HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-02-2022 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 11
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Regular meeting
6:30 p.m. Nov. 2, 2022
Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Chair Will Senner, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker,
Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer
Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan
Campbell and Town Attorney Bob Hornik
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Will Senner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Senner called the roll and confirmed the presence
of a quorum.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Senner read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
There were no changes.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from meeting on Oct. 5, 2022.
Senner called for comments about the minutes. There being none, he asked for a motion to approve.
Motion: Vice Chair Max Dowdle moved approval of the Oct. 5, 2022, minutes as submitted. Bruce
Spencer seconded.
Vote: 5-0
5. Old business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 116 N. Wake St.
Applicant is requesting to renovate an existing home including raising the roof pitch and adding a dormer to
the rear to create a partial second floor and adding a patio to the rear. Applicant is presenting additional
information on surrounding building heights and massing with staff research on similar vertical vs. horizontal
additions previously approved in the district. (PIN 9864968420)
Senner reopened the public hearing continued from the previous meeting for the 116 N. Wake St. application.
He confirmed with the town attorney that no one previously sworn in would need to be sworn in again and no
previously disclosed conflicts of interest would need to be restated. He asked if any new parties would like to
be a part of the public hearing. There were none.
Fred Stewart, the applicant, was previously sworn in and was acknowledged. Senner stated the commission
had received the new information submitted by the applicant and asked him for comments. Stewart stated he
was there to answer questions.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 11
Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell offered to begin the session with her staff
report, which she summarized from the material in the commission members’ packets, as follows:
This is a resubmittal of a previously denied Certificate of Appropriateness. At the Oct. 5 meeting, the Historic
District Commission reviewed the previous submittal and the new submittal and determined a substantial
change in the facts/evidence (design, materials, etc.). At that meeting, the commission asked the applicant to
provide additional relevant information as to what the neighboring building heights of the surrounding
structures are compared to the proposed structure height of this project to better determine if the project
meets the standards. The commission also asked staff to identify any similar vertical additions in the district.
Staff found the following examples: 225 W. King St., 111 S. Wake St., and 321 W. Margaret Lane.
Campbell walked through each example stating similarities and differences, while referencing photos included
in the packet.
Senner clarified that the modifications to 225 W. King St. were mostly not visible from the street, and the
modifications to 321 W. Margaret Lane did not impact the front historic view of the property.
Senner referenced elevations to the adjacent properties that were included in the applicant’s updated
submission. He noted that the grades increased up the street. Senner asked if there was a reason the
applicant did not include elevations for the properties on King Street. The applicant stated there was not a
specific reason and that nearby properties were just picked.
Senner stated that the intent is to preserve the rooflines as a significant part of the character of the Historic
District, while recognizing that this structure is non-contributing.
Stewart pointed out a perceived discrepancy in the building guidelines between items 7 and 11, with the
former stating designs with new additions should be compatible in height and form. He asked everyone to
consider that this structure is a separate house and not an accessory structure to the one in front of it;
therefore, he feels it is consistent with the guidelines.
There was discussion as to whether the phrase “primary building", as used in the guidelines, referred to a
standalone structure or a connected structure. Senner stated his understanding to be that the phrase referred
to the original structure that was considered as historic as opposed to any additions that followed.
Spencer read from the Design Standards for roofs about the importance of preserving roofs as they contribute
to the building’s character and form. He struggled to see how the comparable rooflines would impact this.
Peele said she thought the proposal was in keeping with the historic character overall and said there had been
enough precedence set that it was compatible with what would be acceptable as far as rooflines.
Senner asked if her reference to precedence was related to seeing other houses with similar massing and roof
pitch that would be compatible with the proposed design, as shown. Peele affirmed.
Senner said he agreed with all parties that the proposed design would be compatible with the character of the
district, but he also found that part of the modifications would conflict with the Design Standards, mainly in
that the original structure would not be distinguishable from the addition due to raising the roof.
Hornik said the standards are a guide and the overall objective is to keep development compatible with the
character of the district. He encouraged the commission to view the proposal within the big picture, as there
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 11
is flexibility in the interpretation of the standards. He also reminded members that the subject structure is
non-contributing.
Senner asked whether Hornik’s interpretation was that the commission could consider additional leniency on
the proposal because of the non-contributing status, to which Hornik concurred.
Spencer asked Hornik for more clarity as to the legal standards for making decisions versus the design
standards document. Spencer’s understanding was commission members were to use the Design Standards as
their guiding document upon which to make determinations. Hornik agreed the standards are available to
guide the commission as to whether a particular proposal is congruous with the district.
Peele offered that she considered this application to be congruous with the district overall.
Senner summarized the commission's position to be that this applicant had put care into keeping key
elements of the original façade in terms of the layout of windows and doors as-is for the sake of preserving
the character of the original façade and that the change in the roofline is found to be congruous with the
character of the district based on other comparable houses of the same vintage and style. Further, because
this is a non-contributing structure, more comfort was stated in allowing the modification to the roofline,
realizing that plays significantly into the character-defining elevations. Dowdle agreed.
Senner closed the public hearing given there were no other comments. He then called for a motion for the
finding of fact.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the application for 116 N. Wake St. 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
design standards for wood, exterior walls, porches, paint, windows, doors, and roofs. Dowdle
seconded.
Vote: 4-0. Member Elizabeth Dicker abstained due to a previously stated conflict of interest.
Motion: Member Hannah Peele moved to approve the application as submitted with the condition that
the applicant would obtain staff approval on the new door on the south elevation. Dowdle
seconded.
Vote: 4-0. Member Elizabeth Dicker abstained due to a previously stated conflict of interest.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (after-the-fact application): 224 N. Occoneechee St.
Applicant is providing additional information about a life/safety fire egress needed to be installed after
issuance of a previously approved certificate of appropriateness for a new construction home. (PIN
9864779464)
Campbell opened the item by asking if there was anyone from the audience to speak on this item. The
applicant, Chris Moore, stated he could speak to it, if necessary. Senner reopened the public hearing
continued from the last meeting. Campbell reminded the commission of the purpose of the revisit, as follows:
At the Oct. 5 meeting, the Historic District Commission approved all the modifications to the original
Certificate of Appropriateness, except the commission needed more information/evidence from the applicant
on the need of the stairs to be located on the side elevation for life/safety reasons. The commission also
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 11
requested that the applicant provide some information on landscape plans or some other method for reducing
visibility of the stairs on the front/left façade.
Campbell noted that the application had provided information about these items, which were included in the
members’ packets.
Senner thanked the applicant for the clarity of the items provided and asked the members for any questions
or thoughts.
Spencer asked how long the applicant thought it would take for the proposed vegetation to cover the
stairway. The applicant said he thought the coverage would be mostly instantaneous because he plans to
plant at least three 5-feet-tall Fraser firs, which would grow about 5 feet per year. He also said some taller
grasses would be between the street and the stairs and the elevation from the street side would play into the
height of the buffer needed. He said the stairs are visible only from 65 feet of frontage.
Senner called for a motion in the absence of other comments.
Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the application for 224 N. Occoneechee St. is in keeping with
the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards and
evaluations in the discussion of the application with section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development
Ordinance and that the plans are consistent with the design standards for decks, accessibility,
and life safety based on the condition of the screening as shown in the application. Dowdle
seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Senner moved to approve the application as submitted. Dicker seconded.
Vote: 5-0
6. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 332 W. Tryon Street — Applicant is requesting approval to retain
an existing plastic deer fence. (PIN 9864779055)
Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest. Upon hearing none, he opened the public hearing and
asked Campbell if she swore to tell the truth in her testimony, to which she agreed.
Senner asked any audience members who wished to comment to come forward to be sworn in. Anton Wilson,
Jane Hamborsta, Philip Harris, and Alyssa Martina were sworn in.
Campbell opened with the staff report and stated this item is unique as it was brought forth in response to a
code enforcement complaint, which staff is legally required to follow up on. She said staff took pictures of the
fence and confirmed a PVC/poly vinyl material being used was incompatible with the matrix. She further
noted the standards do not contain language to address seasonal fencing such as deer or garden fencing.
Campbell said the applicant was present to request to keep the fence, essentially as an appeal of staff’s
determination. She said, depending on the outcome, the commission may want to address the material in the
standards to say it is exempt or to add language as to how to regulate it.
Senner asked for testimony from the applicant. Anton Wilson stated the fence in question was in place when
he bought the property in 2018 and he had made the complainant aware of that fact. The previous owner
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 11
relayed to him that the fence had been installed to protect the roses and hydrangeas from deer. He said that
he had no reason to know or believe the fence was not in compliance and that the flowering plants are still
there in abundance. He said both he and the neighboring property owner, who is the complainant, had
planted screening trees and shrubs, including fast-growing evergreens. He said within one to two years, the
fence should be blocked from the view of neighboring property on the back line. He closed his remarks by
saying the fence is the only option in protecting the plants from deer.
Senner called for other testimony. Campbell said the other person is Philip Harris. Harris said he objects to the
fencing because he does not think it falls within the guidelines of the Historic District Commission. He said he
has no problem with the metal fencing and thinks it should be sufficient to take care of the deer problem. His
objection is to the monofilament mesh. He said a third of the fence’s distance would not be covered by the
evergreens. He referred the commission to the written statement he had submitted and the photographs of
the fence. This was entered into the record.
Spencer asked Harris if the objection was to the fence material or to it being visible from his property. Harris
said the material is either something the commission would allow for all in the historic district or would not
allow for any in the district. He said it’s an issue of material.
Spencer clarified a desire to ascertain if the objection was related to the fence being harmful to animals, for
example, or if it was aesthetic. Harris said it was both. He is concerned about deer or birds being injured or
caught in it and also about the aesthetics.
Senner noted that the section of the Design Standards that would be referenced for this item is on Page 146.
He read the relevant section aloud. Campbell added that components of the issue are not addressed in the
standards. Peele said preserving plants and greenery also is a part of protecting the historic character, so that
should also be considered.
When asked, Campbell said the mesh fence is about 7 feet tall. Harris said the metal fence is about 4 feet tall,
but the netting is varying heights. He reiterated that the evergreens would not cover it all. Campbell clarified
the metal posts that the netting is attached to are 7 feet tall.
Jane Hamborsta spoke as a neighbor who could attest to the deer issue. She testified she had tried a natural
buffer of holly, but the deer also ate that. She was sympathetic to the need for the deer fence, felt it was
barely visible due to the nature of the netting, and testified the fence and the plants had been there since
before the historic district. She asked about whether this and other noncompliance issues in the district would
be grandfathered if they preceded the district. Campbell said the fence would be grandfathered if there were
any record of it having been previously approved and permitted, but there was none. Campbell indicated the
historic district had been in place since 1973, so the fence likely did not exist before that. She said it’s possible
there were not regulations for fences until a later date.
The final witness was Alyssa Martina, one of the applicants. She said the applicants are huge animal lovers
who love the deer and birds. She said they have never had any injuries to deer or birds on their property. She
referred to the previous item before the board in which the members approved an outside staircase partially
based on fast-growing trees that would provide a screen. She compared this to the trees that had been
planted by both the applicants and the complainant, which would quickly grow to obtain the same type of
screen. Martina also said neighbors supporting the fence were emailing Campbell.
Spencer spoke to Martina, stating his objective to find a resolution to satisfy all. He proposed that a privacy
fence would not be an ideal solution because it would block the applicants’ view of their own flowering trees,
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 11
to which Martina agreed. He then proposed the option of a 6-foot-tall aluminum fence topped by 1 foot of
wire fence. Martina spoke about the amount of money that had already been invested for the greenery
screening. Senner suggested adding wire up to 7 feet total on top of the existing aluminum fence. Martina
thought that would be less aesthetically appealing than the netting already in place, since the netting is barely
visible. Spencer said the commission is not supposed to rule on aesthetics.
Peele stated she may need more time to consider what other suitable options there may be. Campbell asked
if the commission would like to direct staff to see how other jurisdictions handle deer fencing, blueberry
netting, etc. Dicker said further exploration seemed to go beyond the commission’s responsibilities for the
case.
Senner summarized that the consensus of the board was to table the item and ask staff to investigate how
other jurisdictions handle this type of fencing.
Motion: Senner made a motion to table the item until the December meeting pending staff investigation
on alternatives used in other jurisdictions and regulations on garden fencing in other
jurisdictions. Dicker seconded.
Vote: 5-0
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 330 W Margaret Lane — Applicant is requesting to construct a new
single-family residence. (PIN 9864860074)
Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest. Dicker stated she used to work with the applicant but felt
she could be unbiased. Senner opened the public hearing, reminded that staff had already been sworn in, and
called any other witnesses to come forward to be sworn in. J.P. Reuer, Jessica Revels, and Pat Revels swore to
tell the truth.
Campbell noted this application was for new construction of a single-family residence. She listed the two
relevant sections of the Design Standards as New Construction of Primary Residential Buildings and
Sustainability and Energy Retrofit. Senner questioned the latter, and Campbell said he was right and it should
have been removed. She explained there was discussion of a proposal that included a green roof, which had
now been removed. She clarified that the standard for new construction of primary residential buildings
should be used.
Senner asked the applicant if he would like to offer any testimony. J.P. Reuer reviewed the application and the
proposed features of the new construction. He referred to the lower elevation of the lot and said this would
allow for a two-story home to be constructed next door to a one-story home without being inconsistent in
scale. The intent was a minimalist expression in design. Reuer utilized renderings within the packet along with
photos of other nearby homes with certain similar features to demonstrate compatibility with the district.
Jessica Revels spoke about an intent to physically blend modern and historical by designing a modern version
of a bungalow and shared that the home would also provide a way to blend generations and represent the
modern family, since she and her 10-year-old son would be living adjacent to her mother on a neighboring
property.
Pat Revels said she is Revels’ mother, the approval is important to them, and they had attempted to do their
due diligence. She was stating her approval as a neighbor who is also family.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 11
Senner asked for initial thoughts and comments from the commission. Spencer asked about a lack of 20-foot
setbacks. Campbell said this is a non-conforming lot, so the setbacks were modified. She also said the required
setbacks would be checked by the Planning and Inspections Department before building permits could be
issued.
Senner brought up screening along the driveway, saying he would like to see some screening to the adjacent
lot, per the guidelines. The applicants did not object.
Senner walked through the other portions of the application. Dicker questioned the compatibility of the metal
siding and asked if it would be corrugated steel. The commission discussed whether there were other
examples of these types of building materials in the district.
Peele asked if there would be plantings in the back. Reuer stated the landscaping was still being considered.
Spencer said the design seemed to be radically different than others in the district and surrounding street. He
acknowledged that the various components could be found in other homes in the district but said that when it
all came together, it looked radically different. He asked the applicant to address his assessment.
Reuer referred to other additions in the neighborhood that are more contemporary. Senner said he also
struggled to find compatibility, stating the home was in essence three stories tall.
Reuer said the slope and size of the lot required the vertical expansion of the home but noted it did not
appear as to be three stories due to the grade. Campbell shared a street view. Peele said using a horizontal
siding as opposed to vertical siding might help with the appearance of height and overwhelming form.
Campbell made Senner aware of another speaker. Suzanne Vergara was sworn in. She commented on the
height of the house and a concern that it would block the light to the house to the east. She said she thought
all the metal and concrete made the house incompatible with other houses in the district.
Senner began to review the other elevations with the commission. There were no comments on the other
elevations. Senner continued to express concern over the compatibility and the inability to identify other
homes with similar design materials. Dicker noted a home with some similarity could be found on Tryon
Street, but it is farther off the street on a wooded lot. Dowdle said he was on the commission when that
house was approved. He recalled it also went through a lot of changes and the siting had a significant impact.
Senner said, for him, it comes down to the materials and massing relative to the other houses near the site. If
the metal were replaced with wood siding and the concrete with brick, there would not be as much of a
concern, but the materials as is are not compatible. Spencer said he did not want to second-guess an architect
or micromanage, but he did not find the application compatible or consistent with the other houses in the
neighborhood. He said he hoped that if it did not get approved, the applicants would come back with creative
alternatives. Peele stated she thought it would be helpful to see the renderings in the context of the
neighborhood. For example, how would the height of the home look when seen next to the house next door?
Reuer said other houses in the neighborhood were built with an economical design in mind and that is also
true for this house. Senner summarized the board’s comments and recommendations. He indicated that the
applicants could consider if they wanted to modify the project and bring it back to the commission. He
commented on layout and the materials as features to consider, recalling that the commission had
emphasized vertical massing as a concern.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 11
Dicker asked the applicant if there was an environmental reason that they chose the material. Cost and
maintenance were stated.
At this point, a new speaker asked to be recognized and was sworn in by Senner. He identified himself as
Mathew Palmer, a Hillsborough resident and formerly a resident of Margaret Lane. He asked the commission
to take into consideration the totality of already existing, approved modern architectural design, as well as
the dynamic between form and function as it related to the reasoning behind the materials that had been
chosen.
Pat Revels commented about the differences between periods already represented on Margaret Lane that are
part of a storyline.
Senner asked Hornik for the best approach to revisit the application. Hornik suggested continuing the public
hearing and allowing the applicants to return to the December meeting with revisions if they wanted. Dicker
requested that a comparison between heights of the proposed home and neighboring homes be included.
Reuer asked for clarity as to what the commission meant by massing. The responses included addressing the
height and the boxiness that portrayed a “tall and skinny” look to the structure. Reuer pointed out that
because of the size and topography of the lot, they couldn’t build out, so they would have to go back deeper
into the lot, which would mean going higher. Spencer stated it is about perception, and changing some design
elements, such as roof overhang, could make a big difference visually.
Campbell summarized some of the comments made as suggested changes:
• Lightening the paint color.
• Exploring a horizontal versus vertical siding pattern.
• Providing measurements of the house next door, along with a rendering to demonstrate the context
of the height of the proposed home alongside neighboring properties.
Reuer asked whether the commission would take the challenges of the site into consideration. Senner
affirmed it would.
Campbell said she would send the applicant summary notes to assist in the next steps. Dowdle asked for a
motion to continue the item to the December meeting.
Motion: Senner moved that the commission continue the hearing to the December meeting. Spencer
seconded.
Vote: 5-0
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 329 W. Orange St. — Applicant is requesting to add an addition on
the rear and a new deck on the side/rear. (PIN 9864880256)
Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest and opened the public hearing when none were stated. He
asked for witnesses to come forward to be sworn in. Ryan Holden was sworn in.
Campbell opened by explaining that this application is for an addition to the rear and a new deck on the
side/rear of an existing home. The home was built in 1974, a porch was added in 1990, and it is a non-
contributing structure. Applicable design standards were listed in the packet to be exterior walls, windows,
doors, roofs, exterior lighting, outbuildings and garages; however, Campbell updated that the original garage
addition had been removed and the commission could disregard the section on outbuildings and garages.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 11
Holden stated that he heard earlier in the meeting that a historic home was defined as older than 50 years. He
restated that this home was built in 1974 and had not had any renovations other than the porch that was
added in 1990. The speaker said he was surprised when he learned there was a need to go through this
process with the commission because he did not think the surrounding homes were historic either.
Senner asked for commission comments. Dicker mentioned a section from the Design Standards on Page 91
that states decks are supposed to be placed in inconspicuous places not visible from the street. Senner said he
had also marked that section and then read it aloud. He noted the proposed deck would clearly be visible
from the street. The speaker replied there is a carport that would obstruct the view. Images from the
application were referenced to give context. Spencer asked if there was enough space between the porch and
carport to add a greenery screening. The speaker replied affirmatively.
Senner moved on to address the removal of the chimney. He said the standards address not removing a
chimney that contributes to the character of a façade. He read from that section of the standards, which
included that secondary chimneys may be removed. He said the commission would need to decide if the
chimney contributed to the character. Dicker said she did not consider it to be character-defining. Other
members agreed, and Senner moved on. There was discussion about how the chimney would be removed and
the area repaired.
Senner asked if any additional outdoor lighting would be added. Holden said there were not plans to add any
at this time. It was recommended that he speak with staff if that changed. When asked if there would be any
hardscape changes, Holden pointed to an area where a new HVAC unit would be added and screened.
Senner said it sounded as though the only condition the commission was considering was to screen the porch
area with plantings. He then closed the public hearing.
Motion: Dicker moved as a finding of fact that the project at 329 W. Orange St. 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
design standards for exterior walls, windows, doors, and roofs, additions to residential
buildings, and decks. Senner seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with the following conditions — that there be
screening added between the existing carport and the front of the deck to obscure the view of
the deck from the street with the exact material to be confirmed with staff. Dicker seconded.
Vote: 5-0
D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 120 E. Orange St. — Applicant is requesting to renovate a garage
into an office and remove/replace an existing lean-to on the garage. (PIN 9874089385)
Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest and opened the public hearing when none were raised. He
called for any witnesses to come forward to be sworn in.
Lyn Taylor Hale, Martha Mason, and Fran Demasi were sworn in. Campbell stated the applicant wished to
convert a garage into an office and to replace an existing lean-to. Senner asked whether the garage is a
contributing structure. Campbell said that the house and garage/lean-to were constructed at the same time,
per the historic inventory.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 11
The applicant, Lyn Taylor Hale, shared with the commission that her intent was not to change the footprint
but only to convert the garage to a home office. During ensuing discussion, it was noted that the proposed
pergola should be stricken from the plans. Other discussion surrounding landscaping took place, and Senner
advised the applicant to simply work with staff once those decisions were made. He also provided an
explanation for what defines a contributing structure at the applicant’s request.
Senner confirmed the proposed materials and items that should be included in the final proposal. Dicker
appreciated that the evaluation of the lean-to was included, since it was a part of a contributing structure.
The fact that the existing material is rotting made it reasonable to approve its replacement with a comparable
feature. Other feature materials and paint colors were reviewed. Specific comments were made by
commission members that replacement material for panels and louvers should be wood and not plywood. An
example for the louvered material was provided for the file. Senner emphasized that some existing materials
could not be salvaged, therefore, they were being replaced in-kind.
Senner closed the public hearing.
Motion: Peele moved to find as fact that the 120 E. Orange St. project 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 design standards
for exterior walls, windows, doors, roofs, exterior lighting, outbuildings and garages. Senner
seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Senner moved that the application be approved as submitted with the conditions that the
materials at the back of the carport be as discussed:
• Wood flaps for the louvers and panels below should be constructed of wood, not
plywood.
• Any modifications should be reviewed with staff.
Dicker seconded.
Vote: 5-0
7. Updates
Campbell did not have any staff updates but noted that Mathew Palmer, who was interested in joining the
commission, was in attendance. Senner asked for an update on hiring an additional staff member. Campbell
said the hiring process was ongoing but she was hopeful for a good candidate in the near future.
Senner mentioned board training in December.
8. Adjournment
Motion: Senner adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shannan Campbell
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 11
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: February 1, 2023