
Spoon said a person putting a manufacture home on a lot in the Historic District probably would be stretched
thin financially. He suggested allowing aluminum and vinyl siding on manufactured homes, noting the issue
probably would come up very infrequently.
Snyder suggested allowing aluminum and vinyl siding on a case-by-case basis. Spoon agreed. Heilman agreed
and clarified that the Exterior Materials Compatibility Matrix should specify “manufactured home” rather than
“mobile home.” Snyder agreed.
Heilman said aluminum siding would be preferred over vinyl siding. Snyder agreed. Heilman said she would
prefer vinyl siding not be allowed, with aluminum siding allowed on a case-by-case basis. Heilman said she
would prefer cement board siding to aluminum siding.
Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood suggested that if the commission allows aluminum siding on one
type of housing in the Historic District, from an equity standpoint aluminum siding would have to be allowed
on all types of housing in the Historic District. She doubted the commission could decide a type of material on
a case-by-case basis.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 14
Heilman disagreed and said the commission allows many materials on a case-by-case basis in the Exterior
Materials Compatibility Matrix.
Town Attorney Bob Hornik added that the commission should be careful about injecting equity too far into
the Historic District Commission’s public charge and into what the statutes say the commission is supposed to
decide. He said the standard is supposed to be congruity with the district. Hornik acknowledged the
importance of viewing things through an equity lens, but said the commission should be careful about letting
equity concerns pull the commission’s decisions too far from the standard of congruity within the district.
Regarding congruity with the district, Kimball noted that the character of the Historic District has evolved
substantially over the past 200 years, with new homes in every era. She said that today a modular home is an
affordable option, which would not be incongruous with the Historic District. She said it would be incongruous
to allow aluminum or vinyl siding on a 200-year-old house, but it would be congruous to see a new home built
using today’s materials. She noted aluminum and vinyl materials make modular homes more affordable,
which makes the Historic District more accessible.
Heilman said the new homes being built on Occoneechee Street would not have been congruous with the
Historic District if they had aluminum or vinyl siding. Kimball agreed and said the commission could consider
what is appropriate given the type of new home. Altman agreed, noting there is a big difference between the
new homes on Occoneechee Street and modular homes. He agreed a case-by-case decision would be
appropriate.
Heilman summarized that the commission members feel comfortable allowing certain siding materials on a
case-by-case basis for new modular housing. Kimball agreed. Heilman noted modular homes could
accommodate the requirement for cement board siding. Kimball agreed and said the commission could
decide not to allow aluminum or vinyl siding at all. Snyder said that currently those materials are not allowed
at all.
After a brief discussion the commission agreed keep the current standards, which do not allow aluminum or
vinyl siding on modular homes.
Regarding garage door materials, Heilman said she thinks it is time to allow faux wood grain, saying she is
tired of listening to people say they cannot find a non-faux-wood-grain garage door. Snyder agreed and said
he has spent dozens of hours looking for garage doors compatible with the commission’s standards. He said
every garage door manufacturer makes a standard door using composite overlays, with the exception of very
modern flat-paneled doors that are not congruous with most homes in the Historic District. Heilman said she
thinks the commission has spent too much time discussing garage door materials. Cobb, Kimball and Spoon
agreed. The commission agreed to allow faux wood grain garage doors.
Regarding porch and deck flooring, Snyder noted some people have asked about alternative materials for
decking that would not warp or require as much maintenance as wood. Heilman noted that some survey
respondents wanted to use AZEK PVC decking or Trex composite decking. Snyder noted that decks are finite
and easily changeable and removable, unlike houses. Heilman said survey respondents had argued that those
materials are recycled, while wood is not. Spoon said that the decision would be for deck flooring only, not
posts and rails. Snyder said he could see the decision expanding in the future to include posts and rails; he
said he does not think the commission should restrict those materials to just deck flooring.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 14
When asked, Snyder said several other historic districts allow Trex for deck flooring; he noted decks typically
are in the backs of houses, are removable and may not be attached to the primary structure or to an addition.
He said there also are several historic districts that require wood decking.
Cobb said Trex decking is much easier to maintain than wood decking. She noted she used Trex decking in the
last house she built and was glad she did, though she said that house was not in the Historic District.
Heilman said she does not feel strongly about Trex or AZEK materials, as decks are typically in the rear of a
structure, in contrast to porches on the front of a structure.
Trueblood noted that the section of the Riverwalk in the Historic District had to be made out of wood because
of the Historic District Design Guidelines. She wondered if Trex and AZEK would be allowed for public
walkways if they are allowed for decks. She noted that people will want to use those materials if they are
allowed, because they do not warp or splinter as wood does. Cobb noted those materials save money on
maintenance.
Heilman reiterated that she is comfortable with such alternate materials in the side of rear or buildings but
not for a front porch floor.
Snyder asked the commission members what they think about allowing Trex or AZEK on the Riverwalk, which
is heavily traveled and close to a flood zone.
Heilman said she thinks those materials would make sense on some of the Riverwalk, perhaps on the bridges.
She said the Riverwalk is a beautiful boardwalk and it would be a shame to make the whole boardwalk plastic.
Cobb said using Trex or AZEK would save the town a lot of money. Snyder and Heilman agreed. Kimball said it
is hard to balance the practical issues with the aesthetic issues.
When asked, Snyder noted that deck flooring is addressed separately from posts and rails. Spoon said he
could support allowing Trex or AZEK for flooring, but not for rails and posts; he said allowing those materials
on rails and posts would contrast with the other wood materials required on houses. Spoon also worried that
allowing those materials on rails and posts would create a slippery slope in favor of allowing more plastic
materials. Heilman agreed.
Cobb said the commission could start by allowing Trex or AZEK deck flooring in the backs of houses and
reevaluate as technologies improve and as more historic districts change their policies.
Heilman added she is comfortable allowing such alternate deck flooring materials for the kind of public space
applications Trueblood had suggested. Cobb agreed.
Heilman clarified that she is more familiar with Trex than with AZEK and said she is more comfortable allowing
Trex than AZEK. Snyder agreed and said he would recommend Trex or a similar composite decking over AZEK,
which is made of PVC. Heilman agreed. Trueblood confirmed that AZEK is not a recycled product.
Snyder summarized that commission members agreed to allow composite deck flooring in the side or rear of a
home and on public walkways while keeping the current standards for posts, railings and columns. Heilman
agreed.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 14
Regarding driveways and off-street parking areas, Snyder summarized that the commission had previously
discussed Chapel Hill gravel, grass pavers and chip and tar materials. When asked, Heilman clarified that chip
and tar consists of an asphalt surface embedded with gravel, with different colored stones available.
Heilman said she supports chip and tar materials as long as the colors are specified to be congruous with the
Historic District.
Snyder added that the commission had discussed requiring impervious driveway aprons with the public right-
of-way. Heilman said that without that requirement gravel ends up in the street even if the driveway slopes
away from the street. Snyder suggested eliminating gravel from the portion of driveways within the public
right-of-way in favor of impervious materials such as brick, concrete, asphalt or pavers.
Trueblood noted that the public rights-of-way are very wide in some places. She pointed out Cobb’s driveway
as an example, estimating that 30 feet of Cobb’s driveway is in the public right-of-way. Trueblood said a
normal concrete driveway apron extends 10 feet from the street. She suggested specifying that the first 10
feet within the right-of-way be made of impervious materials, rather than relying on property lines. Snyder
added that Public Works also uses a 10-foot standard for driveway aprons. Heilman agreed.
Regarding grass or pervious pavers, Heilman recalled the commission had been leaning toward allowing such
pavers if they are not plastic. Cobb agreed. Snyder said such pavers could be made of concrete. He added
grass could grow or around through such pavers. Cobb added they are often made in diamond shapes.
The commission members agreed to continue allowing Chapel Hill gravel and chip and tar and to allow grass
or pervious pavers for driveways and off-street parking.
Regarding painting masonry, Snyder recommended not allowing previously unpainted historic brick to be
painted. Cobb agreed and said that unless masonry has been painted before, it is not appropriate to paint
brick masonry in the Historic District.
Snyder agreed but asked about painting a new, contemporary brick house built in the Historic District. Kimball
said she thinks a new house could have painted brick. Snyder agreed and said a new house also could have
stained brick.
When asked, Snyder said the current standards allow painting or staining brick on a case-by-case basis. Spoon
said he recalled allowing painted brick on new construction within the past year; Snyder confirmed that was
correct.
Trueblood gave a brief history of how the painted masonry came to be allowed on a case-by-case basis, noting
a case where an addition was added to a house and the entire house then was painted because the masonry
could not be matched.
Heilman said the commission has heard arguments that ranch-style houses often were painted when they
were built. Cobb, Heilman and Kimball agreed that a brick ranch that had never been painted should not be
painted.
Heilman said stain should be treated the same way as paint. Snyder agreed, saying that once brick is painted
or stained it can never be returned to its original unpainted or unstained appearance, even if the brick is
sandblasted.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 14
Cobb said no historic districts allow painting brick. Snyder confirmed that is correct, unless there is a historic
mural that is being restored. Heilman clarified that previously painted brick can be repainted as maintenance.
The commission agreed not to allow painting of brick masonry on non-contemporary structures that have
never been painted.
When asked, Snyder briefly reminded the commission members of the process through which the Historic
District Design Guidelines are being updated to Design Standards. He reminded the members that the
commission established a subcommittee that is working with the hired consultants and with staff to update
the standards. Snyder and Heilman encouraged the commission members to make their opinions known so
they can be discussed and the standards revised appropriately. He clarified that all changes would come
before the commission and the public for comment and would come before the commission for final
approval.
B.Discussion on HDC regulation of streetlights within the public right of way.
Snyder introduced Item 7B, noting that Spoon had questions about the recent changes to town streetlights.
Spoon noted the new LED streetlights in town had prompted about two dozen comments to the town. He
noted many of the commenters had complained that the lights are too bright and not in character with the
Historic District. Spoon said he had asked Planning Director Margaret Hauth why the commission had not
been involved in the decisions about the new lighting and said Hauth indicated the commission could be
involved if it so desired. Spoon said Hauth advised that the commission should have a discussion about
whether they want to be involved in public lighting decisions. Spoon noted that Chapel Hill’s historic district
commission does review public lighting decisions such as new types of poles and new light locations. Spoon
noted the Hillsborough Historic District Guidelines and other town documents do not bar the commission
from reviewing public lighting.
Snyder said he thinks street lighting is a public safety issue and worried that the commission reviewing such
public utilities might create a slippery slope. Snyder noted that Trueblood has been working on the street
lighting issue for months and asked for her perspective.
Trueblood said it is her understanding that the commission has authority over the look and style of streetlight
fixtures but not over the amount of light emanating from the fixture, which has always been determined by
the zoning ordinances on private property and by the town board on public property. Trueblood noted that
Hillsborough has a mixture of several kinds of old and new streetlights. She said many of the older streetlights
have different fixture styles and provide different amounts of light. Trueblood summarized that Duke Energy
has a state mandate to transition older, less energy-efficient streetlights to LED streetlights; she said Duke
Energy began changing older streetlights to Duke’s standard LED lights without town knowledge or authority.
She clarified that Duke Energy recognized their mistake and is changing the incorrect LED streetlights at their
own cost to the LED streetlights approved by the town board. Trueblood said the new town standard for LED
streetlights casts a narrow oval of light over the street, is the lowest possible level of LED light that can be
recommended on a public road and is a warmer color than Duke Energy’s standard streetlight. Trueblood said
the fixture for all LED streetlights is a small, rectangular box with few style options. Trueblood said that
streetlights generally are not changed all at once, noting that the town’s recent downtown lighting transition
project was an intentional exception to correct inconsistent lighting downtown. Trueblood suggested the
commission might be able to approve future changes to streetlight fixtures. She clarified that Duke Energy
does not notify the town when it changes out streetlights.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 14
When asked, Trueblood confirmed there are few style choices for streetlight fixtures other than black or silver
color; she said the town generally chooses black. She said more options exist for site lighting, such as for
lighting the police station parking lot. Trueblood added that Piedmont Electric serves part of town and
provides slightly different streetlight fixtures. She said she has communicated the town’s new standard for
street lighting to Piedmont Electric.
Heilman summarized the question before the commission tonight is what the commission wants to engage
with regarding public lighting.
Spoon said he had brought up the issue because the streetlight adjacent to his back yard had been changed to
an LED streetlight and is still casting light 200 feet into his back yard despite the change to the dimmer,
warmer town standard LED. He said a shield would be installed soon on the streetlight, which should fix the
problem for him. Spoon noted that the LED streetlights are lighting up areas that have never before been lit.
He said the commission has a full page of lighting guidelines requiring lights to point down and not be
intrusive, and he said he does not understand why Duke Energy could install lights that negate the
commission’s standards. Spoon said the Historic District Commission seems like a good place to house a
lighting plan and suggested the commission could provide annual review over new lights. Spoon said a new
LED streetlight installed in front of a historic house could detract from the Historic District and said he thinks
someone in town should know what the plan is.
Trueblood said she does not think there is a way to achieve less light from an LED streetlight than what Spoon
currently sees from the streetlight at his house. She acknowledged that Spoon’s situation is unique because
the streetlight at his location had not been working at all before the changeover to an LED streetlight, making
the contrast especially noticeable. Trueblood noted that the town can install shields on lights that are too
bright to decrease the light on citizens’ property. Trueblood reiterated that the town board already has
chosen standard lights that cast the least possible amount of light available for public streetlights. She said as
technology changes in the future she could let Snyder know about options coming down the road.
Spoon worried that in the future Duke Energy could install new lights where there were no lights before, or
could install any type of new lighting, all without checking with anyone first. Spoon said it is the commission’s
mission to preserve the Historic District’s character in the nighttime as well as the daytime.
Trueblood noted that the town board decides where to put streetlights and then pays for those streetlights.
She said those decisions are based on public safety and maintenance of the public right-of-way. Trueblood
said she could see issues arising if the Historic District Commission also claims authority over streetlights’
locations or light levels, creating a conflict between two town boards. Trueblood said decisions about lighting
amounts and locations have always rested with the town board.
Spoon said the commission could provide annual recommendations to the town board without creating a
conflict between the two bodies. Heilman agreed and said the commission has the opportunity to comment
on issues impacting the Historic District.
Trueblood agreed and said the commission members can always provide comment as such decisions are
made in public meetings. Heilman clarified that Spoon seems to be asking that the commission be notified
and given time to comment whenever the town board suggests the placement of new public lighting within
the Historic District. Spoon agreed. Heilman said that is consistent with other ways the commission works
with the town board.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 14
Trueblood agreed that could happen. She added that streetlights are not often added in the Historic District
where there was no light before, but rather current streetlights are often replaced as they age. Trueblood said
she could certainly notify Snyder about any newly suggested streetlights. She added that the final decision
about streetlights’ locations probably should rest with only one town board. Trueblood also said that town
streetlights must comply with North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and regulations
regarding light positions and light levels and that the town cannot modify lights on a case-by-case basis. She
summarized that there is little the town controls about streetlights other than the town’s preference for the
least intense light level and the warmer color among the choices offered by Duke Energy.
Heilman summarized that Trueblood will notify Snyder of the location of any newly suggested streetlights in
the Historic District and that the commission would have time to comment to the town board regarding the
locations of those streetlights. Trueblood agreed. Trueblood suggested the commission add a line for public
streetlights in the Exterior Materials Compatibility Matrix specifying the town standard streetlight, which
would further solidify the new town streetlight standard. Heilman agreed. The commission briefly discussed
that the commission probably could not have authority over public utilities.
C.Review and comment on Design Standards.
Heilman introduced Item 7C. She noted that the consultants helping revise the commission’s design standards
had emailed a draft to the commission members for comments a couple of weeks ago. She summarized there
is a diversity of opinions among the commission members on many issues. Heilman said the consultants
would work with the comments provided and if any issues are unresolvable they will return to the
commission for more guidance. Heilman said she thinks the consultants have done a good job, and she also
thanked Cobb for the photographs she has provided. She asked commission members to continue reviewing
the document with a critical eye toward further clarity and to continue providing constructive comments.
Heilman briefly updated the commission on several other details the consultants are working on, including
internal hyperlinks and textual updates for clarity and increased equity. The commission discussed requiring
applicants to present data backing up claims of financial difficulties that prevent renovations.
Snyder noted that some of the current standards are really recommendations or best practices, not
standards. He said the subcommittee has asked the consultants to specifically delineate standards,
recommendations and best practices in the new document to provide clarity to the commission members and
to applicants. Heilman said the new document would enumerate the standards, which are citable actions, and
would list recommendations using sub-bullets. She noted there may be recommendations that the
commission may want to make into standards, and vice versa; she encouraged members to highlight any
points they think are in the wrong group. Snyder noted that only things in the commission’s purview as
defined by state law should be pulled out as standards. When asked, Heilman and Snyder said the consultants
have done a good job so far. The commission discussed citable standards versus educational materials.
The commission discussed the special character of the Historic District. Heilman said the consultants had
captured most of the elements of the commission’s previous discussion about the Historic District’s character.
The commission discussed adding some of the elements the consultant did not include, such as the fact that
the Hillsborough Historic District includes a commercial core and government and institutional buildings; the
many houses with front porches; the lack of fencing in most front yards; the wide spectrum of residences of
all ages and styles, from modest to grand buildings; the town’s significant tree canopy; the low levels of
lighting; the walkability; and the active residential and commercial core. Hornik said it is important to define
the character of the district as well as possible, noting that is the standard against which future commission
decisions will be judged.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 12 of 14
The commission briefly discussed chimney removals and the cases in which chimney removal would be
allowed. Heilman briefly outlined a few places in the draft document where she would like more comments
and opinions.
Regarding the Materials and Colors section, Kimball said she thinks the options as drafted are too limiting. She
said she thinks the Historic District should continue to evolve rather than stay frozen in time. Kimball said she
would like to see more flexibility for contemporary new construction in the Historic District. Kimball agreed to
make some notes regarding that section. Heilman said she thinks the commission already has allowed more
contemporary structures in the Historic District and that the current language has not been read as limiting,
but she said she is open to improving the language.
The commission briefly discussed whether or not to regulate colors and how much to do so. Snyder
recommended limiting the number of colors on a building rather than specifying colors, saying the only way to
set a standard would be with a color palette, which the commission does not want to do. Heilman, Kimball
and Spoon preferred retaining some control over colors. Snyder said he is the staff person reviewing colors
and said people in the business community often accuse him of being arbitrary, though he uses the current
“muted earth tone” standard. Snyder said he worries the color standard is arbitrary and worries there is too
much subjectivity in the review process. Snyder pointed out staff is not supposed to review subjective
standards. The commission discussed whether the muted earth tones standard is subjective, how to judge
color choices appropriately and how to articulate the standard in the new document. The commission
members agreed that the standard should be muted earth tones, typically comprising no more than three
colors, consistent with the architectural style and period of the building.
Heilman and Snyder briefly discussed several other elements of the draft document, including the section on
disaster preparedness and the glossary. Snyder reminded the commission that the new standards would be a
living document designed to be edited easily in the future.
D.Updates regarding preservation awards, an equity lecture, and concerns with the Axelbank project at 330 W.
King Street.
This item was discussed before Item 7A.
Heilman thanked those commissioners who attended the recent historic preservation awards ceremony at
the Colonial Inn, noting that it was well-attended and that it was nice to be able to gather to recognize the
significant preservation work done at the Colonial Inn, at Belleview Mill and at Volume with the Billy
Strayhorn mural. Heilman said she has submitted the Colonial Inn for a Preservation North Carolina award on
behalf of the Historic District Commission. Heilman noted she has not been able to find a national
preservation award category that seems to fit the Colonial Inn project. Snyder said he has nominated the
Colonial Inn for a “Great Places in North Carolina” award, which is given by the North Carolina Chapter of the
American Planning Association.
Heilman said she had attended an inspiring online speech on equity and inclusion in the historic preservation
field presented through Preservation Durham. Heilman summarized the talk’s content and recommended the
work of the speaker, Dr. Erica Avrami, to the commission members.
The commission discussed concerns that have come up about the Axelbank door project. Heilman noted that
the original doors have been replaced over top of the replacement windows as approved by the commission,
but she said the replacement windows and surrounding frames and wood are now visible through the original
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 13 of 14
doors’ windows. Heilman noted Axelbank had testified the replacement windows would not be visible
through the original doors’ windows.
Spoon concurred and recalled that Axelbank had assured the commission that only glass would be visible
through the original doors’ windows. Spoon noted that statement had not been made an official condition of
approval. Kimball said she does not think it needs to have been a condition, noting that the doors and
windows have not been installed as the commission approved. Altman and Heilman agreed.
Hornik said Axelbank had given sworn testimony under oath and that Axelbank is obligated to build what he
said he would build. Hornik said any departure from the approved plan should have been brought before
Snyder and perhaps before the commission for approval. Hornik said the commission could take enforcement
action.
Heilman said she feels the commission should address the situation. Kimball agreed, noting that Axelbank’s
testimony regarding the windows’ invisibility was a material fact that influenced her vote in favor of the plan.
Kimball said she would not have approved Axelbank’s proposal if it had been clear the replacement windows
would be visible. Altman agreed.
Snyder asked what the door and windows look like. Altman said it looks like the doors have been tacked on
over the windows. Spoon said about 3 inches of the replacement windows’ frames are visible through the
original doors’ windows. Spoon reiterated that Axelbank did not do what he said he was going to do.
Heilman recalled that the Axelbank application had been a challenging situation. She said she personally did
not support the approach and voted against it. She said the application had been approved based on the
testimony that was given, noting the resulting construction does not match the testimony. Kimball agreed and
reiterated she would have voted no if Axelbank had been clear that the replacement windows would be
visible through the doors’ windows. Heilman and Spoon agreed.
Heilman asked Snyder if the commission could leave the matter with him. Snyder agreed and said he also
would consult with Hauth, as she was the staff representative at the April 7, 2021, meeting.
When asked, Hornik explained that conditions typically are added to an approval for clarity to address items
that the application does not address directly. Hornik recalled that everything in the Axelbank application and
testimony indicated the replacement windows would not be visible. The commission members agreed that
their impression was the glass sizes of the original doors’ windows and the replacement windows would
match exactly.
8.Adjournment
Motion: Kimball moved to adjourn at 8:57 p.m. Heilman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Cobb, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin Snyder, AICP, CZO
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 14 of 14
Planner
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: August 4, 2021