Okay, it is 635.

We are opening the hearing.

All right.

So start with roll call.

Josh Gurlitz.

Here.

Laura Moore.

Here.

Glenn Conley?

Here.

Brian Daniels?

Here.

And Don Tice, I am here.

So, Secretary, please read the procedures until the remote.

Just for the record, I'll note that you're opening the meeting and not the evidentiary hearing at this point.

That's correct.

When I open the evidentiary hearing, I will use the term evidentiary.

Yes.

Okay, so Secretary.

I'll now read into the record the following.

The commission operates under NC General Statutes 160 D-940, which gives local governments historic preservation authority and the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, including Article 3, which established the local historic districts and sets forth regulations governing them.

And the Chapel Hill Historic District's design principles and standards, which sets forth standards for changes in the historic districts, and the rules of procedure adopted by the Chapel Hill Historic District Commission, as well as the significance reports from all three historic districts and photos.

I also call to your attention each of the applications and associated materials in your agenda packet.

All of these items are hereby entered into the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, now the public charge.

Should decorum fail to be restored, the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment, genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.

Property owners may represent themselves or be represented by attorney, however, professional, such as architects, engineers, designers, and others may provide factual evidence and expert opinions so far as they are qualified, but not legal arguments on behalf of the property owner.

Okay, approval of the agenda.

Do you guys have any amendments to the agenda?

Anyone?

Move approval.

Second.

So it's been seconded.

Uh it's been uh moved and seconded.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh just a side note, real quick, administrative note for you guys.

Um the next agenda, we need to make sure we adjust the um letter head so that Nancy's name's not on it anymore.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any announcements?

No, there are none.

Okay.

Petitions.

Also no.

Okay.

Old business 308 West Cameron Avenue.

We're now going to start the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

Um, and so I think everyone here probably knows, but I'm gonna review real quick.

We're gonna go with staff presentations, the applicant's presentation, public comment, board discussion, which will lead to a motion.

So Kevin, have you got something to say?

And I'll just add since we have a party that the commission has already determined has standing.

I think it would be appropriate to allow them an opportunity to make their presentation following the applicant's presentation, and of course, you know each side will have the opportunity to cross-examine uh witnesses as they're presented.

Okay, so everybody understands that.

That's good.

All right, so let's start the evidentiary hearing.

Staff presentation, please.

You're not gonna do it.

So it doesn't change.

All right.

Yeah, and now that we've uh got kind of gone through the preliminary administrative matters, I think it would be appropriate for to have a motion and a vote to reopen the evidentiary hearing.

Okay.

I move that we reopen the evidentiary hearing on 308 Cameron Avenue.

Second.

Brian, can you uh move your mic closer?

Sure.

Thank you.

Can you could you hear it before?

Okay, you could hear it.

Okay, so there's been a motion and a second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

There we go.

So we've made uh Mr.

Hornik happy.

That's important.

All right, so applicant's presentation.

Don, I know we've already done this once uh at the beginning of the last evidentiary hearing, but I suggest we go through and do conflicts of interest and swear in uh any witnesses who intend to speak.

Yeah, I was planning on doing the affirmation, but let's do ask any uh any conflict of interest.

There are none, so we will move forward.

Jay, you want to move up?

I'm gonna read an affirmation.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Can I also ask?

I'm sorry.

I'm Ann Anderson, I'm representing the applicant tonight.

Yes, of course.

May I may I approach?

Certainly.

Thank you.

So just to repeat for the record, I'm Ann Anderson representing the applicant this evening.

I'm not gonna attempt to make things longer, hopefully shorter in the process.

Um, but I could I also ask uh as is customary with quasi judicial proceedings.

I'm so sorry, but I can't hear you at all.

Can't hear me?

Is the mic the mics appears to be on?

Can you hear?

Just getting a little closer, like right on it.

There you go.

Oh no, this is gonna be bad.

Technology.

Okay.

Um again, sorry.

Ann Anderson here representing the applicant.

Uh as is customary in quasi judicial proceedings.

If we could also have um the members affirm that they have not spoken um about this matter um outside of this proceeding.

That's just for the record, thank you.

And just for for what it's worth, that's typically part of our disclosures or uh ex parte communications site visits, uh conflicts of interest under 160 D 109.

Um so that's just for what it's worth, that's typically part of the disclosure process.

But if if you'd like, y'all may uh you know acknowledge that you've not had any ex parte communications with an affected uh party uh specifically disclose that you've not had any site visits uh or other conflicts of interest.

So do we need to make a motion to that?

Or each commissioner goes in the and no so and and this is just a record key or record keeping matter.

You know, we've already acknowledged that there are no uh disclosures that ought to be made, but I think we are out of an abundance of caution.

I think we ought to go through individually and just note no statutory conflicts of interest, no ex parte communications, and no uh site visits, uh unless, of course, any of those things are not true.

Okay, well, since I'm the chair, I'll start and then we'll go to Josh.

Uh I haven't had any ex parte communications and I haven't made any site visits or coordinated with anyone or discussed it with anyone.

I have not made any site visits, and I have had no ex parte communications.

I have not had any site visits or any ex parte communication.

I have not had any site visits.

Um there may be a conflict of interest.

Um the applicant's son and his son and my son are on the same soccer team.

So I don't know if that is a significant conflict of interest.

So uh we'll allow the neighbors an opportunity to object.

However, this certainly doesn't appear to rise to the level of a close fan uh familial business or other associational relationship under 160 D, 109 D.

Um I'll turn it over to Leanne if she'd like to raise an objection.

This is a small town, we will conflicted out every time our children played with someone.

Um I'm afraid we would all be conflicted out.

Uh, we're not objecting at all.

And I'm for the record, I'm Lee Ann Brown.

I was not here last meeting either, but I'm here representing uh Mr.

Stanford and Dr.

Bryan.

Thank you.

No objection.

Okay, thank you.

I've had no exportate communication site visits or I have no conflicts of interest.

All right, thank you all.

All right, Jay.

Uh let me read the affirmation and afterwards if you could um say I so affirm and uh say your name.

I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the historic district commission and the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth.

I so affirm.

I so affirm.

I'm Jay Falkerson.

Shall I sign in here?

Yes.

All right, very good.

Good to see you all again.

My clients, Rom Kalindris, Rom's mother and father.

Um I'm Jay Falkerson.

I'll reintroduce myself for the record that um I'm an architect here in Chapel Hill.

Um my background is I graduated from the University of Cincinnati, 1984 Bachelor of Architecture.

Not quite a hundred years ago, but it's been a while.

I I got my initial registration the next year in 1985.

Moved here in 1988.

My wife went to grad school here and have stayed.

I worked for a small firm here in Chapel Hill Design Build Company for 10 years, and then I started my own practice in 1998 as a sole proprietor.

And I've had a successful practice here since then.

And uh also have a Master of Architecture from NC State in 1995, Master of Science of Architecture.

I thought I was going to go into teaching, and uh chose not to.

So that's I started my practice soon after that.

And I noted last time that I used to be on Historic District Commission, and it was for several months in 1985 in Endicott, New York.

And uh so I have some sense of what you all get to deal with in this circumstance.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks for volunteering to do this.

It's terrific.

And uh and thanks for the time you spent in the last meeting, and I especially thank Don and Laura for having written your comments.

I appreciated having the concise description of what you were thinking about, and uh allowed me to think about how we approach this project as we represent it.

Um can you see this on here now?

Okay.

I want to just this town just as town of Chapel Hill right now.

Okay, so they can see that.

That's what they got.

Okay, thank you.

Anna Scott.

Um so you you got the application, uh, revised application materials, and those are all is going to be part of this presentation.

Um, but there's also uh revisions on these 3D drawings that I had done previously, which initially included 129 Millette Street, included the existing house, and included the proposed new house.

And I think this time I won't I won't say proposed over and over again.

I'll just refer to it as the new house in the existing house and 129 Millette Street.

Um effectively the 3D really sums up things in terms of what I have done to revise and refine the design.

But effectively, uh what I've done is bring the stature of the house down, take away a lot of the verticality, and I'll talk about that in some detail.

But these two uh slides, you can see the existing the prior presentation slides had this sort of gray terrain color, and the new ones have more of a tan color, and you can see, and it's most clear that the house just sort of shrinks within this uh landscape and within this streetscape.

Um but first I'm gonna talk about uh Mallette Street.

I'm gonna talk about the revisions here, and again, you you may have noticed in what I turned in previously.

Any revisions are expressed in red type face.

So you can see that it's consistent throughout this as well as all the other materials that were turned in previously.

Um I'm gonna start first with uh a little discussion about the height on the house.

What we had in the prior presentation was 28 feet six inches, was the ridge line of the new house.

And through some modifications, which I'll go into, it's now 24 feet nine inches.

So it's the the change in the house structure and the foundation has come down three feet nine inches, and when you and when you look at it in the context of how the ordinance describes the house, it's actually a full four feet shorter with reference to where the mean grade elevation is at the front facade.

And in reality, it is four feet uh shorter than it had been.

Um as a uh I have a question, Anna Scott.

Can I make this image bigger on my screen?

Presentation, like speaker notes.

No, no, I don't need any of that.

Perfect.

That's exactly what I needed.

Thank you.

So a 24 feet nine inches.

When you consider the context specifically of Millette Street, it's well within the range of how high, how tall houses are on the street.

And in fact, it's it's a fair amount shorter than many of the other houses on the street.

For instance, 400 Cameron Street, West Cameron across the street, is 26 feet.

128.

I'm sorry, 126 on the other side of the street is 27 feet.

127, which is the house that is just north of 129, is 32 feet approximately at the ridge.

And in fact, the Eve height is about 22 feet.

And when we look at that particular house in relationship to 129, the ridge is well above the 129 ridge.

The Eve height is nearly as uh as low as the ridge of 129.

And not only that, but it's also a fair amount closer to 129 than the new house will be.

It's 29, maybe 28 feet away from that house.

And you'll see that the new house is over 42 feet from the existing uh from 129.

And uh and well, I'll make a further remark about that a little bit later, and in res response to the letter that I had seen from uh Jim Spencer that was sent.

And I uh have you all seen that?

Yeah, no.

No.

I haven't.

Um it's interesting to evidence, it should be part of the road.

Yeah, he didn't have to.

Okay, yeah, I was unaware of that.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, that's fine.

So I'll I'll wait to say anything about that until later.

Um the other thing that's notable about this.

Well, first of all, let me just say our design is not incongruous as far as I'm concerned from the standpoint of height within uh the context of Millette Street, or you'll see within the context of the entire historic district.

Um it it fits right in, in fact, in my opinion.

The new house is a little bit larger than it was previously.

It was 1,835 square feet, and I've made some minor revisions to it.

It's 1856 square feet now, and you'll you'll see how I how I came to that.

But at 1856 square feet, again, it's not certainly not incongruous, it's not a big house in this neighborhood.

It's definitely not a big house even on this street.

As you look at square footage of 400 across the street, uh over 2600 square feet, 128 is over 3100 square feet, and this this is information all from the tax records.

Um 27 is nearly 4200 square feet.

And 1856, oh 129 is slightly less than a thousand square feet.

Uh N308 West Cameron is 16 and change.

So it's not unusual on this street.

Uh and then as you look further down the street, some of these houses I think are larger than that.

Certainly 127 is larger than that.

Uh 126 probably as well.

And in the district, again, there are lots larger houses and smaller ones as well on some of the smaller lots.

So again, I think it fits right into the mix, not incongruous from that standpoint.

And there had been some discussion at the last meeting about about the plan or design orientation on the site.

And uh 129 is a building that as you see it, it principally has a facade that is parallel to the street, and is it's appears to be its primary dimension.

Although I will say 129 is in fact deeper from the street than it is wide.

And uh, and you can sort of tell that as you look at this plan, but in any case it is.

121 again is one that looks like it is principally horizontal, perhaps horizontal.

I'd say perhaps neutral because that's the two-story house, it's relatively tall, so it really doesn't have a horizontal orientation.

But again, it has a primary facade that is uh relatively wide and is parallel to the road.

But in fact, it's deeper than it is wide.

126 is the same that that case as well.

Um certainly the new house has that sort of form.

But it's not unusual on this street.

I mean, most of these lots are quarter acre lots that are relatively deep, and a lot of these houses express that the lots are deeper than they are wide.

Um as I get a little further along here, you'll see that in other parts of the district, that's definitely the case.

So again, um fits right in the mix, not incongruous.

Um also I'll just I'll touch on this quickly here before you go to the site plan.

But uh these were the dimensions that previously were on uh the new house with relationship to the existing house at 308 West Cameron, and also with relationship to the property line.

And you'll see that uh what I've done is I've moved the house.

It's about one feet three inches, one foot three inches further north to give a little bit more buffer to the existing house, which in fact the the primary wall of the new house and the primary wall of the existing house are 20 feet away from one another, and uh it's closer at the back porch that's on the existing house.

But otherwise, that's kind of clearance we have.

And there are lots of examples in the district, and on Millette Street, in fact, where the houses are closer than that.

This is not an unusual circumstance, and that in addition to the fact that we've reduced the stature of the house, I think, makes it uh convincingly not incongruous.

Uh and certainly an improvement on what I'd presented previously from that standpoint.

So this is the site plan as it was previously.

And uh there were comments about the parking, among other things, of course, but the parking, and so one of the big changes in the site plan is that I've modified the parking such that it is all four parking spaces, I'm sorry, in a straight line.

Previously they'd been more compact in terms of how they were uh relating to one another, but now all four of these are as far away from the house as we can possibly get them, and in a line so that they're largely uh sheltered from view by the existing wall that there is.

And we no longer have a parking space that's right in front of the house.

And uh, and there was there were comments about front yard parking as it relates to uh the historic district, and there's front yard parking all over the historic district.

But I feel like this approach is a really good one because it is more organized, and uh there's there's not a car parked in front of the house, which there are many spots on on even Mallette Street where you see that and uh from the standpoint of the ordinance, this first space is in the front yard just because of the relationship to where the front facade of the house is.

But the rest of these are not, and in fact, this is in the side yard visually.

So I think that's a really big improvement.

Um you'll see as I get to the next few slides here that I have introduced a retaining wall to this design.

And the existing retaining wall on this site is here and was going to be going away, and we had the discussion at some length last time about how to deal with the grades, and uh, and I've tried to introduce some clarity in terms of how the retaining wall works on this site, how we look at uh the grid, how the grade falls across the site, and what it means to how these two houses as well as 129 relate to one another.

And I've tried to introduce some clarity in terms of how the retaining wall works on the site, how we look at uh the grid, how the grade falls across the site, and what it means to how these two houses as well as 129 relate to one another.

Um what I've indicated is a retaining wall that comes largely across the site and then flares out and includes stairs between the lower portion of this property where the new house is and the upper part of this property, which in fact will allow us to excavate this without impacting the existing retaining wall dramatically that is along Millette Street, the intent being to keep it intact, and we can use these stairs and the new retaining wall to buttress the back of that wall.

And the only portion that's beyond the stairs and will have grade removed away from it is this short portion here that if we need to, we can reinforce that.

But uh it's a solution that that frankly it adds a pretty high level of organization to the site that it didn't have previously.

Um let's see here.

I'm just gonna move through this very quickly and get to some pictures.

Um specifically to talk about front yard parking.

Um I spent a little time, I went through the whole district, and after I'd learned that effectively you're not permitted to do so.

I'm trying to fill in some of the blanks that you may not know about.

But um front yard parking is all over the district.

It's on Millette Street.

Again, actually, this is a an organization that only has one car in the front yard, and the rest are are beyond that.

But front yard parking, this uh 126 has a circle driveway in front.

People regularly park in that spot.

Uh the house just across the street, the the brick ranch, uh, depending on how many people park in the driveway, most of them will be in the front yard.

Um as you move over to Keene Street, you move to uh out to Cameron Avenue, you move to Cameron Court.

There's only four houses on Cameron Court that are actually in the district.

Um, but they all have front yard parking.

And this one at 119 Cameron is I think actually a pretty good example because you can see the parking is here.

That that car is definitely in the front yard, but they're from a visual standpoint, they're not nearly as prominent as these are, for instance, or these are.

And that's a house, that's a house that was built on a subdivided site.

And uh I don't know when that property had a new house built on it, but it is uh if you look at the tax maps, there's not a house there, but there is in fact a house.

Um I'll also say as I'm looking at some of these pictures that uh that's a really close proximity between these two houses.

And this house, in fact, is not in the district, this one is, but the relationship between the two is pretty close.

There's maybe I don't know, 15, 16 feet between those two houses.

And the same is true here, uh a house that fronts on Cameron Avenue and has side yard front yard parking, basically, because it's a corner lot, uh, very close to a newer house that was built immediately behind it, um, which in that house has front yard parking as well.

Um Bass Knight Lane is even more uh instructive about that because basically every house on Bass Knight Lane, and all of these houses are in the historic district, has front yard parking in front of the house, between the houses, and again, these houses are all in really close proximity to one another.

And part of the reason for that is that the sites on Bass Knight Lane are smaller than they are in many other parts of the district, but they they are not smaller than the new text amendments to the ordinance allow.

And under the new text amendment, properties can be subdivided in an R3 and an R4 district down to 4,000 square feet.

Gross land area, which means, you know, in fact, it can be maybe uh 3,700 square feet.

And uh of course that applies to the entirety of Chapel Hill, but it does apply to the historic district as well.

Um excuse I made a mistake on this when I realized this morning that that's 118 and 116 Bass Knight Lane, when in fact that's not the case.

It is 116 and 118 Cameron Court, so just ignore this uh at the bottom here.

And then as you go across Cameron Avenue, lots of front yard parking on Ransom Street and very close proximity of many houses there as well.

Uh again, certainly less than 20 feet in many cases uh on Macaulay Street as well, some some pretty big houses that are rather close to one another, and on Vance Street, lots of front yard parking.

And just coming back to Millette Street, um sixteen and one fourteen Millette Street are certainly less than 18 feet to one another, and and it's notable that there was some discussion about 114.

I I cited it as a precedent that I used because I felt like it was a good compact story and a half plan, bungalowish in that it was it's pretty compact.

It's not of a particular uh period because the house was built in 1998, I think.

It was after 1997, and the historic district was established in 1990.

So presumably this house went through the historic district review and approval in 1998 was the year that they established the National Register District, which overlays much of the Cameron Macaulay district and extends beyond it as well.

But in any case, pretty close proximity between these two.

And here it's really difficult to get a good picture of 127 Millette Street as it relates to 129 Millet Street, but here you can see it, and you can begin to see how the ridge on 127 is well above 129.

And in fact, the second story eaves are almost as tall as the ridge on 129.

And I just point this out because it obviously had been a point that we there was quite a bit of discussion about the last time.

From my point of view, these relationships are all over the district.

Uh for better or for worse, and that's part of an urban landscape, I think.

And with the text amendments that allow for subdivision of properties down to 4,000 square feet, it's going to become a greater part of the historic district landscape as well as a greater part of the town.

And in the context of that also, um I'm going to go back here to this illustration of Millette Street.

I looked at some of the property sizes on Millette Street.

Again, most of them are a quarter acre.

So they're 10,800 or so square feet.

Um under the new ordinance text amendments, there is the allowance for zero frontage subdivisions, which means that you can subdivide a property that does not front on a street, has no street frontage.

And so on these deeper lots, 118, for instance, they could subdivide the back portion of this property, establish an easement for ingress and egress across the front portion of the property.

This property is big enough that it could be subdivided that way.

There could be a new house built on the back portion of that property.

And effectively there would be from an ordinance standpoint, there's no regulation in terms of what the parking is, because they would be single family houses.

And uh beyond that, if you and again, with a 4,000 square foot minimum lot size, gross land area, uh, there's an allowance in the new text amendments for cottages to be built on the same properties as a primary house as long as the lot is the minimum square footage plus 2,700 square feet.

And the cottage can be a maximum of 1,500 square feet, but in any case, you'd have a cottage and a house on the same property, there'd be no subdivision.

And again, in that case, it's from a parking standpoint, it's treated as two single family houses.

Uh well, let me uh let me redeclare that.

The primary house that could be larger than 1,500 square feet can have as many parking spaces as they'd want per the text of the ordinance.

The uh cottage could have a parking space per bedroom.

So uh you could have a 1,500 square foot house with four bedrooms and four bathrooms.

Um I've designed those houses before, and you can make it work, and it can actually be a really quite nice plan.

And you could have four parking spaces that would be dedicated to to both of the houses.

Um but my bigger point looking at this map is that on Millette Street, there are there are 15 houses I have shown here that are on Millette Street, and including these ones that are on Cameron, 15, not counting the new house.

So 15 sites, and nine of those sites could be subdivided without impacting the existing house on those sites at all.

And I just did a quick review of the square footages and consideration of the uh text amendments, but for a zero frontage property, the setbacks are six feet on all sides.

So uh so there's as the goal is to increase the density via the text amendments, uh there's a lot of opportunity to build a lot of uh building within that space.

Um effectively, if it's a single family house that has been subdivided, there's no limit on what the square footage is.

So I just bring that up because uh it's I think it's gonna be germane to how the historic district develops from this point.

And incidentally, you may be aware of it, but there's uh there's a group of properties for sale on Macaulay Street.

I believe it's four properties, it's about an acre and a quarter, and it's listing for seven million dollars.

And the only way somebody's gonna buy that property for seven million dollars is if they can redevelop it.

Um, depending there it's an R4 district, so it's got lots of opportunities to be multifamily housing or uh it could be just a group of duplexes, who knows what someone would have in mind for it.

But um they'll certainly work toward the density, otherwise it's not going to work from a financial standpoint.

Who knows if they'll get $7 million for it?

But at any rate, it's potentially worth that.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna move on to the house quickly here, and the changes in the floor plan of the house.

Um this image is what I had presented previously, and this is the revision to it.

The primary revision in this house is that we eliminated the backstairs entirely.

There's not a need for them from an egress standpoint, uh certainly not a need need for from an ingress standpoint, and that was one of the points of discussion from the meeting is the nature of those stairs.

So the stairs are gone entirely, and in fact, what we've done is we've incorporated that square footage, and this this small area here is where the house got bigger, what used to be an exterior porch.

And uh and in this case, I've turned it into more of a primary bedroom, a little bit bigger bedroom that's got a walk-in closet and uh in a bathroom, a full bath, and potentially it could be renovated at some point, it'd be built this way, it could be renovated such that it had not a walk-in closet, but a you know, a sizable linear closet and maybe a bigger bathroom.

It could be a bathroom that's got two sinks and uh a toilet and a tub shower, for instance.

So something uh there was some discussion the last time about rental properties, and I I feel like those things are entirely irrelevant in the conversation that we're having here.

However, this house is very suitable, and I think this this helps support that point.

It's very suitable to be a small house for a family on this street in the future.

Um the other change here, I had uh talked about the last time I talked about a potential subdivision of this property.

And I talked about the need to make it a little bit smaller because of the uh dedication we were gonna have to make a property to the town.

And I had talked about this front porch potentially uh becoming six feet six inches deep.

And one of the comments was probably too small, and it was referencing a six foot depth rather than six feet six, but in the context of this house it's seven feet.

Um again with the principles and standards talking about six feet being a minimum depth.

So it's it's it exceeds the minimum.

And and that foot makes a difference, no question about it.

Um also you can this is it's apparent from this plan that we've been able to bring the house so much closer to grade that we've given up uh basically four risers.

You know, it had been nine risers, and now it's gonna be five.

Excuse me.

So now I'll get a little more to the heart of of how I dealt with the height on the house specifically.

This is what we had previously.

And the the blue line, the due the blue dashed line indicates where the ridge line had been on the roof, the primary roof, where the uh roof had been over the dormer, and uh also where the walls were in the sense that you can see here the house is shifted in this drawing to the left, and this is where it's effectively shrunk by four feet.

And that's because we introduced the retaining wall that's three feet eight inches, and the existing retaining wall at its highest is about 46 inches uh and it goes lower as it goes across to the east side of the site.

This is 44 inches tall, and it's about right.

I think it works well.

And you can you can see that previously the grade was up here, and we've been able to bring it all the way down here such that we have what's effectively a minimum height of the foundation on the south side, where we'll also be able to have adequate drainage, have a swale that drains to the base of the retaining wall.

We'll certainly have um drainage control on the back of the drainage wall on the retaining wall as well.

And uh, and again, as you as we toggle between these two, you can see how relatively tall the facade was initially, and how much shorter it's gotten, in that the foundation has really been uh reduced to its minimum height given what the grade uh the surrounding grade is and will be.

And the retaining wall, as you get further to the east, it can probably come down to a little over two feet just because the existing grade behind the existing house falls.

And this is in the context of our discussion last time.

Uh the uh the the county's topography suggests eight and a half to nine feet of thaw from the corner at uh Cameron and and uh and Mallette Street, and that's what this accounts for.

Um in comparing it to the streetscape drawings that I had done previously versus something that allows for a retaining wall, you can see that again the house has shrunk down dramatically both as it relates to uh 129 Millette Street, and as it relates to the existing house, and that uh the ridge comes down that four feet, the dormer comes down that four feet, and effectively you'll see in the 3Ds as you come up Mallette Street and come around the corner onto Cameron, West Cameron.

This house essentially shrinks from view entirely.

You really can't see it from Cameron.

Um the other points here, uh we'd had some discussion about what sort of shadow was gonna be cast by the new house.

And at something over 42 feet away, these uh this line represents what the the solstice shadow at noon would have been.

December 21st ish.

So once it's when the sun is at its lowest at noon, and this lower one shows where it is for that one day, and of course, from there, this line pulls back and back and back because the angle of the sun goes from 30 degrees to something over 70 in our latitude.

Um so it really doesn't have any impact on the neighboring house.

And um yeah, I won't say anything further about about that, except on this site, the setback is about here.

That is six feet, the property line is effectively right the outside of this wall.

This house could be placed right here per the ordinance.

And how it fits in this site, I felt personally it was best to have it here so that we could retain a buffer between this house and 129.

That's why 129 is in this drawing to begin with.

Um I just think it makes for a better site design for for everyone involved in this process.

Um, and I guess uh the other point I'll make here is that in the uh when the house was taller, it was approximately maybe the floor was uh maybe two feet below the existing house floor.

And in this circumstance, as we've dropped it, it's probably five feet four inches lower or five feet four inches, just about three feet lower, and it's about three feet eight inches higher approximately than 129 Mallet Street.

So the whole mass of this house is dramatically different than uh than it had been previously.

And uh I think more complementary to to both houses that that flank it.

Certainly not incongruous in any in any way, shape, or form, in my opinion.

Uh didn't make any revisions to the existing house from the original application in terms of plan or the elevations.

So that all just stands as it had previously.

And I'll just show you these 3Ds quickly because it I think it's a pretty dramatic uh illustration of how the house will fit in compared to how it had previously.

So again, this was from the last presentation.

This is from the new one.

And as you the new shorter house, obviously, with the much smaller foundation.

Oh, and I forgot to note that I also changed the slope of the roof.

It had been a 12-12.

I changed it to an 1112, which frankly is hardly noticeable visually, but uh it made the roof a foot lower at the ridge in this case because the house is uh well, it's 12 feet wide to the center.

So going from a 12 to 11 uh does have an impact.

And it's like just as you look at this circumstance, like where the roof was, and and these are totally synced here, um what we had before and what we have now.

You know, it changes a lot.

And the same is true for the relationship of this ridge to this ridge on the existing house.

And you'll see as it comes up the street, it uh it becomes uh more dramatic in terms of how this house begins to shrink further away.

And here you can see the retaining wall, and you can see the stairs here as I'm uh suggesting they should be.

Here you can see the stairs that had been here previously, and the house shrinks well down, and the stairs are gone.

Uh and five risers up to the front porch versus what we had previously.

And here you can see a little indication of what I had here previously with the parking in front and this the other spaces, and now everything is pushed to the left.

Everything is behind the the wall that exists there.

Um, this one is a little bit out of sync, but uh at any rate, you get the idea that this house shrinks relative to this.

And then as we come closer to the intersection at Cameron, you can see how it basically it disappears from view once you get to West Cameron.

And uh previously, you know, it had a little a little bit of extension above this roof.

This is this is a view effectively from the middle of West Cameron, but you could certainly see it from uh the other sidewalk on the opposite side of the south side of West Cameron.

But that's no longer going to be the case.

It's uh it's not going to be apparent.

Josh, you had had a question about shingles.

Fiberlass asphalt shingles.

And as I walked around the district, I was struck by effectively any house that has a relatively new roof is a patterned architectural grade shingle.

And these are just pictures of houses on Millette Street.

Um 400 West Cameron has uh that is there aren't they're not three tab.

They're uh that they they've got uh a greater texture, they're they're a nice looking roof.

Uh 400 West Cameron, this is the 1860s house that's right across the street from uh the existing and the new houses.

This is the ranch house that is just north of that.

That has patterned shingles on it.

129 Millette Street has the architectural grade shingles that have a fair amount of texture on them.

118 Millette Street, and I've just shown these four because uh they're all over the place.

It's it's effectively the standard.

There are still some three tabs out there, but I didn't see anything that looked new.

Um it's uh it's become the norm.

It appears in the historic district.

Again, uh the older houses still have three tabs probably, but I didn't see a great many of those.

Because I mean the architectural grade shingles have been around for probably three decades now.

Um most of those houses have had have gotten new roofs in that time.

Uh I think I'm almost done.

I guess the only thing I would say is that there are a few new houses on Bass Knight Lane.

There's at least one new house on of the four that are in the historic district on Cameron Court.

And I would say the new house that's going to be built at 308 is uh how how do I say this?

It is congruous.

It's certainly a much better example than some of these others that have been built in terms of their size and when you consider the scale and the context of the neighboring houses.

Um there's really no comparison for many of these.

And on uh Bass Knight Lane, for instance, 117 and 115 are both relatively new houses.

I don't I don't know when they were approved, but I'm I'm I think these two in the house that is just south of it, three in a row there that are relatively new.

I expect they're uh less than 36 years old.

That is, they would have been built as long as the historic district uh has been established.

So they went through some sort of review process and were built in the historic district.

And uh and I think they could certainly have been better examples of new houses, which I think ours is, and again, uh certainly not in congruous.

I don't I don't think there's any evidence that suggests it is.

I think that's it.

I just like to ask a couple of questions.

Just excuse me.

Just for the record.

Again, I'm Ann Anderson for the applicant.

Mr.

Fulkerson, did you design the new house at 308 West Cameron to be not incongruous with the character of the Cameron Macaulay district?

Yeah, most definitely.

Most definitely.

As an expert in your field, is it your opinion that the design and all relevant characteristics from the design standards of the new structure at 30 308 West Cameron is not are not incongruous with the special character of the Cameron Macaulay district?

And and I would I would say definitely that's the case.

And of course, I remarked last time I felt the press past design was I feel like this one is better.

I I I feel like the input we got from the last meeting was worthwhile, and I think it made for a better design.

And uh in any case, I feel like both of them were not incongruous given the context of Millette Street and the rest of the historic district.

Before you go away.

Okay.

Hold on, I have one point of order for Mr.

Hornik.

Um do we ask questions of the applicant now, or do we wait for the party in standing to make their presentation?

That's up to the board.

What I would suggest is that you allow the uh neighbors to cross-examine uh Mr.

Folkerson, and then that might resolve some of your questions.

Okay, and then if you y'all still have questions after that, I think then that would be an appropriate question.

We will have a couple of questions.

Okay, so we'll let the party in standing go next.

I just have a couple of questions.

Again, Leanne Brown and I represent um the neighbors at 129 Mallet.

Um real quick, another point of order, sorry, Leanne.

Uh no problem.

Kevin, do I need to uh give her the affirmation?

I'm gonna guess that Leanne does not intend to provide testimony to you all.

No, I assure you not.

We don't we don't need to.

Okay, just making sure.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, uh no, not at all.

I I just had a question, um, just a clarification question.

If you would go back in your slides, I want to I'm trying to see with a little more detail that you were talking about the wall.

Leanne, can you uh get closer?

Yes, yeah, the wall that is the three foot eight inch wall, the the vertical wall running east to west.

Yes.

Can you show us in more detail?

I'm just I was having trouble following you.

Well, the the existing wall on the property is currently this is from my last presentation.

It is approximately here.

That is the wall that uh that is apparent from 129.

That wall is right here.

Okay.

So and and with this prior design, that wall was going to be demolished, and uh we were gonna adjust the grades so that we could build the new house.

That that new house in this form.

Um that existing wall is approximately right here.

This is the new revised design.

That existing wall is right here.

The retaining the new retaining wall is right here.

And the new retaining wall is the one that runs vertical east-west.

It goes that's correct.

It runs east-west and then it runs east-west west to east from here to the existing perimeter wall here, and then at this point it cuts to the north and incorporates stairs.

And comes back in other way.

Yeah, and and that existing wall is right here.

So it stops let's say four or five feet shy of where that existing wall is.

And the purpose of this retaining wall is to allow you to do the grading that you're doing and to create the the ditch between the two instance, the ditch between the two.

Well, effectively what it does is it it eliminates the need to impact grading immediately behind the existing house, and it allows at the retaining wall, it allows you can to have transition from this grade level to this grade level, which is what allows the whole house to get much closer to grade uh because we can reduce the foundation height dramatically.

Thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

I don't have other questions at this point.

I it may be that when you ask your more educated questions, it will cause me to ask another, but thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

So I guess we're opening it to questions.

Okay.

Have a have a quick one.

With regards to the same retaining wall that uh Leanne was just asking you about, what is the material of that retaining wall going to be?

It's going to be brick.

That's in my application material.

If you look at the narrative, you'll see that.

And uh and I'm thinking it's probably a red brick.

My thought is uh I I'd express myself about the concrete brick walls, retaining walls and the lattice wall, which I I felt like they were appropriate as part of the context of the the uh existing house.

I'm feeling with this one, we'll have a probably a red brick foundation, and I'm anticipating that that's what we will use on that retaining wall as the the finished face and the cap on it.

And also I'd indicated in the narrative that we we've got a small front walk from the new house to the gravel driveway right here.

And that would be brick as well.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Anyone have any questions?

Josh or Jay, could you could you remind me what the zone is here?

R3.

R3.

Yeah, this is R3.

Uh Macaulay Street is R4.

Vance Street and much of Ransom Street are R2.

Um, which I uh you know, from a standpoint of density, R three and R4 are equivalent in terms of minimum lot size at 4,000 square feet, uh minimum lot size in an R2, I believe is 7500 now.

Used to be 10, and uh I'm pretty sure it's 7500 currently.

Go ahead.

Could we go back to the drawing of the three properties together at the new height?

So you've got a a 3D.

Oh, the three D, sure.

And can you just briefly tell us how much you've dropped the height of the new building in relation to the existing on Cameron Avenue and 129 Mallet?

Four feet.

And you accomplished that four feet.

I accomplished that four feet uh changing the roof pitch from 1212 to an eleven twelve.

So there we picked up a foot.

Um the rest is relative to if you can see here uh well you can see here where the the primary roof was, this blue dashed line.

Uh there's four feet total difference between these two.

And a foot of it, I mean, if we hadn't changed the roof pitch, the the ridge on the revised house would be that my cursor would be just a little bit taller, it'd be a foot taller, and the rest of it has to do with dropping the floor, basically, and reducing the foundation height.

Thank you.

So then the height of the new structure is the height of the new structure is 24 feet nine inches from the mean grade elevation at the front facade.

And the height of the 129 Millet is 21.

Okay.

One more question.

So if you go back to the view of the existing house on Cameron from Cameron Avenue.

Yeah.

Could you show us what you anticipated the prior design to look like from Cameron Avenue and what the new one is and just how you were able to accomplish that?

Uh I accomplished it the same way, really introducing the retaining wall.

That if I were divided up, having the retaining wall allowed us to reduce the foundation height by three feet.

There's another foot that we picked up by changing the slope of the roof slightly.

And and that applies from from all points of view, but basically the house drops four feet in each of these views because of the retaining wall.

So I think you've got a 3D that's actually straight on the existing house.

Yes.

Cameron, can we just see a little bit of where it's above in its original design, and it's no longer apparent.

And I will tell you, this is such a great program, honestly.

This is all really accurately depicted from a dimensional standpoint.

And the only assumptions I'm making here relate to the grading information that comes from the county.

But uh uh that is, as I remarked previously, the the grade changes according to the county's grade from this corner to the northernmost part of the property of 308 West Cameron, the northernmost part of the property, from here to the corner, it drops eight and a half, approximately eight and a half feet across this property.

And from looking at it and having looked at this on projects for I mean hundreds and hundreds of times, it's pretty accurate.

And that's what I usually find with the county's information is that frankly, it's always a little wrong, but it's a really good source for this sort of schematic design information.

And I I see you nodding your head, Laura, and I guess in your in your context of your work, you've maybe found that to be the case as well.

That's the case, and I appreciate that you looked into it and accommodated it.

Thank you.

Um regarding the existing perimeter wall.

Yeah.

Um there's a note that you say repair perimeter concrete brick wall.

And I just would like you to confirm that you're repairing the entirety of that brick wall, not just the front area.

No, no.

No, that's that's the intent is that so we have a couple different types of walls.

We we've got the retaining wall.

Not all of it's a retaining wall, some of it is freestanding above grade, but you know, this portion of it here is a retaining wall.

Once you get up here, much of it exists above grade.

But we're gonna repair that to the extent that we need to.

And and honestly, this this wall's in pretty good shape, remarkably good shape, I think, for for its age and the fact that it's a reinforced concrete block wall.

You know, it's it's held up pretty well.

This wall between the northern edge of the property and 129 Mallette, it's a mess in spots.

It's falling apart.

You know, some of the the top caps are off, and um and I'll quickly go to a few of the pictures I've got of that.

I think I wasn't intending to reference this, but oh gosh.

All right, well, this will be easier, sorry.

I think I'm okay.

That is, I don't think I need to get back to the other view.

I just wanted to get back to this page.

I'll let it do that.

I'll let you do that though.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, you can get rid of the notes, please.

Very good.

Thank you.

So the lattice that comes around the corner and has a little planter here.

No, the intent is that we'll repair that.

And and I'm I'm imagining that uh, I mean, you don't see concrete bricks used in an exposed fashion much, but they're certainly still a commodity that we can get, and they're they're probably not going to be dramatically different.

And again, this so along the street, this wall's in pretty good shape, and in spite of the fact that it's got like a large tree that's grown up at the base of it off the property.

Um this here, I don't know, I'm not sure this picture's close enough to see it, but there's no question that there are top parts of this, the cap block on top that have fallen off and in this open lattice.

But the intent would be that, yeah, we're gonna rebuild it.

And it and it goes all the way to the northeast corner of the property.

Are you required by LUMO to rebuild it?

Required by LUMO, no.

Okay.

I mean, LUMO LUMO would allow us to tear it down.

But usually there, I don't know with regards to yours, because this isn't our position, but LUMO requires either hardscape or softscape buffers.

Do they require a buffer here?

Uh no.

Okay, that's interesting.

Okay.

Yeah, not in a residential setting.

All right.

That's all I need to know.

Thank you.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Sure.

Thanks.

Are there any more questions?

If not, we'll go to public comment.

We got a question.

Yeah, thank you.

This presentation was very clear what your intentions are, and it uh makes it much easier to evaluate.

I do have one question, and it's about the Cameron house that that faces Cameron Avenue.

In your uh new materials you have marked out uh parking.

We propose to add two parking spaces and a turnaround space in front of the house.

Thank you for bringing that up.

Um let me get back to that site plan before I address that question.

It's kind of making dizzy.

Getting close.

You're all right.

It's it's a little dizzying.

I realize that.

Yeah.

It's like big image for our city.

I bet.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Um I use Macs.

I don't use PCs.

It's like this is really pretty foreign to me.

But yeah, so I'm glad you brought that up.

Uh so previously we had indicated two spots out front, and we had indicated a turnaround here.

Um we're not going to do anything to the parking.

At 308 West Cameron.

Um we'll have four new spaces here.

They'll still have the two spaces in the garage.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Are you good?

Okay.

I think that takes care of our questions.

Uh we now open it for uh public comment.

Okay.

Well, hold on one minute.

Please keep in mind that uh this is not a public comment session in kind of a traditional sense you might find with the town council.

This is an opportunity for members of the public who might have personal knowledge of factual matters that are relevant to the HTC's consideration to provide that to them.

I'm not sure I can hear that.

I'm not I'm just here to speak on on my concerns and the concerns of my neighbors.

Sure.

Do I need to be able to speak to architectural No?

If if you have factual information that you think you can provide to the word, this is your opportunity to do so.

Okay, and before you get going, I need to read this.

Affirmation to you.

And then if you can say I affirm and state your name, that'd be great.

Sure.

Uh I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the historic district commission and the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth.

I so affirm.

I'm Matt Slaybo, so affirm.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Pull my notes up, guys.

Sorry.

So I appreciate the clarification because I did think this is probably a little bit earlier stage for me to come express my concerns.

But my name is Matt Slavos.

I live at 402 West Cameron Avenue.

Um very close to the property in question.

Um we've been homeowners there for 15 years, and my in-laws have owned the house prior to that since 1981.

Um so longtime resident.

Um I've been in front of this uh committee a couple times 12 years ago when I wanted to put uh a new historic porch uh on front of our house, and then 10 years ago we took our house down to the studs and rebuilt it.

Um so we've had to come through and and go through the process of what it takes to get things built.

I understand what you guys do.

I remember being taken to the by the level of attention to detail and concern uh that you guys have for the impact on the greater community and staying within guidelines of the historic district.

And as a result, we built with that intention.

I remember at the time being mildly annoyed uh by some of the things we had to do.

And in retrospect, I I you know, 15 years on, I feel like I understand now why this this happens and why we go through uh the hoops we do to protect the the neighborhood.

And I think a lot of what we did made sure that we didn't just adhere to the the letter of the law per se, but to the spirit of it.

And a lot of what I think is on the docket today speaks to the spirit of the reason for this committee.

Um we have a request from a non-occupant owner whose current property, no offense, is uh a very little shared concern with this committee.

Um, Cameron Avenue has a good balance of student and owner occupied, and the student dwellings in our area of the one in question is one of the least well kept and maintained on the street.

It to call it an eyesore would be kind.

Um knee to waste high weeds, oil barrels used as fire cans, litters thrown about the property, trash bags left where they lie, overturned basketball hoops, burnt-out grills, discarded propane tanks.

None of those are uncommon sites.

For me to have that property feet from the Carolina Inn and campus, and then be considering adding another property that could potentially house up to eight students.

Are we just gonna see more detridents and squalor added to the neighborhood?

I know this is not what you're ruling on right now, but I want you to keep that in mind as you go through the process of approval.

For many of us in Chapel Hill, specifically in the historic district, we find ourselves feeling less than when compared to transient students or non-rooccupies, uh landlords, if you will.

We don't really feel we have a voice against growth and development that feels somewhat haphazard and certainly profit-driven.

I heard the gentleman say that a family could live in this house, and I think we all know a family is not going to live in this house.

Um, thus the parking spots that are stacked along Don and Donna's property.

Um we hope to rely on groups like yourselves to protect us.

We don't really have another voice, and so we look to you for that.

That this project would negatively impact Don and Donna, who have been residents here for 40 years, stalwart residents of the community, and recently suffered through 18 months of having the Owasari parked directly behind their house and the noise that it took.

Um, all the more compelling reason for a spirit of generosity for those people that do live in these houses and pay taxes and want to be part of the community.

So thank you for your time.

I just want to say my piece.

I I know it's not about rises and pitch levels and and shingles and whatnot, but thank you so much.

As I must, for the record, uh object to the um comments that were just made on the basis of relevance and outside the scope of the matters that are within the purview of the historic district commission.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any further public comments?

Anyone else?

If not, we will uh close the public comment portion.

Yes, sir.

Donna, I think that both uh Ms.

Anderson and Ms.

Brown intend to give a closing statement to the commission before you close the evidentiary portion of the hearing uh and begin to deliberate.

Okay.

Well, now would be the time.

In which order would you prefer that we go?

Don't I do not have a preference since you're standing, why don't you go first?

And we'll leave Leanne to uh to finish strong.

Hey now.

Thank you.

I'll be as brief as I can.

I think there are some important points to be made just to center us on the purpose of the Historic District Commission and its important work.

Um the first point I'll make is to reiterate what the task is before uh of the commission this evening.

Could you please keep keep close to the microphone?

Sure.

I wonder why I am having trouble being hurt.

Wait, maybe I should reorient it.

Is that a little bit better, Mr.

Garlitz?

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, or maybe I'll just be louder, which I actually have no problem with.

Um this comes directly from your attorney, uh Kevin Hornick, um, and it's just a reminder of what my client's burden is tonight, because I think it is actually really important in terms of framing your conversation that you're gonna be having with each other.

And uh the task is that if the applicant produces competent material and substantial evidence related to the spare the special character of the relevant historic district, which in this case is Cameron Macaulay.

The applicant is prima facie, that means on their on its face, entitled to approval of the requested certificate of appropriateness.

If my client has met the burden of demonstrating that the structure is not incongruous with the special character of the district, they are entitled, prima facia to the approval of this application.

The only time when that would not be the case is if there is competing competent material and substantial evidence that you have determined to be so, and that is more persuasive than my client's evidence.

I contend, as I'll say in a moment, that there is no such evidence.

Just want to make a couple of really quick points about the standards that you're gonna be applying.

That's the burden that I just talked about.

I just want to remind you of a couple of points.

The first comes from the Court of Appeals, from the case of Sanchez versus the town of Beaufort.

And that is that the task before you is to uh is to address whether or not a new property in this case is not incongruous with the special character of the district in general.

Um, not whether the next door neighbors like it, whether it's like their house, whether it's like a house in particular down the street.

It's the totality of the district.

And more specifically related to the Sanchez case, it is not about what you would have built as commissioners individually or as a body.

It's not about the commissioner's preferences nor any particular neighbors' preferences, nor mine as a as a resident of the town of Chapel Hill.

Quickly about the Cameron Macaulay district, and this is not me testifying.

This is pointing out some things from the record, in particular the Chapel Hill Historic District design principles and standards that you're going to be applying tonight, which I assume are in the record.

Great.

And just I want to point out a couple of characteristic sort of narratives that come directly from the character discussion of the Cameron Macaulay district itself, that I think are really important to the discussion, particularly as to some of the things that came up in the last hearing.

And those are that there is a tremendous amount of architectural and structural diversity in this district that was built primarily from the from about 1845 all the way to now.

And in particular, this is on page 31 to 35 of those of those standards.

Tudor revival, World War II and other minimal traditional styles, vernacular homes, ranch houses, and as it's as it says, says other hybrid styles of their own time.

And it's important to note that the uh design standards do not require a new structure to replicate historic styles in particular.

It also notes that there are many small lots, large lots, and in particular, that there's a good deal of past infill that has characterized the development of the district over time, including in particular a note about an entire street or two that probably were developed as spec homes for rentals in the 1950s.

Another notable characteristic of the district is, and again, we had a lot of discussion about this at the last hearing, the presence of students in the district.

And I know that we all know that it is not in the historic district commission's purview, nor in the town council's purview, or the town of Chapel Hill's authority to dictate types of ownership or who occupies residences.

But it is a particular characteristic of this district that student housing has been a thread through the district in its nearly its entire history.

And I won't read those points to you, you could read them for yourself, but they are those points are throughout the district.

So it is actually a characteristic of the district that it has housed students both in housing specifically made for them and in single-family homes that were rented to them.

That's a historic characteristic.

Another important point is to remember that the that the history of the Cameron Macaulay district, as this points out, is ongoing.

And the historic statement about the district even talks about the period past 1990 when it was made a historic district.

So this is part of that ongoing history.

As to the evidence itself, I won't reiterate Mr.

Fulkerson's detailed presentation, uh, except to say that he has thoroughly addressed uh lack of incongruity in all the major aspects of this property and shown that it fits within the range of possibilities that exist in Cameron Macaulay to a T.

If you have specific questions, I can talk about them, but I think that it is it is clear that there is not an outstanding or even a minor feature of this home that stands out as incongruous amongst this quite diverse district.

With that, I'll stop.

If there's more that you'd like to hear from me, please let me know.

I'm here for questions, but um I'll let this commission get down to its important work.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone, and thank you for the special meeting tonight.

Um I did listen to your entire meeting from from previously, and I appreciate your service, as do we all with the Commission.

I do want to remind you that in the last hearing, which is part of what you are deciding on tonight, you did have uh evidence presented from Don and Donna about their concerns with congruity in the district, and uh we didn't see the need to do that again tonight.

Um I don't I doubt that Ann Anderson and I disagree on the law too terribly often or on what the four cases um mean that have tried to interpret uh historic district work.

And in fact, um I doubt we would disagree on the law to anything we're gonna say to you tonight.

The your job is to figure out how you apply that and what that means.

You heard an opinion from an architect that in his opinion it's Congress.

That's nice, but that's not evidence of congruity.

It's for you to decide if it's congruous based on what you have heard and what you have seen, and based on your understanding of this particular district.

As you all know, and forgive me for telling you things I I know you know, um our districts here are overlay districts.

They overlay the underlying zoning, and so the underlying zoning would determine what LUMO would allow to happen.

But our historic district commission is vested with the power and the responsibility to decide whether what is being proposed, whether it comports with LUMO otherwise or not, is contextually appropriate to the district where it's planned.

And you are um you are what protects the district from um from change that is in Congress, and that's your job each time you you you proceed and you do anything.

You have developed a delightful set of design standards.

They're marvelous.

I've been doing this work for 42 years.

We didn't used to have those, but we have those now.

And they're excellent in terms of helping to guide you through the through the process.

As we go through and look at your design standards and look at whether the proposal before you is Congress, um, it is our contention very simply that the applicant did not meet the burden of showing uh that the project has proposed is not in congruence with the district or stated in English instead of the way the statutes were written is Congress with the district.

Um I don't know why they use the um the double negative.

Um the issue is not whether the new ordin ordinance changes might allow this, but whether this as it's proposed is Congress with this district with Cameron McCauley.

Um we think the particular issues for you to look at um are the issues related to um BN, can you make sure that you're gonna be able to do that?

Am I getting out of you?

So Ann and I also can't speak in a mic together with something else we have in common.

Um the the particular standard I want to talk about with you or standards I want to talk about with you are in Section 4.0 for new construction, because that's predominantly uh the issue that you're looking at tonight.

The proposed new house has grown a little since you had last seen it.

Um it is now it went from um 1,835 square feet to 18 uh 56 in this particular revision.

Uh the concern in the last meeting, and I think the concern still is whether the proportion of this house is appropriate to the district in the location that it's made to make room for the house, some of the existing um old houses being um demolished, and um the revision um creates a larger house there.

We talked a bit about this this vertical retaining wall, which I contend is a unique and and different sort of feature as it runs um between the old house and the um or the existing house and the proposed new house.

Uh the new proposal does reduce the overall height some, but the existing uh the 129 mallet is still lower in topography than this house, and this house is still significantly taller than that house.

Your section 4.0 provides us really good guidance.

It says that the design guidelines establish a clear hierarchy of context.

That context for new construction is based on a hierarchy that prioritizes a site, followed by the media immediate surroundings and the streetscape, and finally the district as a whole.

So you're looking at congruity, but with new construction, you're also giving a hierarchy to seeing how it fits in with the street its own and how it fits in with its surrounding neighboring houses.

You've seen lots of pictures about the district.

The district is eclectic, but your own hierarchy recognizes that you need to be looking particularly at how this new construction, if approved, would fit in in the hierarchy that your guidelines give.

Its lot is 10,980 square feet.

And 127 Mallet, which is the Chabad House that we've talked about, is 10,890 square feet lot.

It does have a larger house on it.

308 West Cameron is 12,891 square feet.

But when you add up the existing house and the new house, it's 3,554 square feet.

Section 4.0 contemplates that the standards for building scale proportion form, roof form materials and details, must make the new buildings fit in with the range there.

The height differential, it's better than it was the last time you saw it, but the height differential is still dramatic.

We talked about mean height for the new house while talking about the how the height at the at the front at 129.

And also we're not seeing in a topographical way, but uh this lot is higher even with the change in grade than 129, so it makes the height differential more significant.

The visual impact of the height is different to the grade in topography.

It just is by virtue of the mass and scale.

Um even at a reduced height, the structure remains visually dominant due to the elevation change and the mass concentration.

And it in that sense uh towers over 129 Mallet.

Um it continues to have what I think Don called in his materials an awkward relationship in that it is vastly uh a vertical vertical orientation, has a has a vertical presentation.

That vertical presentation, even if you look at the drawings that were in the in the packet of evidence, it that particular orientation is unusual and is particularly unusual at that end of the of the street.

It's vertical orientation behind, in essence, in the backyard of a house, the house at 308 Mallet is very different than the normal special relationship that we have within the district.

Um note in section 4.1 of your guidelines, and I want to remind you of that, that the HDC considers not only the stepbacks that are required by LUMO, but you consider whether the spacing in orientation is appropriate and congruous with the district.

So conversations we've had about what might happen in the district or what could be possible under LUMO can't distract you from how you determine how size and scale and mass fit in and how orientation fits in.

The parking in this for this particular house, um, although it is technically in the side of the house because of the long and vertical orientation, is in essence if you look at it in the front yard.

And while there may be parking violations throughout, your own guidelines make clear that parking in the front of houses is not congress with the district, and it's not congruous here, and creating it is not Congress here.

Taking away two parking spaces that serve the old house while interesting doesn't change the number of cars that are parked there, and so you'll still have the whole issue of as to whether there's adequate provision for parking that allows the kind of streetscape that's conquered with the district, which again is your job.

It's not your job to go out there and give parking tickets, but it is your job to think about how cars are parked and whether the way they are parked is Congress with the district as the district is intended to be without regard to violation.

I talked briefly about the vertical proportionality, which is inconsistent with the general horizontal design as has been mentioned in your notes.

You actually state, for example, if the majority of buildings in the immediate surrounding have horizontal or square expression, avoid designing buildings with prominent vertical proportions.

That's directly out of your guidelines.

And this design violates that.

It's an example of a violation of that what that guidelines trying to prevent.

And so would ask you to take that into consideration.

It may be that there is no one particular feature of this proposed new construction that in and of itself would create an incongruity.

But the cumulative effect of the design and the parking and the mass and the scale and the proportion combined together create an incongruity within this district.

It is just too much to be consistent with what the district would propose.

I will not go on and on and on forever.

But what I do want to say to you is that this proposal introduces what is really excessive mass for what is expected and what is normal, what is congruous with Millette Street in particular, and in Cameron Macaulay.

Kevin, I just have a couple other things.

I think just to address a little bit of confusion, I there was a reference in Ms.

Nice Brown's statement to the two parking spaces being taken away.

I think that is not in the proposal anymore.

And so I just wanted to make that clear.

Of course, you can ask for clarifying questions, but I wanted to address that.

Another thing is I we have my client has put forth a new design tonight, I think, which is clear.

And so at their last meeting, um Mr.

Stanford and Dr.

Bryant had some uh opinions about the design that was that was put forth.

That that's better.

Uh then uh and that has not been they there's no new testimony tonight.

And so I won't talk much about their testimony from the last time because it addresses a different design, but I do want to make an important point about competent material and substantial evidence, which is the only evidence that you can consider.

And that is that lay opinion is not competent material and substantial evidence when it is opinion about something that requires expertise.

You have had one our expert as to architectural standards and uh and architecture in general before you in this proceeding, and uh that is Mr.

Folkerson.

A second point is that even if there had been another expert between the other two witnesses who spoke last time, the actual testimony, and I don't expect you to remember exactly what they said on March 10th, but I wrote it down.

Um every statement was preceded by I think that should seems to me and strikes me.

And those are opinions, uh, which are not um competent material, it's substantial evidence, not to diminish your opinions, of course, in general, but in terms of whether they can defeat um the meeting of a burden, they do not.

Uh the last thing I wanted to address, and I think it just to head it off in case it becomes a point of discussion again tonight, as it was the first night, and I know you didn't deliberate last time, but there were um statements made about some of the standards, and one in particular related to or some at least one of the commissioners had a concern about 4.2.3 and how it relates to this.

And that is a the um on page 117, it says for sites between two distinctive areas of scale, such as between commercial and traditional residential uses, or between residential and institutional uses, scale should follow the buildings with the same historic use.

This uh site that this uh element doesn't apply to this site.

Uh it is between two residential uses, obviously.

There is a commercial use nearby in another district, but it's not in the historic district.

And in any event, uh our my client's proposal um addresses has very meticulously addressed a lack of incongruity with respect to the residential properties that surround it within the historic district.

So I just wanted to make that that point in case that becomes something to discuss.

And one final thing, um, Miss Nieza Brown stated that she talked about 4.2.6 and said that our proposal, which we disagree with anyway, but proposal violates a guideline.

That's actually not something that's possible.

Guidelines are just that.

And if something doesn't strictly fall within it, that's something for you to consider in the totality of whether something is congruent or uh is not incongruent with a design standard.

The concept of literally violating one is just not, it's not the burden that my client has to guard against.

So with that, I'll let you at long last get down to your work.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

So we're ready to close the evidentiary hearing.

So my suggestion to the commission is uh first I think you ought to consider whether you have any other clarifying questions for the parties.

You know, if if they may that there may be uh additional questions or evidence that has not been presented to you that you'd like to ask about.

Uh because remember, once we close the evidentiary hearing for deliberation, new or additional evidence can't be presented to you.

You can certainly ask questions about evidence that is already in the record.

Um, but nothing new can be submitted to you for your consideration.

So but before you before you close, make sure that you all uh ask any last questions that might result in new evidence being submitted.

Okay, I'll ask the other commissioners.

Do you have any more questions before we close the hearing?

I would like to see um on the screen the Millette Street elevation showing um all three structures.

Do you have one showing all three structures?

Uh if not, you can you can flip to the um 3D and show the structures right and circulate that so we see it from Millette Street.

Actually, go back.

All right.

I'm less interested in 308 Cameron.

Okay.

I'm more interested in 129.

Looking at seeing if I can see all three.

Yeah, the that will that would suffice.

Yeah.

I can show a little bit more of 308 from the initial yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Leanne, could I ask you a follow-up question?

So could you be very specific about which of the design principles you feel like are relevant to our deliberation tonight?

Sure.

So in particular, um you focus on 4.0 because we're talking more about the new construction than not.

Um within 4.0, in 4.0 itself, it gives you the hierarchy and the importance of the hierarchy for what you are you are looking at.

Um 4.1.1 and 4.1.4 address the um relationship of the houses uh among one another.

Uh 4.1 is the section I addressed that talks about considering not the LUMO setbacks, but the character of the district in thinking through what your guidelines are.

Um and I agree you do not violate guidelines, but you do try to follow guidelines, which is what we're what we're doing here.

Uh 4.4 point 4.1.4 is one of the guidelines that I had mentioned.

Um parking arrangements in section 1.4 I had mentioned to you.

Uh 4.2.6 was one of the sections.

Uh 4.2 particularly speaks to building scale.

I had mentioned that one.

4.2.5 requires new buildings be designed that um proportions of their street facades are consistent with those of the historic buildings, uh, which in this case would be 129.

Uh 4.2.6 um directional expression.

If I'm repeating myself, I apologize.

I'm just I don't have them listed in the in another way.

I did not talk about, but 1.2.7 um relates to um things that go outside like trash receptacles and those sort of things, where there's been space for that, 1.3.7.

1.4 is walkways, driveways, and all street parking principles.

1.6.8 relates to exterior lighting, which needs to be thought about with the proximity of these houses.

And those are the ones that I had in my notes.

If that I hope that was helpful.

Thank you.

Certainly.

I don't have any further argument, but I just wanted to make sure that the um presentation of the applicant that was presented tonight is uh entered into the record.

Thank you.

And all other materials that were submitted in relation to that.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, the chairman recognizes that all those materials were entered into the record.

So I I do have one more question.

There was earlier in this presentation mention of a letter that I don't think we've seen.

The commission has not seen.

Is that relevant?

So a letter was submitted by a resident of the district.

Uh the letter was not we'll give Anne and Leanne an opportunity to discuss uh any potential objections to the letter.

So here's here's the situation.

There is a letter from a neighbor uh that was sent to you.

Um as you know, uh you work under relaxed rules of evidence, which I'm not sure what means, and probably Ann isn't either.

I have a picture of an evidence book in a lawn chair that I use in my planning class to try to explain it.

Um the letter itself, um, I don't object to you seeing it.

Um it is hearsay because no one can cross-examine the individual who sent it.

Um probably not your best practice to take letters as a general principle.

Um I think if I don't want to speak for Ann, but I think Ann probably does object to to not being able to cross-examine someone regarding so absolutely.

I mean, I did for the um preservation of a proper record.

I think we don't want to get into the business of having outside letters entered into a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Uh it's it addressed to the commission?

It is from a resident.

So then why is it not relevant?

Because this is a quasi-judicial evidentiary proceeding, and anyone who testifies or presents evidence has to be able to be sworn in and cross-examined.

So I think there are examples uh of other applications in the past where we have received information from the public that's directed to the commission relevant to I I can't specifically recall, but if the if if that has happened in the past, it does not mean that it's a practice that should occur here.

I think again, your role is to determine whether the evidence that's presented to you is competent, material, and substantial.

One of the kind of the key factors of that is uh you're receiving witness testimony typically, and while Leanne is correct, the rules of evidence don't strictly apply in quasi-judicial evidentiary hearings of this type.

Uh typically you would like to have the opportunity to cross-examine or ask questions of a witness who is presenting factual evidence to you.

If you don't have that opportunity here.

So just to be clear, a member of the public addressed the letter to the commission that we're not going to see as we deliberate tonight, correct?

It's actually up to you whether you see it or not.

I just it's up to us to object.

That's that's really it.

Um, you know, we don't we can't tell you.

So we're in the awkward situation of not knowing.

So I would we're looking for guidance from the attorneys.

Yeah, I guess that's that's the point though, is that you know it's not it hasn't been submitted in the in this.

Why wasn't it delivered to us?

Probably because there were going to be two attorneys in the room and everybody was waiting to see.

I I think we're if if I could say where I think you are.

It's up to you whether you receive the letter or not.

Well my if you receive the letter, I don't plan to object.

I think Ms.

Anderson would feel that she needs to object for the record, and whether you want to have that as part of the record or not is totally up to you.

Am I missing the question?

I would be more comfortable.

Sorry, not to interrupt, but I'd be more comfortable, Kevin, if you gave us advice as our counsel.

Well, so what I would say is is that the the Yeah.

I I think that the what you've heard is appropriate, right?

There's no reason that you cannot receive the letter.

However, you will have to pay careful attention to kind of the trustworthiness of the letter.

Uh you know, the the factual evidence to which it purports to testify.

Um I would encourage you all to not base any you know final decisions solely on the letter as a you know, without other evidence that you have heard in the in the record uh this evening.

Um but provided that you all can keep in mind uh kind of the evidentiary standard here, and that your role is to is to base your decision on competent material and substantial evidence in the record.

And you'll you all will have to wrestle with whether we're not uh and you know the this and this is keep in mind is a letter, it's not a sworn affidavit.

Um it's just a piece of paper with writing on it.

And so you all will have to give due consideration to whether or not what's stated in the letter is sufficiently trustworthy, whether it's competent evidence uh that's sufficient for you all to be base a decision on.

So again, I have no uh no problem with you all receiving the letter.

I think you know you've heard an objection to that, and so if your decision relies on in part that letter, I think uh you can expect that there could be uh an appeal raised, at least in part based on that issue.

Uh one second, let me jump in.

Uh I'm in a little bit different position than than you, Brian.

And that uh the problem I have with this letter, whatever it may be, or whatever it may say, uh that person didn't have the benefit of seeing the new application as presented this evening.

Uh so there's no way that letter could address the presentation that we just saw.

So I don't s for me it wouldn't carry a ton of weight.

Um what do you think, Josh?

Yeah, I I do have an opinion on this.

Um having been on many boards and commissions, as many of you know, letters do not constitute evidence.

And they do not affect the way I vote.

And I'm sure they wouldn't affect the way anybody else voted unless they were competent.

However, letters do perform a function.

And part of that function is to give us some information for which we can ask questions.

They stimulate discourse.

And the function of this not having seen the letter, I don't know if it would stimulate discourse on our end or our questions to applicants, or our questions to um other people.

But letters do perform function, and they do let us know what residents in the um residents think in in the district thinks, even if we do not use that information to come to a decision.

So the thing that makes me uncomfortable is I had to ask a question for that information to come forward.

I feel like a member of the public directed something to us and assumed that we were going to see it, and I take everything that Josh said very seriously, but I'm uncomfortable that I wasn't given the opportunity to address whether or not we should see it without me having to ask a question.

That that's fair, I suppose.

Y'all are welcome to see the letter again as long as you are prepared to you know make it a judgment about how competent uh material or substantial what stated in the letter might be.

Yeah, and uh I'll just add that it's not that staff withheld the letter.

The letters were given to the internees, and we assumed that they would decide if they would.

So a decision was made to not show it to us.

No.

They talked about it, and if the commission would like to see the letter.

We could clarification.

I saw it right before this proceeding started.

Yeah, we I have not been holding on to any letter.

I just I saw it to five minutes before this proceeding started.

And to clarify, just to clarify, the author of the letter asked staff if it would be appropriate to share the letter with the commission.

Staff then asked Kevin, the counsel, for advice on what to do with the letter.

We were then advised to provide it to the attorneys to let them decide if they wanted to enter it into evidence, which they have not.

So that explanation is super helpful.

Thank you.

So you all talked about it and decided it wasn't relevant to tonight's discussion.

Which I'm I'm just trying to clarify.

No.

No.

What happened is that so I got it off an airplane at 405 from Los Angeles.

I saw a letter when I walked in the door at the same time Ann saw it.

And I read it and Anne read it.

I don't intend to introduce it into evidence because I it's not part of my case in chief, and it's not it's hearsay.

And if I introduced it into evidence, Anne would say she objects because it's hearsay.

But not I don't think either of us are trying to keep it from you one way or another.

I didn't choose to introduce it, and I don't think she chose to introduce it.

Okay.

I wouldn't be in a position to introduce it because it's not from someone that I represent.

Um I I think it's I mean, since we're having this discussion, I think it's fairly benign.

And to Mr.

Tice's point, it doesn't actually address the presentation that you heard tonight.

So it's not a it's it's not really a contentious point.

It's just that I uh as a member of the of the state bar can't tell you that it wouldn't be an appropriate thing for you to consider in this.

That would be that would be a dereliction of my ethical decision.

Thank you for the explanation.

Yeah, uh let me be clear.

I I don't know if the letter was written based on the new plan or the old plan.

I have no idea.

I believe when you received the letter we had Anna Scott today, yesterday.

We received it at 9.28 this morning.

So I'm not assuming I would not, if you read the letter, I would not want you to assume that they have not seen the new plans because I don't think that's clear at all.

Well, I'll be right back.

I don't think we should introduce the letter, and I don't think we should read it.

When I hear lawyers use words like assume, I run like the wind.

So uh if it's my suggestion is we don't agree with the letter based on that actually that was a great explanation.

Thank you guys.

Come to the same conclusion.

Um I'm pretty sure it's freezing over outside right now.

Okay.

So if there are no more questions, uh then we'll close this evidentiary hearing.

And before we start our conversation among the commissioners, does anybody need to take a five-minute break?

Or are we good?

Okay, I think we're good.

So we're gonna go right into uh discussion.

Um I've got quite a few things to say, but I'm always the first to talk, so somebody else go.

I have a question for Kevin.

Is that an acceptable in our own?

That's acceptable.

Okay.

Um we heard people refer to our volume in several ways as standards or guidelines.

And several presenters represented them as guidelines.

When we were developing this book, our attorney um emphasized the fact that we had been operating under a set of guidelines since 1977 or so.

And that what we really needed were standards.

And there was differentiation between guidelines and standards.

Um help me understand that.

Is that the case?

Were we given the right information?

Well, keep in mind, and this is something that we've talked about quite often over the last several years, is that ultimately the only standard that you all are authorized to implement is to determine whether or not the work proposed within a historic one of the town's historic districts is or is not in congruous with the character of the district.

The statutes also allow uh, in fact, they require historic district commissions to prepare what they call principles and standards, but the purpose of these principles and standards or rules and standards is to guide your consideration about whether an application before you is or is not in congress with the character of the district.

And so I think generally speaking, the the position that the board has taken, at least over the last several years is that Josh, I guess I'll back up.

If your question is, are our principles and standards kind of a set of objective decision-making criteria, right?

You check, check, check, you've met all these standards, therefore you receive your uh COA, or you know, if you have not met one of the principles and standards, you don't get the COA.

The answer is no.

You decide your decision, a decision whether to issue a COA or not is based on whether or not the evidence presented to you demonstrates that the proposal uh is or is not in congruous with the character of the district.

Yours you you use the principles and standards to help you understand what the special character of the district is uh and whether or not a proposal you uh is or is not in congress with the character of that district.

I hope that answers your question.

Uh thank you.

Yes.

Okay, is anybody want to start with some comments?

Move it.

Hopefully moving towards a motion of some sort.

You're laughing, so you go first.

Thank you, Don.

Um I had a lot of thoughts and comments from our last meeting together, and I went back, I wrote the letter to you, and I think it was shared with everybody here about my feelings about what constitutes the context, which is so important, and how we address scale and proportion and how the appropriateness or inappropriateness of that.

So I'm just gonna go through it's gonna take a minute, the the things that I had concerns about before, using our standards, and tell you what my thoughts are about them now.

Is that appropriate?

That sounds perfect.

Okay.

So I'm gonna start with one.

For me, 1.1 and 1.12 talk a lot about the relationship between the streetscape and the house, and I think that's really important in the district, that there is some continuity and congruity in the streetscape.

The relationship between the buildings and the streetscape is a little different than the relationship between the houses as they step down the street to me, anyway.

But I feel that the um uh presentation we had previously did not really explain to me how these two houses, the the existing house and the proposed house related to the street.

I didn't feel we had enough information.

I do feel that we have that information now, partly because of the picture we're looking at right up here, and um then again the statement that the parking has been taking out taken out of the front of the Cameron Street existing house.

Now that doesn't mean that people aren't gonna park where they're gonna park, but that's not our issue.

That's an enforcement issue.

But the fact is if you have a driveway going to a double a double garage, people are parking in the front yard in their driveway.

I think what it means is they're not gonna be parking in front of the houses lined up in front of the houses.

So you have the view of that streetscape.

And to me, this current plan does at least explain where the cars are going to go.

And for the most part, they are not right in front of the house anymore, which to me improves the streetscape.

So that's my sort of comments about number one, section one.

Um whether it I'm not gonna say if I think it's congruent or incongruous right now, but I think that's at least clear to us how that's been.

Um three walls and fences.

Again, I didn't feel there was enough information last time about the pure concrete brick walls, what was going to happen, and short of doing a grading plan, which we all agreed was not appropriate for this application.

At least now we can see what's going to happen with those walls.

And uh Mr.

Fogerson did a great job explaining which would be repaired, made some commitments to us tonight, what would be repaired, what would be replaced, and how the streetscape will be affected as it steps down MOLET.

And we can see that in our new materials.

So I did feel we had more information there, and that helped me a lot.

1.4 walkways, driveways, and off street parking.

It's very clear that uh in 1.4.6 A parking shall not be in the front yards.

Again, I feel like the difference here to me is not parking across the front of the house where you don't experience the house from the street.

And this application has cleaned up their parking arrangements considerably.

In addition, fixing the fence on the new building or new house screens the parking in the that's now in the side yard a little better than it did before.

Or it assures me that that fence will be fixed, and I think it's appropriate that that fence be repaired or fixed, not torn down.

Um oh, the new driveway material needs to be according to our standards, brick, concrete, asphalt, or chapel hill grit.

So I'm not sure we have that information, but I believe there have been some clarifications on the drawings about what the materials would be, and it would not just be simple ABC gravel.

Right?

Okay.

Sorry to take so long.

Um walkways to the house, Mr.

Folkerson clarified that on the new building, that would not be just a gravel walkway.

It would be Congress with the materials that are in the district.

Um flipping now to the one that seems to be the biggest problem is 4.2 building scale proportion and form.

Previously, I didn't feel we had the information to understand the relationship between the three buildings that we're looking at up here now.

Um I do feel we have that information.

And as a group we can discuss whether we feel the verticality is appropriate or inappropriate, but at least now we have the information, and that was my point in my note.

Um for 4.2.5.

We now have the information and can go through that.

Um lastly, I think, thank goodness was the issue about the porch.

Um Mr.

Fulkerson has said it will be seven feet wide, and the um reduction of the number of steps up to the porch, do give it a more general generous spacing, and I think it's more congress with the rest of the neighborhood.

It's no longer just a walkway at the top of the steps.

So those are my thoughts right now.

Thank you very much.

Love the thoroughness.

Would you like to say anything?

Are you good?

Your way?

Josh, Brian.

That was thank you, Laura, for that very much.

I feel like we need to talk about 4.2.3, 4.2.5, uh, and 4.2.7, because in my mind, the proportion scale, horizontal and vertical orientation in the immediate surrounding area, and the size and scale of the house on the lot are sort of the most prominent concerns I still have.

I agree.

Well, to start that conversation then.

Um first of all, um, it was a nice complete presentation.

Thank you very much, Jay.

Um I think the retaining wall that was replaced uh that was placed between the existing house and the new house really serves to define that area and and organize the site a bit.

And uh it's a three foot eight inch brick wall retaining wall.

And uh that uh allowed the applicant to lower the building.

And one of my biggest issues is it dealt with 4.2.3 and 0.5 and 0.6 was proportions and verticality.

And by taking the front porch down, it lowers the soffits, the faces, and everything, which I think is more in keeping uh with the adjacent structures.

Just by doing that, that retaining wall began to organize everything and bring everything down, and then that in conjunction with a lower pitch roof and a few other tricks.

I think kind of reduces the kind of towering effect.

I felt like we had before.

Plus, before Delores point, we weren't sure what the final height of the building was going to be, but by placing this retaining wall in there and showing us how it's gonna grade down, we do know what it's gonna look like, and we see that by asking that question and you addressing it, um, we now know whether you end up liking it or not is another question, but at least now we know how many risers you really have going up on the front porch and how deep the front porch is and the height of the face is and the soppage.

So um, so that retaining wall is is as funny as it sounds, it's kind of the linchpin to making it uh work better for me because it lowers the height.

Um the other big issue was uh the parking and taking the parking to the side.

I know we can't control the use and can't comment on the use, but taking the parking to the side addresses um that article, which I think was 1.1.

I'd have to go back and look or 1.12, uh, where it addresses uh parking in the front.

And taking it down the side seems to address that issue.

Um so I thought that was a nice solution.

Um and the reason I asked a question earlier this evening about was repairing the wall required by LUMO, and you said no, it wasn't.

Um I wanted to, if we do have any kind of motion saying it's not incongruous, I want to make sure we have a component requiring that they repair and maintain that wall because that's going to be critical to being uh a better neighbor to the northern neighbors because that wall is going to be critical.

So that's why I was asking if it was if someone else with the town was going to require it.

If not, we will.

So that's that was the point behind that question.

Um let's see.

So those those are my bigger points that address your issues of 4.23, 0.25, 0.26.

What do you think?

So I I feel like the changes were significantly improved from so what we saw in the second application for the the new plans was a significant improvement.

I think the thing that I'm still grappling with is um how awkwardly this house sits on the site in its relation to the house on Cameron Avenue and its uh extreme verticality in relation to the horizontal orientation of the house that's right next door, and sort of looking at in in the evidence, you know, 400 West Cameron, 126 uh Mallette, 122 Mulette, 127, sort of the houses that are immediately around it, and sort of grappling with that extreme verticality as a way to try to bring the scale of the size of the house down.

Does that contribute to the district or not?

That's the thing that I'm I think with.

I think it was in the last meeting.

I'm not sure you referred to this as a transition site because it's it affects two streets, Cameron and Mallette, and you're turning the corner there.

And what's so odd about this application is that the existing house makes the whole thing very odd from a historic preservation standpoint, called it's a non uh non-compliant, not non-compliant.

Non-contributing, thank you.

Goodness gracious, it's getting late.

Is non is a non-contributing structure, and it's very odd in its presentation to Cameron.

So you don't want to mimic that necessarily, but how do you address it in this kind of transition corner, which makes us an important site?

There again, going back to the retaining wall again.

I think that lowered the structure enough that from Cameron uh it's not towering over.

Um the biggest thing I don't like that I can't really comment on is the fact that we have to cut down some of those gorgeous trees.

Yes that really add to the texture of the neighborhood, and that's a shame because they are nice, and they give some scale to the existing structure, and they would lend scale to a new structure, but they're gonna be gone.

So that's that's my my biggest negative.

Josh, waiting for your words of wisdom.

Well, I think you um and Laura have hit the points that I feel are important.

I do think this project has whittled itself down to the to a couple of critical points.

I do wish that it was not so vertical.

I still think it it um by the text of our standards, it is vertical, and the both houses, not just um 128, but the um 308 are horizontal and low, and this is facing Cameron vertical.

Um, however, 128 does have a vertical element in the middle of its roof.

Um, so I think that that does help.

I think that the roof on the front porch of the proposed building also helps to um helps the building become less vertical and more horizontal.

It adds a horizontal element.

I do agree that the um that the retaining wall does organize the site, and it certainly allows this proposed building to be lowered four feet, and I think that that um that makes a tremendous difference in the way I see it fitting in to its context so where does that leave us?

It sounds like we're all over the place.

Um comments from the uh the last commissioner not to talk.

I would just say that based on I know that the height was a issue based on the average, looking at the average of ridge heights, um that was the page added in the application.

I don't see it being a sore, I don't see it standing out as much.

I was looking also at Google Maps.

Um, it looks like it would be well in comparison to the other houses on the street.

Okay, thank you.

So are we close to a motion?

Sorry.

Are we close to a motion?

Does anybody want to venture one?

So I think despite the fact that this house looks awkward on the lot, and this orientation to me is awkward.

It just doesn't look quite right for the historic district.

I'm not sure that there's a principle upon which we can reject this application, to be perfectly frank.

I just recommend that we're going to be able to do that.

Well, yeah, I'll hear you in that, but um that's kind of a good news, bad news thing.

I think one reason it doesn't sit on the lot quite right, is because they're uh trying to stay away from their neighbor to the north as much as they can, which I think is uh a pretty pretty nice gesture.

Instead of sitting it right in the middle of the lot, which they could do, uh, that would press it right up against the the northern property.

So there's a pro and a con there to the kind of asymmetry of where they're sitting and on the site.

Um it's not our job to design.

Um, but I would have gone a little bit more contemporary direction at this stage of the game, uh, given where we are in 2026.

Um but it's it sounds like we need to prepare a motion.

Um do we have the cheat sheet make sure we use some of the correct words.

What do you want?

Do you want me to do it?

I'm holding it.

Okay.

Uh I move that the application is not the application at 308 West Cameron Avenue uh is not in congruence with the special character of the historic district according to the application of the relative provisions at a LUMO and the HTC's design standards based upon the facts presented in the record.

Um I move uh and I think I will also say I move to direct the HTC attorney and town staff to prepare a proposed written decision, summarizing the HTC's approval of the CO application and to present the proposed written decision uh uh tonight, which is April 30th, um, on 308 West Cameron.

The only thing that I'd say um is that considering that this is a contested case, what I would like to do uh is I would like to ask the prevailing side.

So ask Ann to draft a written decision to share it with uh Ms.

Brown, and then we can return that to you at your next meeting, kind of uh as usual.

And this way we can make sure that the parties are uh contributing towards making sure that the the written decision includes what they perceive to be the contested facts, uh uh finds of fact and the uh the uh commission's conclusions.

So does that mean that we would continue with this vote or would we pause and wait for that to come back at the next meeting?

No, so I I think you can you can take the vote as usual, just that rather than then uh staff and I draft in the proposed decision, we would ask the parties to collaborate and bring a proposed decision back to you.

Okay, that's right.

Yeah, the written the written decision.

Yeah, and just for the record, I was asking the attorney if um if he would want me to draft your findings of fact which are required by your rules of procedure.

So just to get that on the record, I didn't wasn't trying to be secretive.

So Brian, I guess ultimately where I'm going with this is uh I think your motion mentioned specifically mentioned move to direct the HTC attorney and staff to prepare the written decision.

I would just omit that.

Okay.

With the understanding that what I'm gonna ask is the uh the parties to will ask the applicant's attorney to draft a proposed written decision.

So then the the only thing I'm asking for the commission to vote on is the congruity motion, which was the first part of my statement.

Sure, I think that's appropriate.

Okay.

So the COA motion we would hold hold for a future discussion.

That's right.

So what what will happen, and this would happen regardless of whether you included the second portion that directing us to prepare a written decision?

But what will happen is you approve the uh the in the incongruity motion, uh then the parties will collaborate and prepare uh prepare a proposed written decision.

That will be forwarded to you for action uh at your next at your May uh regular meeting.

So I think my motion is done.

Okay, I think your motion is done, but I have a um a comment on the motion.

Um uh Kevin, can we put in an amendment that says something about making sure that the north fence gets repaired?

Thank you.

Well, as a practical matter, and and I'll defer to the applicant, but I believe that that was included as part of the work proposed in the application.

So to the extent that you're asking can or should we include like a condition of approval requiring that?

It's listed in the evidence, therefore they have to do it.

Right.

Because Josh and our architects and we both know that there's three var variables involved in every project scope, quality, and cost.

And a lot of times when you get to a certain point in the process, cost takes over and some things don't happen.

Particularly landscape things quite often don't happen because of the cost constraint.

So I just want to make sure that we don't trip over that.

And Josh, you want to say something?

Yeah, I um I would be in favor of definitely including language regarding the wall because once once it leaves our house here.

Um it goes to building inspections and they don't look at the evidence that was presented here tonight.

Um I think that by making a point of it, we we have a better chance of it being actually enforced.

Well, I I I would imagine at this point that Ms.

Anderson has heard uh that this is an important point that ought to be addressed in the findings uh in the con the conclusions in the proposed written decision.

I believe I've conferred with my client and they would be amenable to a condition of that nature.

Um obviously we have to hear it, but yes, that's so uh page 28 of the uh applicant's materials from this evening, the revised application specifies a three foot six inch, if I'm reading correctly, retaining wall behind the the existing house on 308 West Cameron that would uh allow the new structure to sit lower on its lot, and the construction of that retaining wall to allow the building to sit lower is an is a condition of our approval.

It's this wall.

Is it the it's the wall of the Pierceburg wall?

That's a that's a good one to put in.

But there again, technically it's part of the evidence.

But I was referring to the one to the north between the neighbors.

Yeah, right there.

Yep.

Also screen wall.

Yeah, the screening wall also on page 28 of the screen wall as it turns the corn as it turns the corner there.

I mean, that's important, but then as it turns the corner and as a border fences make good neighbors.

So to to be more specific, it is on page 28 of the applicant's revised application, and it is the retaining wall between the new structure and 129 Millet Street.

Can I comment?

Sure.

On this at all.

Um the wall you just referred to between 308 West Cameron property and 129 is technically not a retaining wall.

That is it's it's free standing above grade.

Um and that's that's the one wall that you were referring to initially, and then the retaining wall is the one that crosses the 308 site east-west, east-west across the site.

And and uh from the initial application, it it calls out that the northern northern borderly wall, the lattice concrete brick wall, is gonna be repaired.

Okay.

That that's been the intent from the beginning.

That's my concern.

But again, that's still we both know that.

Oh no, I know I understand your point about it.

Yeah, and yeah, no question, landscape stuff is usually the last thing.

Or the first thing that comes off because of budget considerations.

Sorry.

To be really specific, page 28 of your application, it's referred to as existing perimeter concrete brick wall.

Correct.

And there's one on the north side.

There's also one that's on the west side of the property.

That is, it turns the corner and can then continue two-thirds of the way back to West Cameron Avenue.

Those are both concrete brick walls.

Um the intent is that we would address both of those.

I'm sorry, you said both of those walls will be repaired.

Yes, and honestly, the one that needs the most repair is the one that's between 308 and 129.

The one that's on Millette Street is remarkably good shape.

Right.

I guess we want them all to be in the all being as as it was described initially in the application.

Well, that piece comes in and runs eastwards.

That's the one we want.

The one that's get a site plan, you see it better.

Actually, call it on the site plan.

Sorry, I'm I'm talking without being in front of my mic.

Uh we're we're Brian's just making sure he understands which wall it is.

I told him to go to the site plan.

Oh, there it is, right in front of you.

Which page are you on?

Sorry, which page are you on?

Right there.

Uh right near the front page.

It's probably four or five, six, maybe.

There you go.

You just passed it.

Right there.

Yep.

So the initial wall.

Actually, that's the old one.

Go down one more page to the tonight's revised preparation.

There you go.

Okay.

And then so since we're talking about walls, page 20 of your application.

And I'm just gonna blow that up so I can see it even with my reading glasses on.

Um existing perimeter concrete brick wall, which actually refers to what faces Millet, and it also there's an error that actually goes along.

So it's the it's the uh it's referred to as the existing perimeter concrete brick wall that faces Millette and faces 129 faces Millette Street and faces 129 Mallet.

Right, correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

There you go.

And I'll just expand on that.

And then there's also a concrete brick wall that faces it's principally a retaining wall that is on the west side of the property that faces Millet Street.

The intent is that we're gonna repair both of those.

Okay.

The one that's on the west side doesn't need much work.

The one that's on the north side does.

Well, yeah, I think the we're making a lot sounds like a lot about nothing, but it's it's not, and for two reasons.

One uh these funky walls kind of address the rather fragmented past of this neighborhood.

I think that's an important historic component, but also uh it will help block uh car lights uh from the neighbors next door.

Oh, yeah.

So it's super critical.

Yeah, and and I understand, I agree with Josh.

I mean, once it goes into the process, the inspectors, the building inspectors, it's not gonna be at the top of their list, so they may not necessarily pay attention to it.

And um it frankly it has more to do with what my clients' interests are in doing a good job.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So you want to think I'm done with my motion.

You think you're done with your motion?

I think so.

I think I'm done with the emotion.

So Brian, I would suggest at this point that we restate your motion just for clarity since we've tried to do that.

Thank you.

I didn't quite say that to him.

Thank you, Kevin.

Second time.

Okay.

Uh so uh I move that the applicant uh the application at 308 West Millet Street is not in Congress with the special character of the historic district according to the applicant application of the relevant provisions of the limo and the H2C's design standards based upon the facts presented in the record of particular note on page 20 of the applicant's materials, there is reference to an existing perimeter concrete brick wall at the back of that property that is uh adjacent to 129 Millet Street.

Uh we want to underscore that that wall will be repaired as outlined in the application.

That sounds good, thank you.

So a motion's been tendered.

Does anybody want a second?

A second.

Okay, Laura, second it.

So all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay, there you go.

So I think that uh handles our agenda for the evening, doesn't it, Sharonik?

If I might clear, since I'm going to be drafting the findings, are these to be prepared by the May meeting or the subsequent?

So I I think that our the way our rules of procedure are not next by road schedule.

Okay.

May is May May.

Uh May 12th.

That's just a compressed timeline, so I just want to be sure.

Yeah.

I can do it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, are we uh we're ready to adjourn?

I think we are.

If you guys don't have anything, okay.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.