HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-07-2022 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 4
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Regular meeting
6:30 p.m. Dec. 7, 2022
Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Chair Will Senner, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker,
G. Miller, Mathew Palmer, Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer
Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan
Campbell
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. Member Elizabeth Dicker arrived at 6:33 p.m.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Senner read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented.
4. Welcome and introduce new commissioners
G. Miller and Mathew Palmer were presented, welcomed and introduced as new members.
5. Minutes review and approval
Senner said there were no minutes from the last meeting ready for review yet. Minutes from November and
December should be in the next meeting packet.
6. Old business
A. Certificate of appropriateness application: 332 W. Tryon St. — Applicant is requesting approval to retain an
existing plastic deer fence. (PIN 9864779055)
Senner said this item was tabled from the last meeting with the public hearing still open; therefore, the item
was opened in public hearing status with all persons previously sworn in unless there were new speakers.
Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest. Member Bruce Spencer disclosed he had spoken with one
of the applicants since the last meeting, having a general conversation as neighbors. He said he suggested to
them that they might replace the questionable plastic portion of the fence with metal mesh or do something
else with the fence that might bring it into compliance. He disclosed this in case it could be considered ex-
parte communication, stating he did not recall this until after speaking with the applicant.
Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell said Spencer’s acknowledgement before
the commission and applicant served as proper disclosure. She asked if that was the full extent of the
conversation. If so, she believed it was up to Spencer to state whether he felt he could be unbiased and
continue to render a decision on the matter. Spencer replied in the affirmative to all. Senner asked if anyone
objected to Spencer’s continued participation, and no one did.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 4
Both applicant and complainant were present. Board members engaged them periodically during the public
hearing portion of the deliberations to ask informational questions.
Campbell reminded the board that staff had been asked to check other areas to see how standards
surrounding fencing in those areas are structured. She summarized her staff report, which was included in the
board packets, as follows:
• Chapel Hill — Allows temporary, light gauge fencing for animal control in the front and side yards around
small garden areas or in the rear and side yards. Allows deer and garden fencing to be installed seasonally
with garden stakes on a temporary basis. If fencing is to be installed with posts, it is treated as a
permanent fence and must meet standards.
• Wallace — Allows temporary garden fencing in rear yards only when not visible from the street.
• Greensboro — Allows wire and utilitarian fencing (chain link) in rear yards only but doesn’t speak
specifically to deer fencing material.
Senner pointed out that there were some additional public input items included in this month’s packet, as
well, which had arrived via email on the day of last month’s meeting but not in time to be included in last
month’s packet and discussion.
Member G. Miller opened the board remarks by stating that this particular situation, as he understood it, was
not covered under the Historic District Design Standards because the document does not reference the type
of material used on the portion of the fence included in the complaint. He stated that if his understanding was
accurate, the board should be aware that it would be setting a precedent. Senner agreed that the material is
not covered in the Design Standards, referring to it as PVC.
Member Hannah Peele said that the nature of the material is temporary and that a permanent solution and
situation would need to be addressed. Senner said, to him, temporary meant seasonal, such as something put
up and taken down routinely. He said this application seemed to be more permanent.
Spencer said the Design Standards refer only to “wire.” Senner wondered if a solution might be to add wire
fencing to the existing metal fence to bring the fence into compliance.
Dicker agreed that PVC should be considered a temporary material but noted the fence is only visible to the
neighbor filing the complaint and has been in place since 2009. She noted the house was purchased by the
current owner (applicant) with the fence already in place. This brought up whether the fence could be
grandfathered. Senner reminded the board that the town attorney had previously explained that how long
the fence has existed is irrelevant; the board’s job is to determine whether the fence is congruent with the
Design Standards. Campbell added that a Certificate of Appropriateness was never applied for and obtained;
therefore, no approval to be considered for grandfathering could be granted. Something has to have been
allowed and previously permitted in order to get legal non-conforming status, sometimes referred to as
“grandfathered.”
When Palmer asked for a recap of the discussion from the previous meeting, Senner referenced photos
displayed on the screen and included in the board packet to demonstrate that the metal portion of the fence
is compliant and the plastic mesh fence is in question. Palmer asked about the height of the metal fence. The
applicant responded that he estimated the metal fence to be 4 to 4½ feet tall and further explained to the
board that he and the complainant had planted fast-growing trees on their property lines to create an
additional buffer between the properties. This led to a discussion as to whether a conditional allowance could
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 4
be granted for the fence until the trees could grow in. The complainant stated portions of the fence would still
be visible despite the greenery. It was also clarified that a portion of the fence is visible from the street.
Further discussion ensued with all board members engaged and centered mainly around whether a solution
might be found by including language in the standards about temporary or seasonal fences. It was noted that
these terms would need to be defined. Ultimately, members concluded that if the intent of the fence in
question was to keep deer out, then this board was not equipped to establish what an effective season would
be to accomplish that end.
Miller made the distinction that there were actually two fences. Dowdle asked how the board would feel
about the mesh fence if the metal fence were not present. Under this scenario, all board members agreed the
mesh fence would be incongruent with the district.
Dowdle searched online for examples of fence types that would meet the standards and shared images with
the commission in an effort to suggest possible solutions, while other board members reviewed the sections
of the standards applicable to fencing.
Senner asked for staff input. Campbell reminded that it is not the role of the commission to find a solution for
an applicant or to design a project for an applicant but only to determine if the proposal is congruent with the
Historic District.
Senner closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 332 W. Tryon St. application was not in keeping with the
overall character of the Historic District and did 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 not
consistent with the design standards and materials for fences. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 6-0; Palmer abstained.
Motion: Dicker moved to deny the application as presented. Peele seconded.
Vote: 6-0; Palmer abstained.
Senner explained to the applicant that he could apply for an alternate type of fence.
7. New business
2023 Regular Meeting Schedule
Campbell said she would not be available to attend the January meeting on its regular evening; therefore, she
was requesting a new date be selected since the Planning and Economic Division’s new staff member would
not be prepared to support the commission meeting that soon. January 11 was selected, and all other months
were approved according to the regular schedule of the first Wednesday evening of each month.
8. Updates
Campbell said the application for 330 W. Margaret Lane (PIN 9864779055) had been withdrawn. She said the
town’s new planner, who would become the Historic District Commission’s staff support, would start on Jan.
3.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 4
9. Adjournment
Prior to adjournment, commission members asked how certain items that are not addressed in the Design
Standards could be cleaned up. It was determined that this should be addressed at a future meeting when the
new staff person would be in place. Senner asked members to bring their thoughts to the January and
February meetings as to items that need to be addressed. He stated that various task forces or work groups
could be established based on members’ interests. Campbell added that this could be included as an agenda
item for the January meeting.
Motion: Senner adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shannan Campbell
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: February 1, 2023