HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-04-2021 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 8
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. August 4, 2021
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Vice Chair Virginia Smith, Eric Altman, Max
Dowdle, and William Spoon
Absent: Megan Kimball and Candice Cobb
Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planner Justin Snyder
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Jill Heilman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Planner Justin Snyder called the roll and confirmed
the presence of a quorum.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Heilman read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
Snyder said that under Item 7 he would update the commission on the status of the Axelbank project at 330
W. King Street. He added that a citizen had contacted him about the Historic District Commission potentially
supporting a local project but said he has not heard back about the project.
When asked, Snyder gave a brief update regarding new commission members. Snyder said Heilman and
member Candice Cobb would cycle off the board in September and that two new members would start in
October. He said one new member has a background in engineering and green building, while the other has a
background in health care and social justice activism. Snyder noted that Vice Chair Virginia Smith’s term will
end in early 2022, at which point another new member would join.
There were no further agenda changes.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on July 7, 2021.
Heilman suggested rewording the second-to-last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph on Page 2 of the
minutes, which reads, “Heilman said she would only vote to accept the application if there are no striations on
the metal roof.” Heilman said while the sentence is accurate, she is sensitive to how the Board of Adjustment
could interpret the statement as overly harsh. She suggested rewording the sentence to say, “Heilman said
her vote on the application could be secured if there are no striations on the metal roof.”
Motion: Member William Spoon moved approval of the July 7, 2021, minutes with the suggested
change. Member Eric Altman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 8
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Max Dowdle, Heilman, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
5. Old business
There was none.
6. New business
A. Commission review and public comment on Historic District Design Standards draft changes.
Heilman introduced Kate Kronau and Alison Blanton of Hill Studio in Roanoke, Va., two of the consultants who
have been working with the commission on the new Hillsborough Historic District Design Standards.
Blanton introduced Hills Studio’s presentation, saying she and Kronau would give an overview of the project
and outline the updates made to transform the previous design guidelines into the new design standards.
Blanton summarized the project team, which comprised representatives from Hill Studio, planning
consultants from Benchmark CMR Inc., staff from the Hillsborough Planning Department, members of the
Hillsborough Historic District Commission and representatives from the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office. Blanton noted that funding for the project came from a 2020 federal Historic Preservation
Fund grant administered through the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
Blanton summarized the project’s overall goals: to comprehensively revise and update the standards to
address inconsistencies, issues and deficiencies; to create a user-friendly document in a digital medium that is
rich in content and illustrations; to provide the commission with updated standards to support consistent and
defensible decisions; and to create a document that is easy to update. Kronau noted the new standards
document has been created in Microsoft Publisher, which is easy to use and can export easily to a PDF
document.
Blanton summarized the process the team had followed to update the document, including reviewing the
existing guidelines and comparable guidelines used elsewhere, collecting stakeholder input, identifying
inconsistencies and deficiencies, creating photographs and graphics, revising and laying out content for
review, revising the content to be consistent with N.C.G.S. 160D, conducting site visits and presenting the
draft standards to the Historic District Commission and the public for final review. She said those final
comments from the public would be incorporated into final revisions, at which point the town staff will
present the new standards to the town board. Blanton said Hill Studio’s work would be completed by the end
of September and the standards likely would be presented to the town board in the fall.
Kronau outlined the new content and updates to the design standards, showing several examples from the
new standards document. She noted several new sections: a significantly revised introduction; a section on
Hillsborough’s history and character; a section outlining how to use the new standards; a disaster
preparedness and planning section; sections on new construction of multi-family buildings and of accessory
dwelling units; an awnings and canopies section; an outdoor dining areas section; a parks and public spaces
section; and a cemeteries section. Kronau said many photographs and illustrations were included, noting that
Cobb had provided many of the photographs.
Kronau outlined the updates. She said the team revised the existing topic descriptions and considerations.
Kronau noted the team converted the existing guidelines into either standards, which are enforceable and
reviewable by the commission, or recommendations, which are best practices or helpful information for
property owners. Blanton noted the standards are printed in black, while the recommendations are printed in
maroon and italics for easy differentiation. Kronau said windows and doors were split into separate sections
to include more information on each. Sustainability and utilities also were split into separate sections. The
section on new construction was divided into separate commercial, residential and multi-family sections, as
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 8
each type of building has different considerations. The section on new additions was divided into separate
commercial and residential sections.
Kronau gave an overview of the new standards, first noting that the team included clickable links throughout
the document for ease of use.
Kronau said “Section I: Introduction“ contains an overview of the standards; a section on the benefits of
historic preservation; a section on how historic designation and design review works in Hillsborough; a section
with information on the Historic District Commission; and a section on navigating the commission’s review
process.
Kronau said “Section 2: Hillsborough History and Character” includes sections on the history of Hillsborough;
the Hillsborough Historic District and its distinct characteristics; the Eno Cotton Mill and Bellevue
Manufacturing Company; and the architectural styles found throughout the Historic District. Blanton added
that she and Kronau currently are working with Sarah Sandbeck of the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough to
expand the narrative of Hillsborough’s history to be more inclusive, saying that change is forthcoming.
Heilman noted that Hill Studio has been relying on the National Register of Historic Places nomination
documentation, which documents she said are showing their age. Blanton noted that grant funds often are
available from the state Historic Preservation Office to update such documents.
Kronau showed an example of one of the new graphics, which explained some common architectural
components of historic buildings. She said the graphics are designed to be helpful to the public. She also
showed examples of graphics illustrating the different architectural styles around the Hillsborough Historic
District.
Kronau said “Section 3: Using the Design Standards” includes an overview and sections on the Secretary of the
Interior’s standards; how to approach a project; the sequence of actions to take during a project; what factors
influence the level of review a project receives, such as visibility and character-defining elevations; substitute
materials and when it is appropriate to use them; and how to read the design standards format. She showed
an example from Section 3 of the new document.
Kronau said “Section 4: Exterior Changes to Buildings” includes sections on masonry; wood; architectural
materials; paint and exterior color; exterior walls; windows; doors; roofs; porches, entrances and balconies;
storefronts; outbuildings and garages; accessibility and life safety standards; sustainability and energy retrofit;
utilities; and disaster preparedness and planning. She said this section largely matches the previous guidelines
on exterior changes to buildings. She showed example pages from Section 4, noting several organizational
features common across the sections.
Kronau said “Section 5: New Construction and Additions” includes sections on new construction of primary
commercial buildings; new construction of primary residential buildings; new construction of primary multi-
family buildings; new construction of outbuildings and garages; new construction of accessory dwelling units;
additions to commercial buildings; additions to residential buildings; and decks. She showed example pages
from Section 5, noting again that the sections on commercial, residential and multi-family new construction
had been separated from each other.
Kronau said “Section 6: Setting and Site” includes sections on site features and plantings; fences and walls;
walkways, driveways and off-street parking; public right-of-way; archaeological features; exterior lighting;
signage; awnings and canopies; art; outdoor dining areas; parks and public spaces; and cemeteries.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 8
Kronau said “Section 7: Relocation and Demolition” includes sections on relocation and demolition of historic
buildings. She noted that Hillsborough has a unique history of moving historic buildings.
Kronau said the document also includes appendices on resources for technical information; suggested
references; a glossary of architectural terms; ordinary maintenance and repair and minor works; the Historic
District Commission Compatibility Matrix; and sign materials permitted by sign type. She noted those
appendices match information on the commission’s website. Snyder said he has shortened the title regarding
sign materials on the commission’s website, which now reads, “Historic District Signage Matrix.” Kronau said
she would update the document appropriately.
Heilman said based on Snyder’s reading of the statute, the section formerly called “Exempt and Minor Works”
has been updated to “Ordinary Maintenance and Repair and Minor Works.” Heilman said she has been
reorganizing the list from that section of the previous guidelines to match the organization of the new
document. She said she has not changed any language, pending tonight’s discussion, with the exception of
some language regarding materials.
Snyder said he has made some minor grammatical and consistency changes but did not change content. He
noted he tried to incorporate Spoon’s concerns about mature trees.
Heilman asked if the commission members had any questions or comments for Blanton and Kronau.
Dowdle said that overall the new standards document looks very coherent and very nice. He said the team
had done a very good job.
Smith agreed that the new standards document looks very nice, but she noted that the language from the
previous guidelines had contained grammatical errors and asked if most of the new documents’ language
comes from the previous guidelines. Smith said she had begun noting such errors but had to stop because, as
a professional copy editor, she normally is paid for such work. She added she has been busy for the past two
months caring for her husband, who is sick. Smith asked if there will be a chance to correct grammatical errors
in the new document.
Heilman said she had checked some of the places where Smith had noted errors. She confirmed the language
in the new document largely matches the language from the previous guidelines. She agreed some of the old
language could use improvement.
Snyder asked Smith to mark any editorial changes and said he could address those changes in more depth
during the next week. Snyder said his goal is to make sure the document’s content is accurate but not
necessarily that it is grammatically perfect.
Smith said the language does not have to perfect, but it does need to not be embarrassing. She confirmed she
had only marked a few errors because she became overwhelmed and decided it was more important to read
for the document’s message rather than for grammar.
Heilman said she thinks grammatical changes easily could be included in a later update to the document.
Snyder agreed, saying the document is designed to be easy to revise in the future. Snyder said it is important
to get the content right at this point. He confirmed Smith has until the Wednesday, August 11, to suggest
changes for the final draft, but he said that after that date he also could edit the document.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 8
Heilman noted how difficult the original guidelines document is to edit, adding that difficulty makes it hard to
catch all the grammatical mistakes.
Blanton added that Hill Studio also does not want to produce a document that is embarrassing. She said Smith
has given them an idea of the kind of grammatical mistakes to look for and said they would try to find to
correct as many as they could. She noted that the project had not been to rewrite the entire document, but
rather to reorganize it and make necessary updates and revisions. Blanton reiterated that they do not want
their name on a document that is embarrassing and said she appreciates Smith pointing out those issues.
Snyder said he does not think the document is embarrassing, but rather extremely well done, acknowledging
that they imported some of the language from the original document and that correcting that language was
beyond the project’s scope. He said Hill Studio could go through the document as best they can with an eye
toward grammatical mistakes and the commission could address remaining mistakes in the future.
Heilman noted that Spoon needed to leave the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and asked for his input, particularly
regarding his suggestions about trees and what is allowed as routine maintenance and minor work. When
asked, Spoon confirmed he is concerned the commission does not have enough control over what trees are
removed as a minor work versus as routine tree maintenance. Spoon said he is most concerned about the
language that refers to allowing removal of trees that are “diseased or dying.” Spoon said trees that are
diseased sometimes can be cured of those diseases, offering several examples. Spoon said he would not want
an arborist under pressure from a property owner to point to the fact that a tree is diseased as grounds for
removal. Spoon said he does not think disease necessarily constitutes adequate grounds for removing an
older tree. Spoon said he would like to see either the language modified to remove references to “diseased or
dying” or a statement added clarifying that a tree may be removed only after all attempts have been made to
cure the tree.
Snyder read a revision he had drafted to address Spoon’s concerns: “Removal of unhealthy or severely
damaged mature trees can be reviewed and permitted by staff upon presentation of evidence in the form of a
signed tree health or tree risk assessment by an ISA-certified arborist in good standing. Evidence presented to
staff shall include, at a minimum, the diameter at breast height, the species of the tree, a detailed analysis of
its roots, trunk and canopy and specific reasons the arborist believes, in his or her professional opinion, that
the tree cannot or should not be retained. Replacement in kind or with a similar species is required unless
there is other evidence presented or other factors present on the property that call for a different treatment.”
Spoon said he likes Snyder’s proposed language. When asked, Snyder confirmed the proposed language
would become a minor works standard if approved. Heilman clarified the language would be located in the
minor works section, not in the standards. Heilman said she could forward Snyder’s proposed language to
Spoon for further editing.
When asked, Snyder confirmed the language would apply to trees removed both as routine maintenance and
minor works. He said the document would retain the language about trees that are an imminent risk to public
safety, the removal of which would qualify as routine maintenance. Snyder clarified that his proposed
language would replace the “diseased or dying” standard and would require more evidence to justify tree
removal.
Spoon observed that the reference in the previous guidelines to a diseased tree could refer to a boxwood
hedge, which would not qualify as a mature tree, thus allowing a property owner to remove a mature
boxwood hedge. He wondered if trees should be handled separately from mature hedges, noting there
currently is a boxwood blight. Snyder said the commission could craft a standard for mature historic shrubs.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 8
Snyder and Spoon agreed to draft language addressing mature historic shrubs to present at the commission’s
September 1, 2021, meeting.
When asked, Snyder confirmed a vote is not necessary on the draft changes presented tonight.
Heilman asked if other commission members had thoughts, questions or concerns regarding trees.
Smith said she had made a comment in the draft document regarding hedges but said she had forgotten
about boxwoods and was thinking of privet. She agreed boxwoods are much more valuable than privet. The
commission briefly discussed current threats to boxwoods, including blight and nematodes.
Heilman confirmed that Snyder and Spoon could work to draft content addressing Spoon’s concerns regarding
trees. There were no other comments regarding trees.
Spoon asked if the commission could look at the table regarding minor works and routine maintenance to the
public right-of-way. Spoon noted that section includes language about “certain circumstances,” and he
wondered if those circumstances are outlined elsewhere in the document. Heilman said she interprets the
language to mean that any street, sidewalk or underground utility work that does not change the appearance
of the streetscape can be approved by staff. When asked, Heilman clarified that the table frequently refers to
“certain criteria” because it is meant as a summary of the lengthy language in the document. Heilman clarified
that the appendix fully defines the criteria. The commission discussed adding a note at the top of the table
clarifying that more information can be found in the appendix.
Spoon had no other comments or questions. He thanked Heilman, Smith and Snyder for their work on the
draft standards document. Heilman and Snyder said the revisions had been a collaborative effort and noted
Cobb’s contribution of photographs.
Heilman recalled that at the July 7, 2021, meeting the commission members agreed they felt comfortable
allowing Trex composite decking to be used for porch flooring at the rear or side of a house. Heilman said
Snyder had suggested the commission allow homeowners to replace wood decking with Trex decking as
routine maintenance. She said if the commission members agree, such language could be drafted and
included in the new standards document. Snyder said he thinks that if Trex is listed as a permitted material
under certain circumstances in the Exterior Materials Compatibility Matrix, it also should be allowed as a
replacement material as routine maintenance.
Spoon agreed with Snyder and said he does not see the point of reapproving Trex on decks or porch floors
when it is already an approved material. When asked, Snyder confirmed that the pickets, rails and posts
would still have to be wood. Spoon said that if the top rail is wood while the floor is Trex the two could
weather differently and look strange. Spoon wondered if Trex should be allowed on the top rail of a porch in
order to blend in better with the decking. Spoon acknowledged he previously had said he did not want to see
Trex material from the street but said he had reconsidered after further thought. After a brief conversation,
the commission members agreed to allow homeowners to replace wood decking with Trex composite decking
as routine maintenance and to discuss allowing Trex for the top rail of a porch or deck at the September 1,
2021, meeting.
Spoon left the meeting at 7:27 p.m.
Heilman asked if the commission members had other comments or concerns about the new standards
document, noting that she has one more item to discuss. No other commission members raised concerns.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 8
Heilman said Hill Studio has worked very hard to separate the new standards, written in black text, from
guidance or recommendations, written in maroon italic text. She noted that the recommendations comprise
things the commission cannot regulate but which are helpful and educational, such as how a homeowner
cleans their brick. Heilman said she had tried to ensure the recommendations truly are recommendations and
the standards truly are standards. She said she had made notes in the document in places where she is not
sure the distinction is correct. Heilman said she intends to go back through the document and ensure the
language of each standard is broad enough. She asked the other commission members to also look through
the document and make sure they think the standards are truly standards and the recommendations are truly
recommendations. Heilman said she does not want to accidentally leave something out of the standards that
would handicap a future commission.
Snyder added he would not want to make the standards so strict that future commissions could not interpret
the standards. Heilman agreed and said she will go back and check that the standards are both broad enough
and not too constrictive. Heilman said the commission members would see her notes in the document,
particularly in the section on changes to existing buildings. Smith said she had responded to some of
Heilman’s comments. Heilman gave an example, regarding replacing in kind an exterior wall that is damaged
beyond repair, where she said the recommendation below the standard probably should be included in the
standard. Snyder said he also would go through the document with an eye toward distinguishing the
standards from the recommendations.
Heilman asked if the commission members had other questions or thoughts for Kronau and Blanton.
Smith asked if anyone has tested all the links embedded throughout the document. Snyder said he had tested
some of the links. Smith said she tested one link that took her to the Town of Hillsborough’s main website, not
to the Historic District Commission’s webpage. Snyder asked Smith to make a note in the document and said
he would fix the link. Smith said she thinks it is important to make navigating the document as easy as
possible for property owners. Snyder agreed and said he thinks the new document will be much easier to use
than the previous document. The commission and Kronau briefly discussed some constraints with using links
in Microsoft Publisher and in PDF files.
Heilman added that a survey has been sent to the public allowing people to comment on the new standards
document. She said comments from the survey will be provided to Hill Studio before finalizing the document.
Heilman said Snyder had proposed adding sections on cemeteries and disaster preparedness, noting that the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office has just offered trainings on those topics. She said
Hillsborough’s new standards on cemeteries are consistent with the training; she said she would check that
the standards on disaster preparedness also are consistent with that training.
Heilman and Snyder briefly discussed that the Colonial Inn has won the Gertrude S. Carraway Award of Merit
from Preservation North Carolina, for which the commission nominated it.
There were no further comments or questions regarding the new design standards.
7. Updates
Snyder briefly updated the commission regarding the concerns raised at the July 7, 2021, meeting about the
Axelbank project at 330 W. King Street. Snyder said that following the commission’s conversation he had
emailed Arthur Axelbank to get a sense of Axelbank’s perspective on the project. Snyder said he has not yet
heard back from Axelbank but said Axelbank tends to reply slowly via email. Snyder said he will follow up with
a letter if Axelbank does not reply via email. Snyder said he had looked at the replaced doors at the Axelbank
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 8
house and noted that the framing around the windows is quite visible, which is inconsistent with the solution
the commission had approved based on Axelbank’s testimony.
Heilman asked if there was any other business. None was raised.
When asked, Town Attorney Bob Hornik said he is reviewing the new Historic District Design Standards
document. Hornik said he would provide some comments of his own and also would respond to some of the
other comments. He said he should finish his review by the end of the week.
Snyder confirmed that the survey seeking public input on the new standards had been sent on Monday.
Snyder told Kronau and Blanton that he and the commission members would try to send them all of their
comments by the following Wednesday.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Altman moved to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. Heilman seconded.
Heilman called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Stephanie Trueblood
Public Space Manager
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: September 1, 2021