HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-04-2022 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 8
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Regular meeting
6:30 p.m. May 4, 2022
Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker, Hannah Peele, Will
Senner and Bruce Spencer
Absent: Chair William Spoon and Eric Altman
Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan
Campbell
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Vice Chair Max Dowdle called the meeting to order at 6:29 p.m. Planning and Economic Development
Manager Shannan Campbell confirmed the presence of a quorum.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Dowdle read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
Campbell said the applicant for Item 5B regarding 220 S. Churton St. had requested to delay the item until the
commission’s June 1, 2022, meeting. The commission members agreed.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on April 6, 2022.
Motion: Member Elizabeth Dicker moved approval of the April 6, 2022, minutes as submitted. Member
Bruce Spencer seconded.
Vote: 5-0.
5. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness After-the-Fact Application: 214 W. Union St. — Applicant Ha Ngo is requesting
to replace windows, add windows and move the door on the front elevation. (PIN 9864-98-1149)
Dowdle introduced Item 5A. He declared the public hearing open for this item.
Dowdle asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was
raised.
Campbell and applicant Ha Ngo were sworn in.
Campbell summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. She noted the application is an after-
the-fact application and said it proposes replacing windows, adding windows and moving windows and a door
on the front elevation.
Dowdle invited Ngo to present any additional information about her application.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 8
Ngo said the front door had been in an awkward location. She said she wanted to move the same door to the
center of the front elevation to improve the façade’s flow. She said most of the front elevation’s windows,
including the octagonal bathroom window, had been broken. She proposed replacing the windows with larger
windows for more light, including a larger window for a new bedroom. She confirmed she was familiar with
the Compatibility Matrix regarding material requirements.
When asked, Town Attorney Bob Hornik confirmed the application’s after-the-fact status should not affect
tonight’s application process or the commission members’ decisions. He said the Design Standards apply to
the application in the same way, even though the work has already been done.
Regarding the front (south) elevation, Dowdle noted the door had been moved about 8 feet. When asked,
Ngo confirmed it was the original door.
When asked, Ngo said the new windows are vinyl, noting she installed them before looking at the
Compatibility Matrix. Dowdle noted the Compatibility Matrix calls for wood or aluminum-clad wood windows.
Member Will Senner noted the loss of the bay window, which he said was a key character component of the
façade. Ngo explained the bay window was in bad condition, with broken locks and no insulation above or
below the bay window. Senner said given his interpretation of the Design Standards he would have preferred
the bay window be replaced in kind to maintain that key character component. Member Hannah Peele said
she thought the combination of three new windows sufficiently mimicked the bay window. Dowdle noted the
commission has allowed similar substitutions in the past, especially on buildings that are not overly historic.
Senner noted the house’s noncontributing status allows more flexibility and said the proposed elevation is not
incongruent with other houses of its era. Senner said he still felt the loss of the bay window is a loss to the
façade’s character. Dicker said she felt the same way about the loss of the octagonal window.
The commission members and Campbell briefly discussed the difference between contributing structures and
noncontributing structures. Senner said in his understanding the commission members should evaluate
noncontributing structures for their period, with less rigidity than when evaluating contributing structures.
Senner said the material requirements still apply for noncontributing structures.
Ngo noted the front façade includes a recent addition built in 2000, comprising the porch, bay window, door
and part of a new window.
The commission members discussed how the building’s noncontributing status should affect their decisions.
Senner noted the house was built in 1961 but likely was not listed as a contributing structure because of the
additions made over time. When asked, Hornik confirmed the members should apply the standards to the
structure as of its 2000 renovations.
Dowdle noted the building’s noncontributing status gives the members more flexibility in applying the Design
Standards to the front façade.
Senner said he felt less concerned about maintaining the front windows’ character given they were part of the
2000 addition. Hornik noted the addition had been approved by the Historic District Commission in 2000.
Senner said he still felt the new windows’ material is problematic. Ngo confirmed the original bay window
materials were aluminum-clad wood.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 8
Regarding the rear (north) elevation, Senner noted the new doors. When asked, Ngo said the doors are steel.
Dicker confirmed steel is an approved material. When asked, Ngo clarified the windows on the rear elevation
are fixed, refurbished doors. She said a some of the fixed doors are wood and some are steel. She said the
doors’ windows are simulated divided lite windows.
The commission members discussed the building’s varied siding materials. Ngo confirmed the building has a
mixture of vinyl and fiber cement siding. She described the siding that might need replacing. Senner noted
vinyl is not an approved material but is consistent with a house of this vintage. He said his interpretation of
the Design Standards would allow vinyl patches in small areas but would call for using an approved material
when replacing an entire façade’s siding. Dowdle said in the past the commission has allowed entire vinyl
facades when the rest of the house’s siding is vinyl unless all of the siding is being replaced. Dowdle agreed in
this case it makes sense to patch small areas with vinyl to match the existing vinyl. Senner agreed and
reiterated extensive siding replacements should be done with a compatible material such as fiber cement
siding. Dowdle agreed. The commission members agreed to include a condition to that effect.
Member Bruce Spencer said the simulated divided lite door windows created a design inconsistency with the
rest of the house. Dowdle agreed and said the changes create a façade much different from the pre-
renovation façade. Dowdle noted the rear elevation is not a character-defining elevation and said the
commission often has allowed more flexibility for non-character-defining elevations. Senner agreed the rear
elevation’s design is inconsistent with the rest of the house but agreed he would not object due to its rear
location.
Regarding the right (east) elevation, Ngo confirmed the foundation openings would be closed with wooden
lattice, the same material used under the front porch.
There were no questions or comments regarding the left (west) elevation.
Peele and Senner agreed they appreciated Ngo’s reuse of the refurbished doors.
Dowdle summarized that most of the commission members’ concerns were about the design changes and
window material changes to the front façade. Senner said he thought the front façade’s new design to be
consistent with similar houses of its era, but added he was concerned about the window materials. Dowdle
agreed, noting commission members are not supposed to consider cost or the fact that the windows have
already been replaced. Dowdle, Senner and Dicker agreed the front windows need to be of a compatible
material.
Dicker, Spencer and Senner indicated they felt comfortable allowing the simulated divided lite door windows
on the house’s rear.
Dowdle declared the public hearing closed for this item.
When asked, Ngo agreed to the conditions that any windows replaced in the house needed to be of an
approved material consistent with the Compatibility Matrix. She agreed to replace any siding patches in kind,
but to use fiber cement siding or another approved siding material if replacing entire façade sections of siding.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the 214 W. Union 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
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 8
of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic
District Design Guidelines: Exterior Walls; Windows; and Doors. Peele seconded.
Vote: 5-0.
Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Dicker seconded.
Vote: 5-0.
Conditions: All new/replacement windows shall be wood or aluminum-clad wood windows or a material
consistent with the Compatibility Matrix. Fiber cement siding or a material consistent with the
Compatibility Matrix shall be used in any instance where an entire façade’s siding is replaced.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 220 S. Churton St. — Applicant is requesting to fill in an old
basement access. (PIN 9874-05-4774)
This item was not discussed, as Campbell said the applicant requested to delay the item to the June 1, 2022,
meeting.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness After-the-Fact Application: 421 W. Corbin St. — Applicants Gabriel and Carrie
Sealey-Morris are requesting to paint the house’s exterior, remove a chimney and change out windows with a
different configuration. (PIN 9864-78-2842)
Dowdle introduced Item 5C. He noted the application is an after-the-fact application and reminded the
commission members the Design Standards apply as though the work had not yet been done.
Campbell summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. She said the application proposes
painting the brick exterior, removing a chimney and changing the windows to a different configuration.
Dowdle declared the public hearing open for this item.
Dowdle asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was
raised.
Victoria Mattison and Sam Coleman were sworn in. Coleman explained he is the applicants’ attorney and
would be speaking for them.
Dowdle invited Mattison to speak.
Mattison said she is a lifelong Hillsborough resident. She expressed concerns about the work at 421 W. Corbin
St., noting the work had already been completed. Mattison said she had no complaints about the work itself,
which she said is beautiful and has enhanced the neighborhood. However, Mattison expressed concern that
the work was done without a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mattison said she and her husband recently bought the property at the corner of Nash Street and Corbin
Street, which her family had owned for many years. She said the back of her property adjoins the applicants’
property. She said her father had always followed the Historic District Commission rules and he was
immediately notified if he ever made a mistake. Mattison said her primary residence is on Orange Street,
noting she had once installed lights in the yard and immediately was notified that she needed to obtain
approval.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 8
Mattison said she was very concerned to learn the work at 421 W. Corbin St. had already been completed.
She noted several buildings behind the house were torn down that were over 25 years old. She said she came
to tonight’s meeting for an explanation of how such work could be done in the Historic District without going
through the proper channels.
Mattison noted that Nash Street is being gentrified. She said lifelong residents of that neighborhood must
follow the Historic District rules and said it would be unfair for people from out of town to complete work
without first going through the proper channels. She said such actions threaten the Historic District
Commission’s integrity. Mattison noted her neighbors, who are Black, are unable to get approval to tear down
their 100-year-old house, while further down the street older houses have been demolished to make room for
newer, larger houses.
Mattison reiterated she was not present to complain about the work done at the applicants’ house. She said
the house had been in poor shape before being renovated but was now beautiful and nice to have behind her
property. Mattison said she was simply concerned about procedure and fairness.
Dowdle said the commission members shared her frustration with the after-the-fact nature of the application.
Mattison added the notification letter she received about the application did not mention the work had
already been done. She said the letter should have mentioned the application was an after-the-fact
application. Mattison reiterated that her father had always followed the rules, as had the former residents of
421 W. Corbin St.
When asked, Hornik explained some of the complicating factors of the case. He said the previous owners of
421 W. Corbin St. who did the work had received a notice of violation but then had sold the property to the
applicants. He said the applicants present tonight were not responsible for the violation but had inherited it.
Hornik added another complicating factor is that Planner Tyler Sliger, who sent the notice of violation, is no
longer working for the town.
Mattison reiterated the renovated house is beautiful and sympathized that the applicants inherited the
previous owner’s violation. She said the Historic District Commission’s procedures must be fair, noting she
had been very careful to follow the Design Standards when working on her father’s house. She said it would
not be fair for others to do whatever they pleased.
When asked for her suggestions, Mattison said the notification letter should have said the application was an
after-the-fact application. Senner asked staff to investigate changing future letters’ language appropriately.
Mattison added she did not think after-the-fact work should be allowed. She said longtime Black residents
often are not able to change their properties, while some white property owners have done what they
pleased.
Dowdle encouraged Mattison to call staff for more information if she sees questionable work happening in
the future. Mattison said it can be hard to know who owns properties, noting owners often are LLCs that hire
others to do the work. She noted the neighborhood in question on Nash Street once was an entirely Black
neighborhood. She said recent changes included an entirely new street and noted one contractor tried to
threaten a longtime mobile home resident in order to remove her.
Dowdle noted the south side of Nash Street is in the Historic District while the north side of the street is not.
Dicker and Dowdle said they heard Mattison’s concerns and shared them.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 8
Dicker and Senner gave a brief synopsis of the property’s changes. Dicker said it is unclear what the previous
owner knew regarding being in violation. Senner noted the previous owner did an extensive amount of work
without obtaining a proper building permit, which he said indicated the owner knew about the violations.
Regarding the notification letter Mattison received, Hornik said he suspected the standard form letter was
mistakenly not updated with the after-the-fact information. He noted after-the-fact applications are very rare.
When asked, Hornik said the application is the sixth or seventh after-the-fact case he has seen in his 22 years
as the town’s attorney.
Mattison said longtime residents who follow the Historic District rules can feel discriminated against when
they see others doing whatever they want.
The commission members discussed ways to educate residents about the Historic District, such as educating
realtors and adding an informational QR code to garbage bins.
Campbell added staff has discussed being stricter about code enforcement. She said the only penalties for an
after-the-fact application are paying a $100 fine and having to ask the commission for forgiveness. She noted
the previous owner of 421 W. Corbin St. renovated and sold the property very quickly and thus avoided any
consequences. Hornik added the town has no full-time code enforcement officer.
Coleman said his clients bought the property during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was difficult to reach
town offices with questions. He noted there was no public record of the violations at that time. When asked,
Hornik confirmed building permits are searchable online. Coleman suggested the town might create an online
database of searchable Historic District Commission violations. He said his clients would not have closed on
the property until the violations were cleared up had they known about the violations. Coleman said he
agreed with many of Mattison’s concerns regarding gentrification, diversity and fairness. He said he believed
the previous owner knew about the violations at the time of the sale. Coleman reiterated his clients did not
know about the violations, which he said were not listed in the public record at the time. He said his clients
found out about the violations after the sale. Coleman said he and his clients have been trying to locate and
contact the previous owner but so far have been unsuccessful.
Coleman summarized the changes requested in the application. He said Sliger had approved replacing the
roof and moving the HVAC system as minor works. Coleman said the items being discussed tonight include
removing an old coal chimney, painting the brick and replacing the windows.
When asked, Campbell displayed a copy of the minor works approval. The minor works approved included
replacing the roof, moving the HVAC system and adding an outbuilding, a fence and a driveway. Coleman
confirmed his clients will screen the HVAC system as required.
Dowdle said the removed coal chimney was not functioning and thus its removal was probably not an issue.
Spencer noted the Design Standards allow removing such chimneys from non-character-defining elevations.
Dowdle said the painted brick probably could not be reversed. Senner said the house is a contributing
structure and thus painting the brick would not be congruent with the Design Standards; he clarified the
commission recently approved painting the brick on a non-contributing structure.
When asked, Campbell said she could not recall any previous instances of painted brick with an after-the-fact
application. She confirmed the commission previously has approved painting brick that was not historic.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 8
Senner said in this case he could not find painting the brick consistent with the Design Standards. Dowdle
agreed but said the painted brick could not be reversed.
Regarding the windows, Coleman said the windows are believed to be aluminum-clad and offered to drill
through the trim to confirm their material. He confirmed the windows are simulated divided lite windows.
Dowdle said the commission typically frowns upon simulated divided lite windows. Senner said he thought
the windows looked vinyl and asked for confirmation on their material. Coleman agreed to investigate and
verify the windows’ material and return to the next meeting with that information.
Dicker pointed out a brick planter bed had been removed from the front façade, which she said seemed like
an important part of the façade. Coleman noted the previous owner also had painted a low, wall in front of
the house. Dowdle noted a metal railing and non-functioning shutters also were removed. Dowdle noted the
windows’ configuration had not changed. Dowdle said the brick planter bed would have to be painted white if
it were replaced. After some discussion, Dowdle and Dicker agreed they felt comfortable allowing the brick
planter bed removal.
When asked, Coleman agreed to confirm the front door is a compatible material. Coleman agreed to bring
information on the door material to the HDC’s next meeting.
Dowdle summarized the commission members were deciding whether to approve the painting of the brick
and the chimney removal and would wait for confirmation on the window and door materials. The
commission discussed whether to split the application into separate parts or table it until Coleman confirms
the door and window materials comply with the Compatibility Matrix.
Senner said he would not vote to approve painting the brick in this case. Dowdle noted the paint could likely
not be removed without damaging the brick. The commission members agreed the after-the-fact application
for painting the brick puts the commission members in a difficult situation. Senner expressed concern about
setting a precedent for the future. Hornik noted precedents are case-specific. Coleman noted this violation
occurred during the pandemic and said such situations should be very rare in the future.
The commission members discussed fairness and the difficulties of enforcing consequences in this case.
Dowdle suggested the commission members vote regarding the chimney removal and paint and ask for
confirmation on the window and door materials. Hornik recommended continuing the public hearing until the
June 1, 2022, meeting, in order to make one final finding of fact on the application. Coleman agreed and said
he would verify the window and door materials.
Motion: Dowdle moved to continue the public hearing for this item until the June 1, 2022, meeting.
Senner seconded.
Vote: 5-0.
6. Updates
Campbell, Hornik and the commission members discussed potential ways to prevent after-the-fact situations
such as Item 5C from happening again, including improving staff response time and options for posting
property similar to ‘stop work orders’, increasing code enforcement and requiring successful applicants to
post a Certificate of Appropriateness card during construction. The commission members discussed ways to
combat racial disparities and gentrification, and Hornik noted the town board struggles with such issues on a
zoning level. Campbell said Hillsborough has a large Historic District and said it could be narrowed to include
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 8
core contributing structures, noting such a change would involve a large public process. The commission
members discussed the need for more diversity on the commission.
Senner asked for formal training regarding applying the Design Standards to contributing versus non-
contributing structures. Hornik and Campbell discussed offering training on quasi-judicial procedures and
Historic District Commission procedures at the June 1, 2022, meeting.
When asked, Campbell said currently there are no other upcoming after-the-fact applications that she’s aware
of.
Campbell updated the commission members on staffing support for the commission. She said the planner
position has been advertised and she expects it to be filled in the next two-to-three months, noting she would
support the commission in the interim.
7. Adjournment
Motion: Dowdle moved to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Shannan Campbell
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: June 1, 2022