WASHINGTON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  Regular Scheduled Meeting Agenda Tuesday, October 6th, 2015  7:00 PM  I. H.  Opening of the meeting Invocation III. Roll call  IV. Old Business - Major Works  1. Ar request has been made by Ms. Sarah Heekin for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a four foot high aluminum ornamental fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 144 East Main Street.  V. Certificate of Appropriateness  A. Major Works  1. Arequest has been made by Mr. Tim Evans for a Certificate of Appropnateness to do the following at 120 Bridge Street:  a. b.  Add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and Add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage  storage building.  building and Rich Tattoo Building.  2. Ar request has been made by Mr. Richard Godley for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new porch and railings to the front of the house to match other houses in the district located at 323 North Bonner  Street. B. Minor' Works  1. Ar request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a tree in Bughouse Park, located on Charlotte Street. The tree was struck by lightning and was at risk of damaging historic 2. A request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 731 West Main Street (Mr. Richard Smoot) to replace the HVAC unit. No duct work will be altered.  homes adjacent to it on the street.  1    VI. Other Business  1. Design Guidelines - Fences 2. Recipients of the Terrell Award 3. Notice of Decision 315 West 2nd Street 4. Notice of Decision 319 West 2nd Street VII. Approval of Minutes = October 6th, 2015  VII. Adjourn  2    OLD  BUSINESS    144 East Main  Street  The Construction ofa  New Aluminum Fence in  the Rear Property Yard    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission 102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Street Address of Property: Historic Property/Name (ifa applicable): Owner's Name: Lot Size:  Please Use Black Ink  144 Fast Main Street  Sarah L. Heekin  51 (width)  feet by  146 (depth)  feet. .17 acres  List all properties within 1001 feet; on! both sides, int front (across the street), andt to the back of  property: (lfnecessary, attach a separate sheet) Brief Description of Work to be! Done:  the  Add at four foot! high aluminum omamental fence to enclose the rear yard.  See attached.  lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. ont the 15th oft the month prior by tot the the Iwisht to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed untilt the following! HPCI application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one meeting. year. An incomplete  Historic meeting  Office Use Only (Date Received) AÇTION Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Staff Withdrawn Approval (Date)  Sarah Heekin 206 E. Mulberry Street (Malling Address) 5/22/15 (Date)  (Initials) (Name of7 Appicant type or printy)  Goldsboro, NC (Zip Code) 919-735-252 (Daytime Phone Number)  27530  (Authorized Signature) (signature Sarak of A. Applicant) Hepkia  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application Works Certificate shall not relleve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from ofa! Minor other permit required by City code or anyl law. Minor work projects not approved staff willl obtaining be fowarded any  Minor Works Certificate of Appropriateness. Itis valid until tot the Historic Preservation Commission for review ati its next meeting.  Issuance becomes a  by  (Minor Work Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of vour authorized representative is regulred at the meeting the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application! is to be consldered. Youmust of written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf. aive    PROJECT CATEGORIES (check allt that apply):  This document does not constitute the issuance ofa Bullding Permit. Itis the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary permits before commencing work. Contact the Inspections Department: at  Exterior Aiteration New Construction SUPPORTING INFORMATION:  Addition Demolition  252-975-9304.  Attach 8-1/2"x1 11" sheets with written descriptions and drawings, photographs, and other graphici information necessary to completely describe thep project. Use the checklist below to be sure that your application is complete. INCOMPLETE, APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE/ ACCEPTED. (Leave the checkbox blanki ift thei item Written Description. Describe clearly and in detail the nature of your project. Include exact dimensions Plot Plan (if applicable). Al plot plan showing the relationship of buildings, additions, sidewalks, drives, trees, property lines, etc., must! be providedi ify your project includes any addition, demolition, fences, walls, or otherlandscape work. Show accurate measurements. Your may also use a copy oft the survey that your received wheny you! bought your property. Revise the copy as neededi to show existing  isnot applicable).  for materiais tol be used (je. Width of siding, window trim, etc.)  conditions and your proposed work. Description of Materlals (provide samplesi ifa appropriate). Photographs of existing conditions.  Drawings showing proposed work. Include one set off full size drawings when available.  Plan drawings.  Elevation drawings showing ther newi façade(s). Dimenslons shown on drawings,  8-12"x11", reductions of full-size drawings. freduced sizei is so small as tol be llegible, make 8-1/2"x11" snapshots ofi individual drawings ont the bigsheet. Photocopy reductions may! be obtained from ai number of blueprinting and photocopying businesses. State or Federal Tax Credita/Funds or CAMAI Permits. Ify you are applying for any oft these programs, Black Ink. Your application must be prepared in blacki ink on 8-1/2"x1 11" sheets so that ito can! be copied for commission members. Applications prepared in blue, red, or other colored inks andlor pencil copy  your musti include a copy of your letter or permit from the State.  poorly and will not be accepted.  (Office Use Only) Section (page)Topic Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences & Walls  Brief Description of Work Addr new fence    sms  BenAriPiSpery Priukis  Beaufort County Property Photos  PIN: 01030198  Photo: 91930198.pg  Copyright 2015 by Mobie311,LA  atiassilamiatrneN  IH    E55  BSTRXMFAKaeT  CONNECIGIS  Mhwit Meyl, Anrari SAS Sys Ski Dicver  Nitb NOSRND  Faersi 6p property Land Owners a Annatation iterier Tracti Lines Gerderline FARy Une D County Une (sid, State  127951  A  PAPMAAmIA    5272015 OBJECTID 6839 GPINLONG 5675-87-9810 MAILINGADDRESS 144 EAST MAIN: STREET STATE NC ACRES 0 NBRI BLDG 2 LANDVAL 44676 TOT VAL 210328 SUBCDE SALE PRICE 217000 DISTRICT - EXEMPT AMI SOFT 3977 EFFYR 1975 FLOOD PLAIN  ComesdsFesareReput  PIN 01030198 OWNFR NAME HEEKIN SARAHLLEWELIYN MAILING, ADPRESS2 ZP 27889 ACCT_NBR 920970 DATE 11/21/2014 BLDGVAL 165652 NBHDCDE BIHR SUBI DESC ZONE B1H PROP DESC 1LOT 144 EASTI MAIN STREET ROAD TYPE P NBRBED 3 EXEMPT PROP NBR STORIES 3  GPIN 5675-87-9810 OWNERI NAME2 CITY WASHINGTON PROPERIYADDRESS 144EMAINS ST MAP SHEET 567508 DEEP BOOK and PAGE 1859/0202 DEFR VAL 0 NBHD DESC B1 HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL STAMPS 434 LANDUSE MBL 567508225 YR BUILT 1918 NBRI BATHS 2 CENSUS BLOCK NBR HALF BATHS 0  Beufort County onine mapa access is provideda asa publics service, asi, asa available andy withouty warranties, expressed ori implied. Content published ont thisy websitel - ori informational purposes only andis notis intendedt to constitute legal record nors shouldit itbes substituted fort the acvice or seryices ofi industry professionals. Thel ounty ofSesuforta andtheV Website Providero disclaime allr responsiblity andi legalk labilty! fort thec content publishedo ont thisw website. Thet user agreest thatB Beaufort County  andits Assigns shalb beh heldharmlessf froma allactions, claims. damages or Judgments arisings out ofthe use ofCounty data.  Hplbeaiorlcorredtysem.DowrioedFleasik/_e  2/2        Proposal POBOXG 6843 Grarwille NC27836 PHONE:282) 767-1286 FA252)7 767-3395 Phone 252-943-1010 polane Omamentall Fence jobusation Numb  Seegars Fence Company of Greenville  BK, GVL 19249 DE 3//2015 JobFhone  Propor smniidia Andreal Heekin Attontion: Andreal Heekn Stse 1445 East Mans Street C , atapcois Washington NC 27889  4 High Afuminum Omamental Fanoe: (11)4'h high Old Ralelgh panels (8)2-x2* fneg post (4)2"x2" end post (4)212x21 1/2" endg gatep post (2)4'single gatev wistanderdi hardware Totall Installed: $1,967.00 Note: 1.Seee ettached) layouto drewing  Tof fumish andi Instal approximately 57 of4'highy white alummum omamontal fence ast pert these pecifications:  2. One end postt tot ber mounted to exiatingy wood rall post and (2) gate postt tob bec core drilled Pylos lecludeN NC. Sades Ta Ms subrting *isp proporal  aued thei henlenou undaclying ROGKO or ponerteons thes prpary Mhicnu moeriles ohher urusuto conftions nwoling eds that ctionafl thi anoe and hrtthe lanoer rohe dway wifhen rekad! bythna onr arganeic  nd prparly, has owe  endrady the lanoe mny markal Tahal he atomeawos. eo ass stated above Paymntibben madmibois.  condtione an encounlerad. oranya addlon are chengee a madel by the addldonat dhepaes w oer! wokane dhe hconds anys ud , nee, an avoba avtodtont 125 h dhargapermon. Bhovdana scoountnot  Aw  and  customa,  50% depoeit belance dues within 100 deys ofoompistion  Authorad Signana PrintedName Mike Smith Mola hlep Signaune Signslure  -  Acoeptmnce d Propoml- The ebove prioes, speciicatlons and candtions ses slefaciery and anh hereby mophd' Yous a authorizad todothes work a apeclled. Paymenty wall bar madess outined mbove,  Date ofAceaptano  3-17-19    Siese 1843 SEEGARS PENCE DOMPANY Demand ihe Basi  Omamental Fencing  Options  Ths wrd arankiit" siagwats alisdtiverisas andt BagAnse. AIS Ssegars",  rasegnias fhwt nAny Gsioners 6hocss Shinhun SiASifiertal fenting bSSAuAs dhias ably 6s aniess 4 pispary/s sopeeaEs hdes Srdig arisvigushess aise d SGuy, Wiethsr vou *tht 19 ados a shinge diciesas aroundy yur astate, a GGhonad Bras 1r6 deGatva isASsGApa  86 sygt eatshing berier ferap posi, SA AGN CSMSRR Gé8 isthep pefost aketnote. Fhe Sesgsis Frivate Label SOMENORON othemesiel suntruni fanGes peys 6agat at thet nSRaRerd Beauty d metal wyoI GuE! the speriss e fnaintanaficer FRguReSG 6f6 Gthsrt traconsit GontainekS syins., Ads fangs ais Séegais Privatet tabe Gransnis! uihum lances Syst ane EEls ars Malaslet 16 SRS your dydue Rese WharE Fore, adtanai Gistoniretiani is ao66implanss ws sadng fais, fngi SCHSS 4a4 Hhisis. Sast BA Seegis Prvatst Label Sthaeitarl aitkmn feneas are maintananG6- 158 aee Garly a mled Detensy Wiaiaity Thiough Gur paresings WAib UsA Akrinum Manufaatising, WG BeseEN ts yos tha Sasgars Privats Lahet Eoéctb TMsist the fnest Gitismentel SPUMTNN 1668 systen Avaabe, Gebinng war ny years 66 aiperassain thet ferice manvfachreg aadi isislatont businass ws #rd shis top pitNidse Gu GVEmars wthas swynge fhatw wils MU unmatched ing qushtys andi AVICE Gw atat afa epatg profossicais GaA heips yout fedt ther figne GAparanGs syee of SAsgurs Privstsl Lab8i amws surinunt tsnes whisk kespingy vour dischminetagt taslds. aNd budgtin MiAd. Cetiel prs # eS smnyaypvifoviniaket fs faguests A5RA 46 aah haveg a66 afementsl utin fenes  ifilellede on b propsytday!  CERD   mmmm  MTTTTTT OlBaleigh  nn TTTV Chesapeake  Blue fidge  Low GGURIRY  Lockeble L6N  IFIT BAHRBE PostCap Optiana  1 vany 1h Einbassy  Haltelas Ball Post Cap Stamoardi Post Cap  Mayens PefIN  wwws Sengersfunce.com, 1-088 SEEGARS 1-88A-71.4271  Demand tis Besi    Seegars Fence Company Ornamental Fence Warranty Seegers Fenced Companyg guaraneesi ilsy wakmarship 1009. Wan stallaltencesloialk lindustrys standaide Seeliwforhes spsciicp podiciwamanty  ufleradly fhemerulechrer. Uira Aluminem Pradsct! Limied Wetine Wamaty  UtraA Aluminumi products reg guaranteedk lorli lifeagaiest aryd lefectsin worsiamshpandor: malerials. Thep powderc coatf eisho onali fancingby Vitra Alminumisu uncondilionallys guaartsed forl lifes agahstracking. peelingorchipolng Fthep produt houldt naccordances Mitha anyofthas sbovecouditions tet menufacturer, UllraA Aluminom, yusartessiphasemantatw rentwal ihe parts, proiding ep parchmer harregisteredt thep pxchase withnt thiryp3nd dayadfraceipt dimetarial. Noticeol matlvewibenamtioue Sheuldt thet ences bei installed, VE wile motber respontblet for guaranteed; perfommancer mpperranceofthen matenel Neitherd doesth thisg guaran damege duete impropers weGn mapkcation, abusso or misuses, EMtrRBE eimmentald conditionsor oractsofGd. Utrar Nvea1 her ight lorquest her retume ofthet tense, tansparttione chargas prepeid. fort thep puposee Inspesting then meterialodaterminet the eclaimbyl Uitra, replacemanty wiliber madet tromth thef factorya onlys forn malerial whichvllber relumedlwthet factonyir inHowell, Mi, trans- iabllityi discharpede uponde deliveye efmaleriaitather sita Manulecturery wilrctbereparaibieters reingtallation Manuferturerismat  Miting together withg proofo ofp porchan andw wills specily the neture  and  Meterial musta olber fora accidentalt consequentisl danages. Thea abovet constitutes! then complelev warranty: bythes manifacheer andmn other  fectoryv withouty priora avthorization' from Uiua.  writencrin implied, iavelid Thsguarantepianalt trensferabis.    w2S  goersbaro pnemental 11159f (M)    S70IS  fmtnamesa sy (840-450)  FAFHEE T IENS, :        0  City  CITY OF WASHINGTON  Washington  o*T CAPOTINA DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT 01 HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness-144 East Main Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted ini the Washington Historic District all property owners within 100 feet oft the proposed construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington. According to the application submitted by the City of Washington, your propetyi is located within 100 feet oft the above referenced property.  Ar request has been made by the owner to construct a new aluminum fence int the  rear yard property located at 144 East Main Street.  You are welcomed and encouraged to attend the reularly scheduled meeting of the Washington  Historic Commission. Please note the following date, time, and place:  Date: Tuesday October 6, 2015  Place: City Hall- Municipal building, 102 East Second Street. Enter from the Market  Street side oft the building and goi to the second floor.  Time: 7:00 PM  Int the meantime, should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  miy Rebert Emily Rebert Community Development Planner Historic Preservation rebert@washnstonegew 252.946.0897    Adiacent Property Owners 144 East Main Street  Benjamin Clark 116 N. Bonner Street Washington, NC 27889 Richard Gertz HI 164 East Main Street Washington, NC 27889 Elmo T. Carawan 114 North Bonner Street Washington, NC27889 Dr. Richard' Young 142 East Main Street Washington, NC: 27889 Marthal Matthews 140 East Main Street Washington, NC 27889 Vickie Dotson 6201 Duck Creek Road Washington, NC 27889 Robin B. Turner 145 East Main Street Washington, NC: 27889 City ofWashington POI Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION  To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Emily Rebert, Planning & Development Re: 144 East Main Street- Construction of ai fence  A request has been made by Ms. Sarah Heekin) for a Certificate of Appropriateness to adda four foot high aluminum ornamental, fence to enclose the rear property yard located at1 144 East Main. Street. Please review the Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter4.0stretscape and To grant such a request, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings of fact, which are included in the sample motions below. Anyconditions the Commission feels  Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.  appropriate mayl be attached to the motion.  Possible Actions  move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Sarah Heekin to add at four foot high aluminum ornamental fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 144 East Main Street. This motion is based on the following findings off fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls.  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Sarah Heekin to add ai four foot high aluminum ornamental fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 144 East Main Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and' Walls. 11 further move that the Historic Preservation Commission place thet following conditions on the approval:  Or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness' to Ms. Sarah Heekin to add at four foot high aluminum ornamental fence to enclose the rear property yard located at 144 East Main! Street. This motion is based on thei following findings oft fact: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walis.    MAJOR  WORK    120 Bridge Street  Street  The Addition of Fencing  on the Property to Divide  Commercial Space from  Residential Space    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Street Address of Property: Historic Property/Name (if applicable):  Please Use Black Ink  120E Bridge Street  (Dairy Palace)  Owner's Name: Lot Size:  Tim Evans  130 (width)  feet by  70 (depth)  feet.  .21 acres  List all properties within 100 feet; on both sides, in front (across the street), and to the back of the  property: (Ifr necessary, attach a separate sheet) Brief Description of Work to be Done:  1. Add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and storage building. 2. Add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage building & Rich Tattoo Building. The purpose is to prevent customers from crossing property line onto the adjaçent property.  understand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by the Historic Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 15th of the month prior to the lwish to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incomplete meeting application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  Office Use Only (Date Received) Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval  Tim Evans (Name ofApplicant -type or print) 120 Bridge Street Mailing Address) 9/9/15 (Date) Zin Euaus (Signature of Applicant)  (Initials)  ACTION  Washington, NC 252-947-2161 (Daytime Phone  27889  (ZipCode) Number)  (Date)  (Authorized Signature)  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes a Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded any  Minor Works Certificate of Appropriateness. Iti is valid until  Issuance of a Minor  to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    PROJECT CATEGORIES (check all that apply):  This document does not constitute the issuance ofa Building Permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary permits before commencing work. Contact the Inspections Department at  Exterior Alteration New Construction SUPPORTING INFORMATION:  Addition Demolition  252-975-9304.  Attach 8-1/2'x11'sheets with written descriptions and drawings, photographs, and other graphic information necessary to completely describe the project. Use the checklist below to be sure that your application is complete. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. (Leave the checkbox blank if the item Written Description. Describe clearly and in detail the nature of your project. Include exact dimensions Plot Plan (if applicable). A plot plan showing the relationship of buildings, additions, sidewalks, drives, trees, property lines, etc., must be provided if your project includes any addition, demolition, fences, walls, or otherlandscape work. Show accurate measurements. Your may also use a copy oft the survey that you received when you bought your property. Revise the copy as needed to show existing  isnot applicable).  for materials tol be used (ie. Width of siding, window trim, etc.)  conditions and your proposed work. Photographs of existing conditions.  Description of Materials (provide samples if appropriate).  Drawings showing proposed work. Include one set ofi full size drawings when available.  Plan drawings.  Elevation drawings showing the new façade(s). Dimensions shown on drawings.  8-12" x 11" reductions of full-size drawings. If reduced size is so small as to be illegible, make 8-1/2" x 11" snapshots of individual drawings on the bigsheet. Photocopy reductions may be obtained from a number of blueprinting and photocopying businesses.  State or Federal Tax Credits/Funds or CAMA Permits. If you are applying for any of these programs, Black Ink. Your application must be prepared in black ink on 8-1/2"x1 11"sheets so that it can be copied for commission members. Applications prepared in blue, red, or other colored inks and/or pencil copy  you must include a copy of your letter or permit from the State.  poorly and will not be accepted.  (Office Use Only) Section (page)/Topic  Brief Description of Work Add new fences  Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences and Walls    fwktan! easApNls 7 M iBe gae  CONNECIGIS 55/9160515 9615689334  parcels  59029 2396290  preperty tani SE den Anar TAGLISES Canterises Sounytine D Coantytine (solicly Stase  667309230  GSDEN  3506200 5575:5911291)  BBDGCOE2N  00755997 7003  5675669  3Fel    GEVESTED 6578 SLLoNa 35756154 MALISASBFESS 35 AS 4E4S se STATS NE ACBES @ NSRSLDS 3 LANDVAL 96043 TOTVAL 78062 SUS.CDE SALEPRICE DISTRIST 1 EKEMPT AMI SOFT 856 EFEYR 1976 FLOODPLAIN  FINE 13026537 OMMERNAME EVAES 94644 RALISADDRES: ze 27834 ACCINER 697139 DATE 01/28/2010 SLDGVAL 32619 NEHDCDE H SUBDESC ZOME RG BROP DESS ROADTYPE E NBR. BED a EXEMPT PROP MEPSTORIES  GFIN 5473-63-6152 CMMERLIAMES EVANS DARLERES gIy ORENVLLE PROPEFTLADDRES NE BADOE $T MAF SHEET 567900 DEEDBOOK snd PAGE 1716/0541 DEFRLVAL a NEHDPESC STORICAL STAMPS LAMDSE MEe MRSUILI 1976 NER BATHS 0 CENSUSSLOCK MSEHALESATHE  SAPNEEESSAE 44560 dps S ASNS RS es 8NA3  LOT 2129A AC MMOTMV MEVANS 567500149  Gus  593 G  pr  E   $ aS  5$ n M et f5 s 1: f5s endes  GNSe Fgal 6497 IRS CHS  P Fbuches * $45 N W4* MEL ARAESS shas Beaéak Ceue  SAL SR e she Pisite Egu saees dgare 4M3 adiegw asay oe 656644 uEA 63 93 HG F4 PAPVFIGcN: Te  A7 e   SeS -    bla DAIRY PALACE êbRa    u  4  0  @  w  V  FN y    Adjacent Property Owners - 120 North Bridge Street  Tri-Star Aviation 122 Catnip Point Road Bath, NC 27808 Sonny Swanner 731 West 2nd Street Washington, Nc 27889 City ofWashington PO Box 1988 Washington, NC 27889 Elizabeth Davis 509 West 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889 Preston Turner PO Box 1196 Washington, NC 27889 Rae D. Cochran 511 West 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889    WASHINGION HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  September 28, 2015 Subject:  Certificate of Appropnateness - 120 North Bridge Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted in the Washington Historic District, all property owners within 100 feet of the proposed construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington. According to the application submitted by Mr. Tim Evans your property is located within 100 feet of the above subject property. A request has been made by Mr. Evans for a Certificate of Appropriateness to 1.) add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and storage building and 2.) add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage building & Rich Tattoo Building  along the rear property line located at 120 North Bridge Street.  You are welcome and encouraged to attend the regular scheduled meeting of the Washington Historic Commission. Please note the following date,  time, and place: Date: Place:  Tuesday, October 6, 2015  City Hall - Municipal Building, 102 East Second Street. Enter from the Market Street side of the building and go to  the second floor. 7:00 P.M.  Time:  During the meantime, should you have any questions, please direct your inquiries to Mr. John Rodman, Planning and Development by phoning 975-9384 during normal working hours Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.  Sincerely,  Johue Rodman John Rodman Planning and Development    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION  To: From: Re:  Historic Preservation Commission John Rodman, Planning and Development 120 North Bridge Street - Construction of fence  Ar request has been made by Mr. Tim Evans for a Certificate of Appropriateness to 1.) add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and storage building and 2.) add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage building & Rich Tattoo Building along the rear property line located at 120 North Bridge Street. Please review the Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0 To grant such a request, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings of fact, which are included in the sample motions below. Any conditions the  Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences & Walls.  Commission feels appropriate may be attached to the motion.  Possible Actions  move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Tim Evans to 1.) add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and storage building and 2.) add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage building & Rich Tattoo Building along the rear property line located at 120 North Bridge Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site  Design Section 4.6 Fences & Walls.  or  r move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Tim Evans to 1.) add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and storage building and 2.) add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage building & Rich Tattoo Building along the rear property line located at 120 North Bridge Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4.0 Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fences & Walls. 1 further move that the Historic Preservation  Commission place thet following conditions on the approval:  or  r move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Tim Evans to 1.) add six feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between bathroom and storage building and 2.) add fourteen feet of six feet high wooden picket fence between storage building & Rich Tattoo Building along the rear property line located at 120 North Bridge Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically 4.0 Streetscape and Site  Design Section 4.6 Fences & Walls.    323North Bonner  Street  The Construction ofa  New Porch onto the  Front Façade  ofthe Structure    APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  Historic Preservation Commission Washington, NC  To: Washington Historic Preservation Commission  102 East 2nd Street Washington, NC 27889  Please use Black Ink  Street Address of Property: 323 nouH RoneR St.  Historic Property/Name (if applicable):  Owner's Name: RiCHARd DwAye GodlEy  Lot Size:  feet by  feet.  (width)  (depth)  Brief Description of Work to be Done:  Aro0u1d Like To AN A  porcH To  THE FRoT Of my toose, Thslamgp oFThe  is 11sst The Wwidth is 6 The BekTH,  PAREH  "Oimkg7his house woillhave SAFTEY RAiling henhms lo Thig FRoML dooR Bath Sides. RAiline ShalL A1go be ARoond lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness that require review by the Hsofny Preservation Commission must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 15th of the month prior toi the meeting lwish to attend; otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPC meeting. An incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstand approved requests are valid for one year.  PORCH Fag SAFETY ALSQ,  Thmk you Very MvCH! RgnADWAL  Office Use Only (Date Received) Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval  RICHARIDoMAe GOLEL (Name of Applicant-type or print) 323 AogH_Bennep St27889  (Initials)  ACTION  (Mailing Address) 9-28-2015 (Date) Richanl (Signature of  (ZipCode)  623-7764 (Daytime Phone Number)  (Date)  (Authorized Signature)  DRp Hally  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomesa Works Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or any law. Minor work projects not approved by staff will be fowarded  Minor' Works Certifiçate of Appropriateness. Iti is valid until  Issuance of a Minor  to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at its next meeting.  (Minor Work. Auth. Sig.)  (Date)  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the application is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the hearing on your behalf.    Beaufort County Property Photos  PIN: 01005954  Photo: 01005954.jpg  Copyright 2015 by Mobile311,LLC    CONNECIGIS w2B MOING 368966 983840 724  sadent Ssoresbar ferea 30 as s etest Catgeinner  Parcels  ems  roperty band Owners GPN Interior Tract Lines Centeriines Scunyuire D County lune (Solid) State  3675-98:6727  5673-:6704  9675:987755  3675:95,660  7590H5600  5675555575 125Feet    BSCTR 7228 GRINLONS 5575-98-6704 AUNGAPPRISS 2SBLATHAMDAME STATE NC ACRES o NSRSIDG LANDVAL 15400 IOTVAL 54111 SURCDE SALEPRICE DISTRIST EXEMET AMI S21 3592 EYB 1563 F1922.PLARN  2W 01005654 RUNERNAME GODIEYARGHARDPHANE AINGARPBESSZ ZIP 27889 ACCLNBE 854509 RATE 06/24/2015 BLDGVAL 45711 MHRSPE M SUBPESS ZONE RHD PROP_PESC 1LOTS 323 BONNERST BOAPIYPE P NERBED 2 EXEMPTPROP NBRSTORIES 3.  GAN 5675-98-6744 OWNERNAME2 SIX WASHINGTON PRQPERD APPRESS 323 SONVER: 5T MAPSHEET 567508 PEEDSOOKand PAGE 1579/0705 PEFRVAL a NEHDE DESS STORAL STAMES WANDUSE MB 567508119 YRSVIAT 1315 NBRSATHS 1 CENSUSSLOCK MEEHALESATHS 3  sf1 Er Pvys ssla9 MAR  : Sriss BSA ASMIECVRe # $549 4519 E4 witss APGGSES GgsEReSs BEN Amgise SeNPR! Bablhed gn G* bEsGs sg aysigne! PpSI erly E MSS iseded $96 Gsskre pteg sEssi nes shedis Des spisesesisrt shp agise prs SepeS e MNEZEIeINE 2 aysf5sRSES she wihg Psdercstirs: siseaysnsbirs 8708 sg AESgSee EOARS auelice on fist Metsnn ee 03 sgceschgs EofHCAAN  Aapwyt fips ssiong SENgE GeSS9 MS5sess3 Risinss GSS Eise PCEN        -  b  FFeNTPAIL+-RaRd    0  City,  CITY OF WASHINGTON  Washington  NOKTI CAPOLINA DOWNTOWN DEVBLOPMENT 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness-323 North Bonner Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted ini the Washington Historic District all property owners within 100 feet of the proposed construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington. According to the application submitted by the City of Washington, your propetyi is located within 100 feet oft the above referenced property.  AI request has been made by the owner to construct a new porch ontothe front  façade of the structure located at 323 North Bonner Street.  You are welcomed and encouraged to attend the reularly scheduled meeting oft the Washington  Historic Commission. Please note the following date, time, and place:  Date: Tuesday October 6, 2015  Place: City Hall- Municipal building, 102 East Second Street. Enter from the Market  Street side of the building and go to the: second floor.  Time:7:00 PM  Int the meantime, should youl have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  Omil ORebert Emily Rebert Community Development Planner Historic Preservation relerewashnstonneaw 252.946.0897    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION/ ACTION  To: From: Re:  Historic Preservation Commission John Rodman, Planning and Development 323 North Bonner Street - add front porch & railings  A request has been made by Mr. Richard Dewayne Godley for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a 6' X 11' front porch & railings to the front of the house to match other houses in the district. The structure is located at 323 North Bonner Street. Please review the Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.0 Changes to To grant such a request, the Historic Preservation Commission must make findings of fact, which are included in the sample motions below. Any conditions the  Existing Buildings Section 3.6 Porches and Entryways.  Commission feels appropriate may be attached to the motion.  Possible Actions  r move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Richard Dewayne Godley to add a 6' x 11' front porch & railings to the front of the house to match other houses in the district. The structure is located at 323 North Bonner Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.0 Changes to Existing  Buildings Section 3.6 Porches and Entryways.  or  n move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Richard Dewayne Godley to add a 6'x 11' front porch & railings to the front of the house to match other houses in the district. The structure is located at 323 North Bonner Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.0 Changes to Existing Buildings Section 3.6 Porches and Entryways. I further move that the Historic Preservation Commission place the following conditions on the approval:  or  move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Richard Dewayne Godley to add a 6' X 11' front porch & railings to the front of the house to match other houses in the district. The structure is located at 323 North Bonner Street. This motion is based on the following findings of fact: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.0 Changes to Existing Buildings Section  3.6 Porches and Entryways.    MINOR  WORKS    September Minor Works Presented in October  26-Aug City of Washington Bughouse Park  Oct-15 Tree removal Oct-15 Replace HVAC unit  27-Aug Richard Smoot  731 W Main ST    OTHER  BUSINESS    Design Guidelines  FENCES    4.6 Fences and Walls  Many different types of fencing and walls can be found in the historic district including low masonry walls, wooden picket and privacy fences, and wrought iron fences and gates. Inr residential areas, fences and walls were used historically to enclose yard areas and define property lines. In commercial areas, fences and walls can be used to screen service areas and parking lots. Fences are prominent landscape features and should be constructed in a manner and design that is sensitive to the character of the historic structure and district. The introduction of new fences and walls should be handled with concern for design, materials, height, details, color and placement. The applicant requesting permission toe erect a fence or wall shall submit a site plan locating the fence or wall configuration and a scaled elevation drawing. The applicant shall also be present at the HPC meeting so they will be available for questioning by the Commission, neighbors, or members of the audience. A photograph from the public right of way is required for any proposed fencing. All fences and walls shall be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission  Fence and Wall Guidelines 4.6.1 Retain and preserve historic fences and walls whenever possible including gates, hardware, cast or wrought iron details, ornamental  pickets, etc.  as Major Works.  4.6.2 Wood,  brick,  stone, block, black  decorative ornamental  aluminum or iron, and    equivalent materials of appropriate fencing materials in the Historic District. Wlelded- A/ire, Vinyl, and chain link, post and rope or chain fences are not 4.6.3 Deteriorated fence and wall elements should be replaced. -ore-tAaP-60%, deteriorated OF-destroyed, fence and wall elements ouse-paseasedng to-Pew-gudelines. New elements should matchthe eriginal in-material, texture, 4.6.4 Repairs to existing chain link fences may be allowed up to 50% of a fence run (area between right angles). If50% or greater of any linear feet of chain link fence run is requires repair, the entire chain link fence that fence run shall be removed and it replaçed, shall be with a new fence made of material other than chain link and consistent with these guidelines. 4.6.5 Fences and walls should be properly maintained according to guidelines for masonry, wood, and metal. 4.6.6 New fences and walls in the front facade should be of a design that is appropriate to the architectural style and period of the historic structure. 4.6.7 Front yard wooden fences and wooden fences erected  adjacent to a main street or a side street should be of an open design, such as picket and no greater than four (4) feet in height and painted or stained white. prohibited to use solid privacy fences in front yards. Split rail, basket weave, lattice and shadowbox are also prohibited.  authentic  design  are  It is  allowed.  repaired  rather  than  and-design.  damaged  or otherwise  4.6.8 Privacy fencing shall only be allowed in the rear yard. If a majority of a privacy fence is visible from the public right-of- way, a landscape buffer shall be included. No fence, including a privacy fence, shall exceed six(6) five (5) feet in height. If a wood privacy fence is selected, it should be of a shadowbox style or any style illustrated in figure 4.1. the spaces -SaE-houNe no-ess-thanononef4-nch,    4.6.11 4.6.10 Iti is inappropriate to construct walls and fences on the waterfront that obstruct views and vistas from the historic district or from the water. No-Prvasy-fence-that EBRyBBRN9N shal-be-allowed-n-the-side-er rear-yards-et-property-ecated sOuth-OMan-Street: Areas south of Main Street, which have water views and vistas from the historic district or from the water, shall not be allowed to block a view by constructing a privacy fence that exceeds four (4) feet in height in the side or  4,6.9 A rear yard privacy fence shall place the framing for the fence to the inside facing the owner's property. The outside and-inside of all wooden rear yard privacy fences shall should be finished using an opaque stain or paint. # painted, the-coler-shall-be ompabe-h-e-divdre. painted white- oF stained whe-oropaque-No privacy fence can extend beyond the rear corner of the house. (figure 4.2) 6A0-AF-RewIy-cOnsinucled-wooden ences-Wich-are-are-paralel-to-a ndrorateean be-finished-using an-opaque stain-OF-painted: Ifpainted, P-aerena-e-analse A-R-Gnae-mEse painted white OF stained white. Both-sides ofthe encewlpepaintes:  rearyard.  4.6.12 4.6.11 The use of  plant  screenings, in the form of hedgerows and landscaping, is encouraged as an alternative to fences and walls. Any such plantings shall comply with the height and location standards of these guidelines.  4.6.13 4.6.12 Fences and walls should be used to screen receptacles, and parking lots in the commercial areas. Fences should follow the  service  areas,  refuse    same guidelines as in the residential areas. In the screening of smaller commercial utility areas, refuse receptacles, and such, shadow box fencing and/or brick walls shall be preferred materials, and shall not exceed 3" in height above said utility. In other respects these screenings shall adhere to guidelines as in residential areas. Parking lot walls shall be of brick, not to exceed 3 feet in height. Large dumpsters shall be surrounded on ALL sides by commercial grade vinyl or wood fencing, dark in color, and shall be no taller than 3" above the  4.6.15 4.6.14 Retaining walls, when visible from a public right-of- way, must be constructed of brick or stone. Landscape timbers and railroad ties may be used when they are not visible from the public right-  of-way.  4.6.16 4.6.15 When shielding residential utilities, areas shall follow the existing guidelines for fences and walls, and shall not exceed 3" above the height of the  the  same  historic  utility.  dumpsters  4.6.14 4.6.13 Masonry walls that were historically unpainted should not be painted. Repainting previously painted masonry walls is permitted.    Side Street  Side Yard (Primary)  (Tertiary) Rear Yard (Primary) When Water Front)  Front Yard (Primary)  Side Yard (Secondary)  Typical Yard Layout (figure 4.2)    REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION  To: From: Re:  Historic Preservation Commission John Rodman, Planning and Development  Fence Design Guidelines  A request has been made by the HPC Fence Committee to review and update Chapter 4 Streetscape and Site Design Section 4.6 Fence and Walls. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the recommendations from the Committee, revisions were made and a final draft submitted for final review and  action by the City Council. Possible Actions  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant approval of the final revision of the Fence Design Guidelines and recommend that the updated guidelines be sent  to City Council for final approval.  or  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission not grant approval of the final revision of the Fence Design Guidelines and recommend that the updated guidelines  not be sent to City Council fori final approval.    Recipients of the  Terrell Award    Notice ofDecision  315 West 2nd Street    CU  City,  Washington VORTH - APGLISA  DOWNTOWN  COPY  DEVELOPMENT o HISTORIC PRESERVATION  September 21, 2015  Mr. Pat Griffin 414 Lodge Road Washington, NC 27889  RE: Denial - Certificates of Appropriateness 315-317 and 319 West 2nd Street  Dear Mr. Griffin:  The Washington Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted on September 1, 2015, to deny your request for Certificates of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade oft the structures located at 315-317 and 319 West 2nd Street. Thedenial was based on thei fact that the application was incongruous with Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Chapter 3.0 Changes to Existing Buildings Section 3.1  Exterior Walls, Section 3.2 Materials and Section 3.4 Windows and Doors.  Inc order for an application to be reconsidered for a certificate of appropriateness, which has been previously denied, an applicant is allowed to present evidence in support of thet facts or conditions that there has been a substantial change in the application to warrant a reconsideration of the application. The Historic Preservation Commission stated that the petemastonofrnewthbomatn byi the applicantt to the Commission would represent a substantial change of circumstance and your request fora Certificate of Appropriateness would be allowed to be heard again. This would require a new application. Ihave included your Notice of Decision and a copy of the summary minutes concerning the applications. These items are not official until approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Ify you have any questions or I may further assist you in any way please don't hesitate to let me  know. Sincerely,  4R0 John Rodman  Community and Cultural Services  Cc: Ms. Emily Rebert, Preservation Planner  P.O. Box 1988 0 Washington, N.C. 27889 D (252)975-9383    0  City  Washington 097 34P:1 Historic Preservation Commission City ofWashington  DECISION DENYING REQUEST BY BAGWELL REALTY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES NOTICE OF DECISION: 315-317 West 2nd Street  The Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Washington held a public hearing on September 1, 2015 to consider the application by Mr. Pat Griffin, representing Bagwell Realty, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure  located at 315-317West 2nd Street. Application Received: Board Members Present:  08-18-15  Mr. Ed Hodges, Chairman, Mr. Seth Shoneman, Ms. Judi Ms. Monica Farrari, Ms. Geri McKinley, Ms. Stacey Thalman, Ms. Mary  Pat Musselman None  Board Members Absent: Staff Presentation was made by: Persons Appearing in Support: Persons Appearing in Opposition:  Mr. John Rodman, Planning Director Ms. Emily Rebert, Preservation Planner Mr. Pat Griffin, Applicant  Ms, Dee Congleton, Mr. Don Stroud, Mr. Jerry A motion was made by Ms. Mary Pat Musselman to deny the application by Mr. Pat Griffin, representing Bagwell Realty, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure located at 315-317 West 2nd Street based on the following Findings of Fact  Creech  Motion:  and Conclusions.  1    Seconded by: Vote: Conditions:  Ms. Monica Farrari 51 to 2 to deny request  None  Findings of Fact: As follows:  1. Mr. Pat Griffin, representing Bagwell Realty, made application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure located at 315-317 West 2nd Street in Washington,  North Carolina.  2. Said property is zoned B-1H (Business Historic District).  3. The applicant had been approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission to allow vinyl windows and hardi-plank siding on three (3) sides (rear, east 4. The application is incongruous with the Historic Preservation  &v west) of the structure in 2013.  Commission Design Guidelines, specifically:  Chapter 3.0 Section 3.1  Changes to Existing Buildings Exterior Walls  3.1.1  Historic character-defining wall features should be retained and protected including clapboards, corner boards, cornices, quoins, corbelling and other architectural detailing. Original walls should be properly maintained and repaired when necessary. If an original wall feature must be replaced due to excessive deterioration or damage, the new feature should match the original in size, profile,  3.1.2  material and texture. Materials  Section 3.2  3.2.1  Preserve and protect character defining  wooden architectural features.  2    Section 3.4  Windows and Doors  3.4,1  Retain and preserve historic windows and doors. All elements associated with historic windows and doors shall be retained and preserved including frames, trim, sashes, muntins, glass, lintels, shutters and hardware.  Conclusions:  Based on the evidence presented, and the above Findings of Fact, 1. The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure located at 315-317 West  the Historic Preservation Commission concludes as follows:  2nd Street is therefore denied as such.  Action:  Itis the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission that the Application by Mr. Pat Griffin for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the structure located at 315-317 shall hereby  be denied.  Appeal:  Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the Commission, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision rendered by the Historic Preservation Commission in the Department of Planning and Development, or after a written copy thereof is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for such copy with the secretary or Chairman of the Commission at the time of its hearing of the case, whichever is later, may appeal the decision of the Commission to the Board of Adjustment, whereupon such decision of the Commission shall be subject to review as provided by law.  AOR Authorizes Signature, CityofWashington  3    Notice ofDecision  319 West 2nd Street    0  City,  Washindton :: ARGETS  Historic Preservation Commission City of Washington  DECISION DENYING REQUEST BY BAGWELL REALTY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS  FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES NOTICE OF DECISION: 319 West 2nd Street  The Historic Preservation Commission for the City of Washington held a public hearing on September 1, 2015 to consider the application by Mr. Pat Griffin, representing Bagwell Realty, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure  located at 319 West 2nd Street. Application Received: Board Members Present:  08-18-15  Mr. Ed Hodges, Chairman, Mr. Seth Shoneman, Ms. Judi, Ms. Monica Farrari, Ms. Geri McKinley, Ms. Stacey Thalman, Ms. Mary  Pat Musselman None  Board Members Absent: Staff Presentation was made by: Persons Appearing in Support: Persons Appearing in Opposition:  Mr. John Rodman, Planning Director Ms. Emily Rebert, Preservation Planner No presentation was made by the applicant  None  Motion:  A motion was made by Ms. Mary Pat Musselman to deny the application by Mr. Pat Griffin, representing Bagwell Realty, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyl windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure located at 319 West 2nd Street based on the following Findings of Fact and  Conclusions.  1    Seconded by: Vote: Conditions:  Ms. Monica Farrari 5to2to deny request  None  Findings of Fact: As follows:  1. Mr. Pat Griffin, representing Bagwell Realty, made application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyi windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure located at 319 West 2nd Street in Washington, North  Carolina.  2. Said property is zoned B-1H (Business Historic District).  3. The applicant had been approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission to allow vinyl windows and hardi-plank siding on three (3) sides (rear, east 4. The application is incongruous with the Historic Preservation  &V west) of the structure in 2013.  Commission Design Guidelines, specifically:  Chapter 3.0 Section 3.1  Changes to Existing Buildings Exterior Walls  3.1.1  Historic character-defining wall features should be retained and protected including clapboards, corner boards, cornices, quoins, corbelling and other architectural detailing. Original walls should be properly maintained and repaired when necessary. If an original wall feature must be replaced due to excessive deterioration or damage, the new feature should match the original in size, profile,  3.1.2  material and texture. Materials  Section 3.2  3.2.1  Preserve and protect character defining  wooden architectural features.  2    Section 3.4  Windows and Doors  3.4.1  Retain and preserve historic windows and doors. All elements associated with historic windows and doors shall be retained and preserved including frames, trim, sashes, muntins, glass, lintels, shutters and hardware.  Conclusions:  Based on the evidence presented, and the above Findings of Fact, 1. The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing windows with vinyi windows and install 5/8" hardi-plank siding on the front facade of the structure located at 319 West 2nd  the Historic Preservation Commission concludes as follows:  Street is therefore denied as such.  Action:  Itis the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission that the Application by Mr. Pat Griffin for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the structure located at 319 shall hereby be  denied.  Appeal:  Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the Commission, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision rendered by the Historic Preservation Commission in the Department of Planning and Development, or after a written copy thereof is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for such copy with the secretary or Chairman of the Commission at the time of its hearing of the case, whichever is later, may appeal the decision of the Commission to the Board of Adjustment, whereupon such decision of the Commission shall be subject to review as provided by law.  AOR Authorizen Signature, City of Washington  3    MINUTES    WASHINGTON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Scheduled Meeting = Minutes Tuesday, September1,2 2015 7:00PM Members Present  Mary Pat Musselman Stacey Thalmann Geraldine McKinley EdH Hodges Seth Shoneman  Judi Hickson  Monica Ferrari Members. Absent All members present Others Present John Rodman, Director Emily Rebert, Community Development Planner Jessica Green, Administrative Support  Opening of the meeting The Chairman called the meeting to order. Invocation A moment ofs silence was taken. HI. Roll Call  I.  A silence roll call was taken by staff.  Judi Hickson made: a motion to accept the agenda. Mary Pat Musselman seconded the motion and all  voted int favor. IV. Old Business  V.  Certificate of Appropriateness A. MajorWorks  1. An request has been made by Mr. Jim Wiley, acting as agent for Beacon Street, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct: a new Moss Marina Office structure on lot# #2 27. Thel building willl be consistent and will match single family residences in the development.  1    Mr. Wiley came forward and was sworn in. He explained the plans fori the office structure toi the Commission. He stated that the details oft the structure are much in keeping with the Historic District and the rest of the houses theyl havel built sO far. Mr. Wiley explained thati ift the Commission has a problem with the cable wire railing then they are more than happy to go with ahorizontal wooden rail. Mr. Hodges stated that he felt the wood railing would be preferable over the cable. Mr. Rodman asked about the materials. Mr. Wiley explained that alli the houses have been built with al hardi-plank: siding and the heavy details of the homes have all been done with treated wood. He stated that they would like to continue with these materials on all three  oft the presented: structures on the agenda. The Chairman opened the floor.  Karen Tripp came forward and was sworn in. She asked the actually location ofl lot27. Mr. Wiley and Mr. Rodman explained the location and showed her on the actual map. Judi Hickson asked when hardi-plank was approved for these buildings. Mr. Rodman explained that the previous four homes were approved with this material and hardi-planki is allowed on Stacey Thalmann made the following motion: Imove thati the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr.. Jim' Wiley of Beacon Street Developmentto construct a new Moss Marina Office structure on the property located atl Lot #27 Moss Landing Homes. This motion is based on thet following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 5.01 New Construction Chapter 5.1 & Chapter 5.2. Her motion was seconded by. Judi Hickson. All voted in 2. Arequest has been made by Mr. Jim Wiley, acting as agent for Beacon Street, for a Certificate ofA Appropriateness to construct: a new single family two-story family dwelling on Lot #32. The home will be consistent and will match single family residences in the development. Mr. Wiley presented the plans for Lot #32 and explained the location of this lot. He explained that this is a one and al half story home with a wraparound porch. He stated that the details of the home are appropriate for the historic district and he! believes ity will be a beautiful addition.  new construction.  favor and the motion carried.  The Chairman opened the floor. No one came forward.  Monica Ferrari made thet following motion: imove that the Historic Preservation grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr.. Jim Wiley of Beacon Street Development to constructa new single family dwelling on the property located at Lot #32 Moss Landing Homes. Thisr motion is based on thet following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic  2    Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 5.01 New Construction Chapter 5.2 Residential Construction. Her motion was seconded by Mary Pat Musselman. All voted in 3. A request has been made by Mr.. Jim Wiley, acting as agent for Beacon Street, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct to construct a new: single family two-story family dwelling on Lot #33. The home will be consistent and will match single family residences int the  favor and the motion carried.  development.  Mr. Wiley explained that this lot is located to the left of the park. He stated that this home isa  two story residence and again allt the details are historical in nature.  No one came forward to speak for or against.  Judi Hickson made the following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Jim Wiley of Beacon Street Development to construct: ar new single family dwelling on the property located at Lot #33 Moss Landing Homes. This motion is based on the following findings oft fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 5.01 New Construction Chapter 5.2 Residential Construction. Her motion was seconded by Mary Pat Musselman. All 4. Arequest has been made by Mr. Pat Griffin to replace the windows with vinyl windows and Mr. Pat Griffin came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Rodman explained that Mr. Griffin came before the Commission back in 2013 and that is when the original COA was approved. Mr. Rodman stated that the COA allowed hardi-plank on three sides of the building and allowed the windows to be replaced on those three sides, but the Commission requested that the front façade remain int the original state. Mr. Rodman stated that since then Mr. Griffin has decide to come back and not amend that application, but summit a new application requesting hardi- plank on the front of the structure and also change the windows on the front façade. Mr. Griffin stated that hardi-plank is allowed in historic districts in other areas, one being New Orleans. He explained that iti is allowed in all 13 historic districts in New Orleans as well as the French Quarter. He stated that iti is also allowed in Huntsville Alabama. Mr. Griffin spoke about the advantages ofa allowing hardi-plank onl homes in the historic district. He stated that he feltit was time for the Commission to look at some alternative materials. Mr. Griffin then spoke about the lack ofg growth of Washington and some of the hardships of living in the Historic District. He stated that iti is time to make some changes. He stated that it will not look exactly  voted in favor and the motion carried.  instal! 5/8" hardi-plank siding on thet front façade of 315 West 2nd Street.  like it did before, but sometimes exceptions are needed.  3    Mr. Rodman recommended that the Commission address the siding and the windows separately. Mr. Ed Hodges stated that he felt Mr. Griffin was missing the point. He stated that the point is not whati it looks like, the pointi is what ish historically appropriate. He explained that the Commission isi interested in materials that are historically appropriate. and not whati it looks like. Mr. Hodges stated that he felt the Commission was very generous the first time Mr. Griffin appeared before them by allowing him to use hardi-plank ont three sides of the house. Mr. Hodges stated that he felt Mr. Griffin has thumb his nose att the Commission by putting hardi- plank on the front and then having to take it down. Mr. Griffin stated that the siding put on the front was put up by mistake; they did noti have the right material. He stated that the intent was to use the siding that was put up on the house that day. Mary Pat Musselman asked if the: siding that was installed that day was hardi board or clapi board. Mr. Griffin stated that it was hardi board. Mr. Griffin: stated thati iti is identical and the only difference is that iti is cement instead of wood. Ms. Musselman stated that the hardi board went against what the Commission requested. Mr. Rodman stated that Mr. Griffin'si intent that day was to just put up a couple of boards on thet front oft the house sO the Commission could gol by and see what they thought of it, with the understanding that ifiti is not approved then it would have to be taken down. Ms. Musselman stated that the bottom line was that the Commission has never given Mr. Griffin permission to put hardi board on the front side of those houses, whetheri it looks good or not. She stated that the Commission requested that Mr. Griffin keep the original clap board that was Mr. Griffin stated that the Commission wants to allow aluminum fencing in the district, but that urentywasrtavalabe in: 1920 or before. He stated that the Commission is telling him he cannot use a material because iti isn't' original yet theya are using non original materials all over the historic district. Mr. Hodges stated that int the fence discussion they are not talking about replacing historic materials with aluminum. He: stated that they are talking about a fence, not replacing an entire front façade ofal house. Mr. Hodges stated that it was two entirely different Seth Shoneman pointed out the fact that the house already has three sides of hardi plank and new windows and so if he puts up wood on thei front it will bei inconsistent. He stated that he understands that the wood siding would be historically: accurate but it seems inconsistent with what was approvedi for the rest oft the house. Mr. Shoneman stated that the Commission approves hardi plank in other locations. Mr. Hodges stated that the Commission was trying to help Mr. Griffin by allowing the hardi plank on the three sides, but they were also trying to preserve the street scape by asking him to keep the front original. Mr. Griffin stated that if they put wood back up on the front of the house in five years it will need tol be painted again. Mr. Griffin stated that he understood where the Commission was coming from buti if they think public opinion is on their side they are mistaken. Mr. Griffin stated that he had received numerous calls talking about how nice the hardi board looks. Mr. Edl Hodges stated that Mr. Griffin was still missing the point. He explained that the Commission is not saying thati it doesn't look nice; he is the first one to say the other three sides look better, but it is not historically  there or replace ity with like clap! board.  things.  4    appropriate. Mr. Griffin stated that when at familyl has owned al house for 99 years thatitisa tough pill to swallow when someone comes along and says you can't dov what they want with your own house. Stacey Thalmann stated that the point of the historic guidelinesi ist to preserve original materials. Mr. Griffin stated that if other places in the country are allowing this material than Washington should. Stacey Thalmann stated that Washington is not other places in the country. Mr. Griffin asked ifv Washington's historic district is more significant than New Orleans and Charleston. Mary Pat Musselman stated that they would like to think sO. She stated that Washington has a very nice historic district and she doesn'tfeel that Washington can be compared to other historic districts because theyl have their own guidelines to follow. Ms. Mr. Hodges suggested that they move on to the window request. Mr. Griffin explained that they are vinyl windows. He stated that the Commission has approved vinyi windows numerous times on front facades. The Commission discussed the request and Mr. Ed Hodges stated that  Musselman stated that these happen to be Washington'sg guidelines.  the Commission had approved vinyl windows in the past.  The Chairman opened thei floor.  Dee Congleton came forward and was sworn in. Ms. Congleton quoted the National Parks Services Bulletins concerning siding being used on house in historic districts: 'applications of substitute materials can result in the loss of al buildings historic character. All means of repairing orr replacing with identical materials should be examined before ever approving any kind of substitute." Ms. Congleton stated that twoy years ago. John' Wood with the State Preservation Office came over and did a workshop concerning various elements, windows, doors, siding and she wrote down his comments concerning siding. Ms. Congleton explained that Mr. Wood stated that he does not recommend hardi-plank on old houses, Mr. Wood stated that you should always restore with like materials. Regarding the statements Mr. Griffin made about Edenton or New Bern, Ms. Congleton explained that New Bern does not allow hardi board on the front or on the side of homes ifiti is visible. She stated that hardi board can be used here and there but not on' whole sections ofa a house. She stated that the Commission needs to consider the fact that Mr. Griffin should not be using! hardi-plank: andi the Commission hasl been all too generous in allowing the three sides to have hardi board. She stated that his application Don Stroud, president of the Washington. Area Historic Foundation, came forward. Mr.Stroud stated that he was a previous member of the Commission and Mr. Griffin came before them 10 or 15 years ago with a similar request andi it was denied at that time. Mr. Stroud explained that back then the Commission would not allow hardi board/plank to be put anywhere. He stated that he questions whether or not it was a goodi idea to open up this Pandora 's Box buti iti is open nowa and see wherei it has gotten them. He stated that they are now at the point where the only thing left to preserve is the streetscape. Mr. Stroud stated that Ms. Congleton has one oft the most historically significant homes in the City and now there is nothing that can prevent her  should be denied.  5    from striping all her wooden siding on all three sides and replacingi it with hardi plank. Mr. Stroud stated that the historic district is one oft the main economic engines oft this community and people do not come here to see the homes covered in hardi plank. Mr. Stroud stated that he did not want the Commission toi think that hei is al hypocrite because his house has aluminum siding on it. He stated that his house never should have had siding on it. He stated that when hel bought the house it was his intent to remove the aluminum siding and restore the wood. He stated thati the siding did exactly what the National Park Services tells us, it deteriorates what is beneath it sol he had to put the siding back. Mr. Stroud explained that his intent now and has always been to remove that aluminum siding and replace it with wood. Mr. Stroud stated that there is appropriate wood: siding that can be bought, you have to pay fori it, but there is plenty of it. He: stated that the question is if the Commission is going to be able to preserve the streetscape side of the historic homes. He asked the Commission to deny the request. Jerry Creech came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he isp present to also speak against Mr. Griffin's request for the hardi-plank. Mr. Creech stated that iti is very important to preserve the streetscape of al house located ini the historic district. He stated that recently he had to replace six planks on his house, which is an 1893 house, and hel had no objections to going down to Builders First Source. Mr. Creech stated that there is an ample supply there. He applauded the Commission for sticking to their guns and stated that he felti ity would be a disservice if the Commission allowed the hardi plank on thet front façade. He stated that thet front façade should  be preserved.  With no others coming forward the Chairman closed the fioor.  The Commission discussed the request amongst themselves. Stacey Thalmann stated that she was not on the Commission wheni thet first request was approved and she has a problem with allowing the hardi plank. She asked ifs she could abstain from the voting. Mr. Rodman stated that she could abstain ifs she would like, but any none vote goes into the affirmative vote. Mary Pat Musselman made the following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Pat Griffin, to install hardi-plank: siding and vinyl windows on the front façade of the structure at 315 West Second Street. This motion is based on thet following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 3.0 Existing Building Subsection, 3.1 Exterior Walls, 3.2' Wood Materials, and 3.41 Windows and Doors. Judi Hickson seconded the motion. The Commission discussed amending the motion to allow the vinyl windows. Mary Pat Musselman stated that she did not wish to amend her motion. The motion carried with a! 5to 2 5. Ar request has been made by Pat Griffin to replace the windows with vinyl windows and install  vote with Geraldine McKinley and Seth Shoneman voting in opposition. 5/8" hardi-plank: siding on thet front façade of 319 West 2"d Street.  6    Mr. Griffin stated that he didn't think her needed to come forward and add anything for this request. Mr. Rodman came forward and explained that both oft the homes are owned by the same family but brother in laws are developing each house. He stated that he spoke with the gentleman whoi is rehabbing 319 and hei informed him that he had the intention of replacing the wood: siding with wood. However he would like to ask for1 the vinyl windows on the second story of his house on the front. Mr. Griffin stated that this was not his understanding. Mr. Rodman stated thats since he and Mr. Griffin had conflicting understandings then the Commission probably should continue the request until the actually gentleman doing the rehab could come in person and explained exactly what he wants. Mr. Rodman explained that Mr. Griffin's name is on the application sO the Commission can vote on the request that Mr. Griffin is presenting. The Commission decided to go on with the application as submitted by Mr. Griffin. The Commission discussed the windows further. Geraldine McKinley pointed out thet fact that the Commission has allowed vinyl windows in the past and stated that she had a problem with the inconsistency. Mary Pat stated that she felt they should stick tot their guns. She stated that itisunfortunate that vinyl windows have been allowed on homes in the past, but it needs to Mary Pat Musselman made thei following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Mr. Pat Griffin, to install hardi-plank siding and vinyl windows on the front faced oft the: structure at 319 West Second! Street. This motion is based on thei following findings of fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically! Section 3.0 Existing Building Subsection, 3.1 Exterior Walls, 3.2 Wood Materials, and 3.4 Windows and Doors. Her motion was seconded by Monica Ferrari. The motion carried witha5 5t to 2 vote with Geraldine McKinley and Seth 6.Arequest has been madel by Ms. Mary Elizabeth Haubenreiser, fora a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove. a pine tree on the south side of her property located on 188 South Academy Street. Thei tree's roots are breaking up the concrete driveway. Ms. Haubenreiser came forward and wass sworn in. She explained that she would like to remove apine tree in her yard. She stated the treei is too close to the property line, the driveway, and the neighbor'sgarage. Ms. Haubenreiser stated that it has heaved up the driveway over an inch on one: side and has cracked it on another side. She stated that the tree is losing its needles. She explained that she was told by Wayne Woolard, who took down another tree in! her yard, that the pine trees probably gave way 20 or 30 years ago. She stated that the treei is at the end ofi its life span and she is afraid that iti is going to fall. Ms. Haubenreiser stated that she would gladly replace the tree. Ms. Haubenreiser stated that she would most likely replace it witha small more appropriate tree such asi a crept myrtle or dogwood. Monica Ferrari explained that the replacement tree would not have tol be planted in the exact same place.  stop.  Shoneman votingi in opposition.  7    The Chairman opened the floor. No one came forward to speak for or against the request. Judi Hickson made thei following motion: Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Ms. Haubenreiser to remove a pine tree located on the south side of the property! located at: 118 South Academy Street. This motion is based on the following findings off fact: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Guidelines, specifically Section 4.1 Landscaping. She will replace this tree with an appropriate tree somewhere on her property within a year. Hermotion was seconded  by Mary Pat Musselman. All voted in favor and the motion carried.  B. MinorWorks  1. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of519 E. Main Street (Mr. Thomp Litchfield) to exchange an old split heat pump with a 2. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate ofA Appropriateness for the owner of 227 E. Second Street (Mr. Ambrose Buck Lewis) to repair the right side wall oft their garage. Anew block foundation will bel laid and the wall will be repaired using appropriate 3. AI request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 109 Gladden Street (Mr.. Jay Boyd) to install a condenser for the A/Cunit. 4. Arequest has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 412 W Main Street (Ms. Kimberly Lee) to make garage repairs using appropriate materials. Repairs include replacing shingles, replacing support beam int the center of the garage door opening with a newl beam, window repair, replace cracked foundation of garage and 5. AI request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 239 WI Main! Street (Mr. Jim Fortescue) to exchange an olds split heat pump with a new 6. A request has been made and approved by staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the owner of 424 ES Second Street (Mr.. Joe Wilberscheil): to replace the HVAC unit. 7. AI request has been made and approved by stafffora a Certificate of Appropriateness fori the owner of 127 E. Second Street (Mr. Don Stroud. Jr.) to replace old: shingles on the roof with new shingles. They will also be replacing the old rubber membrane on the widows walk with the  new one. No duct work willl be changed.  materials to match the house.  driveway, and replace rotten siding. one. No duct work will be changed.  same material.  Stacey Thalmann made a motion to approve all minor works. Her motion was seconded by. Judi  Hickson. All voted in favor and the motion carried.  VI. Other Business  1. Moss Landing Landscape Design  8    Mr. Rodman stated that thisi is just for the Commision'sreview. He explained that when Mr. Wiley came before them to have the gazebo built at Moss Landing he had also discussed: some utility boxes that where going to go in. His original request was to fence around those utility boxes, but after a discussion he decided to consider landscaping the area and that is what he did. Mr. Rodman presented the plan and explained since iti is low level landscaping the  Commission does not have to approve it. 2. Fence Design Guidelines  Mr. Rodman presented the current revisions to the fence guidelines to the Commission. Mr. Rodman pointed out the changes to the original draft. He explained thati the next step would be tor recommend that the draft be presented to the City Council for their approval. He stated that ift the Commission decides not to recommend and wants to continue working on them, the Commission is certainly free to do that as well. He stated that the Commission has several options. Mr. Rodman stated that he believed there were several members of the audience who wished to speak. He explained that this is not a publicl hearing sO the Chairman does not have to let anyone speak, buti if1 the Chairman would like he can certainly allow them to speak on this Dee Congleton came forward. She explained the process of how they had gotten to the point of revising the guidelines and forming thei fence committee. Ms. Congleton explained how the fence committee came up with the revisions and all the work theyl had put into it. She explained thati fences are an important aspect to the landscape and they help define the context of the house within. She stated that the selection of the style and the design should relate to the architecture of the house. Ms. Congleton stated that the fence committee endorses all the changes made to the guidelines with one addition and Don Stroud will talk about that. Don Stroud came forward and thanked the Commission for appointing the Committee and praised the Committee for all their hard work. He stated that he hoped that the Commission would rely on the Committees information and their proposals. He stated that over the years there has been al largei increase of the: stockade fences going up all over the district. He stated that the definition of a stockade fence states that they are used to defend one'ss self against something unpleasant, buti if they would enforce the City'sordinances then there would be nothing unpleasant that residences would have to shield themselves from. He stated thati if this trend continues the district will look like New. Jersey roadhouses. Mr. Stroud also talked about the lack of repair shown by owners of these types of fences. He: asked that the Commission adopt the proposed guidelines. He stated that the Foundation supports the new guidelines with one revision. He stated that no one likes tol be told that they cannot do something, but they do appreciate it when they are given options. He presented the Commission with a diagram showing types off fences and asked thati it be added to Section 4.6.8 with this language. "The following are some examples oft fences that are appropriate fori installation within the historic  issue.  9    district". Mr. Stroud stated that this willg give someone asking to build at fence an opportunityto look at what is appropriate in the district and maybe see something they didn'teven consider. Sarah Heekin came forward. She stated that she had recently purchased al house int the historic district. She stated that she gets why some people have concerns about the type of fences allowed int the district, however shei is afraid thati the restrictions will be so tight that someone will not be able to put in ai fence that actually goes with the house. Ms. Heekin stated that she has a dog that is used tol having a dog doora and would like ai fence. Ms. Heekin stated that she had made a request for at fence buti it was continued. She stated that she requested a white ornamental fence, her neighbor doesn't have a problem with it and it matches the fence in the front of her house. She stated that she believes there should be guidelines but she encouraged the Commission to consider what residents can do that go with their homes and not make is sO constrained that people are handcuffed with what they can do. She asked that they not make it sO constrained that it cost people money and time which int turn make it difficult to live in the Karen Tripp, 629 East Main Street, came forward. She stated that she was a member oft the fence committee. Ms. Tripp explained that she had a beautiful view of the river when she bought her house and then her neighbor was approved to put up a 120ft. barricade fence that blocks her river view and devalues her property. She stated that she can no longer get al breeze in her back yard due to thet fence. She stated that she hopes the Commission thinks abouti the changes and additions because she feels they are necessary to keep the district looking beautiful. Ms. Tripp stated thati ifs someone moves into the historic district they should know that they will be living close to their neighbors, if they do not want to be close to people then they should live in the country. She asked the Commission to approve the proposed fence  historic district.  regulations and support Don'saddendum.  Mr. Rodman came forward and explained whether the new guidelines are approved or not, the fence that Ms. Trippi is referring to cannot occur again. He stated that it was unfortunate that it happened thei first time. He stated that something like that could not happen again based on Mark Everett, 734W2"d Street, came forward. He: stated that he has some concerns with the new guidelines and hei is an example of where there could be some issues if they are adopted. He stated that he is an advocate of not having fences when they are not needed, but there are times when they are a necessity. He discussed thei issue of screening mechanical equipment. He stated that he has a pooli in his backyard a 6ft fence not only is used to screen mechanical and pool equipment but also used to mitigate the liability of an attracted nuisance at his house. He stated that he is worried that the new guidelines do not adequately address some issues. He stated ifat fence is required to be painted you will end up with peeling paint. He asked the Commission to consider the changesv very carefully andi make sure they dor not create unintended consequences. Mr. Hodges pointed out thati for electrical equipment and dumpster  the current guidelines.  10    and things like that the new guidelines allow ai fence that reaches 3 inches above the  equipment, the height limit does not apply.  Shirley Stone, 513 East Second Street, came forward. She stated that her and her husband own three homes in the historic district and theya are very concerned about protecting the historic district and the values of the properties. She stated that fencing affects the beauty and value of ap property. She stated in particular the board to board fencing is an eye swore. Ms. Stone stated that there are acceptable alternatives that should be made available to anyone who comes seeking permission toy put up a fence. Ms. Stone stated that she supports Don Stroud's addendum and she too served ont the fence committee. She stated that they gave ag great deal of time and consideration to the guidelines that they submitted to the Commission and she hopes that they will give strong consideration to accepting the revised guidelines. Pat Lewis stated that she just currently purchased aj propertyi in the historic district. Ms. Lewis stated that what she has read from the guidelines, fences are not supposed to be seen from the street. She stated that she would hate not to be able to have ai fence for privacy and for her small dog. She stated that she does know thati in New Bern many of their homes do have privacy fences int the rear yard and they are quite tall. She stated that it would be a shame not to allow privacy in back yards. She stated that iti is different with home with river views. Jerry Creech stated that he also served on the fence committee. He asked that the Commission seriously evaluate what the fence committee did and also accept Don'sa addendum. Mr. Creech stated that he lives on the West side of 2"d Street and they do not seem to have thei issues with privacy fences as much as the East side. He stated that some people are going to like the changes and: some people will not, but at least iti isa definite advancement in the guidelines. Keith Hardt, 424 East Main Street, came forward. Mr. Hardt asked that the Commission hold off on any vote until the public has a chance to: see the addendums. He stated thati the residents who will be affected by the vote: should have a chance to comment on the addendum. Mr. Hardt addressed thet fact that welded wire is nol longer allowed int the district. He stated that welded wire has been around for 200 years and should be considered an acceptable fence in the district. Mr. Rodman stated that is located in 4.6.2 and originally allowed welded wire but is no longer allowed with the new guidelines. Mr. Hardt explained the difference between welded wire and chain link. Hes stated that there are a number of properties that currently have welded wire fences andi if they have to replace them according to the new guidelines it will put al large financial hardship on them. Mr. Hardt stated that he was concerned about requiring the fences to be painted white. He stated that they do not restrict the paint color on house and he feels thisisav very narrow requirement for ai fence. Mr. Hardt stated that he also felt the fencing around mechanical equipment was not very clear and should be addressed. He stated that he feels the new guidelines are very restricted. Hei feels that fences affecting property' value is not quantitative. He stated that the statement is very subjective and should not be a deciding factor. Mr. Hardt stated that he felt the majority of the residents in the district do not even  11    know about these changes andi feels that they are being premature in voting for this. He stated that het feels there should be more dialogue between the Commission and residents in the district and there are. some majori issues with some ofi the content. Mr. Hardt also stated that he was concerned with thei fact that fences have to be approved as a major work and feels this could be subjective to the group. He stated that it: should be ai minor work, ifs staff has dissent guidelines about what is appropriate and what is not they should be able to make that decision. Again he asked the Commission to wait on their vote and consider some oft the changes and comments from the public. Mr. Hardt stated that he feels more publici notice should be given and the district's residents should be better informed. Monica Ferrari explained that the Commission is only voting on the new guidelines to go to City Council andi there will be a public  hearing at the Council meeting before iti is approved. The Commission discussed the guidelines amongst themselves.  Mr. Rodman stated that staff felt it would be prudent tol let. John' Wood and Scott Powell evaluate the new guidelines and give their impression. He explained that they did send the changes to the guys att the State Historic Office and theyr replied with their thoughts. Emily Rebert then presented al PowerPoint presentation and al letter listing the comments from the Ed Hodges stated that he cannot make ar motion as Chairman, but he thought that they still needed to look at fences morel before they vote asi a Commission and send itt to the City Council. Mr. Rodman, gave the Commission their options. He: stated that this is an important issue and they need to make sure what they doi is done right. Ed Hodges stated that he did not what to negate in any way the work that the fence committee did because they worked really! hard, but he felt that they needed to look ati the guidelines and consider some oft the comments from the public as well as the recommendations from. John Wood. He recommended that they not send anything to the City Council at this point in time. He stated that he would like to reconvene with thei fence Committee and try toi iron out these differences. Mary Pat Musselman stated that it was unfortunate that the information from the SHIPPO office was just presented to them tonight. Mr. Rodman agreed and: stated that the SHIIPPO office should havel been brought in earlieri int the process. He stated that he was surprised that the fence committee did not reach out to the state office. Judi Hickson stated that she didn'twant to hear about what anyone could have or should have done; theyl have been presented with something and they need to move forward and not be counterproductive. Ms. Hickson stated that the State presented them with some very different findings and the Commission needs to look at them. Geraldine McKinley stated that with the information that came to light the Commission must consider it. Geraldine McKinley made a motion to postpone any recommendation to the City Council due to the new information that the Commission received that is contradictory to what they discussed before. Ed Hodges asked ift the fence committee would consider meeting and Dee Congleton stated that they would not and theys stated that they stand by what theypresented. Ed Hodges  guys at the SHIPPO office and what they advised.  12    again stated that he appreciated all the work and time that thet fence committee put into this. Stacey Thalmann seconded Ms. McKinley'sr motion. Motion carried with a4 4to3 3 vote with Mary  Pat Musselman, Judi Hickson, and Monica Ferrari voting in opposition.  VII. Approval of Minutes - August  Judi Hickson made a motion to approve the August minutes. Her motion was seconded by Seth The Commission decided to meet on September 16"at7:00pmi fora a workshop to consider the new information on the fence guidelines. Mr. Rodman stated thati it should probably be a publicmeeting sO  Shoneman. All voted ini favor and the motion carried.  its should bel held at City Hall. VIII. Adjourn  There being no other business Geraldine McKinley made a motion to adjourn. Her motion was  seconded by Seth Shoneman and all voted ini favor.  13