HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-01-2021 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 20
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. Dec. 1, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair William Spoon, Elizabeth Dicker, Will Senner and Virginia
Smith
Absent: Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Eric Altman and Megan Kimball
Staff: Public Space and Sustainability Manager Stephanie Trueblood and Town Planner Tyler Sliger
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair William Spoon called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. Public Space and Sustainability Manager
Stephanie Trueblood called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Spoon read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented. Later in the meeting the board members discussed
part of Item 6A regarding a new procedure for opening public hearings under Item 5A.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on Nov. 3, 2021.
Motion: Member Will Senner moved approval of the Nov. 3, 2021, minutes as submitted. Member
Elizabeth Dicker seconded.
Trueblood called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Virginia Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
5. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 210 W. King St. – Applicant Maureen Quilligan is requesting to
renovate the front façade of the house by replacing the middle second-story window with a door and a
wrought iron balcony, repositioning the front porch columns, installing wrought iron railings on the front
steps and adding hinges and shutter dogs to the current shutters. (PIN 9864-96-3464)
Spoon explained staff recommended a new procedure for opening and closing public hearings. He said the
public hearing would be opened once at the beginning of the public hearing items and closed once at the end
of all the public hearing items, instead of opening and closing a public hearing for each item. He said the new
method should streamline the meeting and eliminate a number of roll-call votes. Trueblood clarified that
Spoon could open the public hearing without a vote as commission chair.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 20
Spoon declared the public hearing open. He introduced Item 5A. Spoon said the applicant is requesting to
renovate the front façade of the house by replacing the middle second-story window with a door and a
wrought iron balcony, repositioning the front porch columns, installing wrought iron railings on the front
steps and adding hinges and shutter dogs to the current shutters.
Spoon asked if any commissioners had conflicts of interest.
Smith said she is a friend of applicant Maureen Quilligan and her husband and asked to recuse herself.
Trueblood noted that without Smith’s vote the commission would not have a quorum and would need to
table the application until the Jan. 5, 2022, meeting. Trueblood said a close friendship does not automatically
introduce a conflict of interest. Trueblood said Smith could still participate and vote on this item if she feels
she can apply the Design Standards without bias. Smith agreed and said she could apply the standards
without bias.
Trueblood and Town Planner Tyler Sliger were sworn in. Quilligan was sworn in.
Sliger confirmed there was no one else present speaking for or against Quilligan’s application.
Sliger summarized the staff report. Sliger said Quilligan’s home is a two-story, side-gabled, Colonial Revival-
style house that is three bays wide and double-pile with a two-story, shed-roofed porch that extends the full
width of the façade. The house has plain weatherboards, cornice returns, eight-over-eight wood-sash
windows and an interior brick chimney. Centered on the façade is a three-lite-over-four-panel door with ten-
lite sidelights and a one-lite transom. The two-story porch is supported by grouped square posts. A two-story,
hip-roofed ell at the rear likely dates from around 1950. It has weatherboards, double-hung wood-sash
windows and a picture window on the left (west) elevation that is flanked by four-over-four windows. An
attached, one-story gabled garage at the rear has a brick veneer and wide brick chimney. The house is sited
on top of a hill framed with manicured boxwoods and historic hardwoods. County tax records date the
building to 1926, however the front portion of the building appears on the 1924 Sanborn map and a building
appears in this location on the 1894 Sanborn map.
Spoon asked Quilligan if she had any information to add.
Quilligan said the house’s front bay likely dates from between 1875 and 1885. She referred the commission
members to the long historical narrative included in her application and described her research process.
Quilligan said although the town’s records date the house to at least 1926, her research indicates the front of
the house was built before the 1890s. She referred the commission members to a photograph in the
application showing the house with a single-story porch. Quilligan said she is happy to answer any questions.
Spoon asked for the commission members’ questions and proposed the members review the house’s
elevations one at a time.
Senner asked to first clarify the application’s scope. When asked, Sliger clarified the paint and wrought iron
railing could be approved as minor works, while the shutter dogs are still part of tonight’s review.
Regarding the front elevation, Senner said the application summary referenced the proposed wrought iron
balcony. He noted the narrative often references a wider, full-elevation wood balcony. He asked if the
commission is reviewing the smaller wrought iron Juliette balcony visible on the proposed front elevation.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 20
Quilligan clarified she does not propose building a wide wooden balcony like that at Poplar Hill on Burnside
Drive. She said a full balcony would make the house’s front too busy. She clarified she is open to building a
smaller balcony in wood instead of as a wrought iron Juliette balcony. Quilligan said the proposed wrought
iron balcony would be less expensive, noting it would not support a person’s weight. Quilligan confirmed she
is proposing the wrought iron balcony but is open to using wood if the commission members are not
comfortable with wrought iron.
When asked, Quilligan confirmed the style of the wrought iron balcony would be similar to the style shown on
Page 31 of the agenda packet. She explained the image on Page 31 is typical for such balconies on Greek
Revival façades with double-height pillars. Quilligan explained her research indicated there had once been a
sleeping porch extending from a second-story door. She said the house’s Greek Revival façade is missing a
balcony, noting her proposal would correct that mistake from the house’s 1950s renovation. Similarly, she
said she proposes to change the ratios of the front porch columns to the correct Greek ratios. Quilligan said
the columns do not look right to anyone who has seen classical architecture.
Spoon asked Sliger for his thoughts on the two proposed front façade changes, asking if the balcony and
column changes would be compatible with the Design Standards.
Sliger said there are not many similar houses in the Historic District. He said Quilligan’s argument hinges on
whether there originally was a second-story door on the front façade. Sliger said if the commission members
are satisfied with Quilligan’s evidence that there was a door, then the application would meet the standards.
Spoon said he believes the second-story door was originally on the front façade. He noted the door originally
led to a sleeping porch and asked if the wrought iron Juliette balcony would be architecturally appropriate.
Sliger said a porch more like that at Poplar Hill would be more congruent with the Historical District, but he
said the proposed Juliette balcony also would meet the standards.
Quilligan said she is willing to build a wood balcony, noting that Poplar Hill’s front balcony is wood. Quilligan
said Poplar Hill is the closest example in the Historic District but noted its very long balcony extends across the
entire front façade. She said wrought-iron balconies are often seen in the tidewater region of North Carolina.
She said she is willing to have a wood railing on the balcony, noting wood railings might be more appropriate.
She said she is happy to amend the balcony to look more like that at Poplar Hill.
Smith said she believes the wrought iron balcony is charming but too fancy for the “capital of the
backcountry,” as Hillsborough was once known. She said a small wooden balcony more like that at Poplar Hill
would be more appropriate. Quilligan agreed. Smith said the proposed wrought iron step railings would be
appropriate, noting there are many similar examples in the Historic District.
Smith noted the standards say shutters should be wide enough to close across a window, or in this case across
the proposed second-story. Smith said the balcony would need to be wider to accommodate the shutters
being able to close.
Spoon said he would be happy to see an updated application showing the wooden balcony, noting there is not
enough information in tonight’s application to approve a wooden balcony. Sliger agreed. Spoon proposed the
commission table the application to the Jan. 5, 2022, meeting. Quilligan agreed.
Quilligan asked if the commission could decide tonight whether the changes proposed to the pillars are
appropriate. Trueblood and Sliger confirmed the commission could decide on the pillars tonight.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 20
Spoon asked Sliger if staff had noted any issues with the proposed changes to the pillars. Sliger said the
standards say as much original material should be preserved as possible, and if that would be the case he saw
no issues. Quilligan confirmed she would preserve as much of the columns’ original material as possible.
Spoon asked for the commission members’ thoughts on Quilligan’s proposal to reposition the columns. Spoon
said he is comfortable allowing the proposed changes.
Senner said he agrees with Quilligan’s points about traditional column spacing. He said he feels unclear how
much the commission is allowed to approve changes to a structure’s original design. Senner asked if staff feels
comfortable that the proposed column changes are appropriate, given the house’s architectural style.
Trueblood noted it often is not appropriate to move front porch columns. She said if the commission
members approve the column changes they should specifically state why it is appropriate in this case so a
precedent for moving columns is not set. She said in the past the commission has allowed front porch
columns to be moved for structural reasons if they were inappropriately installed. Trueblood said she thinks it
is fair to say Quilligan’s columns were not installed in a normal way. She noted Quilligan is attempting to fix an
architectural problem from the 1950s installation. Trueblood said an argument could be made that the
changes are congruent with the Historical District.
Dicker said she feels comfortable allowing Quilligan to reposition the columns to better match Greek Revival
style.
Spoon summarized that the commissioners find that changing the columns’ spacing to better match Greek
Revival style is in keeping with the standards.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the Quilligan 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 Standards: Windows; Doors; Porches, Entrances and Balconies; and Accessibility
and Life Safety Considerations; and because repositioning the columns will achieve the
traditional ratios associated with the property’s Greek Revival architectural style. Spoon
seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Senner noted the application referenced installing a new beadboard ceiling on the porch. He asked if the
ceiling replacement could be approved as a minor work. Quilligan noted she already had replaced the ceiling
with beadboard in order to proceed with painting. Trueblood said the change would be considered a repair if
it was replaced in kind and would not need to come before the commission. Quilligan clarified there was not
previously beadboard on the ceiling. Trueblood said the beadboard would thus qualify as an exterior change
and could be added as an after-the-fact application to be discussed with the porch at the Jan. 5, 2022,
meeting.
When asked, Spoon said the hinges and shutter dogs could be discussed at the Jan. 5, 2021, meeting.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 20
Motion: Dicker moved to approve the column portion of the Quilligan application with conditions and to
table the remainder of the application to the Jan. 5, 2022, meeting. Spoon seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: The remainder of the application, including portions related to the balcony, beadboard ceiling,
hinges and shutter dogs, is tabled to the Jan. 5, 2022, meeting. The applicant shall submit new
balcony plans prior to that meeting.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 317 Mitchell St. – Applicant Ann Burton is requesting to paint the
exterior and stain the front exposed brick of the dwelling and remove one mature willow oak tree. (PIN 9874-
17-7907)
Spoon introduced Item 5B. He summarized that the applicant is requesting to paint the exterior, stain the
front exposed brick and remove one mature willow tree.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts regarding this item. None was raised.
Applicants Ann and Charles Burton were sworn in.
Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the one-story, side-gabled ranch house is four bays wide and
double-pile with a projecting, front-gabled, brick-veneered bay centered on the façade. The house has plain
weatherboards, two-over-two horizontal-pane wood-sash windows that are generally grouped and an interior
brick chimney. The entrance, a solid wood door with three lites, is located on the right (north) elevation of the
front-gabled bay, which has a wide two-over-two window flanked by narrower windows and has diagonally
applied wood siding in the gable. There is an inset porch at the right rear (northwest) that has been enclosed
with glass. County tax records date the building to 1954. Sliger said the Burtons are requesting to paint the
exterior, stain the front exposed brick of the dwelling and remove one mature willow oak tree. He referred
the commission members to materials in the agenda packet, including a project narrative with proposed
materials, additional historic information and a rationale for the proposal. Sliger said the applicable design
standards are Masonry; Wood; Paint and Exterior Color; and Site Features and Plantings.
Spoon asked the applicants if they had any information to add.
Charles Burton noted the house’s brick is aesthetic and serves no structural purpose. Regarding the willow
tree, he said an arborist reported the tree appears healthy but deformed as it is growing under the canopy of
a larger willow oak tree. He said the tree is growing grotesquely to one side. Burton said he and his wife are
having a new house built on that side of the existing house, and if the tree falls it could damage the new
garage. He said builders cut away a significant part of the tree’s root structure when installing the new
driveway.
Spoon asked if anyone was present to support or oppose the application. Joseph Griffin was sworn in.
Griffin said he lives next door to the applicants at 321 Mitchell St. He said he has no problems with the
applicants’ proposal to paint the house and remove the tree. Griffin said the trees in that area are fairly
unstable, noting one fell about a year ago. He speculated the trees had been planted too close together.
Griffin said he had no problems with any of the applicants’ plans.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 20
Spoon asked for staff’s opinion on the application.
Sliger noted the design standards say it is inappropriate to paint or stain brick that was not previously painted
or stained. He said the tree removal could be approved as a minor work, but added he would need more
information to approve the removal as a minor work.
Spoon asked for the commission members’ thoughts.
Smith said there are a handful of painted brick houses in the Historic District. She said those houses generally
date from between World War I and World War II or after World War II and tend to be architecturally
unremarkable. She said she believes houses like the applicants’ can benefit greatly from paint. She noted that
once a house is painted its paint must be maintained. Smith clarified that brick houses considerably older than
the applicants’ house should not be painted. She noted there are very few brick houses in the Historic District
older than 1900. Smith said she is aware of the standard prohibiting unpainted brick from being painted. She
said she stated in the past and still believes that paint can be very helpful in situations such as the applicants’.
When asked, Dicker and Sliger confirmed the standard in question is Masonry Standard 5. Dicker read the
standard, which says, “It is not appropriate to paint, seal or coat historic masonry surfaces that were not
previously painted, sealed or coated.”
Spoon asked if the commission members have any issues with staff approving the tree removal as a minor
work. None was raised. The commission members agreed Sliger could approve the tree removal as a minor
work.
Trueblood clarified that the commission had approved painting three previously unpainted brick houses
dating from the mid-20th century when she supported the commission several years ago. She said the
guidelines at that time contained the same language as the current standards. Trueblood said the commission
members had interpreted that the bricks used in those three houses were not historic bricks. Trueblood
clarified that the same standard was in place when other unpainted brick houses of the same era were
approved for painting.
Trueblood noted Griffin and Smith were commission members when the commission approved those three
houses to be painted. When asked, Trueblood said the commission members at that time had discussed that
historic brick has a different quality from bricks manufactured and used as a veneer in the mid-20th century.
Spoon noted that historic brick was used as a structural component, observing the brick façade of the
applicants’ house could be removed, unlike the brick in the Berry Brick House at 208 W. Queen St.
Trueblood was not sure if all three houses approved for painting had brick veneer. She said all three houses
were Minimal Traditional and ranch-style houses. Trueblood said the commission also had discussed that the
history of ranch houses often includes painting, referencing other historical districts in North Carolina. Smith
agreed and added that the bricks for those three houses were mass produced, not made in a pit in the yard of
the house as historic bricks were made. Smith said she believes having a house that was both brick and
painted was a statement of affluence.
Spoon said Masonry Standard 5 seems clear to him without a clearer definition of historic masonry. He said
every other house on the applicants’ block also is unpainted, and he wondered if painting would be in conflict
with those neighboring houses.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 20
Griffin said he was a commission member when the three unpainted brick houses were approved for painting.
He said two of the houses were on Margaret Lane and were painted white. Griffin said the houses looked
100% improved after being painted. He added there is a brick house next door to him and said he has no
problem with painting a brick façade.
Dicker said that as new commissioner she felt locked into the standards, noting she had not understood what
“historic” meant in the standards. She said it would be helpful to have “historic” clarified in the future,
worrying there could be a slippery slope. Dicker said she would be interested in knowing more of the previous
commission members’ rational and language for allowing the three unpainted houses to be painted.
Smith said sometimes a standard seems clear until it runs into the reality of life in the Historic District. She
noted that the Hillsborough Historic District is not Colonial Williamsburg. Smith said in such cases the
commission members state for the record why they are making their decision, even if it conflicts with the
standards. She said that way the commission members take responsibility for any conflict and try to clarify
their reasoning. Smith said stating one’s reasoning for the record is the key to preventing a slippery slope.
Senner said if there were a motion to approve the applicants’ request, the commission members would need
to clarify that the application is not in conflict with the standards due to past precedents, and the house’s age
and style and the fact that the house does not contain historic brick.
Trueblood reminded the members that the vote does not need to be unanimous.
Spoon noted Smith’s institutional knowledge. He asked what would keep future applicants from pointing at
this project, if approved, and then asking to paint brick buildings in the business district.
Charles Burton said that within the past year an apartment building on Tryon Street was approved to be
stained a deep grey on the sides. He said the building looks fabulous. Smith confirmed the apartment building
had been stained within the past year.
Trueblood said she could think of three residences of the same era as the applicants’ that the commission
approved to be painted. She said each each approval was a struggle because the standard is not clear. She
said those approvals were not necessarily unanimous. Trueblood said such applications are tricky because the
Historic District has such variation in style of houses, noting what is appropriate in one place may not be
appropriate in another.
Charles Burton noted the brick comprises only a small portion of the house. He said the brick portion is a
roughly 9-by-22-foot section of the front façade.
Ann Burton said the bricks are basically pavers and are obviously not historic brick. She said the bricks add
nothing to the house’s aesthetic appearance. She said it would be better to protect the brick with stain so
water does not seep through the brick. She understood they would need to continue staining the brick and
said they would like to continue protecting the brick in any event.
Smith said if the Burtons are approved to stain the brick they should ensure the bricks and mortar are in the
best condition possible before staining. Ann Burton agreed and reviewed the steps they would take.
Regarding the other unpainted houses on their block, Ann Burton said she does not think the fact that others
have not applied to paint or stain their houses should have bearing on what they choose to do.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 20
Spoon said he did not recall any other houses on the Burtons’ block applying to paint or stain their brick.
Spoon asked Dicker and Senner if the discussion of how the commission had applied the standard over the
years had changed their views.
Dicker said she had based her reasoning entirely on the standard but she could be comfortable approving the
application due to the previous precedents.
Senner said he could support approving the application if the motion were similar to what he had articulated
earlier. Spoon agreed.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the Burton 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 Standards: Masonry; Wood; Paint and Exterior Color; and Site Features and Plantings;
and based on discussion of the age of the house, the house’s architectural style and past
precedents related to treatment of brick deemed non-historic. Spoon seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Spoon moved to approve the Burton application as submitted and to handle the tree removal as
a minor work. Senner seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Spoon asked Sliger to make a note that the commission should discuss adding a definition of historic masonry
to the Design Standards during the standards’ annual review. Sliger agreed.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 219 N Hasell St. – Applicant Susan Overton is requesting to replace
the gravel driveway with concrete and replace the walkway with concrete pavers and pea gravel. The
applicant is also proposing a 280-square-foot rear patio with concrete pavers and pea gravel. (PIN 9864-87-
4481)
Spoon introduced Item 5C. He said the applicant is requesting to replace the gravel driveway with concrete
and replace the walkway with concrete pavers and pea gravel. The applicant is also proposing a 280-square-
foot rear patio with concrete pavers and pea gravel.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts regarding this item. None was raised. Spoon noted that
he lives across the street from the applicant. He clarified he does not share a property boundary with the
applicant and felt he could be impartial.
Applicant Susan Overton sworn in.
Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the one-story, side-gabled, Minimal Traditional-style house is three
bays wide and double-pile with a projecting, front-gabled bay on the left (south) end of the façade. The house
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 20
has a brick veneer, exterior brick chimney on the right (north) elevation and vinyl windows. A picture window
on the right end of the façade replaces a pair of original windows but retains the original opening. The
replacement front door is sheltered by an engaged, shed-roofed porch supported by decorative metal posts
with a metal railing. An attached, shed-roofed brick garage at the right rear (northwest) has an open vehicular
bay that is sheltered by an aluminum awning. County tax records date the building to 1946. Sliger said the
applicant is requesting to replace her gravel driveway with concrete and replace her walkway with concrete
pavers and pea gravel. The applicant is also proposing a rear patio with concrete pavers and pea gravel. Sliger
referred the commission members to information in the agenda packet, including a project narrative,
proposed materials, site plan and elevations showing existing and proposed conditions. He said the applicable
design standards are Walkways, Driveways and Off-Street parking; Decks; and Site Feature and Plantings.
Spoon asked Sliger to clarify why the application had come before the commission, noting that most of the
applicants’ requests could have been approved as minor works. Sliger said the application had to come before
the commission because the applicant is requesting to change the driveway materials. Trueblood further
clarified that the town charges a fee to approve minor works. She said staff sometimes bundles minor works
into a Certificate of Appropriateness application if an applicant must come to the commission anyway, so that
the applicant only pays the minor works fee once.
Spoon noted that concrete is an approved material for a driveway.
Spoon confirmed there was no one else present speaking for or against Overton’s application.
Spoon asked for the commission members’ questions or concerns.
Dicker said that as a new commission member she is a stickler for adhering to the Design Standards. She said
the Historic District Compatibility Matrix says changes to a driveway should match the existing driveway. She
worried approving the driveway change could set a future precedent.
Spoon said he had seen many driveways change materials over the years and had assumed such changes were
okay. He asked Trueblood or Sliger to pull up the Compatibility Matrix.
Trueblood reviewed the Compatibility Matrix language. She said it appeared that the language “match
existing/original” was added when the commission recently revised the Design Standards. Trueblood said that
language was not in the previous Design Guidelines. She said neither she nor Sliger was present for the Design
Standards’ revision and could not comment on the commission members’ reasoning. She said many driveways
in the Historic District have been changed to a hardscape material, usually because it offers a more stable
surface.
When asked, Overton said she did not have any information to add and would be happy to answer questions.
When asked, Sliger confirmed the patio material would be concrete pavers. Sliger said Overton had confirmed
that the application’s photographs show what is proposed. When asked, Overton confirmed the driveway
would be a natural concrete color, not tinted or stamped.
Senner noted the site plan shows an existing shed marked for removal. He asked if the shed removal is part of
the application, noting it was not referenced in the project narrative.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 20
Overton clarified she had already removed the shed. She said the shed had mold in it and the foundation was
deteriorating. When asked, she said the shed was prefabricated and probably had been installed two owners
ago. Overton said she would ask forgiveness if she needed to do so.
Sliger said he would look in the property’s file and would reach out to Overton if there is anything she needs
to do regarding the shed removal.
Smith pointed out the photograph of the proposed walkway shows a walkway two pavers wide with gravel in
between the pavers. She asked if that is Overton’s plan for the walkway. Overton said she proposes a walkway
only one paver wide, with grass between the pavers instead of gravel. Smith noted the grass could be hard to
navigate if Overton develops mobility issues. Overton agreed but said she does not like the look of pea gravel.
When asked, Sliger confirmed the application contains enough information on the walkway to approve it as a
minor work.
Spoon asked for other commission members’ questions or concerns. None was raised. Spoon observed he had
not heard any strong opposition to approving the application as submitted.
Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the Overton 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 Standards: Walkways, Driveways and Off-Street parking; Decks; and Site Feature and
Plantings. Senner seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Dicker asked Sliger to flag the driveways section of the Compatibility Matrix. She said that if driveways often
change materials then the Design Standards and Compatibility Matrix should reflect that fact. Spoon and
Sliger agreed that detail could be clarified during the annual review of the Design Standards.
Motion: Spoon moved to approve the Overton application as submitted. Smith seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Overton agreed to follow up with Sliger regarding the minor changes to the number of walkway pavers.
D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 328 Mitchell St. – Applicants Prudence Cuper and Jo Beth Mullens
are requesting to construct a 210-square-foot rear addition, a 38-square-foot rear entry and a 140-square-
foot screened porch and enlarge the existing bathroom and laundry area to approximately 140 square feet.
(PIN 9874-18-9223)
Spoon introduced Item 5D. He said applicants Prudence Cuper and Jo Beth Mullens are requesting to
construct a 210-square-foot rear addition, a 38-square-foot rear entry and a 140-square-foot screened porch
and enlarge the existing bathroom and laundry area to approximately 140 square feet.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 20
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts regarding this item. None was raised.
Applicant Prudence Cuper and builder David Cates were sworn in.
Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the one-story, side-gabled Minimal Traditional-style house is four
bays wide and double-pile, with the right (south) bay recessed slightly under a lower roofline. The house has
German-profile weatherboards, vinyl windows, an interior brick chimney and an exterior brick chimney on the
right gable end. The six-lite-over-two-panel Craftsman-style door is sheltered by a small, front-gabled porch
supported by slender square columns, and there are exposed rafter tails throughout. There is a small side-
gabled wing on the left (north) elevation and a gabled ell at the left rear (northeast) with an uncovered wood
deck to its right (south). County tax records date the building to 1940. Sliger said the applicants are requesting
to construct a 210-square-foot rear addition, a 38-square-foot rear entry and a 140-square-foot screened
porch and enlarge the existing bathroom and laundry area to approximately 140 square feet. He referred the
commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet, including a project narrative with
photos of the existing house, proposed materials, a site plan and elevations showing existing and proposed
conditions for the proposed projects. Sliger said the applicable design standards are Additions to Residential
Buildings; Decks; Windows; and Roofs.
When asked, Cuper and Cates said they had no information to add.
Spoon confirmed there was no one else present speaking for or against the application.
When asked, Sliger displayed images of the existing house, the site plan and proposed elevations.
When asked, Sliger said the only question he had regarding the application’s compatibility with the Design
Standards is the fact that the screened porch would extend out from the building such that it could be seen
from the front of the property. He said the existing white picket fence would help screen the addition but said
the Design Standards would call for plantings to provide more screening. Sliger said a person would have to be
fairly close to the property to see the addition.
Cates called attention to Page 73 of the agenda packet showing the picket fence and a tree that would help
screen the porch from view. Cates confirmed the tree would not be removed. He added the proposed
screened porch would be set back nearly an entire house’s width from the street.
Dicker said she found the application very thorough. She noted the proposed fiberglass columns and
fiberglass door and said the Compatibility Matrix allows fiberglass for those items on a case-by-case basis. She
asked why the applicant prefers fiberglass over wood. Cates said fiberglass is simply easier to maintain. He
noted the door and columns would not be on the front of the house and said he has previously seen fiberglass
columns and doors approved in the Historic District. Dicker said she was comfortable with that reasoning.
Senner noted the screened porch would be visible from the front of the house. He asked Trueblood how the
commission has handled fiberglass columns visible from front elevations in the past.
Trueblood said Spoon and Smith might be better equipped to provide that information, noting she has not
staffed the commission in more than 5 years. She said when she was staffing the commission, fiberglass was
deemed appropriate because it is paintable.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 12 of 20
Cates said the Martenstein and Price application that was approved at the Oct. 6, 2021, meeting faces North
Churton Street and has fiberglass columns that the commission approved.
Smith said fiberglass is much easier to maintain than wood. She noted fiberglass is paintable.
Cates said the fiberglass would be smooth and would not mimic wood.
Trueblood said fiberglass columns might be allowed on a case-by-case basis to remind the commission
members to ask if the columns would have seams. Cates said he would never propose columns with seams.
When asked, Cates explained that German siding is also called Dutch Lap siding. He said it was very popular
from the 1930s through the 1950s.
Senner noted that although the house is on a corner lot with one elevation facing King Street, that elevation is
not deemed character defining, thus the relocation of the windows is not in conflict with the Design
Standards. Senner noted that one window on the primary elevation would change size. He said he assumed
the interpretation is that because changing the window would make it consistent with the other front
windows it is consistent with the standards, even though the standards contain language about not modifying
windows on a character defining elevation. Senner asked if the windows listed as aluminum-clad would be
wood windows. Cates confirmed the windows would be aluminum-clad wood windows.
Spoon observed that the lighting plan had been separated from the application as a minor work. He said
seeing the lighting plan helps him get a full picture of the proposed project. Trueblood explained that if the
commission members wanted to review the lighting plan it would need to come before the commission for a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Cates clarified they are not proposing any lighting.
Sliger clarified the lighting plan is separated to a minor work for the next item, Item 5E. Trueblood explained
that many times plans are ready to come before the commission except for light fixtures, which can be
approved by staff. Spoon clarified he is more concerned with the location and height of proposed lighting.
Trueblood clarified the amount of light is not in the commission’s purview. Spoon agreed but said location of
lights is in the commission’s purview.
Spoon had no further comments regarding this application. He noted there seemed to be no strong
opposition to approving the application as submitted.
Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the Cuper/Mullens 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 Standards: Additions to Residential Buildings; Decks; Windows; and Roofs. Spoon
seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Dicker moved to approve the Cuper/Mullens application as submitted. Senner seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 13 of 20
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
E. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 310 N. Cameron St. – Applicant Diane Eckland is requesting to add
a 780-square-foot addition to the rear of the dwelling, build a roof over the front stoop and build a 720-
square-foot garage in the rear of the lot.
Spoon introduced Item 5E. He said applicant Diane Eckland is requesting to add a 780-square-foot addition to
the rear of the dwelling, build a roof over the front stoop and build a 720-square-foot garage in the rear of the
lot.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts regarding this item. None was raised.
Applicant Diane Eckland sworn in.
Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the one-story, side-gabled brick ranch house has Colonial Revival
details. The house is four bays wide and double-pile with vinyl windows, an interior brick chimney and an
exterior brick chimney on the left (north) elevation. Colonial Revival details include a denticulated cornice at
the roofline and fluted pilasters flanking the four-lite-over-four-panel door. A picture window in the left end
of the façade is flanked by double-hung windows. A gabled, screened porch is on the left elevation, and a
small vinyl-sided gabled wing on the right (south) elevation may be an enclosed porch. County tax records
date the building to 1957. Sliger said he applicant is requesting to add a 780-square-foot addition to the rear
of the dwelling, build a roof over the front stoop and build a 720-square-foot garage in the rear of the lot. He
referred the commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet, including a project
narrative with photos of the existing house, proposed materials, a site plan and elevations showing existing
and proposed conditions for the proposed projects. Sliger said the applicable design standards are Additions
to Residential Buildings; Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Windows; and New Construction of Outbuildings
and Garages.
When asked, Eckland said she had no other information to add.
Spoon asked if anyone was present to speak for or against the application.
Cates said the applicant’s next-door neighbors, Jean and Walt Swainey at 308 N. Cameron St., had retained
him to represent their comments, which he also had submitted to Sliger. Cates said the Swaineys had three
comments.
First, Cates said the Swaineys are concerned about the proposed addition’s massing and scale. Cates said the
Design Standards say additions should be subordinate to the primary building. He referenced a design sketch
comparing the area of the existing house with the area of the proposed addition as seen from the Swaineys’
house. Cates said the addition appears substantially larger than the existing house when viewed from that
angle.
Second, Cates said Page 99 of the Design Standards says, “Screen new off‐street parking areas in residential
and commercial areas of the district from view and minimize their visual impact on adjacent properties
through the use of perimeter plantings, fences, walls or hedges.” Cates said the applicant’s existing driveway
and parking area is in the property’s front, while the proposal would extend the driveway and parking area
along the property line shared with the Swainey’s and into the backyard. Cates said the Swaineys feel
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 14 of 20
It is appropriate to request the extended driveway and parking area be screened. Regarding the type of
screening, Cates said fences deteriorate over time while evergreen plantings look better as they age. He
pointed out there is a fairly open space between the two properties and that the Swainey’s property does not
have any parking adjacent to the applicant’s property.
Third, Cates said the Swaineys’ last concern may not fall under the commission’s purview but the Swaineys
wanted to identify it as an issue. Cates said water from the applicant’s property runs south into the Swaineys’
carport, which is just to the south of where the applicant proposes building a garage. Cates said the new
garage and driveway extension would create more impervious surfaces and would exacerbate the Swaineys’
problem. Cates said the Swaineys hope the applicant could commit to grading and piping to manage the
additional runoff.
Trueblood confirmed the water runoff issue is not within the commission’s purview. She recommended the
Swaineys reach out to Eckland directly to deal with the water problem.
Eckland responded to Cates’ and the Swaineys’ concerns.
First, Eckland said the proposed addition would not be larger than the main structure. She referred to the site
plan, noting the main structure is 1,012 square feet and the addition would be 762 square feet. Eckland said
she made quite a bit of effort to keep the addition from overwhelming the main structure, noting the addition
would not be very visible from the front elevation.
Second, Eckland said both she and the Swaineys have their own garages and that there is no fencing or
landscaping shielding the Swaineys’ garage from her property.
Third, Eckland said it is obvious the Swaineys’ garage has water issues, noting some of the water comes from
the Swaineys’ own garage. She said she makes every effort to work with her neighbors and would make every
effort to not add to the problem.
Regarding the Swaineys’ first concern, Cates clarified he is not implying there is a problem with the proposed
addition’s square footage, but rather with the massing. He noted that massing is different from area, clarifying
that the Swaineys are concerned about massing from a visual standpoint when viewed from the property’s
south. Cates said square footage is measured from a vantage point of looking down on the property rather
than from the side.
Eckland said that the addition would not overpower the main house from a height or elevation standpoint.
She said massing would always appear greater when an addition is added onto a house. Eckland said the
house currently contains only one bathroom, two bedrooms and a small living area and does not fit today’s
families.
Spoon asked for Sliger’s viewpoint. Sliger said he had spoken to Hillsborough Senior Planner Tom King about
the proposed garage’s zoning requirements. Sliger said the lot is nonconforming and thus has some leniency
regarding setbacks. He said the proposed garage meets the setbacks standard but the northern side setback
would need to increase by 30 feet. Sliger said Eckland would need to confirm she is okay with increasing the
north side setback to 30 feet to accommodate a 10-foot south side setback. He said the modified setbacks
would apply to any future development on the lot.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 15 of 20
Cates noted that the proposed garage could one day be proposed as an accessory dwelling unit. He noted
accessory dwelling units must meet setbacks. Sliger confirmed an accessory dwelling unit must meet setbacks.
Trueblood added that ordinances change over time and said non-compliance now may change in the future.
Spoon asked how the setback change would be documented. Sliger said he and King had discussed several
options. Trueblood said the zoning permit form would be an appropriate place to document the setback
change. She clarified the Historic District Commission cannot determine setbacks. Trueblood said the zoning
compliance check happens during the zoning permitting process and the setbacks’ measurements could be
reported on the zoning permit.
Sliger noted Eckland left the meeting and returned at 8:36 p.m. Eckland said her computer had died. Sliger
summarized the setback conversation for Eckland.
Trueblood recommended the commission members move on to other topics, as setbacks are not within the
commission’s purview.
Spoon asked for the commission members’ thoughts and questions.
Dicker had no questions.
Senner said he understood the Swaineys’ comment regarding massing. Senner said Additions to Residential
Buildings Standard 7 says, “Keep the addition height lower and the width narrower than the original house.”
Senner said the proposed width is narrower but noted the proposed addition would be the same height as the
existing house. He said he could see how that height would make it less clear from the side that the addition is
subordinate to the original structure.
Regarding removing the chimney, Senner said the Design Standards indicate it is appropriate to remove
secondary chimneys when they are not visible from the street. Senner said this secondary chimney is visible
from the street. Sliger clarified the chimney is non-functional and is therefore aesthetic. Senner asked if there
were past precedents for allowing a non-functional chimney to be removed. Sliger confirmed that was how he
was reading the situation.
When asked, Eckland confirmed the fiber cement siding would be placed with the smooth side out. She
confirmed the trim, siding and window paint colors either would match the existing colors or be submitted to
staff as minor works. She confirmed the materials listed would apply to both the addition and the garage.
Regarding the front porch, Senner said he believed the intent of the Design Standards is that new front
porches be built so they could be removed. Eckland said she proposes to put a roof over an existing front
stoop. She confirmed the roof could be removed later if desired and that she would not change the original
roof structure.
When asked, Eckland confirmed the HVAC unit would be moved but would still be behind the house and to
one side.
Spoon recalled two previous similar applications for which the commission found it inappropriate to add the
front stoop. He did not recall the standard cited in those cases. Sliger said he had looked at houses on the east
side of Churton Street, noting there are more ranch-style houses east of Churton Street than west. Sliger said
most of the ranch houses in that area have some type of front porch stoop. Sliger said he thinks the proposed
front porch stoop would be compatible with the other ranch houses in the Historic District. Spoon said the
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 16 of 20
two applications he was thinking of were on Margaret Lane and west of Churton Street, speculating the
location difference could have been why those stoops were deemed inappropriate.
Eckland said she has personally put roofs over about six stoops in the Historic District, including for the
Planning Director’s house and for a ranch-style house behind the Colonial Inn.
Regarding screening the driveway, Spoon said he recalled some recent applications in which the commission
required screening for new driveways for new construction. He wondered if this situation was different,
noting the driveway already exists.
Cates said the driveway is new. Eckland disagreed, saying the driveway would be extended.
Spoon and Sliger agreed the commission members would have to use their judgment regarding driveway
screening. Sliger recalled the Burtons’ application earlier tonight and said there is no screening between their
new house’s new driveway and their existing home to the north, though he noted the Burtons own both
properties.
Senner said the standard requiring screening of new driveways is on Page 99 of the Design Standards.
Eckland said the existing driveways are 1 foot apart, which would not leave enough room between them for
plantings. Cates said the site plan indicates 14 feet between the existing house and the property line. Cates
suggested Eckland could make the driveway smaller to provide space for plantings. Eckland said there is not
enough room between the driveways and the house.
Sliger said the commission members would need to decide whether they consider the driveway to be new
construction or an existing driveway that is being extended. He said if it is considered a new driveway, the
Design Standards require screening.
Spoon read Walkways, Driveways and Off-Street Parking Standard 11, which reads, “Screen new off‐street
parking areas in residential and commercial areas of the district from view and minimize their visual impact on
adjacent properties through the use of perimeter plantings, fences, walls or hedges.”
Smith suggested the applicant could screen only the new section of the driveway. Eckland agreed but said
screening would impede upon a beautiful tree in the neighbors’ yard.
Smith asked if Eckland could curve the new section more toward the left or make the driveway narrower as it
approaches the garage. Eckland pointed out the driveway curves in slightly to avoid a telephone pole. Eckland
added the Swaineys already have screening from the tree in that location.
Cates said the Swaineys’ screening does not count, noting he has had to answer similar questions from
Eckland’s perspective in the past. Cates said Eckland cannot rely on the adjacent property owners’ screening
to address her proposal’s screening needs.
Spoon asked if screening is physically possible between the two driveways, noting it would be up to the
commission members to decide whether they want to require screening. He asked if Sliger or Trueblood had
any insight into how to settle the issue. Sliger said either the applicant could offer to screen the driveway or
the commission could decide whether or not to require screening. Spoon replied the commission could not
require screening if there is not enough physical space.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 17 of 20
Cates suggested Eckland could install a fence along the portion where there is not enough space for plantings,
then install plantings farther down the driveway where there is enough room, noting cars would be more
likely to be parked closer to the garage. Spoon and Senner agreed that Cates’ proposed solutions sounds
possible.
Smith said good fences make good neighbors, as do good screening hedges. She observed the proposed
garage is only 10 feet from the property line. Smith wondered if Eckland could move the garage farther away
from the property line to create more space for the driveway and thus better hide the parking area.
Eckland clarified she does not propose a true parking area. When asked, she confirmed the driveway would
widen to be as wide as the garage in front of the garage to allow cars access.
Eckland said she feels fine installing screening from the line of the house toward the rear of the property. She
said she does not think there is room to install screening between the house and the property line.
Spoon noted the driveway would only be new from the existing driveway back toward the proposed garage.
He asked Sliger if a screening fence would need to stay behind the front line of the house. Sliger said he would
need to check the Design Standards.
Cates said he thought it would be fine for a fence to start in line with the front of the house. Eckland
reiterated there would not be enough room for a fence. Cates disagreed and noted a fence can be built within
inches of a property line. Eckland said she felt fine with that option. Eckland noted she is not sure the garage
and driveway extension would be built. Eckland and Spoon agreed a fence and screening are not needed
unless new off-street parking is added.
Smith noted the proposed garage doors are listed as glass and aluminum. When asked, Eckland confirmed the
aluminum finish would be smooth and would not have faux wood grain.
Spoon said he would like to see the project’s lighting but acknowledged it would be handled as a minor work.
Trueblood said it would be helpful to clarify in the Design Standards if the commission members always
expect to see lighting plans as part of proposals for new construction and additions. Trueblood said in the past
lighting plans generally were handled as minor works. Spoon agreed and said he and Sliger had discussed a
future solution.
Spoon summarized the commission members seemed to think the application is appropriate, with the caveat
that if a new driveway and garage are added there will be a screening plan submitted to staff and it will
involve fences where there is no space for plantings.
Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the Eckland 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 Standards: Additions to Residential Buildings; Porches, Entrances and Balconies;
Windows; and New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages. Dicker seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Senner said he still struggled with the proposed addition’s massing. He said he does not think the addition’s
height relative to the existing structure is compatible with the Design Standards, leading him to vote nay.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 18 of 20
Smith said she also is concerned about the project’s massing.
Eckland said the lot is very large, which she feels makes massing less of an issue. She added massing would
not be an issue when compared with the surrounding houses.
Trueblood said in her experience it is hard to interpret massing from elevation drawings or aerial images,
which flatten projects into two dimensions. She said a three-dimensional model could be more helpful for
determining massing.
The commission members agreed the public hearing was now closed, as the motion for a finding of fact had
been made. Trueblood said staff could still discuss deliberations with the commission members but the
witnesses could offer no more testimony to be considered.
Trueblood said she was not sure the commission members have enough information to judge massing.
Smith said she was not impressed with the lot’s size, which she said is very deep but not very wide. Smith said
she votes nay, based on the Design Standard regarding massing.
Vote: 2-2. Ayes: Dicker and Spoon. Nays: Senner and Smith.
Senner clarified the standard in question is Additions to Residential Buildings Standard 7, which reads, “Design
new additions to be compatible in height, roof form, scale, massing, surface materials, detail and proportion
with the primary building. Keep the addition height lower and the width narrower than the original house. Set
back side additions at least 2 feet from the front plane of the house.”
Spoon noted Eckland was no longer in the meeting.
Senner noted that the lot naturally slopes away where the addition would be added. He observed the slope
would add more overall height to the addition, making its height greater than the overall height of the existing
structure’s front side. He said he would prefer the applicant lower the addition’s roofline so the addition was
more clearly subordinate to the existing structure.
Smith agreed and said the addition and the garage would fill up a great deal of space.
When asked, Trueblood confirmed Eckland did not need to be present for the voting portion of the meeting,
noting the public testimony portion of the meeting was over. She observed the motion for a finding of fact did
not pass. She outlined the commission members’ options, saying they could table the application and ask for
additional materials or could make another motion for a finding of fact.
After a brief discussion, the commission members agreed to table the application and request Eckland provide
a three-dimensional drawing more clearly showing the proposed addition’s massing. Spoon suggested the
commission members also could request to see the screening plan.
Trueblood clarified that the motion for a finding of fact had failed but Eckland’s application had not been
denied.
Eckland returned to the meeting.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 19 of 20
Dicker noted that the addition is behind the house, not in the front. She said she felt unclear regarding how
much weight to give the addition’s massing, considering it is in the rear of the house. Dicker said she thought
additions were generally fine as long as they were away from view. She asked for clarification.
Smith asked if the crest of the proposed roof would be visible from the front of the house.
Eckland said the new roof would not be visible from the front. Cates said the commission members have to
respect the adjacent property owners’ concerns about massing.
Trueblood reminded the commission members that the public hearing was closed. She said nothing Eckland or
Cates had said since the public hearing closed could be used as evidence to support a future motion. She said
the members should re-open the public hearing if they were going to continue discussions with Eckland and
Cates. She said alternately a member could make a motion to table the application. Trueblood suggested
Spoon summarize the conversation for Eckland during the time she was away from the meeting.
Spoon summarized the commission members had discussed tabling the application to the Jan. 5, 2022,
meeting and requesting three-dimensional drawings to help them better understand the addition’s massing,
as well as information about the screening plan. Spoon explained the motion for a finding of fact did not pass,
with two commissioners voting nay.
Eckland asked Trueblood for clarification regarding massing, saying her understanding was that massing was
most important from the street view.
Spoon said that the public hearing was now closed and that anything discussed at this point could not be used
as evidence supporting a motion. Trueblood clarified Spoon should reopen the public hearing if the
commission members want to continue discussing the application.
Spoon said he would prefer to table the application, saying he did not think the commission members have
the information needed to make a decision.
Motion: Spoon moved to table the Eckland application to the Jan. 5, 2022, meeting with conditions.
Smith seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: Applicant will provide the driveway screening plan and a three-dimensional isometric rendering
showing massing of the proposed addition.
6. Updates
A. Staff Updates – New procedure for opening public hearing; Axelbank case
The new procedure for opening public hearings was discussed under Item 5A.
Spoon introduced Item 6A.
Regarding the Axelbank case at 330 W. King St., Sliger said the case was brought to his attention two weeks
ago. Sliger said he is reaching out to the property owners and their attorney. He said they would meet in early
December to make a plan addressing the notice of violation.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 20 of 20
Trueblood noted that meeting agendas often fill up a month in advance. She said the commission’s written
policy is to not have more than four major applications on one agenda. Trueblood asked how staff should
handle a situation in which an item is tabled to a meeting that already has a full agenda. After a brief
discussion, the commission members agreed staff could have the authority to add a fifth agenda item if it
seems feasible. Trueblood clarified that situation likely would not happen often.
7. Adjournment
Motion: Spoon moved to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. Senner seconded.
Trueblood called the roll for voting.
Vote: 4-0. Ayes: X. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Trueblood
Public Space and Sustainability Manager
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: Month X, 202X