Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

We've officially called the meeting to order, and I'm going through the roll call. I'm gonna start over. Brian Daniels. Here. Glenn Connolly.

Here.

Josh Gurlitz. Here. Nancy McCormick. Here. And Lori Moore.

Here.

Okay. And I'm Dontice. I'm here. Okay. Before we get to the secretary's comments or I read the public charge, we're going to acknowledge Women's History Month.

And I'm gonna read a little predetermined bit for you here. March is Women's History Month. Each March, we join the nation in celebrating Women's History Month, a time officially designated by a presidential proclamation to honor women's contributions to American history from civic leadership and scientific breakthroughs to arts education and social justice. It began as a local women's history week in 1978 and grew into a month long observance in 1987, reflecting a growing recognition that inclusive history is good history. We proudly recognize several trouble raising women of Chapel Hill whose courage, intellect, and perseverance paved the way for future generations.

One is Sally Walker Stockard. In 1898, she became the first woman to earn a degree from UNC Chapel Hill even as she was barred from ceremonies and class photographs. Wow. Susan Gray Akers, in 1942, she became UNC's first ever female dean leading the School of Library Science. Gwendolyn Harrison Smith, in 1951, she became the first black woman to study at UNC, challenging segregation by filing a federal lawsuit to live on campus and register for classes.

Arlene Parker Neal. In 1960, she became the first black woman to earn a master's degree from UNC School of Library Science, defying persistent racial barriers. Betty Baldwin Greer and other local women freedom fighters. These courageous Chapel Hill residents organized sit ins and civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s. Betty famously continued singing protest songs when many people passed out because of the heat, reminding us that the fight for justice is carried in song, solidarity, and resilience.

Maryam Slifkin, a longtime community activist in Chapel Hill, she stood up in the 1960s and '70s filing complaints against sex discrimination as a scientist and joining local consciousness raising groups that help ignite the women's movement here. This Women's History Month, we honor these inspiring women, pioneers in education, civil rights, science, and community activism, whose determination and courage shaped not only Chapel Hill but the nation. Their legacies empowered us to move forward together, ensuring that the voices of women, especially those who have been marginalized, are heard, honored, and continue to inspire future generations. Okay. Now, secretary read procedures, please.

I'll now read the following I'll now read into the record the following. The commission operates under NC general statutes 160D-nine 40, which gives local governments historic preservation authority, and the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, including Article III, 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.

Okay. Now I'm going to read the public charge. The advisory board pledges its respect to the public. The body asks that 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 opinion so far as they are qualified, but not legal arguments on behalf of the property owner. And that is the public charge. Next is the approval of

the

agenda. The agenda is from 02/10/2026. Any comments from the board? Someone want to

Don, we wanted to remind you about the length of the agenda and ask if any items want to be continued

Okay, for tonight's agenda.

Yes, if you want to amend the agenda now.

Well, we can amend the agenda. What we're discussing is we have three items on the agenda tonight. We hope they don't go long. But if they do, we wanted everyone in the crowd to know that you're more than happy to what's the official term when you move it forward?

So all of the agenda items tonight can be heard, time permitted. If anybody doesn't want to wait around, if you're later on the agenda, you can elect to have your item continued to the And next month's

I think we've said that 09:00 is the latest we'll take a new item.

Yes. So the commission would not start a new hearing for a new business item after nine.

After 09:00. So everyone understands that. Is there anyone here that wants to continue to the next meeting or they want to sit here and hope that we get them all three in tonight?

I'm Don Stanford. I'm interested in agenda item.

Please, can you step up to the microphone?

Sure. One of the concerns that we have is that we received notice of this on Friday. And two days notice strikes me as pretty little notice, given the fact that this proposal is a major proposal. And it not only has implications as far as, excuse me, we are concerned. My wife and I live next door to this property.

And we are going to be the most directly affected individuals with And respect to I think as well, this may wind up being important as precedent, if I can put it that way. It's my understanding that the commission hasn't faced a request of this kind in years.

Well, there's a couple of things there. One, I need to ask staff, Did everything get sent out on time as per the rules and regs?

So this part of the agenda is to approve tonight's agenda. So I think we would need to hear from the applicant for that item if they want to continue. And what information is provided could be part of your discussion for standing.

Okay. But for now, we're just approving

This is an approval of the agenda. And if an applicant wants to continue their item to next month, they can elect to do so.

Okay. So I didn't hear that. Yes, sir.

Hi, I'm Jay Fulkerson and I'm representing the project at 308 West Cameron, which is the one they're referring to. We do not want to continue. We'd like to do it tonight.

All right, very good. Okay. So given there are no continuances.

So with recognizing the 09:00 cap for a new item on the agenda, I vote that we approve the agenda. We move that we approve the agenda for tonight's meeting.

Is there a second? Second. Okay, all in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Okay, the agenda passes. So are there any other announcements?

Yes. Staff will be reaching out to the commissioners in the coming days to ask for your availability to start scheduling a retreat sometime this spring or early summer. So just be on the lookout for that email from either Sharniko or I.

Okay. And are there any petitions?

There are not.

Okay. Now, of the minutes. Sorry, before. Has anybody comments on the meeting?

Was not at the previous meeting, but I did watch the video.

Okay.

Same.

So, somebody want to?

I move approval of minutes of meeting of February 10. Is there a second?

I second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Good. Thank you. Now, let's get down to business. Next is administrative COA approvals.

Yes. That's just a report for staff approved COAs. I don't you don't need to take any action. It's just for information.

Okay. And then on the consent agenda is 304 North Boundary.

You do need to make a motion for the written decision for 304 North

Boundary. A motion for what? Sorry.

To approve the written decision for 304 North Boundary.

Oh, the

For the consent agenda.

The what?

The consent agenda.

The consent.

I move that we approve item number 3304NorthBoundary, the written decision as submitted in the agenda.

Second?

All in favor? Aye. Okay, gets approved. Thank you. Alright. Now that takes us to the first item in new business, which is 308 West Cameron Avenue.

Maybe this is the time for me to place a formal objection based on timing. I don't think we've received appropriate notice.

I think we'll hear from the HTC's attorney so he can

help you determine standing. Think that's a good idea. Yes.

So before we get into formal objections, that sort of thing, I think the appropriate step first steps are for us to run through our administrative matters. So conflicts of interest amongst the board, we can administer oaths to the applicant witnesses and those who wish to speak, such as yourselves. And then at that point, I believe if there are individuals here, members participate in the evidentiary hearing as parties with standing, that they would have an opportunity then to present it. I will discuss or present to the board kind of a general summary of the law on standing, what their evidentiary threshold will be. They will have the opportunity then to present evidence to you all demonstrating why they believe they have standing, why they meet that threshold.

Regardless of whether they meet that threshold or not or regardless of whether you determine that they do, they will be entitled to participate in the evidentiary hearing, at the very least as witnesses presenting your your fact testimony on matters within their personal knowledge. And I think regardless of whether they intend to participate either as a party withstanding or as a witness, once we've run through those initial administrative steps, they'll have the right to ask the HDC to continue the evidentiary hearing. You'll also have to consider the applicant's reasoning or basis to continue with the hearing as currently proposed in the agenda. But I think that's kind of how I would recommend we structure the next several steps. So first would be going through your usual administrative steps.

Well, let's start with the administrative steps, please. Thank you. I'm sorry.

Question of jurisdiction is squarely in the question of notice. If parties, or at least potential parties, have not been notified pursuant to the ordinance in the statute and in a timely manner, then you can't hear it. The statute clearly says

Well, first, we would like to get through the administrative portions. And then you'll have your moment to speak. And we'll go back to our lawyer to help us with that, Okay? Okay. So does anybody here have any conflicts of interest?

No. Okay.

Very good. All right. So let's start with the owner. And I'm going to read you an affirmation.

And Donna, I would suggest that everyone who may wish to speak or present testimony in some form or fashion to you all this evening, this would be an opportunity to have everybody come up.

At one time.

Sign in. And then you can administer the oath kind of in one batch to everybody.

Okay. So could you please do that? Could you come up? Anybody that wants to speak, come up and sign. This is

just for this item.

Just for this one, sorry. Just for Cameron. Okay. Is everybody for 308 Cameron signed in? Okay.

Sorry. While they're still signing up, we have an administrative question for you. Typically, do the affirmation. I affirm, and they say their name, and then they speak. If we do it as a group, I do the affirmation, everyone says, I affirm.

And then can they each say their name individually when they get up to speak? Or they all have to blare their name out at one time?

So I would go ahead and I think in the interest of expediency, they can all stand and affirm. And then I think we would just ask that each time any member of the public who has been administering an oath gets up to speak, they state their name and acknowledge that they've taken the oath.

That would be a very civil way to do it. Thank you very much. So everybody that just signed up, if you could I'm going to read an affirmation. And after I read it, if you could please say, I affirm. And then as you get up, if you could say your name before you start making your case. Okay? So 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. Thank you. So let's start with the owner, which is the typical path.

Don, I think before we dive into this, since we have a party who wishes to demonstrate to the board that they have standing to participate, I suggest we start there. Because they will, of course, then want to cross examine the owner, the applicant, the applicant's witnesses. So I think it's probably in everybody's interest to just go ahead and get that portion of the hearing out of the way here.

Okay. So how do we begin determining if someone has standing?

So under North Carolina law and this is general statutes chapter 160D, section fourteen oh two sets out the different means by which a party may have standing to participate before a local quasi judicial board. Those means to establish standing are ownership of property that is subject of the application before the board. A party might suffer special damages as a result of the decision by the board. The party, of course, can be a member or a of or an association, either incorporated or unincorporated, so long as at least one of their members has standing on their own. And then finally, of course, can be the local government with jurisdiction over the matter has standing to participate as well.

So I'll go ahead and guess. Most folks who wish to intervene in these sorts of proceedings before the local quasi judicial boards wish to intervene on the basis that they will suffer special damages as a result of the board's decision. Special damages are kind of a fact specific inquiry. There are kind of three general factors that the local board must consider when determining whether someone will suffer special damages. The first is ownership of property in close proximity to the property that's subject of the board's decision.

But that in and of itself is not determinative. So you can own property next door and still not have standing if other factors are not also met. The second factor to consider is the impact of the board's decision on the individual's property value. But again, that is not determinative in and of itself. Kind of the weightiest factor are these other adverse impacts.

So this would be things like the effects of storm water runoff on the individual's property as a result of the board's decision impacts from increased noise or light pollution, those sorts of things. So in any event, it's up to the individual to demonstrate these other adverse impacts to the board. And then you all will weigh the evidence presented by the applicant to determine whether or not you believe that they would suffer special damages.

Well, it's interesting that a lot of those factors you present have more to do with the land use management ordinance than with the Chapel Hill design historic design guidelines. And so you're asking us to make some type of ruling, for instance, on floor area ratio or impervious surface or storm drainage, and that's not what we're here to do, or that is not our purview. So how do we dictate someone has standing when that is not in our purview?

That is the individual's burden to carry. So you're exactly right. The special damages have to be the result of the board's decision. So tonight, the decision that's before you is whether or not to grant a certificate of appropriateness. Certificate of appropriateness and I know we've talked about this more times than you all can probably count.

We've talked about this till I've been blue in the face. Your decision is whether or not the application as presented to you is or is not incongruous with the special character of the district. So anybody wishing to be a party withstanding will have to show how your decision tonight, in the event that you were to approve the COA and make that determination that what's been proposed is not incongruous with the character of the historic district would affect them adversely. So again, it's their responsibility to present evidence to you to meet that standard. And again, they also have to demonstrate that the special damages that they would suffer are distinct to them as opposed to special damages that might be suffered by the community or the neighborhood at large.

So that's another factor that you all will have to consider when making your decision.

Okay. And just for clarity, since this is quasi judicial, I want to make sure someone says it. The COA that we if it gets approved, it gets a COA certificate of appropriateness. That goes to the town. And the town still has to go through the permitting and LUMO process. And the COA is just attached underneath the permit. But they can't issue a permit without a COA. That's The COA is totally separate from designations of LUMO permits, setbacks, that type of thing.

That's correct.

Just wanted some clarity on that.

So for the general public's awareness and you all are already aware of this is that you all are not determining whether or not all of the applicable development standards imposed by the LUMO are or are not met. As far as I'm concerned or as far as I'm aware, the materials that have been presented to you are insufficient to make that determination. Materials presented to you are strictly intended to help you all make a determination about whether the design that's been proposed is not incongruous with kind of the architectural character of applicable historic district.

GREGORY

Kevin, if the proposed intervener can talk only about how their buildings would be affected, or can they, based on their residence in the district, testify about what they have observed about the character of the district?

GREGORY Well, so certainly, if you were to determine that they are a party with standing, then they would and I'll back up. Regardless of whether you determine whether they're a party withstanding or not, they can certainly present testimony during the applicant's case in chief about whether or not what's been proposed is or is not in Congress with the character of the district. They can still present factual testimony on matters within their personal knowledge about the character of the district, how the application as it's presented is or is not consistent or congruous with that general character.

So just to be clear, they can present as fact witnesses about the district without necessarily being granted intervener status.

That's correct. Regardless of whether they have standing to participate in the hearing as a party, they are entitled to present fact testimony to you all about those matters. And again, matters within their personal knowledge. And we also will have to get, of course, into of course, certain subject matter that only expert witnesses may testify to. Only an expert witness can provide opinion testimony on certain matters.

So depending on what the intervener may wish to testify to, you will have to kind of assess the competence of their testimony. But that may be kind of getting ahead of ourselves here a little bit.

So Kevin, have a follow-up question to that. So if someone that's not the applicant but is an interested party in the public presents information tonight, from an order of process standpoint, should we be asking follow-up questions of that person? Or should we wait until the applicant has has an opportunity to present their information? We ask questions of everyone at the same time.

Well, so I think if what you're asking is kind of the sequence of events here, what I would suggest is that first we will conduct kind of a mini evidentiary hearing on the stand in question. Question. So they'll be able to present whatever evidence they believe demonstrates that they would suffer special damages or that they may meet a different standing threshold under the applicable law. I don't want to presume the avenue that they might wish to go down to demonstrate standing. Once this board has made its determination on the standing issue, we would then turn to the applicant.

The applicant would be entitled to make their presentation as usual. And then at that point, the intervenor would have the opportunity to cross examine the applicant If the applicant wanted to present kind of redirect, so to speak, they would have the opportunity to do that. Then the intervenor would have their opportunity to present kind of their case in chief to you all, their own evidence. The applicant would have the opportunity to cross examine the intervener. And then at that point, the intervener would have the opportunity to kind of provide redirect.

Then this board would have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions to whomever you might have follow-up questions for. Then depending on kind of how you all feel about the evidentiary record that's been developed so far, it might be appropriate to close the evidentiary hearing at that point to deliberate and discuss the evidence that's been presented, determine whether or not you have sufficient evidence to make a decision this evening or not, and then kind of proceed from there as is appropriate.

Thank you. Okay, so we need to start the mini evidentiary hearing of standing. And that begins I think by calling the person up that may be requesting standing. Is that correct?

Think that's correct.

I'll

try to make this quick. I don't really want to be here all night.

Well, first make sure you give us your name.

Sure. My name is Donald McKeever Stanford, Jr. A native of Chapel Hill. Went to Chapel Hill High School. My wife and I have lived at 129 Millett Street since 1985. It's our home. We are the long time or the longest time residents of Millet Street. Can I ask if any of you are familiar with the property here? Have you had a chance to look at it? I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just don't want to go over things that

Well, may be we all live in Chapel Hill, so everyone knows where Millett Street is. So I'll speak for everyone when I say yes, and that I've been here since 1985 myself. So I've been up and down Millett Street more times than you can count. But no one here has been there for this hearing because we aren't allowed to go visit specific sites.

Well, that's kind of a shift because I've actually served on this commission before. And that's a major shift. I agree. The property in question here is at the corner of Millett And West Cameron Avenue. And this property is just south of us, but it's uphill.

So that means that anything that happens, tree falls, it's likely coming our way. That means that if, as has happened before, the plumbing fails there, then our yard winds up getting flooded. So any kind of impact in terms of building a new structure is going to have a direct and immediate impact on our quality of life. But more specifically, if we were to put our house on the market, it would clearly have an impact on its fair market value. And to this point, the question of special damages is really one, how do you convert this into specific money?

Something that is specific to our property that isn't specific, that isn't generally true of everyone else. I mean, someone who lives two blocks away may be in the historic district, but they probably don't have special damages in standing because they are not sufficiently immediately impacted by the actions of that adjoining property. There is no other property which is more adjoining than we are, except for the Granville Towers parking lot. And I would suggest that the parking lot Granville doesn't care. And they would be here otherwise.

So the point we're trying to make here is this. We've lived next door to this house for a long time. We knew the longtime homeowners who were there, the Clapham's. They were good neighbors. We enjoyed having them there. It was a pleasure. They made our lives easier and vice versa. So the issue of special damages really is to some extent, I just have to pose it this way. If we don't have standing under this doctrine, no one does. Then standing has no meaningful legal application.

I should tell you that, in the interest of I've been a lawyer in this community for a long time and a member of the business school faculty, where I teach law and ethics. I'm pretty much retired now for a long time. I'm pretty familiar with these issues. And I don't want to bore you with, sometimes, the difficulty associated with standing issues. But the point, I guess, I really want to make here in terms of standing is this.

If we don't have standing, what's the point of notifying people with 100 feet of their property, of the subject property? And clearly, we are within that zone. The ordinance and the statute really contemplate that those individuals are obviously impacted by these kinds of things. Now, if we were just talking about a minor shift here, you know, they were building a shed in the back or something like that. Okay, you know, maybe.

But we're talking about a proposal that would insert a new house between the existing house and our house that is actually larger than the existing house. It would cast increased shadows in our direction. Common sense tells you that because they're going to be more impervious surface, that that means that we're going to get a lot of runoff. We're also going to get more runoff because their proposal puts four parking spaces and parking pads on our side as well. We have to look at it every day.

And that has a direct impact in terms of the preservation issues and so forth. We live in the preservation District because we want to preserve the character of the district. So in a broader sense, that dovetails with our specific information. In my opinion, as the owner of the property, I think I'm also qualified to express an opinion as to what kind of impact this would have on our property. And I think it couldn't do anything but hurt it, largely because right now what we have is a backyard that's on the upside of where we are.

And now what we'd be looking at is a nearly two story building that is 20 feet from us. So it would seem to me that we can demonstrate that we would suffer special damages as a consequence of what this proposal would do. So I'll leave it at that.

Could I ask you about the notice?

Yes. This really concerns me because there is, according to the statute, it has to be mailed ten days in advance of the hearing. So in this case, we got a postcard Friday, 04:00. I've checked with the neighbors who were within 100 feet, and they confirmed that basically that's what they got as well. There's no postmark on the postcard.

So it's not possible for me to determine when it was deposited in the mail. But I would suggest to you that if it had been posted ten days in advance, we would have gotten it before Friday. It would have had to have been mailed the previous Friday, February 27. I'm pretty sure that the town doesn't work on Saturdays. And I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's the case. We have talked to our neighbors. And many of them have said, that's not enough time. I've got other things that are scheduled tonight. I can't be we have one neighbor who is here. And I think that, in terms of due process, it puts you at a significant disadvantage.

I mean, my wife and I spent today plowing through this stuff. We have other obligations. Yesterday, we were involved in some other things. This is a lot to digest. This is not a shed in the backyard.

Well, I agree with that. And I appreciate the question about the notice. But this little mini hearing is about standing. And that gets us all into a whole other subject. I have a quick question for you. It's because I'm an architect. I know you said you were a lawyer, and I don't even pretend to know a little bit about law. But as an architect, I have to ask a stupid question. We're here, there again, I say, for the purview of the historic district commission, which is dictating the guidelines, Chapel Hill design guidelines. So are we setting any kind of are there any other boards that three zero eight Cameron is going to have to go before, like a Board of Adjustments for its approvals?

No. And my question is, will we be setting any kind of precedent by dictating standing or not standing for future boards? So

again, I mean, you are not dictating precedent except insofar as the decision you make tonight might be analogized in future cases presenting similar circumstances. So if you decide that these folks do have standing tonight, that doesn't mean that, hypothetically speaking, you have to decide that every neighbor in the future has stand in.

GREGORY Gotcha.

GREGORY You would look back and make a determination about, based on this case, whether somebody might present very similar testimony or evidence to you all, in which case that might be persuasive to you in future cases. Now to answer what I think is your more specific question, I don't believe and staff can confirm this that there are other boards that this project will need to go through if you grant a COA this evening. I believe that the remainder of the approvals would be staff level approvals. So approval of a residential site plan, for example, setting out the design of the location on the property, the design of the proposed structure,

that Well, sort of height, for instance. He mentioned it's two stories. So that's a Board of Adjustment issue. If they're more, then LUMA will allow them.

That's the

only thing.

And then, of course, there is a right to appeal those sorts of staff approvals, like of a residential site plan to the Board of Adjustment if they believe that the approval of a specific site plan is in violation of setbacks or building height requirements, those sorts of things. Gotcha. There is, in that sense, is the potential for other board involvement.

Okay. So right now, the person requesting standing has said his piece. Do we have an open discussion here?

That's right. Think this would be an well, first, the applicant may wish to cross examine or present their own evidence on the standing issue. I don't know if town staff might wish to provide comment or evidence, testimony on any of the stand or related matters. So I would suggest that you invite the applicant to say their piece if they wish, staff if they have anything to add. And then once you've heard what you believe is sufficient Got you. Can deliberate.

Okay. And please say your name again just

I'm for Jay Fulkerson. Excuse me. I'm an architect, registered architect, in North Carolina. I've been here since 1988. I had my own practice since 1998. And I work in this realm a lot, although I was commenting earlier, I haven't been here at the Historic District Convention for about seven years. So it's been a while. But I guess what I would say in a nutshell is that I wonder whose purview is it to make such a decision, really, as you had raised. And that's a question. And the other thing I would say is, as it relates to Lumo, what I'm presenting is as per the ordinance, as it's been recently updated.

And setbacks have been modified and in a quest to create higher density in Chapel Hill among other things. But And to the extent that there is something that's not per the ordinance, it will be before it's ever approved for a zoning and building compliance permit. But I think we're totally in line with the ordinance as it is currently, which seems to me that establishes what the rules are in terms of building heights and setbacks and all those sorts of circumstances. Solar setbacks, for instance, which have been reduced as per the current ordinance, the new ordinance. But at any rate, I wonder what damages someone is going to suffer if we follow the LUMO And we address those things that LUMO asks of us in terms of drainage control during construction and afterward and and all the other common things that that all projects have to adhere to regardless of who they're next door to.

Can we ask clarifying questions at this point? Certainly. There there is a section on new construction in the design guidelines. Were those consulted as part of your project?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's outlined in my application, and I'll talk about that tonight as well.

Thank you.

Well, so it's interesting. In this case, we have an existing house that we are renovating. We're Are we

getting beyond standing?

Yeah. Are we Right now, we're focusing on the standing issue. That's right.

So we've heard from the applicant in your opinion towards standing and the neighbor, I'll say, if I use that term, issue in standing. So that's it from the public right now. We just need to discuss it and determine right now.

Certainly. And I don't know if town staff might have comments that they might wish to make at this point as well.

Do I need to get sworn in? Don't think so.

Okay. So then we'll administer the oath to Sharneek and Anna Scott as well.

Okay. 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 affirm.

I affirm.

Okay. And say your names before you talk, please.

Sharnika Harrell. Anna Scott Myers.

Thank you.

So I can speak to the notice requirement. For all evidentiary hearing staff prepare the notices, so that includes the mailed notice that's sent. We have to put it in the mail not less than ten days and not more than twenty five days before the hearing. And we also have to post a sign on site. And for this meeting, the the notices were mailed February we put them in the mail February 24.

So we used, like, an an online site called AmazingMail to do all of our notices. So we completed that on the twenty third. And it said they would be scheduled to be mailed on the twenty fourth. And on the twenty third, we also posted signs on all the I think

it was the twenty fourth that I placed signs.

On the twenty fourth, we placed signs on the properties. That's it.

Okay. Thank you. So that's staff, that's public. That's the applicant. Think we're. I

think this would be an appropriate time for the commission to discuss and deliberate on the standing issue.

So given the concern that was raised about size, scale, and height, and that's specifically addressed in the historic district commission guidelines, I believe this person has standing as a neighbor.

Josh?

Yeah, I would like to draw a link that I see between notice and standing. Of the three items that our attorney has mentioned regarding standing, one of them does have to do with financial impact, economic impact on another party. And as somebody who's involved in real estate and involved in architecture and has been involved in regulatory review for a long time, the evidence that I appreciate for affecting value has to do with a licensed appraiser and the engagement of a licensed appraiser to evaluate whether or not something, an act on one piece of property, will affect the value of a second piece of property. And for that to occur, appropriate notice has to be given because you can't engage an appraiser on a day's notice. So I do think there is a relationship between the amount of notice.

I think two weeks is fine because you can certainly get an appraiser to do their work and give evidence, licensed evidence, to a body like ours in that period of time. Two days is not. So when I'm looking at notice and standing and remember, this is not HDC. This is standing. So this is not our guidelines and regulations.

This is just my understanding of when somebody would have standing relative to those three items. I do think there's a relationship. Is that understandable?

So you think that this party has standing on the

I think that I don't know if this party has standing because I don't think it's provable that there will or will not be a financial damage, economic damage, to the adjacent property owner because the adjacent property owner has not had the opportunity to engage a licensed professional to give us the information to make up our minds.

So you're giving us no direction as other board members. Say that again. You're giving us absolutely no direction as board Well,

I'm saying that if it were me, I don't think I could make a decision tonight because I don't believe that if, in fact, the notice, through no fault of the town but through the fault of the post office or at whatever, if, in fact, Mr. Stanford has had two days notice, I don't think that gives him enough time to prove that he has standing. I think we can't make a decision because we don't have that information.

So you're saying this application should be continued to the next meeting?

Yes. That would be my position, that I don't have the particular information. I can look at the application relative to our HTC guidelines, And I can do that tonight for sure. But this is a discussion having to do with standing and whether or not an individual has standing.

So can I give you my perspective on that? I think given that the person that's asking for standing raised some very specific concerns about size and scale of the historic buildings that are in this context, in my mind, that gives them the opportunity to have a voice. And because we have 4.1 and the guidelines actually goes into a lot of detail about how to establish principles for new structures. And because they're raising concerns about that, in my mind, that gives them the opportunity to be part of the hearing. But Kevin, if I'm misinterpreting that, please correct me.

So two things, I think, Josh, to your point. There is some law out there that talks about the necessity to have expert testimony at the stand in stage. And it's not directly on point, I think, your question, but it might be kind of illustrative or helpful to the commission. What the law tells us is that at this stand in stage, expert opinion testimony about, for example, property values and having an appraiser present to testify is not necessary. You all can rely on lay testimony at this stage about impacts to property values.

Now, and

this

is not necessarily relevant in the HDC context. But for example, like in the Board of Adjustment Special Use Permit context, one of the approval criteria is typically something to the effect of the proposed special use will not have an adverse impact on adjacent nearby property values. When you get to kind of the substantive decision on the actual application before the commission, you typically do need competent testimony as to all criteria. So you might, under those circumstances, need an appraiser to testify about that property value criteria. But at this stage, at the stand in stage, that's not a requirement.

Now whether you believe that there's been an adequate opportunity to present otherwise competent testimony is still a fair question. Okay. Thank you. And then I got two things. I almost forgot the second one. Brian, I think to your point, I would encourage the commission to discuss a little bit about the testimony that you've heard or the evidence that you've received about the impacts on the Stanford's property as a result of their concerns about massing scale, those sorts of things, just to make sure that we have an evidentiary record?

And to be clear, because we are not allowed to do site visits, I would want to see evidence that reinforces their supposition. But the fact that they're raising that concern, in my mind, gives them the opportunity to present evidence that backs up their point of view. That's my point.

So with standing, they'd be able to present their own evidence. Without standing, they can't.

Well, so one way or the other, they can present their own evidence. They can testify as a witness, both at the standing stage and during the substantive COA hearing itself. They have photographs, that sort of thing. They're more than welcome to present those into the record. What they can't do is cross examine the applicant's witnesses. They can't object to the introduction of evidence by the applicant, those sorts of things.

Well, for me, it's still a conundrum because the basic things that the neighbor and the neighborhood would have trouble with come through the LUMA and the permitting process and the approvals processes. And if something wasn't right, it had to go to the Board of Adjustments. So we're just here just to say it does or does not adhere to design guidelines in this section of the historic district guidelines. So it seems to make sense for us. We need to move forward and have the applicant present it. And our question still is standing is what kind of response can the neighbor give.

So should we take a motion and vote on if they have standing or not?

Yes. So I would recommend that the board make a motion and vote up or down on standing. And then from that point, we can determine how to move forward.

I apologize. I forgot your name. If you would remind me of your name, please, sir.

Yeah, it's

Stanford, like the university.

Okay. I would like to make a motion that Mr. Stanford's request to have standing in this matter is approved by the commission. I second that.

Okay, I'm gonna ask each person, instead of just saying, to say yay or nay. Start with Josh. Yay.

Sorry, I'm having a hard time. Yay.

Yay. Yay.

Yay. Yay.

Well, there we go. Okay. Mr. Stanford has standing. Okay, now can we move forward with the applicant actually making their pre tax?

Can I ask a question? Does the standing apply to both Mr. And Mrs. Stanford, or is it just Mr. Stanford?

At this point, only Mr. Stanford has presented evidence. Think that it would be fit.

Mrs. Stanford, would you like to have the opportunity to speak tonight?

Yes, please.

Okay, then I would like to amend our motion to be Mr. And Mrs. Stanford.

Second. All

in favor.

I'm sorry.

We are husband and wife. Her name is Donna Bryan.

Okay. I would like to move that Mr. Stanford and Mrs. Bryan have the opportunity to speak this evening on this matter. Second.

Okay. We're going do all at one time. All in favor? Aye. Okay. All right. Now, I would recommend that we give the applicant a chance to make their presentation so that we have that as part of the evidentiary hearing for 308 Cameron.

If that's how the commission would like to proceed.

Do you guys have a problem with that?

I don't like that.

Are you Okay? I don't think we need a motion for that. But everyone here has nodded their heads yes, they're Okay with moving forward. Right.

I think the only question at this point is I believe the Stanfords have requested a continuance. So it might be appropriate for the commission to consider that request and decide whether you wish to proceed with the evidentiary hearing this evening or to continue the evidentiary hearing to next month's meeting or to a future date.

Okay. Can we hear your argument for continuance, please?

This is tricky for me. Okay? Just let me be honest with you. We have a longstanding obligation that takes us out of town on April 14. That's been true since the beginning of the year. It is my understanding that the next meeting of this commission will be on the fourteenth. We're not able to be here. So I'm not interested in trying to I know there's a hundred and eighty day requirement. Not trying to push this into the next century. I'm just trying to give us an opportunity to make our pitch.

And I just want you to understand that we haven't had much of an opportunity to prepare for this. To Mr. Gurlitz's point, the best I could do was just to touch base with our neighbors and see whether they'd gotten any information and to make sure that maybe they had some information here. So, you know, in a perfect world, I would say it would be better to maybe hear what they have to say today and then maybe postpone a decision until the May meeting. But you know, that's because we can't be here on the fourteenth.

So I I kind of leave it to you all. I don't I'm not trying to take advantage of the situation. I'm just trying to let you know that, you know, we're ordinary people who have ordinary lives and certain things that just have to be there, you know?

Well, I appreciate your honesty. But at same time, I myself designed and built a house for my wife and I at 119 Battle Lane in the Historic District. And that was during a previous iteration of the HDC and the board in 2018 and 'nineteen. And we got pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. I I added up a set where these people are sitting for twenty hours of my life waiting just to present my application.

And as a chairman, having been through that as a citizen, I would prefer not to push the applicant back a ridiculous amount of time. But I really appreciate your honesty and where you're coming from in this. The hardship of the next meeting, you not being here, this is a tough one.

Again, I've been on this side. I remind you, I've been a member of this commission. I've sat through a lot of long hearings on this. Now, this was before 2018. So I understand the position you all are in. And gosh, I sympathize with applicants, too. I know exactly what you're

talking about.

I think it's in everyone's interest that we hear the applicant's presentation tonight. The We'll speak

a little closer, make sure you're

in I would like the applicant to speak tonight so that we understand what they're proposing. I think that will benefit everybody.

I agree. It would be nice to hear the applicant. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I agree with that. And after we see that, perhaps I'll answer some of all of our questions.

I'm Jay Fulkerson. I'm wondering, I have a question. The way I put the presentation together, my first subject matter was going to be the existing house and then talk about the new house. And you'll see, in fact and just so it's clear to you, that's your house. Of course, you see that.

And as part of putting this presentation together, I had photographs of that house. I used Google Maps street views. I've estimated the heights of all these things, just like I estimated for all of Millet Street, really. So what I've shown here is as dimensionally accurate as it possibly can be. And I and I feel very comfortable that it is, in fact.

But and and I included this house because it is the one that has the greatest proximity to the new house and and impacted decision making. And so I'm I'm thinking I should skip discussion about the existing house at this point just in the interest of saving time and focus more on the new house.

Well, if you did that, you'd have to Thank you. If you did that, you'd have to come back for the existing So Isn't that correct, Brian? I mean, don't you agree with

it? Yeah, it's one COA for both

structures. So I need to hear I'll just go ahead and go through your presentation as laid out because we've reviewed the application material. It's a nice presentation. You if just move through that, that'd be great. Thank you.

Very good. My clients, Melita and Ram Calendras and their son Ram. And they've owned 308 West Cameron Street since 2001. And they're interested in improving the existing house as well as building a new house on the same property. And in fact, as we go forward with this under the new ordinance, it would be considered a detached duplex.

That is the existing house and then the new house both on the same property. That is it it meets the guidelines for no larger than the 5,000 square feet between the two. And so suits that aspect of the of the ordinance. And the existing house faces West Cameron Street principally. It does have a facade on Millett Street.

The new house specifically faces Millett Street. Let's see. Alright. And in the context of of this design, I did look at the four point any number of considerations as it relates to a new house and put together information about estimated heights of those opposing the property and next to the property and some others as well. And I I do think it's notable that the okay.

I think it's notable that this this house is closer to 129 Millett Street than the new house will be. And in fact, it's taller than the new house will be.

For clarity real quick, on the right side of the screen, could you point to the where the new house is gonna be so everybody on the board is very clear?

Yeah. The right side of the screen.

There you go.

Yeah. That's the new house. 129 Millett, 127 Millett. Yeah. And then, of course, this is the existing house on the property.

And in the context of Millett Street, it's a it's a very diverse mixture of houses. It's really it's rich a rich mixture in that some are two stories, some are probably two and a half stories, some are single story, some are one and a half story. And the design that we developed is one and a half story house. This is the this is 129 Millett Street. This is 127 Millett Street, so north of of 129.

And of course, our property 308 is south of that property. This is the building that's across Millett Street from the 308 Property. And this house is essentially across also, just a little bit further north. And this is the house that's directly across Cameron Avenue from the existing house, which is a 1960s ranch house. So what we're proposing is that, well first of all, much of this area on the existing site is currently impervious surface.

There is a parking area here. There's brick patio. There's a ramp that comes up and stairs that come up to the rear of the house. And a number of small retaining walls and a larger there's a larger retaining wall that cuts all the way across the property here. And what we're proposing is that the new house would be placed such that we can utilize the existing curb cut.

129 Millett Street is is just north of this property line. Utilize the existing curb cut, place the the new house effectively as close as we can put it to the existing house and have the parking in the buffer between the north side of the new house and the north side property line. And and in the context of this house impervious surface, we're not adding a tremendous amount of impervious surface to this site because all the impervious that we have here is going away. And we're proposing that the driveway and parking here is gonna be gravel. And I recognize the town recognizes that it is impervious at least 90% compared to concrete, for instance, after it's it's tamped in over the years.

But but that would be a gravel surface that would be for the parking in that location. I'll just go back here quickly too and just talk a little bit about the particular scale and materials. I mean, on Millett Street and on Cameron Avenue, again, they vary quite a bit in terms of overall composition and scale. And principally wood sided houses, but not exclusively so. There's some brick veneer houses on Millett Street.

And certainly, I don't have a picture of the large brick structure that's on Cameron Avenue that's across the street. That's a fraternity house, but there is that as well. So I'll talk as briefly as possible about the existing house. It was built in the 1960s, sometime in the 1960s. I haven't included exactly when the application went in for establishment of the historic district, the National Register District.

It was classified as non contributing because of its age. And I don't know that there's any different consideration at this point because that was 1998 and now it is in fact 50 plus years old. But I've proceeded with a design that is paying attention to adhere to the applicable design standards as it relates to this house. And basically, it's a brick veneer house. The brick had been painted years ago.

It's wood trim otherwise. It's presumably had fiberglass asphalt shingle roof on it for years and years. Although we are proposing the demolition of an addition to the house that has a modified bitumen or an EPDM type roof on it because it's a flat or a flatter slope. What we're proposing in the work is that we'll put a new roof on it, a new fiberglass asphalt shingle roof. We'll repair or and or replace existing gutters on the house.

We're gonna install new simulated divided light windows replacing the existing the the new windows will be double hung, replacing the existing double hung windows and the storm windows, excuse me, that are on the house at this point. So of course, the new windows would have no storm windows. We'll install new or repaired and repainted trim. We'll make every effort to retain what we can in terms of the existing trim on the house and other aspects as well. We're intending to retain the existing exterior doors on the house.

And one point I wanted to make here, I was not clear in my application, I don't think, that we're intending we propose that we could install three solar tubes that would be on the backside of this primary ridge and not visible from Cameron Avenue just to introduce some daylight to the center of the house because it's pretty dark inside. The existing house has shutters that we would retain, has shutters on some of the windows, principally on the two street facades, but also on the back of

the house. There are a

couple windows that have shutters and we will retain those as well. We are proposing that the existing addition on the back of the house be demolished and that we would and also the stairs that come down from an existing rear porch be demolished and we would build new stairs adjacent to the house, adjacent to the existing rear porch. And we're also proposing that the there's an existing side porch that fronts on Millett Street. And we're proposing that this be demolished, the porch as well as the stairs, because we're intending to take this door out. It's it goes into an existing bedroom, and we'd rather there wasn't a door to the exterior into that bedroom just for safety reasons.

So we're proposing that we'll remove that door and remove the porch as well. So I think that's all I'll say about that existing house. And if I could, I'm going to grab my water bottle here. The new house is designed to adhere to these considerations. In terms of setback spacing and orientation as it relates to the existing houses on Millett Street and Cameron Avenue, building scale, proportion and form, roof form materials and details, building materials and architectural details as they relate to new construction, doors and windows and porches and entrances.

So again, back to Millet Street, a variety of of different forms and shapes of houses on that street. And there's actually a house that's at 114 Millett, which is on the west side of the street close to Franklin Street. It's two or three houses back from Franklin Street. That house was built around nineteen ninety nine, two thousand. New house on a property that had been subdivided.

And frankly, I mean, it was referenced in the design manual for the historic district commission. And I think it's a really good example of a house going into a neighborhood that pays attention to such things, the scale and proportion. Being a story and a half house is how I decided was the most appropriate way to do it. Because you can contain so much space under the roof and minimize the overall scale of the house regardless of what's around it. But but you can can in fact do that.

And so that was the impetus for taking that approach. And as it relates to the front of the house, which is the primary facade addressing Millet Street, I'm proposing that we would have a separate front porch. It would be a single story high. We would have a five v crimp metal roof on it, a traditional metal roof in, well, in much of the South, frankly. And at a smaller scale such that it reduces the overall scale of what's behind it visually.

That is it grabs your eye first and helps establish a lower height as it relates to the street. And is frankly more in keeping with the smaller scale houses that are on Millett Street. All the other spaces are contained, on the 2nd Floor, are contained under the story and a half roof with the exception of one space that has a dormer which faces the back of the existing house. So faces the south away from 129 Millett Street as it were. And And beyond that, I would just say that, again, this is my representation of 109 Millett Street in terms of its relationship to where the property line, which is approximately here, where the property line is, approximately here.

And frankly, I took pictures and I looked at Google Street views and I counted bricks and I counted siding. You know, the the how many courses of siding we had in an effort to establish what the heights were approximately. And and it's clear that in the information as it relates to the application, that that's exactly what I should do. I should estimate those things based on my expertise and what I'm seeing in the neighborhood. And so again, we've pushed this house just about as close to the existing house as we can.

We have a six foot setback from what is an imaginary property line at this point. I'll talk a little further about that later. But So we we've reserved this space from here to effectively this is the perimeter wall that's on the north side of the property. We've put the house here so that we wouldn't impinge on this house. And and I'm gonna venture that there isn't any time during the year that there's a shadow cast from the ridge of this house beyond the property line.

But in any case, it's well within the realm of what the setbacks allow. That is the setback on this property now is six feet, which from this point would be approximately there. So that's potentially you could build a house at that point, which we didn't think was a good idea. And just back to this quickly, overall height of the house as I've shown it is well within the maximum heights for houses in this neighborhood on this street. And I'll just also add at this point that the existing grade is here and this existing wall immediately adjacent to the sidewalk is a retaining wall to about this point.

So what I'm proposing is that we're gonna grade this down to the extent that we can in order to keep the floor of this new house as low as possible. And what I've shown here is in fact higher than that just because I'm not sure what we're gonna be able to accomplish. But if we are able to push this down, I would probably bring it down two more feet. So there'll only be a couple steps up into the house, which of course is gonna reduce the overall height of the whole house. But it really has to do with how much we can manage cutting grade out.

We we could probably cut it down such that this could be just barely above grade. But we've gotta ensure that we've got appropriate drainage on the backside of this house. This is just talking about the materials that we'll have on the house. We'll have the the 5V crimp on the porch roof, fiberglass asphalt shingles on the primary and the dormer roofs. I'm proposing that we'll use hardy siding, smooth hardy siding, of course.

And then all the trim would be in Southern Yellow Pine. Of course, all of that will be painted. And I prefer Southern Yellow Pine as trim because I just think it has a better look. And I feel and and dense Southern Yellow Pine, it's got a really good track record in terms of its longevity. And frankly, it looks better than the Hardy Trim.

The Hardy Trim is a little rougher sort of surface and I don't think it it doesn't look as much like wood as the siding itself does. And we'll be using these are Marvin elevate windows which have exterior fiberglass, integral colors. They have three-dimensional simulated divided lights and they also have a shadow bar between the glazing. So that's what we're gonna be using on both the houses. And on the existing house, we'll be using the same shingles as well.

And separate, I'll just talk briefly about the site work. Site features, walls and fences, walkways, driveways, and off street parking, and exterior lighting. This an interesting wall that's built at the perimeter. This is right on Millett Street. It's a concrete brick wall.

So it's effectively, it's CMU, but it's full size concrete bricks the same size as a modular brick. And there's a retaining wall that's adjacent to the street and at this point, it's not retaining. And then as you come a little further down beyond where the existing curb cut is, it's a lattice type wall that's built in this. And we're proposing that we'll keep all these walls, we'll repair and stabilize them in kind. You can see this one is coming apart here and it needs to be taken care of.

And on Cameron Avenue, there's an existing aluminum fence. It actually is it carries along Millett Street here and around the corner and then to the edge of the driveway. And then in front of the house, it carries to the property line. And then at this point, it's a taller aluminum fence that is for the the dormitories, the parking around the dormitories. So we're going to address that, which is on our property, of course, on my clients' properties.

The new sidewalk and the parking areas at the existing house will be concrete consistent with what's already there. That is, there's a concrete driveway. And we're proposing parking and sidewalk there. And on the new house, the sidewalk and parking would be gravel. And I'll bring this up because I think it's it's in the context of this certificate of appropriateness, I think.

As I talked about the properties, this is potentially a future property line. We're considering that we're going to ask to subdivide the property into two so that each house would be on its own property. And we haven't done that yet. And Sharnika and I have had some discussions about what will be my client's responsibility to dedicate 30 inches of property to the town of Chapel Hill to increase the width of the right of way on Millett Street because it's considered a collector street. It's a 40 foot right of way.

And that would be my client's obligation. If there ever is a widening of the the right of way, then the other 30 inches is gonna have to come from the other side of Millett Street. But it's a 40 foot right of way and it needs to be 45 feet minimum. But we haven't gone through that process at this point. And I'm anticipating that we will want to subdivide the property.

So what I've included here for your consideration is that we're gonna lose 30 inches of property at the street, which is gonna push the property line back. It'll push the setback, the 22 foot setback back 30 inches. So this is the house as it's been submitted. That's 49 feet four inches deep that extends from Millet Street, is out here. And the porch is eight feet deep.

And if we were gonna subdivide it, I would say, well, we gotta cut 30 inches out. We're gonna take 18 inches out of the front porch. So it'll still be above the recommended minimum of six feet for the historic district. But there's 18 inches that we would pick up, and then we pick up another 12 inches here. And I just bring this to you.

And I spoke with Sharneka and Anne a little bit before the meeting. It seems that this kind of decision may potentially be an administrative decision after we receive a certificate of appropriateness. But I'm bringing it up just so it's clear to you that if you think it isn't, I prefer that this option be considered as another option in the event there is a subdivision because I don't think there's a material aesthetic impact on this house. That is the fact that it's shortened in its length is gonna be hardly noticeable to anyone. And the only difference on the front facade is basically that as this eight foot porch gets reduced to six feet six inches, it has a little bit shorter ridge at the top of the hip roof where it meets the house.

It's five inches higher in this case. And that's a little hard to recognize as being noticeable, I think, to anyone. But it is notable and that it is different. And what I have left in this presentation is really just some views of the existing house and the neighbor's house in this case and the new house as it sits between the two of them. And I'd submit to you that the new house is certainly appropriate and in harmony with the neighborhood, with Millet Street specifically, which is where it where it really has to fit in.

And that's, there's sort of a view, there's a view from basically down Millett Street and you can see how the new house fits in behind the existing house and you can also see the neighbor's house beyond. Any questions? I'm sorry I talked so long.

Will have some questions. But given the potential contentious nature of this one, before the presentation, I didn't consider that I may have a conflict Because Mr. Fulkerson used 01/2014 Millet as a precedent for his new design, I need to tell you that thirty years ago, I designed 100

So 14 Millet

thanks for not saying anything bad about it.

I liked it very much.

Okay. So is that a point where I need to recuse myself, Kevin? I wouldn't have even considered it until you used it as a precedent. Then that's that feels like a conflict to me. But I'm asking the powers that be.

Well, that's not the case. But let me take it off your plate and give it to the vice chair. That's what vice chairs are for. Since I'm the chair, do you think I should recuse myself, Mr. Vice Chair?

No, I don't.

Okay. There you go. I just wanted to enter that into the record just to make sure. Okay. Thank you. So can we ask questions of the applicant now, or do we need to let Mr. Stanford stand?

I think it would be appropriate to allow Mr. Stanford to cross examine the applicant's architect. And then following that cross examination, I think the board could ask questions.

Okay. Thank

you. Shall I be seated? Very good. Sure.

Works for me. Nice to meet you. Nice to see you.

And both of you, just make sure you're speaking into the microphone, please.

So

really, the questions I guess I have really are focused on two or three things. One, I'd like to look at the retaining wall. The property has this I would call it cinder brick. The existing house is a very strange item. Because it's cinder block, but it's in the form of a brick.

The retaining walls are cinder block, but in the form of a brick, with the exception of the side that's closest to us. Now on the wall itself, on our side, it's the same kind of thing. And it has seen a lot better days. So the question I have for you is, if you consider changing that and replacing that with the stone walls that are characteristic of Chapel Hill, considering the fact that there is, on the east side, an existing classic Chapel Hill stone wall. On our side, there's also an existing classic Chapel Hill stone wall on top of which that cinder brick sits.

And it's in terrible shape. There's no polite way to put it. It's coming apart. There are chunks of it. I mean, blocks that actually have fallen on their side and fallen on their side. So I guess I'm asking you, what do you think about trying to kind of make the whole place look more congruent with the district because the cinder brick really doesn't fit. It's clearly a non contributing property. And I think the major characteristic of why it isn't is that brick.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I would say, first of all, I mean, we're not going to discount any potential solution. But I would say that the house is considered non contributing because of its age. That's the reason that it was not considered contributing.

Like most of the well, the small ranch house that's immediately across the street from you is also non contributing because of its age. And that says less well, that doesn't say anything about the materials. That is it was not included because of its age. And and yeah. And when I when I saw this initially just in pictures, I wasn't sure what I was looking at.

I thought I was looking at a brick wall, but when I came out there, you're absolutely right. It's a it's a CMU brick, solid CMU or concrete brick. And my personal opinion is I find it to be a really interesting composition and material. Now, you can see in this picture where it is in need of repair. And further back, I might have some other pictures in here that show it further back along your property line that is back in this area.

It's probably even worse. I don't see any of it that has fallen down, but but it is in need of repair. And as you said, you know, when you get when you get back to the back of the property between the east side property line of 308 West Cameron can you hear me? Am I? Okay. That's where the stone wall is. The whole eastern edge of 308 West Cameron has a stone wall that has a chain link fence on top of

it. That's the Granville Towers.

Yeah, that's right. That's right. The Granville Towers side for their parking lot. So, I mean, we could. I mean, you potentially could build a stone wall, but that's not what's existing there. And it wasn't ever existing here apparently because as you can see that, I mean, here in this case, it's a retaining wall. Once you get up closer to Cameron Avenue, it's not a retaining wall. It actually is mostly above grade, a little bit further beyond here.

And if you were to go down the rest of Millet Street, you would see either wooden fences or you would see those stone walls, right?

I don't know. But yeah, I mean certainly the stone walls are most common. And if you were

to go across the street to 400 West, in other words, the other corner probably, also have on their side the classic Chapel Hill stone wall that actually looks around to the

I'll get back to this picture. Yeah, that that's the case. Of course, that house I think was built in 1860.

And

this was probably built in about 1960. So I think that accounts for why different, in fact. Actually, me get to, well, yeah, it's this house you're talking about, but it's the other facade.

The Allen House. So if, I guess my question then would also be that house also has a

There it is.

A stone that's the wall I'm referring to. So it also around on the Cameron Avenue, similar the Instant House here, it also has a metal fence. It's, I think, an iron it's an old style fence. So I guess what I'm saying is have you considered the possibility on our end of replacing that, either with a higher stonewall or with a similar kind of metal fencing that would be consistent, I think, with the district and the immediate neighbors? Whereas, now well, I'll leave it at this.

Well, yeah. And we haven't considered that. But again, we would. I'd have to talk with my client and see what their interest might be in such a thing. But they're interested in having a good outcome overall in terms of aesthetics and well, aesthetics and just having a nice site and a nice new house.

Can we take a quick look at the fenestration? I want to ask you a question about why windows seem

to be Please speak into the mic. Can you speak into the mic? Sorry.

So can we look at the fenestration on the plans for the new house?

For the new house.

The windows.

So I'm going to interject for just a second because I feel like you're having a conversation that probably should have happened before this came to the commission. And so my question is because I feel like you have several things you want to talk about. We have other people on the agenda tonight. Would you like us to vote to continue this application so this conversation can happen offline? You can resubmit having considered this party with interests concerns.

You know, this is why getting notice late hurts.

Understood. Really, my question was for the applicant.

I'm sorry.

Because you've just expressed interest in taking this feedback and working with your client. It's awkward to do that in front of the public and in front of us at 08:10 on a Tuesday night. So would you like to continue this conversation and have us continue this application so you can resolve those open questions and then come back to us when those have been taken care of?

Well, let me be clear. I'd really rather not do that. I feel like what we proposed in terms of the law, for instance, I think it's most appropriate historically for this house in this neighborhood. Okay. So

then your party with interest has the opportunity to continue to ask questions until his Okay.

And I would just say, I've not had the opportunity to speak with my client about it either.

So then the situation you're going to put us in is if you are making representations on behalf of your client in agreement that's not in this application, we'd have to not approve the COA.

Just Even if I tell you I'd not do that?

That you're setting up. Yeah.

I'd rather this be considered just as it's been presented in the application.

Fair enough.

Sorry. I don't think I have any further questions at this stage.

So, Kevin, would it be appropriate for us now as a commission to pose questions? Or should we ask for other comments from the public?

Yeah, you should ask for other public comment first and then ask questions.

So, I'm hearing that perhaps Donna Bryant wishes to cross examine the applicant as well. So I think we should afford her the opportunity to do that. I think then, as is typical, you should afford the public the opportunity to make public comment on the application before closing the evidentiary hearing and deliberating.

Thank you. Kevin?

Yep.

Did y'all do commissioner questions?

No, that's what Brian was asking. Should we ask the applicant questions now or after the

So after, as is typical after so as is atypical, I suppose, allow the parties with standing to cross examine the applicant. Then we'll allow the public to ask any questions that members of the public might or allow any public comment that members of the public might have before commissioners wrap up.

I have several questions for Jay.

I think it's actually typical to do a presentation from the applicant and cross examination, and then commissioner questions and then public comment and then discussion from the commission. And then at which point we can close the evidentiary hearing. Or you can make a motion to close the evidentiary hearing and then proceed with motion on the COA.

Sure. And ultimately, it's up to the commission's pleasure, whatever order you choose to I

think the other person was standing should get up and say her piece now. And then we'll ask questions to Mr. Fulkerson.

So at some point, really, we wanted to kind of go by the specific standards point by point and say, Okay, these are the things that concern us about the existing problem. When I was cross examining him, all I really wanted to do was to try to get his opinion on alternatives that we were talking about. But as it now exists, we do have an opinion as to why we think that certain portions of his proposal are not congress with respect to the standards, the principles and guidelines of the historic district. So I don't know when you want to hear from that.

I think we want to hear from it right now.

Before we hear their kind of case in chief or their evidence about why this is not incongruous, I think we should probably wrap up cross exam if there's did I hear Doctor. Bryant, is that correct? If Doctor. Bryant has cross examination for the applicant, I I suggest she be afforded the opportunity to cross examine the applicant.

Okay.

Then we'll do questions from the commission. Then at that point, we'll allow them to present their case in chief. Same thing. You may have questions for them at the end of their presentation. Then we'll hear public comment, I suppose, at that point. Then you can close the evidentiary hearing for deliberations.

Got it.

My name's Donna Bryant. I'm going to show you eight pictures.

Can you speak?

I'm going to show you eight pictures, and that's my cross examination. I'm going to need help in loading this.

And what I would I'll just ask you, Doctor. Brown, beforehand, are these pictures relevant to specific testimony the applicant provided? Or are these pictures that are relevant to your position that the proposal is not Congress with the character of the district?

Both.

Okay.

I just need a little help here, please.

Yes.

Kevin, I have a quick question. Because I heard Mr. Stanford say that their position was that parts of the application are not congress, but the character of the district, is that what they're looking for when the commission's purview is what's not in congress? So they're not looking for the most congress.

That's right. And so I know that that has been a much discussed topic with the commission. Remember, state law mandates that your role is to determine whether or not the applicant's proposal is not incongruous with the special character of the applicable historic district. That is a subtle but significant distinction from whether the applicant's proposal is, in fact, congruous with the character of the district. And ultimately, it's up to you to weigh the evidence that is presented to you to make a determination on whether your remit is to ensure that an application meets that arguably lower, not incongruous standard.

Go. All right. My name is Donna Bryant. I live at 129 Millett Street. And I think what's missing here tonight is a real feel and understanding of what height differences are. And although I appreciate Mr. Fulkerson's careful, it's very clear that he has followed all of the new guidelines or else we wouldn't have two houses 12 feet apart. But that's the kind of thing I think is not in congruity with being in the historic district. So this first picture, you've seen our blue house there. And the center of that is the driveway now that's there.

And the next picture will show you moving to the right. I'm going to be quick, really.

Okay. I'll

stay here. Just stay here. Thank you. So moving to the right, uphill, you can see the retaining wall. And you can see the driveway. There's often a car in the driveway, often two cars in the driveway. The Calindras have owned the house for twenty five years, but it's been a student rental the whole time. And the next one will show you an even closer view. And all of that is going to be parking. There'll be at least four cars there.

If there are four spots, there'll be five or six cars there usually, as with student housing. Go to the next one. Okay, there's the retaining wall. And the next picture will show from the street view, formerly a dining room when Shirley Clapham moved here, but now another bedroom. And the next picture will show from across the street the part right behind the telephone pole and that tall bush there, that's where the new house will be.

And it'll be a two story house. It's almost a shotgun house. It's 20 feet wide. It's 12 feet from the existing house. And it's just unlike any other two houses on our street. And then the next picture it's closer up. Meant to delete that.

Next one.

Yes, please. We didn't have a lot of time. We did this today. And that's the view from basically from our side the lot, basically almost from our bedroom window. And so what's there are a lot of vegetation.

And when the house with a 29 foot roof is placed on top of that retaining wall, it's going to look like a three story house. A two story house on that retaining wall remember, we're sloping down here on Millette Street. And I just think that ruins the character of our end of the street and feel like, what's the historic preservation what's the historic district for other than to help preserve the character of our street? So oh, one more. One more.

There's one more there. Oh, yeah. This is I believe there's a parking pad put in there on the right. But students park anywhere. And so a parking pad will just encourage them to go over instead of 50% of the yard, to go over 60% or 70% of the yard. So I don't think that's a good idea. And I'll just rest there.

Could you go back one picture, This is a really good picture, I think, because it gets to what I was referencing about that retaining wall is going to go away. We're going to try and get the floor of the house as low as possible relative to what is the brick paver terrace. So it'll be substantially lower than you just suggested it would be. And again, this shows how much grading could take place. That retaining wall is about 40 inches tall. And so our intent is to grade from I'm sorry?

Four feet.

Oh, at the back end. Okay. But we'll grade down from the back of the existing house. And of course, the addition that you see in this picture is what we're proposing is going to be demolished, which allows us the opportunity to grade a little bit closer to the existing house and set the new house at a lower level, which is the intent, is to do that. So it won't be, we're not sitting on top of the retaining wall. And am I right It's gonna sit much lower.

Am I right that there are angle in parking spaces right here in this foreground?

That's correct. And I understand what you said about student housing, but I don't understand the relevance of that to this conversation.

I'm sorry that mental health isn't one of the issues that can be considered when one makes decisions about housing. But there will be four parking places on that lower concrete pad there. Well, would be would gravel.

That's correct. That is in that vicinity. I'm horrible with PCs. Can you get my presentation up here again? Yeah. Thank you.

And you can just use the Yeah. Yeah.

Just wanting to get back to the discussion about how close houses are to one another. Sorry, Don. I don't know how close 114 is to 116, but it's pretty close. That property was subdivided to allow that house to be built. These two houses are really pretty close to one another right across the street.

This house is much closer to your property than this house or to your house than this house will be. And you're right, these two are relatively close to one another. But I would submit there were probably precedents in that neighborhood just like this one and this one, where there are conditions that exist, where houses may be that close to one another.

Okay. So now can we ask questions and then we hear from the public?

I think we should hear any evidence that the parties withstanding would like to enter into the record. Is that correct, Kevin?

Yeah. So I would let the parties withstanding present kind of their case in chief for why they believe this is incongruous, that the application is incongruous with the character of the district. Then we'll hear from public comment if there is any. If you want ask questions.

Then we'll

close for deliberation. Just for a second.

This one.

Yeah. So I want to just take a moment here, as long as we're talking about this, to address this issue. The property at 116 And 1

Can you speak into the mic? Sure. Thank you.

The property at 116 And 114, that subdivision occurred before the historic district was created. And I want to point out the two brick houses that he mentioned were jointly owned by a family for a long time. When I grew up in Chapel Hill, well, that street was full of families. Right now, there are five of 21 residences, five homeowners occupying our street. And that's the kind of shift that we're dealing with at this stage.

So I don't want you to get the wrong idea. These things, that proximity exists prior to the establishment of any historic district in Chapel Hill. Okay. I wanted to talk specifically here about our concerns in this proposal. This question of congruity, if you will, or and again, it's lawyers writing it backwards, the double negative.

It's not incongruous. There need to be standards, of course, in order to establish that. And so we have principles and guidelines, which clearly have been put together. When I was on the commission, I continuously raised hell about this. And we finally got those guidelines, and they're the ones you see.

And when you look at those guidelines, you might notice that the existing example of the folk Victorian house is our house. And there are other examples on Millett Street. It's because it's known as the Millett Street cluster. This is the oldest street in Southwest Chapel Hill. It is so narrow because, of course, when it was built, there were no motor vehicles.

The reason these houses are sited so close to the roadway is because it was not a motorized freeway. Now, fast forward a century. Our house was built in the 1880s. The characteristic that is most common in Millett Street are what are known as AAAs. And that's what our house is.

It's got two side gables and a center gable. And you see that house originally. You also see it in some replication from that standpoint too. So the real question here, I think, is contextual evaluation in the context of this question of, are things not incongruous. But I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that the underlying justification for this commission and for these ordinances is preservation.

The idea is to continue to give the place the same sort of feel that it has. And that feel accommodates certain kinds of inconsistencies, like the existing house. It accommodates some diversity in terms of construction. The house next to us is a craftsman, for example. It's not a Victorian house. But I think you have to consider that form ordinarily follows function. And one of the problems that we are facing, I just just touched on it, is that these are houses that are being built for student occupation. They're student stuffers. That's what this house is and that's what the existing house is. And we all know the issues that are surrounding that.

But that drives this design. It's parking. It's those students who who want to rent those, and that's why you're seeing four bedrooms in there and four bathrooms. Form follows function. So what you're seeing here is a new construction that is largely designed to accommodate that.

That's its goal, not staying in touch, not incongruous with the rest of the buildings on Millett Street. So it's a real concern. My wife said it looks like a shot gun house. If this were New Orleans or maybe Charleston, that would be maybe appropriate. But I would suggest that even if we went down to 116 and 114, that's not the same deal as what we're looking at here.

This is a very narrow house. And it has a very specific kind of design that is, again, trying to make the form follow the function. Okay. Let me talk specifically about the guidelines and the kind of design obligations that the commission has to follow in making this kind of decision. This new house is bigger than the existing house.

The town started with this idea that we're going to have granny units. We're going to have little additions and so forth. We're going to increase the density. Now, they've moved to the point where we have a proposal here, which I think is unprecedented in that the addition, the additional house is bigger than the existing house. I think the house is simply out of scale.

And I want to just remind you that when we talk about this core evaluation criteria, we're looking at height, we're looking at scale, we're looking at setback, we're looking at placement, We're looking at materials and texture, fenestration, and then maybe a pertinent structure. So in this case, it seems to me that the height is pretty darn high. I mean, you saw the slide that he showed, the distance, the difference between the height of the roof on this additional house. That's a lot of distance. I don't know whether that means that we're going to wind up with a solar, with a shadow or not.

I don't know. But the point is it doesn't have the right feel for Millet Street. And I think you should consider that the scale is outer scale. I mentioned the cinder block, what I call cinder brick walls, which I think are an inappropriate design. And to try to repair them and to promote them, to retain them, if you will. It was inappropriate to begin with. They're not in good shape. And it's inappropriate now. And I think that the design should incorporate what I talked about earlier. We've got Chapel Hill stone walls.

We've got some existing fences that would be appropriate on this property and the one next door. And those should be the ones that we are promoting. Those should be the ones. I want to talk and so in specific terms, what I just talked about is really in 4.11-seven, and in 4.2, and in 4.4. Let me just mention, in passing, the parking issues.

We're looking now at trying to create space for officially eight parking slots. Now, if you think that that turnaround space is not gonna be used as a parking lot, a parking space, you're dreaming. I mean, we live here. We know what kinds of problems. This house has been cited on more than one occasion for front yard parking.

The town is fined, the current owners of this for that reason. We know what to expect from that standpoint. I'd like to spend a moment talking about let's see. And before I get past there so again, talking about the walls, I wanted to also mention sort of one point zero and especially one point one and one point and one point three, which addresses that issue. In 1.6, exterior lighting.

You know, it's pretty clear that we don't want spotlights, floodlights, the rest of it. I mean, it couldn't be more specific from that standpoint. It remains a problem in the historic district. We see it across the street at the Allen House. If you permit them to put motion detector lights and that sort of thing on that house, I guarantee you, our bedroom is on that side. We already have blackout curtains. And that's going to be the problem. If you put recessed lights underneath the porch, we can probably live with that. But if you put lighting on our side, we already have a problem with Granville Towers. I don't need to tell you those sorts of issues.

But I do want to specifically point that out, because I think that's a real concern. And they have talked about, and one of their examples was exterior motion detector spotlights. That's what I would call them. I think that's inappropriate. And again, that's under 1.6.

I do want to point out that, and I mentioned again, the existing house, that's cinder brick. The drawings actually suggest that they're clabbards and they're not. Okay? So I just want you to keep that in mind. This business of removing the porch in the back addition, you have to ask yourself, what's the point here?

And the point is that we're making that house small enough so that you can build a new house. So that we now have 2,000 square feet, I'll say roughly in the existing house, maybe a little bit more on the new house. I want you to think about the scale here. You saw those photos, the design schemes. Our house is 1,000 square feet.

These two houses will be four times that size. So, when you talk about context and height and scale, I think you should consider that when they're adding this whole new space, this whole new building, this is really throwing the scale, the context, off in a significant way. And I think as a result, this is a problem. Okay. I want to point out on the front of the house, the new house, those columns look to me to be craftsman style.

They shouldn't be craftsman style. That's sort of the 4.6. I noticed that the porch ceiling is metal, but the roof of the house is actually asphalt. I'm inclined to think that if you you know, it ought to be one or the other. That would be consistent, I think, with the other houses on Millet Street.

And that's in 4.3. I've also noticed that the clabberts in the new house and this is under 4.4. For some reason, at least on the drawing, the clabberts, once you get above the first floor, get wider. And it makes the house look hulking. It gives the impression that the upper portion is bigger than, in fact, it is.

And it's already pretty darn big. I also wanted to point out the fenestration. If you will take a look at the fenestration on the new house, it's pretty random. If you're gonna build a house that has some symmetry to it, and certainly our house and all the triple As are by definition symmetrical structures, it seems to me that you really wanna try at least to get the windows to look like they've been placed there with some kind of balance. That symmetry strikes me as is really important in the new building, and it's just not there.

I'm not sure what to tell you about the the lights on the the windows themselves. We have unusual windows in our house. We have eight over two. I don't know what they were thinking in 1880, but that's what they did. Most of the houses around us are six on six. But I think whatever the fenestration is in the end for both the existing and the new house, that deserves some attention. I don't think that there's sufficiently the plans do enough to try to make that work. So I wanted to leave you with that thought. And I think that's under 4.5. The collabridge is 4.4.

One last point, and maybe I can maybe you can help me, if you can show I'm me the looking for our elevation so that I can see those stairs on the back of the new house?

Let's see here. That's all right. That won't shut. So let me advance I think it's in just the plan further here. Well, I know I've got

a three d view that shows that as you proceed south. Yeah. So you can see that kind of bump out there. And you've got sort of the underpinnings. That should be better. We had the same problem when we were dealing with a house on the other side. And they wanted to expand the back. It's mean, push came Can

you speak into the mic?

Pardon me?

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry. Just, it looks like, it's an impertinent fixture, if you will. It looks to me like somebody tacked it on a beach house. And there's not a polite way to put that. It just ought to be better. If you look at the front staircase, it's sort of enclosed. There is some, I don't know, sense of the front that is successful. But I think the rear just doesn't work. And honestly, I don't know. I don't know whether there are safety standards that require rear exit.

But I think it would be better if actually stairs went the other direction. The height of the ground is higher. And it would be more consistent with what you see in other houses on the block. So that's the reason I think that there are serious incongruities here, if you will. And so I don't think it meets the standard according to law. And I think that they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's better. Thank you.

Do I have the opportunity to respond?

That's up to the pleasure of the commission.

Sure. You can respond. Then we have a couple of questions.

Okay. Very good. So the rear stairs. Yeah, you may be right about that. We could do something that offers a greater sense of enclosure.

It could be brick under those stairs, just like we have brick in the front that defines the bottom edge of the porch. And again, the goal for us is going to be to potentially eliminate three or four or five risers on both of those stairs. And I will say the stair at the back is not necessary from an egress standpoint. It's not. That is egress is provided by windows and the front door egress.

The muntins on the windows, I mean the way I think about muntins is that as time passed and more and more houses were built, they were able to make larger pieces of glass. And so Muntons became obsolete finally. But at the same time, there's a certain character that is offered by the muttons. And that's why I've shown them this way, that is with the detail of the muttons in the top sash and none in the bottom sash. And again, you can do that any number of ways.

And I didn't recognize that you had two sash or two muntin or a single muntin, I guess is a vertical one in the bottom of the sash, which is interesting that it's done that way. But there'd be any number of options on that, I think. I would say I don't feel like the fenestration is random when you consider what the street looks like. And there's a lot of variation on such things in the back of your house. You might say is random in the sense that it is symmetrical as it faces the street, but as you move to the back

of the house, it's not.

And I think that makes sense because the back of the house isn't as prominent. I will just say too, just as an aside, I used to be on a historic district commission. I I was a young architect. Just got registered. It was forty two years ago.

And I was in on a historic district commission in Endicott, New York. And they had just established this district in Endicott, New York, which is where a lot of people moved when they came from Ellis Island. And nobody in the district was happy about this. You can imagine and ultimately, I didn't last very long because I kind of agreed with some of their points of view about it and that they felt like their property rights were infringed upon. And I feel like in Chapel Hill, there's a really good establishment of what property rights are.

And it's as it's defined by the LUMO. And that's all I'll say about that. To say that the walls that we have on the site are inappropriate because they don't harken back to something earlier, you might as readily say that the house that's north of your house is inappropriate because it doesn't hearken back to your house or perhaps your house is inappropriate because it doesn't hearken back to the house across the street. And I think the charge that they have is they've got to consider how time passes and how culture changes. And that impacts the nature of architectural design across the board, just in historic districts.

And because of that, again, the house, the existing house on this property is considered non contributing. Well, I don't know that they ever come back and reconsider those things, but houses become considered to be of historic nature when they're 50 years old. And it wasn't when this was established, but it is now. And there aren't many ranch houses in this district, but there are some. The existing house, actually the square footage if you consider the house plus the garage, It has a garage, so there are two spaces of parking that are inside the garage, which is why we're only indicating there were two spaces that we're adding in front, really in an effort to organize where people park.

Because they they do park on the grass currently. And so the square footage of that house is about it's about 2,100 square feet when you count the garage that's part of that. The finished square footage is 1,600 and change. In the new house that we're proposing is 1,800 and change square feet. So it's less than 4,000 square feet in any case.

That is four times the size of your house. But yeah, the new house is somewhat larger when you talk about condition square footage than the existing house. And I didn't understand your point about the clabbards. But in any case, yeah, I've shown a four inch exposure clabbard on the 1st Floor and a six inch in the gables really just to offer some differentiation in terms of scale. But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. That is, it could all be four inch.

That's it.

I think it's our turn to ask questions.

Yes, I think this would be an appropriate time to ask questions.

So I think I've counted three different instances this evening where you have signaled openness to changes or a different point of view based on the information that was provided. I've seen you consulting with your clients. Do you want the opportunity to resubmit, continue this application, resubmit, taking into consideration what you've heard tonight before we before you put it to a vote? Do you want an opportunity to change anything?

I would say I don't. And the reason why is that I feel like we've met the onus of creating a new house that is adhering to the character of the district.

But but if you make if you make changes to what you applied to tonight, it would trigger you coming back for preapproval. Is that what you wanna do?

No. What I'd like you to do is approve it as it is.

But you're minimizing the opportunity for us to do that if you're communicating that you're gonna make changes after we approve, which I've heard you say three different times.

Okay. Well, I guess the reason I say that is I'm wondering. It's been established that that the neighbors have standing but and I understand that, you know, they they live next door and it is pertinent in that sense perhaps. But otherwise, if we've met the onus that it is appropriate, congruous, in harmony with the neighborhood, of course, that's up for you all to decide. And I kind of wonder if we hadn't had this whole discussion before this, how you would think about that.

I think that's immaterial because

Perhaps we it that

they had standing, so I'm not sure that's irrelevant.

Yeah. Well, perhaps it is irrelevant. But I'm just relating how I'm thinking about this. And also, I would say, I mean, to the extent that we could talk about this and make decisions that would be suitable

as

far as they were concerned and suitable as far as my clients are concerned.

So they're talking to staff. Do you want to just consult with them for a minute before we continue the conversation?

Please say your name before you keep going there. Thank you.

My name is Ramilo Calindris, and I'm the son of the homeowners. And Brian, I get your point completely. But I agree with Jay. Just to say, by the way, I went to Chapel Hill High, born and Brad Tar Heel, born in Memorial Hospital, three time student here. So I went to undergrad here at med school and School of Public Health.

So I'm a doctor, not a lawyer. So I can't give the great discourse that you did. But I would humbly say that the purview of this board is based on whether it's noncongruous or not. And I humbly would say that that has been met by what was presented. And I think that's why Jay is saying that he would like a vote based on the plan.

So you plan on making no changes to what Ben submitted tonight based on the conversation, just to be clear.

Correct. Got it. So I mean, and I understood, Brian, what you were saying, which is why I wanted to come up here to

Three times explain

when it was discussion, which I think is healthy, by But the if you choose not to make changes, we'll consider what you've submitted tonight.

Correct. Thank you.

Fair enough.

Okay. Questions.

I have a question.

Wait. Sorry. Schmike, are you good? Okay.

Yes, ma'am. Several times you said, well, we hope to do this grading. We expect to do this grading. But it appears that would make a pretty substantial difference in how the House sits. And it seems to me you would have to come back to us if you do any grading because your application is based on the way the ground is now and the heights from that.

And you're hoping to lower it, but you don't know for sure that you can. So I'm just wondering what's your if you can't grade, everything will just stay the same as you're submitting, right?

No. In fact, what we're doing is, what I've presented is that we will be grading. I've tried to be thoughtful about just how much we would do. That is the existing retaining wall that cuts across the property is being removed as part of this, which necessarily means we've got to deal with that grade. And we will be bringing the grade down.

And that that's what's shown in this view, for instance, is that it comes down probably two and a half feet. And if we could get it down to four feet or increase the grading to four feet, then we would definitely do that in order to make the house shorter. And my thought is that if we're making the house height less, that it does not make it incongruous if it was approved when it's higher?

Well, could.

It could?

There's two points here. One is you have a parking space in front. That's not a turnaround space, it's a parking space. It seems like without being able to lower the house like you hope you can, you wouldn't even be able to park there. Your car is going be

like And in fact, what I'm showing is a parking space. That's right here. That's what I'm indicating right here. And we would cut the grade be able to do that. And you're absolutely right. That's the most critical.

But the other point of taking the house up or down isn't necessarily the height of the house in relation to Mr. Stafford's house Stanford's house. Sorry. Stanford. Stanford. Sorry. It's been a long day for me. But its relationship to the back of the existing house of 308, you could end up with quite a substantial grade difference between the back of the existing house and the foundation of the new house. Is that going

to be a problem physically? Physically, well, no, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem physically. We would just have to ensure that we've got the proper drainage.

Yeah. I've been it's just it could be quite an unattractive position in terms of relationship with the two houses. So

Well, if I could, can I show So you it's we don't need to cut the grade nearly as much in this area as we do here? So I'm anticipating that to the extent we can bring the grade down further here, we could still cut it perhaps a little more here, but this is really gonna be the controlling factor in terms of where the floor is. So if we were to push it all the way down, you're right. It's gonna have to be cut more in this vicinity just to ensure we've got proper clearance above grade with the floor system.

I want to pause conversation for just a second because it's 09:00 and there's two additional pieces of new business that we're not going to get to tonight. So I think we should pause and let those that are not going to be heard tonight depart if they choose to. We also probably need to take a bathroom break because we've been at this for two and a half hours. So I would suggest we take a five minute bathroom break. And Kevin, keep me honest. And this is kind of what we agreed to at the beginning is that if there's new business we're not going to get to by 09:00, we're going to tell those folks it's to get to attend you to next week. So let's let those folks have a conversation if they need to, give us all a second to go to the bathroom, and come back in a few minutes.

Good? Kevin, you good with that?

Yes. So what I would suggest is we close, make a motion and a vote to close the evidentiary hearing. We'll take a Sorry,

I didn't mean to cut you off. I just procedurally if you still have things you want to say, we should absolutely hear you out. I just want to respect everybody else's time. Are you done?

I think I am done.

Bob, I don't think it matters because we're just going to close evidence you're hearing for five, And ten then we'll come back and have a motion to reopen it.

And this can be either before or after the recess. I suggest before, just to be respectful of the other folks' time this evening, is that we make a motion to continue the remaining cases to your April regular meeting date. I would also suggest that we give the applicants in those other two cases the opportunity to consent to that continuance rather than stick around.

So I'm to take a crack at that then. Okay, so I'm going to make a motion that we would continue 208 Glendon Drive and 209 North Boundary Street to our April HDC meeting, is?

Nineteenth, I think.

I think it was the fourteenth.

The fourteenth And of so those of you that are here for 208 Glendon and 209 North Boundary, do you consent to us continuing that to April? Hi, Sean.

Can I ask

a question? Sure.

First of all, will we bump to the beginning of that agenda?

That depends.

Good question.

Depends on what happens tonight.

Yeah. It depends

on Well, then I don't wanna consent if I'm not getting bumped to the front of the agenda.

It depends on what happens

tonight. With this, with the 308 West Cameron Avenue item, if they continue it, then that would be the first item as old business. And then then you're the order would be the same, and then you would be the first new business item.

So if the commission doesn't act on this, doesn't take a vote to approve this application tonight, they would continue it to the next meeting

So I

will talk about it stay and wait and see how they act on this before I consent to bumping to next month.

And Sean, you're 208, Glandon?

Correct.

Okay. So I'll retract that because it sounds like you want to stick around.

Well, I do because I don't want someone standing to come next month

Got it.

And sit here for two and a half hours and have this whole thing happen again and then get bumped All good. For another

trying to move us along. So I retract 208, Landon. So 209 North Boundary Street, would you consent to us continuing your application to next month, which would be April 14? Okay. Thank thank you. So I move that we continue 209 North Boundary Street to the April 14 agenda. I think I need a second and then we need to vote. If

you don't mind coming to speak into the mic.

Sorry.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Hoffman and our request is for the 209 North Boundary Project. And I would also agree that it'd be great to be in the same sequence on the agenda so that we would be second or third?

When staff creates the agenda, it is in the order of the application filed in time order. So the two zero eight Glandin submitted before yours, so they would be first on the agenda or they would be before you on the agenda and then your application. And then if we receive any other applications, they would be after you.

Okay. Thank you.

But it's the same thing. If this application gets continued, that would be on the old business. It would go first.

No, I understand that. So we would stay in the same sequence. Yes. Yes. So we don't lose our spot whether we're Correct. First, second, or

You're not going to get skipped.

Great. And I appreciate both of your patience. We're trying to navigate this as quickly as we can, but also follow the guidelines we've been given. So I apologize. It's taking us.

No problem. Thank you.

Sorry. One more comment. I mean, it does me no good to not consent now, I guess. Because whatever happens is going to happen with this application. So I'll just consent to it so we don't waste any more time of your time here tonight. And I do appreciate I spent five years with you all on that side of the table, so I know how difficult it is. But thank you.

You set a good example, Sean. Okay. So will go back to I'm going to make a motion that we move 208 Glandon Drive and 209 North Boundary Street to the April 14 agenda. We've heard from the applicants, they've agreed to that. Thank you both very much for being helpful. I make that motion. Will second it.

Okay. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed, zero, none. Okay. So we now need a motion to stop the evidentiary hearings. Or not stop. What's the right word?

Well, we could close the evidentiary Close

the And

then take a five or ten minute I don't know how folks plan to use the restroom, but a five or ten minute recess. Somebody

want to make a motion to close the evidentiary hearing?

Let's close the evidentiary hearing and be back in our seats at 09:11, which is five minutes.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. There you go.

Thank you. Okay. 09:11 ish. So we need a motion to, resume the evidentiary evidentiary hearing, please.

Make a motion that we resume the evidentiary hearing now. I second.

Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Right. So we were, as a board, asking questions to the applicant. Were there more questions? Are we ready to go to the public comment?

I have a couple of questions.

Okay, Josh. The

first question I have is this lattice wall that faces Millet Street. We understand that the wall comes back and extends to the back of the lot. It heads east. Is the wall that heads east also a lattice wall?