Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the meeting to order. And we'll start with roll call. Josh Gerlitz. Here. Laura Moore.

Here.

Glen Conley.

Here.

And Brian Daniels. Here. And Don Tice. I'm here. And the first order of business is an acknowledgement of Pride and Caribbean American Heritage Month. So I have a statement. As we begin our June meeting, we take a moment to honor two significant observances this month. Pride Month commemorates the June 1969 Stonewall uprising in New York City, a turning point in the LGBTQ plus civil rights movement when patrons at the Stonewall and bravely resisted police harassment igniting the modern fight for equality and justice. Since the first Pride marches in the 1970 and 1999 Presidential Proclamation, Pride Month has recognized the courage, resilience, and contributions of LGBTQ plus individuals, especially those who are transgender and people of color, who have driven lasting change. Now, the Caribbean American Heritage Month began officially in June 2006 following bipartisan congressional approval and a presidential proclamation by President George W. Bush. It celebrates generations of Caribbean immigrants and their descendants, such as Alexander Hamilton, Cecilia Cruz, Shirley Chisholm, and Colin Powell, whose creativity, leadership, and culture have shaped American society. We recognize and honor the rich histories, enduring spirit, and vital contributions of the LGBTQ plus and Caribbean Americans communities. Their legacies of perseverance, innovation, and diversity continue to strengthen our shared heritage and inform how we preserve and celebrate our collective past.

There you go.

Secretary.

I'll now read into the record the following. The commission operates under NC General Statutes 160D-940, which gives local governments historic preservation authority, and the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, including Article 3, which established the local historic districts and sets forth regulations governing them. and the Chapel Hill Historic District's design principles and standards, which sets forth standards for changes in the historic districts, and the rules of procedure adopted by the Chapel Hill Historic District Commission, as well as the significance reports from all three historic districts and photographs. I also call to your attention each of the applications and associated materials in your agenda packet. All of these items are hereby entered into the record. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. Next is the reading of the public charge. Historic District Commission public charge. The advisory body pledges its respect to the public. The body asks the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the body and with fellow members of the public. Should any member of the body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time, the chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Property owners may represent themselves or be represented by attorney. However, professionals such as architects, engineers, designers, and others may provide factual evidence and expert opinions so far as they are qualified, but not legal arguments on behalf of the property owner. Members of the public may provide witness testimony and factual matters within their personal knowledge. However, lay opinion testimony on property value impacts, traffic safety impacts, and other matters in which expert testimony is generally required may not be considered by the commission. Comments and legal arguments by attorneys shall not be considered testimony or evidence unless the attorney is sworn in and Acknowledges that he or she intends to provide testimony or evidence rather than legal argument That's the brand new hot off the presses public charge Okay the agenda are there anybody have any adjustments or changes to the agenda I

The only suggestion I would make is that we remember that it's appropriate to cut off the meeting by 10 o'clock, so that if there's a new business item that would go after 9 o'clock, we would extend that into the next meeting.

Okay, so if you're in the lower part of the agenda and the first one or two items are running long, know that we're gonna cut it off at 10 o'clock. So don't waste an extra hour of your time. It's basically what we're trying to say. Hopefully we won't have to worry about that.

I move that we approve the agenda as submitted.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, all opposed? And next, do we have any announcements?

Yes. Staff wanted to let the commission know we recently learned about a provision that allows commissioners' terms to be extended by one year to work on unfinished business. So Josh has agreed to stay on for another year to work on that unfinished business.

So we need to form a motion and vote to bring him back in? Or is he here, whether we like it or not?

I think council is going to vote on it tomorrow at their meeting.

Council will, OK.

Along with a couple of planning commissioners that are also extending their terms. But I don't think you all need to vote on it. OK, very good.

I just wanted to make sure there wasn't an action needed in our part. OK, we're good, Kevin. And I would like to say that I, for one, am very pleased that Josh is going to be with us for another year. He's the best. So are there any petitions?

No, there are no petitions.

No petitions. OK, approval of the minutes from May 12, 2026 meeting minutes. Anybody have any comments, changes, adjustments?

I move that we approve the minutes from the May 12 meeting.

Can we get a second?

A second.

OK, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? There you go. OK, consent agenda. 403, McCauley. and a correction to 209 North Boundary. So is there any discussion we need to have about 403 McCauley and Scott?

No, that was just an error. There was a part of the written decision that said four feet and it was actually four inches. So it's just a correction for that.

Yeah, details.

Just a minor detail.

And then resolution to correct an error in 209 North Boundary Street, written decision. Is that something we need to know about, Kevin? OK. Do we need to form any kind of motion to approve the consent agenda?

I move that we approve the consent agenda for 403 Macaulay Street and the resolution of the correct area for 209 North Boundary Street.

Second. OK, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Consent agenda passes. All right, new business, 111 Ridge Lane. While Anna Scott's getting that ready, let me ask, are there any conflicts? OK, thank you. And when someone gets up there, I'm going to read you an affirmation. And if you could say, I so affirm, and then give us your name, that would be awesome. Thank you.

You'll both get sworn in now, and then you can say whatever you want to say.

OK, the affirmation. I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the Historic District Commission and the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth. I so affirm. Say affirm and give us your names, please.

I affirm Benjamin Johnson.

I affirm Nancy Smith. OK, thank you.

Thank you.

Anna Scott, is there a way to make this bigger on this screen?

Yeah, do you have any speaker heads?

I don't.

OK, so then I can edit the display settings and duplicate the screens. Thank you.

Good evening, board. My name is Ben Johnson, and I am one of the partners and head of the Planning and Design Division at Will Johnson Building Company. And our company has done a handful of projects in the historic districts. Gimgool in particular, we've done a major remodel in addition at 707 Gimgool. And 704, we did a demolition. Or 704, we did a demolition and new build there. We love these districts and appreciate being part of this process. I have Nancy Smith, who's one of the homeowners at 111 Rich Lane, and she has prepared a few remarks to share. Do you mind coming up?

the most important homeowner. Just kidding. Thanks for your time. I just wanted to introduce myself, Nancy Smith. My family and I have been connected at Chapel Hill for decades. Whereas four of us have gone to school here, my husband teaches here, My son graduated from Keenan-Flagler, my daughter's a Moore-Hickey scholar, and I was on the soccer team. I played soccer here a long time ago, and the reason we're here and the reason I say all that is really just to emphasize how much we love Chapel Hill. We love the town. We're fortunate to be a permanent part of the community now with the purchase of 111 Ridge Lane. We've loved getting to know our neighbors, some of whom I've spoken to before tonight and who have been quite interested and accepting of what we've talked to them about what our plans are and our intention of the property. We do have somebody coming, but she's not here yet. And really what I want, and Ben will walk through this, is this house, despite our efforts to look at renovation, has significant challenges. And we really want to create a home for ourselves that would be an enduring place on the property. it's clear that renovation is just not reasonable and won't be a sustainable option for us. So our intent, and Ben will go through the details, is to invest in the neighborhood, to be part of the neighborhood, to create something that is fitting in the neighborhood, and will just help deepen our ties to Chapel Hill. So I thank you for your time, and turn it over to Ben. Thank you.

So 111, you can see the context of the house in relation to its surroundings in Gimgul. So it is in the middle sector. And it's surrounded by a wide variety of different home shapes, sizes, lot sizes, varying different square footages, et cetera. The history of the property is interesting. From the sandboard maps, you can see that it does not show up on the 25 sandboard map, but does show up on the 32 sandboard map. So our estimation is that this house was built sometime in the late 20s. The state HPO records show this as a non-contributing structure, along with a handful of others in this district. The original architect and builder are unknown. It was built for Nellie Dixon Elliott, who was a librarian in the town of Chapel Hill. And she built that house for her two daughters there. The HPO does say that a major remodel to the house occurred in the 80s, and that that remodel has tarnished much of the original architectural integrity to the home. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out what remodels did occur to this house. We'll look at the slides. And it is clear to us that additions and remodels have taken place since the build. We did spend a lot of time trying to ascertain what is the original vernacular of this house, and it's sort of an interesting puzzle. We relied on the design guidelines and the vernacular architectural style listed there as some clues. That being said, our conclusion is that this is a pyramidal cottage with a classic pseudo-colonial revival portico added onto the front of it. And it fits sort of loosely within a vernacular of folk homes that were built in the 20s with very little ornamentation. This is, again, from the front of the house. You can see the entry portico. And this is viewed from Ridge Lane. This is a view of the house from the northwest corner of the property. Similar sort of backside of the house and viewed from Evergreen. And you can see these porches that no doubt were not present in the 20s, but were added on at some point in time. And then a view from sort of the corner angle of Evergreen and Ridge Lane. Similar here backing up from the street. You can see the house from further away. And then another view of the sort of side area off of Evergreen. When it comes to demo, one of the things we tried to do was absolutely limit our area of land disturbance. So we are under 5,000 square feet of land disturbance. That's the big blob you see on this map here. And in doing that, there were two sort of things that we wanted to do. One, just limit how much construction activity occurs in the district, obviously. But there are two district-defining features on the site right now, and that's the... stone walls that are, in particular, around the front of both Evergreen and Ridge, even though they're small. And then a 18-inch mulberry tree that we believe is very important to just the streetscape there. So our demo is designed to preserve that tree, but more importantly, those stone walls. Around the property, these stone walls exist There are a lot of them. The walls that we have to take down as a necessity for demolition just because they're either connected to the house or too close to the house, we will be saving those and hopefully using them in the future bill that we'll be proposing on Ridge Lane. And you can see in the bottom right corner, that's the stone wall along the front that we will be maintaining. That's in the center, the 18-inch mulberry. There's a cherry tree to the left that's in sort of rough shape, and then another specimen tree to the right. Those will remain during demo, I think, as we get into new construction COA. There might be a question about the cherry tree and its shape and form, but that mulberry tree, we believe, is a district-defining tree, so we want that to remain. When it comes to demolition, Nancy touched on this, but our firm believes first in preservation, and if that's not an option, then we start talking about demolition. So that does coincide with the demolition standard, is that this should only occur if there's no other viable path forward. And from the due diligence that... The Smiths asked us to perform their due diligence as well. We've come to that conclusion that there's no viable platform for us to rehabilitate or add on or continue with this house as a means for projecting into the future. This is because of compromise Basically problems throughout the house, but in particular it has a compromise foundation Ongoing water intrusion issues which we suspect are contributing to additional mold growth the current Almost all of the exterior cladding is in state of disrepair and the current configuration lacks specific features that are required so To properly address these issues we would almost need to deconstruct the whole house and then rebuild it Which again is not a feasible thing to to accomplish here. I In that, though, we do plan to salvage quite a number of items. I mentioned the stone walls, that being one of the most important things that we see that is salvageable. We will allow and coordinate with preservation offices, et cetera, for any other items that they would like to salvage. But the stone walls are obviously the most historic feature that we would be removing and do want to stockpile and save for future use. When we think about relocating, can we pick this house up and move it elsewhere, a couple of things came up with that. One, it's a stick frame construction that's been altered over time. So even taking out the fact that it has a basement, let's just pretend it's a one story stick frame house, picking up and moving that would be a very difficult and not feasible thing to do because of the way it's been sort of cobbled together over time. It also has a basement, and so that makes the idea of moving it not a feasible thing, especially with the foundation deficiencies, random piers and two-by-fours holding up girders, et cetera, as well as the moisture problems that I've already touched on. I think last in that is, per HPO records, the house doesn't carry a strong historical, it does not carry a, it's not a contributing house, and then it doesn't possess a strong architectural character, meaning it's not a great representation of any vernacular such as other homes that are in the district that might warrant such an exercise, even if it was possible. The house, so when you start to think about justification for demolition, so the house does not occupy a prominent location within Gimgool. Evergreen and Ridge Lane are spoken about in the HPO records as being a service lane, and it's right in the middle of that sort of service lane and service alley. It's not on the main stretch of Gimgool that is certainly a character-defining street of the whole district. Our site disturbance, as I mentioned, will be under 5,000 square feet, which is a Tier 2 trigger for the town of Chapel Hill, which is a minor zoning review. This does not require erosion control or land disturbance permit from Orange County. So again, the idea that we want to do this, but have as minimal impact as possible. And then, of course, the stone walls and trees that will remain. The significance of the House, I've already touched on the non-contributing HPO records, and I think I beg your pardon, I did just speak about the... not being a distinct representation of a colonial revival design, et cetera. And then last is the Entry Portico, which might be the one original piece to the house that still stands today. Despite being original, it has some incorrect proportions applied to it. The current conditions, the two big ones are the moisture content throughout the house and then the foundation cracks that are way out of normal tolerances. And apart from those two big ones in the application materials, you can see that we have deficiencies spanning across almost all of the major building sections and components of the house that are failing. I think the other aspect is, for us at least, the design guidelines speak positively to new construction. And in this case, because we've ruled out addition or restoration, we certainly see it as a positive also. And the design guidelines speak to it being a positive. and a contributor to the character of the district. And that will certainly be one of our goals and missions for the new design. And as well, that these districts are not going to be not and should not be static. And this is taken, of course, from the design guidelines. As well, it mentions that the new construction does not need to mimic earlier architectural styles. And as we get into our proposed design, we'll talk about that for a minute. So with our future build, and just to clarify, today we're only presenting and applying for the demolition permit. But to give a brief context into the work we're doing for our COA new build, we want to respect the district first and foremost. What we want to build here, we desire and intend for it to fit within the current context and harmony of the district. And in doing that, for it to be a simple massed house with restrained detailings, and actually intentionally avoid a formal expression of a colonial revival, or Georgian, or federal. And instead, go for a light, restrained traditional, shingle-influenced, vernacular-type revival home. So our site plan as we currently have it, again, it's designed to fit within the context of what's there at the moment. So our built upon area is larger than what's presently on site. The pink is the outline of the current Ridgeland residence. And then you can see our proposed overlay on top of it. And we are still developing this, but we don't see this footprint getting any bigger than what it is right now. And as you step step back and look at that in context with the rest of the neighborhood, you can see our percentage of site, the built upon area at 16 percent. And then compare that to the other homes. You can see that it kind of falls within the kind of middle ground of of what's going on around it. I think what also is interesting is you look at those percentages of sites and the footprints and also the frontage width, they are all over the place. And so it is quite a smorgasbord of different BUA percentages and whatnot. But you can see we're proposing or will be proposing a modest increase to that percentage of site and that our height is close to what we're currently experiencing with those surrounding and touching properties. So that's our intent is to keep that context with our new build. This is just a peek into what we're working on right now. So you can see simple forms. It's a story and a half construction is what we'll be proposing relative and two stories stacked on top of each other. We've been playing around with the sort of narrative idea of an original farmhouse, if you will, or iframe house, much like 707 that was built in the 20s and then added on to with a covered porch at some point in the 40s and then built on top of that. And then in the 70s, bigger additions added on in the back of the house, much like many of the homes were done over time. But giving it a distinct break from the colonial revival and doing something that feels timeless and in keeping with the context and scale of the current neighborhood position. So the final thoughts I'd leave you with are that the current dwelling is non-contributing to the district per HBO records. We do desire our proposed dwelling to mimic the massing scale and character of the neighborhood. The amount of time and energy spent trying to see if we could renovate or add on to this house was significant. And so although preservation is our preferred approach when feasible, between us, our consultants, Nancy and Ryan Smith, we see this as the best long-term solution to the house versus an incremental try and repair and alter overall being the The best thing for the district and that coinciding also with a win-win for for the the residents as well so we do hope that it's a you know the future of 111 Ridge Lane, you know beyond beyond this this stage would be a extremely positive part of Gingell for the next century and So with that in mind, our request to the board is for approval to demolish 111 Ridge Lane. And we would like to have that approval so that we can plan towards that demolition to occur in December of 2026. We currently have our COA application for the new build in the works. spending a lot of time making sure that is just right. I had previously wanted to include it in this application, and we can touch on this later, but But we want it to fit perfectly within the context. So we want to make sure we have enough time to get that just right. And so we look forward to sending that application in and being ready to review that in the August 2026 meeting after your recess. Before I conclude, Nancy, is there anything else you want to add? Oh, yes. And one of the neighbors is here. Yeah.

So there'll be time for public comment, and we'll need you to come up to the microphone. So yeah, just give us a sec, please. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you, Board, for your time. I look forward to hearing what questions I can answer for you.

Any questions?

Could you give us a little more information on what you considered as alternatives to demolition?

Yeah. So actually, the previous homeowner, who Ryan and Nancy Smith bought the house from, submitted a COA application. And it was approved for a addition out the west side of the house, so towards the back of the house. We looked at that. And I actually consulted with the previous architect and builder on that. I know him. And I wanted to know, hey, why did you guys back away from this? And it was a combination of a lot of things. But it was ultimately that they got into it and said, oh my gosh, I don't feel anywhere near close to comfortable now that we're trying to actually build this that I can connect this new part of this house to the old part of the house. And so we did a similar exercise. Our design was a little different than what they had been looking at. But it was sort of the same thing. It was when we tried to get load paths lined up to where we could add on to this. And even on the inside of the house, when we talked about, OK, if we open up this wall or if we get into the ceiling and repair this skylight and this mold, You know all the ceiling has to come down and oh by the way, you know these joists are rotten etc and So those were and I'm losing track of your question, but I think you're asking the alternative So those were the main alternatives where can we can we add on to this house?

So there was a lot of information provided in the pre-read materials to us that you didn't cover tonight But we have the benefit of having two very prominent architects on the Commission so I feel like maybe worth talking about, the primary drivers of why you chose demolition versus

Yeah, I mean, the primary driver was that the house, the foundation in particular, has cracks all over it. The idea of adding any new weight or load-bearing elements to that was extremely problematic and, frankly, scary to us as builders. The water, to address the water, we were looking at having to excavate almost around the entire property to properly abate that. And those are really where the two big drivers is the water intrusion in the basement. And the basement is also... You can make a strong argument that in its current shape, it's not actually habitable space, given the ceiling heights and some other things. Those were the two big things. As you think about excavating around the whole house and solving the water issue, you end up with so much disturbance. and the foundation the same thing, that it becomes just sort of a non-feasible exercise from our standpoint. You know, it's true that things like the siding, we could probably just rip off all the siding, which, you know, the HBO records indicate, you know, none of this is... is original to the house, so I suppose we could rip out all the siding and replace all the windows, and the windows are in a state of disrepair, and replace those, but you would still be left with a house that is considered non-contributing, and then would be left with the waterproofing and the sagging floors and mold in the attic and just system-wide deficiencies that... Think are just too much to overcome and that's what the previous homeowner previous owner decided with their With their represent representatives as well But if there's a specific item, I'm happy to to go into that specific and a structural item or a

Moisture reading or no, that's fine. I don't need that. We're good I'm gonna save all my comments for we're having Commissioner discussions anybody have any questions Well do we want to hear from the public Thank you very much, thank you excellent presentation Is there anyone from the public wants to speak I OK, since you're here.

Thank you.

Do I need to do the affirmation? My lawyer was giving me the side eye. So I'm going to read you an affirmation. After I finish, if you could say, I so affirm, and give us your name, please. I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the Historic District Commission on the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth. I so affirm.

I so affirm.

Very good. And your name?

Peggy Britt, and I live at 723 Gimgool, which kind of abuts her property, right? We're right like that. And I'm in the sister's house, for those of you who know that. And it has been really sad over the last, I guess I bought my house seven years ago and renovated. It's been sad to see a succession of temp owners live there while their kid is in college. They come in to visit from California or something. It floods all the time. As neighbors, we're always seeing rugs pulled out. It rains now. Because like, hey, 100 years ago, this wasn't flooding. But we have Houston weather now. It's just different weather. And from what I can tell, like a straw poll of the neighbors, We absolutely support it. It would be better to have a thriving house that suits a family for the next hundred years than to have this thing be piecemealed and just die slowly. And I get to watch every bit of the construction, and I'm still for it.

Okay, thank you.

Ma'am, if you don't mind, if you would sign in.

Yeah, it's up here. Seven years ago, people used to go over there.

So is there anyone else from the public that would like to say anything? If not, we'll close the evidentiary hearing portion. And we'll discuss amongst ourselves. I'll start just to recap and make a couple comments. Recap, it's a biggie proposing tearing down any structure in our historic district. all of our old buildings whether they're architecturally significant or not all have a story to tell and say something about who we are as a community so it's a tough ask for commission to i'm just laying that out there that having been said i wanted to personally thank you even though technically it's not part of our design standards that we can consider landscape for 4.1.8 just does say maintaining protects significant site features, but it doesn't specifically include landscape and trees and plants. But I personally appreciate the thought you put into it because I think that's a very significant component of our historic area. And before I blather on with about five other points, I'm going to let somebody else jump in with a question or comment for the other commissioners.

Yeah. I'm given this thought, and you had a very good presentation. I am very cognizant of how homes can support the families that live in them or not. And I can understand the challenges here. I think we need... We need to be aware of our challenges, though. And there are a couple of things here that I do find challenging. Number one is that by bifurcating the process between demolition and a new building, you're actually exposing the historic district to risk. Because if something should happen in that interim, if something should happen in that interim, and things do happen, all the best plans in the world will not save this lot or save this house. So I think that bifurcating the process is risky to us as a commission. So I see that as number one. Number two, I'm I'm pretty certain that many of the homes in the historic district have these kinds of problems. These kinds of problems are not unique to this house. This house has a number, a real number of problems. You've identified them, and I agree with that. I agree with whoever put those windows in in the 1980s. really hurt the house. I guess it's lack of maintenance and lack of repair have hurt it. And water intrusion is certainly serious. But many houses in the district do have water intrusion. They have structural problems. And if each and every person decided that those problems were insurmountable, we wouldn't have a district left. So I find that problematic. And I would really like to I'm not totally convinced that there is no way to restore this house and make it livable by a modern family. I'm just not convinced of that. I know that you mentioned that another person had tried it. And I'm really sorry about the people who have been living there for the past seven years and have complicated your life and the community's life, because I find that in my part of the district happens all the time, and it's pretty terrible. So I really love the fact that Nancy and Ryan are thinking of actually making this a home. So it's a pretty hard ask that you're making. I really wish that it could be restored and that effort could be made to figure out how to restore it and make it function.

Brian, do you have any comments you want to jump in on?

I agree with Josh.

Do you guys have any comments?

I appreciate the thoroughness of your discussion about water intrusion and mold and mildew. I don't really know how to address that. at this point without seeing an engineering report or something. But I will say that I agree with Josh. Separating the demolition from the approval of the new plan is bothersome to me, especially since the sketch that you showed us, which is a lovely elevation of the front of the house, It just looks a lot taller than what's existing. And that jumped out at me. So the height of a building is something we consider very carefully. And I would feel better if we had more reassurance that the scale of the new home would be in the scale of this other home. And if there was some engineering reports, which you may already have and I didn't read them yet, sorry about that, that say that you can't repair the water damage and correct the drainage.

I am not completely opposed to demolition, but I am hesitant as well, not knowing what exactly the future plans would be. Again, it's an amazing sketch. And also, your presentation was really well prepared and very detailed, and I appreciate that. And I also appreciate that you did give the background of the house, the information that is available. And I know that in 5.1, it does say that the commission can't necessarily completely deny a demolition unless the state historic preservation officer has determined that the property has statewide significance. But still, it is something that once it's done, it can't be undone. So I am hesitant to that.

So Kevin, I actually have a question for you. Because there is a sketch in the materials that were presented. But this is a demolition COA only. So that is not binding in any way, correct?

That's correct. That's not evidence that's competent material or substantial to your decision this evening. Which makes the point that Josh made even more poignant.

We should have asked this question before. Is there a reason that the demolition can't be brought before along with the proposed new construction?

Yeah, great question. So for us it came down to two things, well three things. So fundamentally we see it as, let me back up for a second. I hope it goes without saying that I do, well, I don't understand because I've never been on the board, but I can certainly appreciate the risk and what you guys are, the decision that you're weighing here. That's certainly not lost on me. And I would love to respond to those points that you guys had. But to answer that question real fast, so we see it as two fundamentally different decisions. So we have the demolition, which that That's trying to answer the question of, is the house, and I'm paraphrasing, of course, is the house or the existing structure, is it of significance? Is it contributing? What is the current condition? Have measures been taken to make sure that demolition is justified? And then the new build, that mission is, and I'm not trying to speak for the guidelines, but it is We're building something, and we need to make sure that it fits and is in harmony with the district, and that it fits the context and the character. And so it's sort of like two separate buckets in our mind, and that was one of the reasons for wanting to separate them. Second is that we, what I said earlier, I mean, and that's that the, and I appreciate your feedback about the size of the house, Laura certainly wrote that down, it's something we'll talk about. But we do want to make sure that we spent the right amount of time to ensure that it meets all of those design guidelines. And there's a lot in there, as you guys know. And we're coming through every single item there. And for a new build, it's everything. It's everything down to this is the scallop on the wrought iron railing, et cetera, and how it meets the standards. So it's the two separate buckets and then the time to make sure that our application for the new build is sound and gave you guys the necessary information to make your life easy and to make that first look at it as meaningful as possible.

All right. Well, thank you. Because the challenge is, for me, is that if we were looking at the new construction component, the way you presented it in terms of the new footprint, the size, the shape, I love the fact that the new design is presented, even though that's not technically what we're reviewing tonight. The new design doesn't try to mimic a particular style of architecture. It's actually nice and clean. But I think it's very complementary to the neighborhood. Thank you. Even though it's not trying to be part of history that we're not actually living through right now so I really two thumbs up on the and the proposed design but like I said we're we bifurcated this so we're just talking about the demolition of course as it comes to my opinions on the demolition is that not all old structures created equally this one seems like it was built on a budget originally and it's somewhat pieces parts and it's very modest and i don't see a lot of architectural significance i do appreciate the fact that you're thinking about the stone walls and the landscape and trying to keep as many pieces as you can and kind of breathe new life into the site as opposed to breathing new life into the building structure itself that's the difference what we're talking about here maintaining the pattern of the uh of the neighborhood, which I feel like the proposed new construction does do. So my initial intent is to end. Well, the other thing you have to realize is, and Kevin, I'm getting into your role a little bit here. As a quasi-judicial group, we're kind of creating precedent. I mean, is that correct? Or is everything on a job-by-job basis?

That's right. So similar to an Article III court, your decisions create precedent only insofar as similar reasoning should apply to similar factual situations. So yes, you're creating precedent. as it relates to the facts presented to you all this evening. And if you're presented in the future with a similar set of facts, the decision reached by the commission should be based on similar logic or similar reasoning. But it doesn't guarantee that all future demolition applications will Result in the same outcome as whatever the Commission decides this evening. I'll also note And Glen I think pointed this out state law tells us that the Commission cannot deny a Demolition application the most that you can do is delay demolition by 365 days from the date you render your decision And if you choose to do that, the commission is obligated to negotiate with the property owner during the period of delay to try to find alternative means through which the property owner working with the commission could achieve a different result. So I just want to, before we start going down a path towards whether or not demolition is or is not incongruous with the character of the district, I wanted to point that out to you.

Okay, well that's a useful piece of information. What you got, Brian?

So it's a very dynamic time in Chapel Hill from an economic standpoint. And I think that there is some precedent that's being set. We haven't seen a demolition application in the five years that I've been on the commission. And I feel like unbundling demolition from a proposal for a COA for a rebuild is a dangerous precedent to set, period, full stop. Because I think that untethers it from the guidelines as presented. That makes me uncomfortable that the two things have been untethered. I think it introduces risks, as Josh said, that sets precedent for other questions that are going to come pretty quickly in front of the commission.

Well, and I would keep in mind that regardless of whether you consider the demolition COA and the new construction COA at the same time, or whether those are bifurcated and heard at different points, as is proposed this evening, The new construction COA will always be required to comply with the applicable review standards.

Understood. But the context of the house that's being demolished and its context, I think, gets lost when those conversations are untethered from each other. Because my hope would be that there is some reference to the house and the structure that was there previously. If demolition and reconstruction is the most practical solution, what's the nod to the history of the site and the home and the people that live there. Because I think sort of the energy of that property is also part of what we're considering. And when you untether them, as Josh said, if for some reason you needed to sell your property, that new person is not tethered to any of those decisions that were made at demolition. So looking at them together and providing the context for how it's going to sit on that site, in my mind, is quite important.

sure that's fair oh yeah and uh and i understand where you and josh are coming from but at the same time uh a presentation was made by the owner so we can consider who the owner is and a presentation is being made by someone from will johnson builders so we can consider that and in those two considerations i find it quite refreshing based on some other applications we've had recently that this is an owner a family that cares about chapel hill and cares about the community and it's nice that they care enough to want to do things and do things right so that gets a big gold star for me also in terms of bifurcating i personally am technically you're spot on but i'm personally uh my opinion towards towards that is tempered by the fact that it's will johnson builders and there is no more legitimate builder in chapel hill than than Will Johnson. But still.

And yet, every application we see will not have those conditions.

Yeah. And your point, which is a great one, the great presentation you've made about what you want to say with the stone and the stone walls and the trees and this and that and the other, you guys do the demo with every intent of doing that, something goes wrong. Another person comes in That's the point you're basically making yes, yes, can I can I can I actually?

Still so you'd have to I think we have to we'd have to reopen that we have to reopen evidentiary if you're gonna comment I have a question for Laura and this is tangentially related My understanding is that mulberry trees are And we love trees. Mulberry trees have extraordinarily aggressive root systems. And that 18-inch or 20-inch mulberry tree may be a contributing factor to your wet basement. Maybe. They are incredibly aggressive, at least in my understanding.

That's true. That's true. And they're also not considered one of our community's greatest prominent trees, such an oak or a maple would be. And then again, as I always say, if you're actually going to save a tree, do so. Don't cut off 2 thirds of its roots. So whatever is done to save that tree in the corner needs to be a real solution, not a halfway solution.

So just keep that under consideration next phase.

You looked like you were getting ready to say something just a second ago.

I also just wanted to note that I appreciate the list of items that were going to be salvaged from the house. So energy wouldn't be completely lost into the new house.

OK, so there we are. We have an interesting little conundrum here.

Can we ask the applicant if they would be willing for us to table this until the application comes in in August? We can ask. We can ask.

So Kevin, maybe you guide us on how we can do that. So you have to act.

on a COA application within 180 days from the date that the application is accepted or deemed accepted by the town. Otherwise, the application is kind of default approved. I don't know where we fall within that time frame. There's certainly no reason that you could not continue the hearing on this application until August, provided that that does not run afoul of our deadlines. But as we regularly talk about, if the commission wishes to continue the application, I would encourage you to consult with and seek the consent of the applicant first.

So I think Anna Scott's looking to answer your first question. While that's happening, what I would like to do is to ask the applicant to step up so we could talk a little bit about where to from here to address some of the concerns, if you're comfortable with that. But let's make sure Anna Scott's question is answered.

If we're going to have a further discussion, I suggest that you reopen the evidentiary hearing.

So I move that we reopen the evidentiary hearing.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. We're going to reopen the evidentiary here. There you go. OK, Josh, you want to re-ask your question?

And Scott, do you want to answer? Sorry, just want to make sure she has an opportunity to answer Kevin's question.

So the COA application was completed on April 21. So I don't know how many days ago that was. and I were just discussing and trying to find in the Land Use Management Ordinance, the 180 days. We're not sure off the top of our heads if it's 90 days or if it's 180 days we're looking. I believe that it's 90 days unless the applicant consents to the 180 days.

Right, so the default period is that 90-day period, which I think, you know, we would be outside of at this point, unless the commission continues with the consent of the applicant.

So Mrs. Smith, would you mind if we have a brief chat? So I think the hesitation that you hear from us is that there's a lot of changes potentially coming to the historic districts. And we're a little bit concerned about setting precedent with something that's as significant as a demolition. And it's extremely unusual in the districts. And so the concern about what might happen between demolition and construction is a concern around what the context would mean. It's meaningful to hear that you are so committed to Chapel Hill, which is amazing, but as Josh said, things happen, and he's been building homes in Chapel Hill for over 50 years, I believe, so when he says that, it catches my attention. What I personally would be more comfortable with is if we could have a look at what your application for the new structure would be in that COA so that we are ensured that there is a nod to the context of the surrounding homes and sort of how it's going to sit into, in particular, Gamiga, which is a really important district here in Chapel Hill. And I think that would probably go a long way towards allowing my concerns specifically. And so practically speaking, what I'm asking is if you would consider allowing us or supporting us in extending this item to our August meeting. And in that August meeting, or a time after that, depending upon what preparation time you need, to bring your COA application for the new structure so we can sort of have a look at all of it together.

So as you think about that too, I just want to reiterate And I know these are just words ma'am if you don't mind speaking into them. I know these are just words today But I do want to reiterate our time spent obviously over years But also in the neighborhood as you see a tremendous connection we've made we've made friends We are committed to our partners. We've chosen them on purpose for all the reasons that you've spoken about. One of the things that Rebecca has told us about is that their company talks about enduring structures and enduring homes. And that's what has resonated with us. So I know this is not a direct answer to your question, but I do want to emphatically say that we are committed. The bifurcation is not because we aren't down the road on our plans. As you see a rendering, the rendering is actually, we are close, and so I don't want you to think that there's some lapse in time. That's because we're just trying to do this, and then it might be six months before we have something. So I do want to say that.

Sure, sure. Let me be more specific about my concern, which is not everyone that comes in front of the commission has the same background and concern for Chapel Hill that you do. It may be more of an economic concern, whatever the case may be. us untethering a demolition from a new construction sort of introduces the risk of there being no context from the prior structure. Demolition happened six, 12 months ago. New developer comes in. It doesn't, right? So I think it's also a consideration of the precedent that we're setting here, which is part of the ask, especially given the genuine concern that you're showing about Chapel Hill Historic District.

For what it's worth, as we discussed about precedent, This commission's reasoning this evening, if you were to approve the demolition COA, is only quote unquote precedent insofar as you are faced with identical facts in the future. So like I mentioned, the concern that separating the demolition COA from a new build COA might untether the two applications from the existing historical context. The reasoning would only be binding insofar as you're presented with the exact same factual situation in the future. If you're not presented with the exact same factual situation, you could reach a separate decision based on different reasoning.

I appreciate that. My perspective is unchanged. I would still ask that you consider that.

So you're having to go through a minor site plan approval? Is that what I heard you say? Tier two, what is it?

Yeah, for demolition below 5,000 square feet of land disturbance, that triggers a tier two review, which is a staff review, I believe.

It's all staff review. It's just essentially a different fee that staff goes through. Based on land disturbance is one of those factors.

right i was just asking as it related to timing and scheduling to try to get to the original answer to the original question of why what's the reason behind bifurcating because if you're going to have to go through an approval process with staff who are very efficient i might say but if you're still going to have to go through that process and then go through uh towns inspections and permitting then what's what's the reason to to split these apart

Yeah, I mean, timing is everything. We have Ryan and Nancy Smith who want us to get started. They want to be here. And the goal of starting in December, that was established. December of last year. And that goal coincides with some of their family goals. And so the bifurcating, in our minds, we thought did help speed up that process. So when we do a demolition, and we have done these in Chapel Hill, We found that it goes faster if we do the same thing. Frankly, we untether that from a proposed zoning submission in the town. And furthermore, what that allows us to do is once we remove whatever structure is there, then we can do things like get a fresh topo made. We can see what in the world is going on under the house and almost better prepare for the new construction so there's not some sort of... We demo and we pause and go, oh, shoot, there's a... I mean, God forbid we find a old oil can tank under the house and go, oh my gosh, this is going to pause us for a month. Versus if we get the demos started, then we can address that as we are, say, completing the ZZP and building permit application for the new build. So I don't know if that answers that question or not. But any follow up on that?

So I posed a question.

Can I ask a question before we answer that? Sure. OK. So to make sure so that I can better get into y'all's frame of mind, so what's your risk? So I understand the weight of the decision, but I'm struggling a little bit to understand and comprehend the risk. So the risk in your mind is that if we keep it untethered and we demo the house, Ryan and Nancy decide right after we demo to sell the house, and then we're left with a hole in Gimgo. Is that the primary risk?

That was actually not my sense of risk. I don't think they're going to do that at all. But we're all human, and there are risks of divorce, death, all sorts of things that can happen. Estates can take years to resolve. So I think that that's my sense of risk. Now, I'm much older than most people in the room, so I see things a little differently. But that's my sense of risk, that I would like to see it all in one. not have that period of time.

So the only response I do have to that is our intention is to have almost no delay in time, right? So we obviously have the two timing of today and August is when we're looking to have things in. That would be the... That would be the timing. We are close to putting something in. The only reason we didn't is because what Ben said is that we really wanted to make sure we were careful. We were talking to our neighbors to make sure that they understood what we were trying to do and what our intention is. And frankly, let them give us some feedback and thoughts about what matters to them in the district. So our intention is to actually have a very, very small gap in time. I hope I don't get divorced in the next two months, please, or worse. So I understand your risk. For future, I ask that you look at this as who we are and what our application is in this house and that you don't, as was intimated, don't look at how this may impact future petitions. It may.

Josh, I'd like to clarify, because I don't think that in your deliberations you can consider the character of people or builders or owners. No, this isn't the character.

Oh, I don't have any questions about the character.

Yeah, well, I've heard a couple of remarks that sound like assumptions about people's character, which should not be a consideration for this board.

I'm talking about risk.

And also, I'll get to that. I think you can ask for qualifications for your experts, like Mr. Johnson, but I think you should be careful about making opinions about someone's character. There's also no requirement in LUMO that says that they have to do a demolition and new construction together.

Right, I'm aware of that. Yeah.

And with asking for the 180 days, there are specific things that LUMO says you can do that. So if we have meeting cancellations or quorum shortages or backlogs of pending applications or if you need time to receive additional information requested by the commission or to deliberate fully on memoranda submitted by one or more parties or to seek resolution of outstanding questions, issues, or goals. So any of that related to I think the demolition application that they presented but Kevin please Correct me right so like we talked about you have that default 90-day rule the Commission can extend

your deliberate, can unilaterally extend or continue your hearing up to 180 days after the submission of the application if one of those two categories are met. One, the extension or the continuance is required because of cancellations, quorum issues, those sorts of things. Or two, effectively if you need additional time to deliberate based on submissions provided by parties. And we've used that. criteria several times in the past to continue hearings beyond the 90-day default decision period. The alternative, and this is why I suggested you ask for the applicant's continuance, is regardless of any reason, so long as you have the applicant's consent to continue within that 90 to 180-day period, you're entitled to continue. So I think that what the commission If you're set on continuing your hearing and decision on this demolition request, I think that's what you guys need to be discussing is, unless the applicant is willing to consent to that, is why you feel you need additional time. And if the reason satisfies one of those two criteria, then you can unilaterally continue without the applicant's consent, but only under those circumstances. And I will add, Sharnika's spot on, your decisions ought to be made, and we've talked about this until I'm blue in the face, but your decisions ought to be made based on competent material and substantial evidence that's present in the record. Speculation about what might happen to a property owner or what a property owner might do with respect to conveying or disposing of their property is not competent material substantial evidence. That's purely speculation.

So the risk that I'm concerned about is different than what Josh described. I'm Concerned that this demolition sets a precedent and sets off alarm bells for folks that are looking to Significantly change the character of the historic districts by building denser housing that doesn't match what you love about chemical or other parts of the historic districts and so I'm looking for backstops to try to ensure that both we get more housing and more appropriate housing for homeowners in Chapel Hill, and that when my Tar Heel, who just graduated, comes back and raises his family here, or my grandchildren are here, that it feels like the place that I grew up also. So I have those same concerns. And so I'm kind of looking for the backstops. I'm not expecting things not to change. They've changed in my lifetime. But I want it to feel and look like the place that I grew up. And so the concern that I have is that folks that aren't as invested in our community are watching what we're doing. And they see a house come down, and they're like, ah, time to go. Bring it on. And if we untether what they're going to replace it with from the demolition request, it introduces this schism or this opportunity to introduce things that don't feel like the place that we all love. That's really what I'm concerned about.

So I share that love, and I share that commitment, in fact. The reason that our demolition request is going in now is because we spent a long time before. I mean, we could have, I guess, technically put something in earlier and kept working on plans. We didn't want to do that, right? Because we want to have something that assures you that we are serious, we are committed. All the reasons that Ben spoke about why they are separate matter. I think I'm having a hard time answering your question directly because I'm having a hard time using one applicant, me, as the backstop for what may come in the future when this is what my application is. So that's my hesitancy. It's not because I don't share your commitment.

I'll also add. The time to determine whether what might be built on the site in the future after demolition, to determine whether that is or is not in Congress with the character of the district, is when you have an application in front of you proposing alternative construction. There is no rule that says you as a commission could not look back at what existed on the site prior to the demolition. In fact, that's your job is to determine what existed there, what would be consistent or congruous with the character of the district when you're making a future hypothetical decision based on a future hypothetical COA application for a new construction. My point when I'm trying to say I'm having a difficult time understanding why we believe we're creating precedent here. Because the only precedent that you're creating is a situation where you have an applicant in front of you who says, based on the facts they've presented to you and the record this evening, we want to demolish the structure now. And the only thing... unless you're presented with exactly the same evidence in the future, you are not bound by this commission's decision this evening. And even if you are presented with the same facts in the future, if there is a different logical basis, a different line of reasoning that carries the day, the commission can reach a different decision in that case as well. So I'm struggling. And the reason I'm pointing this out is because I think this is of legal significance for the commission. You do not have the authority to deny a demolition. The most you can do is delay demolition by 365 days, understanding that during that period of time, you as a commission will be obligated to negotiate with the property owner. That means you all will have to spend your time negotiating with the property owner is trying to find alternative means of preserving the structure rather than allowing it to be demolished.

Thank you for clarifying that. I'm going to say one more thing, and then we're probably going to close the evidentiary hearing so we can kind of move on. We can all kind of move on. I asked a question of, is it important enough to you that you want us to make a decision on this tonight? My request is, would you consider us continuing this to august have you bring in the proposal for the coa for the new construction i'm not i've heard everything everybody has to say i still have this opinion that i think it's better if we look at them together in this situation but i'm asking i'm asking the question and whatever Answer you give me, I'll accept. That's all.

Think, talk.

And I'm sorry I'm putting you on the spot, but it's important.

And I really want to assure you that I appreciate that. Like, that's not, we just have an application.

Yeah, and I don't think any of us want to delay you. Like, that's just not helpful. So we don't want to do that either.

So I promise we will answer that question. And I have some questions about that question. But before I do so, what's your vote?

And if you all need a minute to talk, I think that's OK, too. We can pause and let you all have a conversation off mic.

In my mind, your backstop are the design guidelines. If we, say, today had approval to demolish the house, we have those great set of guidelines that

that do keep us from... And I think given your commitment to that, great. Not everybody has that same commitment. And I think that's a little bit of the risk that I'm concerned about is that it's not...

But they don't have to have that commitment because you, I mean, well, it doesn't matter if they're committed or not. They still have to abide by the guidelines though, right?

Correct.

Yeah. But that being said, so your question, so you're requesting 180 days, right? to do what again?

I'm requesting that we continue this discussion, that we don't make a motion tonight, and that in August, which is our next meeting, that's our next meeting, in our next meeting, that you would bring the COA for the new structure, and we could make action on them at the same time. That's specifically my request.

So I guess my only understanding, and that may be a question here, is what does that mean for a timeline? What does that mean in terms of 365 days? I'm hoping that that's not where we're going, but obviously we just need to understand.

That's not my intention at all. We would aim to make a decision on both in August. That would be the objective. I can't guarantee you an outcome of that until we see the application.

Can I ask a question? And I think maybe, Kevin, you might be able to answer this. If the applicant does not provide their consent tonight, the commission would have to act on this application. Is that correct?

Well, so the commission could continue the hearing unilaterally within that 90-day window from application. If we go beyond that, or technically, I think the rule states it's the first meeting after that 90-day window expires, the commission could, and this is where I was trying to redirect your conversation earlier, there are those two additional criteria. You can extend beyond 90 days, but not more than 180 days, you feel that because of meeting cancellations, postponements, quorum issues, those sorts of things, you've not been able to act on the application. That doesn't seem to apply here. Second, and this is one that we've used in the past, if there's additional information that you have requested that is relevant to the decision before you that you need to consider, that can't be provided within that initial 90-day period. Then you can continue unilaterally without the applicant's consent out to 180 days after the application. Now, if you have the applicant's consent, you can continue within that 180-day period without either of these two additional reasons triggering that continuance. So again, to point this back is, what is it that the commission feels as though you might need in order to make a decision on whether or not You want to require a 365-day or some other shorter period extension on the demolition that you don't have before you deceive them.

To be really clear, that's not what I'm aiming at. I'm not aiming at that at all. I'm really trying to understand what the new structure is going to look like so that I can get more comfortable with demolishing a historic structure. I mean, simply said, that's.

OK. So two things are together. Brian, what you're wanting, and what Kevin's saying. The second item you listed, our reason for continuing this would be because we needed to see more information as it relates directly to the new design that's replacing.

No. So the question would be, do you need more information relevant to your decision about whether or not to grant the demolition COA tonight or to delay demolition by up to 365 days which which you're entitled to do and of course there is some nuance around that that rule as well but the the information that you can request to justify an extension has to be related to the the decision that's before the Commission you can't say We're not going to take action on this application until you submit a new application. Gotcha. Yes.

So you have to act on this application. You'll have to provide specific things that you would like the applicant to provide at the next meeting that have to do with reasonings for you to make your determination on the demolition specifically.

And what I'll say is I can understand your concern that you don't want to separate these two processes. But this is not the appropriate forum to make that point known. If you want the LUMO to be changed to require that new COA application for the new construction be submitted prior to or contemporaneously with the COA application for demolition, the remedy for that is to ask the town council to amend the LUMO. try to make precedent that doesn't really make precedent in a specific case.

So I'd like to give you an opportunity to answer the question that I posed. We're going to close the evidence you're hearing, and then we'll decide what to do.

Again, I'm hesitating because You're asking, in some ways, you're asking a little bit of us to have confidence in your intent behind it. But I'm asking you to also have confidence in my intent, right? And so we're having this little back and forth about what our intents are.

And to be clear, I'm not concerned about Your intent, I'm concerned about others, which is the issue that Kevin's having with me. But my opinion is.

Right. And I understand that. And I think that's a lot to actually ask. Not because I don't have my heart there, but because this is still an investment in our property.

But you understand my concern also, I hope.

I completely understand your concern. I'm just saying I'm having a hard time saying, let's put it, but I will look to my schedule.

Well, I think the only thing I would say on that is, again, I'm glad I'm not in y'all's seat having to make this determination, but I still am struggling with the risk because I do see the demolition standards do not speak to the new construction standards and vice versa. What we're asking to be judged on is that set of criteria, which is totally different from the new construction. And so in our mind, I guess that's where we're having a little bit of a hard time is there are two separate criteria for whether or not this is in keeping with the district or not. And so one doesn't need to inform or talk to the other in our mind.

Can I interrupt you for a minute? Yeah. Demolition is not in keeping with the district, period. Now, you have good and solid reasons for wanting to do it here.

Right.

But demolition is not in keeping with the district.

Absolutely.

I hope that's not what you meant.

No, absolutely not.

But I think what he meant was we have 5.1 as demolition standards. They've tried to make a presentation that addresses each one of those articles. I think that was the intent of this.

So I appreciate you being open to .

I suppose I just want to know the scope. So I only know how to speak sort of directly. I mean, if we're saying that basically we're going to start a clock, or we're going to have, if you're saying that this is basically our choice, obviously I would rather present with you in good faith. And I'd rather do this in partnership with you, because that's what we believe in. So I feel like I'm trying to answer a question, taking on some risk of my own, but also in good faith that this will happen potentially in August. I know you can't assure that, but I'm also trying to understand what our situation is.

Glenn, did you want to? I'll finish my thought and then please. So I can speak for myself. I would like to see both in August and take action so that you can move forward. That is my intention. I don't intend to delay. That's not my consideration. I do have other things that weigh on me as a commissioner that I'm concerned about that I'm trying to address. I understand that puts you in an awkward situation. It does us too. And I'm concerned that it's only going to get more awkward from here. And that's what I'm trying to forestall.

OK. Thank you. No, I appreciate that.

And I will also say that these five people are all going to be here. So it's going to be the same commission. There may be a new phase because we're hoping to add somebody to the commission. But that's my intention. I'm not trying to obfuscate. I appreciate that. I'm just trying to navigate through a challenging future set of circumstances.

Yes, thank you. OK, thank you. We're going to take one minute.

OK. Do you want to jump in? Can I go ahead and talk?

Yeah.

Yeah, go ahead and jump in.

No. OK, we should. Oh.

I think we should probably. Well, no, we're waiting for them to answer. Yeah, and then we'll close the evidentiary hearing. OK. And then we'll chat some more. I've got a couple comments.

kevin um can you clarify what happens if they don't consent to the 180 days because it's still 90 days and so that would mean they submitted towards the end of april and so that would mean well so if the commission wants a

A lot of different permutations of how this could play out, right? Commission could decide we're going to delay demolition here this evening, 365 days from today's date. Option two is the commission says, we're not going to take action this evening. We're going to wait until the first meeting following the expiration of the 90-day period. Option three would be that the commission could discuss those two additional extension criteria and determine whether or not what they're wanting to do fits or the justification for a further continuance fits within either of those criteria. In that case, and only in that case, could they then continue the hearing outside of the 90-day period, but within 180 days from the application date.

So, Mr. Johnson, I know you all were having a sidebar. I'd love to move the evening along. So, yes, you all had a, we were trying to keep our mouths shut so you all could have a chat. Thank you. Let us know what you talked about if you'd like. Yep.

Okay. OK.

So I think, although I will say that I am discouraged by this, but I'm optimistic as well. I see your point of view, but I, of course, challenge it with the design guidelines being the ultimate backstop to protect you guys. With that being said, Nancy wants this house to be built here and has strong and Nancy Ann Ryan virtuous intentions here and we will submit our Coa application For the August meeting and it will include this previous application along with the new build and I think I

So to be clear, what I will propose when we close the evidentiary hearing to my fellow commissioners, you will continue your application for demolition to August under the understanding that you'll submit the proposal for the new build in August also, and our intention would be, my intention would be, is that we take action on both in August so that you can move forward.

Thank you.

Brian, I think technically what you're asking the applicant to do is withdraw their current application and to submit a new application that includes the demolition and the new construction. Is that?

No, the problem with that in my opinion, if we continue it, then they're automatically first on the agenda in August. Because you guys take applications in order that they're brought in and put them on the agenda. If they don't get in in time, call some other people, push in front of them. We want them first.

And I understand that, but you're asking the applicant to significantly change the scope of the work in the certificate of appropriateness application that was submitted. Kevin, is that allowed?

Well, so we're making this significantly more complicated than it needs to be. So what I understand, so first, you're making an awful lot of assumptions. I mean, when would you need a new construction application to be submitted by in order to guarantee that it gets on the August agenda?

That was another point I was going to make up, because the applicant isn't obligated to submit in time. to meet the August application deadline. We can't require them to submit by a certain day. And you're tying two decisions together. It's something that you can't do.

I would follow, I would do that though.

Hypothetically speaking, this demolition application could be continued to the August meeting. And if they don't submit in time, your 90 days would be August to decide.

So procedurally, to make everybody satisfied, we will continue this item to August. Our conversation that's being recorded tonight is that we will ask you to do that, to have your new COA for the new construction in August. We'll pick this all up together in August.

OK. But then it needs to be clear to the commission that if, for whatever reason, the new construction application is not submitted or cannot be submitted, or because of the burdens on staff's time, they can't get the application processed in time to be scheduled for August, You cannot then say, well, we're going to kick the can down the road again.

Understood. We just had a good conversation, and we're on the same page. So I think we're going to be fine.

Well, I don't know about that. So I guess we need to close the evidentiary hearing. OK. We're going to close the hearing.

Thank you. Thank you.

So now the discussion is, what do we want to do, move forward? Do we want to continue this? Because we have the opportunity.

So I'll just keep talking and then I'll shut up.

So I would move that we continue the application to the August meeting for 211 Ridge. That's the motion that I will make.

Can they just amend this application to include a new building? They could, but I don't think you can compel them to do it. Can they just amend this?

They could, but I don't think you can compel them to do it.

Oh, I wouldn't compel them. I think it would be the simplest thing for them to do.

Go ahead.

I'm not compelling them. Should I volunteer to do this? Or may I volunteer to? As the applicant, I would. Am I OK with that?

So if we're going to want to have another conversation with the applicant, I think we ought to reopen the evidentiary hearing at this point.

I just ask if they could amend it. Simple question. I might get a no. I mean, you can tell me no.

So I think you've gotten the answer from town staff that they can, in theory, amend their application. OK. That's the answer.

OK.

So that could be part of our conversation then and part of our, is that they, that we continue it to August and that it include an amended application.

I don't want to tell them what to do. I just, we continue it. They've agreed and they know from staff that they can amend it and keep it as simple as possible because

I hate that they've been put through this. Yeah, and that puts you at the first of the list in the next meeting. So that's good. I like that idea. So comments?

I do not agree with delaying the vote. I think we should vote tonight. I don't understand what the difference would be, other than maybe feeling more comfortable with seeing the new bill. But again, according to the guidelines, there's nothing saying that they have to have that prepared. in order to vote on the demolition. I just think it's going to add a lot of extra work for everyone and more time. So I would like to motion that we just vote tonight.

And if we vote it down, let's explain again what that means, because we can't tell them not to do it. What we'd be doing is voting for a delay.

So if the motion is to approve the demolition COA, and if that motion were to fail, then you would have to make a second motion. First, you'd have to have some discussion and deliberation about, how long do we want to delay this demolition for? What is the justification for any particular demo? Are we delaying for the full 365 days? Are we delaying for some shorter period? why one or the other, then you would have to take a second vote to approve the demolition subject to whatever delay period the commission decides on. And then you'd have to keep voting until you can reach a COA approval or until you run out of that 90-day period expires and the demolition COA is automatically approved.

So if we choose to, we stopped evidentiary hearings, didn't we?

I don't even remember. OK.

So we've closed evidentiary here we're discussing. So if we choose to vote on it tonight without the continuance, we either get a motion that's in favor of approving it and giving it to the CA, or we have the motion that's saying we're not going to approve it, but then we have to vote it and get a majority result one way or the other. So do we want to do that, or do we want to... Ask for a continuous until August.

May I make a comment?

Please.

I'm very confused about the past 15 minutes. But if I look back at 5.1 demolition principles and read through this, it says that we cannot deny a COA unless the state historic preservation officer has determined the property has statewide significance. That is not the case. Is that correct? It does not have statewide historic significance.

That's correct.

OK. And I'm just trying to understand for myself, because I think we do need to vote. And I'm not sure how I should vote right this second. But when we weigh any demolition requests, there's three bullet points here that talk about some kind of subjective things. Contribution of the building to the historic district. Is there a person or event that was associated with this house that makes it significant? I don't think we've heard that tonight. Second, what is the condition of the building? And this is where I had a question about all the pictures and the humidity and the drainage and all that. In there, does it ever say, is it a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare? Who would provide that report that says that? That's subjective too, I think. So then the last one is, would the proposed new use be of greater benefit to the district than the loss of the historic building? Again, that's really subjective. I would maybe say having a family live there that wants to take care of it, even if it's a new structure, is better than this one, which appears to be kind of falling down for several years. So if I just read this, I don't see we have a reason to deny it. I don't want anybody to demolish any historic home, but I don't see how we have the justification to flat out deny it. So then that brings me to the next, the last 15 minute discussion. How do we work this so that they get what they need to move forward, and we put the full force of these design principles on the building that comes back to us? And I already have a question about how tall it is, but that is really where we have to put the focus on.

So in my mind, having an applicant that intends to replace the structure with something that is going to be consistent with the district and having those two decisions made at the same meeting, I think, regardless of what was said tonight, sets precedence for others that are paying attention and sets a great example. So I think this can be a great example. I'm looking for the solution that gets to the great example so we can point to that August meeting and say, yep, yep, yep, check, check. In my mind, that's what I'm after.

But we need to focus on the current evidence we're looking at. We can't be concerned about what is congruent or not in congruence moving forward.

In the future.

In the future. So I would say we make a vote based on the evidence that was presented tonight.

Well, in my opinion, if we make a vote based on the evidence presented tonight, they checked the boxes for 5.11 through 5.15. The only one that you couldn't check would be 5.1.6, which is submit a COA with a site plan for the post-removal of site stabilization, clear the site debris, blah, blah, blah, blah. So they seem to check most of the boxes from an evidentiary standpoint.

think that's in the that was in the presentation it was the site stabilization was okay I'm sorry I looked at it earlier this morning for some reason I didn't pick up on that I'm sorry it also sounded like Laura that you have a question about the condition of the house

And to Kevin's point, he did mention if you all need more information, you can request that of the applicant if that would help with making your decision.

And that would be a reason for continuance.

for the demolition. So Laura, you had mentioned the health, safety, and welfare. If you need more information on that, you had mentioned earlier some reports that might help you make that determination. That is something you can ask of the applicant if you decide to continue the hearing for the demolition. But if you feel you have enough evidence presented, then you don't need to.

I can't speak for everyone else, but that report wouldn't, I don't think, render a lot of real information at this point, what we're considering. That's me. So what do we want to do? Well, somebody needs to present a motion. And it needs to be seconded. And then we vote on it. And either we get a quorum on that or we don't. I mean, not a quorum. We get a majority on that or we don't.

I would move that we continue this application until our next meeting. Which is August.

And I second that motion.

Okay, does everybody understand the motion?

Understood.

Okay, so all in favor of the motion to continue to August, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.

No. No.

No.

So not that we don't appreciate where you're going with it. But to me, it was, and I'm speaking to the commissioners now, it was a pretty complete presentation. And it stacks up against the demolition standards pretty well. And I agree with the applicant in that our backstop is the new design standards. regardless if there's something horrible that happens that keeps us from moving forward in a quick manner. So can we have another motion?

I have a motion to make a vote tonight on the demolition. Is that how it is?

It would have to be congruent. Oh, sorry.

So your standard template motion does not apply to these types of demolition COAs. I think the appropriate motion would be to approve the demolition COA as proposed. Really?

Just that simple? That's right.

That's right. Because this decision doesn't involve the same findings of fact regarding congruity with the district. That's right. OK, very good.

And maybe Tech might want to speak to this more, is the kind of direction and reason why they wanted to add the stone structure.

So per the design standard, the accessory buildings are common in the district. Can you step closer to the mic? Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. So per the design standard, the accessory buildings are common in the district, with many dating as early as 1910s and 1920s. Garages are the most common type of accessory building in the district, usually one story, front gable, and all frame construction. Historic garages are an important element of the district fabric as an indication of the advance of the automobile during the 1920s. Garages were frequently constructed with stylistic details that referenced the house. Therefore, we applied this to the design of the proposed detached garage, which is a one-story front gate building with materials and detailing that reference the existing house. So if I could just skip the pages.

Actually, I would like to back up to some of the design features. not design features, but property features of the surrounding area are these additional dwelling units on the property to accommodate increased population growth and things like that. So as you can see on these additional, these other property shots, they're very similar in design, almost mimicking the adjacent house set back behind per the guidelines. And that is also what we are trying to accomplish here with the design that we

I also want to add to that. So this particular property is right across from the 240 McAleese Street. So the one that's brick house is 213. The one pink house in the back is 215. They're both two-story. It's 0.33 acres. And it also contains one detached garage, which you can see here. so they are all in compliance with the design standard so the way we approached our design for the detailed garage also is in we believe is you miss the design standard as well so if you look at the full rendering for the 214 macaulay street you see the existing house on the front and the new dwelling in the back in the detached garage both facing the macaulay street

So I'll kind of go back to it. I work for the design company that designed the house. So I'll kind of speak more to that than the builder and their motivations for adding a dwelling unit. As you can see, the design features are similar to the existing structure but not identical. Same style hip roofs, same simple one over one windows. We reduced the front porch so that it had a smaller scale than the main house or the front facing house. All the eaves, trim, siding, even the foundation is to match the existing structure. The hip roofs all again vary to match identical to the existing structure and be completely seamless with it. As you can see from the rendering, as far as it being prominent, it is set lower than existing house, it's set behind the existing house, and it's even set behind the detached garage. So scale and proportion should meet all the guideline requirements. So like I said before, this located on the rear of the yard behind the existing structure complies with 4.7.2 and 4.7.3. and is consistent with garages. And the garage design and location is consistent with other properties on that same area. Scale and massing, I know that's always a concern. Currently, the garage height is 16 feet, which is about half the size of the existing dwelling. And the new dwelling is almost exactly the same height, but it is set on a lower topography, so it will give a smaller scale. and that is per the requirements of 4.7.5. We did set it back as far as possible on the site and still make it functional. Like I stated before, all the siding trim details, eve length even, we did match that to the existing structure as much as possible per all the guidelines. And I think we feel that we've captured that very well. The garage, two-car garage, is much better proportion than a single large door. So that's what we want with that style. And porch design, again, matches the existing structure. Square columns, square tapered columns, and hip roof across the extent of the porch. And I will leave it. Anything else you want to add, Tech? Yeah.

So we also noted from the design standard the landscape of the McCauley Historic District is manifest in streetscapes characterized by a consistent network of gravel path and brick sidewalk, low stone wall, and the tree-lined street. So we have been in the close communication with the Orange County Chapel Hill Urban Forestry and we actually added a we don't have in the powerpoint but we have a report from the license tree arborist that's i believe that's available for you commissioner to take a look at and it is with additional proposed garage and the dwelling it will not affect the canopy coverage and it will be wearable required 40 percent with the purpose of new build and the garage And we also would like to note that, as Tim mentioned earlier, the real of this property is the university's parking area. So therefore, we believe that adding proposed the dwelling unit and the detached garage would add more historic character in the Macaulay street instead of you know having the view of the back parking lot yeah so it would be great if you guys can reference the tree canopy assessment report from the tree arborist that we submitted And I also wanted to note that So for the design standard, the residential development within the boundaries of the Macaulay historic district continued through the early 1950s. The single-family home constructed along the west side of Best Night Street, the 400 block of West Cameron Avenue, and the west end of Macaulay Street, the late 20th century Also saw the construction of several apartment buildings and duplexes and conversion of the large house into multi-unit residence to accommodate the growing student and faculty population. So we also want to highlight that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student population has grown since 2020. So with the total enrollment rising from 29,000 in 2020 to 2021 to over 32,000 by 2024. And the university recently welcomed its largest first-year class in history in September 2025. So therefore, building, adding new dwelling units that's similar character as the existing house and adding the more character to the Macaulay's historic district, we believe there will be meeting and adding historic character to the Macaulay Street as well. So I'm sorry we didn't get to introduce ourselves. So Tim works for Scott. He's not here. He's the licensed architect who's designing the house. And I'm a licensed builder, was a project manager for the proposed dwelling unit, as well as the detached garage.

Anybody want to start with a question? Well, first, well, yeah, I guess we ask questions next. My question is site plan. And I looked at floor plans earlier today in this. How many bedrooms are in here?

There are two bedrooms?

Two bedrooms. And with the site plan, what's the intent for parking?

I'm sorry, I think there are four bedrooms for the new proposed house.

There you go. So does the site plan give us your intent for parking?

So the driveway currently is very oversized and with side parking. So it will accommodate with the additional garage any additional vehicles that need

So we have to assume, as the Historic District Commission, we have to assume that you're meeting all the LUMO standards in terms of setbacks and these type of things. Yeah, we are. That also, aren't there parking restrictions in LUMO as well? I just, a wider than normal driveway doesn't seem very organized. I'm surprised that the town hasn't already said something about that prior to the HTC presentation.

So currently, the existing house does not have any car garage. So to accommodate the new dwelling unit with four bedroom, we are adding the two car garage to accommodate that. And also, we would like to note that this property is 0.48 acre. If you look at 213 and 215 McAuley Street, right across the street, it's 0.33 acre, which contains two-story brick house and a two-story pink house. one detached garage. We have additional .15 acre to accommodate the parking and we believe we can double check with the planning department but in terms of zoning and the setback requirement we are in fully compliance with the ordinances.

Does anybody have any questions?

And Don, were you asking staff a question about parking?

Well, that was my question about parking. And they kind of answered it. So basically, as presented, there's no clearly defined number of spaces or how the cars should be oriented. It's just a big open path. That was my question. Because as you know, we can't consider use. But we know that there's going to be more cars associated with this because of the use. So it's the same thing we talked about before.

yeah we are definitely uh being mindful of that that is the one of the main reason we are proposing the two new car garage to accommodate the parking for the new dwelling

Yeah, you need to understand where I'm coming from in this. From a historic district perspective is that we talk about maintaining the existing patterns of the historic district. That means the size, shape, proportion of the buildings, the spacing, their setbacks, but also, even though we're not supposed to, the landscaping, the stone walls, and all these other things that contribute to what we call our historic districts. And if you have a yard full of cars, it kind of impacts that overall sense of place in the historic districts. So that's why parking's a concern.

Could you go to a image of the new structure in the proposed two-car garage and talk a little bit about the scale of the two-car garage and the new structure in relation to the existing house on the site and then its neighbors? So it's context of like, what is the size and scale of this house in relation to the house that sits on the site and then kind of next door neighbors?

So the scale of the existing house is 32 feet tall to the ridge line. The size of the new proposed dwelling is 31 foot 11 and change. So it's almost identical, but it is set on lower topography. So the scale from the street view will appear smaller. The detached garage is only 16 feet tall to the ridge line. So it is smaller. half the size of the existing house. So as far as scale, it does meet the requirements set in the guidelines for that.

Do you have a picture of the houses immediately to the left and right? So that would be 215.

Yes, so 215 is the one that TAC referenced previously in regards to the two-story brick structure and the two-story pink structure. So with their Gable roofs, two-story.

Sorry, just the picture we're looking at is in relation to the proposed house. Where does this house sit?

This house sits right across the street.

And the brick house is on the front of the street and the pink house is behind? Yes, correct. Okay. So then do you have, are there other pictures of the surrounding buildings?

Yes, we do. They are all submitted in the portal, but it's not in the PowerPoint. So the PDF wasn't working earlier? That's why. We can't pull it up on the agenda. Yeah. So I know I spoke to let the know that I noticed that the link was not working. Yeah. So we did let them know if there's any way we can have it print out.

And the only reason I bring it up is because we can't pull it up. Yeah, I can help you pull it up. Yeah. Can we just pull it up on the screen so we could all look at it? So just the the you know, four dot two in our designs there's talk about scale proportion and form of surrounding structures i'm just trying to get a sense of this new structures relationship to its neighbors in the.

understood and I also submitted the estimated building high or the adjacent property is putting the word document so i'm sure once you should put up, we can take a look at thank you.

We're not just staring at nothing. We're watching the bar load across the screen to figure out which one.

All good.

Okay, that was the first one, so the second.

I appreciate that there was a lot of information, but I just want to make sure that we're referencing the, kind of have our facts straight.

Yeah, thank you. Of course. Would you like me to walk over? No.

So we're downloading what you're downloading on the screen too, so.

It's just not as easy because I don't know the link.

Yeah, so I think it's still the second one.

OK, 214 Macaulay. That's correct. OK, so let's put that there.

Is that everything we submitted?

Yes, so this is all of the attachments that you submitted. How do I scroll through them? So you'll have to look over here and scroll through the documents.

All right, so can I take both? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So I think page 12 of those materials gives like a top down view just like dimensions of the new proposed structure. Yes, so these might be helpful just to talk about that for a second.

These are all the building adjacent property, including 214 existing house at 240 Macaulay Street. Include the building height setbacks for the existing properties, for the adjacent property, and the lot size and the building size. We do have all the pictures of the adjacent property, but I'm just trying to scroll down to find them.

perfect thank you would you mind going back up to there's a top-down view the new site plan with existing and then the new structure maybe one more there you go um so the square footage of the existing house is three thousand about three thousand yeah and then the square footage of the new house is

It's about 1,900. So per the ordinance, I know it was recently approved a few months ago or a month ago, by discussion with the planning department, it has to be less than 50% of the total lot size. So it's somewhere under the 50% of the 0.4 acre, which is about 10,000 square foot.

Thank you. And then you had a sheet that showed the square footage and dimensions of the surrounding properties. Could we just pause there for just a second? Yeah.

So 212, which is adjacent, is about 4,900, 5,000, which is about 5,000 square foot, literally shy of 5,000. 216, 218, Macaulay Street, I believe it's facing the house, right over the 214, is about 2,500 square foot. 220 is about 2,500 square foot. 213 and 215, those are the two dwelling units that were across the 214 that's shown on the PowerPoint as pictures. The brick house is 3,180 square foot, and the 215, which is the pink house, is 1,517 square foot.

Thank you. And then do you have a, or which image in your presentation would best show from the streetscape? So if you're standing on Macaulay and you're facing the existing house, sort of what the new streetscape will look like with the second car garage and the property behind it?

I believe the rendering picture.

So how do I switch to a PowerPoint? Yeah, my only question about that is it looks like it's on an angle, so you're almost looking at it from a side street versus kind of straight on the house. I'm just trying to get a sense of how much of the profile of the new structure sort of dominates the streetscape. Does it sit fully behind? It does, yes. Okay. Could you just point us to the one that... Yeah, as soon as you pull the site plan back up.

so the detached garage will have a full view from the street the new proposed dwelling unit will sit behind the existing house so from looking at the street i think you will only see the porch portion

So yes, looking straight on, you would see the right side of the new structure, but the left side, but you would only see a portion of the new structure from the street view. Looking straight on.

So again, if I'm standing on Macaulay Street and I'm facing this project when it's done, there's a portion of the new structure that will be visible behind the existing house. How far off the street is the front of the new structure? How far is the setback? That's probably my question.

From McCulloch Street to the front.

Give me a second. We do have a measurement.

And while you're looking for that, I'll just kind of pose my question, which is if I'm looking at the evidence as presented, it looks as though the accessory dwelling units that have been added behind other historic structures sort of sit behind the profile of the house. So while they're there, they don't dominate the streetscape necessarily. So that's kind of the question I'm asking is how much will this new structure sort of change the streetscape of Macaulay if it's visible behind the historic structure? That's really my question.

From the real property line to the existing building structure, that's 108 feet. Do you know what's the width of the proposed dwelling? I believe it will be from the front of the street to the front of the new dwelling unit. I believe it's well over 100 feet.

Thank you.

You're welcome. So also wanted to note that I know we look at the, we just went over the building height and setbacks and the existing square footage of all the adjacent property. And I would like to highlight that 214 McAuley Street has the biggest lot size compared to any other adjacent property in that area. And 213 to 215 already have one house on the front, one house in the back, and the detached garage. That's 30% less last size compared to the 214 Macaulay Street.

thank you and then just you you made a point about uh trees and tree canopy i think that's also in the materials that you yeah that you submitted um i think it's page 27 actually has sort of a top-down view so and i feel like you were making an important point but now we have the materials was there something you wanted to comment on about yeah so how do i switch to the i'm sorry i'm sorry about it i'll let you do it it's all good

So this has been prepared by the licensed tree arborist. If you look at the green circle, they are all existing tree canopies. I think existing tree canopy is well above 50%. The requirement is to maintain 40% of the tree canopy based on the tree arborist, based on the site plan and review of the site. I believe he has put his professional opinion, even with the new proposed dwelling unit and the garage, tree canopy coverage well above the requirement. It will have a minimum effect. Yeah, no problem.

Okay, any further questions from anyone?

I have one question about the driveway that's existing. How is that used now? And how do cars park on it right now?

So currently the vehicles, when I visited the site, they are parking facing the side of the street. So there's enough space from the side of the house to the side property line. There's more than, I believe, it's about 20 feet, so more than two cars can get in and out.

OK, so you have enough room in there, 20, 22 feet maybe?

I would have to double check, but I believe, let me look at the survey.

Well, that's going to lead me to my next question.

I'm sorry, for the survey, it's 35 feet.

35 okay so yeah that's certainly wide enough for two travel lanes in a parallel parking i think but how are the folks that um where are all these cars going to go because there's no parking on mccauley street i'm just curious do you have striping do you have any kind of markings where people are going to park on that surface

So we believe that existing gravel driveway has more than enough parking space to accommodate the existing house. And by adding the two-car garage with the new dwelling unit of 1,900 square foot, I believe that this is sufficient. I mean, I live with 2,500 square foot. I just have a two-car garage, and I have seven kids.

OK, if there are any more questions from commissioners, is there anyone from the public here to speak on this? Well, seeing that there's no one from the public, we'll close this part of the evidentiary hearing and have discussions. Any discussion?

So I did have a question about the existing structure being visible behind the historic structure kind of changing the streetscape. To me, it feels like it's far enough off the street that that's not something I'm concerned about, given the explanation that was given.

Yeah, my only concern with the basic presentation is the potential scale of the house behind. It's a big house. It's not a delicate little ADU.

What do you think, Josh? Most of the other examples on the street The house, the secondary house, the ADU, is smaller scale. Enough documentation I don't think has been shown so that we can actually see lots of the other structures on the street. And I'm not that familiar with the street. But because of the orientation of this house, the new dwelling is long and wide. It's not square. So it presents from the street as being much larger than it actually is in terms of square footage. So the square footage works out beautifully. But the impact of it is that it looks almost like a second, like it's as big as the first house. So in terms of... The rest of the neighborhood, the secondary houses are much smaller than the original houses, but they also look a lot smaller than the houses on the street. In this case, even though the house is set back, it's as tall and as wide as the front house.

In looking at the image you have of the gray homes on the yellow background, I don't know where that came from, but anyway, nearby properties, the rear setback for the primary building is much more generous than the eight feet that you have shown. I just wonder if that was selected to help save trees or exactly why it's so far back on the property when this is a really generous-sized lot.

Yeah, so our intention is to be in full compliance with the ordinances. I believe when the other houses were built, there was more greater setback requirement, but setback was recently reduced to six feet in the district. So we added additional two feet buffer to give you eight feet. But we can be flexible if that's going to help to meet the character of the historic district.

And then I'd also like to comment on the height. concern if you look at the heights the approximate heights of adjacent properties they are all very similar in height to the front to the main dwelling unit now this one is like I said is just a few inches shorter but it is also set lower on in grade as well at the back of the site

It would be good if you could have pictures of all those houses, not just the one right next door.

Yeah, we actually do have all the pictures. It was submitted in the portal. Is there any way I can pull up those pictures? I think Ms. Laura was able to find some pictures in the portal. So we do have all the pictures of all the adjacent properties that are listed. Back in the back.

Okay.

Also, I know square footage-wise, the 215, which is in the rear of the 213 Macaulay Street, that square footage is about 1,500, 1,600. We are proposing, I believe, 1,900 square foot. So it is not significantly bigger than 215 Macaulay Street. Also, yeah, hold on. Sorry. You probably go back.

Yeah. I'm not arguing with the square footage. It's just that those houses are a little more square. Your house is skinny and tall.

Understood. So as of now, if you look at from the street view, back of the property, this is what you will see, university parking lot from the street view. Sorry, this, from the street. So by adding the new dwelling unit that's very much in line with the character of the Macaulay Street, we believe it will present better character to the Macaulay Street than looking at the public university parking lot.

OK, I think I closed the evidentiary part of the hearing already. So we're discussing. Thoughts?

I do not have a problem with this. I think that this is an appropriate application of the new LUMO requirements. I think in this particular location, all the lots have some sort of secondary dwelling on them. I wish that it were more like this picture and a lower building and a more subservient building to the front building. But I think because it's set back so far and we're told that there's a grade difference, the rendering doesn't show a grade difference. The rendering shows a flat site, which is unfortunate. Because if the rendering did show a great difference, I think we would see it more accurately. So I don't have a problem.

I think if it was closer to the street, I'd have an issue with the fact that you can see the secondary dwelling from the streetscape. But I think because it's set so far back that it sort of diminishes that concern, honestly.

Yeah, I agree. This is one case which Josh alluded to, given where it is. The use, which we can't discuss, is actually appropriate for the location. And the ADU is appropriate. And this does fit within the new LUMO regulations pretty easily, I got to say. I was reviewing the walkways, driveways, and off-street parking standards. And I can't see any particular article that would point out that this is incongruous with the exception of they do discuss possibly buffering adjacent walkways and property lines and things like that if you have a giant driveway. But beyond that, I don't see anything that this flies in the face of.

So I'm going to make a motion. Motion.

Before you do that, I would suggest, Don, that you officially accept all of the additional testimony that we heard outside of the evidentiary hearing into the record. We ask the witnesses to reaffirm their oath that everything that they stated outside of the evidentiary hearing was testified to subject to that oath.

Well, then I will say that we are taking in everything that was presented outside of the evidentiary hearing once it was closed. And they need to do, I need to read them.

So what we're asking is they closed the evidentiary hearing and then you had some further discussion. All of the things that you stated during that further discussion just affirmed that you made those comments subject to the oath you already swore?

Affirmed. I open them. Thank you, Kevin. Keeping us on the straight and narrow. That's what you're good at. Okay. Brian?

So I move that the application for a COA at 214 Macaulay Street is not incongruous with the special character of the historic district as outlined in our guidelines and principles. And do I need to also move that we issue the COA or I hold that for...

So you can direct me and town staff to draft the COA and bring it back to you at your next meeting.

And I also move that we request that the town staff and attorney draft the COA for submittal at the next meeting.

Okay. Anyone have a second? Second. Okay. So does everybody understand the motion? Because it was a little drawn out there. So all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay, you're good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bye.

OK, so we're looking at 118 Millette Street. I'm going to read you the affirmation. I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the Historic District Commission and the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth. I so affirm.

I so affirm.

And your name?

Jim Spencer.

Thank you very much. So this opens the evidentiary portion of the hearing. What's that, I'm sorry? Conflict. Conflict of entrance? No. So there are no conflicts.

Sorry about that, Jim. Go ahead. No problem. Thank you. Thanks for squeezing us in. I know it's been a long night, so I'll try to move along. I'm Jim Spencer with JSA Architects in Carrboro, also a former nine-year member of that year board. um also half of the millet street cluster um i live at 121 millet and i have brian and carol davis who live at 118 millet here with me tonight they've lived in the house some i don't know how many years now three years and uh so we came to you back in um may maybe of 25 i believe with an application for an addition to the rear of this house a small mudroom addition to the rear of this um kind of classic four square that you guys are all familiar with i'm sure um the that addition is nearly complete it's just an interior work now and so we're here tonight um to talk about an amendment to the coa for a garage structure and And our original plan was to reconstruct and place the garage structure that was on the site that you see behind the maple tree there on the left of the screen now. during construction and grading for the site work. The demo contractor did not find enough good structure in that to salvage what was there. He was not supposed to take it down without us knowing about it and all, but it got taken down. So we're here to propose That demolition and the building of a new, very similar structure, just a little bit behind it in the current setbacks. We looked at it when we started the project. And the garage there, though, in the footprint of an old garage, had very little of the original structure intact. It was mostly pressure treated studs sitting on dirt and a rock foundation. And it had some pieces of the original rafters, but not a lot. So Brian and Carol would like to finish construction of their project. I propose a new garage that's very similar to the existing structure. These are structures that in our neighborhood are quite common, a small footprint garage with open gable. It's been described here a little bit today already, and there's one behind my house. There's one at 120 next door and one i believe at 122 also none of them are in the condition to put a car in i would say so um you know for for better or worse but um they're they're small single structures so i'm going to move ahead and just show you what we've got here this is a site plan i've got the original application on the rear of the at the end of this if we need to look at any images there but the the original structure was 20 feet 8 inches by 24 foot 8 inches It sat four point seven feet from the property line so outboard of the current setbacks we have new setbacks in our district as you know, but We're going to propose placing this one a little bit farther away from the property line The new I think the new interior setback is six feet, but we're going to propose ten feet because um there's a significant drainage issues on that side of the site the the adjacent sites the brick rentals that are above them are higher than the grade here so it gives us more opportunity to manage water but on the side of this building which was a significant reason it was it was badly deteriorated in the first place because that that southern wall of the previous garage was really below grade, and the sill of it was sitting underground, in fact. So very similar size, placed just a little bit farther back on the lot as well. The guidelines state a preference for the garage buildings being behind the rear wall of the main house, and that would be the case here. It would be about 20 feet from the the rear of the footprint of the house, and as I said, about 10 feet from the property line. This one's showing the old setback of eight feet, Our placement would be about 10 feet from the property line and about 10 feet back. And 812 pitch, German beveled siding, kind of similar to what was on there before. There's a little bit, slightly different window placement on this. The previous one had kind of randomly placed windows from different time periods, but you see kind of on the lower left a perspective of the garage kind of behind the house. You kind of see shattered in there that maple tree. It's about 17 feet tall, so it's a nine-foot plate with an 8-12 pitch roof. This is just kind of elevations, and I'm showing the door out to the side, which is in a similar location to what it was before on there. And the 22 by 25 foot footprint, which is, again, just... inches to a foot larger in both dimensions than what was previously on site. Composite shingle roofing to match the existing house. The house has a hip roof on the main structure and then a lower metal hip roof on the back. the one other amendment that we asked to make on this because of the placement of the new garage there the we had showed the landing and stare into our new addition coming down at a right angle from the exit door that you see there and the Clark's would like just to utilize their backyard better and have More space in that that part of the drive area to just comes kind of straight out with a brick landing Kind of wrought iron railings and instead of making that 90 the stair would just come straight out from the previous From from the door in the rear there That was just a description that I had in the application and So we fill this new garage and it is not incongruous or is congruous with the other small structures that are secondary to the This part of Millette has relatively large lots for the district. This one's about .46 acres, but a large backyard, very stately house that everybody loves in the district. So these are the design guideline references that we've put in as the ones most appropriate here, 471. introduce compatible new garages that don't compromise the historic character. I'd say it's very in keeping with the garages that are around. probably not more than five or six in the neighborhood, and they're all kind of front loads, open gable, single type garages. There's no two-story ones that I know of in our neighborhood. So I think the placement behind, kind of beside and behind the house is consistent with others in the neighborhood. Most of them are are kind of behind and from the approach side. The second one also refers to the siting of the garage in traditional locations that are compatible with the character, typically beyond the rear wall. I've already mentioned that. Design the accessory buildings to the size scale. Do not overpower the primary building on this or adjacent sites. and designed them to be compatible with, but secondary to primary buildings. I think the roof pitches that are compatible, but the open gable is contrasting with the primary residence here. You've obviously got a four square style that's a certain mass, and this is a secondary and much smaller mass to that, and the roof line is similar to what was there before. And then I think 478, that the features to be compatible in scale. So modern materials, fiber cement siding. The house already has fiber cement siding and clad windows that were put on some years ago. And so we would... We're going to propose a German type fiber cement siding that's a little different from the lap that's on the house, but similar in reveal. And then the shingle and windows would match the existing house. So modern, but complementary in style, I believe, to the existing house. As I said, I've got the old application, if anybody wants to see that wasn't here, the existing conditions of the house, the proposed addition, which is nearly complete. I think it looks very sharp, and it's certainly not very visible from the street, but you can see it as you come down the driveway there. I think I'll pause there and try to answer any questions you have. All right, I have a quickie.

It was probably covered in the material, but I wasn't clear on it. The door to your new garage, I saw the panel layout, but are those solid panels or glass panels?

Solid. So those are all solid. OK, good. Yeah. The existing garage was a plywood construction, but a panel style. So it's similar in style, but would be a solid raised panel type style.

Josh?

OK.

It's very straightforward. Good presentation.

Well, if there aren't any more questions from the commissioner, are there any public comment? It appears that there is none, so we will close this part of the evidentiary hearing, even though I've done it twice before and had to reopen it twice before. OK, so the evidentiary hearing is closed. So discussion. I think we heard Josh's general comment.

Brian, do you have one? I'm going to make a motion, unless there's any others.

We're going straight to the motion, OK? I see shaking heads.

OK, so I'd like to make a motion that the application at 118 Millette Street is not incongruous with the special character of the district as outlined in our guidelines and principles. and that we should ask the staff and our attorney to prepare a COA for approval at the next meeting.

And do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? You got your COA.

Good to see you all.

Good night.

Thanks, Jim.

Okay, we've got one more important little piece of business here, which has to do with a new member candidate interview.

Yes, so at our last meeting, we realized that this candidate was not going to be able to come forward here, so Glenn and I had a chance to talk with Sandra about a week and a half ago or two weeks ago or so on the phone.

Yeah.

We had a Zoom meeting, and Glenn, I'm Speak for both of us, I think we felt very comfortable that Sandra would be a good candidate. She's got her homework. She's got some interest in historic preservation. Absolutely. Asked good questions. Feels prepared to sign up for the time commitment. Will be a nice addition.

Yeah, I agree.

Thank you all for doing that.

Yeah, we appreciate that. Gwen got voluntold because she wasn't here, but she was a good sport. Thanks for nominating me when I'm not here.

But that was your experience. That'll teach you. That was good to be on the other side of that.

OK, so Sharnika or Kevin, what do we need to do with this information as a board? Do we need a motion?

Yes. You need to make a motion for the candidate's recommendation to counsel.

Yes, you're recommending that the council appoint Sandra to be on the Historic District Commission.

So based on the interview that Glenn and I did and with the support of the other commissioners, I would like to propose recommending Sandra be added to our commission and that we move that forward to the council for a vote in their next meeting.

Tomorrow. Tomorrow. And I will second that. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? There you go.

Before we wrap up, we didn't talk about this earlier, but at our officer check-in we talked about having a special meeting for the written decisions for the items that we'll approve tonight since we won't meet in July. Okay.

And this would be a virtual meeting?

Yes. So we need at least four people, so if y'all could check your calendars.

So when will that happen, next week?

Well, Kevin needs some time.

Okay, yes, right we'll prepare so the the baseline is is that the town needs at least 48 hours to to provide the required legal notice of a special meeting so Need a the meeting can't be held within 48 hours from I guess to whatever time tomorrow Staff could get the notice. Obviously.

I'm not suggesting that we hold it on Friday We do have to notice the Meeting but it would just be like a public meeting notice on the town's website And so

I can get a written decision prepared as quickly as you all want. So I think really the question is, When, probably next week or the following, could you all, could at least four of you be available to meet so we can have a quorum and we can take a majority vote to hopefully approve the written decision?

I'm not available until the week of the 22nd.

Okay. I have various availabilities next week and the week of the 22nd. So the 15th and the 22nd. So I'm pretty flexed. Me too. Brian's flexed. I'm flexible. Josh is flexed.

Earliest I could do is the week of the 22nd. What's that? The same, the week of the 22nd is when I can meet.

Okay.

So with the 22nd?

Do you want to make it the 22nd, which is a Monday?

It's a Monday. I don't think there are any other meetings.

Any particular time of day?

Could we do 3 o'clock in the afternoon? Because it's virtual.

It'll be virtual.

It'll just be the written decision. 10 to 15 minutes.

Yeah, that'd be fine. Maximum. Yeah, I could do that. Maybe even three minutes. I want to say hello to each other. It depends how friendly you want to be.

So June 22nd at 3 p.m. Yeah. Okay.

Sounds like a plan. Okay. Okay. Thank you and also before we officially adjourn I wanted to Thank staff for having us design principles up on the screen of our little personal computers That was a simple thing but very awesome. So we really appreciate that. I thought it was brilliant Okay, so meeting adjourned