MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA The Historic Preservation Commission met in regular session in the West End Conference Room, 115 Chatham Street, Sanford, NC, on Monday, April 28, 2025, at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jason Cline, Chair Aidan Harbison, Vice Chair Jim Erb James Cox Delorian Wicker Aaron Shepard Berkley Hillis Staff Present: David Montgomery, Long Range Planner Liz Whitmore, Planner II Angela Baker, Clerk to the Board Kevin Hornik, Attorney Absent: Jean Dabbs, City Council Liaison Having noted the presence of a quorum, Chair Cline called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Harbison made the motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Board member Board member Shepard. The motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINOTES Board member Erb made a motion to approve the minutes from December 16, 2024. Board member Shepard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Cline read the Quasi- Judicial Statement. PUBLICI HEARINGS A. COA-25-13 Application by the Lawrence and Jacalyn McAlister owners of 315 Cross Street, who wish to install a rear deck, the original deck was removed SO they would have to access to do Major Work to the historic structure. Administer the Oath: Chair Cline called all participants speaking in favor of, or against the COA's, as well as staff, to stand and take the oath Lawrence and Jacalyn McAlister; Aaron Shepard and David Montgomery appeared and took the oath. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 2 Conflicts of Interest: Chair Cline read the conflicts of interest statement. There were no conflicts of interest. The Agenda Packet was entered into the Record. Staff Presentation: The Historic Preservation Commission received a Certificate of Appropriateness COA-25-13 application from owners Lawrence and Jacalyn McAlister owners of 315 Cross Street who wish to build a deck (9 feet 6 inches by 11 feet 3 inches) located in the rear of the structure. Notification: The City of Sanford UDO, 3.1.5.2. Legislative and advisory public hearings procedures, 3.1.5.2.4. Notice provisions states the following: "The notice requirements for legislative and advisory proceedings, including amendments to this ordinance, or the official zoning map, shall be that as provided in G.S. 153A-323, 153A- 343, 160A-364, and 160A-384. More specifically, a notice of the hearing shall be published once a week for two successive calendar weeks. The notice shall be published the first time not less than ten days nor more than 25 days before the date fixed for the hearing. In computing such period, the day of publication is not to be inçluded but the day of the hearing shall be included." Comment: An ad was placed in the Sanford Herald on Tuesday April 15, 2025 (eleven [11] days prior to the hearing) and Tuesday April 22, 2025; and 3.1.5.3. Quasi-judicial public hearing procedures. 3.1.5.3.4. Notice Provisions, states the following: "The adjacent property owners to a quasi-judicial hearing will be sent a notice of hearing (by the department of community development) not less than ten days before the hearing. The notice shall state the date, hour, place, and nature of the hearing, shall list the particular sections of this ordinance involved, and shall give a short and plain statement of the application. Notice shall be sent by first-class mail." Comment: First-class letters were mailed to adjacent property owners of the subject property and a registered letter was sent to the property owner on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. In addition to the above requirements the site was posted on Wednesday April 16, 2024. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 3 Background: The subject property, 315 Cross ca. 1925 1.5 Edward A. and Clara G. Griffin House- Contributing- Craftsman bungalow of weatherboarded frame construction, with an asphalt- shingled front-gable roof, a front gabled extension that engages a porch with Craftsman brick and wood supports and a window in the gable, gable brackets, brick chimney. Men's Clothier Edward Adolphus "Dolph" Griffin and his wife Clara Glenn lived in this house in 1927, although they did not build it. The house was probably built a year or two earlier. To the north of the subject are the following two properties: Contributing - 312 Cross ca. 1930 Craftsman bungalow of weatherboarded frame construction, with an asphalt-shingled hip roof with a hipped ventilation dormer, an engaged front porch supported by Craftsman brick and wood columns. To the rear stands a two-story garagelapartment, the first story constructed of concrete block, the second of asbestos-sided frame construction and a Contributing 1945 2 Concrete block and frame Garage/apartment and Contributing 316 Cross ca. 1930 a Craftsman bungalow of weatherboarded frame construction, with an asphalt-shingled side-gable roof, a front porch engaged under a gabled extension with a three-part window/ventilator in the gable and modern turned wood posts underneath, gable brackets, and a brick chimney. To the east of the subject property is - Contributing - 311 Cross ca. 1930 - House Craftsman bungalow of aluminum-sided frame construction, with an asphalt-shingled side-gable roof with a shed dormer, and engaged front porch supported by classical turned columns, and brick chimneys. To the south of the subject property is - Contributing - 312 Green ca. 1930 a Craftsman bungalow of weatherboarded frame construction, with an asphalt-shingled side-gable roof that engages a front porch with Craftsman wood and brick columns, brick chimney, shed dormer. To the west of the subject property are the following properties - Contributing 304 N. Gulf ca. 1940 1 House Colonial Revival brick or brick-veneer house with an asphalt-shingled side- gable roof, a five-bay front elevation, a pedimented front stoop and a side portico, a flat- roofed side wing, and 6/6-sash windows. (Note: this house is not numbered on city maps.) and a Contributing - ca. 1940 1.5 Brick garage/apartment Contributing 306 N. Gulf ca. 1920 - Lucian and Janie Baldwin House Craftsman bungalow of weatherboard frame construction with an asphalt-shingled sidegable roof, a brick chimney, and a Craftsman porch with trellis-like exposed ceiling structure and joist ends. Early occupants were Lucian and Janie Baldwin: a later occupant was T. T. Hayes. Non-Contributing - 310 N. Gulf ca. 1950 2Pittman Apartments Colonial Revival brick or brick veneer apartment building of domestic form with an asphalt-shingled side-gable roof, classical entry surround, and paired 6/6 -sash windows. (Note: the northwest side of this duplex is designated 317 Cross on city name.) Staff note: Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 4 June 16, 2023, staff approved COA 23-32 for the "Temporary deck removal and installation of temporary stairs to rear door. Deck being removed to allow access to the foundation to conduct repairs. At the time a new deck is to be installed a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be submitted for review and action." Exhibit List Exhibit A front façade of the subject property. Page 9 Exhibit B deck that was removed. Page 10 Exhibit C deck the applicant wishes to install. Page 11 New Construction Introduction The objective of the new construction guidelines is not to prevent change, but to ensure that future construction projects respect the general character of the historic district neighborhoods. Applicants for Certificates of Appropriateness for new construction and their architects are strongly urged to meet with the Historic Preservation Staff to discuss their plans and ensure they are not incongruous with the special character of the historic district. Building site refers to the placement of the structure on the lot. Setback and massing should establish a framework of order and coherence. The use of continuous setback patterns ensures a strong and consistent streetscape. Setbacks in historic districts vary, but generally the houses are relatively close to the street. 4. Decks Guidelines a. If possible, introduce decks inconspicuously in areas that are not visible from the street, usually on the rear elevation, inset from either rear corner. Locate the deck with care sO that it does not damage or conceal significant historic features or details of the historic structure. COMMENT: The location of the deck is in the rear of the subject structure and will not be visible from the street. b. Minimize the visual impact of the deck by limiting its size and scale. It is not appropriate to introduce a deck if it will visually overpower the building or site or substantially alter the site's proportion of constructed area to un-built area. COMMENT: The deck appears that it will not overpower the building or site or alter the sites proportion in a negative fashion. C. Minimize the damage to the historic building by constructing decks to be self-supporting. Attach them to the historic building with care SO that loss of historic fabric is minimized. COMMENT: The applicant has verbally stated to staff that they intend to attach the deck with great care to the original structure. d. Align decks typically with the height of the building's first floor and screen the deck's structural framing with foundation plantings, lattice or other compatible screening materials. COMMENT: The deck is going to be aligned with the first floor of the subject property. At this time the applicant has not proposed any material to screen the structural supports of the deck. e. Paint or stain decks in colors that are complimentary to the Historic District. COMMENT: The applicant will use a tinted sealant that matches the fence that they have installed. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 5 f. Iti is not appropriate to introduce a deck if it will require the loss of a character-defining building or site feature. COMMENT: The proposed deck is smaller than the deck that was removed and will therefore enhance character-defining elements. Staff Comment: The above comments are ofthe opinion of staff and it is the Commission's discretion whether to agree or disagree and make any additions or deletions as they deem fit. Staff Ouestions Chair Cline asked if they decided to screen with plants or lattice, then that will be staff. level. Staff Whitmore said yes. Finding of Fact Motion: Vice Chair Harbison made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission find as fact that the proposed project COA-25-13, 315 Cross Street, to build a deck (9 feet by 6 inches by 11 feet 3 inches) located in the rear of the structure, is not incongruous with the character of the district, for the reasons that the deck is going to be behind the house and not visible from the street; it is a smaller footprint that the original deck; and the materials and color will be matching for the reasons for the following reasons are generally in harmony with the criteria in the design guidelines and the special character of the neighboring properties and the historic district as a whole. Seconded by Board member Wicker. Motion carried. Final Motion: Vice Chair Harbison made a motion based on the preceding findings of fact, I move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to the owner the Lawrence and Jacquelyn McAlister and approve the proposal as shown in COA-25-13, 315 Cross Street. Seconded by Board member Wicker. Motion carried. B. COA-25-14 - Application by Aaron Shephard, owner of 503 N. Gulf Street, who wishes to remove windows and door of the rear extension of the house and apply stucco to the structure, add wood trim, install window of the north side of the structure, remove a chimney that is no longer used. Conflicts of Interest: Chair Cline read the conflicts of interest statement. Aaron Shepard was recused because he was the applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission received a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from Aaron Shepard, owner of 503 N. Gulf Street, who wishes to remove windows and door of the rear extension of the house and apply stucco to the structure, add wood trim, install a window on the north side of the structure and remove a chimney that is no longer used. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 6 Notification: The City of Sanford UDO, 3.1.5.2. Legislative and advisory public hearings procedures, 3.1.5.2.4. Notice provisions states the following: "The notice requirements for legislative and advisory proceedings, including amendments to this ordinance, or the official zoning map, shall be that as provided in G.S. 153A-323, 153A- 343, 160A-364, and 160A-384. More specifically, a notice of the hearing shall be published once a week for two suçcessive calendar weeks. The notice shall be published the first time not less than ten days nor more than 25 days before the date fixed for the hearing. In computing such period, the day of publication is not to be included but the day of the hearing shall be included." Comment: An ad was placed in the Sanford Herald on Tuesday April 15, 2025 (eleven [11] days prior to the hearing) and Tuesday April 22, 2025. and 3.1.5.3. Quasi-judicial public hearing procedures. 3.1.5.3.4. Notice Provisions, states the following: "The adjacent property owners to a quasi-judicial hearing will be sent a notice of hearing (by the department of community development) not less than ten days before the hearing. The notice shall state the date, hour, place, and nature of the hearing, shall list the particular sections of this ordinance involved, and shall give a short and plain statement of the application. Notice shall be sent by first-class mail." Comment: First-class letters were mailed to adjacent property owners of the subject property and a registered letter was sent to the property owner on Tuesday April 15, 2025. In addition to the above requirements the site was posted the two Wednesdays before the public hearing on Wednesday April 16, 2025. Background: The subject property is located at 503 N. Gulf Street (ca. 1930) the Seawell House is a contributing structure to the district and is a craftsman house of stuccoed frame or brick construction, an asphalt-shingled hip roof with decorative outriggers in the deep overhanging eaves, and two one-story porches with craftsman characteristics. Behind the house is a brick garage with eaves detailing similar to that of the house, and a brick wall extends across the back of the lot. The garage is also a contributing structure to the district. To the north is the following property: 505 N. Gulf Street (ca. 1925) House which is a contributing structure to the district is a weatherboarded frame house with an asphalt-shingled hip roof, a brick chimney, a one-story front porch, and a frieze band that runs at the level of the second-story window sills. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 7 According to local tradition, contractor Joe Stout may have built this house. Behind the house stands a concrete-block building now used as a workshop but said to have been once used as a private nursery school and kindergarten. To the east is the following property: 500 N. Gulf Street (ca. 1937 and 1947) the Robert Bracken House a contributing structure to the district is a Tudor Revival brick house with steep asbestos-shingled side-gable roof with gabled projections, one of which displays false half-timbering (the others have been sheathed in aluminum siding). In 1947 the house was damaged by fire and in the course of renovations a long glassed-in porch, two bay windows, and metal casement sash were added. The house was also enlarged and painted white after the fire, but otherwise the original Tudor character was retained. A 1940s brick garage/apartment behind the house has been incorporated into a later dwelling (see 310-312 Bracken). A quartzite retaining wall with grapevine mortar joints extends along Bracken Street, which was originally known as Washington Street. The house was built for Robert Bracken, a Pennsylvania native who operated the Bracken Steel Company in the Goldsboro Street area of Sanford. Bracken died in the 1947 fire that damaged his house. To the south is the following property: 411 N. Gulf Street (ca. 1925) the R. T. Howard House is a contributing structure to the district and is a Craftsman house of weatherboarded frame construction with an asphalt- shingled hip roof and a one-story front porch. In the 1930s it was owned by R. T. Howard, who with Richard E. Bobbitt owned the Howard & Bobbitt wholesale grocery company and its retail arm, Progressive Stores. According to local tradition, contractor Joe Stout may have built this house. To the rear beside Bracken Street is a secondary dwelling that appears to be a converted garage contemporaneous with the main house. To the west is the following property: 502 N. Vance Street is not located within the Rosemount McIver Park Historic district. Exhibit List: Exhibit A- Front façade of the subject property. Page 10 Exhibit B - South facing elevation (window and door to be removed). Page 11 Exhibit C- West facing elevation (windows to be removed). Page 12 Exhibit D - Framing the wall after window is removed. Page 13 Exhibit E - North facing façade with existing two windows to remain and one window to be removed and a shorter one to be installed. Page 14 Exhibit F - Stucco Page 15 Exhibit G - North facing façade double window to remain large window to be removed and new window to be installed. Page 16 Exhibit H - Exterior original chimney to be removed. Page 17 Exhibit I - Interior showing the chimney flue. Page 18 Exhibit J - Interior photo f the existing chimney. Page 19 Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 8 8. Windows and Doors Fenestration is one of the most character defining features of an historic structure. The fenestration pattern of a building is the arrangement of doors and windows. The sizes of panes in a window reflect the style and sometimes the age of a building. Early American homes featured small panes of glass, usually in a twelve-over- twelve pattern. However, by the late nineteenth century, glass manufacturers were able to produce large sheets of glass SO that many older homes in historic districts display windows of one-over-one or two-over-two patterns. Most Victorian buildings have windows that were tall and narrow. A "picture window" with a border of small square panes of colored glass is the trademark of the Queen Anne style. Colonial Revival windows have multiple pane divisions, often with six-over-six or six-over-one patterns. The Palladian window is a typical Colonial Revival element. It is a three-part window, with an arched-headed window flanked by two shorter square-headed windows. Bungalows and American Four-squares often have long narrow panes in the upper sash and a solid pane in the lower sash. Beveled or etched glass is often found in historic district homes. The window features and the decorative glass are an important part of the overall design scheme. Improper or insensitive treatment of the fenestration pattern of a historic district house can seriously detract from its character to the point that the house loses its original stylistic identity. Originally shutters served practical purposes. Their historic functional purpose has largely been replaced with an ornamental purpose. Modern shutters often do not match the dimensions of the window and are often constructed of artificial materials such as vinyl or aluminum. Staff Comment: It is staffs understanding the applicant wishes to make modifications to the interior of the house and these requests are SO those alterations are feasible. Rosemount-Miclver Park Design Guidelines important to the case: Guidelines a. It is appropriate to preserve, protect and retain original window and door elements such as sash, glass, sills, frames, casings, hardware, weather stripping, lintels, architraves and shutters. COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to remove the original windows and door, install a window on the north side of the structure and stucco over the area where the windows and door has been removed. b. When the repair of a window or door is not technically feasible, the replacement design should match as closely as possible with the original window or door in material, scale, character, design, and appearance. New windows or doors should have matching sash, glass, sills, frames, casings, and muntin patterns. New sash should be made of wood, not metal unless metal is historically appropriate to the structure. Existing window casings and trim should be retained. COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to remove the original windows and door, install a window on the north side of the structure and stucco over the area where the windows and door has been removed. C. The pattern, arrangements, and dimensions of doors and windows on the principal elevation or other character defining elevations should be retained, unless restoring the appearance of the structure to its original design. Window and door openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit stock windows or doors. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 9 COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to remove the original windows and door, install a window on the north side of the structure and stucco over the area where the windows and door has been removed. d. Windows or doors with snap-in muntins should be avoided. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. e. Existing vinyl windows should be replaced per historic guidelines. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. f. Front doors in the historic district should be appropriate for the style of the house. Flat surfaced doors and those with contemporary decorative windows should be avoided. A solid wood door is not a suitable replacement for an original door constructed of wood panels and glass. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. g. Doors with snap-in grids, and sliding glass doors, are not appropriate. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. h. Reflective or tinted glass is not appropriate where visible from the principal elevation. Clear solar films are permitted. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. i. It is appropriate to retain and repair existing historic shutters and their hardware. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. j. If a historic shutter must be replaced, the new shutter should complement the original shutter in size, shape, number of panels, and style. New shutters that are not part of the original design must be carefully reviewed to determine historic appropriateness and correct design relative to the structure and neighborhood. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. k. Shutters should be attached to the window casing and not the siding or wall. Shutters should cover the entire window when closed. Even if the shutters do not close, they should appear to. Ornamental shutters may be appropriate if they can be historically attributed to the structure. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. I. Window greenhouses which are visible from principal elevations are inappropriate to historic properties. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. m. In a new addition to a building, every effort must be made to use windows and doors that complement the originals in size, shape, placement, pattern, materials, and details. COMMENT: Should the application be approved the proposed window installation on the north facing elevations shall be wood and be 6 over one to compliment the original windows that are presently installed in the house. The applicant should reuse one of the windows that is removed if the application is approved. 4. Chimneys Original chimneys are significant features of historic houses and should be preserved. Guidelines a. It is appropriate to preserve, protect and retain the design of original chimney masonry. Brick corbelling, clay chimney pots, or other original features should be Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 10 repaired rather than removed. Special care should be taken to ensure that repairs blend in composition, size, shape, color, pattern, and texture. COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to remove the original chimney. b. It is not appropriate to parge or use incorrect materials to re-point deteriorated chimney masonry. COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to remove the original chimney. C. It is appropriate to remove chimneys or furnace stacks added after the original construction if the historic appearance of the structure will otherwise remain unchanged. COMMENT: The existing chimney is original to the house. d. Metal caps are acceptable; they should be unobtrusive and not alter the design of the chimney. The design of the chimney cap should be chosen in context to the architecture of the house and the materials of the chimney new materials shall blend with historic materials in composition, size, shape, color, pattern, and texture. COMMENT: This guideline does not apply. e. It is appropriate to preserve, protect and retain original flashing design such as step flashing COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to remove the original chimney which then in turn the original flashing would be removed. Staff Comments and Analysis. The applicant should contact the City Inspection Department (919-718-4654) to obtain a building permit to install the window on the north side of the house and a Demo permit is required to remove the chimney. No permit is required to remove the existing windows frame them in and stucco over them. The applicant shall provide copies of all permits for the HPC file. The above comments are of the opinion of staff only and it is the Commission's discretion whether to agree or disagree with staff and make any additions or deletions as they deem fit. Staff Questions Chair Cline asked if there was evidence of any other houses in the neighborhood that removed an original chimney. Staff Whitmore stated that a non-original chimney had been removed, and no windows had been removed and stucco over. Applicant Testimony Aaron Shepard the applicant stated that he wanted to expand the kitchen. He said that he doesn't get any use out of the chimney; the base is starting to crumble; and it is at the back of the house and not visible. He stated that the porch was only enclosed half ofi it. He wanted to remove and make a stucco wall; add a window to make it look symmetrical. He said that he has found windows out of Pittsboro that are exactly the same. He said that the stucco is pebble dash. It will match what is on the house now. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 11 Board member Erb asked if the room on the back of the house was original. Mr. Shepard stated that looking at the Sanborn Atlas it looks like it was porch area, but enclosed later. He also doesn't think the door was original. Board member Harbison made the comment that you could see it from the Vance Street side. Board member Hillis asked for clarification regarding the closed in porch. Mr. Shepard said that it looked like a footprint on the Sanborn Atlas and not something that was enclosed. Mr. Shepard stated that the kitchen is very cramped and his mother wants to cook with his children. There is not enough room. It is not a fun kitchen. He said that this is the most economical way to expand the kitchen. Mr. Shepard searched for the Sanborn Atlas map online to present as evidence. Chair Cline asked if the applicant would be opposed to splitting up the COA in two parts. Mr. Shepard said yes. Board member Cox asked if it had been determined that the chimney was original. Mr. Shepard said yes. Board member Erb stated that it was a stove chimney. Board member Cox asked if the Board would be setting a precedence for the removal of original chimneys. Attorney Hornik stated that the decision of each is case is only based on the evidence presented. Someone would come before the Board in the future and presents the same factual circumstances: and the exact same evidence. Even if you approve the COA today, you are not binding the HPC in the future. Decision today is based on whether the evidence you have heard and what has been included in your packed persuaded the majority of the Board that demolishing the chimney would not be incongruous with the character of the district. Mr. Shepard said that this is a back corner one that is really small and not used. That is why he is requesting it be removed, because it does not add anything to the house. The others in the house, are big, pretty and have mantles. Board member Erb stated his opinion is that it is not something that contributes to the house. It is not making an architectural a statement to the house. Board member Hillis stated that you can see it from the street. Attorney Hornik stated that the standard to be applied is not incongruous with the character to the district. The Board's role is not to ensure that this is the best, most historiçally accurate Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 12 preservation value decision to be made. The impact of the COA would be not incongruous with the district. Mr. Shepard stated that he would take in care removing the chimney because he would like to use the brick elsewhere. Board member Hillis asked for the dimensions of the chimney, and if it was perfectly square. Mr. Shepard stated that it is about 16x18, and is a rectangle shape. Board member Cline stated that he understood the reason. He asked where the Board members stood at this time. Board member Cox stated that the chimney being removed does not diminish the value of the house. He stated that it is not an ornamental chimney that is used. Board member Hillis stated that from generally speaking from what she has read, if you have an original chimney, you cannot remove it. The chimney with a cook stove is part of that era. Board member Erb stated that removing something that helps make a house livable and work better, he is in favor. Board member Wicker stated that he would be for removing it beçause it not used and not clearly visible. Board member Harbison said as it stands, he is not for the chimney removal because on the back side the chimneys are symmetrical, it is original, and is not in disrepair. Chair Cline stated that he is not for the removal. It is original, and the guidelines to state to protect and doesn' 't differentiate between the styles of the chimneys. Chair Cline stated that the Board seemed to be split. Board member Wicker asked if the applicant could still do the renovations with the chimney there. Mr. Shepard said not really. The problem it is in the worst possible spot, right in the middle of the room. If he tried to keep it where it is with the stove configuration you still would not have room and would be bumping into it. Board member Harbison stated that it was reiterated in the training and the guidelines that on work like this on how invasive it would be is a risk to the structure. Something could get damaged such as the stucco, the roof, or the trim. That is why a lot of the guidelines lien towards doing repairs as opposed to removal. It is a lot of invasive work and puts the original structure at risk. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 13 Attorney Hornik stated that it is important to keep in mind that speculative, hypothetical discussion about what a future potential property owner might want to do. The Board is to determine what is not incongruous with the character of the district. Attorney Hornik suggested to continue the entire hearing to allow the applicant to survey the neighborhood and provide additional photographs to show you whether there are other structures in the district that appear to have a potentially an original chimney that has been removed. He said from the discussion, the concern of the members is that it is clear that there were chimneys in certain areas of the home that were part of the original function of the home. If there is concern that demolishing one of those chimneys would distract from the Historic character of the structure and to the district, then it might be worth giving him the opportunity to see if he can identify other structures in the district appear to have the imbalance that might have been caused by removing a chimney or not. He could bring back that evidence and any additional evidence in support of removal of the chimney and the enclosed porch. Board member Erb asked if the chimney can't be removed, then the additional renovations can't be done. Mr. Shepard said yes. Board member Erb said that giving him half of it, would be giving him the wrong half. Chair Cline said that it is an interior thing and they do not have any say what can be done on the inside of the house. It is not relevant. Attorney Hornik informed the Board that they should not consider the interior plans as evidence as whether to grant or deny the COA request, with respect to either component. What he plans to do on the interior, is irrelevant to what is being proposed is not incongruous with the district. The information is useful, but that does not speak to the changes. The reason or motivation to the change, is not relevant to the decision. The Board's consideration is only if the removal of the chimney makes it incongruous to the district. The guidelines tell you that they prefer not to remove original chimneys or windows; but, the Board's decision would removal be incongruous with the character of the district. The point with the applicant is if he thinks there is additional evidence, photographs of chimneys within the district that other similar chimneys have been removed in the past, and therefore removal of this one, would not be incongruous. Or removal of windows from enclosed porches within the district has occurred. That would be evidence proposed to not be incongruous with the district. The Board, if would like, can continue all or part of the COA to allow to bring back additional evidence. Chair Cline stated that he thought additional evidence is needed to make a decision. Board member Erb made a motion to continue the hearing to May 19, 2025, seconded by Board member Wicker. The motion carried. Historic Preservation Minutes 4.28.25 14 OLD BUSINESS a. COAS Staff Whitmore presented an Attachment to the agenda for current approved COA's. ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned on motion of Board member Hillis, seconded by Board member Erb, and unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm. Wne Adopted this day of Ooas 23rd BY: Jason Ctine, Chair ATTEST: Omol M fabu Angela M. Baker, Clerk