WASHINGTON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  City  AGENDA  Washincton NORTH CAROLINA I. Opening of the meeting II. Invocation III. Roll call  Regular Scheduled Meeting  Tuesday, September: 7, 2021- 1-6:00PM  IV. Approval of Minutes - Tuesday, August 3, 2021  V. Old Business - None VI. Certificate of Appropriateness  A. Major Works  1. Ar request has been made by Natalie & Tony Edwards, owners of 410 E: 2nd Street, fora  Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: a. Install a porch at the front of the home. b. Install a concrete driveway  2. Ar request has been made by Julia Peters, owner of 511 E Main Street, for a Certificate ofA Appropriateness for the replacement of the rear deck with a 25' X 12' deck. 3. Are request has been made by Vann & Colleen Knight, owners of 231 E Main Street, fora Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 12' X 17' accessory structure in 4.A Ar request has been made by Moses Moye, LLC, owner of 601 E 2nd Street, fora a. Remove brick façade and replace with wood lap siding or Hardiplank. b. Raise the house by 4' per FEMA code requirement and screen the new crawlspace C. - Adda a 5'x1 10' porch at the front of the house and a 12'X10' deck at the back of the  the back yard.  Certificate of Appropriateness for the following:  with a brick and lattice exterior  house B. Minor Works  1. Ar request has been made by Tom Litchfield, owner of131 E Main Street, for a Certificate of 2. A request has been made by Mary Beedle, owner of 532 E 2nd, for a Certificate of 3. A request has been made by. Jim Fortescue, owner of 226 E Water Street, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of deteriorated windows with wood windows. 4. A request has been made by Jim Fortescue, owner of 225 WI Main Street, for a Certificate  Appropriateness for an HVAC change-out.  Appropriateness for the removal of dead trees on the property.  of Appropriateness for a new sign.  Revised: August 30, 2021  Page 1of2    VII. Other Business  1. Demolition by Neglect Update  a.  238 E. 2nd Street  VIII. Adjourn  Revised: August 30, 2021  Page 2of2    MINUTES    HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  MEETING MINUTES Regular Scheduled Meeting August 2021-6 6:00PM 3, Members Not Present  Citys  Washincton NORTH CAR'OLINA  Tuesday,  Members Present Scot Craigie - Chairman Kathy Burdi Elizabeth Stallings Cheri Vaughn Marian Booth Beth Casey  None  Scarlett Boutchyard- -Vice-Chairwoman  Others Present  Mike Dail, Director of Community and Cultural Services Domini Cunningham, Historic Preservation: Planner Holli Y. Tetterton, Administrative Support Specialist  I. II. III. IV.  Opening of the meeting Invocation Roll Call  o Amoment ofs silence was taken.  Staff took a silent roll call. All members were present.  Approval of Minutes-1 Tuesday, July6 6,2021  o Chairman Craigie, Beth Casey is not listed in the header on thei first page. o Chairman Craigie, does anyone else have any changes to the minutes? There were none. o Chairman Craigie asked fora a motion to approve the minutes.  Vice-Chairwoman: Scarlett Boutchyard made thei motion to approve the. Julye 6, 2021 minutes. Cheri Vaughn seconded the motion. All members voted, 7 in favor and 0 opposed. The  minutes were approved. Record of vote below.  Record of Vote: X X X X X X X  YES NO COMMISSION MEMBER  MOTION Made the Motion 2nd the Motion  Scot Craigie Scarlett Boutchyard Cheri Vaughn Kathy Burdi Elizabeth Stallings Marian Booth Beth Casey  (Tuesday, August: 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021  Page 1of15    V. VI.  Old Business A. None.  Certificate of Appropriateness A. Major Works  oS Staff swore in. Julia Peters, Dan Grimsley, and Barbara Buckley. Certificate of Appropriateness toi install a wooden 6ft. privacy fence.  1. Chairman Craigie, a request has been made by Julia Peters, owner of 511 E Main Street, for a oJ Julia Peters, I'm here today seeking approval to build a 6-foot wooden privacy fence at the rear oft the property. Iti isa a good distance awayf from the sidewalk. We're seeking this approval two have more privacy and enclose the yard for our two small dogs. The Builders Source is going away and the new Moss Landing development will be moving in right behind the property. o Chairman Craigie, does your house backs right upt to where Builders Source was? Ms. Peters, o Ms. Stallings, when the Builders Source building comes down and Moss Landing is built, will your property become a water view property? Ms. Burdi, there will be houses there. Ms. Stallings, sO there willl be no view once the houses go up. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, there is  yes, the existing fence line is at the back of our yard.  already an existing fence there.  O Chairman Craigie opened the Public Hearing. There were no comments. oChairman Craigie brought it backt to thei table for the Commission to discuss.  o Ms. Casey, is a 6-foot fence allowed here? The Standards state it should not exceed 4-feet ona property located south of Main Street. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, we will have to state that iti is not congruous with the current guidelines. We the Standards were created there might have been a water view, buti it has already been obstructed. Ms. Casey, should this be an adjustment to the Standards? Chairman Craigie,lthink we need to keepi it ini there for the  future in case there is a view thati isn't obstructed. OC Chairman Craigie asked for a motion.  Vice-Chairwoman Scarlett Boutchyard made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission granta Certificate of Appropriateness to. Julial Peters to make the above changes ont the property located at! 511 East Main Street. The motion is based ont thei following Findings of Facts: the application, while not congruous, with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 4.6- Fences and Walls, would be acceptable because obstruction to the waterview already exists att this property. Elizabeth Stallings seconded the motion. All members voted, 7 in favor and 0 opposed. The motion passed. Record of vote  below.  Record of Vote: X X X X  YES NO COMMISSION MEMBER  MOTION Made the Motion  Scot Craigie Scarlett Boutchyard Cheri Vaughn Kathy Burdi  (Tuesday, August: 3,2 2021, HPCN Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021  Page: 2of15    X X X  Elizabeth Stallings Marian Booth Beth Casey  2nd the Motion  2. Chairman Craigie, a request has been made by Clifton Evans, owner of 422 Water Street, fora  Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: a. Construct a new: single-family residence.  b. Installa a 6ft. wooden privacy fence along the rear of the property.  o Dan Grimsley, there is a change. We have decided to go with a 5-foot fence. The privacy part would only come half way down the: sides and thel back. If we dot the other partsi it will bet the see- D Chairman Craigie, not all oft the members have been briefed on the construction. There were, just a couple of us at the meeting. Mr. Grimsley, SO you want me to go through the whole thing? OMr. Grimsley, thisi is 422 Water Street. Itist thei inside of the corner lot. believe you have plans of the house that is being proposed. We tried to meet all oft the Standards. We are using the hardi style siding and sO forth. I believe we have met all of those requirements for the home. We decided to use Anderson windows. We thought it would just be easier to use the same supplier Moss Landing uses for their windows and doors to make sure we are compliant. We do have to remove some trees. To get the house on the property there are several trees that have to be removed. There are two trees ini the back corner that wel have to take out. We are going to try to leave as many trees as we can. There are only three or four large trees. Most of the ones being removed are sixi inches orl less. We are going to replace those with othertrees. o Chairman Craigie, explain the fence line again. Mr. Grimsley, referring to a plat drawing being shown, ati the back oft the drawing there willl be at five-foot privacy fence. This meets the Standards. Ity will go across the back and up. to approximately 40-50% of the side. If he adds that then it will drop offto a 4-foot picket type fence. Iti is a woven fence thati ist the same on thei inside asitist the outside. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, you would see the aluminum from the street. Willi it look like what is across the street at Moss Landing? Mr. Grimsley, yes, the same. o Chairman Craigie asked if the Commission had any more questions. There were none. 00 Chairman Craigie opened the Public Hearing. There were no comments. o Chairman Craigie brought it back to the table for the Commission to discuss. without duplicating. New construction has different Standards.  through fence.  Chairman Craigie, yes.  oC Chairman Craigie closed the Public Hearing.  OVice-Chairwoman. Boutchyard, we approved the corner lot last month. They look similar enough ON Ms. Casey, is the garage door on the front epale/VeeChanomain Boutchyard, yes, thati is  acceptable for new construction. o Chairman Craigie asked for a motion.  Kathy Burdi made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Clifton Evans to make the above changes on the property located at 422 Water Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 4.1 - Landscaping, 4.3 - Parking, Driveways and Sidewalks, 5.2 Residential Construction. Vice-  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021  Page 3 of15    Chairwoman Scarlett Boutchyard seconded the motion. All Commission members voted, 7i in  favora rand 0 opposed. The motion passed. Record ofv vote below.  Record of Vote: X X X X X X X  YES NO COMMISSION MEMBER  MOTION 2ND THE MOTION MADE THE MOTION  Scot Craigie Scarlett Boutchyard Cheri Vaughn Kathy Burdi Elizabeth Stallings Marian Booth Beth Casey  o Chairman Craigie asked the Commission ift they had any comments about thei fence. o Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, it looks like what we have approved before.  ) Chairman Craigie asked for a motion:  Elizabeth Stallings made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Clifton Evans to make the above changes on the property located at 422 Water Stréet. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 4.6 - Fences and Walls. An exception has been made due to the fact the water view was previously blocked. Marian Booth seconded the motion. All Commission members voted, 7 in favorand 0 opposed. The motion passed. Record ofvote below.  Record ofVote: X X X X X X X  YES NO COMMISSION MEMBER  MOTION  Scot Craigie Scarlett Boutchyard Cheri Vaughn Kathy Burdi Elizabeth Stallings Marian Booth Beth Casey  MADE THE MOTION 2ND THE MOTION  o Ms. Burdi, we did discuss at an earlier meeting making an adjustment to our Standards SO that it doesn't have to come before us. Chairman Craigie, we discussed making it a Minor Work. Vice- Chairwoman Boutchyard, that doesn'taddress the obstruction. Staff, fors something likei that, send to me how you would like it worded. Then we can read it before the whole Commission before  we make a change.  B. Minor Works  1. No Commission action is required.  o Barbara Buckley of 235 East Second Street, I wanted to question and comment on some Minor Works of Certificates of Appropriateness for the property at 238 East Second Street. In May, my husband and Ispoke with the Mayor, Jonathan Russell, Jeff Huss, and Mike Weldin as they were standing in front of that property. It was on the demolition by neglect list and they were giving it  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August: 31, 2021  Page 4of15    the once over before they moved on witht that process. We were told at thet time thatt theythought the house was beyond repair. They asked us to write a petition and obtain at least five signatures stating our concerns with the instability and condition of that home, which we did. I submitted that on. June 4, 2021 and. Jeff forwarded that to the City. The property owner now tells us that he was granted minor works approvals to do some small repairs like a window and porch repair. He feels that if he makes those repairs it willl hold the Committee off or slow down the process. This just delays the inevitable, in my opinion. It does sO at the expense of the owner and the neighborhood. I don't understand how al house in such deplorable condition, that was scheduled for demolition, can be granted al Minor' Work tot try and make repairs. Those repairs willi in no way make that house inhabitable or more stable. Nothing about the repairs that are needed on that house could be considered a Minor Work. It is falling down. With the proximity to his neighbors, when that house does fall there their property is going to be damaged and people can be hurt. Has a structural engineer been brought in to look at the house to see ifi it is even stable enough to make these repairs? I don't know. I have not seen anyone over there. Ifeel like if he tries to replace a window the side of the house is going to fall down. It is in terrible shape. If hei is going tol be allowed to make these repairs, how long does that give him to make the necessary repairs to make it inhabitable? He is spending money that is going to do nothing to make the house inhabitable. If he is going to make the repairs himself, or if hel hires someone to make the repairs, is he going to have proof ofi insurance? If something happens and someone is hurt or there is damage to other property, willl he ort the contractor have insurance to coverthat?Those: aret things that need to be considered. As a resident of the Historic District, I am expected to maintain my home and my property. We invest time and money into keeping our house in good shape. That expectation needs to apply to all the residents or owners in the Historic District. It shouldn't depend on who you are, whoy you know, how much money you have, or anything else. It needs to be a blanket expectation and cover everyone. In the two plus years that he has owned the property he has done nothing to improve itort to stabilize it. When a property is this fars gone and needing this amount of repair and' he is encouraged to put money into Minor Works, simple repairs, it is the same as stealing from him. It's not getting his house any closer to being inhabitable. Iwould just like to know what reasoning was used, because hel has told us thati it has already been granted. What reasoning was usedi in granting those approvals? oVice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, I don't beliève that home was actually scheduled for demolition. Staff was there to prevent. That is what the ordinance is, prevention of demolition by neglect. They point out all the things that. need to be taken care of and request that the homeowner do them. Staff can you clarify if the building inspector actually went in and made that kind of o Ms. Buckley, what I was told is that they needed that petition with five household's signatures. Then they could go in and say it's not habitable. What they told us was it was scheduled and all that would doi is move it from the fifteenth place on the list to the one or two spot. That's what we were told. Id did the petition because they asked me to do it to speed up the process sO that they can get the house taken care of. They told us it is a danger to the neighborhood and it isa danger to the people walking by. It's a danger to the gentleman that owns it and keeps going in there pilingi in boxes of stuff. He used to spend the night there. Now, he doesn't. OVice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, it is prevention of demolition by neglect. However, it sounds like that the petition could then allow the City to move forward and get a building inspector in. Staff ify you were a part oft this conversation please clarify. Chairman Craigie, Staff doy you know ift that has happened? Staff, I do not know if that has happened. That would be with the Building Inspector. Iwas not at that meeting with the mayor and the building inspector. I think that what you are talking about is not prevention of demolition by neglect. I believe that petition is for  determination?  Pages 5of15  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021    minimum housing standards. There is a lot of prevention of demolition by neglect before it gets o Chairman Craigie, that house was issued, at one time, non-occupancy by the previous owner.I know the plumbing doesn'twork. Ithink what they're concerned about is how has in moved to a Minor Work in this situation. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, because the ownership changed and the building inspector doesn't know what has and hasn't been done with the new owner. oS Staff,lunderstand your frustration withi the whole process. The first thingt to doi ist tot trya and work with the property owner to try and get them to realize what they need to do. Ms. Buckley, those conversations have taken place. Theyt tell me there isal binder ofs stuff he wantsi to do one oft these days. He's also told me he has $15,000 to fix that house up. $15,000 isn't going to fix his front porch, much less any oft the house. We've watched it droop and sink. There is rain coming down on the side of the house. There is animals living there and running in and out of the house. OVice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, I think that your follow up process is not with the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning. If the owner comes with a Minor Work that meets the Standards then Staff has to sign off and say yes he can do it. In the meantime, your petition has gone to the building inspector fori the minimum housing standards. If they got that in. June then you need to follow up with them to see when they were able to schedule to get in to do the ON Ms. Buckley, when! contacted the gentleman that Igave the petition to follow up,l Iwas told that they didn't know the Historic Preservation had gotten involved and they didn't know why. I just want to know what reasoning was used to grant an approval for somebody that's not going toi fix the problem. Secondly, is there required to be some proof of insurance to cover damages when of Ms. Burdi, it is confusing because we address it every month. Right now, we have on our Staff Update prevention of demolition by neglect. So, we are involved. It is being addressed. You can oVice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, when Staff approves Minor' Works, based on the Standards, thati is just regarding the Historic Preservation Standards. There are oftentimes other permits or whatever people have to getfrom the other parts of the City before they can move forward. Staff can't hold ont to the request just because something outside of thisi is involved. o Chairman Craigie, would he have to get a permit to do the front porch work? Staff, fort the porch, yes, but probably not for the siding. Chairman Craigie, has that taken place? Staff, I would have to check with inspections. Chairman Craigie, it just seems like we have a disconnect between us, City, Staff, and Ordinances. This house was on the list within our prevention. The house has been viewed and it has hadi issues for years. Ithink the concern is willi the Minor' Workj just prolong this ol Ms. Vaughn, there is another house on Water Street that was just recently finished. They have been working on that house for the last ten years. Nobody ever did anything about that. Vice- Chairwoman Boutchyard, they saved it. That is what the prevention of demolition of neglect is about. Ms. Vaughn, right, ourj jobl herei ist to approve anything thati is going to happen to an outside ofal building. We've done our job. Ourj jobi is to save homes. Ms. Buckley, lunderstand that, but there has to be a point where something is done. It's going to take! $300,000t to fixt that house and  tor minimum housing.  minimum housing standard inspection.  things start collapsing. We're watching windows collapse inside.  see that in our minutes.  another year?  he has $15,000. Ms. Vaughn, it might take ten years.  Page 6of15  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPCN Meeting) Revised: August: 31, 2021    ON Ms. Burdi, what is the timeline? We talked about the timeline for the brick house at the end of Second Street. When the transaction of a sale came up we talked about he would be held to a timeline. Staff, by the COA process, the timeline is a year because it's a COA. For demolition by neglect he has to check in every SO often. So, he checks in along the way with his progress. He's ol Ms. Buckley, I have one more question. Let's say he takes this year and makes it look exactly like it did two years ago when he bought it, and then he applies for another Minor' Work, like shingling the dormer on his roof, is there a point? Iti is like stealing to say sure we'llg grant you a year to get OVice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, if the building inspector goes in and says that it doesn't meet the minimum housing requirements, it's not going to matter what we say or what Staff or the OMs. Buckley, will you: see that the building inspector goes in? It was my understanding thatl Ih had to do the petition because he wouldn't let them go in the house. Staff, Iwould bring that to the building inspector'sattention. Because this is prevention of demolition by neglect, thei items that he has listed of his COA are things he has to get done. Those are things he is working on now. Once he gets done with that, he will have to continue on to other things on his checklist. This is what hel has the money to get done now. We are helping him save the house. ol Ms. Buckley, as fara as the insurance, when that house falls, orv when he goes to take outa a window and a chunk of the houset falls off, whoi is going tol be responsible? Who is goingt to payi ifsomebody o Chairwoman Boutchyard, as an insurance agent L can tell you that would be the homeowners liability. If he carries insurance theni itwould fall to whatever insurance covers him. If he does not carry insurance, he will have to be sued. Chairman Craigie, it sounds like you need to voice your concerns to either City Council or Code, Enforcement. Staff, the best option is to speak with Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, I have a question. If it is found to be uninhabitable, and condemned, what is the process and the length of time at that point? Because nothing can be touched on the property at that point. Nobody could do anything. They couldn't make it look better. Staff, it would be a similar situation to 601 East Second Street. Once it's condemned by building inspections; they would submit a COA for demolition of the structure. Ms. Stallings, someone bought it. Staff, Ithink ifs someone buysi it then the new owner gets whatever statement the previous owner got from inspections about the demolition. Chairman Craigie, did that happen? Ms. Burdi, that is not happening. Staff, I don't believe a minimum housing case to condemn it has been done and that'sw whyi it is still there. Ms. Burdi, my friend talked to the third owner and he didn't know anything about it. He wasn't aware. Those cash sales go very quickly. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, to my point, it could potentially be approved for demolition if condemned. It would come before us and if we approved it and didn'tdelay it and if nobody else purchased it then it could move forward. Ms. Buckley, I will follow up with inspections and City  asked for different contractors in the area to help move along that process.  two windows in that house.  Commission approves because then it will be done.  gets killed by something falling from his house?  inspections and City Council.  Council. Other Business  VII.  1. HPCStandards Update - Discussion Item  (All papers or articles presented in this section are available at the end of the minutes.)  Page 7of15  (Tuesday, August3 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August31, 2021    o Chairman Craigie, this is just some Facts and Findings that Ihave uncovered since being on the Commission and trying to work withi the State Codes, as far as their requirements, and with our City Ordinances. started out with history on when the Historic Commission was created, when we became a certified local government, and when the Commission was disbanded and started againi in 2002. Then it moves on to give the update that the City Council established the Historic Commission. The City Council is the one who approves our Standards. The third parti is bits of  information from each document that I'm going to be reviewing.  o Chairman Craigie:  The standards should take into account durability of materials and the needs of property owners, as well as aesthetic considerations. (Historic Preservation Commission in NC The standards should not require particular architectural features or styles. Standards using relative rather than absolute terms (fore example, "recommend,"* "encourage," and "discourage," rather than "require" or "prohibit") provide guidance while allowing the Commission reasonable leeway in design review. Iti is more practical to frame Standards in terms of the desired result than to prescribe specific solutions. Nonetheless, examples of good design solutions for common types of changes are helpful. (Historic Preservation oChairman Craigie, our Standards use prohibit 241 times. It seems like they are very strict. Vice- chairwoman Boutchyard, Ithink lam reading this differently. It is saying that Standards using relative terms, rather than absolute terms, provides guidance and allows some leeway in design review. It says iti is more practical to frame Standards in terms of the desired result, than to prescribe a specific solution. It think the recommend or ençourage will be for things that have leeway, but where is it restrictive there is al hard line. Ms. Burdi, we' re actually guiding people as opposed to dictating. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, my question is are there not some standards thats should be al hard line as opposed to others that would be a recommendation. Design standards should be updated periodically. (Historic Preservation Commission in NC Handbook, page 34) This is something we have not done ina a long time. How strictly to regulate the use ofr modern materials (such as vinyl or aluminum siding or asphalt shingles). (Historic Preservation Commission in NCI Handbook, page 37) o Ms. Vaughn, this statement was in reference to some of the issues that should be addressed in the Standards, which we do. We sayi in some of our areas you shouldn't use certain materials,  Handbook, page 34)  Commission in NCI Handbook, page 34)  OG Chairman Craigie:  but it's not saying you can't restrict that.  oChairman Craigie:  Publications and distribution ofs standards made available to public and real estate agents. 6."where possible, materials" (Washington HPC: Standards, 1.2 Secretary of Interiors' Standards for Rehabilitation, page 27) Ithink we should look into updating our Standards to where we can use some modern materials. l'm not defining what they are, Ijust think we  (Historic Preservation Commission in NCI Handbook, page 40)  should look at our Standards and update them.  Page 8of15  (Tuesday, August3 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31,2021    "The preservation field is constantly changing with the development of new materials and technology, therefore the HPCI must keepi itself up-to-date on developing trends." (Washington HPC Standards, 1.41 Historic Preservation Commission, page 32) ON Ms. Stallings, it states that Standards should be updated periodically. Do we know the last time the Standards where actually updated? Chairman Craigie, almost 20 years. Staff, it was updated ine either the late 2000s ori in 2014. Ithink 2014 was ag graphic update. 2007 or 2009 was when  there was ag grant updating the Guidelines. o Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, Ithink  we discussed this at our meeting with City Council. We  lwould think  may need to: state ai frequency of how often this should be reviewed. Ms. Burdi, that the applications that come before us with the use. of new materials would indicate that the public would like us to reconsider. That's what we ultimately serve is our public. Vice-  need to go  before. City Council to request something be added to  Chairwoman Boutchyard, we  say how frequently and beginning in what year. we could keep an eye out for. We could get a grant  the falli is  when Historic Preservation grants are announced. That is one thing  o Staff, int to apply way to go about doing a Standards. It willt take al lot longer going  generally  to hire a consultant to review our Standards.  Ms. Burdi, why do we need a comultemfVeeChainoman Boutchyard, who would ask the City for a grant? Chairman Craigie, we. would have to ask City Council. Staff, that is the best  whole. Design Standard overhaul. We can get a consultant to look at our  back and forth with the State Historic Preservation  Office. What a consultant would do is take a look at our Design Standards. We could seta a with the Commission, Council, and community members to alll be a part of the process Ms. Burdi, are saying that our Design Standards have tol be dictated by a greater body? It's not a community decision or CityofWashington: or county State of North Carolina or above mandates what our Standards willl be? Staff, the! State is involved because we are a certified local government. They! have a say. Ms. Burdi, did we ever  meeting in this update.  you  developer?1 The  in clarify previous on the next page. l'm getting to that. Chairman Craigie:  discussion what happens if we are nott tied toi them? Chairman Craigie, that is  "Being in al locally designated Historic District does not require the property owner toi follow any particular state or federal standards for preservation." (Washington HPC Standards, 1.6 Int the Washington character the district, and the history of our district. There is homes listed in there that have aluminum siding. Backi in 1978 there were, Ithink, eight vinyl sO many times that we could lose our historic district designation. They might bei talking about the certified local government, but it's always been described as we can lose our  Ties to Other Codes and Guidelines, page 35)  National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 1978, it lists the when Market Street became historic, 20% of the homes have vinyl. I'm not but lam an advocate for modern materials. We've heard in the past  homes, talks about the In sidings. 2010, an advocate for vinyl,  historic designation. It's not true based on materials.  North Market Street National Register of Historic Places is not  o Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, the the same designation  that we have. Staff, the Washington Historic District is a locally designated  district. It has to adhere to whatever the  historic district. Iti is basically like an overlay zoning  zoning district is in addition to the Design Standards. The Washington Historic District is also  Page 9of15  (Tuesday, August3 3, 2021, HPC Meeting) Revised: August3 31, 2021    nationally designated. So, there are some similarities int the boundary between the local and national district. Market Street is a National Registered Historic District, but it's not locally designated. Thati is the difference. What the Design Standards apply to isa al local district. The these Standards would apply to North Market Street is if they request to be locally only way The statutes would have to be adjusted for them because of thet timeframe oft the designated. North Market District. It was done in 2010, so the catchment area fort that is homes that were at least 1960s. Chairman Craigie, there are homes there that are al lot older than that. Even the homes there with vinyl are contributing. Ms. Vaughn, that is material available when those homes were built. That's something you need to remember. Ify youl have al house that was built int the 1900s, vinyl wasn'taround. That's why all of our Standards state your needt to replace in- kind, or with the same materials. If the same material isnot available, for example, there is no one to repair stucco that was made int the 1920s, theny you find an appropriate material from that historical era when that house was built to replace the stucco. We can use modern materials with new construction, but when considering a specific house materials from that time should be used. Staff, it isi important to know when the home is built. Ms. Vaughn, that is how the Secretary of the Interior'sStandards: are.lalso have some documents that lwant to share because lagree that we alli need to get on the same page. Ithink we need to do that in line with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Secretary of Interior Standards. o Chairman Craigie, we can right our Standards anyway we want. We can: still keep the integrity and quality of the home, and restore it with modern materials. The Standards talk abouti the quality of your historic district. Ms. Vaughn, you can restore is with the older materials. Chairman Craigie, there are people that can'tafford to do that. Ms. Burdi, what happens when can'tf find those materials? Right now, there are no materials to bel had. Ican no longer get can be flexible. in what you recommend, but still stay within year or timeframe when that house was built. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, right now, we are not talking about obsolete materials. supply chain. Ms. Burdi, in some cases the materials are obsolete. talking siding to match my house is al large amount of money andi is unreasonable. So, there is definitely exceptions. Ms. Vaughn, there are exceptions. I1 think we need to understand where the exceptions go. Al house built in 1900 can't get the same exceptions as al house built in 2000. You have to stick with that era. Ify you can'ti find that material you pick something else that was used in that same year. Ms. Burdi, you also have to take into consideration the continued renovation and remodeling. My house was built in 1902, but myl kitchen was probably built in 1950, and my screened porch in 1975. Chairman Craigie, most oft the homes in the Historic District have been added on to. Ms. Vaughn, it talks about the part that is original. Youl have to work with that. The parts that were added on you can consider when they were built. o Chairman Craigie, the next part just shows the different ways in the Architectural Manual that things are contributing or noncontributing. Its shows the different types of coverings like vinyl and wood. The next page is about certified local government and what is required to become certified and then what it1 takes to stay certified. It talks about keeping up with the Historic Commission Standards, survey oft the properties, public participation, and things like that. For decertification, there are at few things. It's a matter of whether the Staff kept upt their  you the siding lhave You are, talking  from Builders Source or Lowes. Ms. Vaughn, that's where this statement ofy you about materials that are still being manufactured new, but there is a delay in the  l'm  about customized  responsibility. It's almost like a performance review.  Page 10of15  (Tuesday, August3 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31,2 2021    o Chairman Craigie, the next page shows the minutes. Iwent back to 2015, which is how far back they go online. I learned after printing this that paper minutes are available. Mr. Hodges was the Chairman on 09/01/2015, and he stated that the Commission had approved vinyl windows in the past. This is just a list ofa all the windows that have come before us. Ont the next page is vinyl siding, vinyl windows, aluminum siding, and whether or not they! had this siding when we became designated. These aren'ta all the homes int the district; these are just the ones thatl could fit on one page. You can see there are al lot of vinyl windows and vinyls siding. These were thingsInever knew existed untillstarted doing this and went around looking. I'm hoping that we can update our Standards with modern materials because this exists. Each person can chose to follow the Secretary ofl Interiors! Standards to get grants or tax credits. Some people don't have thei funds toi follow this. It's notj just the matter of repairing them. It's also living in the home. To live in al home that doesn't have modern windows can be very expensive to run. I'm ON Ms. Burdi, it willl bei interesting to seel how we. react and what we have to doi if our federal laws change. There are talking about doing away with gas heat. They are talking about requiringa a certain standard ofe efficiency in al home. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, ifal law like that were to pass then feel certain that historic homes and historic districts would be grandfathered in and o Ms. Vaughn, Iwant to provide you with: some information, and l'm going to try and go through this quickly. One oft the main things is that our goal as Commissioners is to help homeowners with historic homes have Standards and guide them through that process. On thet first page you will see our commission's purpose is to ensure that we protect and preserve local historic resources. That is our main goal. We guide homeowners in accordance with our Standards.  asking that we go to the City Council and ask their opinion.  not required.  Chairman Craigie, can' youe explain what that means though?  OMs. Vaughn, local historic resources:  Tor recommend. that the local governing board designates properties as historic landmarks. Tor recommend that the local governing board designate areas as historic districts. To approve or disapprove: applications from property owners who wish to make changes to properties that are locally designated historical landmarks or arei inl locally designated historic districts, to ensure that inappropriate changes are not made. OC Chairman Craigie, if we change our Standards to allow modern materials, we won't be breaking that rule. Ms. Vaughn, lagree. I'm saying we need to follow the Standards, whatever they may OMs. Vaughn, the: second page talks about according to state law, historic preservation  be.  commission are established so that local governing boards can:  "safeguard the heritage of the city or county by preserving any district or landmark therein that embodies important elements of its culture, history, architectural history, or "promote the use and conservation of such district or landmark fori the education, pleasure, and enrichment of the residents of the city or county and the State as a whole."  prehistory" and  Page 11 of15  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021    Chairman o Ms. Vaughn,  to me giving someone the ability to restore is better than letting it fall down.  Craigie, I'm not  should tear it apart. I'mj just trying to get us all ont the same  saying they  in Washington come before us  page as far as what our goali is. Chairman Craigie, some people  and think we are difficult. Ms. Vaughn, Ithink that is an education thing. Iwe do need to educate people that we're not here to be difficult. We're here to tell you what the Standards didn't look anything like that whenl Ibought it. It has been preserved, but Iwas granted modern materials. Ijust findi it hard thatlcan be granted, but then someone else comes here and we say no. That's the partidon'tI like. Ms. Vaughn, Ithink thati is because different people on the Commission have different ideas. So, what I'm doing is trying to help us all come back to some I'mj just trying to make change to keep us all on the same page and make everyone happy.  these historical buildings. Ms. Burdi, we are here to encourage the  are. We are here to preserve  house has been preserved. It  owner to preserve; we are not preserving. Chairman Craigie, my  Chairman Craigie, Iy understand. That's what I'mi trying to do also.  kind of the same perspective.  the next document Ih have here is about the guidelines. This is right out of the Rehabilitation guidance in each section! begins with protection and maintenance, that work which should be maximized in every project to enhance overall preservation goals. Next, where some deterioration is present, repair of the building's historic materials and features isr recommended. Finally, when deterioration: is SO extensive that repair is not possible, the most problematic area ofv worki is considered: replacement of historic materials and features Ms. Vaughn, on the next page, it talks about replacing. The third page talks about replacing in  of Ms. Vaughn,  Secretary ofl InteriorsGuidelines. Ify you look ati the bottom it: says:  with new materials.  kind.  replacement of the entire feature in kind, that is, with the  The preferred option is always  same material. Because this approach may not always be technically or economically feasible, provisions are made to consider the use of a compatible substitute material. Its should be noted that, while the National Park Service guidelines recommend the replacement of an entire character-defining feature under certain well-defined feature that-although damaged or deteriorated-could reasonably repaired  never recommend the removal and replacement with new material ofa  circumstances, they preserved. o Ms. Vaughn, Are that they show us an  be  and thus  thisi is saying  we want to protect and maintain, you want to repair, and the last  cannot repairi it. There have been several  thing should' be replace. That's only if you absolutely  that have come before us and asked to replace all of their windows with vinyl windows. people each oft those windows actually is disrepair? Maybe we could make it part of our Standards that when we came before the Commission we did have a picture of everything. Ms. Vaughn, the whole point of this document is to say are we looking at things correctly? We need to repair. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, we have had people request vinyl siding because they don't want to do that, buti it saves us money on our electric bill. Iti is an ongoing savings. Ms. Burdi, not define what part oft the house. I've heard in Charleston, South Carolina it's what you see  actual detail  of each individual window. Chairman Craigie, will say  picture  Chairman Craigie, when we did the research for our house is was going to be  tol keep painting.  versus $12,000  to replace. Not only did it save us money  $40,000 to repair andi fix what we had,  this does  Page 12of15  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPC Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021    from the sidewalk when you're standing there. It could say first floor only. It think there are some compromises that could easily! be made. Iwas told Icouldn't even put a paving stone ini my backyard without the Commission's permission. As a new person to the City or the county, I've heard it all. lattended that meeting three years ago, and that seemed to bet thei theme oft the meeting. As the public who has to live in these houses and do this work can't make heads or tails of where the line is drawn. Ithink we need to condense and define some oft these rules. It hard for the general publici to know. Ms. Vaughn, maybe we should have at training session. It's about education. Ms. Burdi, iti is. We need to involve the publicand work with the people and o Ms. Vaughn, the next documents are blogs. There are about North Carolina local government regarding historic preservation. Thet first one offers three frequently asked questions, which are Shouldn't the historic commission consider affordability. andi financial feasibility in making COA decisions? Not necessarily. Even though they! have obvious financial implications, most design guidelines adopted by local commissions do not included references to the economics of making suitable changes. As a general rule, then, even though a commission enjoys considerable discretion inr making its decisions, a commission is not required or even expected to take affordability into account in making its COA decision. Since a property owner in a local historic district enjoys reciprocal benefits from the special features exhibited by other properties in the district, it is generally appropriate to expect a property owner to meet district guidelines as they may apply to his or her own property without referring to cost or to the personal circumstances oft the applicant. There are ai few o Ms. Burdi, think that goes both ways. - live across the street from al house that does not make my real estate value go up. Ms. Vaughn,! lliyed int front oft that house fori ten years. o Ms. Vaughn, the next document is about what is hardship and when is it necessary. Under the news statute al board of adjustment shall vary the provisions oft the zoning ordinance ifstrict application oft the ordinance would create unnecessary hardship. In order to obtain a variance, the applicant must show all of thei following: Unnecessary hardship would result fromi the strict application of the ordinance The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar toi the property  not mandate or dictate.  questions Ithink we ask often. The second question is:  exceptions.  Thel hardship is not a self-created hardship Additionally, the applicant must show that the variance will Be consistent with the intent of the ordinance  Secure public safety Achieve substantial justice  Tol be sure, a variance is not a free pass from regulations or at tool to subvert the zoning ordinance. In order to obtain a variance, the applicant bears the burden of providing competent, substantial and relevant evidence to convince the decision-making board that the property meets all of the: statutory standards for a variance. Merely showing some  hardship is insufficient.  Page 13of15  (Tuesday, August 3,2 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August: 31, 2021    Ms. Vaughn, when people come before us and say that it's just too expensive to dot that, we need proof. We need evidence. Whyi is more expensive? Why cany your not afford it? We can't Whenever there is a regulation, there is some level of necessary hardship and inconvenience shared by all the community. An applicant for a variance must show unnecessary hardship. What is enough hardship? Unfortunately, there is no simple formula. It is determined on a case-by-case basis. That is why the board of adjustment holds a quasi-judicial hearing and The hardship must be more than mere inconvenience or a preference for a more lenient standard. Cost of compliance may be at factor, but cost is not determinative. It is not enough for an applicant to say that development will cost more in order to comply. The applicant must show the substantial: and undue nature ofthat additional cost as compared to others Chairman Craigie, this is coming from May 27; 2014. Ithink our general statutes have all been updated with the 160D. Staff, the 160D and the language is very similar to that. There is also the quasi-judicial handbook. The language for variances and hardship didn't change very much. If you like, I can send yout the 160D section on hardship and variances. Ms. Vaughn, It think that would be helpful. Chairman Craigie, Iwould like one. Ms. Vaughn, Ithink iti is important to understand what hardshipi is and how we: should consider hardship. Iknow some people can't afford things, buti if we have guidelines there, we can apply them consistently. Ms. Vaughn, the other thing IV want to mention is things being congruous and not congruous. The single standard the commission must apply is whether or not the property owner's proposed changes are incongruous; changes deemed noti incongruous must be permitted, o Chairman Craigie, I've mentioned thati in one of our previous meetings. I questioned why we would even need to talk about something thati is congruous. Ms. Vaughn, I did read that ifitisa major improvement they! have to come before us. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, we have to  just take their word fori it.  considers the evidence presented.  subject to the same restriction.  even if commission members consider. them less than ideal.  agree that iti is congruous. of Ms. Vaughn, the next blogi is says:  Itisworth emphasizing that congruence is based on the district as a whole, not just neighboring properties or relatively uncommon feature within the district. Commissions must determine congruence based on ac contextual standard derived "from the total physical environment of the Historic District." A-S-P Associates V. City of Raleigh. The Commission may not cherry pick certain properties ori features of the district to determine OMs. Vaughn, Ithink that is something we need to consider. When we are considering congruence, we need to determine ifiti is congruent fori the district.  congruity.  la  on  to Council this month and ask their opinion and  o Chairman Craigie, am planning going City  fort their help going forward and looking into updating our Standards. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, when you doi that will you check with them about what Staff recommended with the potential grant coming available int the fall? And also that you would like City Council to move to review the Standards and put a time limit on how often it needs to be done.  Page 14of15  (Tuesday, August 3, 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August 31, 2021    int this conversation there are two items that have been brought up. One ist the update of The second is the option ofe educationi fori the public. We may have to choose  oS Staff, the guidelines. one.  2. Staff Update - Prevention of Demolition by Neglect  601 East Second Street: Staff, this is technically not a prevention of demolition by neglect. It is minimum housing, but you asked to be updated on it. Ith has now been: sold three times. The latest owner came in last week toi figure out what he needs to do. Iknow the inspections departmenti is saying the floor needs tol be raised." That can be done by raisingt thei finished floori inside thel house, raising the entire structure. I think the property owner is looking at raising the entire structure. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, can you share the name oft the new owner? Staff,ldo not know the name and the Beaufort County tax records have not been updated. Chairman Craigie, they did put a roof on it. Vice-Chairwoman Boutchyard, I've seen more progress just in 238 East Second Street: Staff, this property was discussed earlier tonight. The last time Ispoke with him Igave him some contractors to contact.! lalso gave him the contact for. John' Wood.. John Wood hast the most extensive listi for contractors in a region. Ms. Burdi, his problem willl bet finding  or by  the last two weeks.  to  and work onl his terms. Staff, our hope ist that hei is ablet to make the repairs  ac contractor sayy yes  there is constant communication.  orr realize that hei is not able to dot the work.That's) why  VIII.  Adjourn  A. There being no other business, Chairman Craigie asked foramotion to adjourn the meeting.  Vice-Chairwoman Scarlett Boutchyard: made a motion to adjourn. Elizabeth Stallings seconded the motion. All members voted, 7 in favor and 0 opposed. The meeting was  adjourned. Record ofvote below. Record of vote:  YES NO COMMISSION MEMBER  MOTION MADETHE MOTION 2nd THE MOTION  X X X X X X X  Scot Craigie Scarlett Boutchyard Cheri Vaughn Kathy Burdi Elizabeth Stallings Marian Booth Beth Casey  Page 15 of15  (Tuesday, August 3,2 2021, HPCI Meeting) Revised: August: 31, 2021    Washington North Carolina  Historic Districts and Preservation Commission  HPC Standards Discussion  History June 28, 1977 July 13, 1978 August 14, 1978 March 12, 1992 February 2002 March 2002  - Washington Historic Preservation Commission Established (HPC) Washington Historic District Nomination Washington Historic District (National Register of Historic Places) Certified Local Government (CLG) Designation - City Council Abolished the Washington HPC - City Council Appoints new Commission for the Washington McRoy, Archie and Collier appointed, term expires 6/30/2005 Lavan and Jerfferson appointed, term expires 6/30/2004 Jennings and Ganley appointed, term expires 6/302003 North Market Street Historic District (National Register ofH Historic Places)  HPC  October 2011 References  G.S. 160D - 303 Historic Preservation Commission -(a)Governing Board (City Council) establishes thel HPC  Washington Code of Ordinances Sec. 40-386. - Historic District and Commission -(c)(4). All standards and amendments shall be subject to approval by the City Council  Historic Preservation Commissions in NC Handbook  take into  durability of materials and the needs of property owners, as  - The standards should  account  well as aesthetic considerations. (page 34)  -The standards should not require particular architectural features or styles. Standards using relative rather than absolute terms (for example, "recommend" lencourage," and "discourage/ rather than ("require" or prohibit')provide, to: frame standards int terms of the desired result than to prescribe specific review. Iti is more practical examples of good design solutions for common types of changes are helpful.  guidance while allowing the commission reasonable leeway in design  solutions. Nonetheless, (page 34)  design standards should be updated periodically. (page 34)  H How strictly to regulate the use of modern materials (such as vinyl or aluminum siding or asphalt Publications and distribution of standards made available to public and real estate agents (page 40)  shingles). (page 37)    Washington HPC Standards  1.2 Secretary ofInteriors' Standards, for Rehabilitation 6. "where possible, materials" (page 27) 1.4 Historic Preservation Commission "Thej preservation field is constantly changing 1.6 Ties to Other Codes and Guidelines Relationship to State and National Standards particular state or federal standards forj preservation" asetsNet Defines the District Area  with the development of new: materials and technology,  therefore the HPC must keep itself up-to-date on developing trends." (page 32)  "Being in a locally designated Historic District does not require the property owner to followa any  Washington National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 1978  Statement of Significance: Lists the history of Washington Contributing) or (Fill (F), Intrusion (Non-contributing  I List ofhomes and businesses within the district, buildings are listed as (Pivotal (Piv), Positive (Pos)  North Market Street National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form 2010  AsECATaN Defines the District Area within -List ofhomes and businesses Contributing (NC)  are listed as Contributing and Non-  the district, buildings  (C),  20% ofhomes use modern materials and are classified as contributing  Statement of Significance: Lists thel history of Washington and North Market Street District  SHPO Architectural Survey Manual 2008 I District/Neighborhood Association:  contrib non-contrib  (subjective judgment as to the property's contribution to the character oft the district) Primary Original Ext. Material: Weatherboard (plain beaded molded novelty type unk.)IBatten]  Wood shingles Exposed logs Brick Stone Stucco Pebbledash Shingle Later brick veneer Metal I Paper I Undetermined Material Integrity: High Medium Low N/A Gone  Other  Covering: None Aluminum I Vinyl] 14 Asbestos  Covering: None Aluminum I Vinyl I Asbestos Shingle II Later brick veneer Metal [ Paperl Undetermined (Circle the material that covers or replaces the primary original material.) Material Integrity: High Medium Low N/A Gone This means the historic integrity of material ini the building. It may havel highi integrity (mostly original materials and features) but be in deteriorated condition, or have low integrity and be in good condition. This is a somewhat subjective judgment.. As a rule ofthumb, a house that has been covered with artificial siding but otherwise retains its original form, windows, and porches is "medium.' " The same house  the  with porch removed or enclosed and with windows replaced is "low."    Certified Local Government (CLG) Standards 2003  CLGs receive technical assistance and training from the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), participate in the National Register nomination process, and are eligible to receive small matching  grants for preservation activities.  Requirements for Certification Federal Requirements  *E Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties * Establish by state or local legislation an adequate and qualified historic preservation review * Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of properties that furthers the purposes ofthe * Provide: for adequate public participation ini the local historic preservation program, including the  commission  Act  process ofr reviewing nominations to the National Register of Historic Places * Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it under the. Act  Local Historic Preservation Ordinance Local Historic Preservation Commission Certified Local Government Staff Survey of Historic Properties Public Participation  Decertification  The SHPO may recommend decertification to the National Park Service after all oft the following conditions 1.The have been SHPO met: determines that a CLG's performance does not meet the performance standards specified in the Certification Agreement or referenced therein, including meeting established time periods, and 2. The SHPO specifies to the CLG in writing ways toi improve performance within aj period oft time by which 3. After the period oft time stipulated by the SHPO, the SHPO determines that there has not been sufficient  deficiencies must be corrected or improvements must be achieved, and  improvement    HPC Minutes with Vinyl Window Request *  Approved Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No  Date 12/03/2019 10/01/2019 08/06/2019 10/02/2018 12/05/2017 11/07/2017 08/01/2017 04/04/2017 03/07/2017 02/07/2017 01/03/2017 06/07/2016 05/03/2016 11/03/2015 09/01/2015  Address Belk Bldg 111 W2nd 705 E Main 124 E2nd 243 EI Main 513B2md 625 El Main 248 W Main 192 W Main 404 Water 715 Short 222 E2 2nd 319W2 2nd 315 W2 2nd 315 W2md  Description  Vinyl Windows Court House Annex  109 N Brown 3Vinyl Doors Back ofHouse  Vinyl Windows, House has on back Replace screen porch with Vinyl Clad New Structure, Garden house, vinyl windows Vinyl Windows installed before request, Comment made by commissioner Everett that Window Guidelines need to be addressed Vinyl Windows on 2nd and 3rd floor Vinyl Windows on 2nd and 3rd floor Replace all with Vinyl windows Vinyl Windows on 2nd floor Replace all sashes with vinyl clad Came back for reconsideration Hardi Plank and Vinyl windows Mr. Hodges (Chair) stated that the commission had approved vinyl windows in the past  Vinyl Windows  *N Minutes where not kept prior to. August 2015    Findings (not all homes in district evaluated)  Address 511 W Main 519 W Main 705 W Main 710 WI Main 715 W Main 717 W Main 719 W Main 721 W Main 735 W Main 738 WI Main 319 E Main 511 E Main 164 E Main 413 E Main 428 El Main 602 E Main 609 E Main 625 EI Main 628 EI Main 702 EI Main 712 EI Main 728 EI Main 121 E2nd 122 B2nd 127 E2nd 213 E2nd 227 E2nd 414E2nd 4341 E2nd 5021 B2nd 507 E2nd 5181 E2nd 524 E2nd 5321 E2md 600 E2 2nd W 2nd - Eureka Sq. W Main & Hackney 244 E3rd 815 E3 3rd 3141 N Harvey 334 N Harvey 123 MLK 239 MLK 406 Water 112/114 Charlotte 124 Mac Nair * refers to Siding  Vinyl  PVCor  Siding Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum &Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum &Vinyl Alum & Vinyl  Before Historic Designation 1978 *  Windows Vinyl Fence  Yes  Yes  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Yes Yes  Alum Alum Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl Asbestos Alum &Vinyl Alum Alum  Yes Yes  Yes Yes- Alum Yes Yes  Yes  Yes Yes  Yes Yes Yes  Asbestos Alum  Yes Yes  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Alum & Vinyl  Alum & Vinyl Alum & Vinyl    SHPO and our standards refer to preserving the "Character" ofour historic district, and the standards are for the people who maintain and preserve the homes and buildings in the district, rather than letting them deteriorate. During our town meeting in August 2019 we heard many people ask about modern materials, with that the people were told that a review ofour standards and materials would take place. Wehave also had many COA requests that indicate people want modern materials. Our goal as a commission is to help homeowners restore their homes, our standards guide the homeowners through that process. The commission has the responsibility to update the standards including materials for rehabilitation for city  council review and approval.  The information listed in this document show that being strict or requiring certain materials is not the issue for preserving and maintaining historic districts. In order to be eligible for tax credits and/or grants then following the Secretary ofI Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation is a must, otherwise allowing more modern materials  should be allowed in our standards.    1> Thel Historic Preservation Commission: An Overview  1  The Historic Preservation Commission: An Overview  This chapter provides a general overview of how local historic preservation commissions are established in North Çarolina and what they do. The topics introduced in this chapter are explored in more detail in  Chapters2throughi h12ofthish handbook. The Commission's Purpose  AH historic preservation commission is established by a local governing board (such as a city or town council or a county board of commissioners) to protect and preserve local historical resources. The commission has these Tor recommend that thel local governing board designate propertiesas Torecommend that thel local governing board designate areas as To approve or disapprove applications from property owners who wish tomake changes toj properties that arel locally designated historic landmarks or are inl locally designated historic districts, to ensure that Toadvise and assist thel local government inj preservation planning. A local governing board cannot designate historic landmarks or historic districts unlessi itl has first established al historic preservation commission. HistoricLandmarks and Historic Districts Defined Local governments may designate individual properties as historic landmarks and groups of properties as historic districts because of their historical, prehistorical, architectural, or cultural significance. To qualify for designation, aj property or an area must also show integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, or association. Integrity enables aj property ora area to convey its significance to the observer; it mainly has to do with the  main functions:  historic landmarks. historic districts.  inappropriate changes are not made.  intactness of thep property/sphysical. features. The Difference between Local Designation and National Register Listing  Designation by a local governing board has no direct connection with listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation for their significance in American history,  1    2 > Establishment of the Commission    The Ordinance Establishing the Commission The ordinance establishing the commission describes these things: Thec commissionspurpose. and composition. Requirements for commission meetings, attendance, and The commission-spowers and responsibilities. The criteria and procedures for designating historicl landmarks The procedures for reviewing applications for certificates of appropriateness (thati is, review of proposed changes to exterior features of designated landmarks or properties within designated Thee exterior features that the commission must consideri in such The circumstances under which the commission may review proposed changes to interior features of designated landmarks. Thej procedures for appeals from the commision'sactions. The waysi in which conflict with other lawsi is to be resolved. The ordinance should bes specific and detailed, toj prevent later confusion or disagreement over its interpretation. To ensure that the ordinance conforms with state law, it should use the language of the state enabling The ordinance is drafted by the city or county attorney, usually in close consultation with the local government's elected officials and staff, the State  administration.  and/or historic districts.  districts). reviews.  )  legislation wherever possible.  Historic Preservation Office, and other experts. The Commission's Purpose so that] local governing boards can  According to statel law, historic preservation commissions are established "safeguard thel heritage of the city or county by preserving any district or landmark therein that embodiesi important elements of its culture, history, architectural! history, or prehistory" and "promote the use: and conservation of such district orl Iandmark for the education, pleasure, and enrichment of the residents of the city or county and the! State as a whole." Should the ordinance or the commission's actions be legally challenged, a clear statement of purpose int the ordinance will bet useful to the court.  The Commission's Composition  The ordinance establishing the commission must specify the size of the commission, the qualifications required for commission membership, the procedure by which the Iocal governing board appoints commission members, and thel length of commission: members' terms.  12    Technical Preservatonservice.  Guidelnes  Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings  Standards Guidelines Masonry Wood Metals Roofs Windows Entrances/Porches Storefronts Structural Systems SpacasfFesturewfFinishes Mechanical Systems Site Setting Energy New Additions Accessibility Health/Safely  Introduction to the Guidelines  - ns  The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings were initially developed in 1977 to help property owners, developers, and Federal managers apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation during the project planning stage by providing general design and technical recommendations. Unlike the Standards, the Guidelines are not codified as program  requirements.  Together with the Standards for Rehabilitation they provide ar model process for owners, developers, and Federal agency managers to follow. The Guidelines are intended to assist in applying the Standards to projects generally; consequently, they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or rare instances. For example, they cannot tell owners or developers which features of their own historic building are important in defining the historic character and must be preserved-alhougn examples are providedi in each section--or which features could be altered, ifr necessary, for the new use. This kind of careful case-by-case decision-making is best accomplished by seeking assistance from qualified historic preservation professionals in the planning stage of the project. Such professionals include architects, architectural historians, historians, archeologists, and others who are skilled int the preservation, rehabiitation, and restoration of thel historic properties. The Guidelines pertain to historic buildings of all sizes, materials, occupancy, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" are techniques which could adversely affect al building's historic character are listed To provide clear and consistent guidance for owners, developers, and Federal agency managers to follow, the' Recommended" courses of action in each section are listed in order of historic preservation concerns so that a rehabilitation project may be successfully planned and completed--one that, first, assures the preservation of al building's important or character-defining architectural materials andi features and, second, makes possible an efficient contemporary use. Rehabilitation guidance in each section begins with protection and maintenance, that work which should be maximized in every project to enhance overall preservation goals. Next, where some deterioration. is present, repair of the building's historic materials and features is recommended. Finally, when deterioration is sO extensive that repair is not possible, the most problematic area of work is considered: replacement of historic materials and'  Those approaches, treatments, and Secretary of the Recommended" section in each topic area  techniques that are and construction types; and for Interior's Rehabilitation Standards listed in bold-face type under the' "  toi interior and exterior work as well as new  consistent with the exterior additions. Those approaches, apply treatments, and techniques that are  are listed under the Recommended" section in each topic area; those approaches, treatments, and  int the "Not Recommended" section in each topic area.  features with new materials.    Tof further guide the owner and developer in planning a successful rehabilitation project, those complex design issues dealing with new use requirements such as alterations and additions are highlighted at the end ofe each section to underscore  the need for particular sensitivity ini these areas. How to Use The Guidelines  Identify, Retain, and Preserve The guidance that is basic tot the treatment of all historic buidings-identilying, retaining, and preserving the form and detailing of thos architectural materials andi features that are important in defining the historic character--is always listed firsti ini the' Recommended" area. The parallel "Not Recommended" areal lists the types of actions that are most apt to cause the  diminution or even loss oft the buildings's historic character. Its should be remembered, however, that suchl loss of character is just as often caused by the cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor interventions. Thus, the guidance in all oft the' "Not Recommended" areas must be viewed in that larger context, e.g., for the total impact on al historic building.  Protect and Maintain  After identifying those materials and features that are important and must be retained int the process of rehabilitation work, then protecting and maintaining them are addressed. Protection generally involves the least degree of intervention and is preparatory to other work. For example, protectioni includes the maintenance of historic material through treatments such as rust removal, caulking, limited paint removal, and re-application of protective coating; the cyclical cleaning ofr roof gutter systems; or installation of fencing, protective plywood, alarm systems and other temporary protective measures. Although a historic building will usually require more extensive work, an overall evaluation of  The parallel "Not Recommended" area lists the types of actions that are most apt to cause the diminution or even loss of the buildings's historic character.  its physical condition should always begin at this level.  2) Repair Next, when the physical condition of character-defining materials and features warrants additional work repairing is recommended. Guidance for the repair of historic materials such as masonry, wood, and architectural metals again begins with thel least degree ofi intervention possible such as patching, piecing-in, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforçing or upgrading them according to recognized preservation methods. Repairing also includes thel limited replacement in kind--or with compatible substitute material--of extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features when there are surviving prototypes (for example, brackets, dentils, steps, plaster, or portions of slate or tile roofing). Although using the same kind of material is always the preferred option, substitute material is acceptable ift thet form and design as well as the substitute material itself convey the visual appearance of the remaining parts of the feature  and finish. 3) Replace  Following repair in the hierarchy, guidance is provided for replacing an entire character-definingi feature with new material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair (for example, an exterior cornice; an interior staircase; or a complete porch or storefront). Ift the essential form and detailing are: still evident sO that the physical evidence can be used to re- establish thet feature as ani integral part of the rehabilitation project, then its    replacement is appropriate. Like the always replacement of the entire feature ink kind, thati is, with the same material. Because this approach may not always be technically or economically feasible, provisions are made to consider the use ofa compatible substitute material. Itshould be noted that, while the National Park Service guidelines recommend: the replacement of an entire character- defining feature under certain well-defined circumstances, they never recommend  GATE HINGES AND FASTS,  guidance for repair, the preferred option is To Swig Both Ways, saf Selsbwitas  removal and replacement with new material of at feature that-although damaged ord deteriorated-could reasonably be repaired and thus preserved.  Design for Missing Historic Features  When an entire interior or exterior feature is missing (for example, an entrance, or cast ironi facade; or a principal staircase), itnol longer plays a role in physically defining the historic character of the building unless it can be accurately recovered in form and detailing through the process of carefully documenting the historical appearance. Where an important architectural feature is missing, its recoveryi is always recommended ini the guidelines as the first or preferred, GATE FASTENINGS pictorial, and physical documentation exists so that  course of action. Thus, ifa adequate historical, thei feature may be accurately reproduced, and ifiti is desirable to re-establish thei feature as part oft the building's historical appearance, then designing and constructing a newi feature based on such information is appropriate. However, a second acceptable option fort the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining character-definingi features of the historic building. The new design should always takei into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself  and, most importantly, should be clearly differentiated sO that ai false historical  appearance is not created.  Alterations/Additions to Historic Buildings  Some exterior andi interior alterations tol historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, buti it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials,  features, or finishes.  Alterations may include providing additional parking space on an existing historic building site; cutting new entrances or windows on secondary elevations; inserting an additional floor; installing an entirely new mechanical system; or creating an atrium or light well. Alteration may alsoi include the selective removal of buildings or other features of the environment or building site that are intrusive and therefore detract from the overall historic The construction of an exterior addition to al historic building may seem to be essential for the new use,  character.  buti iti is emphasized in the guidelines that such new additions should be avoided, if possible, and considered only after iti is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering secondary, i.e., non character-defining interior spaces. If, after a    thorough evaluation of interior solutions, an exterior addition is still judged to be the only viable alterative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character-defining features are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Additions to historic buildings are referenced within specific sections of the guidelines such as Site, Roof, Structural Systems, etc., but are also considered inr more detail in a separate section, New Additions to Historic Buildings.  Energy ficlencyAcessiblly Considerations/eatn and These sections of the rehabilitation guidance address work done to meet accessibility requirements and health and safety code requirements; or retrofitting measures to conserve energy. Although this work is quite often an important aspect of rehabilitation projects, iti is usually not a part of the overall process of protecting or repairing character-definingi features; rather, such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's historic character. For this reason, particular care must be taken not to radically change, obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining materials or features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet code and energy requirements.  Safety Considerations  Home IN Nextl - Previous    Coates' Canons NCI Local Government Law tps/canonsogunceo  UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  AI  Coates' Canons Blog: Local Historic Preservation Districts and Landmarks: Three Frequently  Asked Questions By! Richard Ducker questions!  Article: -  This entry was posted on. June 22, 2010 andi isf filed under Land Use & Codel Enforcement  UPDATE September 2013: The 2013 law that revises the zoning board of adjustment statutes ( S.L. 2013-126): affects appeals of certificate of appropriateness decisions of historic board's preservation review of such appeals must be based on the record made by the commission and shall According to ai recent count byt the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), ninety-four (94) cities and counties in North Carolina either support al local! historic preservation program singly or participate with other local units ina a joint program. One element of most oft these programs is the appointment of al historic preservation commission that reviews within plans local involving changes int the exterior features of locally designated historic landmarks and of properties located historic district. The consideration of applications for certificates of appropriateness (COA) to authorize these changes raises a number of legal and administrative issues. Here are three frequently asked questions. Historic preservation people seem to talk about "design guidelines" rather than "development standards." What criteria is a commission supposed to use in determining whether or not to grant a certificate of appropriateness? Under state law there is only one ultimate decision-making rule to which a commission must adhere: a certificate of appropriateness may not be granted ift the proposed changes to thef features oft the subject property' "would be To assist a incongruous with the special character of the landmark or district." (Underlining added.) (G.S. 160A-400.9(a). commission in determining whether it can reach this conclusion, communities must adopt principles and guidelines ('design guidelines"): applicable tot the district or thel landmark. These guidelines are often accompanied byi illustrative materials. In contrast to most: zoning standards, design guidelines are not necessarily prescriptive standards; they are often written in thet form of admonitions, suggestions, and advice. For example, a guideline mights say" The owner should notr replace or cover wooden siding ort trim with cladding material such as aluminum siding, vinyl siding, or brick veneer." Only a relatively small number of such guidelines may applyi in an individual case. However, in order to justify its  commissions. Section 1 of the act adds G.S. 160A-388(b1)(9) to provide that the  be like that of an appellate court.  al  lack ofi commission must refer to these guidelines in making findings off facts.  conclusion regarding congruity (orl owner's it), a Those findings must relate thep property  changes to the defining features oft the district (or the landmark)  proposed notr  oft these guidelines- not considerations of  itself ini its formative period. Compatibility with most (but necessarily all) is conclude that a particular proposal" "fitsi in."I Int this regard the applicable different from thei function served byt typical development standards.  in order for the commission to  good taste, personal style, ort thei influence of "non-contributing" buildings- guidelines necessary serve a function similar to buta al bit II. Shouldn't thel historic commission consider affordability and financial feasibility in making COA decisions? Notr necessarily. Even though they have obvious financiali implications, most design guidelines adopted by local commissions dor noti include references tot the economics of making suitable changes. As a general rule, then, even though a commission enjoys considerable discretion in making its decisions, a commission is not required or even expected to take affordability into account in making its COA decision. Since ap property owner in al local historic district reciprocal benefits from the special features exhibited by other properties in the district, iti is generally appropriate to enjoys a property owner to meet district guidelines as they may apply to his or her own property without referring to cost or circumstances of the applicant. There are, however, three exceptions to this general rule thati financial  expect tot the personal  impact is not a consideration when reviewing COA applications.  Copyright 0: 2009 top present Schoold ofG Govemment: att thel Universily of North Carolina. Allri rights reserved.  Page    Coates' Canons NCL Local Government Law htpslcanonssogunc.ecu  UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  I  Thei firsti involves situations involving demolition by neglect." G.S. 160A-400.14(b) requires ordinances that provide for these situations toi include' "appropriate safeguards to protect property owners from undue economic hardship." Considerations of economic hardship can be important because regulations addressing demolition! by neglect typically Thes second exception tot the general rule concerns an application for a COAf for the demolition of al landmark or property within a local historic district. G.S. 160A-400.14(a) allows the COA to be delayed for a period of upt to 365 days from the date of approval. This delay period must be reduced ift the commission1 finds' that the owner would suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return by virtue of the denial." The statute is designedt to protect the commission from a claim that the refusal to allow demolition amounts to an uncompensated "taking" or wipeout ofa all The third exception applies ifthep property tol be demolished is deemed byt the State Historic Preservation Officer to have "statewide significance." Ins such ani instance G.S. 160A-400.14: allows a COA1 fort the demolition of such a property to be denied rather than delayed, unless the refusal to allow demolition ata all causes the owner to' "suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return by virtue of the denial." This finding, of course, is similar to the one above thatj justifies a reduction int the COA delay period for properties that are not of statewide significance. III. How can a COA decision madel by al historic preservation commission be appealable to the: zoning board of The answer is because thes statute (G.S. 160A-400.9(e)) says sO. In contrast to most quasi-judicial zoning decisions made by local governments, which are subject toj judicial review in superior court, decisions of historic preservation commission must be appealed to the: zoning! board of adjustment first." The: zoning board of adjustment hears these appeals "ini the nature of certiorari." (G.S. 160A-400.9(e)). This means that the! board of adjustment's reviewi is based strictly ont the record oft the case thati is forwarded tot the board by the commission. Thel board hears no new evidence; it does not hear the case The board of adjustment is responsible for determining whether the decision is legally defensible as a matter of law. But the! board must defer tot thej judgment of the commission on matters of fact. Ad decision about a certificate of appropriateness clearly involves applications of discretion andj judgment to which the board must be prepared to defer. Thel board of adjustment should notr reverse a commission's decision simply because it disagrees with ther result. The commission's decision should be reversed or remanded onlyv when the commission has failed to comply with applicable Itis unclear whether the commission is a party that! has the rightt to seek judicial review of an unfavorable action byt the board of adjustment regarding a commission decision. As aj practical matter, the local governing board may have to determine fori itself how best to reconcile thei interests ofi its own preservation commission andi its own board of adjustment As more and more local governments develop increasingly sophisticated programs of historic preservation and public awareness becomes greater and greater, its seems likely thatl legal and administrative questions affecting such programs  impose affirmative obligations on property owners to stem property decline.  practical use of or reasonable return from the property.  adjustment rather than the courts?  all over again.  legal requirements or has acted arbitrarily or capriciously.  andt to determine thel legal defensibility of the positions of each.  will continue to arise. Links  pAsSasiNrOINCAsN wpondergpNCPwemaomcommiseae  www.hpo.ncder.gov:  Thist blogr posti isp published andp posted online by thes Schoold of Govemmentt to addressi issues ofinterest to govemment oft officials. forc This commercial blogp postis isf fore educational is prohibited. andi informational use andr mayk beu usedf fort thosep purposesv without permission! byp providinga acknowledgment ofitss source. Usec thist blog postf Tobrowse à complete catalog ofs School of Government publications, please visitt the School's website atw www. sog.U .unc.e educ ord contactt theE 919.966.4119; Bookstore, Schoolof orfax Govemment, CBI3 33301 Knapp-Sanders! Building, UNC Chapell Hill, Chapel! Hill, NC2 27599-3330; e-mails sales@sog. unc.edu; lelephone  purposes  Page  919.962.2707.    Coates' Canons NCL Local Government Law htpscanonsogunceau    UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  Coates' Canons Blog: Variance Standards: What is hardship? And when is it unnecessary? Article: - This entry was posted on! May 27, 2014 andi ist filed under Land Use & Code Enforcement, Quasi-Judicial Decisions, Zoning  By Adam Lovelady  development regulations like: zoning ands subdivision standards apply equally to all properties. But sometimes a Generally, property is unfairly burdened byt the general rules, creating an unnecessary hardship for the owner. The general particular statutes authorize the local board of adjustment to grant a variance from the rules int those limited circumstances. But what hardship? Recent amendments tot the state statute clarify what can (and what can't) qualify as General Statute section 160A-388(d) sets forth the standards for granting a: zoning variance (The standards alsor may be applied to subdivision and other development regulation). These mandatory standards apply to zoning variances for all counties and municipalities int the state, and the new standards override any contrary ordinance provisions that may have beeni in place priort to 2013. For a summary of the other changes tot the board of adjustment statute, see this blogf from my Under the new statute al board of adjustment shall vary the provisions of the: zoning ordinance ifs strict application oft the ordinance would create unnecessary hardship. In order to obtain the variance, the applicant must show all oft the following:  isa an unnecessary  unnecessary hardship. This blog explores those new standards.  colleague David Owens.  Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application oft the ordinance Thel hardship resultsf from conditions that are peculiar to the property  The hardship is nota as self-created hardship Additionally, the applicant musts showt thatt the variance will Bec consistent with the intent of the ordinance Secure public safety Achieve substantial justice Finally, the statute prohibits any use variance.  To be sure, a variance is nota at free pass from regulations or a toolt tos subvert thez zoning ordinances. In order to obtain a variance, the applicant bears the burden of providing competent, substantial and relevant evidence to convince the decision-making board that the property meets all oft the statutory standards for a variance. Merely showing some hardship  isi insufficient.  Let's consider each of thes standards in more detail. Unnecessary Hardship from Strict Application  Whenever there is regulation, there is some level of necessary hardship and inconvenience shared by all of the community.. An applicant for a variance musts show unnecessary hardship. What is enough hardship? Unfortunately, there is no simple formula. Itis determined on a case-by-case basis. Thati is whyt the board of adjustment holds a quasi-judicial The hardship must be moret than mere inconvenience or a preference for a more lenient standard. Cost of compliance may be ai factor, but cost is not determinative. Itis not enough for an applicant tos say that development willo costr more in order to comply. The applicant must show the substantial and undue nature oft that additional cost as compared to others  hearing and considers the evidence presented.  subject tot the same restriction.  Copyright 02 20091 topresent Schoold of Government: atthel University ofNorth Carolina. Allri rights reserved.  Page    Coates' Canons NCL Local Government Law htps.lcanonssogunc.edu  I UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  Under the olds statutes, many) jurisdictions applied a standard thatt the applicant must showt that therei isr no reasonable use oft the property without a variance. Under current statutes, thats stringent standardi is nol longer allowed.. Ap property owner can prove unnecessary hardship, eveni ift the owner has some reasonable use of thep property without the variance. The unnecessary hardship must bep peculiar tot the property, not general tot ther neighborhood or community. Such peculiar characteristics might arise, for example, from! location of the property, size or shape of the lot, or topography or water Imagine al lot thati narrows dramatically toward the front yard and wheret the side yard setbacks prohibit the property owner from building an addition. Thel hardship (not being allowed tol build an addition) flows from thes strict application of the ordinance (the setback) andi is peculiar to the property (because of thes shape of thel lot). A variance may! be appropriate if By contrast, a variance is nott the appropriate remedy for a condition or hardship thati is shared byt the neighborhood ort the community: as a whole. Consider that same narrowing lot. Ifa all oft the houses on thes street shared that hardship,a a variance would not be appropriate. Such conditions should be addressed through an ordinance amendment. Hardships that result from personal circumstances mayr not bet the basis for granting a variance. Thel board is looking at the nature oft thep property and thel land use ordinances, nott ther nature oft the applicant and their circumstances. Bringing an elderly parent tol live with the family, for example, is a change in personal circumstance, not a condition peculiar tot the The reverse is alsot true. An applicant's personal circumstances cannot bet the basis for denying a variance. The board should consider the properly, nott the applicant's bank account and ability to cover the cost of the hardship. Moreover, the factt thatt the applicant owns property nearby is irrelevant tot the consideration of whether this particular property deserves a variance (Williams V. N.C. Dept. of Env. & Nat. Resources, 144! N.C. App 479, 548 S.E. 2d 793 (2001))  Peculiar to thel Property features on thes site.  the owner presents evidence to show she meets all of the standards.  property.  Not Self-Created Hardship applicant or properly owner.  You can't shoot yourself int thet foot and then ask for a variance. The hardship mustr not resulti from actions taken by the So whati is self-created? Suppose a property owner sells part of a conforming lot and makes the remainder oft thel lot nonconforming. Thel hardship (limitations ont the non-conforming lot) was self-created (by the owner selling the sliver off the parcel. The owner may not seek a variance for building on the substandard lot. Similarly, where an owner failed to seek: zoning and building permits and then incorrectly placed foundation footings in thes setback, the hardshipi is self- What ift the owner reliedi in good faith on seemingly valid surveys and obtained building permits? After construction began, self-imposed? Our North Carolina courts have held that hardships resulting from good permits are eligible for a variance (Turik V. Town of Surf City, 1821 N.C. App. 427, 642S.E.2d251 (2007)). An important statutory provision applies here: The act of purchasing property with knowledget that circumstances exist that mayj justify the granting ofa variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship." For example, ift the original owner had al legitimate case for a variance, someone buying the lot fromt that owner would have the same legal position as the original owner. They could seek a variance. This rule aligns with the broader zoning concept that land-use permissions run with the land, andI land-use decisions are based on the property andi impacts of development, not based ont the particular owner. Ist this al loophole for an unscrupulous owner to overcome thel limit on variances for self-created hardship by selling the property to a spouse or sham LLC? Maybe, butt the requirement for substantial justice (discussed below) Restrictive covenants and otherl legal limitations mayl be af factori in determining! hardship. Consider a property that has  created. No variancei is allowed. Ignorance oft thel lawi is no excuse.  ar news  and survey arguing  that thet foundation wall is within the setback. Is the owner's hardship  a neighbor objected, citing  such faith reliance on surveys and  probably protects from someone gaming the system.  Copyrighte 02 2009 top presents School of Govemment: att thel University of North Carolina. Allr rightsr reserved.  Page    Coates' Canons NCI Local Government Law tps.canonsogunceau  UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT    limited development ability duet to a privately-mposed covenant for as street setback and a publicly-imposed stream setback. Cant the owner seek ay variance from the publics stream setback? The NC Court of Appeals-interpreting: as specific local ordinance--foundi that the! board should consider physical andl legal conditions oft thep property, including restrictive covenants (Chapel Hill Title & Abstract Co., Inc. V. Town of Chapel Hill, 362 N.C.6 649, 669 S.E.2d286 (2008)).  that covenants and other legal limitations may be af factor. Ini that case, the decision was based on the  Letr me emphasize and the decision local ordinance, easement across ap property thatl limits  the statutory variance standards. As self-imposed legal limitation--like: an pre-dated buildable area-that was created after az zoning ordinance limitation became  effective, could! be viewed as a self-imposed hardship so that no variance should be granted.  Ordinance Purpose, Public Safety, and Substantial Justice public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved."  In addition toi those standards for unnecessary hardship," the statutory standardi for granting ay variance requires the applicant to show that' "Tthe requested variancel is consistent with the spirit, purpose, andi intent oft the ordinance, sucht that Where an ordinance expresses a cleari intent, a variance cannot subvert that intent. But, alternatively, a variance may! help to give effect to the ordinance intent. In one North Carolina case, an applicant was seeking a variance to allow an additional sign at a secondary entrance. Among other things, the ordinance purpose was to provide "adequate and effective signage," "prevent driver confusion," and' "allow fort flexibility tor meeti individual needs for business identification." The purpose, the courtf found, calledi for thei flexibility that the applicant sought, andt the variance was allowed. (Premier Plastic Surgery Ctr., PLLCV. Bd. of Adjustment for Town of Matthews, 213N.C. App. 364, 369, 713S.E24511,515 The applicant also musts show that the variance does not! harm public safety. Eveni if an applicant met the standard for unnecessary hardship, a variance may! be denied for public safety concerns. A property owner may prove an unnecessary hardship exists from limitations on on-site drives and parking for a commercial use. But, ifr neighbors presented expert evidence that the increased traffic and stormwater effects will harm public safety, the board may bej justified in denying the Additionally, the statute requires the applicant to showt that through the variance 'substantial justice is achieved." The concept of substantial justice raises issue off fairness fort the community andr neighbors. This concept echoes the requirement that! hardship must be peculiar tot the property-not: shared byt the community. Ife everyone bears this hardship, then one lucky person should not be relieved through a variance. Similarly, the justice standard draws upon a notion of precedence. Suppose. Joe sought a variance last year and was denied. IfK Karl is seeking variance this year thati is essentially the same request for a similar properly, then the variance outcome should be the same. The substantial justice standard also can playi int favor oft the applicant. Ifa an applicant relies in good faith on a city permit, and that permit turned out tol be wrongly issued, the applicant would have no vested rights in that mistakenlyi issued  (2011)).  variance.  permit. Substantial, justice mighta argue for allowing a variancei for the applicant.  No Use Variance  North Carolina courts long ago established that use variances are not permitted, and thatr rule is now part oft the statutory standards. Ifal land usei is not permitted on thep property, a variance cannot! be usedt to, in effect, amend the ordinance and allow the use. Ifonlys single family residences are permitted in a district, a variance cannot permit a duplex (Sherrill V. Ift the use is already permitted on thep property, a variancet to allowt the expansion oft the permitted use is permissible. So, for example, ifas signi is permitted for a commercial property, a variance to permit an additional sign is allowable. Itis an area variance, nota a use variance. (Premier Plastic Surgery Ctr., PLLC V. Bd. of Adjustment for Town of Matthews, 213  Town of Wrightsville Beach, 76 N.C. App. 646, 334 S.E.2d 103 (1985).  N.C. App. 364,713S.E24511 (2011).  Conclusion  Making decisions about variances is al hardj job. How much! hardship is enough hardship? Isj justice being served? Does the variance preserve thes spirit of the ordinance? Rarely are there cleara answers fori these questions. Seeking those  CopyrightO2 2009 top present Schoolo of Govemmenta atth thel University ofNorth Carolina. Allri rightsr reserved.  Page    Coates' Canons NCL Local Government Law tpslcanonssoguncedu  UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  M  answers ist thel hard task of thel board of adjustment. The applicant must present competent, material, ands substantial evidence that they meet all of thes standards. And the! board must consider the issues on a case-by-case basis; they must weigh the evidence, apply the required statutory standards, and decide ifay variance is warranted.  Links  pwwwawMMAANSN  camomasogumaurpss  Thisb blog postis is published andp posted online byt thes Schoold of Govemmentt to addressi issues ofi interestt tog governmento officials. Thisb blog postis is fore educational andi informational usea andn mayb beu usedf fort thosep purposes withoutp permission byp providinga acknowledgment ofitss source. Usec oft thisb blogr postf for commercial purposesi isp prohibited. Tob browse ac complete catalogo ofs School of Government publications, pleasev visitt thes School's website atw www.s sog.unc.e eduo or contactt the Bookstore, Schoolof Government, CB#3 3330K Knapp-Sanders Building, UNCO Chapell Hil, ChapelH Hill, NC2 27599-3 3330; e-mails sales@sog. unc.edu;t telephone 919.966.4119; orfax  Page  919.962.2707.    4>1 Design Guidelines  4  Design Guidelines  One of the first tasks of al historic preservation commission is to adopt design guidelines for alteration, restoration, new construction, additions, reconstruction, relocation, or demolition affecting historic Iandmarks or properties in historic districts. Until the commission adopts design guidelines, no landmark can be designated, and changes to the exterior appearance of landmarks and properties in historic districts cannot be  reviewed or regulated.  The Purpose of Design Guidelines  Once a property is designated asa historic landmark or becomes part of a historic district, the owner cannot demolish the property, move it, or changei its exterior features without ac certificate of appropriateness issued by the historic preservation commission. When reviewing applications for certificates of appropriateness, the commission must use its established design.guidelinest to determine whether proposed changes in appearance are incongruous (not in keeping) with the special character of the landmark or district. If the commission. finds that aj proposed change is noti incongruous, Iti is not the commission's purpose to impose particular architectural styles, to promote design preferences, or to require restoration of historic properties. The single standard the commission must apply is whether or not the property owner's proposed changes are incongruous; changes deemed not incongruous must be permitted, even if commission members The use of written design guidelines helps protect property owners' Guidelines tell property ownersi in advance how proposed changes to Use of thes same guidelines to review every application helps ensure By providing ai framework; for review, guidelines systematize the decision-making: process, helping the commission function efficiently. Guidelines! help property owners develop sound and readily Application for certificates of appropriateness. and procedures for commission review of these applications are discussed in detail in Chapter 8.  itmust approve the application.  consider them less than ideal.  rights of due process and equal protection under thel law:  their properties willl bej judged. that all property owners are treated equally. Guidelines also make the commission's) job easier:  evaluated: applications.  31    Coates' Canons NCL Local Government Law htpsucanonssogunceau  I UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  Coates' Canons Blog: Historic Preservation Commission Basics Article: s--wer-  By Adam Lovelady  This entry was posted on September 27,2 2013 andi ist filed under Board Structure &F Procedures, Land Use &0 Codel Enforcement "The historical heritage of our Statei is one of our most valued andi important assets," and our cities and counties are authorized to safeguard that! heritage and promote the use and conservation of North Carolina's historic landmarks and districts (G.S. 160A-400.1). Before thel local government designates al historic district or landmark, though, itf first must create a historic preservation commission tor manage thate effort." This blog considers the organization and authority oft the local historic preservation commission, including an overview ofs standards and procedures for certificates of  appropriateness. Organization and Authority  As standard preservation commission must! have atl least three members with terms of no more than four years. Members must reside within the: zoningj jurisdiction of thel local government (including extraterritorial, jurisdiction for municipalities). A majority of members must have' demonstrated special interest, experience, ore educationi in! history, architecture, archaeology, or related fields." This is one oft the fewi instances where the statutes specify expertise for local government board members. When needed, the commission may appoint advisory bodies and committees. Alternatively, the governing! board may choose a different structure for the commission. AI local government may establish separate preservation commissions for districts and landmarks, may designate the planning commission or community appearance commission as thep preservation commission, orr may establish a joint commission with a city (or cities) and county. When the planning commission or community: appearance commission serves as the preservation commission, it The governing board may authorize a preservation commission to carry out any oft thef following activities within the local  musts still include at least three members with the demonstrated experience in related fields.  government's: zoningj jurisdiction: i) Inventory historic and significant properties  ii) Recommend historic designations (and revocations) for districts and landmarks ii) Negotiate for, acquire and sell property to promote preservation  iv) Restore and operate historic properties v) Conduct educational programs  vi) Cooperate and contract with State, federal, andl local governments vi) Recommend preservation elements of the local comprehensive plan vi) Review and act on certificates of appropriateness.  Certificates of Appropriateness  After al historic district or landmark is established, al landowner may not alter the exterior portions of historic properties and without obtaining a certificate of appropriateness (COA) from the preservation commission. Indeed, building permits  Copyright 02 2009t top presents School of Government: att thel University ofNorth Carolina. Allri rights reserved.  Page    Coates' Canons NCI Local Government Law htpslcanonssogunceau    UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  related development permits are withheld until the developer obtains a COA. The! State has assigned the critical role of COAS are required for any erection, alteration, restoration, move, or demolition of an exteriort feature ofas structure. features. Structures include buildings, masonry" walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and pavement, and other appurtenant Above ground utilities and outdoor advertising signs require a COA as well. Exterior features are defined toi include, Thel local other things, architectural style, size and scale of buildings, and types and styles of doors and windows. among board, ini its discretion, may define exterior features also toi include historic signs, color, ands significant Generally, COAS are noti required for changes tot thei interior features ofal building. COAs are not required for ordinary and maintenance orr repair that does not change the material or appearance, norf for changes required for public safety certified by the building inspector. For minor works, thel local government may authorize an administrative official to. COAS pursuant to detailed standards (only the preservation commission may deny a COA, however). COAs do notr regulate use. The owner of propertyi in al historic district may make any use of her property thati is not Before ap preservation commission mayi issue or deny any COA, the commission must adopt both (1) principles and and guidelines for construction and alterations (design guidelines): and (2) rules of procedure. Those design guidelines procedures reflect the local architecture and politics, butt they must align with the state-established legal framework.  COA decision-making to the local preservation commission.  governing  landscape, archaeological, and natural features of the area.  approve  otherwise prohibited by law.  isj what the name denotes-ita affirms thatt the proposed project is  COA Standards. AC certificate of appropriateness Indeed, just law states that a appropriate for the historic district orl landmark. certificate except to prevent a project "which would bei incongruous  commission may not denya a  thel  with thes preservation character oft thel landmark or district."  special  $160A-400.9(a).  Itis worth emphasizing that congruence is based ont the district as a whole, notj just neighboring properties standard or relatively derived uncommon feature within the district. Commissions must determine congruence based on a contextual N.C.: 207 at2 222 "from thet total physical environment of the Historic District." A-S-P. Associates V. City of Raleigh, 298 (1979). The commission may not cherry pick certain properties ori features oft the district to determine congruity. Ther required local design guidelines serve as the general standard for determining congruence. The design guidelines to makei its should establish the defining features oft the district or landmark, and the commission looks tot those guidelines findings off fact regarding congruence. The commission is looking for general compatibility with the guidelines (not exact conformity). While the congruity standardi is general andf fairlyl loose, itis not an invitation for  necessarily  to the member's personal style. For more ont the role of district  commission members to redesign projects accordingt guidelines, see. this blog by Richard Ducker.  COA (Quasi-Judicial) Procedures. When ap preservation commission reviews an application for a certificate of appropriateness, itis Thel local ordinance andt the commission's required rules of procedure should follow the statutory The commission must provide notice, as reasonably required by local ordinance or procedures, to owners of property for likely to be materially affected by the certificate of appropriateness. Although, iti is not formally required, a good guide notice ist the newly codified notice for other quasi-judicial hearings: posted notice on the site and mailed notice to adjoining In order to ensure parties' due process rights, members of the commission must not! havei fixed opinions about the application prior tot the! hearing;; closet family, business, or associational relationships with an affected party; or a financial Archives and! History or other experts, with ap outside oft the hearing) should be avoided, and disclosed at the  applying as standard that involves judgment and discretion, so itis a quasi-judicial decision. As such,  certain rules apply.  framework and thej judicial rulings for quasi-judicial decisions.  property owners, between 10 and 25 days before ther meeting. S.L. 2013-126.  Members of the commission view the premises ands seek advice oft the NCI Division of  interest in the outcome. ex parte communication (communicating hearingi ifit occurs.  butt that evidence may and advice should be discussed and reflected in ther record. Any  party  Copyright 02 2009t top presents Schoold of Government: att thel Universily ofNorth Carolina. Allri rights reserved.  Page    Coates' Canons NCLocal Government Law tpslcanonssogunceau  UNC  SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT  IA  The commission must act upon applications for COAS within a reasonable time, not more than 180 days from the date of the application. ACOA1 for relocation or demolition ofa al historic property may be delayéd up to: 365 days--depending: on The commission must hold an evidentiary! hearing sot that parties have a right to be heardi in a contested case. The statute allows that the commission may hold ap public hearing (for comments from the general public, notj justt the parties) when deemed necessary. For more on the distinction between an evidentiary hearing and a public hearing see this blog! by Frayda Bluestein. Regardless oft the type of hearing, all meetings of the preservation commission are subject to the NC During the evidentiary hearing, the commission hears evidence and sworn testimony from the parties. The record should include competent, material and substantial evidence that the proposed project meets the established standard-itis congruent with the district. The commission should provide a written decision, including a determination of any contested facts, tot the applicant, property owner, andi interested parties that! have requested the decision. The commission may apply reasonable conditions to a COAt to bring the projecti in compliance with the standards. An aggrieved party may appeal a commission decision on a COAt tot the Board of Adjustment. For more on quasi-judicial procedures, see these  the circumstances-for: the commission to negotiate for preservation of the building or site.  Open Meetings Law.  blogs by David Owens ont testimony, opinions, ande ex parte evidence.  Conclusion  The state has charged local historic preservation commissions with ani important task- --to safeguard, promote, and conserve our historical heritage. To that end, those commissions are authorized to research historic sites and districts, plani for preservation, ande even acquire property for preservation. Moreover, the state has authorized preservation commissions to ensurei the appropriateness ofr new development int the many historic properties and districts around the  state, following the legal procedures and guidelines provided in state and local laws.  Links  wagnppswasawS-TOCeTNNA camonssogumaurp2s wnsignsasbaissiAhsuPORAIARA canonssog.unc.edurp"s9s0lmore-sau ASA amomsogumceaurplee camomssogumaurpsauz  Ey.ASAAXMONAMLIAGLAARNN  Thisb blogr postisp publisheda andp postedo onlineb by! thes Schoold of Governmentt to addressi issues ofinterestt tog governmento officials." ford Thisb commercial blog posti isf fore educational isp prohibited. andi informational Tob browse ac completec catalogo of School of Goverment publications, please visitt thes School's website atv www.sog.unc. educ oro contact theE Bookstore, Schoolof Government, CB#3 3330 Knapp-Sanders! Building, UNC Chapel! Hill, Chapell Hill, NC2 27599-3330; e-mail sales@sog. unc.edu;t telephone 919.966.4119; orfax  usea andn mayb be usedf fort thosep purposes withoutp permission byp providing acknowledgment ofilss source. Usec ofthis blogp postf  purposes  Page  919.962.2707.    OLD  BUSINESS  None    MAJOR  WORKS    410 East 2nd Street  Install a porch at the front of  the home.  Install a concrete driveway    RESET FORM Citys  CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES  0O  Washington NORTH CAROLINA  HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING  OFFICE USE ONLY  Minor Work Fee: $0.00 Major Work Fee: $50.00 Date Paid:  Ref No.:  PROPERIYINFORMAION Owner's Name: AG's Home Solutions, LLC Historic Property/Name (ifa applicable):  Date of Application: 7/12/20  Property Address: 410 E 2nd Street Washington NC 27889  32 Lot Size:  210 Feet  Address Number of Years at Location 0  FeetE By  DESCRIPTION OF WORKTO BE PERFORMED Brief Description of Workt tol be Performed. Install a concrete driveway.  Install porch on thet front of thel home consistent with surrounding homes and historical data on thel home, lunderstand that alla applications fora a Certificate ofA Appropriateness' that requirer review! byt the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) until the must be submitted by5 5:00 p.m. On the 15th oft the monthp priort tot ther meeting! wish to attend, otherwise consideration work willl withino be delayed one year ofthe following HPCmeeting. Ani incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstandli must begint the approved issuance, Shouldt the work cease for more than six (6) months after one (1) year oft the: said approval, this Certificate of Appropriateness'  will  become invalid. APPLICANT NFORMATION: Name of Applicant: Applicant Email Address: Applicant Address: Signature of Date Received: ACTION Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval  Natalie and" Tony Edwards nredwardsyo@gmal.com 490B Bay Lake Drive  Date of Application: 7/12/20 Applicant Phone No.: (910) 890-0665 Chocowinity Ciy  NC 27817 State ZipCode  FOR OFFICEL USE ONLY Appropriateness. Itisvalid until  AT  Upon being signed and dated below! byt the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes al Minor Works Certificate of Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property ownert fromo obtaining any other permit required by City code or any! law. Minor workp projects not approved bys staff willl bet forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission for review ati its next meeting.  INITIALS  Issuance ofal Minor Works  Minor Work Auth. Signature:  Date.  Applicant's presence or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting oft the Historic Preservation Commission at which the: applicant ist to! be considered. Your must give written permission toy your authorized representative to attend1 the  hearing on your behalf by completing the authorization: section ont the next page.  Page 1of3  Revised: August 27, 2020    RESET FORM Citys  CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESERVATION PLANNING    Washington NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT CATEGORIES CHECKALTHATANPM:  HISTORIC  This document does not constitute thei issuance ofa Building Permit. Itis the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary permits before commencing work. Contact the Inspections Department: at  E Exterior Alteration New Construction SUPPORTING NFORMATION:  Addition Demolition  252-975-9304.  Attached 8-1/2"X11"s sheets with written descriptions and drawings, photographs, and other graphic information necessary to completely describe thep project. Use the checklist below to ensuret that your application is complete. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS' WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED, (Leavet the checkbox! blanki ift thei item! Isr not applicable).  SITE PLAN /F PLOT PLAN (ifa applicable). Ap plot plan showing the relationship of buildings, additions, sidewalks, drives, trees, E property lines, etc. must be providedi ify your project includes any addition, demolition, fences, walls, or otherl landscape work. Show accurate measurements. You may also use a copy oft thes surveyt that your received wheny you! bought your  property. Revise the copy as needed tos show existing conditions andy your proposed work. DRAWINGS showing proposed work. Include one set offulls size drawings when available.  D DESCRIPTION OFI MATERIALS (provide samples ifa appropriate).  D Photographs of existing conditions.  PLAN drawings.  ELEVATION drawings showing the newi façade/s). DIMENSIONS shown on drawings. blueprinting andp photocopying businesses.  8-1/2") X11" REDUCTIONS of full-size drawings. Ifreduced: size iss so small as tol bei illegible, make 8-1/2"X11" snapshots of individual drawings on the bigs sheet. Photocopy reductions may be obtained from a number of STATE ANDI FEDERAL1 TAX CREDITS/FUNDS OR CAMAI PERMITS, Ifyou are applying for any of these programs, you must BLACKI INK. Your application must be preparedi in blacki ink on 8-1/2" X11" sheets sot thati it can be copied members. Applications preparedi in! blue, red, or other colored inks and/or pencil copy poorly and will be not accepted.  D includea a copy of your letter or permit fromt the State.  for commission SUBMIT FORM  Page3 3of3  Revised: January 10, 2020    History of the Home  Ihave only finished a cursory background history of house. To answer the porch question, yes, the house originally had a porch. The porch was a one-story, full width porch. Iwill pull our old survey file photographs and see if the porch was extant ati the time oft the survey. As far as the ownership history, have not yet confirmed the original occupants or owner. By 1916, the house was occupied by William J. and Bessie Martin. In 1936, the house was occupied by Mrs. Armie L. Myers. By 1948, the house was occupied by Rev. Elmore M. Turner and his wife Irene D. Elmore was the pastor at First Christian Church. By 19591 the house was owned and occupied by Clifton L. Toler and his wife Flora E. Toler was the vice president at Tidewater Natural Gas Co. The Tolers continued to occupy the house into the 1960s.  Will send along ai fuller history when Ifinish the research.  John  John P. Wood  Preservaton/Restoraton Specialist NC State Historic Preservation Office NC Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources Phone: (252) 830-6580, extension 225 ohnp.wood@nedersoy  Photos ofe existing Condition    ST. 408  A AL  AID  2 /        SLL'a'ssoz'E DLENDV  %  >  "a  -    Examples from the Neighborhood  MIMMEHHIHENTE IMMKEIIHHEE m    CIoN    A N  S    ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER  City.  DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Washincton NORTH CAROLINA  August 27, 2021  Re: Certificate of Appropriateness - 410 E 2nd Street  Dear Adjoining Property Owner, within 100 oft the proposed  Whenever exterior renovation worki is being conducted in the Washington Historic District all property owners  feet  construction activities are required to be notified by the City of Washington.  is located adjacent tot the above subject  According to the application submitted by the applicant, your property  property.  Ar request has been made by Natalie and Tony Edwards for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make  the following alterations to the property located at 410 E: 2nd Street.  1. Install a porch at the front of the home 2. Install a concrete driveway  Ifyouwould like to see plans for this work, please visit the City Planning Office prior to the meeting. Additionally, the full application is available on the city website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Youare welcomed and encouraged to attend the regularly scheduled meeting oft the Washington Historic Commission.  Please note thet following date, time and place: DATE: TUESDAY, September 7, 2021  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: 6:00 pm  Int the meantime, should youl have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  El Domini Cunningham, PLA, CZO Historic Preservation Planner City of Washington amimhinastintmcane 252-946-0897  Cc: Mike Dail, Community and Cultural Services Director Mike Weldin, Chief Building Inspector  Page 1of1  ADJACENT PROPERTYOWNER    HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT &REQUEST FOR ACTION  C  Citys  Tuesday, September: 7,2 2021-6:00PM  Washington NORTH CAR'OLINA  HPC-21-0091 :410 E2 2nd Street  Edwards Residence  Request: Applicant: Location: Parcel Number: Attachment:  Install a porch on the front oft the home and a concrete driveway  Natalie and Tony Edwards 410E2nd Street 5685-07-4601 1. Site Photos 2. Supplemental Materials 3. Location Map of Property  The Commission should consider this request based upon general conformance with the Design Standards.  Structure:  This is a 2-story, plain frame house with simple details that was built in 1890  Project Analysis: This application is for thei following work:  a. Install a porch on thet front of the home b. Installac concrete driveway  From the Design. Standards (shortened to include only sections that apply):  Chapter 3  Title  Pages 43-68  Changes to existing Buildings  3.1.1 Historic character-defining wallf features should be retained and protected including clapboards, corner boards, cornices, quoins, corbelling and other 3.2.1 Preserve and protect character-defining wooden architectural features. 3.5.1 Retain and preserve historic roofs and roofing materials including Its overall 3.5.2 Character defining elements of historic roofs should be retained and preserved including dormer windows, chimneys, turrets, cupolas, and parapet walls. Eave overhangs, moldings and trim, and soffit boards should also ber retained and 3.5.3 Roofs on historics structures are often characterized by their historic material including clay tiles, slate or wood shingles, and metal. These materials should be retained and preserved, whenever economically feasible. 3.5.5 Changing the historic character of thel building by adding roof elements that are not historically accurate such as dormer windows, vents, or skylights is  architectural detailing. design, shape, pitch, and line.  preserved.  prohibited.  (HPC- 21-0091:4 410E2 2nd Street) Tuesday, September7,2021, HPCI Meeting    3.6.1 Entryways and porches are important character-defining elements ofal historic structure and should ber retained and preserved. Important elements include steps, columns, balustrades. doors, railings, brackets, roofs, cornices and 3.6.2 Ifreplacement of aj porch element is necessary, replace only the deteriorated or missing detail with new materials that match the design of the original as closely 3.6.4 Reconstruction of missing or extensively deteriorated porches is encouraged. Reconstructed porches shall bel based on documentary evidence. If adequate documentation is not available, a new design is appropriate ifiti is compatible 3.6.6 Repairs to porches using materials incompatible with the original materials are not allowed. For example, metal supports shall not be used as substitutes for wood columns, plywood shall not be substituted for beaded board ceilings, and concrete shall not be used as as substitute fort tongue-and-groove wood flooring. 3.10.1 Original architectural components and details shall be retained whenever 3.10.2 When architectural components and details must be replaced, the new components or details shall match the historic elements as closely as possible in 3.10.3 Architectural components and details that are not appropriate to the historic character of the structure shall not be added. New features should not be added unless there is physical or other evidence that they historically existed. 3.10.4 Historicarchitectural components shall not be replaced with materials, such as plywood, vinyl, and aluminum that would not have been used ini the original  entablatures. as possible  with the style and period oft the building.  possible.  style, proportion, andi material.  construction. Chapter 4  Title  Pages 69-84  Streetscape and Site Design  4.3.1 Parking lots, driveways and: sidewalks shall comply with City Code requirements for size and landscaping elements as well as site grading. Refer to Article XVII- 4.3.3 Parking in residential: areas should be toi the rear oft the structure whenever 4.3.5 Parking shall bes screened from the right-of-way: whenever possible. Vegetative buffer strips, fencing, low-masonry walls, etc., shall be utilized to minimize the 4.3.7 Residential parking areas shalll be surfaced with appropriate materials such as brick, concrete, asphalt crushed stone, crushed and compacted oyster shells, or  Parking of the Zoning Ordinance  possible. Parking ini front yardsi is not permitted. visual impact of parking and vehicles. gravel (with edging materials). 4.3.12 Circular drives int front yards are not permitted.  4.3.13 Double width drives that are visible from the public right-of-way are not 4.3.14 Curb-cuts must be located in accordance with City Code and shall be kept to the  permitted.  smallest openings that are functional.  (HPC-: 21-0091:4 410E2 2nd Street) Tuesday, September 7,2021,H HPCMeeting    4.3.15 New driveways should be designed to minimize any impact to the landscape,  building, and historic curbing. Chapter 5  Title New Construction  Pages 85-94  5.3.1 Additions should be located toi the rear or non-character defining elevation. With historicresidential: structures, additions should be placed in a manner that they are not clearly seen from the public right-of-way. Landscaping can often be used to minimize the visual impact that additions may have toi the historicstructure. 5.3.3 Additions should be compatible in materials, design, roof form, and proportion to the main structure. However, new; additions should be constructed at a scale smaller than the historic: structure so as not to overpower the existing historic 5.3.5 Ana addition should never mimic or recreate the architecture of the primary 5.3.6 Additions to historics structures should be clearly identifiable as such. Additions should be set back and constructed at a smaller scale than the original building. Architectural details should complement the main structure but should be clearly  building. historicstructure.  differentiated.  Finding of Facts A: The applicant intends toi install a concrete driveway. The driveway is currently unpaved.  The proposed driveway willl be 13' wide and 50' long. Based on these findings of facts, the request is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards.  Possible Actions A:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Natalie and Tony Edwards to make the above changes on the property located at 410 E: 2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.1-E Exterior Walls, 3.2-N Materials, 3.5 - Roof, 3.6-F Porches and  Entryways, 3.10- - Architectural Details, and 5.3 - Additions.  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Natalie and Tony Edwards to make the above changes on the property located at 410 E 2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.1-E Exterior Walls, 3.2- Materials, 3.5-Roof, 3.6-P Porches and Entryways, 3.10-A Architectural Details, and 5.3 -A Additions. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation  Commission place the following conditions on the approval:  OR  (HPC- 21-0091: 410E2nds Street) Tuesday, September 7,2021, HPCI Meeting    Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Natalie and Tony Edwards to make the above changes on the property located at 410 E2nd Street. The motion is based on thei following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.1-E Exterior Walls, 3.2-I Materials, 3.5-Roof, 3.6-F Porches and  Entryways, 3.10-Architectural Details, and 5.3 -Additions.  OR  Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness application and invoke NC GS 160A-400.9(d), which allows the commission to request technical advice from the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) staff.I lalso move the commission seek guidance fromi the HPO regarding [detailed description of what information the commission is seeking from HPO that will aidt them in making a defensible decision regarding the case). We Finding of Facts B: The applicant intends to restore the original porch along thei front oft the existing  to NCC GS 160D-947(d), the HPOI has 30 days from the date an official  would like to remind the applicant pursuant  request is received from the commission to review and comment on the request.  residence. Thet front yard setback fort this property is 20' and the proposed porch restoration does not meet the required zoning set back. An approved application fora variance from thel Board of Adjustments will also be required to complete this project. The original structure was built in 1890. The original single storyf full length porch witha shingled roof can be traced back to 1916. The small gable roof at thet front door can be traced back to 1996. The small gable roof over the front door has been removed while the front steps remain. Within the district there exists both small gabled entrances and full length front porches. The applicant has stated that the restored porch willl be modeled aftert the adjacent property tot the east which has a metal roof. Based on these findings off facts, the request is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  Design Standards.  Possible Actions B:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Natalie and Tony Edwards to make the above changes on the property located at 410E E2nd Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  Design Standards specifically, 4.3-Parking, Driveways and Sidewalks.  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Natalie and Tony Edwards to make the above changes on the property located at 410E2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  and Sidewalks. Ifurther move that the Historic  Design Standards specifically, 4.3-Parking, Driveways  Preservation Commission place thet following conditions on the approval:  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Natalie and Tony Edwards to make the above changes on the property located at 410 E: 2nd Street. The motion is based on thei following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  Design Standards specifically, 4.3-Parking, Driveways and Sidewalks.  (HPC- 21-0091:410E2 2nds Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCI Meeting    OR  Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness application and invoke NCG GS: 160A-400.9(d), which allows the commission to request technical advice from the Historic Preservation Office (HPO): staff.la also move the commission seek guidance from the HPO regarding [detailed description of whati information the commission is seeking from HPO that will aid them ini making a defensible decision regarding the case]. We would like to remind the applicant pursuant to NC GS 160D-947(d), the HPO has 30 days from the date an official  request is receivedi fromi the commission to review and comment on the request.  (HPC- 21-0091:410E2 2nd Street) Tuesday, September 7, 2021, HPCMeeting    511E Main Street  Replacement of the rear deck with a  25'x12' deck    RESET FORM Citys  CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES  Washindton NORTH CAR'OLINA  HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING  OFFICE USE ONLY  Minor Work Fee: $0.00 Major Work Fee: $50.00 Date Paid:  Ref No.:  PROPERTY INFORMATION: Owner's Name: Julia Peters Historic Property/Name (ifa applicable):  Date of Application: 8/15/21  Property Address: 511 El Main Street, Washington, NC 27889  Address  Feet  Number of Years at Location 9 months  Lot Size:  Feet By  DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED Brief Description of Work tol be Performed.  3.5ft  Removal oft the existingr rotteda and deteriorated deck ont ther rear oft the! house andi installing ar new deck on ther the rear deck oft the! will house oft thati the is2 same 25ft material, long> x1 12ftd and deep> willa alsol be high. Ther material used fort thec deck will bea a pressure treatedl lumber that thee willl bek keptr deck, natural. The railingsf oft the new fort deck, materialst be tob be used, ando deckl location. lunderstand that alla applications for a Certificate ofA Appropriateness that require review byt the Historic Preservation' Commission (HPC) must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Ont the: 15th oft the month prior tot the meetingl wisht toa attend, otherwise consideration will be delayed until the following HPCI meeting. Ani incomplete application will not be accepted. lunderstandl Imust! begint the approved work within one year oft the issuance. Shouldt the work ceasei for moret than six (6)r months after one (1) year oft the said approval, this Certificate ofA Appropriateness will  kept natural andr notp painted. Includedv with this application are photos oft existing drawings  become invalid. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name of Applicant: Applicant Email Address: Applicant Address: Signature of Applicant: Date Received: ACTION Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval  Julia Peters canghelb@gmal.com 529 El Main Street Address gubaPcae  Date of Application: 8/15/21 Applicant Phone No.: (909)s 957-3845  Washington City  NC 27889 State ZipCode  FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Appropriateness. Itis valid until  Upon being signed and dated below byt the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes al Minor Works Certificate of 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 bys staff will be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission for review ati its next meeting.  INITIALS  Issuance of al Minor Works  Minor Work/ Auth. Signature:  Date  Applicant's presence ort that of your authorized representativei isr required at ther meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the applicanti is tol be considered. Your must give written permission to your authorized representative to attend the  hearing on your behalf by completing the authorization section ont the next page.  Page 1of3  Revised: August 27,2 2020    RESET FORM Citys  CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESERVATION PLANNING  Washindton NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT CATEGORIES (CHECKA ALLTHATAPPIY):  HISTORIC  This document does not constitute thei issuance ofa Building Permit. Itis ther responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary permits before commencing work. Contact the Inspections Department at  M Exterior Alteration New Construction SUPPORTING NFORMATION:  Addition Demolition  252-975-9304.  Attached 8-1/2"X11"s sheets with written descriptions and drawings, photographs, and other graphic information necessaryt to completely describe the project. Use the checklist below to ensuret that your application is complete. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILLI NOT BE ACCEPTED. (Leave the checkbox blank ift thei itemi is not applicable).  SITE PLAN/ / PLOT PLAN (ifa applicable). A plot plans showing the relationship of buildings, additions, sidewalks, drives, trees, 1 property lines, etc. must! be provided ify your project includes any addition, demolition, fences, walls, or other landscape work. Show accurate measurements. Your may also use a copy oft thes survey that your received when you bought your  property. Revise the copy as needed to: show existing conditions andy your proposed work.  E DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (provide samplesi ifappropriate).  1 Photographs of existing conditions. E PLAN drawings.   DRAWINGS showing proposed work. Include one: set oft full size drawings when available.  E ELEVATION drawings showing the new façade/s). M DIMENSIONS shown on drawings.  8-1/2"X11" REDUCTIONS of full-size drawings. Ifreduced: sizei is sO small as to be illegible, make 8-1/2"X11" snapshots ofi individual drawings on thel big sheet. Photocopy reductions may be obtainedi from a number of STATE ANDI FEDERAL TAX CREDITS/FUNDS OR CAMA PERMITS. Ify you are applying for any oft these programs, your must BLACK INK. Your application must be prepared in blacki ink on 8-1/2"X11" sheets so that it can be copied for  blueprinting and photocopying businesses. include a copy ofy your letter or permit from the State. members. Applications prepared blue,  commission  inb red, or other colored inks and/or pencil copy poorly and willl be nota accepted.  SUBMIT FORM  Page 3of3  Revised:. January 10, 2020    Ls    Existing Deck    Proposed Deck  IR    Proposed Deck Materials    g    L  O  à    ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER  City.s  DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Washindton NORTH CAR'OLINA  August 27, 2021  Re: Certificate of Appropriateness- 511 El Main St  Dear Adjoining. Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted in 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 applicant, your property is located adjacent to the above subject Ar request has been made by Julia Peters for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make the following  property.  alterations to the property located at 511 El Main St.  1. Replacement of the rear deck with a 25' X 12' deck  Ify you would like to see plans for this work, please visit the City Planning Office prior to the meeting. Additionally, thei full application is available on the city website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Youare welcomed and encouraged to attend the regularly scheduled meeting oft the Washington Historic Commission.  Please note the following date, time and place: DATE: TUESDAY, September 7, 2021  PLACE: CITY HALL = MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 102 EAST SECOND STREET. (ENTER FROM  THE MARKET STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND GOTO' THE SECOND FLOOR.)  TIME: 6:00 pm  Int the meantime, should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  El Domini Cunningham, PLA, CZO Historic Preservation Planner City of Washington smihmdsatntmsaNs 252-946-0897  Cc: Mike Dail, Community and Cultural Services Director Mike Weldin, Chief Building Inspector  Page: 1of1  ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER    HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT &REQUEST FOR ACTION  -  Citys  Washington NORTH GAROLINA  Tuesday, Septmber7,0.I-6OPMA  HPC-21-0099 :511 E Main Street  Peters Residence  Request: Applicant: Location: Parcel Number: Attachment:  Replace the rear deck with a 25'x12 deck  Julia Peters 511E EMain Street 5685-06-4795 1. Site Photos 2. Supplemental Materials 3. Location Map of Property  The Commission should consider this request based upon general conformance with the Design Standards. Project Analysis: The applicant intends to remove an existing deck ati the rear of the home duet to its  Structure:  This isa 2-story L-shaped frame house with 1920's type porch posts. deterioration. In its place they propose building a 25' x12' deck that willl be approximately 3' above the ground. The proposed materials willl be pressuret treated From the Design Standards (shortened toi include only sections that apply):  lumber that will not be painted.  Chapter 5  Title New Construction  Pages 85-94  5.3.1 Additions should bel locatedi to the rear or non-character defining elevation. With historic residential structures, additions should be placed in a manner that they are not clearly: seent from the public right-of-way. Landscaping can often be used to minimize the visual impact that additions may have tot the historic structure. 5.3.2 New additions should not remove, damage, or obscure character-defining 5.3.3 Additions should be compatible in materials, design, roof form, and proportion to the main structure. However, new additions should be constructed at ascale smaller thani the historicstructure. so as not to overpower the existing historic 5.3.4 Additions, like new construction, are representative of thet time in which they are built. Therefore, contemporary designs are permitted, but should always be  architectural feature.  building.  compatible withi the existing historicstructure.  (HPC-21-0099:: 511E EMains Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPC Meeting    5.3.5 An addition should never mimic or recreate the architecture oft the primary 5.3.6 Additions to historic structures should be clearly identifiable as such. Additions should be set back and constructed at a smaller scale thani the original building. Architectural details should complement the main structure but should be clearly 5.4.1 A deck shalll be designed and constructed: so that the historic structure and its character-defining features and details are not damaged or obscured. Install decks so1 they can be removed in thet future without damage to the structure. 5.4.2 Decks shall not, when feasible, be visible from the public right-of-way. New decks should be constructed ini inconspicuous locations, usually on the building's rear 5.4.3 Design and detail decks and associated railings and steps to reflect materials, 5.4.4 New decks should be painted or stained in a color that is compatible withi the  historics structure.  differentiated.  elevation.  scale, and proportions oft the building. historicstructure: and district  Finding of Facts: The proposed deck willl be located at the rear of the structure. The applicant will need to  obtain a survey that ensures: setback compliance and building permit to complete this project. Based on these findings of facts, the requesti is congruous with the Historic  Preservation Commission Design. Standards.  Possible Actions:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to. Julia Peters to make the above changes on the property located at 511 E Main Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to. Julia Peters to make the above changes on the property located at! 511 El Main Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 5.3- - Additions, 5.4 Decks. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation Commission Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to. Julia Peters to make the above changes on the property located at 511 E Main Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  Standards specifically, 5.3 - Additions, 5.4 Decks  OR  place the following conditions on the approval:  OR  Design Standards specifically, 5.3 - Additions, 5.41 Decks.  OR  (HPC- 21-0099:511 EMains Street) Tuesday, September7,2 2021, HPCI Meeting    Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness application and invoke NC GS 160D-947(d), which allows the commission to request technical advice fromi the Historic Preservation Office (HPO).lalso movet the commission seek guidance from the HPO regarding [detailed description of whati information the commission is seeking from HPO1 that will aid them ini making a defensible decision regarding the case). We would like to remind the applicant pursuant to NC GS 160D-947(d), the HPOI has 30 days from the date an official  request is received from the commission to review and comment on the request.  (HPC- 21-0099:5 511E EMains Street) Tuesday, September7 7, 2021, HPCI Meeting    231EMain Street  Construction ofa 12'x17' accessory  structure in the back yard    RESET FORM Citys  CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES  Washindton NORTH CAROLINA  HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING  OFFICE USE ONLY  Minor Work Fee: $0.00 Major Work Fee: $50.00 Date Paid: 8.16.2/ Refl No.:  PROPERTY INFORMATION: Owner's Name: Historic Property/Name (ifa applicable): Property Address: 2.31 E.Main S+  Date of Application:  813l21  Vanns Colleen Knight  Address  Feet  Number of Years at Location  5  Lot Size:  Feet By  DESCRIPTION OF WORKTO BEF PERFORMED Brief Description ofWork to be Performed.  Conshruct a 12'17' building in back yard  lunderstand that all applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness thatr require review byt the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) until must the bes submitted by 5:00 p.m. Ont the 15th oft the monthp priort tot the meeting! lwisht toa attend, otherwise consideration will be delayed following! HPCI Should- meeting. thev work Ani cease incomplete for more application than six( (6) months after one (1)yearo of the saida approval, this Certificate ofA Appropriateness will  willr not be accepted. lunderstandl must begin the approved work within oney yearc oft the  issuance. become Invalid. of  APPLICANT INFORMATION:  Date of Application: Applicant Phone No.: 321-614.  sh3l2) 1231 van 843-474 -19370 een ZipCode  Name Applicant: VamiColleen Knight Applicant Email Address: Knighl.vam@ yahc.com Applicant Address: 231 E. MainSh. Woshingtonluc 27889 Signature of Applicant: Bhlphs  State  Address  Ciy  FOROFFICE USE ONLY Appropriateness. Itis valid until  Upon beings signed and dated below byt thel Planning Department or designee, this application becomes al Minor Works Certificate of 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 bys staff will bet forwarded to the Historic Preservation: Commission for review ati its next meeting.  Date Received: 8.16.21 ACTION Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval  INITIALS  Issuance ofa Minor Works  Minor WorkA Auth. Signature:  Date  Applicant's presènce or that of your authorized: representative is required att the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission at which the applicant is to be considered. You must give written permission to your authorized representativet to attend. the  hearing on your behalf by completing the authorization section ont the next page.  Page 1of3  Revised: August 27, 2020    LIITIVEEET LI LLILLL LILUy L LT    231 East Main Street  Notto Scale  G  SIcet  House  Property Line  poe  Shed  Js4  (    -  3 bo I    -   3    E C    TBLL  C  E  0 - 3      I  -  a o o 3 -A A  -    LL  E e -  -  TTTT    7717  1z// AIIIL7  177  hr N l    ALLWGODE Claudia  9xp1 onzedwins ekposure 13: 120 1qf direct Aind expouure  1 I I!  131sq! thrort want ompohuhs S.A 4 1S.83  TH CAA SEAL 19284  WALLTHICKNESS WAIL MAIERIAI WALLC COMPONENT PATTERN WALL SECURINGITEMI  1-3/4"  'Nood Nardis spruce) Jual Tonque & Griave  9A2021  Ir'vertical steel reds on all 4 corners  WIND FORCE CAPACITY WALLS Continuous Max. 3 sec wind gusts  150 Mph 178 Mph    @ @ of  x @ 3  @ de # 8  V a @  e En  3 (G E @ 0 tt C  9  a 83134I838d J008  6  .6  .9.2L        9333 CO  A 2    ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER  Citys  DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Washindton NORTH CAR'OLINA  August 27, 2021  Re: Certificate of Appropriateness - 231 E Main St  Dear Adjoining Property Owner,  Whenever exterior renovation work is being conducted in 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 toi the application submitted by the applicant, your property is located adjacent to the above subject AI request has been made by' Vann & Colleen Knight for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make the  property.  following alterations to the property located at 231 E Main St.  1. Construct a 12' x17' accessory structure in the back yard  Ify you would like to see plans for this work, please visit the City Planning Office prior to the meeting. Additionally, thet full application is available on the city website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Youa are welcomed and encouraged to attend the regularly scheduled meeting oft the Washington Historic Commission.  Please note the following date, time and place: DATE: TUESDAY, September 7, 2021  PLACE: CITY HALL-I MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 102 EAST SECOND STREET. (ENTER FROM  THE MARKET STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND GOTO THE SECOND FLOOR.)  TIME: 6:00 pm  Ini the meantime, should youl have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  Eli Domini Cunningham, PLA, CZO Historic Preservation Planner City of Washington dcunningham@washingtonnc.gov 252-946-0897  Cc: Mike Dail, Community and Cultural Services Director Mike Weldin, Chief Building Inspector  ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER  Pagelof1    HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT &REQUEST FOR ACTION  o  City  Tuesday, September 7, 2021-6:00PM  Washington NORTH CAR'OLINA  HPC-21-0100 2 231 E Main Street Thel Frank Bryan House  Request: Applicant: Location: Parcel Number: Attachment:  Construct a 12'x17 accessory structure in the back yard  Vann & Colleen Knight 231E Main Street 5675-97-2388 1. Site Photos 2. Supplemental Materials 3. Location Map of Property  The Commission should consider this request based upon general conformance withi the Design. Standards.  Structure:  Thisi is a distinctive 2-story Queen Anne Style frame house with bracketed cornice, half- timbered trim, bay windows, and handsome porch with turned and sawn details. The home was built in 1896. It was either built or occupied at an early date by Frank Bryan. structure willl be made of wood with al horizontal tongue and groove pattern on the exterior. The proposed windows are wood and the roof willl be shingled. From the Design. Standards (shortened toi include only sections that apply):  Project Analysis: The applicant intends to construct a: 12'x17' accessory: structure ini the back yard. The  Chapter 5 (BFE).  Title New Construction  Pages 85-94  5.2.1 The height of new construction shall be compatible with other residential buildings in the district when measured from the current Base Flood Elevation 5.2.2 Oversized or monumental residential construction is not prevalent in the district and should be avoided. Only in special cases andi in strategic locations should this 5.2.6 The design of a new building should not attempt to create: at false historic appearance, but rather complement the existing district. New construction 5.2.7 The fenestration of a new building should reflect that of existing historic structures within a district and be compatible in proportion, shape, location,  type of architecture be permitted. should have its own character and style.  pattern and size.  (HPC- 21-0100: 231 EMains Street) Tuesday, September 7, 2021, HPCI Meeting    5.2.8 Architectural details such as cornices, trim, windows and doors should reflect the 5.2.9 New homes within the district should be! built with approved materials. Modern materials, if used, should be similar in appearance and texture traditional 5.2.10 Ifvinyl-clad windows are used, they must have permanent exterior muntins to 5.2.11 Aluminum and vinyl siding are prohibited on new construction. 5.2.12 There are a variety ofr roof forms int the district including gable, hip, and gambrel. The roofi forms used on new construction should relate to neighboring buildings 5.2.13 The historic landscape of the district including green space and mature trees is one oft the character-defining elements of the district. When undertaking new construction, significant trees or vegetation shall be preserved.  scale of buildings in the existing historic district.  materials.  match the existing windows.  ini form and material.  Finding of Facts: The proposed accessory structure will be located at the rear of the property. The  materials to be used meet ther requirements of the Design Standards. A: survey indicating thet final location and ensures setback compliance along with al building permit willl be required to complete the construction of this accessory: structure. The Electrical Department will need to be contacted tol locate an electrici feed on the property which may not be! built over. Based on these findings of facts, the request is congruous with the  Historic Preservation Commission Design. Standards.  Possible Actions:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Vann & Colleen Knight to make the above changes on the property located at: 231 E Main Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  Design Standards specifically, 5.2- - Residential Construction.  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Vann & Colleen Knight to make the above changes on the property located at 231 E Main Street. The motion is based on thei following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 5.2- Residential Construction. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Vann & Colleen Knight to make the above changes on the property located at 231 E Main Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission  Commission place the following conditions on the approval:  OR  Design Standards specifically, 5.2-R Residential Construction.  OR  (HPC- 21-0100: 231 EMain Street) Tuesday, September 7,2021, HPCMeeting    Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness: application andi invoke NCC GS 160D-947(d), which allows the commission to request technical advicei fromi the Historic Preservation Office (HPO).lalso movet the commission seek guidance from the HPO regarding [detailed description of what information the commission is seeking from HPO that will aid them in making a defensible decision regarding the case]. We would liket to remind the applicant pursuant to NC GS: 160D-947(d), the HPOI has 30 days from the date an official  request is received from the commission to review and comment ont the request.  (HPC-21-0100:: 231 EMains Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCN Meeting    601E 2nd Street  Remove brick façade and replace with wood lap siding Of Hardiplank. Raise the house by 4 per FEMA code requirement and screen the new crawlspace with a brick and lattice  exterior  Add a 5' X 10' porch at the front of the house and a 12'X10 deck at the back  of the house    CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES  Citys  Washindton NORTHCAPOLINA  HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING  OFFICFUSE ONLY  Minor Work Fee: $0.00 Major Workfee: $50.00 Date Paid:  Refl No.  PROPERTY INFORMATION:  Date of Application: 7-13-2(  Owner's Name: Moses moyer yres 1 Historic Property/Name (if applicable): Histuric Distulet Property Address: 60LBAS  Address  Lot Size:  Feet By  Feet  DESCRIPTION OF WORKTO BE PERFORMED  ole  win Jows a eyterior  Brief Description of Workt to be Performed. 1) Remuue brielFaradtand: vsy! 2 Rosc h ou se Y'Ft por FAcode 35 Add nec windows ond lap onb bac ckk 6) pluce Louse On block cdumas w/brickt * Iceltie  -wood  4) Add Syoopen porchon Front, 53 Apd La'vio'  jor hard-plork be submitted by5 5:00 p.m. Ont following HPCI meeting. Ani incomplete application become invalid. APPLICANT INFORMATION:  lunderstandi that alla applications fora a Certificate ofA Appropriateness that requirer review! byt thel Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) the must  the 15th of the month tot the meetingl wisht to attend, otherwise consideration will be delayed untilt  willr priort not be accepted. lunderstand! must begin the approved work within oney year oft the after (1) oft the sald approval,t this Certificate of Appropriateness' will  issuance. Shouldt thev work cease for moret than six (6)7 months one year  Date of Application: 3-13 -)-(  Name of Applicant: moses moyer Buerydoy Poc, LLC Applicant Email Address: every moe G outloolk. GOV  Applicant Phone  N0:a.47-2347 N/C State 27383 ZipCode  Applicant Address: 51 G-len havew Ro  Wishindan City  Address  Signature of Applicant: Date Received: ACTION Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Withdrawn Staff Approval Applicant's presence  FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Appropriateness. Itis valid until  Upon being signed and dated below by the Planning Department or designee, this application becomes al Minor Works Certificate of Certificate shall not relieve the applicant, contractor, tenant, or property owner from obtaining any other permit required by City code or anyl law. Minor work projects not approved by staff willl Preservation Commission for review ati its next meeting.  INITIALS  Issuance ofal Minor Works be forwarded to thel Historic  Minor Work Auth. Signature: written  Date  or that of your authorized representative is required at the meeting of the! Historic Preservation Commission  to authorized representative to attend the  at which the applicant is tol be considered. You must give  permission your  hearing on your behalf by completing the authorization section ont ther next page.  Page1of3  Revised: September 22, 2020    Gol E 2nd Streèt  Work 4o be perfarmed Renoue brickk Facade.  Remove old Vinyl  Lindows  2) Raise house addifional feet pes Surcey to  meet FEMA Flsed reqvire ments  3Sethouse One bloclL Fourdatlon, AJd bciclk  and Lathice evterior  6) Adel new windows as Sidins Sidéns  w'Il be hurdplask orpne. 5)Add 5'x 134 Front porch  GAdd n'x 10 deckas sHasrs In the backk  When Finished, the Facade Ond Tccdatiun wH be similar to 613 Old And Street.  Iwould be happy 1o meet with aeone From: +ke committee at tho property to  d.scuss tlese improuamats.  Fhunk 4oc Moses Moye 910-147-1542        L  1A  4    Soo    M  47    Examples    Thes steps and foundation will be very similart to those at 5161 E: 2nd Street, about three house away from our house:  Another foundation that matches ours is at 613 Old 2nd Street. It also matches thel lap siding we] plan to use. This propertyi isl behind ourl house and is ai thel best example ofwhat we: intend1 to do with this house.  rontPorch and Moro,cou        à    -  ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER  Citys  DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Washindton NORTH CAROLINA  August 27,2021  Re: Certificate of Appropriateness = 601 E2nd St  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 the applicant, your property is located adjacent tot the above subject Ar request has been made by Moses Moye, LLC for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make the  property.  following alterations to the property located at 601 E 2nd St.  1. Remove brick façade and replace with wood lap siding or Hardiplank  2. Raise the house by 4' per FEMA code requirement and screen the new crawispace with a 3. Adda 5'x10' porch at the front of the house and a 12'x10' deck at the back of the house  brick and lattice exterior  Ify you would like to see plans for this work, please visit the City Planning Office prior to the meeting. Additionally, the full application is available on the city website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Youare welcomed and encouraged to attend the regularly scheduled meeting oft the Washington Historic Commission.  Please note the following date, time and place: DATE: TUESDAY, September 7, 2021  PLACE: CITY HALL - MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 102 EAST SECOND STREET. (ENTER FROM  THE MARKET STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND GOTO THE SECOND FLOOR.)  TIME: 6:00 pm  Ini the meantime, should youl have any questions please feel free to contact me.  Sincerely,  El Domini Cunningham, PLA, CZO Historic Preservation Planner City ofWashington dcunningham@washingtonnc.gov 252-946-0897  Cc: Mike Dail, Community and Cultural Services Director Mike Weldin, Chief Building Inspector  1of1 Page  ADJACENT  PROPERTYOWNER    HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT &REQUEST FOR ACTION  C  Citys  Tuesday, September 7, 2021 - 6:001 PM  Washington NORTH CAROLINA  HPC-21-0101 : 601 E2 2nd Street  Moye Residence  Request:  Remove the existing brick façade and replace it with wood lap siding or hardiplank; raise the house by 4 per FEMA code requirement and screen the new crawlspace with al brick and lattice exterior; add a 5'x10' porch at the front  of the house and a 12'x10' deck at the back of the house.  Applicant: Location: Parcel Number: Attachment:  Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye 601 E2nd Street 5685-17-0072 1. Site Photos 2. Supplemental Materials 3. Location Map of Property  The Commission should consider this request based upon general conformance with the Design Standards.  Structure:  Thisisa1-story brick ranch house built in 1970  Project Analysis: This application ist fori thet following work:  a. Remove the existing brick façade and replace it with wood laps siding or b. Raisei thel house by 4' per FEMA code requirement and screen the new Adda a 5'x10' porch ati thei front oft the house and a 12'x10' deck at the back of  Hardiplank  crawlspace with al brick and lattice exterior  the! house. Chapter 3  From the Design Standards (shortened to include only sections that apply):  Title  Pages 45-68  Changes to Existing Buildings  3.1.1 Historic character-defining walli features should be retained and protected including clapboards, corner boards, cornices, quoins, corbeling and other 3.1.2 Original walls should be properly maintained and repaired when necessary. Ifan original wall feature must be replaced due to excessive deterioration or damage, the newi feature should match the original in size, profile, material, and texture.  architectural detailing.  (HPC- 21-0101: 601E E2 2nd Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCI Meeting    3.1.5 Iti is prohibited to cover or replace original wall surfaces with vinyl, aluminum, veneer or other synthetic siding, including chemical applications that may change 3.3.1 Retain and preserve historic foundations including their design, texture, color, and materials. Character-defining features of historic foundations should be retained and preserved including vents, grills, panels, piers, lattice, porch steps, 3.3.2 Ifal historict foundation must be repaired or replaced, match the original in size, 3.3.5 New foundation openings including vents or mechanical installations should be installed only in non-character defining elevations. New openings should not be 3.3.6 Underpinning shall consist of bricks andj jointt tooling that matchi the piers as closely as possible. Nonstructural underpinning may consist of a single course of bricks, lattice brick walls, or even treated wooden lattice. If openings between brick piers aret to bet filled in, they should be done with similar materials or lattice. Thei infill area should ber recessed and clearly differentiated from the 3.3.7 Structural underpinning may be a veneer wall of brick covering a concrete block wall. This thickness may meet the minimum requirements for at foundation wall. Brick lattice may also be used as a veneer to cover the concrete block. 3.6.1 Entryways and porches are important character-defining elements ofal historic structure and should be retained and preserved. Important elements include steps, columns, balustrades. doors, railings, brackets, roofs, cornices and 3.6.2 Ifr replacement ofa a porch element is necessary, replace only the deteriorated or missing detail with new materials that match the design of the original as closely 3.10.1 Original architectural components and details shall be retained whenever 3.10.2 When architectural components and details must be replaced, the new components or details shall matchi the historic elements as closely as possible in 3.10.3 Architectural components and details that are not appropriate to the historic character of the structure shall not be added. New features should not be added unless there is physical or other evidence that they historically existed. 3.10.4 Historic architectural components shall not be replaced with materials, such as plywood, vinyl, and aluminum that would not! have been used in the original 3.10.5 Architectural details shall not be covered or obscured by artificial siding.  thet texture oft the original siding.  basement windows and door openings. shape, texture, color, and material.  installedi ift they will damage the historic: structure.  original piers  entablatures. as possible possible.  style, proportion, and material.  construction.  (HPC- 21-0101: 601 E2nd Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCI Meeting    Chapter 5  Title New Construction  Pages 85-94  5.3.1 Additions should be located tot the rear or non-character defining elevation. With historic residential structures, additions should be placed in a manner that they are not clearly seen fromi the publici right-of-way. Landscaping can often be used to minimize the visual impact that additions may have tot the historic structure. 5.3.2 New additions should not remove, damage, or obscure character-defining 5.3.3 Additions should be compatible in materials, design, roof form, and proportion to ther main structure. However, new additions should be constructed at a scale smaller than the historicstructure so as noti to overpower the existing historic 5.3.4 Additions, like new construction, are representative of the time in which they are built. Therefore, contemporary designs are permitted, but should always be 5.3.5 An addition should never mimic or recreate the architecture of the primary 5.3.6 Additions to historic structures should be clearly identifiable as such. Additions should bes set back and constructed at as smaller scale than the original building. Architectural details should complement the main structure but should be clearly 5.3.9 Significant trees or other landscape should not ber removed or damaged when 5.4.1 A deck shall be designed and constructed: soi that the historic structure and its character-defining features and details are not damaged or obscured. Install decks sot they can be removed in the future without damage toi the structure. 5.4.2 Decks shall not, when feasible, be visible from the public right-of-way. New decks should be constructed in inconspicuous locations, usually on the building's rear 5.4.3 Design and detail decks and associated railings and steps to reflect materials, 5.4.4 New decks should be painted or stained in a color that is compatible with the  architectural feature.  building.  compatible with the existing historics structure.  historics structure.  differentiated. constructing an addition.  elevation.  scale, and proportions oft the building. historicstructure and district  Finding of Facts A:T The applicant proposes to remove the original existing exterior brick and replace it with  wood lap siding or Hardiplank. The brick exterior is not an attribute oft this structure that has deteriorated excessively. The structure was built in 1970 and is not a contributing structure fort thel District. Based on theset findings off facts, the request is not congruous  with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards.  (HPC- 21-0101: 601 E2nds Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCMeeting    Possible. Actions A:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E2 2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design. Standards specifically, 3.1- Exterior Walls, 3.2 -I Materials, and 3.10-Architectural Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.1- Exterior Walls, 3.2-I Materials, and 3.10-A Architectural Details. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation Commission place thet following conditions on the  Details  OR  approval:  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E2nd Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design. Standards specifically, 3.1-E Exterior' Walls, 3.2 - Materials, and 3.10-A Architectural Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness application and invoke NC GS 160D-947(d), which allows the commission to request technical advicet from the Historic Preservation Office (HPO). lalso movet the commission seek guidance fromi the HPO regarding [detailed description of whati information the commission is seeking from HPO that will aid themi in making a defensible decision regarding the case]. We would like to remind the applicant pursuant to NC GS: 160D-947(d), thel HPO has 30 days from the date an official Finding of Facts B:T The applicant intends to raiset thel house by 4' per FEMA code requirement to protect  Details.  OR  request is received from the commission to review and comment on the request.  against futurei flood events. Once the house is raised the new crawispace willl be screened with al brick veneer overt the block foundations and al lattice. Based on these findings of facts, the request is congruous withi the Historic Preservation Commission  Design. Standards.  Possible Actions B:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E: 2nd Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design. Standards specifically, 3.2-I Materials, 3.3 -Foundations, and 3.10-Architectural  Details.  OR  (HPC- 21-0101: 601E E2nds Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCMeeting    Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes ont the property located at 601 E2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings. of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design. Standards specifically, 3.2- - Materials, 3.3-Foundations, and 3.10-A Architectural Details. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation Commission place the following conditions on the  approval:  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E2nd Street. The motion is based on thet following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.2-Materials, 3.3 -F Foundations, and 3.10-A Architectural  Details.  OR  Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness application andi invoke NC GS1 160D-947(d), which allows the commission to request technical advice from the Historic Preservation Office (HPO). lalso movet the commission seek guidance from the HPO regarding [detailed description of what information the commission is seeking from HPO that willa aid them in making a defensible decision regarding the case]. We would like to remind the applicant pursuant to NC GS 160D-947(d), the HPO has 30 days from the date an official Finding of Facts C: The applicant intends to adda a! 5'x10' porch at thet front oft the house and a 12'x10' deck  request is received from the commission to review and comment on the request.  at the back of the house. This property has at triple frontage meaning 3 of the 4 sides face ar right-of-way." This makes all: sides oft the property visible from a right-of-way. As survey indicating thei final location and: setback of the new porch and deck along with al building permit will be required to complete the construction of these items. An approved application for a variance may be required before al building permit is approved. Based ont these findings off facts, the request is not congruous with the Historic Preservation  Commission Design Standards.  Possible Actions C:  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E 2nd Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.2- - Materials, 3.3 - Foundations, and 3.10-A Architectural  Details.  OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E2nd Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design. Standards specifically, 3.2- - Materials, 3.3 - Foundations, and 3.10-Architectural Details. Ifurther move that the Historic Preservation Commission place the following conditions on the  approval:  (HPC-21-0101: 601 E2nd Street) Tuesday, September 7,2 2021, HPCI Meeting    OR  Imove that the Historic Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to Everyday Moe, LLC; Moses Moye to make the above changes on the property located at 601 E2nd Street. The motion is based on the following Findings of Facts: the application is not congruous with the Historic Preservation Commission Design Standards specifically, 3.2- Materials, 3.3 - Foundations, and 3.10 - Architectural  Details.  OR  Imove the commission continue this Certificate of Appropriateness application andi invoke NC GS1 160D-947(d), which allows the commission to request technical advice from the Historic Preservation Office (HPO). lalso move the commission seek guidance from the HPO regarding [detailed description of what information the commission is seeking from HPO that will aid them in making a defensible decision regarding the case]. We would like to remind the applicant pursuant to NC GS 160D-947(d), the HPO has 30 days from the date an official  request is received from the commission to review and comment on the request.  (HPC- 21-0101:6 601 E2nds Street) Tuesday, September 7,2021,H HPCI Meeting    MINOR  WORKS    Minor' Works  1. A request has been made by Tom Litchfield, owner of 131 El Main Street, for a Certificate 2. A request has been made by Mary Beedle, owner of 532 E: 2nd, for a Certificate of 3. A request has been made by Jim Fortescue, owner of 226 E Water Street, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of deteriorated windows with wood windows. 4. Ar request has been made by Jim Fortescue, owner of 225 WI Main Street, for a Certificate  of Appropriateness for an HVAC change-out.  Appropriateness fori the removal of dead trees on the property.  of Appropriateness for a new sign.    OTHER  BUSINESS    283 E 2nd Street