HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-06-2022 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 15
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Remote regular meeting
6:30 p.m. April 6, 2022
Virtual meeting via YouTube Live
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Present: Chair William Spoon, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Eric Altman,
Elizabeth Dicker, Hannah Peele and Will Senner
Staff: Planner Tyler Sliger
1. Call to order, roll call and confirmation of quorum
Chair William Spoon called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Spoon called the roll and confirmed the
presence of a quorum. Spoon welcomed new member Hannah Peele and noted member Elizabeth Dicker
would be a few minutes late.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Spoon read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on March 2, 2022.
Motion: Member Eric Altman moved approval of the March 2, 2022, minutes as submitted. Member Will
Senner seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Max Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
5. Old business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 114 N. Wake St. — Applicant Fred Stewart proposes to extend the
existing rear porch to the corner of the house, convert the screened-in porch to a glassed-in porch and add a
new entry path at the rear of the house. (PIN 9864-96-7434)
Spoon introduced Item 5A. Sliger noted he already has approved the project’s landscaping as a minor work.
Sliger and applicant Fred Stewart confirmed the commission members are deciding whether to approve
extending the porch and roof and glassing in the screened porch.
Spoon declared the public hearing open for this item.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised.
Sliger and Stewart were sworn in.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 15
Dicker arrived at 6:37 p.m.
Sliger summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. He noted the application proposes
extending the existing rear porch to the corner of the house and converting the screened porch to a glassed-in
porch. He referred the commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet, including a
narrative, materials list, site plan and existing and proposed elevations. He said the applicable Design
Standards are Porches, Entrances and Balconies and Windows.
When asked, Sliger said staff did not find any issues regarding compatibility with the standards.
Spoon noted the commission began hearing testimony regarding this item at the March 2, 2022, meeting,
which was interrupted due to technical issues. He asked the commission members to repeat any relevant
comments they had made at last month’s meeting regarding this item.
When asked, Stewart described the project, confirming it would extend the porch with its shed roof to the
end of the house and convert the screened porch to a glassed-in porch. He said the column spacing and other
details would match existing details. Stewart said the glassed-in porch would incorporate two-over-two
French casements that open outward. He noted that the post light included in the application had been
approved as a minor work.
Spoon confirmed no one else was present to speak for or against the application.
Spoon invited the commission members’ comments or questions.
When asked, Spoon confirmed the clad windows and doors would be aluminum and wood. He confirmed the
gooseneck bronze light fixture was already approved as a minor work.
Spoon noted he had asked a question about the parking pad at the previous meeting. He said the question
was now clear to him.
There were no further questions about this item. Altman said the improvements look good to him.
Stewart noted the window to the left of the door in the application’s glass scheme should be a two-over-two
window like the other windows.
Spoon declared the public hearing closed.
Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the 114 N. Wake St. 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; Porches, Entrances and Balconies. Altman seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application as submitted. Dicker seconded.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 15
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 116 N. Wake St. — Applicant Fred Stewart proposes to raise the
roof pitch, add a rear patio, replacing the existing windows and replace the front brick steps in a different
configuration. (PIN 9864-96- 8420)
Spoon introduced Item 5B.
Sliger summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. He noted the application proposes raising
the roof pitch, adding a rear patio, replacing the existing windows and replacing the front brick steps in
different configuration. He referred the commission members to the application materials in the agenda
packet, including a narrative, materials list, site plan and existing and proposed elevations. He said the
applicable Design Standards are Additions to Residential Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Porches,
Entrances and Balconies; Windows; and Roofs.
Spoon declared the public hearing open for this item.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised.
Sliger and Stewart were sworn in.
When asked, Sliger said staff review noted a potential conflict with the first standard regarding roofs on Page
55 of the Historic District Design Standards.
When asked, Sliger displayed, read aloud and entered into the record a letter opposing the project from
neighbors Vern and Laura Juel of 158 W. King St. The Juels’ letter raised concerns regarding the extent of
changes that significantly alter the structure’s exterior façades and roofline. They wrote that the west façade
is visible from North Wake Street and the proposed east façade would be visible from West King Street. They
wrote that the proposed structure would be 6 feet taller than the current structure and would feature a
different roof pitch with a significantly more massive presence than the current structure. The Juels wrote
that the proposed home would deviate from the height, scale and massing of the adjacent structures,
impacting the overall streetscape, adding that the changes would leave the house no longer resembling its
original 1971 design.
Laura Juel was sworn in. She confirmed the photograph attached to her letter showed how the proposed
balcony and roof would be visible from West King Street.
Stewart presented a summary of the project. He said the house is very small and looks like an accessory
dwelling unit but is a legal house. His client would like to increase the square footage, but due to the
structure’s nonconforming lot the only option is to build the house taller. Stewart said he and his clients have
spent a long time trying to figure out what to do considering the roof standards that say applicants should not
change a roof’s character. He said adding a second floor without changing the roof pitch would not look good
and would add more square footage than is needed. He said the proposal presents a reasonable compromise
of keeping the same eave height and raising the roof’s pitch, yielding 218 square feet in the center of the
gable. Stewart said he does not take lightly changing the story of a house or the Juel’s concerns regarding roof
pitch.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 15
Stewart said he did question the Juel’s concern about the building’s proposed height. He noted there are no
other building as low as the current house on that block except an adjacent garage. He noted a two-story
garage two doors to the north.
Stewart summarized two questions before the commission: first, whether the proposed roof changes would
negatively change the style of the 1970s-era house, and second, whether the proposed changes would make
the house too big. When asked, Juel confirmed those were her concerns, noting she also was concerned
about the visibility of the proposed balcony on the east-facing façade.
When asked, Sliger displayed several photographs in the application of nearby structures, including the two-
story garage two doors to the north. Stewart pointed out a photograph of a 1970s-era house across the street
with habitable space under the roof zone, saying it represents what he is trying to do. He said he would like to
find a reasonable compromise to keep the roof’s eave line low and raise the ridgeline to get some habitable
space upstairs. He added his clients would like to add the balcony on the house’s rear and asked Juel about
her concern.
Juel noted the proposed changes would significantly change the house’s massing. She said the garage two
doors to the north is separate from the house. She noted the 116 North Wake Street house is very close to
adjacent structures and said raising the roofline would bring its height very close to the house at 114 North
Wake Street. She said the changes would create a lot of massing for such a small area.
Stewart disagreed and said the height of the 116 North Wake Street house would be significantly lower than
the the house at 114 North Wake Street, which is two stories tall with the same roof pitch they are proposing.
Juel noted the additional height would make the house visible from the sidewalk of West King Street. Juel said
when she and her husband installed new windows they were required to install landscaping. She noted the
proposed changes would be much more visible than their changes had been and would change the
streetscape.
When asked, Sliger confirmed a historical perspective on the house was included in the agenda packet and as
such was already in the official record.
When asked, Stewart confirmed the windows and doors would be aluminum-clad. He noted the house’s six-
over-six windows, raised panel front door and front entry gable are not iconic of 1970s style and as such the
house is not a pure example of 1970s architecture.
When asked, Stewart said the balcony flooring material would be wood decking and the railing would be
metal painted to resemble wrought iron. Dicker questioned whether the painted metal railing would fit the
Compatibility Matrix and said she would prefer wood or wrought iron. Stewart noted the railing would be on
the back of the house, and Juel noted it would be visible from West King Street. Dicker clarified she was
referring to the railing on the front stairs. Stewart confirmed the stair configuration would be changed and
that the stair rails would be steel painted to look like wrought iron to copy the style of the existing railing. He
confirmed the proposed stair railing material would match the existing stair railing material. Dicker noted that
material is not in the Compatibility Matrix. Sliger confirmed he considered the proposed material to be
replacing in kind and in keeping with the preservation of the structure even with the proposed stair
configuration changes.
Regarding the front elevation, Stewart confirmed the siding would be fiber cement while the trim would be
MiraTEC in some vulnerable places.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 15
The commission members briefly discussed exterior lighting. Stewart agreed to submit any exterior lighting to
staff for approval as a minor work.
Regarding the elevation comparisons on Page 35 of the agenda packet, Senner said he appreciated Stewart’s
efforts to comply with the standards given the property’s constraints. He said he believes the standards are
clear that additions should avoid impacts to character-defining elevations and massing. He noted the changes
to the front elevation, including to the windows, doors and porch. Senner noted the proposed structure’s
massing would be very different. He said he had a hard time seeing the proposed changes as consistent with
preserving the character-defining elevations of the building.
Dicker and Dowdle agreed with Senner.
Altman said the front (west) elevation and south elevation changes did not bother him as much as the
changes to the east façade, which would include the balcony addition.
Peele agreed the changes would be significant. She said the changes would tie the property in with the look of
the adjacent property at 114 N. Wake St. She said the other commission members had made good points.
Spoon said he liked the proposed changes and thought the structure as proposed would look better than the
existing structure. He appreciated that the changes, including changes to massing, would be significant. He
asked Senner if he could see any solutions that would satisfy the Design Standards and also expand the
structure’s square footage.
Senner noted the standards say additions should be clearly subordinate to the original structure and typically
built in the rear. He acknowledged the property’s limitations. Senner said he struggled to see any way a
vertical addition could be built without drastically changing the structure’s massing and impacting the original
character of the façade.
When asked, Sliger confirmed the proposed changes conformed to the town’s zoning.
Senner suggested the applicant could enclose the existing rear porch to add square footage while still
complying with the standards.
When asked, Sliger said the property’s noncontributing status allowed more leniency regarding allowed
materials.
Stewart asked if the commission members could imagine an appropriate scenario to add square footage to
the structure, given that the structure could only be expanded by building taller. Senner elaborated that
enclosing the existing rear porch as proposed to create space for the kitchen would comply with the standards
as it would not change the massing. Stewart asked if the commission members could imagine any acceptable
roof alteration that would allow the building to be expanded vertically. Senner said in his opinion he did not
see a way the house could be expanded vertically and still conform to the intent of the Design Standards.
Alman disagreed with Senner. He said he would be more comfortable approving the proposal if it did not
include quite as many drastic changes. Spoon agreed, noting the changes included moving windows and doors
on the front elevation and changing the massing. Both Altman and Spoon agreed they would be more
comfortable with the project if it looked more like the original house. Peele agreed and said retaining some of
the original structure’s details, such as windows, would help. Spoon agreed.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 15
When asked, Sliger noted the first standard regarding roofs on Page 55 of the Design Standards directs
applicants to, “Retain and preserve roofs that contribute to the overall historic character and form of a
building, including their overall shape and form, pitch, overhang and functional and decorative features and
details.”
Spoon briefly outlined the standards regarding exterior lighting, particularly floodlights.
There were no further questions or comments regarding this item.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the 116 N. Wake St. application is not in keeping with the
overall character of the Historic District and does not comply 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
inconsistent with the Historic District Design Standards: Additions to Residential Buildings; Site
Features and Plantings; Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Windows; and Roofs. Dicker
seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Senner moved to deny the application. Altman seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
6. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 324 W. King St. — Applicant Fred Stewart proposes a new
screened porch, swimming pool, storage sheds and garage. (PIN 9864-86-0342)
Spoon introduced Item 6A. He declared the public hearing open for this item.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised.
Sliger and Stewart were sworn in.
Sliger summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. He noted the application proposes
constructing a new screened porch, swimming pool, storage sheds, outbuildings and garage. He referred the
commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet, including a narrative, materials list,
site plan and existing and proposed elevations. He said the applicable Design Standards are New Construction
of Outbuildings and Garages; Site Features and Plantings; Roofs; Exterior Walls; Doors; Windows; and Fences
and Walls.
When asked, Stewart had no additional information to add.
When asked, Sliger said he received no communication supporting or opposing the application. He said staff
review did not find any potential conflicts with the Design Standards.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 15
Spoon invited the commission members’ comments and questions.
When asked, Stewart confirmed the fiber cement garage siding would be installed with the smooth side facing
out. He said the garage door would be factory painted steel and would be insulated.
Stewart and the commission members briefly discussed exterior lighting. Stewart said any lighting would be
low-level. He agreed to submit a lighting plan to staff for approval as a minor work.
When asked, Stewart described the project’s fencing, including a 4-foot existing natural wood picket fence, a
new code-compliant barrier gate and a new trellis between the two storage buildings. He clarified all fencing
materials would be wood.
Stewart and the commission members briefly discussed tree protection fencing for the property’s several
large trees. Stewart confirmed construction will stay away from the trees’ canopies and driplines and
confirmed they are not removing any trees. Spoon suggested a condition for approval that Stewart supply
staff with the trees’ measurements at breast height and that staff confirm any trees protected by the Design
Standards are protected with tree protection fencing at their driplines. Stewart agreed and noted he planned
to use a nearby alley for any heavy equipment, avoiding the large tree near the pool site.
Senner pointed out a note on the plan calling for removal of an existing shed. When asked, Sliger agreed to
confirm the shed is a noncontributing structure before allowing removal.
Senner pointed out the plan calls for extending the driveway. He asked whether the commission should
require Stewart to screen the driveway from the neighbor to the west. When asked, Sliger confirmed he could
approve the driveway screening as a minor work.
Dicker noted the property has a slight slope, while the bird’s-eye view rendering on Page 51 of the agenda
packet seems to show a flat grade. She asked how the slope would be handled. Stewart agreed and clarified
the slope is very slight and hard to see in the bird’s-eye view. He said he would install two small retaining
walls on either side of the pool. He said he would install a 4-foot retaining wall near the storage sheds and an
18-inch retaining wall south of the pool along the line covered by ornamental grasses.
Regarding the detached screened porch, Stewart confirmed the large doors would be steel encased in wood.
Sliger confirmed he considered the structure to be an outbuilding.
Regarding the garage, Stewart confirmed the garage door would be painted steel and would be flat with no
embossing or raised panels. He said the entry door to the garage would be a wood Craftsman-style door.
Altman said he felt good about the project’s design and considered it one of the best he has seen in a while.
There were no further questions or comments on this item.
Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 324 W. King St. 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: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages; Site Features and
Plantings; Roofs; Exterior Walls; Doors; Windows; and Fences and Walls. Spoon seconded.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 15
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application with conditions. Spoon seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: Applicant shall submit a tree protection plan to staff for approval. Applicant shall submit a
landscaping plan including driveway screening to staff for approval. If proposing exterior
lighting, applicant shall submit a lighting plan to staff for approval. Staff shall research and
confirm the shed’s noncontributing structure status before it is removed.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 207 E. Queen St. — Applicant Kenneth Garrison proposes adding a
master bedroom and front step railings, converting a window to French doors and enclosing the carport to
create a garage. (PIN 9874-17-6601)
Spoon introduced Item 6B. He declared the public hearing open for this item.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. Peele asked to be
recused. Later in the meeting Peele clarified she works with David Cates, who represented the applicant.
Motion: Spoon moved to recuse Peele from Item 6B. Altman seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Sliger and Cates were sworn in.
Sliger summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. He noted the application proposes a master
bedroom addition, front step railings, converting a window to French doors and enclosing the carport to
create a garage. He referred the commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet,
including an introduction, narrative, materials list, site plan and existing and proposed elevations. He said the
applicable Design Standards are Additions to Residential Buildings; Windows; Doors; Outbuildings and
Garages; Decks; and Exterior Walls.
When asked, Stewart had no additional information to add.
Spoon invited the commission members’ comments and questions.
When asked, Sliger said staff did not find any issues regarding compatibility with the standards.
Regarding the project scope, Senner said he appreciated the application noting the other Ranch-style homes
in the Historic District with front-facing garages. He said he thought a front-facing garage appropriate on a
Ranch-style home, though not necessarily on other styles of homes. Sliger displayed the photographs of
similar front-facing garages included in the application.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 15
Regarding the project’s materials, Dicker noted the Compatibility Matrix does not allow vinyl siding. Sliger said
he considered vinyl siding allowable in this case due to the house’s existing vinyl siding. Altman said he
thought the application’s justification for using vinyl siding was sound. Spoon recalled vinyl had been allowed
in similar cases during his time on the commission.
Senner referenced Standard 11 on Page 89 of the Design Standards regarding Additions to Residential
Buildings, which states applicants should, “Design new additions to be compatible with but differentiated
from the primary building. Design and construction of an addition should preserve clear visual delineation of
the original building and its changes over time.” Senner asked if the addition could be stepped in 6 inches and
clad in an alternate material from the rest of the house to more clearly differentiate it as an addition.
Spoon said Senner made a good point.
Cates said stepping the addition in 6 inches would add quite a bit of cost for the homeowners, would create
multiple new rooflines and foundation lines and would introduces jogs in the wall in their bedroom. As a
compromise he offered to retain the existing corner board, which would give the ability to change the siding
material on the addition. He said he preferred the look of the design as he had proposed. Cates said he did
not disagree with Senner but felt in this case the standards would call for an addition that does not look as
nice.
Altman agreed that keeping the corner board would be helpful. He said he did not think the addition needed
to be stepped back 6 inches.
When asked, Senner said keeping the corner board would help significantly. He said he also would prefer a
compatible siding material for the addition for compatibility reasons and to better differentiate the addition.
When asked, Sliger displayed photographs of the existing house.
When asked, Cates confirmed the house has vinyl siding on all sides.
Senner said there several material options in the Compatibility Matrix. He noted he considered it appropriate
to use vinyl around the garage door because the vinyl would act as a patch and would not change the massing
as an addition.
Cates said he would ask the applicant if Hardie board or German siding would be acceptable siding options for
the addition.
Spoon suggested adding a condition that the applicant seek staff approval for an approved siding material
that would clearly delineate the addition from the original house. Senner agreed. Sliger agreed.
When asked, Senner and Spoon clarified the alternate material should be used on all sides of the new
addition.
When asked, Cates confirmed the new window to the left of the French doors would be an aluminum-clad
wood window.
Dicker asked whether the roof could be a shingle roof rather than a standing seam roof. Cates said shingles
are not allowed on roofs with such a slight pitch and a standing seam roof is the only option. He clarified the
roof would not be seen at any elevation other than backyard.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 15
The commission members briefly discussed whether to require a different roof material for the addition to
further delineate the addition from the original house. Ultimately they decided not to require a different roof
material. Cates pointed out the proposed roof material is compatible with the standards.
There were no further questions or comments on this item.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the 207 E. Queen St. 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; Windows; Doors; Outbuildings and
Garages; Decks; and Exterior Walls. Spoon seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Spoon seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: Applicant shall seek staff approval for an alternate approved siding material.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 332 W. Tryon St. — Applicant Anton Wilson proposes adding a
kitchen addition. (PIN 9864-77- 9055)
Spoon introduced Item 6C. He declared the public hearing open for this item.
Sliger and Cates were sworn in. Applicants Anton Wilson and Alyssa Martina were sworn in.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. Peele asked to be
recused, as Cates also would represent this applicant.
Motion: Spoon moved to recuse Peele from Item 6C. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Sliger summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. He noted the application proposes
constructing a kitchen addition. He referred the commission members to the application materials in the
agenda packet, including an introduction, narrative, materials list, site plan and existing and proposed
elevations. He said the applicable Design Standards are Additions to Residential Buildings; Windows; Doors;
Roofs; and Exterior Walls.
Spoon invited Cates to give applicant testimony. Cates noted the house is listed as a noncontributing
structure.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 15
When asked, Sliger said he had received no communication supporting or opposing the application. He said
staff review did not find any potential conflicts with the Design Standards.
Sliger displayed each page of the application in turn. After reviewing the application, the commission
members had no questions or comments.
Spoon declared the public hearing closed for this item.
Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the 332 W. Tryon St. 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; Windows; Doors; Roofs; and
Exterior Walls. Altman seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application with conditions. Dicker seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 216 W. Orange St. — Applicants Cem Karan and Khara Schonfeld-
Karan propose adding four windows and converting the front porch into a screened porch. (PIN 9864-98-
2720)
Spoon introduced Item 6D. He declared the public hearing open for this item.
Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. Peele asked to be
recused, as Cates also would represent this applicant.
Motion: Spoon moved to recuse Peele from Item 6D. Altman seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Sliger and Cates were sworn in.
When asked, Sliger said he had received no communication supporting or opposing the application.
Sliger summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. He noted the application proposes adding
four windows and screening in the front porch. He referred the commission members to the application
materials in the agenda packet, including an introduction, narrative, materials list, site plan and existing and
proposed elevations. He said the applicable Design Standards are Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Windows;
and Doors.
When asked, Cates said he had no further information to add.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 12 of 15
When asked, Sliger confirmed the house’s address is on Orange Street, not on a private road. Sliger clarified
the house shares a long joint driveway and is not on a private road. Spoon confirmed the house’s front
elevation is shown in the photograph on Page 101 of the agenda packet and that the relevant road is Orange
Street, not the shared driveway.
Sliger displayed the application. Cates described the photographs showing several examples of screened
porches on the front elevations of houses in the Historic District.
Altman asked if there were any precedents regarding judging a house from the shared driveway versus from
the public street. Sliger noted there are many more examples of screened porches in the Historic District than
the four Cates included. Sliger clarified the front, character-defining elevation should be considered the
elevation facing West Orange Street, not the elevation facing the driveway.
Cates noted that modern screening material is fairly invisible. He noted the house is some distance from West
Orange Street and said the screening material would not be very noticeable from the street.
Sliger clarified that one of Cates’ examples is not in the Historic District but borders it, while the other three
examples received Certificates of Approval for their screened porches.
Senner noted the differences between the applicants’ house and the example photographs, including that
none of the examples showed an entire front porch screened on a character-defining elevation as the
applicants propose. Senner said he struggled with the language in the standards that says it is not appropriate
to alter a front porch. He said he appreciated that the porch is set back and that the screening would be
difficult to see, but said he has difficulty with such a significant modification on a character-defining elevation.
Altman disagreed, saying the house is set back from the street and the front porch elevation is not on a public
right of way. He said he did not think the character-defining elevation would be compromised by screening in
the porch. Dowdle agreed with Altman.
Spoon said he often walks past the property and thinks the house is closer to the street than it seems in the
photograph. He said he thinks the screened porch would be rather visible from the road.
Cates said the front porch is 180 feet from the edge of the street.
Spoon said he agreed with Senner’s concern about screening in the entire front porch. He noted Cates
showed no examples of an entire front screened porch in the Historic District, and he said he could recall no
precedents from his time on the commission. Spoon said he did not think the screened porch would comply
with the standards.
Dicker noted the house is fairly new, having been built in 2018. She said the screened porch could be
considered an after-the-fact change. She said she was still undecided about the screened porch’s compliance
with the standards.
Cates suggested the screen could be installed behind the railings and columns to minimize its visual impact.
Spoon said he thought installing the screen behind the columns would make the screened porch look strange.
Senner appreciated Cates’ intent but said he thought the screen would still be very visible.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 13 of 15
Cates disagreed and said having the screen in a different plane from the columns would differentiate the
screening. Altman agreed with Cates and noted he did not think the screening would detract from the home’s
character-defining characteristics.
The commission members agreed to return to the question of the porch screening after reviewing the rest of
the application.
Regarding the right elevation, Cates clarified the lower transom window already exists, although it is not
shown on the existing elevation drawing on Page 115 of the agenda packet. When asked, Cates clarified the
new windows’ sizes and materials would match the house’s existing windows on this elevation.
Regarding the left elevation, Cates confirmed the new upper windows would be larger than the existing lower
windows. He clarified the new left elevation windows would be smaller than the new right elevation windows.
There were no other comments or questions regarding the windows. The commission members returned to
deliberating about the proposed screened porch.
Cates, Sliger and the commission members agreed it would be possible to approve only the window portion of
the application if a majority of members agreed to deny the screened porch portion of the application. The
commission members generally agreed they felt comfortable approving the proposed windows.
Senner and Spoon agreed they would vote to deny the proposed screened porch.
Altman and Dowdle agreed they felt comfortable approving the screened porch.
Dicker said she appreciated Cates’ suggestion to install the screen behind the porch columns, noting the
character-defining elements would be in front of the screen. Altman suggested adding a condition to that
effect. Spoon and Senner said the screen location would not change their assessments. Dicker said she did not
feel the house is old enough to have character yet. Senner noted that when he was trained by the previous
Historic District Commission staff, staff emphasized the importance of a structure’s age regarding style but
not regarding how the standards are applied.
Sliger noted there are not many houses in the Historic District built after the year 2000 or set so far back from
the street, making comparisons difficult in this case. He noted there are screened front porches in the district.
Spoon said he was worried about setting a precedent that could allow the owner of an older house to ask to
screen their entire front porch. Spoon and Cates briefly discussed precedents.
Altman said the main question is whether the changes would alter the character-defining elevation. He said
the house is set back so far that the changes would not be apparent from the street. Spoon said the screen
door would be visible from far away.
Dicker said after considering the standards, the home’s age and its distance from the street, she would vote
against approving the proposed screened porch.
Cates agreed to withdraw the screened porch portion of the application in order to expedite the remainder of
the application.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 14 of 15
Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the 216 W. Orange St. 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: Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Windows; and Doors. Altman
seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application with conditions. Senner seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Conditions: The applicants shall not install the proposed screened porch.
7. Updates
A. Proposed changes to procedures and to Historic District Design Standards
Sliger updated the commission members on his public outreach ideas to better gauge public opinion about
the Historic District Commission, with the goal of improving the public’s understanding and opinion of the
commission.
Sliger updated the commission members on the status of the commission’s Rules of Procedure document.
Spoon raised concerns that the document might have been updated inappropriately. Sliger agreed to contact
Town Attorney Bob Hornik for clarification regarding the Rules of Procedure document’s status and to update
the commission members via email.
When asked, Peele explained she had asked to be recused from items 6B, 6C and 6D because she works with
Cates. She noted she does not work with Cates on all of his projects. Altman noted Peele could still participate
in proceedings in which Cates is an applicant if she is able to be neutral. Peele said she would still recuse
herself from any projects she had worked on personally. Spoon noted Cates is often an applicant and
suggested Sliger or Hornik could offer guidance regarding recusals. Sliger agreed to reach out to Hornik
regarding Peele’s professional relationship with Cates.
The commission members briefly discussed changing the date of the July 6, 2022, meeting and agreed to
readdress the subject at a later date.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Spoon moved to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Altman seconded.
Spoon called the roll for voting.
Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Peele, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None.
Respectfully submitted,
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 15 of 15
Tyler Sliger
Planner
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: May 4, 2022