HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-05-2023 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 10
Minutes
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Regular meeting
6:30 p.m. April 5, 2023
Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Vice Chair Max Dowdle and members Elizabeth Dicker, G.
Miller, Mathew Palmer, Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer
Absent: Chair Will Senner
Staff: Planner Joseph Hoffheimer, Senior Planner Tom King and Town Attorney Bob Hornik
1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Vice Chair Max Dowdle called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. He called the roll and confirmed the presence
of a quorum.
2. Commission’s mission statement
Dowdle read the statement.
3. Agenda changes
There were none. It was noted that Dowdle is the presenter for Item 5A and that Member Elizabeth Dicker
will chair the meeting for that item, if approved.
4. Minutes review and approval
Minutes from regular meeting on Feb. 1, 2023.
Motion: Member G. Miller moved for approval of the Feb. 1, 2023, minutes as submitted. Member
Bruce Spencer seconded.
Vote: 6-0.
5. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 113 N. Churton St.
Applicant is requesting to install a mural on the rear of a previously painted brick building. (PIN 9874063482)
Motion: Miller moved to adopt Dicker as chair for Item 5A. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Dicker confirmed there were no other conflicts of interest or biases. Staff and speakers were sworn in.
Motion: Miller moved to open the public hearing. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Dowdle abstained.
Planner Joseph Hoffheimer introduced the item and said the building is a contributing structure. He called
Dowdle to present the request on behalf of applicant Matt Fox. Dowdle explained that this process was
started before the COVID-19 pandemic. He showed pictures of the back of the building and images of the
mural’s proposed design. Dowdle explained which areas and features of the building would be included in the
mural, if approved. He said the mural would be visible from King Street.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 10
Spencer asked if the mural would be reversible. Dowdle averred, stating that the building is painted white and
that the mural could be painted over with white paint if it should need to be removed. Dicker asked if the
lights and gutters would be painted over. Dowdle said they are planned to be but said that can be changed if
there is an issue with painting over them. Member Hannah Peele asked about the mural’s lifespan. Dowdle
said 10 years or more with ultraviolet protection.
The public hearing was closed at 6:45 p.m.
Motion: Spencer moved to find as fact that the 113 N. Churton 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: Art. Miller seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Dowdle abstained.
Motion: Spencer moved to approve the application as submitted. Member Mathew Palmer seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Dowdle abstained.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 318 W. Queen St.
Applicant is requesting to construct a bedroom and sunroom addition to the existing house as well as a
detached garage with exercise studio. (PIN9864872602).
Motion: Miller moved for Dowdle to resume as chair. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 6-0.
The public hearing was opened at 6:48 p.m. Speakers were sworn in. Spencer requested to recuse himself as
he is a next-door neighbor to the applicant.
Motion: Dicker moved to excuse Spencer for Item 5B. Palmer seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Spencer abstained.
Dicker said she used to live in the house that is the subject of the request and worked with the applicant but
felt she could be unbiased. No other conflicts were stated by the board.
Hoffheimer introduced the item and said the home was built circa 1923 and is a contributing structure. He
stated the applicable design standards. Hoffheimer said poly-ash is a proposed material that is not discussed
in the Compatibility Matrix but has been used in other historic districts. He called on Reid Highley to present
the item as the architect for the project.
Highley said he served on the Historic District Commission for six years. He walked through the various
proposed additions and explained the reasoning behind the design.
Highley said the addition of the ground floor bedroom is meant to accommodate the owners’ plans to age in
place. He said they have electric vehicles that need to be charged, preferably out of the weather, so a one-car
garage is proposed. He said the garage and a portion of the house will include a rooftop solar array. He said
there will also be battery storage that will serve as a generator. He said the home studio is for home
workouts.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 10
Highley said the zoning ordinance allows for accessory buildings to be built into setback areas if they are low
in height. He said the addition will have six-over-one windows to match the craftsman style of the house. He
presented samples of the poly-ash siding and passed them around to the board. He said the material is made
from coal ash that is mixed with resin and extruded into siding.
Highley explained the structural and design reasons for the additions to be located as proposed, such as to
not block existing windows and to have a separation from the chimney. He said the addition to the house will
have the same roof material, and the garage will have a different material that will be better for the
attachment of the solar array.
Sarah Cross and Lisa Bakale-Wise signed up to speak on the item. Homeowner Aris Buinevicius was in the
audience. Claire Horne was also listed as a property owner and applicant but was not present.
Dowdle and Hoffheimer explained that each speakers’ comments would be limited to three minutes.
Cross said she lives directly adjacent to the property being considered, and the proposed development has
the potential to have a great impact on her and her son’s lives. She addressed the owner and asked him not to
take her objections personally. Cross said the scale of the square footage with the additions feels outsized to
the character of the neighborhood. She said the Historic District Commission guidelines have to do with
appropriate scale and scope. Cross said the guidelines prefer buildings that are parallel and perpendicular. She
questioned whether there would need to be any earthmoving to cut into the hill to construct the garage.
Regarding scale and scope, Cross said her home is 1,100 square feet and the proposed design would add
buildings greater than the size of her house between the existing structure and her home. She said she does
not think a complex of buildings is appropriate to the more modest surroundings, with the exception of
Spencer’s home, which was built much later. She said she appreciates the openness of Hillsborough, and this
design feels much too large.
Dowdle called on Bakale-Wise. Bakale-Wise said she would like the architect to speak about a lighting plan so
that she would not go into her three-minute comment time. She also discussed the time limit with the board
and staff.
Highley said the homeowners share the neighbors’ concerns about light pollution and have no intention of
having the house lit up at night. He said all the lighting will be in typical locations and will be brought to
Hoffheimer for approval prior to installation. Highley said the general plan is to flank the garage doors with
sconces, and a pendant or ceiling-mounted fixture likely will be under the recessed porch portion of the
garage. Bakale-Wise asked if that light would be shielded. Highley demonstrated where the light would go and
that there would be a structure blocking the light’s flow from that area. He said he did not envision anything
grandiose but only what would allow functional navigation between structures.
Cross asked Highley to speak to water management for the additional hardscape. Highley said the foundations
will have a foundation drain to pick up any surface water, and all the gutters and downspouts will be piped.
He said the existing gutters will be replaced as part of the renovations.
Cross asked if a cypress tree would be removed. Highley said he only anticipates the removal of one holly tree
and perhaps one other but both are well within the 24-inch diameter.
Highley continued demonstrating where lighting would be placed by pointing to the proposed design on the
screen. Bakale-Wise asked for clarification that there would be no proposed lighting on the garage’s exterior
other than what was being presented. Hoffheimer said the lighting decision did not have to be made at this
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 10
meeting. Bakale-Wise asked whether a commitment could be made that there would be no floodlights or
spotlights. Hoffheimer said it is up to the commission members if they impose conditions on the application.
He said light intensity is not governed by the standards. Bakale-Wise said that as a neighbor she does not
think that floodlights and spotlights are in keeping with the character of a house built in 1926. She asked the
board to confirm whether indiscriminate lighting and floodlighting can be approved by staff as a minor work.
Hoffheimer said that when the board deliberates, he would like to hear discussion about why an entire house
was approved at the last meeting without discussion about lighting when there is nothing in this application
about spotlights or floodlights. He said consideration of a condition on lighting in this case would be
precedent setting.
Dowdle called on Hillsborough Senior Planner Tom King. King said he has been with the town for 15 years. He
passed around the lighting plan for commercial projects and said town staff has never reviewed lighting plans
for residential applications. He said to do so would be a nightmare and the applicants sometimes do not know
the lighting plan at the time of the application. He said changes are often needed due to lighting availability or
requirements that may come from Orange County Building Inspections. King said the Hillsborough Planning
and Economic Development Division does not get notified in those situations.
Miller asked if the board could put a condition on the approval that no floodlights are allowed. Hoffheimer
said floodlights are not covered by the standards, no floodlights are proposed in the application, and he is
curious why the board would treat this application differently. He said every application that goes before the
board will have a lighting component. He asked why this application specifically needs to have a condition
placed on it.
With no one else signed up to speak on this item, the board began its review of the application. Highley
walked through each elevation and discussed roof pitch and materials.
Dicker asked why the roof material would be different for the garage. Highley said it is better for connecting
the solar panels. Miller said solar panels would be on the addition that will have a metal roof like the main
structure. Highley concurred but said it seems better to use the same material where the addition connects to
the existing roof. Highley also added that he does not think the solar will be visible to others due to the
alignment of the structures, vegetation, and a privacy fence.
Miller asked Highley to speak to why the addition would not be parallel to the main structure. He referenced a
comment that was made earlier about this being a part of the standards but said he has not checked to verify.
Highley said in most cases the structures would be parallel, but he does not recall anything in the standards
about that. Highley said the addition is designed this way to allow more room for the screened porch and also
because he previously encountered rock in this area on another project and hoped to avoid that by moving
the addition over.
Dicker asked how the lot’s slope would be addressed. Highley pointed to a retaining wall on the design plans
that would separate the elevations. Miller asked the height of the wall. Highley said he is waiting on a
surveyor to provide topography information. He said based on a similar area on the property, he thinks it will
be about 3 feet tall.
Peele asked if there has already been an addition. Dicker, a former owner of the house, said a screened porch
had been added. Highley pointed to a lean-to and said he suspected that was also an addition, but he did not
know when that may have been added. He said the area of the lean-to will be a part of the renovation.
Highley said the west elevation is mostly not visible from the street due to vegetation.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 10
Dicker asked if the slope of the lot will cause the garage to be higher than the addition. Highley showed the
conceptual design. He said the ridge of the roof may be slightly higher than that of the addition, but the
structures will be on two planes, or elevations, so the appearance of it being higher would be minimal or not
at all from the street due to depth perception. He again pointed to the rendering as a demonstration of this.
Highley said to dig out for the garage would be strange since the garage would then only be 5 or 6 feet high.
Miller said he does not think the style of the garage looks like the craftsman style of the house, mainly
because of the low roof. Highley said if other craftsman-style houses were reviewed, he thinks it would show
the design does fit the craftsman style. He said the roof on this house has a higher pitch than most craftsman-
style houses. Highley said he would have liked to make the roof pitch steeper for the garage, but the height
restrictions associated with building into the setback do not allow for it.
In reviewing the south elevation, Highley said he wanted to make this side very glassy, so a three-quarter-lite
door would be installed with panels to be located on the sides of the door that mimic the door. Regarding
those panels, Dicker asked about the panel portion under the glass. Highley demonstrated from samples how
the panel portion would be constructed of boards with grooves.
Dicker said the windows shown in the rendering do not match what has been presented in the meeting for
one side of the house. Highley agreed and pointed to a note on the rendering stating such. He said the
windows as presented in the meeting are a revision that he did not have time to redo in the rendering. He
scrolled to a more accurate view that was included in the packet.
Dicker said she does not like the panels. Dowdle asked if she could express from the standards what she does
not like. Dicker said she does not think so. Dicker commented about the concrete steps being converted to
brick and said she drove around and saw other houses in the district with this material, calling the result a
mishmash between concrete and brick.
Dicker asked if the addition’s colors would be the same as the existing house. Highley said yes, as of now.
Dicker asked about the doors, and Highley said the those have not been decided. Hoffheimer said that paint
colors can typically be approved as a minor work.
Before the public hearing closed, Cross asked if her question about scale and context would be addressed.
Highley said he is also sensitive to matters of scale and does not want to see huge homes next to tiny ones. He
said houses are usually added onto and built into large structures, but this design leaves the house mainly
intact and adds two smaller structures. He proposes that adding the volume of the separate structures to the
main house would have more of the effect that Cross is referencing. Cross said the additions are still nearly
doubling the volume of what is on the site currently. She called it a significant change in the context of a
community of mill houses. She said she would like the commission to respond affirmatively or negatively
about her specific concerns.
Dowdle said each application is considered case by case. He said the board has taken a lot of time to review
all the information and it will come down to each individual member evaluating the application in light of the
standards and voting according to the appropriateness.
Dicker said she disagrees with Cross that the neighborhood is a community of mill houses because the houses
get bigger to the west. Cross said the context includes four to five mill houses around this house. Hornik said
one of the issues is congruity with the district and asked Highley to address whether there are other homes
like this in the district. Highley said detached garages and detached accessory buildings are all over the place
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 10
and extremely common in Hillsborough. He said virtually every home in the district has been added onto in
one way or another. He said care has been given in this case to keep the craftsman character by breaking the
additions into smaller elements.
Dowdle closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. and asked for deliberation.
Peele said she thinks the design respects the standards very well. She said there are minimal changes to the
existing house. She read a portion of the standards from Section 13 that refers to additions having minimal
impacts to the original structure if the addition is later removed. She said this would be completely possible
with the proposed design. Peele said historically older houses have accessory structures. She said she does
not think it is in the purview of the Historic District Commission to approve the size and scale of additions in
terms of what percentage of the original structure is acceptable for an addition.
Dowdle said the design does not overwhelm the site, and he thinks it is appropriate.
Dicker asked if others have thoughts about the access portion of the addition, describing it as the hallway to
the primary bedroom. Dowdle said he has seen this done but cannot think of any examples in the district.
Palmer said he had questions about the paneling, but if the paneling is intended to be consistent with the
door, he thinks it is fine. He further agreed with Peele that designing the addition this way makes the addition
minimally invasive to the existing structure.
Palmer said in considering context, a home a block away at 230 Hasell St. has more than doubled, and the
same is true on West Queen Street. Dowdle said Margaret Lane has homes with massive additions off the
back.
Dowdle asked if there were any concerns about the use of the poly-ash material. Dicker said there is another
material that is approved in the standards that has fly ash as a base. Dowdle said the board will always have
to consider new materials, but the poly-ash does not seem to be very different from Hardie plank and has the
added benefit of being made from a waste product. Highley confirmed that the flat side will face out.
Dicker asked if anyone had issues with the solar panels being on the front of the garage. Miller said he
thought there was an allowance for situations where it is not practical to put them on another side of the roof
and noted they are not visible from the street. Dicker agreed. Hoffheimer said there is language that will allow
this to be approved as a minor work as long as the panels are not easily viewed from the street. Highley said
there is language in the standards that encourages applying the panels to secondary buildings because, by
nature, those buildings are lower profile and less conspicuous.
Miller said the one major concern he has is the lighting. He said that just because it has not been brought up
in other applications does not mean it cannot be addressed here since it has been brought up here. He and
Palmer would be in favor of a condition that there is no floodlighting. Hoffheimer asked for a specific
reference to floodlighting in the standards and why a condition would be placed on this specific application
and not others. Miller said he thinks it is within the realm of the commission if floodlights do not work with
the character of the building. Hoffheimer said the application design before them does not include
floodlighting. Miller said it should be addressed in case they are proposed later and could be approved as a
minor work.
Hornik and King noted that a previous board gave much attention to lighting. Hoffheimer read from the
Exterior Lighting Considerations that “light intensity, brightness, and light trespass are reviewed under zoning
ordinances and are not subject to review by the HDC.” Miller said he is not mentioning anything about
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 10
intensity. Palmer argued that Exterior Lighting Standard 5 provides an allowance for the commission to
consider lighting.
King said any condition placed on the approval should be in the furtherance of a design standard. He said his
concern is that floodlights can go up at any time and asked how this would be enforceable in the district.
Hornik said a condition tied to a standard such as orientation would add legitimacy. Miller said the condition
should not be in relation only to this application but is important to address in all future applications.
Peele asked for clarification as to what is considered a floodlight. King confirmed that it could include motion
lights. Peele said it is important to define what is not allowed. Miller said it could be a security issue not to
allow motion lights. King agreed that placing these conditions could be to disallow security lighting. Hornik
said a condition could specify that the orientation of the lighting could not be directed at neighboring
properties.
Dowdle said he is concerned that would open the commission to all kinds of complaints if there is any light
spillage onto other properties. He is confident that staff can handle the lighting approvals as a minor work and
does not see a need to add a condition. Palmer said he understands the staff concerns, but he also lives near a
church and is impacted by light pollution. He said the commission is charged with protecting the quality of life
of the residents of Hillsborough. Hoffheimer said the commission is charged with considering the facts of this
case.
Peele suggested moving forward with a motion to include a condition and see how the board votes. Dowdle
said he is in favor of approving as is and does not see a need to add a condition. Hornik pointed out that the
architect and the owner are present and hearing the concerns about the lighting. Dowdle asked other
members to talk about where they are with the decision. He said he has stated how he feels. Peele said she
does not need a condition. Dicker also said she does not need a condition about the lighting. Miller said he
would like to see a condition. Palmer said he recognized that a condition could open a Pandora’s box and
asked the attorney what the recourse would be if the condition were placed and ignored. Hornik said it would
become an enforcement issue for staff.
Highley said he does plan to submit proposed lighting to Hoffheimer, and the applicant is not trying to skirt
any part of the process. He said the process has not moved that far yet. Miller said he would be disappointed
if staff approved a floodlight after this level of discussion. He said he appreciates the work staff does, but he
said there had recently been a discussion of something approved by a former employee that should not have
been approved as a minor work. He said the point of the condition is to ensure that everything the
commission wants gets done. Dowdle said this is a tricky area because as the board changes, mindsets
change. Dicker said there is nothing in the application that would indicate floodlights are going in, and the
discussion has all been in response to commentary.
Dowdle called for a motion. Dicker said she needs more discussion about the garage. She thinks it will be too
high and asked if anyone else concurs. Miller said he thinks it could be. Dowdle asked if it would be helpful to
table the decision and ask for a clearer rendering. Highley said the current rendering is the view of the house
from the street. If the perspective is done from further west, a house obscures it. If it is done from further
east, it is not a street view. He estimated that there may be 8 inches of difference and the diminishing effect
from the depth would have the levels appear as the current rendering reflects. Highley’s opinion is that the
garage will not be higher. Hornik asked if there is any vegetation. Highley said it is mostly low. He pointed out
that the holly tree in the rendering is much more full in reality and will be kept. Hoffheimer said a condition
could be placed about the height if needed to avoid tabling the application. Dicker said her question had been
answered.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 10
Motion: Peele moved to find as fact that the 318 W. 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; New Construction of Outbuildings
and Garages; Sustainability and Energy Retrofit; Site Features and Plantings; Walkways,
Driveways, and Off-street Parking; Fences and Walls; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies. Dicker
seconded.
Vote: 4-1. Nays: Miller. Spencer abstained.
Motion: Peele moved to approve the application as submitted. Dicker seconded.
Vote: 4-1. Nays: Miller. Spencer abstained.
At 8:40 p.m., Dowdle called for a two-minute break. The meeting resumed at 8:47 p.m.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 404 N. Churton St.
Applicant is requesting to remove a China fir tree on North Churton Street (PIN 9874086269).
The public hearing was opened at 8:47 p.m. Palmer asked to recuse himself because of a professional
relationship with one of the applicants.
Motion: Miller moved to excuse Palmer from Item 5C. Dicker seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Palmer abstained.
Three speakers were previously sworn in. Their names were not on a sign-in sheet and were taken from the
application and geographic information system. Valerie Blettner and Tim Werrell were listed as applicants.
Daniel Godfrey is the name found for the neighboring property owner who is presumed to be the neighbor
speaking at the meeting.
Hoffheimer introduced the item and said the house is a contributing structure. He said per emails from the
applicant to staff, the tree has been trimmed by Duke Energy and has become lopsided along the power lines,
which may pose a threat to the neighbor’s house if it falls. He said the applicant has proposed replacing the
China fir with one or several native oaks or maples farther away from the street and power lines. Hoffheimer
said staff have not received a signed tree health or tree risk assessment from an arborist certified with the
International Society of Arboriculture to verify the deterioration of the tree and its need for removal as well as
specific reasons in the arborist’s professional opinion that the tree cannot or should not be retained. He said
the tree is 41 inches in diameter.
Blettner said her neighbor is present and approves of the removal. She referred to him as Daniel. Godfrey said
he approves. All three speakers came forward. Godfrey said he thinks the tree is an eyesore. He said it is a
non-indigenous tree and he thinks the root structure has been compromised because the roots are exposed
on one side that has been removed by the power company to maintain the power lines. Godfrey said he is
concerned it will fall on his house, and he is highly allergic to it. The applicants said they would like to replace
the tree farther away from the power line with a tree indigenous to North Carolina.
Miller asked if there is a reason the applicant didn’t have an arborist evaluate the tree. The applicants said
they had an arborist provide an estimate to remove the tree but the arborist did not give an opinion on the
tree’s health.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 10
Dicker asked if the speakers think the tree contributes to the overall character of the house. They said no and
to the contrary. They said the character would be improved by the change. Spencer said, given the diameter,
he thinks it is a historic tree. He said the commission is not concerned with aesthetics but maintaining the
historic character of the district. He said if the arborist had said removal was necessary, he would not hesitate
to approve. However, given the age of the tree, he did not see a reason to approve its removal. Dowdle said
he understood the danger aspects, but he would be more comfortable if there was an opinion by the arborist.
He concurred with Spencer that the commission could not rule based on the aesthetics of the tree and that
the professional opinion would be needed to speak to the safety issue.
The public hearing was closed at 8:58 p.m.
Dicker said she thinks the applicants need a letter from an arborist. Hoffheimer said the removal could be
approved at staff level if a letter from an arborist is provided.
Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 404 N. Churton 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: Site features and plantings with the condition of a letter from a certified
arborist that states the tree is a danger. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Palmer abstained.
Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application with the condition that the applicant submit a letter to
staff from a certified arborist that satisfies the condition in Section 3.a.1.ii on Page 145 of the
standards. Miller seconded.
Vote: 5-0. Palmer abstained.
6. Finalization/adoption of updated Rules of Procedure
Hoffheimer posted the draft Rules of Procedure, including edits from the last meeting. He reviewed the
proposed changes. He said the section on the public comments should reflect what the board had already
voted to approve. He said there was one item he wanted to clarify and to have Hornik weigh in on. He read,
“All meetings shall be open to the public, but are not necessarily public hearings … .” He said he thought the
language was murky and there is language in other places that talks about the commission’s meetings as
evidentiary hearings. Hornik said he had no problem with any of the language. Hoffheimer said the board has
already voted to approve the rest of the language but Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan
Campbell would like for the board to adopt the finalized document at this meeting.
Miller asked a question about which document takes precedence between the standards and the Unified
Development Ordinance. Hoffheimer said the latter takes precedence.
Dicker asked if language can be included to refer people to the Unified Development Ordinance for more
information. Peele asked if links can be used for references to documents in any digital versions. Hoffheimer
averred.
Motion: Dicker moved to approve the Rules of Procedure as presented and discussed. Spencer seconded.
Vote: 6-0.
7. Updates
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 10
Hoffheimer said due to state law requirements there will be formal written findings to be approved in
addition to the minutes going forward. He said he hopes that change will take place beginning with the next
meeting as a way to confirm what has been approved and what has been captured in the minutes.
Dicker revisited the discussion about time limits for speakers. She said she agrees there should be time limits
but does not feel three minutes is sufficient in all cases. Hoffheimer and Hornik said that in tonight’s case both
speakers for Item 5B received letters and, therefore, had standing. This meant that they were able to
participate and cross-examine the applicants. Spencer asked if they should have been limited to three
minutes. Hornik said they can be. He agreed with Dicker that it should be at the board’s discretion based on
the situation. He also said it is important to be mindful of others in the audience who wish to speak or have
other cases. Peele and Hornik further discussed who had standing in a quasi-judicial hearing.
Miller said he did not think the board appeared to be willing to hear from the public. Hornik said it was not a
smooth process, but the speakers were allowed to participate pretty heavily. Hoffheimer said most of their
questions had been answered at the management level over the course of the previous week. Miller said he
understood that but felt the board needed to hear from them, too.
Peele said she likes to have consistency and would like to at least have some agreement among board
members about what to expect. Hornik suggested that a rule of thumb can be based on the number of
speakers who sign up or that the rule be changed based upon a vote of the board. Hoffheimer discussed the
current public comment guidelines included in the letter that neighbors receive. Peele asked how the board
feels about a timer. Several said they like the idea. Hornik said the town board uses a timer.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Hoffheimer
Planner
Staff support to the Historic District Commission
Approved: May 3, 2023