Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting: April 11, 2019
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting: April 11, 2019
The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission met on Thursday, April 11, 2019, at 5:32 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, Skyline Center, 929 North Front Street, Wilmington, NC, to consider seven agenda items. The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
Old Business: 411 Chestnut Street (HD-MU) – After-the-Fact Chimney Removal
The applicant sought approval for after-the-fact removal of two historic chimneys, continued from February 14, 2019. Staff presented an amended application to construct faux chimneys with half brick. The applicant’s representative stated the faux chimneys would match the original height and design. The Commission approved the request 5-1 (Smith opposed) with conditions including approval of bricks and mortar by staff, and compliance with building code.
New Business
2. 714 Castle Street – Reduction of 90-Day Stay of Demolition
Staff reported that the building at 714 Castle Street (contributing to National Register) had deteriorated due to Hurricane Florence and was structurally unsound. The applicant was absent due to illness but requested proceeding. The Commission voted 6-0 to reduce the stay to zero days, with conditions including reuse or donation of salvageable materials.
3. 214 North 5th Avenue (HD-R) – After-the-Fact Window Muntin Modification
Staff presented that the approved muntin size was 7/8”, but installed 1-1/4”. The applicant, John Jarvis, acknowledged a clerical error and attempted to change but found it costly and risky. A motion to deny failed 2-4 (Murphy, Hill, Keiser, Smith opposed). A subsequent motion to approve passed 4-2 (McCaleb and Demas opposed). The Commission found the difference negligible for this new construction.
4. 412/414 North 5th Avenue (HD-R) – Slate Roof Removal and New Metal Roof
The applicant, Josh Hodges, removed slate after Hurricane Florence damage and proposed a standing seam metal roof. Staff noted that slate-to-metal had not been previously approved, but synthetic slate or asphalt were options. The applicant expressed concerns about synthetic slate but offered to use Belmont asphalt shingles. The Commission approved 6-0 with a condition requiring true slate or synthetic slate (striking the asphalt option). The applicant’s wife raised concerns about time and tenant safety. The Chair explained appeal rights.
5. 411/413 Orange Street (HD-R) – After-the-Fact Removal of Accessory Structure
The accessory structure was in deteriorated condition pre-hurricane, with additional damage from fallen trees. The applicant (Josh Hodges) stated it was beyond repair. The Commission approved 6-0 with no conditions, after discussion that tree replacement was not required due to storm damage.
6. 15 and 21 Dock Street/28 South Front Street (CBD-HDO) – Exterior Alterations
The applicant proposed window and door changes, awnings, and roof alterations. After extensive discussion on congruity and conditions, the Commission approved 5-1 (McCaleb opposed) with 19 conditions, including canvas awnings, flat-panel metal roof, and staff review of door discrepancies.
7. 1623 Rankin Street (Carolina Heights/Winoca Terrace HDO) – New Single-Family Residence
The structure was already under construction due to a staff error in permit issuance. The applicant, Steve Dutton, worked with staff on modifications. Two letters from neighbors were read into the record opposing the project. A motion to approve with conditions (porch detail, landscape plan, paint scheme) failed 3-3 (Smith, Keiser, Hill in favor; McCaleb, Murphy, Demas opposed). A motion to continue to a special meeting passed 6-0, allowing the applicant to submit further design details. The next meeting is scheduled in approximately 2.5 weeks.
Public Comments & Testimony
Two written submissions were read into the record for item 7: a letter from Greg Vassar and an email from Frederick Bingham, both expressing opposition and requesting denial due to incompatibility with the neighborhood.
Commission Discussion
Chairman Murphy noted a record number of after-the-fact applications and requested staff provide data comparing six months before and after Hurricane Florence to identify trends.
Meeting Minutes
The minutes of February 14, 2019, were approved as amended (6-0), with a correction to reflect that an applicant’s recusal request was based on his belief of bias.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1: Approved 5-1.
- Item 2: Approved 6-0.
- Item 3: Initial denial motion failed 2-4; approval motion passed 4-2.
- Item 4: Approved 6-0 with condition for true or synthetic slate.
- Item 5: Approved 6-0 with no conditions.
- Item 6: Approved 5-1 with 19 conditions.
- Item 7: Approval motion failed 3-3; continuance motion passed 6-0.
- Minutes approved 6-0.
Meeting Transcript
No, we have to do that. Good evening. I would like to go ahead and call the Thursday, April 11th, 2019, meeting of the City of Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission to order. Thank you for coming. We appreciate your attendance at this evening's meeting. Hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission are quasi-judicial in nature. This is a design review process to determine if the proposed project is congruent with the historic aspects and special character of the historic district or landmark. Decisions of the commission are based on the record of these proceedings, the Wilmington Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and Landmarks, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Evidence submitted to the Commission for review becomes part of the record. Appeals of commission decisions are to the Wilmington Board of Adjustment and then to Superior Court and are based on the record. Appeals must be filed within thirty days of the date of the Commission's action. Public comment is heard during the public comment portion of the agenda item. Those who want to address the commission are sworn as witnesses. There are several items on the agenda this evening that are after the fact requests. Please note that we have been advised in the past that should that that should not be a factor in our decision. At this time, I would like to ask each commissioner to introduce themselves. We'll start with you, Daniel. Daniel Hill. Mary Ann Kaiser. Tara Murphy. Edward McCaleb. Michael Smith. Sherry Demas. And we are also joined this evening by the following city staff members. Don Snotherly, Historic Preservation Planner. Amy Bradshaw, Planning Coordinator, Jeff Walton, Associate Planner, and Melissa Huffman, Assistant City Attorney. At this time, if there is anyone in attendance that wishes to speak and has not been sworn in to date, please stand to be sworn in by Miss Bradshaw. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give? Is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth? I do. A quick overview of tonight's meeting. We have seven items on the agenda to discuss. For each of those agenda items, we'll hear the report from staff and then the applicant. A public comment portion will be opened, and that is the time for interested parties to speak in favor or in opposition. Once the public comment portion is closed, the commissioners will deliberate prior to a motion and a vote. Ms. Leatherly, would you please uh present old business item number one at this time? Be happy to, thank you. This is a request. Let me turn down the microphone. This is a request at 411 Chestnut Street. If you recall, this came before the commission at their February 14th, 2019 meeting. Uh it's a request by the applicant initially to um seek approval for after-the-fact removal of these two historic chimneys. Uh this is a photograph of the uh property pre-hurricane. Uh this was after the hurricane. You can see that um a major portion of the chimney is missing, and it has been wrapped with tarps to prevent water intrusion. This is uh dated November 14th, 2018. And then this is dated January 29th, 2019, when the chimneys were completely removed from the structure. This is kind of a close-up view. You might not be able to see it very well, but this is where the chimneys were and they've been reshingled to essentially match the existing shingles on the on the structure.
openpublica.com