Okay, I'd like to call the meeting to order.

And we'll start with roll call.

Josh Gurlitz.

Here.

Laura Moore.

Here.

Glenn Conley.

Here.

And Brian Daniels.

Here.

And Don Tice.

I'm here.

And the first order of business is an acknowledgement of Pride and Caribbean American Heritage Month.

So I have a statement.

As we begin our June meeting, we take a moment to honor two significant observances this month.

Pride Month commemorates the June 1969 Stonewall Uprising in New York City, a turning point in the LGBTQ plus civil rights movement when patrons at the Stonewall and bravely resisted police harassment, igniting the modern fight for equality and justice.

Since the first pride marches in the 1970 and 1999 presidential proclamation, Pride Month has recognized has recognized the courage, resilience, and contributions of LGBTQ plus individuals, especially those who are transgender and people of color who have uh driven lasting change.

Now the Caribbean American Heritage Month began officially in June 2006 following bipartisan congressional approval and a presidential proclamation by President George W.

Bush.

It celebrates generations of Caribbean immigrants and their descendants, such as Alexander Hamilton, Cecilia Cruz, Shirley Chisholm, and Colin Colin Powell, whose creativity, leadership, and culture have shaped American society.

We recognize and honor the rich histories, enduring spirit, and vital contributions of the LGBTQ plus and Caribbean Americans communities.

Their legacies of perseverance, innovation, and diversity continue to strengthen our shared heritage and inform how we preserve and celebrate our collective past.

There you go.

I'll now read into the record the following.

And the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, including Article 3, which establish the local historic districts and sets forth regulations governing them.

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

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

All of these items are hereby entered into the record.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Next is the uh reading of the public charge.

The advisory body pledges its respect to the public.

The body asks the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the body and with fellow members of the public.

Should any member of the body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time, the chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control.

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

Property owners may represent themselves or be represented by attorney.

However, professionals such as architects, engineers, designers, and others may provide factual evidence and expert opinions so far as they are qualified, but not legal arguments on behalf of the property owner.

Members of the public may provide witness testimony and factual matters within their personal knowledge.

However, lay however lay opinion testimony and property value impacts, traffic safety impacts, and other matters in which expert testimony is generally required, may not be considered by the commission.

Comments and legal arguments by attorneys shall not be considered testimony or evidence unless the attorney is sworn in and acknowledges that he or she intends to provide testimony or evidence rather than legal argument.

That's the brand new hot off the presses public charge.

Okay.

Are there anybody have any adjustments or changes to the agenda?

The only suggestion I would make is that uh we remember that it's sort of appropriate to cut off the meeting by 10 o'clock, so that if there's a new business item that would go after 9 o'clock, we would extend that into the next meeting.

Okay, so if you're in the lower part of the agenda and the first one or two items are running long, uh, know that we're gonna cut it off at 10 o'clock.

So don't waste an extra hour of your time.

It's basically what we're trying to say.

Hopefully, we won't have to worry about that.

So um I move that we approve the agenda as submitted.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All opposed.

Uh next, do we have any announcements?

Um, yes.

Staff wanted to let the commission know we recently learned about a provision that allows commissioners' terms to be extended by one year to um work on unfinished business.

So Josh has agreed to stay on for another year to work on that unfinished business.

So we need to form a motion and vote to bring him back in, or is he here, whether we like it or not?

Uh I think council is going to vote on it tomorrow at their meeting.

Council would along with uh a couple of planning commissioners that are also extending their terms, but I don't think you all need to be able to do that.

Okay, very good.

I just wanted to make sure that whatn't an action needed on our part.

Okay, we're good, Kevin.

And I would like to say that I, for one, am very pleased that Josh is gonna be with us for another year.

He's the best.

Um are there any petitions?

No, there are no petitions, no petitions.

Okay, approval of the minutes from May 12, 2026 meeting minutes.

Anyone have any comments?

Changes, adjustments.

I move that we approve the minutes from the May 12th meeting.

Can we get a second?

A second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

There you go.

Okay, consent agenda.

403 Macaulay.

And um a correction to 209 north boundary.

So is there any discussion we need to have about 403 Macaulay?

No, that was just an error.

It the there was a part of the written decision that said four feet, and it was actually four inches.

Um so it's just a correction for that.

Yeah, details.

Just a minor detail.

And then resolution to correct an error in 209 North Boundary Street written decision.

Is that something we need to know about, Kevin?

I think I think that's the discriminator's error.

So just a resolution confirming that the that error may be corrected.

It doesn't affect the substance of your your decision in that case.

Okay, do we need to form any kind of motion to approve the consent agenda?

So that's unless uh any individual commissioner would like to discuss either voted matters individually.

You can make a motion to be the agenda approved and sent us one.

I I move that we approve the consent agenda for 403 Macaulay Street and the uh resolution of the correct error for 209 North Boundary Street.

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Consent agenda passes.

All right, new business.

Uh 11 Ridge Lane.

While Anna Scott's getting that ready, um let me ask, is there any are there any conflicts?

On the board members, okay, thank you.

And uh when someone gets up there, I'm going to read you an affirmation.

And if you could say I so affirm and then give us your name, that would be awesome.

Thank you.

Nancy, you'll you'll both you you'll both get sworn in now, and then you can say whatever you want to say.

Perfect.

I think we have both in here.

Okay.

Okay.

The affirmation.

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.

Say I affirm and give us your names, please.

I affirm Benjamin Johnson.

I affirm Nancy Smith.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anna Scott, is there a way to make this bigger on the screen?

Yeah, do you have any speaker notes?

I don't.

Okay, so then I can edit the display settings.

And duplicate the screens.

Thank you.

Good evening, board.

My name is Ben Johnson, and I am one of the partners and head of the planning and design division uh at Will Johnson Building Company.

And our company has done a handful of projects in the district in the historic districts.

Umgul in particular, we've done a uh major remodel in addition at 7 to 7 GIMGOL.

And 704, we did a demolition and 704, we did a demolition and new build there.

We love these districts and appreciate being part of this process.

I have Nancy Smith, who's one of the homeowners at 11 Ridge Lane, and she has prepared a few remarks to share.

Do you mind coming up?

Thank you.

The most important homeowner.

Just kidding.

Thanks for your time.

I just want to introduce myself, Nancy Smith.

My family and I have been connected to Chapel Hill for decades.

Have gone to school here.

My husband teaches here.

My son graduated from Keenan Flagler, my daughter's Moorheene scholar, and that's on the soccer team.

I played soccer here a long time ago.

And the reason we're here, and the reason I say all that is really just to emphasize how much we love Chapel Hill.

We love the town.

We're fortunate to be a permanent part of the community now with the purchase of 11 Ridge Lane.

We've loved getting to know our neighbors, some of whom I've spoken to before tonight, and who have been quite interested in accepting of what we've talked to them about what our plans are and our intention of the property.

So our intent, and Ben will go through the details, is to invest in the neighborhood, to be part of the neighborhood, to create something that is fitting in the neighborhood.

And we'll just help deepen our ties to Chapel Hill.

So I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

So 111, you can see the context of the house in relation to its surroundings in Gimgul.

So it is in the sort of a middle sector.

And it's surrounded by a wide variety of different home shapes, sizes, lots, sizes, varying different square footages, etc.

The history of the property is interesting.

From the sandboard maps, you can see that it does not show up on the 25 sandboard map, but does show up on the 32 sandboard map.

So our estimation is that this house was built sometime in the late 20s.

And she built that house for her two daughters there.

The HPO does say that a major remodel to the house occurred in the 80s, and that that remodel has tarnished much of the original architectural integrity to the home.

That being said, our conclusion is that this is a pyramidal cottage with a classic uh pseudo-colonial revival portico added on to the front of it.

And it fits sort of loosely within a vernacular of folk homes that were built in the 20s with very little ornamentation.

This is again from the front of the house.

You can see the entry portico.

Uh and this is viewed from uh Ridge Lane.

This is uh view of the house from the northwest corner of the property.

Uh similar sort of backside of the house and viewed from Evergreen.

And you can see these porches that no doubt were not present in the 20s, but we're added on at some point in time.

And then a view from sort of the corner angle of Evergreen and Ridge Lane.

Similar here, backing up from the street.

You can see the house from further away, and then another view of the sort of side area off of Evergreen.

When it comes to demo, um, one of the things we try to do was absolutely limit our area of land disturbance.

So we are under 5,000 square feet of land disturbance.

That's the big blob you see on this map here.

And in doing that, there were two sort of things that we wanted to do.

One, just limit how much construction activity occurs in the district, obviously.

But there are two district defining features on the site right now, and that are the that that's the stone walls that are in particular around the front of both Evergreen and Ridge, even though they're small.

And then a 18-inch mulberry tree that we believe is very important to just the streetscape there.

So our demo is designed to preserve that tree, but uh more importantly, those stone walls.

Around the property, these stone walls exist.

Um there are a lot of them.

Um the walls that we have to take down as a necessity for demolition just because they're either connected to the house or too close to the house.

We will be saving those and hopefully using them in the future bill that we'll be proposing on Ridge Lane.

And you can see in the bottom right corner, that's the stone wall along along the front that we will be maintaining.

That's the in the center, the 18-inch mulberry.

There's a um cherry tree to the left that's in sort of rough shape, and then another um specimen tree to the right.

Those will remain during demo.

I think as we get into new construction COA, there might be a question about the cherry tree and its uh shape and form, but that mulberry tree we we believe is a district-defining tree, so we want that to uh remain.

When it comes to demolition, um Nancy touched on this, but um you know, our our firm believes first in preservation, and if that's not an option, then we start talking about demolition.

So you know, that does coincide with the um with the demolition standard is that the you know this this should only occur if there's no other viable path forward.

And from the due diligence that the Smiths asked us to perform their due diligence as well, um we've come to that conclusion that there's no viable platform for us to rehabilitate, rehabilitate or add on or continue with this house as a as a means for you know projecting into the future.

Um this is because of uh compromise basically problems throughout the house, but in particular, it has a compromise foundation, uh ongoing water intrusion issues, uh, which we suspect are contributing to additional mold growth.

Uh the current um all almost all of the exterior cladding is in uh state of disrepair, and the current current configuration lacks specific features that are uh required.

So to properly address these issues, we would almost need to deconstruct the whole house and then rebuild it, which uh again is not a feasible thing to accomplish here.

In that though, we do plan to salvage quite a number of items.

Um I've mentioned the stone walls that being you know one of the most important things that we see that is salvageable.

Um we will allow and and and coordinate with um preservation offices, et cetera, for any other items that they they would like to salvage.

Um but the stone walls are obviously the the most historic feature that we would be removing and and do want to stockpile and save for future use.

When we think about relocating, you know, can we pick this house up and move it elsewhere?

A couple things came up with that.

One, it's a stick frame construction that's been altered over time.

So even taking out the fact that it has a basement, because let's just pretend it's a one-story stick frame house.

Um, you know, picking up and moving that is it would be a very difficult and not feasible thing to do because of the way it's been sort of cobbled together over time.

Uh it also has a basement, and so that makes you know that the idea of moving it not a feasible thing, especially with the foundation deficiencies, um, random piers and two by fours holding up girders, etc.

Um, as well as the moisture problems that I've already touched on.

I think last in that is um per HPO records, um uh the the house doesn't carry a strong uh uh historical, it does not carry a um, it's not a contributing house, and then it doesn't possess a strong um architectural character, meaning it's not a a great representation of any vernacular, such as other homes that are in the district, it might warrant um such an exercise, even if if it was possible.

The house, it's so when it start to think about justification justification for demolition.

So the house does not occupy a prominent location within Gem Ghoul.

Evergreen and Ridge Lane are spoken about in the HPO records as being a service lane, and it's right in the middle of that sort of service lane and service alley.

It's not on the main stretch of Gen Gul, that is certainly a character defining street of the whole district.

Our site disturbance, as I mentioned, will be under 5,000 square feet, which is a tier two trigger for the town of Chapel Hill, which is a minor zoning review.

This does not require erosion control or land disturbance permit from Orange County.

So again, the idea that we want to do this, but have as minimal impact as possible.

And then, of course, the stone walls and trees that will remain.

The significance of the house, I've already touched on the uh non-contributing HPO records, and and I think I uh beg your pardon I did just speak about the um not being a distinct representation of a colonial revival design design, etc.

And then um last is the entry portico, which might be the one um original piece to the house that still stands today.

Um it is um despite being original, it is uh has some some incorrect proportions applied to it.

The current conditions uh uh the two big ones are the the moisture content uh throughout the house and then the foundation cracks that are uh way out of normal tolerant tolerances, and um uh apart from those two big ones uh in the uh application materials, you can see that we have deficiencies spanning across almost all of the major building uh sections and components of the house that um that are failing.

I think the other aspect is the for us at least, the um uh design guidelines speak positively to new construction.

And in this case, because we've ruled out um addition or restoration, you know, we certainly see it as a positive, also.

Um and the design guidelines speak to it being a positive um and a contributor to the character of the district, and that will certainly be one of our goals and missions for the new design.

Um, and as well that the you know, these districts are not going to be uh not and should not be static, and this is taken, of course, from the design guidelines.

Uh as well, it mentions that the new construction does not need to mimic earlier architectural styles.

Um, and as we get into our proposed design, we'll talk about that for a minute.

And um so with our future build, and and just to clarify, you know, today we're only uh presenting and applying for the demolition permit.

Um, but to give a brief context into the work we're doing for our our COA new build, um, you know, we want to respect the district uh first and foremost.

Um, what we want to build here, we desire and intend for it to fit within the current context and harmony of the district.

And um, in doing that, for it to be a simple simple massed house with restrained detailings, um, and intentionally actually intentionally avoid a uh formal expression of a colonial revival or a gre or a Georgian or federal, and instead um go for a light uh restrained traditional shingle influence vernacular type revival home.

So our site plan is we currently have it.

You can uh again, it's designed to fit within the context of what's there at the moment.

So our built-upon area is is larger than what's presently on site.

Uh the pink is the outline of the current ridgelane residence, and then you can see our proposed overlay it on top of it.

And we are still developing this, but we don't see this footprint getting any bigger than uh what it is right now.

And as you step step back and look at that in context with the rest of the neighborhood, um you can see our percentage of site, the built-upon area at 16%, and then compare that to the other homes, you can see that it kind of falls within the kind of middle ground of what's going on around it.

I think what also is interesting is you look at those percentages of sites and the footprints and and also the front frontage with um, they are all over the place.

Um, and so it is quite a smorgasbord of different uh BUA percentages and whatnot.

Um, but you can see we're proposing or will be proposing a modest increase to that percentage of site, and that our height is close to what we're um current currently experiencing throughout with with those uh surrounding and touching properties.

So that's our intent is to keep that that uh context with our new build.

This is just a peek into what we're working on right now.

So you can see simple forms, it's a story and a half construction is what we'll be performing or uh uh proposing relative than two stories stacked on top of each other.

We've been playing around with the sort of narrative idea of an original farmhouse, if you will, or I frame house, much like 707 that was built in the 20s and then added on to with a covered porch at some point in the 40s and then built on top of that, and then in the 70s, bigger additions added on uh in the back of the house, much like many of the homes were done um over time, but giving it a um you know distinct break from the colonial revival and doing something that feels timeless and um uh in keeping with the context and scale of the uh current neighborhood position.

So the final thoughts I'd leave you with are that uh the current dwelling is um uh non-contributing to the bit to the district per HBO records.

Uh we do desire the our proposed uh dwelling to um uh mimic the massing scale and character of the neighborhood.

Uh we the amount of time and energy spent trying to see if we could renovate or add on to this house was uh significant.

And so although preservation is our preferred approach when feasible between us, um, our consultants, uh uh Nancy and Ryan Smith, um, we see this as the best long-term solution to the to the house versus an incremental try and repair and alter and um overall being the the best thing for the district, um, and that coinciding also with a win-win for for the the residents as well.

Um so we do hope that it's a you know the future of 11 Ridge Lane, you know, beyond beyond this this stage would be a um extremely positive part of Gimbal for the next century.

So with that in mind, our our request to the board is um for approval um to demolish 111 Ridge Lane.

Um and we would like to have that approval so that we can plan towards that demolition to occur um in December of 2026.

Uh we currently have our COA application for the new build in the works, and we are spending a lot of time making sure that is just right.

I um had previously wanted to include it in this application, and we can touch on this later, but um but we want it to be a a um we want it to fit perfectly within the context, so uh we want to make sure we have enough time to to get that just right.

And so we look forward to sending that application in and being ready to review that in the August 20 2026 meeting after your um your recess.

Um before I conclude, Nancy, is there anything else you want to add?

Oh um, yes, and one of the neighbors is here.

Um I'm glad to talk about it if you want, but I don't have to.

So we're thumbs up on doing this.

Uh my the back of my house, my porch looks like there'll be time for public comment, and we'll need you to come up to the microphone.

So yeah, just give us a sec, please.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, thank you, board, for your time.

Um, I look forward to hearing what questions I can answer for you.

Any questions?

Could you give us a little more information on what you considered as alternatives to demolition?

Yeah.

So actually the previous homeowner who Ryan and Nancy Smith bought the house from, um, submitted a COA application and it was approved for a addition out the west side of the house, so towards the back of the house.

And um we we looked at that and um and I actually consulted with the previous architect and builder on that.

I know him, and uh, and I wanted to know hey, why did why did you back away from why did you guys back away from this?

And it was a combination of a lot of things, but it was ultimately that they got into and said, Oh my gosh, I I don't feel anywhere near close to comfortable now that we're trying to actually build this, that I can connect this new part of this house to the old part of the house.

And so we did a similar exercise.

We our design was a little different than what they they had been looking at.

Um, but it was sort of the the same thing.

It was when we tried to get load paths lined up to where we could add on to this, um, and even on the inside of the house, when we talked about okay, if we open up this wall, or if we get into the ceiling and repair this skylight and this mold, you know, all the ceiling has to come down.

And oh, by the way, you know, these joists are rotten, et cetera.

Um, and uh, so those were, and I'm losing track of your question, but uh, I think you're asking the alternatives.

So those were the main alternatives were can we can we add on to this house?

So there was a lot of information provided in the preread materials to us that you didn't cover tonight, but we have the benefit of having two very prominent architects on the commission.

So I feel like maybe worth talking about the primary drivers of why you chose demolition versus Yeah, I thought yeah.

The um the I mean the primary driver was that the the house, the the foundation in particular has cracks all over it.

The idea of of adding adding any new stru any new weight or um load-bearing elements to that is uh was extremely problematic and frankly scary to us as as builders.

Um the the water to address the water, we um we're looking at having to excavate almost around the entire property to properly abate that.

Um and those are those are really the were the two big drivers is the the water intrusion in the basement and the basement is also um uh you know you can make a strong argument that in its current shape it's not actually habitable space, um, given the ceiling heights and some other things.

Um but those were the two big things is that it's it was it's like uh as you think about excavating around the whole house and solving the water issue, you end up with so much disturbance and the foundation the same thing that it becomes just sort of a non-feasible exercise from our standpoint.

Um you know it's true that things like the siding, we could probably just rip off all the siding, which you know the HBO records indicate, you know, none of this is is uh is um original to the house.

So I suppose we could rip out all the all the siding and replace all the windows and the windows are in a state of disrepair and and replace those, but you would still be left with a house that is um you know considered non-contributing and uh and and then would be left with the waterproofing and the the um you know sagging floors and mold in the attic and just you know system-wide deficiencies that uh I I think are just too much to overcome, and that's what the previous homeowner uh previous owner decided uh with their um uh with their represent representatives as well.

But if there's a specific item, I'm I'm happy to go into that, uh specific infrastructural item or uh moisture reading or um no, that's fine.

No, we don't need that.

We're good.

I'm gonna save all my comments before we're having commissioner discussions.

Anybody have any questions?

Um well, do we want to hear from the public?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Excellent presentation.

Thanks.

Is there anyone from the public that wants to speak?

Since I'm not sure.

Okay.

Since you're here.

Thank you.

Um do I need to do the affirmation?

Uh my lawyer was giving me the side eye.

So I'm gonna wind up I'm gonna read you an affirmation after I finish, you could say I so affirm and give us your name, please.

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

I so affirm.

I so affirm.

Yes.

Very good.

And your name?

Peggy Britt.

And I live at 723 Gimgul, which kind of abuts her property, right?

We're you know, right like that.

And I am I'm in the sister's house for those of you who know that.

And um it, you know, it has been really sad over the last, you know, I guess I bought my house seven years ago and renovated.

It's been sad to see a succession of temp owners, you know, live there, you know, while their you know, kid is in college, they come in to visit from California or something, and um it is never, you know, it floods all the time.

You're you know, as as neighbors were always seeing, you know, rugs pulled out.

It you know, it rains now, you know, because like, hey, a hundred years ago this wasn't flooding, but you know, we have Houston weather now.

You know, it's just it's just different weather.

And um the from what I can tell, you know, like a straw pole of the neighbors, we absolutely support it.

It would be better to have a thriving house that suits you know a family for the next hundred years than to have this thing be piecemealed and you know, just die slowly.

So and I and I get to watch every bit of the construction, and I'm still for it.

So thank you.

Ma'am, if you don't mind if you would sign in.

It yeah, it's up here.

You just have to push your name and seven years ago.

People used to go over there.

So is there anyone else from the public like to say anything?

If not, we'll we'll close the evidentiary hearing portion.

And we'll discuss amongst ourselves.

Recap, it's a it's a biggie.

Um proposing tearing down any structure in our historic district.

Um all of our old buildings, whether they're architecturally significant or not, all have a story to tell and say something about who we are as a community.

So it's a tough ask for commission to I'm just laying that out there.

Um that having been said, um, I wanted to personally thank you, even though technically it's not part of our design standards that we can consider landscape.

Uh 4.1.8 just does say maintaining protect significant site features, but it doesn't specifically include landscape and trees and plants, but I personally appreciate the thought you put into it because I think that's a very significant component of our historic area.

Um and I'm gonna before I blather on with about five other points.

I'm gonna let somebody else jump in with a question or comment for the other commissioners.

Yeah, I'm given this thought, and you had a very good presentation.

I am um very cognizant of how homes can support the families that live in them or not, and I can understand the challenges here.

Um I think we need we need to be aware of our challenges though, and there are a couple of things here that that I do find challenging.

Um by separate by bifurcating the process between demolition and a new building, you're actually exposing the historic district to risk because if something should happen in that interim, if something should happen in that interim, and things do happen, all the best plans in the world will not save this lot or save this house.

So I think that bifurcating the process is risky to us as a commission.

So I see that as number one.

Um, I'm um pretty certain that many of the homes in the historic district have these kinds of problems.

These kinds of problems are not unique to this house.

This house has a number, you know, a real number of problems.

You've identified them, and I agree with that.

I agree with the whoever put those windows in in the 1980s.

Um really hurt the house.

Um I guess it's lack of maintenance and lack of repair, have heard it.

And water intrusion is certainly serious, but many houses in the district do have water intrusion.

They have structural problems.

Um and if each and every person decided that those problems were insurmountable, we wouldn't have a district left.

Um so you know, I I find that problematic.

And I would really like to um I'm not totally convinced that there is no way to um restore this house and make it livable by a modern family.

This is I'm just not convinced of that.

I know that you mentioned that another another person had tried it, and I'm really sorry about the people who have been living there for the past seven years and have complicated the lot your life and the community's life, because I find that in my part of the district happens all the time, and it's pretty terrible.

So I really love the fact that Nancy and Ryan are thinking of actually making this a home.

Um so it it's a pretty it's a pretty hard ask that you're making.

I really wish that there were that it could be restored, and that effort could be made to figure out how to restore it and make it function.

Brian, do you have any comments you want to jump in on?

I agree with Josh.

Do you guys have any comments or the question?

I appreciate the um thoroughness of your discussion about water intrusion and um mold and mill due.

I don't really know how to address that at this point without seeing an engineering report or something.

But I I will say that I agree with Josh.

Separating the um demolition from the approval of the new plan is bothersome to me.

Um, especially since the sketch that you showed us, which is a lovely elevation at the front of the house, it just looks a lot taller than what's existing.

And that jumped out at me.

Um so the height of a building is something we consider very carefully, and I would feel better if we had um more reassurance that the scale of the new home would be in the scale of this other home.

Um and if there was some engineering reports, which you may already have, and I didn't read them yet.

Sorry about that.

Um that say that you can't repair the water damage and correct the drainage.

I am not completely opposed to the demolition, but I am hesitant as well, not knowing what exactly the future plans would be.

Um again, it's an amazing uh sketch.

And also your uh presentation was really well prepared and very detailed, and I appreciate that.

Um and I also appreciate that you did give the um background of the house, the information that is available.

And I know that in 5.1, um it does say that the commission, you know, can't necessarily completely deny a demolition unless the state historic preservation officer has uh determined that the property has statewide significance.

But still, it is something that once it's done, it can't be undone.

So um I am hesitant to that.

So, Kevin, I have actually have a question for you because there is a sketch in the materials that were presented, but this is a demolition COA only, so that is not binding in any way, correct?

That's correct.

That's not evidence that's competent material or substantial to your decision this evening.

Which makes the point that Josh made even more poignant.

So is there this question before?

Is there a reason that uh that the demolition can't be brought before along with the uh proposed new construction?

Yeah, great question.

So um for us it came down to two things.

Well, three things.

So um fundamentally we see it as well, and let me back up for a second.

I I hope it goes without saying that I I do um well, I don't understand because I've never been on your on the board, but I I can certainly appreciate the risk um and what you guys are are uh the decision that you're weighing here that that's certainly not lost on me.

Um and I would love to respond to those points that you guys had.

But to answer that question real fast, so we see it as two fund fundamentally different decisions.

So we have the demolition, which you know that that's trying to answer the question of is the house, and I'm paraphrasing, of course, is the house or the existing structure, is it of significance, is it contributing?

What is the current condition?

Have have measures been taken to um make sure the demolition is justified.

And then the the new build, you know, that's that mission is and I'm not trying to speak for the guidelines, but it is we're building something, and we need to make sure that it fits and is in harmony with the district, um, and that it fits the context and the character.

And so it's sort of like two separate buckets in our mind.

Um, and that was one of the reasons for wanting to separate them.

Um second is that we uh what I said earlier, I I mean, and that's that the um, and I appreciate your feedback about this, the the size of the house.

Uh Laura certainly wrote that down.

It's something we'll talk about.

Um but you know, we we do want to make sure that it has um that we spent the right amount of time to ensure that it meets all of those design guidelines.

And that's a that's there, there's a lot in there, as you guys know, and and we're you know, coming through every single um item there, and for a new build, it's everything, you know, it's everything down to this is the scallop on the uh wrought iron railing, et cetera, and how it meets you know the standards.

Um so it's the two separate buckets and then the time to make sure that our application for the new build was is sound and you know gave you guys the um necessary information to make your life easy and and to um uh to make that first uh look at it uh is as meaningful as possible.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Well, the because the the challenge is for me, um is that if we were looking at the new construction component, the way you've presented it in terms of the new footprint, the size, the shape.

Um I love the fact that the new design is presented, even though that's not technically what we're reviewing tonight.

The new design um doesn't try to mimic a particular style of architecture.

It's it's actually nice and clean.

Um, but um I think it's very complimentary to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Uh even though it's it's not trying to be a part of history that we're not actually living through right now.

So uh I really two thumbs up on the proposed design.

But like we said, we're we bifurcated this, so we're just talking about the demolition tonight.

Of course.

Um as it comes to uh my opinion to the demolition is that um not all old structures created equally.

Uh this one seems like it was built um on a budget originally, and it's somewhat pieces parts and it's very modest.

Um I don't see a lot of architectural significance.

Uh I do appreciate the fact that you're thinking about the stone walls and the landscape and trying to keep as many pieces as you can and kind of breathe new life into the site as opposed to breathing new life into the building structure itself.

That's the difference what we're talking about here.

Maintaining the pattern of the uh of the neighborhood, which I feel like the proposed new construction does do.

Um so my initial uh intent is to and well the other thing you have to realize is and Kevin, I'm getting into your role a little bit here.

When as a quasi-judicial group, we're kind of creating precedent.

Uh is is I mean, is that correct, or is everything on a uh job-by-job basis?

That that's right.

So you as a similar to a judicial, you know, an Article III court, uh, your decisions create precedent only insofar as similar reasoning should apply to similar factual situations.

So you know, yes, you're creating precedent as it relates to the fact the kind of the facts presented to you all this evening.

And if you're presented in the future with a similar set of facts, uh the decision reached by the commission should be based on similar logic or similar reasoning.

But it doesn't guarantee that uh all future demolition applications will you know result in the same outcome as whatever the commission decides this evening.

I'll also note um and Glenn, I I think pointed this out.

State law tells us that the commission cannot deny uh a demolition application.

The most that you can do is delay demolition by 365 days from the date you know you render your decision.

And uh if you choose to do that, the commission is obligated to negotiate with the property owner uh during that you know the the period of delay to try to find an alternative means through which the property owner working with the commission could achieve a different result.

Um so I I just want to but before we start going down a path towards you know whether or not demolition is is or is not incongruous with the character of the district, I wanted to point that out to you.

Okay, well, that's useful piece of information.

What you got, Brian?

So it's a very dynamic time in Chapel Hill from an economic standpoint.

And I think that there is some precedent that's being set.

We haven't seen a demolition application in the five years that I've been on the commission.

And I feel like unbundling demolition from a proposal for a COA for a rebuild is a dangerous precedent to set.

Kind of period full stop, because I think that untethers it from the guidelines as presented.

And so that makes me uncomfortable that the two things have been untethered.

I think it introduces risks, as Josh said, that sets precedent for other questions that are going to come pretty quickly in front of the commission.

Well, and and I would keep in mind that regardless of whether you consider the demolition COA and the new construction COA at the same time, or whether those are bifurcated and heard at different points as is proposed this evening, the new construction COA will always be required to comply with the applicable review standards.

Understood, but the context of the house that's being demolished and its context, I think it's lost when those conversations are untethered from each other.

Because my hope would be that there is some reference to the house and the structure that was there previously.

If demolition and reconstruction is the most practical solution, what's the nod to the history of the site and the home and the people that live there?

Because I think sort of the energy of that property is also part of what we're considering.

And when you untether them, as Josh said, if for some reason you needed to sell your property, that new person is not tethered to any of those decisions that were made at demolition.

So looking at them together and providing the context for how it's going to sit on that site in my mind is quite important.

Sure, that's fair.

Yeah, and uh and I understand where you and Josh are coming from.

But at the same time, uh a presentation was made by the owner, so we can consider who the owner is, and a presentation is being made by someone from Will Johnson Builders, so we can consider that.

And those two considerations, uh I find it quite refreshing based on some other applications we've had recently that this is uh an owner of family that cares about Chapel Hill.

Yeah, absolutely and cares about the community, and it's nice that they care enough to want to do things and do things right.

So that gets a big gold star for me.

Um also in terms of bifurcating, I personally am technically you're spot on.

But I'm personally uh my opinion towards towards that is tempered by the fact that it's Will Johnson builders and there is no more legitimate builder in Chapel Hill than Will Johnson.

Um still and yet every application we see will not have those conditions.

Yeah, and and your point, which is a great one.

The great presentation you've made about what you want to say with the stone and the stone walls and the trees and this and that and the other.

You guys do the demo with every intent of doing that, something goes wrong, another person comes in.

That's the point you're basically making.

Yes.

Can I um can I can I um actually we're still so you'd have to, I think we have to we'd have to reopen the evidentiary.

We have to reopen evidentiary if you're gonna comment.

I have a question from Laura.

And this is tangentially related.

Umberry trees, and we love trees, mulberry trees have extraordinarily aggressive root systems.

And that 18-inch or 20-inch mulberry tree may be a contributing factor to your wet basement.

Maybe they have they are incredibly aggressive, at least in my understanding.

That's true.

That's true.

And they're not also they're also not considered one of our community's greatest prominent trees, such an oak or a maple would be.

And then again, as I always say, if you're actually going to save a tree, do so.

Don't cut off two-thirds of its roots.

So whatever is done to save that tree in the corner needs to be um a real solution, not a half-way solution.

Right.

So just keep that under consideration next phase.

You looked like you were getting ready to say something just a second ago.

I also just wanted to note that um I appreciate the list of items that were going to be salvaged from the house.

Um wouldn't be energy wouldn't be completely lost into the new house.

Okay, so there we are.

We have uh it's an it's an interesting little conundrum here.

Um can we ask the applicant if they would be willing to for us to table this until the application comes in in August.

We can ask.

We can so we maybe you give it guide us on guide us and how we can do that.

Do we open there is a you have to act on a COA application within 180 days from the date that the application is uh accepted or deemed uh accepted by town by the town.

Um otherwise the the application is kind of default approved.

Um I don't know where we fall within that that time frame.

Uh I think there's certainly no reason that you could not continue the the hearing on this application to August, provided that uh that does not run afoul of our deadlines.

But you know, as we uh regularly talk about, if the commission uh wishes to continue the application, I would encourage you to consult with and and uh seek the consent of the applicant first.

So I I think Anna Scott's looking to answer your first question.

While that's happening, what I would like to do is to ask the applicant to step up so we could talk a little bit about sort of where to from here to address some of the concerns if you're comfortable with that.

But let's let's make sure Anna Scott's question is answered.

If if we're gonna have a further discussion, I suggest that you reopen the evidentiary hearing.

So I move that we reopen the evidentiary hearing.

Okay, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

We're gonna reopen the evidentiary hearing.

There you go.

Okay, Josh, you want to re-ask your question?

And Scott, do you do you want to answer?

Sorry, just want to make sure she has an opportunity to answer Kevin's question.

So the COA application was completed on April 21st.

Um, so I don't know how many days ago that was.

Um Sharnique and I were just discussing and trying to find in the land use management ordinance the 180 days.

Um we're not sure off the top of our heads if it's 90 days or if it's 180 days, we're looking.

Um I believe that it's 90 days unless the applicant um consents to the 180 days.

Right.

So the the default period is that 90-day period, which I think you we would be outside of uh at this point, unless the commission continues with the consent of the applicant.

So Mrs.

Smith, would you mind if we have a brief chat?

So I think the the hesitation that you hear from us is that there's a lot of uh changes potentially coming to the historic districts, and we're a little bit concerned about setting precedent with something that's as significant as a demolition, and that's it's extremely unusual in the districts.

And so the concern about um what might happen between demolition and construction is a concern around what the context would mean.

It's meaningful to hear that you are so committed to Chapel Hill, which is amazing, but as Josh said, things happen.

Um and he's been building homes in Chapel Hill for over 50 years, I believe.

So when he says that, it catches my attention.

What I personally would be more comfortable with is if we could have a look at what your application for the new structure would be in that COA, so that we are insured that there is uh a nod to the context of the surrounding homes and sort of how it's gonna sit into in particular gimmickal, which is a really important district here in Chapel Hill, and I think that's where that would probably go a long way towards allaying my concerns specifically.

Yeah.

And so practically speaking, what I'm what I'm asking is if you would consider uh allowing us or supporting us in extending this item to our August meeting, and in that August meeting or a time after that, depending upon what preparation time you need, to bring your COA application for the new structure so we can sort of have a look at all of it together.

Sure.

So as you think about that too.

Um I just want to reiterate, um, and I know these are just words.

Ma'am, if you don't mind speaking into the microphone, I know these are just words today.

Um, but I do want to reiterate our time spent, obviously over years, but also in the neighborhood.

Um, as you see, a tremendous connection we've made.

Um, we've made friends.

We are committed to our partners.

We've chosen them on purpose for all the reasons that you've spoken about.

Um they, you know, one of the things that Rebecca has told us about is that she their company talks about enduring structures and enduring homes, and that's what has resonated with us.

So I know there's not a direct answer to your question, but I do want to emphatically say that we are committed.

Um the bifurcation is not because we aren't down the road on our plans.

Um as you see a rendering, the rendering is actually we are we are close.

Um and so I don't want you to think that there's some lapse in time.

That's because we're just trying to do this.

Sure.

And then it might be six months before we have something.

So I do want to say that.

Sure, sure.

Let me be more specific about my concern, which is not everyone that comes in front of the commission has the same background and concern for Chapel Hill that you do.

So maybe more of an economic concern, whatever whatever the case may be.

Us untethering a demolition from a new construction sort of introduces the risk of there being no context from the prior structure.

Demolition happened six, twelve months ago, new developer comes in.

It doesn't, right?

So I think it's it's also a consideration of the precedent that we're setting here, which is part of the ask, especially given the Sure.

Just genuine concern that you're showing about Chapel Hill historic district.

For for what it's worth, as we discussed about precedent.

This commission's reasoning this evening, if you were to approve the demolition COA is only quote unquote precedent insofar as you are faced with identical facts in the future.

So like I mentioned, the concern that you separating the demolition COA from a new build COA might uh you know untether the two applications from the existing historical context is the reasoning would only be fine insofar as you're presented with the exact same factual situation in the future.

If you're not presented with the exact same factual situation, you could reach a separate decision based on different reasoning.

I I appreciate that.

My request doesn't that my perspective is unchanged.

I would still ask that you consider that.

So you're having to go through a minor uh site plan approval.

Is that what I heard you say?

Tier two, what is the demolition for demolition below 5,000 square feet of land disturbance that triggers a tier two review, which is uh is it a st a staff review, I believe.

Uh it's a it it's all staff review.

Uh it's just um essentially a different fee um and um that staff goes through.

Um based on land disturbance is one of those factors.

Right.

I was just asking as it related to timing and scheduling uh to try to get to the original answer to the original question of why what's the reason behind bifurcating, because if you're gonna have to go through an approval process with staff who are very efficient, I might say, but if you're still gonna have to go through that process and then go through uh towns inspections and permitting, then what's what's the reason to split these apart?

Yeah, I mean, timing is everything.

Um you know, we have uh Ryan and Nancy Smith who want us to get started, you know.

Um they they want to be here, and their their the goal of starting in December uh that was established um uh uh uh this uh December of last year.

Um and that goal coincides with uh some of their their family goals.

Um and so uh the the bifurcating we in our in our minds we thought did help speed up that process.

Um uh previous so most of the the uh when we do a demolition, and we have done these in Chapel Hill, um it we found that it it goes faster if we do the same thing, frankly, we untether that from a proposed zoning um submission in the town.

And and furthermore, what that allows us to do is once we remove whatever structure is there, then we can do things like get a fresh topo made.

We can see what in the world is going on under the house and almost better prepare for the new construction.

So there's not some sort of we demo and we pause and go, oh shoot, there's a I mean, uh God forbid we find a um old oil can you know tank under the house.

We go, oh my gosh, like this is gonna pause us for a month.

Versus if we get the demo started, then we can address that as we are saying completing the ZZP and building permit application for the new build.

Um so I don't know if that answers that question or not.

Um but any follow-up on that?

So I I posed a question.

Can I ask a question before we answer that?

Sure.

Okay.

So to make sure so that I can better get into y'all's frame of mind.

So what's your the risk?

So I understand the weight of the decision, but I'm I'm struggling a little bit to understand and and and comprehend the risk.

So the risk in your mind is that you if we keep it untethered and we demo the house, Ryan and Nancy decide right after we demo to sell the house.

And then we're left with uh hole in gimgle.

Is that the is that the primary risk?

That was that was actually not my sense of risk.

I don't think they're gonna do that at all.

But we're all human, and there are risks of divorce, death, all sorts of things that can happen.

Estates can take years to resolve.

So I think that that's my sense of risk.

Now I'm much older than most people in the room.

So I see things a little differently.

But that's my sense of risk.

That you know, I would like to see it all in one and not have that period of time.

So the only response I do have to that is our intention is to have almost no delay in time, right?

So we obviously have the two timing of today in August is when we're looking to have things in.

That would be the that would be the timing.

Um we are close to putting something in.

The only reason we didn't is because what Ben said is that we really wanted to make sure we were careful.

Um we were talking to our neighbors to make sure that they understood what we were trying to do and what our intention is, and uh frankly let them give us some feedback and thoughts about what matters to them in the district.

So our intention is to actually have a very, very small gap in time.

Um I hope I don't get divorced in the next two months, please, or worse.

Um so I understand your risk.

Um for future, uh I ask that you look at this as who we are and what our application is in this house, and that you don't you don't, you know, as was intimated, don't look at how this may impact future future petitions.

But it may be Josh, um I'd like to clarify because I I don't think that in your deliberations you can consider the character of people or like builders or over.

Oh, I don't uh I don't have any questions about the characters.

Yeah, well, I I've heard a couple remarks um that sound like assumptions about people's character, which should not be a consideration for this board.

I'm talking about risk.

And also I'll get to that.

Um I think you can ask for qualifications for your uh experts um like Mr.

Johnson, but I think you should be careful about um making opinions about someone's character.

There's also no requirement in Lumo that they that says that they have to do a demolition and new construction together.

Right.

I'm aware I'm aware of that.

Yeah.

We and um with asking for the 180 days, there are like specific things that Lumo says you can do that.

Um if we have meeting cancellations or quorum shortages or backlogs of pending applications, or if you're if you need time to receive additional information requested by the commission or to deliberate fully um on memorandas submitted by one or more parties or to seek resolution of outstanding questions, issues or goals.

Um so any of that related to I think the demolition application that they've presented.

But Kevin, please um correct me.

Right.

So like we talked about you have that default 90-day rule, the commission can extend your deliberate can unilaterally extend uh or continue your hearing up to 180 days after the submission of the application if one of those two categories are met.

You know, one the extension or the continuance is required because of cancellations, quorum issues, those sorts of things, or two, effectively if you need additional time to deliberate based on submissions provided by by parties.

And and we've used that criteria several times in the past to continue uh hearings beyond the 90-day default decision period.

The alternative, and this is why I suggested you ask for the applicant's continuance regardless of any reason, so long as you have the uh applicate the applicant's consent to continue within that you know 90 to 180 day period, you're entitled to to continue.

So, you know, I think that what the commission, you know, if if you're set on continuing uh you know your hearing and decision on this demolition request, I think that's what you guys need to be discussing is is unless the applicant is willing to consent to that is why you feel you need additional time.

And i if you if the reason satisfies one of those two criteria, then you can unilaterally continue without the applicant's consent, but only under those circumstances.

And and I and I will add, uh Sharika's spot on uh your decisions ought to be made, and we've talked about this, you know, until I'm blue in the face, but your decisions ought to be made based on competent material and substantial evidence that's present in the record, speculation about what might happen to a property owner or what a property owner might do with respect to conveying or disposing of their property is not competent material substantial evidence.

That's purely speculate uh speculation.

So the risk that I'm concerned about is different than what Josh described.

Um I'm I'm concerned that this demolition sets a precedent and sets off alarm bells for folks that are looking to significantly change the character of the historic districts by building denser housing that doesn't match what you love about Gimgal or other parts of the historic districts.

And so I'm looking for backstops to try to ensure that both we get more housing and more appropriate housing for homeowners and Chapel Hill, and that when you know my Tar heel, who just graduated, comes back and raises his family here, or my grandchildren are here, that it feels like the place that I grew up also, right?

So I have I have those same concerns.

And so I'm kind of looking for the backstop, right?

I'm not expecting things not to change.

They've changed in my lifetime, but I want it to feel and look like the place that I grew up.

And so the concern that I have is that folks that aren't as invested in our community are watching what we're doing, and they see a house come down and they're like, ah, time to go.

Bring it on.

And if we untether what they're going to replace it with from the demolition request, it introduces this schism or this opportunity to introduce things that don't feel like the place that we all love.

That's what that's really what I'm concerned about.

So I share that love and I share that commitment.

In fact, the reason that our demolition request is going in now is because we spent a long time before.

I mean, we could have, I guess, technically put something in earlier and kept working on plans.

Um we didn't want to do that, right?

Because it's all we we want to have something that assures you that we are serious, we are committed.

Um all the reasons that Ben spoke about why they are separate matter.

Um I think I'm having a hard time answering your question directly because I'm having a hard time using one applicant, me, as the backstop for what may come in the future when my when this is what my application is.

So that's my hesitancy.

It's not because I don't share your your commitment.

I I'll also add the time to determine whether what might be built on the site in the future after demolition is uh to determine whether that is or is not in congress with the character of the district is when you have an application in front of you proposing alternative construction.

There is no rule that says you as a commission could not look back at what existed on the site prior to the demolition.

In fact, that's your job is to determine what existed there, what uh would be consistent or congruo with the character of the district when you're making a future hypothetical decision based on a future hypothetical COA application for a new construction.

And and and that's my my point when I'm trying to say I'm I'm having a difficult understanding uh time understanding why we believe we're creating precedent here because the only precedent that you're creating is a situation where you have an applicant in front of you who says, based on the facts they've presented to you in the record this evening, we need to we want to demolish the structure now.

And you the only unless you're presented with exactly the same evidence in the future, you're not bound by this commission's decision this evening.

And even if you are presented with the same facts uh in the future, if there is a different logical basis, you know, a different line of reasoning that carries the day, the commission can reach a different decision in in that case as well.

So I'm I'm struggling, and and the reason I'm pointing this out is because I think this is of legal significance for the commission.

You do not have the authority to deny a demolition.

The most you can do is delay demolition by 365 days, understanding that during that period of time, you as a commission will be obligated to negotiate with the property owner.

That means you all will have to spend your time negotiating with the the property owners trying to find alternative means of preserving the structure rather than allowing it to be demolished.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I I think just I'm gonna say one more thing, and then we're probably gonna close the up initiative hearing so we can kind of move on.

We can all kind of move on.

Um I I asked a question of is it important enough to you that you want us to make a decision on this tonight?

My request is would you consider us continuing this to August?

Have you bring in the proposal for the COA for the new construction?

I'm not I've heard everything everybody has to say.

I still have this opinion that I think it's better if we look at them together in this situation.

But I'm I'm I'm asking, I'm asking the question, and and whatever answer you give me, I'll accept.

That's all.

Think talk.

Yeah.

And I'm sorry I'm putting you on the spot, but it's important.

And I I really want to assure you that I appreciate that.

Like that's not we just have an application.

Yeah, and I don't think any of us want to delay you all like that's just not helpful.

So we're not, we don't want to do that either.

So I promise we will answer that question.

And I have some questions about that question.

But before I do so, what's the question?

Well, and if you all need a minute to talk, I think that's okay too.

Like we can pause and let you all have a conversation off off mic.

Yeah.

The um in my mind, your backstop are the design guidelines.

You know, if we say today had approval to demolish the house, you know, we have that those great set of guidelines that do keep us from and I think given your commitment to that, great, not everybody has that same commitment.

And I think that's a little bit of the risk that I'm concerned about is that it's not.

They don't have to have that commitment because you I mean well it doesn't matter if they're committed or not, they still have to abide by the guidelines, though, right?

Correct.

Yeah.

Um but that being said, so your question, um, so you're requesting 180 days um to do what again.

I'm I'm requesting that we continue this discussion that we don't make a motion tonight and that when in August, which is our next meeting, maybe sooner if we had that's that's our next meeting in our next meeting that you would bring the COA for the new structure and we would can make action on them at the same time.

That's that's specifically my request.

So I guess my only understanding, and that may be that maybe a question here is what does that mean for a timeline?

What does that mean in terms of 365 days or you know, I'm I'm hoping that that's not where we're going, but obviously we just need to update the question.

That's not my that's not my intention at all.

It would be more of a I would we would aim to make a decision on both in August.

That would be the objective.

I I I can't guarantee you an outcome of that until we see the up.

Can I ask a question?

And I think maybe Kevin, you you might be able to answer this.

Um if the applicant does not provide their consent tonight, the commission would have to act on this application.

Is that correct?

Well, so the commission could continue the hearing unilaterally within that 90-day window from application.

If we go beyond that, it's all or or you know, technically, I think the the rule states it's the first meeting after that 90-day window expires.

Um the commission could, and this is where I was trying to redirect your conversation earlier.

There are those two additional criteria, right?

If the uh the you can extend beyond 90 days, but not more than 180 days, uh if you feel that because of the media of meeting cancellations, postponements, uh quorum issues, those sorts of things, you've not been able to act on the application.

That doesn't seem to apply here.

Second, and this is one that we've used in the past, if there are there's additional information that you have requested that is relevant to your dis the decision before you that you need to consider that can't be provided within that initial not you know 90-day uh period, then you can continue unilaterally without the applicant's consent out to 180 days after the application.

Now, if you have the uh the applicant's consent, you can continue within that 180-day period without you know either of these two additional reasons uh triggering that continuance.

Um again point this back is what is the reason what is it that the commission feels as though you might need in order to make a decision on whether or not you want to r require uh 365 day or some other shorter period extension on the demolition that you don't have before you see.

That's not what I'm aiming at.

I'm not aiming at that at all.

I'm really trying to understand what the new structure is going to look like so that I can get more comfortable with demolishing a historic structure.

That's I mean, simply said, that's okay.

So two things are together.

What Brian, what you're wanting and what Kevin's saying.

The second item you listed, our reason for uh continuing this would be because we needed to see more information as it relates directly to the new design that's replacing.

No, so the question would be do you need more information relevant to your decision about whether or not uh to grant the demolition COA tonight or to delay demolition by up to 365 days, which which you're entitled to do.

And of course, there is some nuance around that that rule as well.

But the the information that you can request to justify an extension has to be related to the the decision that's before the commission.

You can't say we're not gonna take action on this application until you submit a new application.

Gotcha.

Yes, you have so you have to act on this application.

You'll have to provide um specific things that you would like the applicant to provide at the next meeting that have to do with reasonings for you to make your determination on the demo demolition specifically.

And what I'll say is I can understand your concern that you don't want to separate these two the you know, these two processes.

But this is not the appropriate forum to make that point known.

If you want the lumo to be changed to require that you know a new COA application, uh COA application for the new construction be submitted prior to or contemporaneously with the COA application for demolition.

The remedy for that is to ask this the town council to amend the LUMO.

It's not to, you know, try to make precedent that doesn't really make precedent in a specific case.

So so I'd like to give you an opportunity to answer the question that I pose.

We're gonna close the evidentiary hearing and then we'll decide what to do.

Okay, I again I'm hesitating because you're asking in some ways first you're you're asking a little bit of us to have confidence in your intent behind it, but I'm asking you to also have confidence in my intent, right?

And so we're having this little back and forth about what we're doing.

Right, and I understand that.

And I think that's a lot to actually ask in some not because I don't have my heart there, but because this is still an investment in our property.

But but but you understand the right you understand my concern also, I hope.

I completely understand your concern.

I'm just saying I'm having a hard time saying let's put it, but I will only only thing I would say on that is again again.

I'm glad I'm not in y'all's seat having to make this determination.

But I I still am struggling with the risk because I I do see you know the demolition standards do not speak to the new construction standards, and vice versa.

And so, you know, what we're asking to be judged on is is that set of criteria, which is totally different from the new construction.

And so in our mind, I guess that's where having a a little bit of a hard time is there are two separate separate criteria for whether or not this is um in keeping with the district or not.

And so one doesn't need to inform or talk to the other in our mind.

Okay, and can I interrupt you for a minute?

Yeah.

Demolition is not in keeping with the district.

Right.

Period.

Now you have good and solid reasons for wanting to do it here.

Right.

But demolition is not in keeping with the district.

So absolutely.

As I hope that's not what you meant.

No.

Uh no, not but I think what he meant was we have 5.1 or demolition standards, and they've tried to make a presentation that addresses each one of those articles.

So I think that was the intent of I appreciate you being open to bringing up.

So I only know how to speak sort of directly.

I mean, if we're saying that basically we're going to start a clock or we're gonna have if you're saying that this is basically our choice, obviously I would rather present with you in good faith, and I'd rather do this in partnership with you because that's what we believe in.

So I I'm I'm feel like I'm trying to answer a question taking on some risk of my own, but also in good faith that this will happen potentially in August.

Like I'm trying I know you can't assure that, but I'm also trying to understand what our what our situation is.

Glenn, did you want to so you're going for the mic?

I'll I'll finish my thought and then please.

So just I'll be I can speak for myself.

I would like for to see both in August and take action so that you can move forward.

That that is my intention.

I don't intend to delay, that's not my consideration.

I do have other things that weigh on me as a commissioner that I'm concerned about that I'm trying to address.

I understand that puts you in an awkward situation.

It does us too.

Yep.

And I'm concerned that it's only gonna get more awkward from here.

And that's what I'm trying to forestall.

Okay.

That's my right.

No, I appreciate that.

And I will also say that these five people are all gonna be here.

Right.

So it's gonna be the same commission.

There may be a new phase because we're hoping to add somebody to the commission.

But I'm that's that's my intention.

I'm not trying to offer obfuscate.

I'm just trying to navigate through a challenging future set of circumstances.

Okay, thank you.

We're gonna take one minute.

Okay.

You want to jump in talk yeah yeah go ahead and jump in questions.

No.

Okay we should I think we should probably wait for them to answer and then we'll close the evidentiary hearing and then we can we'll chat some of us I've got a couple comments.

Kevin can you clarify what happens if they don't consent to the 180 days because it's still 90 days and so that would mean they submitted towards the end of April.

And so that would mean well so if the commission wants a lot of different permutations of how this could play out right commission could decide we're gonna delay demolition here this evening 365 days from you know today's date.

Uh option two is the commission says we're not gonna take action this evening we're gonna wait until the meeting following the the first meeting following the expiration of the 90 day period.

Yeah.

So option three could would be that the commission could discuss those two additional extension criteria and determine whether or not what they're wanting to do fits or the justification for a further continuance fits within either of those criteria.

Yeah.

And in that case and only in that case could they then continue the hearing outside of the 90 day period but with within a hundred and eighty days from the application date.

So yeah Mr Johnson I I know you all are having a sidebar I'd love to move the evening along so yes you all had a we were trying to keep our mouth shut so you all could have a chat.

Thank you.

Let us let us know what you talked about if you'd like yep okay.

Okay.

Um so I I think um although I I I will say that I am I am you know discouraged by this but I'm optimistic as well.

Um I I see I see your point of view but I uh of course we challenge it uh with the design guidelines being the ultimate backstop to protect you guys with that being said we um you know Nancy wants this house to be built here and has strong and and uh uh Nancy and Ryan virtuous intentions here and um we will submit our COA application for the August meeting and it will include this previous application along with the new build and I I think so so to be clear what I would what I will propose when we close the evidentiary hearing to my fellow commissioners will continue your application for demolition to August under the understanding that you'll submit the proposal for the new build in August also and our intention would be my intention would be is that we take action on both in August so that you can move forward.

Thank you.

Yes.

Brian I do want to work with you so I do want to I appreciate it important to us.

Yeah Brian I think technically what you're asking the applicant to do is withdraw their current application and to submit a new application that includes the demolition and the new construction is that no the problem with that in my opinion if we if we continue it then they're automatically first on the agenda in August if you because you guys take uh applications in order that they're brought in and put them on the agenda and if they don't get in in time you know call some other people push in front of them that's I think we want them first yeah we would like to I understand that but you're you're asking the applicant to significantly change the scope of the work in the sub certificate of appropriateness application that was submitted I I don't Kevin is that allowed this significantly more complicated than it needs to be so what I what I'm understand so so first you're making an awful lot of assumptions.

I mean when would you need a new construction application to be submitted by in order to guarantee that it gets on the August agenda.

That was another point I was gonna make up because the applicant isn't obligated to submit in time to meet the like the August application deadline.

We we can't require them to submit by a certain day and like you're tying two decisions together it's something that you can't do.

So I would follow I would do that though.

Hypothetically speaking this demolition application could be um continued to the August meeting and if they don't submit in time your 90 days would be August so procedurally to make everybody satisfied we will continue this item to August our conversation that's being recorded tonight is that we will ask you to do that to have your new COA for the new construction in August.

Yep.

We'll pick this all up together in August.

Okay, but but then it needs to be clear to the commission that if for whatever reason the new construction application is not submitted or cannot be submitted, or because of the the burdens on staff's time, they can't get the application processed in time to be scheduled for August.

You cannot then say, well, we're gonna kick the can down the road again.

Understood.

We just had a good conversation and we're on the same page.

So I think we're gonna be fine.

Well, I don't know about that.

But uh so I guess we need to close the evidentiary hearing.

Okay.

Okay, we're gonna close the hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So now the discussion is uh what do we want to do move forward?

Do we want to continue this?

I think so.

So I would I would uh move that we um uh continue this discussion continue the application to the August meeting for 211 Ridge.

That's the motion that I will make.

Can they just amend this application to include exactly a new building?

They could, but I don't think you can compel them to do it.

Can they just amend this?

They they could, but I don't think you can compel them to do it.

Well, I wouldn't compel them.

I think it would be the simplest thing for them to do.

Yeah, go ahead.

I'm not compelling to the case.

Should I should volunteer to do this?

Or may I volunteer to provide as the applicant?

I would am I okay to speak?

So if we're gonna want to have another conversation with the applicant, I think we ought to reopen the evidentiary.

If they could amend it.

Simple question.

I might get a no.

I mean you can tell me no.

So I think the question is.

You got the answer from the from town staff that they can in theory amend their application.

Okay.

That's the answer.

Okay.

So that could be part of our conversation, then part of our is that they that we uh continue it to August and that it include an amended application.

I don't want to tell them what to do.

I just we continue it.

They've agreed, and they know from staff that they can amend it and keep it as simple as simple as possible.

Because I hate that they've moved through this.

Yeah, and that that puts you at the first of the list in the next meeting.

So that's good.

I like that idea.

Um comments.

I do not agree with delaying the vote.

I think we should vote tonight.

I don't I don't understand what the difference would be other than maybe feeling more comfortable with seeing the new build.

But again, according to the guidelines, there's nothing saying that they have to have that prepared in order to vote on a demolition.

Um I just think it's gonna add a lot of extra work for everyone and more time.

So I would like to motion that we just vote tonight.

And if if we vote it down, let's explain again what that means, because we can't tell them not to do it.

We what we'd be doing is voting for a delay.

Right, right.

So what would have so if the motion is to approve the demolition COA, and if that motion were to fail, then you would have to make a second motion first.

You'd have to have some then discussion and deliberation about do we want to you know how long do we want to delay this demolition for?

You know, what is the justification for any particular demo?

You know, are we delaying for the full 365 days?

We're delaying for some shorter period, why you know why one or the other, then you would have to take a second vote to uh to approve a the demolition subject to whatever delay period the commission decides on.

And and then you'd have to keep voting until you can reach uh an appro a COA approval or until you run out of that you that that 90 day uh period expires and the demolition uh COA is automatically approved.

So if if we choose to we stopped the evidentiary here, didn't didn't we?

I don't even remember, okay.

So we've closed the evidentiary here we're discussing.

So if we choose to vote on it tonight without the continuance, um we either get a motion that's in favor of approving it, given it a CA, or we have the motion that's saying we're not gonna approve it, but then we have to vote it and get a majority result one way or the other.

So do we want to do that or do we want to ask for a continuance until August?

May I make a comment?

Please.

I'm very confused about the past 15 minutes.

Um but if I look back at 5.1 demolition principles and read through this, it says that we cannot deny a COA unless the state historic preservation officer has determined that property has statewide significance.

That is not the case.

Is that correct?

It is does not have statewide historic significance.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then we uh and I'm just trying to understand for myself, because I think we do need to vote, and I'm not sure how I should vote right this second.

But um when we weigh any demolition requests, there's three bullet points here that talk about some kind of um subjective things.

Contribution of the building to the historic district.

Uh does is there a person or event that was associated with this house that makes it significant?

I don't think we've heard that tonight.

Second, what is the condition of the building?

And this is where I had a question about all the pictures and the humidity and the drainage and all that.

In there, does it ever say is it a hazard to public health safety and welfare?

Who would provide that report that says that?

That that's subjective too, I think.

So then the last one is would the proposed new use be a greater benefit to the district than the loss of the historic building?

Again, that's really subjective.

Uh I would maybe say having a family live there that wants to take care of it, uh, even if it's a new structure, is better than this one, which appears to be kind of falling down for several years.

So if I just read this, I don't see we have a reason to deny it.

I don't want anybody to demolish any historic home, but I don't see how we have the justification to flat out deny it.

So then that brings me to the next, the last 15-minute discussion.

How do we work this so that they get what they need to move forward and we put the full force of these design principles on the building that comes back to us?

And I already have a question about how tall it is, but that is really where we have to put the focus on.

So in my mind, having an applicant that intends to replace the structure with something that is going to be consistent with the district and having those two decisions made at the same meeting, I think, regardless of what was said tonight sets precedence for others that are paying attention and sets a great example.

So I think this can be a great example.

I'm looking for the solution that gets to the great example so we can point to that August meeting and say, yep.

Yep.

Yep, yeah, check check.

That's that in my mind, that's that's what I'm after.

Well, we need to focus on the current evidence we're looking at.

We can't be concerned about what is congruent or not in concurrence moving forward.

In the future.

In the future.

So I would say we make a vote based on the evidence that was presented tonight.

In good faith.

In my opinion, if we make a vote based on uh the evidence presented tonight, uh they checked the boxes for 5.11 through 5.15.

Um the only one that you couldn't check would be 5.1.6, which is submit a COA with a site plan for the post-removal of site stabilization, clear the site debris, blah, blah, blah, blah.

So they seem to check most of the boxes from an evident standpoint.

I think that's in the that was in the presentation.

It was the site stabilization was okay.

I'm sorry.

I looked at it earlier this morning for some reason I didn't pick up on that.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

It also sounded like um Laura that you have a question about the condition of the house.

Um so and to Kevin's point, he did mention if you all need more information, you can request that of the applicant if that would make help in with making your decision.

And that would be a r reason for continuance.

For the demolition.

So Laura, you had mentioned the health safety and welfare.

If you need more information on that, you had mentioned earlier some reports that might help you make that determination.

That is something you can ask of the applicant when you if you decide to continue the hearing for the demolition.

But if you feel you have enough evidence presented, then you don't need to.

I can't speak for everyone else, but that report wouldn't I don't think render a lot of real information at this point.

That's what we're considering, but that's me.

So what do we want to do?

Somebody needs to, well, somebody needs to present a motion and it it needs to be seconded, and then we vote on it, and either we get a quorum on that or we don't.

I mean, not a quorum.

We get a majority in that or we don't.

I would move that we continue this application until our next meeting.

Which is August.

And I second that motion.

Okay, does everybody understand the motion?

Understood.

Okay.

So all in favor of the motion to continue to August, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

No.

No.

No.

Okay.

So not that we don't appreciate where you're going with it, but to me, it was it was, and I'm speaking to the commissioners now.

Is it was a pretty complete presentation and it stacks up against the demolition standards pretty well.

And I agree with the applicant in that our backstop is the new design standards, regardless of if there's something horrible that happens that keeps us from moving forward in a quick manner.

So can we have another motion?

I motion to make a vote tonight.

On demolition.

Is that how they have a rule or does not include it?

And the so the the your standard template motion does not apply to uh these types of demolition COAs.

I think the appropriate motion would be to approve the demolition COA as proposed.

Really?

Just that simple.

That's right.

That's right.

This decision doesn't prov uh involve the same findings of fact regarding congruity with the district.

That's right.

Okay, very good.

And uh maybe tech might want to speak to this more is the kind of uh direction and reason why they wanted to add the stalling structure.

Yeah.

So put the design standard, the accessory buildings are common in the design.

Tech can you use a step closer to the mic, thank you.

Thank you for reminding me.

So put the design standard, uh the accessory buildings are common in the district with many dating as early as 1910s and 1920s.

Garages are the most most common type of accessory building in the district, usually one-story front gable and frame construction.

And historic garages are an important element over the district fabric as an indication of the advance of the automobile during the 1920s, and the garages were frequently constructed constructed with the stylistic details that reference the house.

Therefore, we apply this to the design over the proposed detached garage, which is a one-story front gateboard uh building with the materials and detailing that reference the existing house.

So if I could just skip the pages, I would like to back up to um, you know, kind of some of the design features uh or not design features, but property features of uh the surrounding area are these additional dwelling units on the property to accommodate increased population growth and things like that.

So as you can see on these uh additional, you know, these other property shots, they're very similar in design, you know, almost mimicking the adjacent house setback behind for the guidelines, and that is also what we are trying to accomplish here with uh the design that we played out.

Yes, I I also want to add to that.

So this this particular property is right across from the 214 Macaulay Street.

So the one that's brick house is 213, the one pink house in the back is 215.

Uh they're both two-story, and it's 0.33 acres.

And it also contains one detected garage, uh, which you can see here.

So they are all in compliance with the design standard.

So the way we approached our design with the detailed garage also is in we believe it's in miss the design standard as well.

So if you look at the pool rendering for the 214 Macaulay street, you see the existing house in the front and the new dwelling in the back and the detached garage, both facing the uh McAlle Street.

So I'll kind of that's that's far enough.

I'll go back to and just now just I work for the design company uh that designed the house, so I'll kind of speak more to that than uh you know the builder and their motivations for adding a dwelling unit.

Um as you can see, the design features are similar to the existing structure, but not identical.

Uh same style hip roofs, same simple one over one windows.

Uh we reduced the front porch so that it had a smaller scale than the main house or the front facing house.

Um all the eaves trim siding, even the foundation is to match the existing structure.

Uh the hip roofs um all again very to match identical to the existing structure and be completely uh seamless with it.

Um as you can see from the rendering, um, as far as it being prominent, it is set lower than the existing house.

It's set behind the existing house, and it's even set behind the detached garage.

So scale and proportion should be uh should meet all the guideline requirements.

Um like I said before, this uh located on the rear of the yard uh behind the existing structure per home complies with uh 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 um and is consistent with garages and the garage design and location is consistent with other properties in that on that same area.

Um scale and massing, I know that's always a concern.

Uh currently the garage height is 16 feet, which is about half the size of the existing dwelling.

Um, and the new dwelling is exactly almost exactly the same height, but it is set on a lower topography, so it will give a smaller scale.

Uh and that is per requirements of 4.7.5.

We did set it back as far as possible on the site uh and still make it functional.

Like I stated before, um, all the siding trim details, eve length, even um, you know, we did match that to the existing structure as much as possible per all the guidelines, and uh think we feel that we've captured that um very well.

The garage uh two-car garage uh is much better proportioned than a single large door.

Um so that's why we went with that style.

Um porch design uh again matches the existing structure, square columns, square taper columns, and hip roof across the extent of the porch.

And I will leave it anything else you want to add to that?

Yeah.

Um so we also uh noted from the design standard, the landscape of the McCauley Historic District is manifest in streetscapes, characterized by a consistent network of gravel path and brick sidewalk, low stonewall and the tree line street.

So we have been in the close communication with the Orange County, the chapel here urban urban forestry.

And we actually added uh we we don't have in the PowerPoint, but uh we have a report from the licensed tree arborist.

Um that's I believe that's available for you, Commissioner, to take a look at.

And it is uh with additional proposed garage and the dwelling, it would not affect the canopy coverage, and it would be where above required the 40% uh with the proposed uh new build and the garage.

And we also would like to note that as Tim mentioned earlier, the rear of this property is the university's parking area.

So therefore, we believe that adding proposed the dwelling unit and the detached garage would add more historic character in the Macaulay street instead of you know having uh view of the back parking lot.

Yeah, so it would be great if you guys can reference the tree canopy assessment report from the tree arbories that we submitted.

And also wanted to note that so per the design standard, the residential development within the boundaries of the Macaulay Historic District continue through the early 1950s.

The MAD is a single family home constructed along the west side of Best Knight Street, the 400 block of West Cameron Avenue and the West End of McCaulay Street.

The late 20th century also saw the construction of several apartment buildings and duplexes and conversion of the large housing into multi-unit residence to accommodate the growing student and faculty population.

So we also want to highlight that the University of North Carolina at Chapter's student population has grown since 2020.

So with the total enrollment rising from 29,000 in 2020 to 2021 to over 32,000 by 2020 24.

And the university recently welcomed its largest first-year class in history in September 2025.

So therefore building adding uh new dwelling units that's the same character as the exist that's a similar character as the existing house and adding the more character to the McCaulay's historic district.

We believe there will be meeting and adding historic character to the Macaulay street as well.

Yeah.

So I'm sorry we didn't get introduced ourselves.

So Tim works for Scott.

Uh he's not here, he's the licensed architect uh who's designed who is designing the house, and I'm a licensed builder, uh was a project manager uh uh with the with the proposed dwelling unit as where it's the detached garage.

Anybody want to start with a well first?

Well, yeah, I guess we ask questions next.

Uh my question is site plan.

Um I looked at uh floor plans earlier today in this.

There's uh how many bedrooms are in here?

Uh there are two bedrooms, two bedrooms.

I'm sorry.

And three better.

With the site plan, what's the intent for parking?

I'm sorry, I think there are four bedrooms for the new proposed house.

There you go.

Oh, okay.

So uh does the site plan give us uh your intent for parking?

So the driveway currently is uh very oversized um and with side parking, uh so that will accommodate with the additional garage um any additional uh vehicles that so we have to assume as as the historic district commission, we have to assume that you're meeting all the LUMO standards in terms of setbacks and these type of things.

Yeah, we are uh that that also aren't there parking restrictions in LUMO as well.

I just uh a wider than normal driveway doesn't seem very organized.

I'm surprised that the town hasn't already said something about that prior to the HTC presentation.

Uh so currently the existing house does not have uh any car garage.

So to accommodate the new dwelling unit with four bedroom, we are adding the two cars two car garage to accommodate that.

Okay.

And also we would like to note that this property is.48 acre.

Um if you look at 213 and 250 Macaulay Street, right across the street.

Um it's 0.33 acre, which contains brick house, two-story brick house, and the two-story pink house, and uh one detached garage.

Um that's we have uh additional point one five acre to co accommodate the parking and we uh we believe we can double check with the planning department, but in terms of a zoning and the setback requirement, we are in fully compliance with the ordinances.

Does anybody have any questions?

And Don, were you asking staff a question about parking?

Well, that was my question about parking, is and they kind of answered it.

So basically, as presented, there's no clearly defined number of spaces or how the car should be oriented.

It's just a big open pad.

That was my question.

Because as you know, we can't consider use, but we know that there's going to be more cars associated with this because of the use.

So it's the same thing we talked about before.

Yeah, we we we are definitely uh being uh being mindful of that.

That is the one over the main region.

We are proposing the two new car garage to accommodate the parking for the new dwelling.

Yeah, you you need to understand where I'm coming from in this from a historic district perspective is that we talk about maintaining the existing patterns of the uh the historic district.

That means the size shape, proportion of the buildings, the spacing, their setbacks, but also even though we're not supposed to to landscaping the stone walls and all these other things that contribute to what we call our historic districts.

And if you have a yard full of cars, it kind of impacts that overall sense of place in the historic district.

So that's why parking is a concern.

Could you uh go to a image of the new structure in the proposed uh two-car garage and talk a little bit about the scale of the two-car garage and the new structure in relation to the existing house on the site and then its neighbors?

So it's context of like what what is the size and scale of this house in relation to the house that sits on the site and then kind of next door neighbors.

Yeah.

So the scale of the ex existing house is 32 feet tall to the ridge line.

Um the size of the new dwell proposed dwelling is 31 foot eleven and change.

So it's almost identical, but it is set on lower topography.

So the scale from the street view will appear smaller.

The detached garage is only 16 feet tall to the ridge line.

Uh so it is half the size of the existing house.

Uh so as far as scale, it does meet the requirements uh set in the guidelines for that.

Do you do you have a picture of the houses immediately to the left and right?

So that would be two fifteen.

Yes, so 215 is the one that tech referenced previously in regards to the two-story brick structure and the two-story pink structure.

Um so with their uh gable roofs, two-story um sorry, just the the picture we're looking at is in relation to the to the proposed house.

Where where does this house sit?

Uh this house is right across the across the street.

Okay.

Yes.

And and the brick house is on the front of the street and the pink house is behind.

Yes, correct.

Correct.

Okay.

So then do you have are there other pictures of the surrounding buildings?

Yes, we do.

Um they are all submitted in the portal, but it's not in the PowerPoint.

So it the PDF wasn't working earlier.

So we're going to we can't pull it up on the agenda.

Yeah.

So I know I spoke to let uh Chanica or know that I noticed that the link was not working.

Yeah.

So we did let them know, see if there's any way we can't have a printout.

And the only reason I bring it up is because we can't pull it up.

Yeah, I can't either.

It can help you pull it up.

Yeah.

Can we just pull it up on the screen so we could all look at it?

So just the the you know, 4.2 in our design centers talk about scale proportion and form of surrounding structures.

I'm just trying to get a sense of this new structure's relationship to its neighbors and the in the house.

Yeah, understood.

And I also submitted the estimated building height for the adjacent property as putting the word document.

So I'm sure once you should put it up, we can take a look at it.

Thank you.

We're not just staring at nothing.

We're watching the bar load across the screen to figure out which one.

Okay, so the that was the first one, so the second one.

I I appreciate that there was a lot of information, but I just want to make sure that we're referencing the kind of have our boxes straight.

Yeah, thank you.

Of course.

No, we always submitted the portal.

Would you like me to walk over the agenda?

Under the second app, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think that's all right.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we're downloading what you're downloading on the screen too.

So downloading.

Okay.

The second of the There we go.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

There we go.

It's still looking.

If you click on that here.

We can get it a different way.

It's just not as easy.

Because I don't know the link.

Try that one.

Yeah.

So it's two, I think it's still fourteen Macaulay.

That's correct.

Okay.

So let's put the there.

Is it everything we submitted?

Yeah.

So this is all of the attachments that you see.

So you'll have to look at it.

Yeah, you'll have to look over here and scroll through the documents.

Right.

So can I take all the things?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Let me so I I think page twelve of those materials gives like a top-down view, just like dimensions of the new proposed structure.

Yes, so it's might be helpful just to the adjacent property.

With the building height, sorry.

These are the order building adjacent property, including two fourteen existing house at two pointy Macaulay Street.

Uh include the building height, uh setbacks for the existing uh properties for the adjacent property and the last size and the building size.

Uh we do have um or the pictures or the adjacent property, but I'm just trying to scroll down to find them.

Uh that that perfect, thank you.

Would you mind going back up to there's a top-down view, the new site plan with existing and then the new structure, maybe one more there you go.

Um the square footage of the existing house is three thousand about three thousand, yeah.

And then the square footage of the new house is um about nineteen hundred.

So per the ordinance, I know you would recently approve uh a few months ago or the month ago.

Uh the discussion with the planning department, uh we can it can be it has to be less than fifty percent of the total loss size.

So you see where under the uh fifty percent of the point four acre, which is about ten thousand square foot.

Thank you.

And then you had a uh sheet that showed the square footage and dimensions of the surrounding properties.

Could we just pause there for for just a second?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So two, which is adjacent is about four thousand nine hundred, five thousand which is about five thousand square foot, literally shy with five thousand.

Two sixteen to eighteen Macaulay streets.

I believe it's on the facing the house right over the two fourteen.

So about two thousand five hundred square foot.

Two twenty is your bottom, two thousand five hundred square foot.

Two thirteen and the two fifteen.

Those are the two dwelling units that were sh uh across the two fourteen that you showed on the PowerPoint edge pictures.

Uh the pre cost is three thousand one hundred eighty square foot.

And uh two fifteen, which is the pink house is one thousand five hundred and seventeen square foot.

Great, thank you.

So and then do you do you have a um or whi which image in your presentation would best show from the streetscape?

So if you're standing on Macaulay and you're facing the existing house, sort of what the new streetscape will look like with the second car garage and the property behind it.

I believe the fine the rendering picture.

Uh so how do I how do I switch to a PowerPoint?

Yeah, my my only question about that is it looks like it's on an angle.

So you're almost looking at the looking at it from a side street versus kind of straight on the house.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how much of the profile the the new structure sort of dominates the streetscape.

Does it sit fully behind the point that uh yeah, since he pulled it all?

Pull the site plan back up.

So the detached garage we have a full view from the street.

Yeah.

Uh the new purposed dwelling unit will sit behind the existing house.

So from looking at the street, I think you will only see the porch portion.

Got it.

So yes, looking straight on, you would see the right side of the new structure.

Um, but the left side uh but you would only see a portion of the new structure from the street view.

Looking straight on.

So so the if I'm again if I'm standing on Macaulay Street and I'm facing this project when it's done, there's a portion of the new structure that will be visible behind the existing house.

How far off how far off the street is the front of the new structure?

How far is the setback?

That's merely my question.

So there's like it's from Macaulay Street to the Okay to the front.

Yeah, yeah, I thought that's right.

Yeah.

We do have a measurement.

But just and while you're looking for that.

So I'll just kind of pose my question, which is if I'm looking at the evidence as presented, it looks as though the accessory drawing units that have been added behind other historic structures sort of sit behind the profile of the house.

So while they're there, they're not they don't dominate the streetscape necessarily.

So that's kind of the question I'm asking is how much will this new structure sort of change the streetscape of Macaulay if it's visible um behind the historic structure?

That that's really my question.

So from the real property line uh to the rear existing building structure that's 108 feet.

So do you know the what's the width of the proposed dwelling?

So I believe it will be where from the front of the street to the front of the new dwelling unit.

I believe it's well over 100 feet.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So also wanted to note that I know we look at the we just went over the building height and setbacks and the square for existing square footage over or the adjacent property.

And would like to highlight that 214 Macaulay Street is uh has the biggest last size compared to any other adjacent property in that area.

And 213 to 15 already have one house on the front, one house in the back, and the detached detached garage.

Uh there's 30% less last size compared to the 214 Macaulay Street.

Thank you.

And then just you you made a point about uh trees and tree canopy.

I think that's also in the materials that you that you submitted.

Um I think it's page 27.

Actually has sort of a top-down view.

So uh and I felt like you were making an important point, but now that we have the materials, was there something you wanted to comment on about the canopy?

So uh how do I switch to the I'm so I'm sorry about I'll let you do it.

You said 20.

I think it's 27, Anna Scott.

It's a top-down.

Is that good?

Yeah, so this has been prepared by the licensed tree arborist.

Um if you look at the green circle, there they are or existing tree canopies.

It's I think existing tree canopy is aware of over 50%.

The requirement is to maintain 40% of the tree canopy.

Um based on the tree ivory, uh, based on the site plan and the review of the site.

And I believe he has put his professional opinion, uh, even with the new proposed dwelling unit and uh garage, uh to kind of become very above the requirement.

It will have a minimum effect.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay, no problem.

Okay, any further questions from anyone.

I have one question about oops.

I have one question about the um driveway that's existing.

How is that used now?

How do cars park on it right now?

So currently the vehicles uh when I visited the site, they are parking facing the side of the street.

Um so there is you know there's enough space from the side of a house to the side parking line.

There's more than I believe is about 20 feet, so more than uh two cars can get in and out.

Okay, so you you have uh enough room in there 20 22 feet, maybe so you could I would have to double check, but I believe uh let me look at the survey.

Well well, that's gonna lead me to my next question.

I'm sorry, you should put the surveys 35 feet.

35, okay.

So yeah, that's certainly wide enough for two travel lanes in a parallel parking, I think.

But how are the folks that um where are all these cars going to go?

Because there's no parking on McCaulay Street.

I'm just curious, do you have striping?

Do you have any kind of markings where people are gonna park on that surface?

Yeah, so we believe that existing gravel driveway uh is more has more parking more than you know, parking space to accommodate the existing house.

And by adding the two-car garage, you put a new dwelling unit uh of eighteen, nineteen hundred square foot.

I believe that's this is sufficient.

I mean, I live I live with you know two thousand five hundred square foot to say with two-car garage, and I have seven kids.

Okay, if there are any more questions from the commissioners, uh is there anyone from the public here to speak on this.

Well, seeing that there's no one from the public, we'll close this part of the evidentiary hearing and have discussions.

Any discussion.

So I I did have a question about the um existing structure being visible behind the historic structure, kind of changing the streetscape.

To me, it feels like it's far enough off the street that that's not something I'm concerned about, given the explanation that's gone.

Yeah, my my only uh concern with the with the basic presentation is the uh the potential scale of the house behind its its big house.

It's it's not a delicate little uh ADU.

It's right.

What do you think, Josh?

Most of the other examples on the street, the house, the secondary house, the ADU is smaller scale.

Um enough enough documentation, I don't think it's been shown so that we can actually see lots of the other structures on the street, and I'm not that familiar with the street.

Um because of the orientation of this house, the the new dwelling is long is long and wide, it's not square.

So it presents from the street as being much larger than it actually is in terms of square footage.

So the square footage works out beautifully, but the impact of it is that it looks almost like a second, like it's as big as the first house.

So in terms of um the rest of the neighborhood, the secondary houses are much smaller than the original houses, but they also look a lot smaller than the houses on the street.

In this case, even though the house is set back, it it does look um it look it's as tall and as wide as the front house.

Um in looking at um uh the image you have of the gray square uh homes on the yellow background where that came from.

But anyway, nearby properties, the rear setback for the primary building is much more generous than the eight feet that you have shown.

And I just wonder if if that was selected to help save trees or exactly why it's so far back on the property when this is a really generous size lot.

Yeah.

So our intention is to be in full compliance with the ordinances.

But step back would be recently reduced to six feet in that district.

So we added additional two feet proper to give you eight feet.

But we can be flexible, but that's if that's gonna happen to meet the character of the historic district.

And then I might also like to comment on uh the height uh concern.

Um if you look at the heights, the approximate heights of the adjacent properties, they are all very similar in height to the front to the main dwelling unit.

Um this one is like I said, is uh just a few inches shorter, but it is also set lower on in grade as well at the back of the site.

Well, it would be good if you could have pictures of all those houses, not just the one right next door.

Yeah, we actually do have all the pictures.

Is there any way I can pull up those pictures?

I think Miss Laura was able to find some pictures in the portal.

So we do have all the pictures of the order adjacent property that are listed.

Back in the back.

Yeah.

So also one thing I know square footage wise, the two fifteen, which is in the real thirteen McCauley Street.

That square footage is about 15, 1600.

Um we are proposing I believe 1900 square foot.

So it is not significantly bigger than 250 Macaulay Street.

Sorry.

You probably go back to the I'm not arguing with the square footage.

It's just that those are a little more square.

Your house is skinny and tall.

Understood.

So as of now, if you look at from the street view, back of the property, this is where you will see university parking lot from the street view.

Sorry, this from the street.

So by adding the new dwelling unit, that's very much in line with the character of the Macaulay Street.

We believe uh would present better character to the McCaulay Street than looking at the probably university parking lot.

Thank you.

Okay, I think I closed the overnight part of the hearing already.

So we're we're discussing um thoughts.

I I do not have a problem with this.

I think that this is a an appropriate um application of the new LUMO requirements.

Um I think in this particular location, all the lots have some sort of secondary dwelling on them.

Um, I wish that it were more like this picture and a lower building and a more subservient building to the front building.

But I don't I think because it's set back so far and we're told that there's a grade difference.

The rendering doesn't show a great difference.

The rendering shows a flat site, which is unfortunate because if the rendering did show a great difference, I think we would see it more accurately.

So I don't have a problem.

I I think if it was closer to the street, I'd have an issue with the fact that you can see the secondary dwelling from the streetscape, but I think because it's set so far back that it sort of diminishes that concern, honestly.

Yeah, I agree.

Once again, this is one case which Josh alluded to, given the where it is the use, which we can't discuss is actually it's it's appropriate for the location and the ADU is appropriate.

And this does fit within the new LUMO regulations pretty easily, I gotta say.

And I can't see any particular article that would point out that this is uh incongruous uh with the exception of they do discuss possibly buffering um adjacent walkways and property lines and things like that if you have a giant driveway, but beyond that, I don't see anything that uh this flies in the face of so I'm I'm gonna make a motion.

Motion away.

Before you do that, I would suggest Don that you officially accept all of the additional testimony that we heard outside of the evidentiary hearing uh into the record and that we ask the witnesses to reaffirm their oath that everything that they stated outside of the evidentiary hearing was uh testified to subject to that oath.

Well then then I will say that we are taking in everything that was presented outside of the evidentiary hearing once it was closed, and they need to do I need to read them and I've and so what we're asking is they closed the evidentiary hearing then they you had a some further discussion.

All the things that you stated during that further discussion just affirm that you uh made those comments subject to the oath you already swore.

Affirmed.

I all problem.

Thank you, Kevin.

Keeping us in the straight and error.

That's what you're good at.

Okay, Brian?

Uh so I move that the application for a COA at 214 Macaulay Street is not incongruous with the special character of the historic districts as outlined in our guidelines and principles.

And do I need to also move that we issue the COA or I hold that for so you can direct uh me and town staff to draft the COA and bring it back to you at your next uh and I also move that we request that the town staff and attorney draft the COA for uh submittal at the next meeting.

Okay.

Anyone have a second?

Second.

Okay, so does everybody understand the motion?

Because it was a little drawn out there.

So all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

You're good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're gonna make it.

Bye.

I'm not gonna say another word.

I'm going, I'm going.

Sorry.

All right.

Okay, so we're looking at 118 Millet Street.

I'm going to read you the affirmation.

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

I so affirm.

I so affirm.

And your name?

Jim Spencer.

Thank you very much.

So this opens the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

And now I mean that conference.

What's that?

I'm sorry.

Uh conflict of entrance?

No.

So there are no no conflicts.

Sorry about that, Jim.

Go ahead.

No problem.

Thank you.

Thanks for uh squeezing us in.

Um I know it's been a long night, so I'll I'll try to move along.

I'm Jim Spencer with JSA Architects in Carborough.

Um, also uh former nine-year member of that year board, and um also half of the Millette Street cluster.

Um I live at 121 Millet, and I have um Brian and Carol Davis who live at 118 Millette here with me tonight.

Um they've lived in the house um I don't know how many years now.

Three years, and uh so we came to you back in um May, maybe of 25, I believe, with an application for an addition to the rear of this house, a small mudroom addition to the rear of this um kind of classic four-square that you guys are all familiar with, I'm sure.

Um the that addition is nearly completed, it's just an interior work now.

Um, and so we're here tonight um to talk about an amendment to the COA for a garage structure.

And um and uh our original plan was to kind of reconstruct and place the garage structure that was on the site that you see in the kind of behind the um the maple tree there on the left of the screen now.

Um during uh construction and grading for for the site work.

Um the demo contractor um uh did not find enough uh good structure in in that to salvage the what was there.

plan was to kind of reconstruct and place the garage structure that was on the site that you see in the kind of behind the um the maple tree there on the left of the screen now um during uh construction and grading for for the site work um the demo contractor um uh did not find enough uh good structure in in that to to salvage the what was there um he was not supposed to uh take it down without um us knowing about it and all but it got taken down um so we're here to propose um that demolition and uh and the building of a new very similar structure just a little bit um behind and in in the current uh setbacks um the um the struct we we looked at it when when we started the project and um the garage there though though in the footprint of uh of an old garage um had very little of the original structure in intact uh it was mostly pressure treated studs sitting on uh dirt and a rock foundation um and it it had uh had a some pieces of the original rafters but but not a lot um so um brian and carol would like to uh to to finish construction of their project um propose uh a new garage that's um very similar to the existing structure um these are structures that uh in our neighborhood are quite common a um small footprint um garage with open gable it's been described here a little bit uh today already and uh there's one um behind my house there's one uh at one twenty next door and one at I believe at 122 also um none of them are in the condition to put a car in I would say so um you know for for better or worse but um they're they're small single structures so I'm gonna move ahead and just um show you what we've got here uh um this is a site plan I've got the original application on the rear of the at the end of this if we need to look at any images there but um the the original structure was 20 feet eight inches by 24 foot eight inches um and it sat 4.7 feet from the property line so outboard of the current setbacks we have new setbacks in our district as you know but um we're gonna um propose placing this one a little bit farther away from the property line um the new I think the new um interior setback is six feet but we're gonna um propose 10 feet because um there's a significant drainage issues on that side of the site the the adjacent sites um the brick rentals that are above them are higher than the grade here so it gives us more opportunity to manage water um but on the side of this building which was a significant reason it was it was badly deteriorated for in the first place because that um that uh southern wall of the previous garage was really below grade and um the the sill of it was sitting underground in fact so um similar very similar size um placed just a little bit farther back on the lot as well the guidelines um state a preference for the um uh garage buildings being behind the the rear wall of the the main house and um that would be the case here would be about 20 feet from the uh the rear of the um footprint of the house and um as i said about 10 feet from the property line that the set that this one's showing the the old setback of eight feet but um our placement would be about 10 feet from the property line and about uh 10 feet back and um 812 pitch um german beveled siding kind of similar to what was on there before there's a little bit um slightly different window placement on this the previous one had um kind of randomly placed windows from different time periods um but you see kind of on the lower left a a perspective of um of the uh garage kind of behind the the house um you can kind of see shattered in there the um that maple tree it's about 17 feet tall so it's a it's a nine foot plate with an 812 pitch roof um this is just kind of elevations and uh um showing the door out to the side from the um which was is in a similar location to what it was before on there um and the the 22 by 25 foot footprint which is again just inches and to a foot uh larger in both dimensions than what was um previously on on site um composite shingle roofing to match the the existing house the house has uh uh hipped roof on the um main structure and then um a lower metal uh hip roof on the back um the one other um uh amendment that we asked to make on this um because of the placement of the new garage is there the we had showed uh the landing um and stair into our new addition um coming down at a at a right angle from the exit door that you see there and um the clerks would like just to utilize their backyard better and and have uh um more space in that uh that part of the drive area to just come kind of straight out with a brick landing um kind of wrought iron

The house has uh uh hipped roof on the um main structure and then um a lower metal uh hip roof on the back um the one other um uh uh amendment that we asked to make on this um because of the placement of the new garage there the we had showed uh the landing um and stair into our new addition um coming down at a at a right angle from the exit door that you see there and um the clerks would like just to utilize their backyard better and and have uh um more space in that uh that part of the drive area to just come kind of straight out with a brick landing um kind of wrought iron um railings and instead of making that 90 the stair would just come straight out from the previous uh from from the door in the rear there um that was just the description that I had in the application so um you know we feel the uh this new garage and uh is is very um is not incongruous or is congruous with the the other small structures that are um you know secondary to uh the the this part of Millette has relatively large lots for the district um this one's about 0.46 acres and um but large a large backyard very stately house and um that everybody loves in in the district and um so these are the um the design guideline references that we've put in as as the um you know most appropriate here 471 um introduced compatible new garages uh that don't compromise the historic character well i'd say you know it's it's very in keeping with the um you know garages that are around there's there's um probably not more than five or six in the neighborhood and they're all um kind of front loads open gable single single um type garages there's no two-story ones that I know of in our in our neighborhood um so um I think the placement behind you know kind of beside and behind the house is is uh consistent with others in the neighborhood most of them are are kind of behind and and uh from the approach side um site the the second one also refers to siting of the garage in traditional locations are compatible with the character um typically behind the beyond the rear wall I've already mentioned that um design design the accessory buildings um so that size scale and do not overpower the primary building um on this or adjacent sites um and design them um to be compatible with but secondary to primary buildings I think the um um the roof pitches that are compatible but uh the open gable is is contrasting with the the primary residence here you've obviously got a a four square style that's um you know a a certain mass and this is a a secondary uh and much smaller mass to that and um the roof line is is similar to to what was there before um and then I think um 478 that uh the features to be compatible in scale so uh modern materials fiber fiber cement siding the the house already has fiber cement siding and and clad windows that were put on um some years ago and um so we would we're gonna use uh propose uh a a German type fiber cement siding that's uh a little different from the um the lap that's on the house but um um but similar in reveal and then um the the shingle and uh windows would would match the existing house so um so modern but uh complementary in style to I believe to the existing house um as I said I've got um the old uh application if anybody wants to see the you know that wasn't here the uh the existing conditions of the house the the proposed addition which is nearly complete I think looks uh very sharp and it's certainly um you know uh not very visible from the street but you you can see it as you come down the driveway there um I think I'll pause there and try to answer any questions you have all right I have a clicky it was probably covered in the material but I I wasn't clear on it the door to your new uh garage um I saw the the panel layout but are those solid panels or glass panels um solid those so those are all solid okay good yeah the existing um garage was um it was a plywood uh construction but a panel style so it's similar in style but would be uh a solid uh but raised panel type style Josh okay very straightforward good good presentation well if there aren't any more questions from the commissioner are there any public comment it appears that there is none so we will close this part of the evidentiary hearing even though I've done it twice before and had to reopen it twice before

Um solid those so those are all solid okay good yeah the existing um garage was um it was a plywood uh construction but a panel style so it's similar in style but would be uh a solid uh button raised panel type style josh okay very straightforward good good presentation well if there aren't any more questions from the commissioner are there any public comment it appears that there is none so we will close this part of the evidentiary hearing even though I've done it twice before and had to reopen it twice before it's okay okay so the evidentiary hearing is closed so discussion I think we heard Josh's general comment Brian do you have one I'm I'm gonna make a motion unless there's any other we're going straight to the motion okay I see shaking hands okay so I I'd like to uh make a motion that we uh the the application uh at 118 Millette Street is not incongruous with the character special character of the district as outlined in our guidelines and principles um and that we should ask the staff and our attorney to uh prepare a COA for approval at the next meeting and do we have a second second second okay we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye aye aye all opposed you got your COA good to see you all good thanks Jim okay we've got one more important little piece of business here which has to do with a a new member candidate interviews so at our last meeting um we realized that this candidate was not going to be able to come forward here so Glenn and I had a chance to talk with Sandra about a week and a half ago or two weeks ago or so on the phone.

Yeah we had a zoom we had a zoom meeting and I Gwyn I speak for both of us I think we felt very comfortable that Sandra would be a good candidate to her homework she's got some interest in historic preservation absolutely ask good questions feels prepared to sign up for the time commitment will be a nice addition.

Yeah I agree thank y'all for doing that yeah we appreciate that one got mom and told because she wasn't here but she was a good sport thanks for uh nominating me when I'm not here that was your exact idea yeah that'll teach you that's good to be on the other side of that okay so uh Sharnaka or Kevin what do we need to do with this information as a board do we need a motion or yes yeah you need to uh make a motion to um like for the candidates recommendation to council yes you're you're recommending that the council appoint okay Sandra to be on the historic district commission so based on the interview that Gwynn and I did and with the support of the other commissioners I would like to propose um recommending Sandra be added to our commission and that we'd move that forward to the council for a vote in their next meeting tomorrow tomorrow tomorrow and I I will second that so we have a motion a second all in favor say aye aye aye aye all opposed there you go okay um before we wrap up we didn't talk about this earlier but at our officer check-in we talked about um having a special meeting for the written decisions for the items that um you all approved tonight since we won't meet in July and this would be a virtual meeting yes um so if uh we need at least four people so if y'all could check your calendars so when will that happen next week um well Kevin needs some time okay yes so we'll we'll prepare so the the the baseline is is that the town needs at least 48 hours to uh to provide the required legal notice of a special meeting so we need a the the meeting can't be held within 48 hours from I guess to whatever time tomorrow staff could get the notice obviously I'm not suggesting that we hold it on Friday or whatever that would be do have to notice the meeting but it would just be like a public meeting notice on the town's website right exactly um and so I can do I can get a written decision prepared you know as quickly as as y'all want um so I think really the question is when probably next week or the following could you all could could uh at least four of you uh be available to meet so we can have a quorum and we can take a uh majority vote to appro yeah hopefully approve uh the written decision so I'm not available until the week of the 22nd okay I have uh various availabilities next week and the week of the 22nd so the 15th and the 22nd so I'm pretty flex me too Brian's flex I'm flexible Josh is flex earliest I could use the week of the 22nd what's that the the same the week as the 22nd is when I can meet okay so with the 22nd do you want to make it the 22nd which is a Monday um it's a Monday if

Um so I think really the question is when probably next week or the following could you all could could uh at least four of you uh be available to meet so we can have a quorum and we can take a uh majority vote to appro yeah hopefully approve uh the written decision so I'm not available until the week of the 22nd okay I have uh various availabilities next week and the week of the 22nd so the 15th and the 22nd so I'm pretty flex me too Brian's flex I'm flexible Josh's flex earliest I could do is the week of the 22nd what's that the the same the week as the 22nd is when I can meet okay so with the 22nd do you want to make it the 22nd which is a Monday um it's a Monday I don't think there are any other meetings um any particular time of day yeah I need we do three o'clock in the afternoon because it's virtual it'll be virtual it'll like just be the written detections to 15 minutes.

Yes that'd be fine.

Maximum yeah I could do that maybe even three minutes I want to say hello to each other.

It depends how friendly you want to be so June 22nd at 3 p.m pm okay sounds like a plan.

Okay.

Perfect we will follow up with um invitations meeting invitations for them.

Thank you and also before we officially adjourn I wanted to thank staff for uh having us design principles up on the screen of our little personal computers that was that was a huge helpful a simple thing but very awesome very so we really appreciate that.

I thought it was brilliant.

Okay so meeting adjourned