Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - August 13, 2020
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - August 13, 2020
The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission met on Thursday, August 13, 2020 at 5:34 p.m. in the Wilmington Convention Center (originally scheduled for City Council Chambers). Chairman Rob Romero presided, with a quorum of seven members present. Staff included Assistant City Attorney Melissa Huffman, Senior Planner Christine Hughes, Associate Planner Jeff Walton, and Planning Coordinator Amy Bradshaw. The meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
New Business – Items 1-5
1. 518 Grace Street – Exterior alteration: door replacement and fence modification. Staff noted no prior COA for existing non-historic metal door or fence. Applicant Kelly Rowan and owner Barden Culbreth requested a 6-foot side-yard fence for security. The commission voted 7-0 to approve with conditions including reducing side-yard fence to 4 feet.
2. 407 South 4th Street – Rear yard pergola (8 ft tall) and outdoor shower (7 ft tall). Staff treated pergola as a fence subject to 6-ft height limit. Public speaker Jeff Bates supported, citing elevated lot lines reducing privacy. After deliberation, the commission approved 6-1 (Vice-Chair Keston opposed) with conditions: pergola and shower walls not to exceed 6 feet, shower materials changed to wood.
3. 405 South 4th Street – Raising existing screen walls to 8 ft 10 in above grade and installing an 8-ft arbor along the fence. Architect Eric Jabaley argued arbor definition differs from fence. The commission approved 6-0 (Commissioner Yermal recused) with arbor height limited to 6 feet.
4. 1509 Grace Street – Demolition of dilapidated accessory structure and construction of new shed. Waiver of 365-day stay requested. Applicant Katherine Vernon agreed to conditions. Approved 7-0 with condition that roof material need not match historic roof (striking staff condition #2).
5. 302 North 15th Street – Corner lot fence: 6-ft tall on north side and along Grace Street, 4-ft on street-facing sides. Applicant David Powell cited neighbor’s 6-ft fence and security. After debate about streetscape impact, approved 4-3 (Commissioners Yermal, R. Wilson, and Smith dissenting).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 2: Jeff Bates (405 S 4th St) spoke in favor, noting elevated lots reduce privacy from ground-level fences.
- Item 3: Sam Moore (407 S 4th St) spoke in favor of the arbor for privacy.
- No other public speakers for other items.
Discussion Items – Continued Business
Item 6. 109 North 8th Street – After-the-fact porch floor modification. Applicant not present; staff confirmed a stop-work order was in place. Motion to continue to September 10, 2020 passed 7-0.
Item 7. 613 Grace Street – Shed construction. Applicant Bob Handlin noted custom build. Commission recommended moving shed to side rather than center of yard. Approved 7-0 with conditions including minimum 4-ft setbacks and matching house colors.
Item 8. 1 South Front Street / 106 Market Street – Exterior door and tiled entryways. Applicant Dean Neff presented hexagonal tiles with “1 South Front St.” and wine bottle design. Commissioner R. Wilson raised concern about “faking history”. Approved 6-0 (Yermal recused) with conditions.
Old Business
Item 9. 7413 Masonboro Sound Road – Recommendation for local landmark designation. Property includes main house (c.1877), servants’ quarters, guest cottage, cisterns, dairy spring, and sundial. SHPO confirmed significance. Approved 7-0 to recommend to City Council.
Other Business & Key Outcomes
- Minutes from March 12, 2020 approved 7-0.
- Commissioner Sulkey requested staff draft standards for pergolas/arbors and review shed bypass criteria. Vice-Chair Keston requested a workshop on congruity within districts.
- Staff noted upcoming Land Development Code (LDC) presentation at September meeting, with goal of City Council adoption mid-2021.
- Commissioner Sulkey reminded of prior proposal to review historic district boundary expansions.
All votes: Items 1,4,7,9 – 7-0; Item 2 – 6-1; Item 3 – 6-0; Item 5 – 4-3; Item 6 continued; Item 8 – 6-0. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2020.
Meeting Transcript
This brave new world of historic preservation commission. This is uh August 13, 2020. Hearings before the historic preservation commission are quasi-judicial in nature. This is a design review process to determine if the proposed project is congruous with the storic aspects and special character, the storic 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 Hysteric Secretary of Interiors 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 is heard during the public comment portion of the agenda item. Those who want to address the commissioner sworn as it witnesses. The chair recognizes those who want to address the commission during the public hearing. Comments should be directed to the commission to ensure all comments are properly recorded, please come to the podium to address the commission, state your name and address, and speak clearly. Um please turn off your phones if you don't mind. Or put on silence mode. And a reminder to commissioners, if you've been if you received or been made aware of any outside evidence related to any of the matters, please recuse yourselves. Oh, she turned it off. I'm assuming that you can hear me through the walls. Um the applicant tonight proposes to remove an existing non-historic metal clad side door located on a porch along the North Sixth Street facade. There's no evidence that a certificate of appropriateness was issued for the installation. Um, and doors are character defining elements of a historic structure. The applicant proposes to install a solid six-panel wooden door as seen in this picture as a replacement. The applicant also proposes to oh, excuse me. The other item on tonight's agenda is concerning the existing fencing as seen on the screen. Uh wooden shadow box fencing measuring five feet nine inches exists along uh the north uh sixth street property line and rear property line. Um, and there also is no evidence that a certificate of ropeness was issued. The um existing fences were rebuilt following damage from Hurricane Florence. Uh the applicant tonight proposes to change the existing fence and gate design on the side and rear yards from a pointed top finish, as you see in this photograph by installing a one by four by four trim board on top. This is uh the courtyard of the house. Um this is the fence along sixth street, and this is the look uh on the rear side of the property. The Wilmington design standards recommend that fence design be compatible with the area of the building. In the western side yard, the applicant proposes to install a six-foot-tall board on board wooden fence with an entry gate. A one by four trim board is also added to the top. Uh, keep in mind that the Wilmington design standards recommend that fences in the side yard be no taller than four feet in height. If the HBC elects to issue a C wave for this request, we do have uh conditions listed in the case summary. And I would also like to include the case summary and all attachments as exhibits in to the record for tonight for tonight's proceedings. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Jeff. Are there any questions of staff? Anybody? So the fence is or they they never had a permit, correct, to build the existing fence. That's correct. Um, this area, I believe, was um zoned HDR back in uh 2000, 2005, and so a lot of the site changes that have occurred out there were mostly not issued COAs back then. Jeff, is there a recommendation about the fence? The height are you concerned about it? The design standards would say that the fence height be no taller than six feet in the rear rear yard. So we're talking uh the red line on the screen. Um, the six-foot height is appropriate in that area, but uh the in between the buildings, the the standards recommend that the fence be no taller than four feet. All right, thank you. Any other questions, staff? All right, thanks, Jeff.
openpublica.com