OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - May 13, 2021

Historic Preservation CommissionThursday, May 13, 2021
BodyWilmington, North Carolina
SessionHistoric Preservation Commission
DateThursday, May 13, 2021
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
1:08

Okay, good.

1:09

Hello, everybody.

1:10

Welcome to the historic preservation commission meeting from May 13, 2021.

1:14

Hearings before the historic preservation commission are quasi-judicial in nature.

1:17

This is a design review process to determine if the proposed project is congruent with the special character of the Storic District or Lark.

1:24

Decisions of the Commission are based on the record of these proceedings, the Wilmington Design Standards for Stored Districts and Landmarks, and the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.

1:32

Evidence submitted to the Commission for review becomes part of the record.

1:35

Appeals of commission decisions are to the Wilmington Board of Adjustment and then to spirit your court and are based on the record.

1:40

Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date of the commission's action.

1:43

Evidence is received during the evidentiary portion of an agenda item.

1:47

Those who want to address the commission are sworn as witnesses to protect to present material and substantial evidence to the commission.

1:54

The chair recognizes those who want to submit such evidence during the evidentiary hearing.

1:58

Evidence should be directed to the commission to ensure that evidence is properly recorded.

2:02

Please come to the podium in the hall to address the commission, state your name and address, and speak clearly.

2:13

Our charge is with respect to the protection and preservation of properties in the city's designated historic district.

2:19

We are held to standards to the standards of the Wilmington Design Standards for historic districts and landmarks and per applicable NC state law to determine if exterior changes are congruent with the special character of the city's historic districts.

2:32

It's important that it that we deliberate the merits of each request in a manner that provides a record as to the basis of our for our decisions.

2:39

Please remember that our deliberations should be centered on how a project meets meets the design standards and whether the proposed change is congruous or is not congruous.

2:48

Commissioners, if you've received or been made aware of any outside evidence related to any of the matters, please recuse yourself.

2:54

At this time, I would like to request that all cell phones be either turned off or put on silence mode.

2:59

Thank you.

3:00

And I'd like our commissioners to start introducing themselves if you don't mind, Chris.

3:04

Right on time.

3:05

Christopher Urimel.

3:08

Stephen Salke.

3:10

Ron Wilson.

3:11

Marianne Casser.

3:12

Rob Romero.

3:13

John Keston.

3:14

Kathleen Egan.

3:16

Ashley Wilson.

3:17

Thanks.

3:17

I also like to introduce our assistant city attorney, Melissa Hoffman.

3:21

Our staff, Jeff Walton, Amy Bradshaw, Christine Hughes, and Ivy Freytag.

3:25

And Greg, our tech here.

3:27

Thank you, Greg.

3:29

And since we have a long agenda, let's try to keep it succinct, everybody.

3:32

For everybody's sake.

3:34

All right, we have to approve some minutes, looks like, correct?

3:37

Yes.

3:40

Either one of them.

3:42

I would move to approve the minutes from Thursday, March 11th, 2021, and Thursday, April 8th, 2021.

3:48

Thank you.

3:48

Is there a second?

3:49

Second.

3:49

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

3:51

Aye.

3:52

Any opposed?

3:54

All right.

3:54

We'll deal with some old business first.

3:58

Oh, yeah, we gotta get some swearing in too.

4:00

I'm sorry, Ivy.

4:01

You can get Amy to swear our witnesses in everyone who wishes to speak and provide testimony this evening could please stand up and raise your right hand.

4:25

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

4:30

Thanks, Amy.

4:31

All right, back to you, Ivy.

4:42

Good evening, everybody.

4:43

Staff is requesting a um withdrawal of the application for 7 South Second Street, Unit 9.

4:51

This is in regards to a change in ownership of the property during the time in which this application was being continued, as well as a lack of response from the new owner with regards to staff reaching out and trying to get new forms.

5:05

So we have decided to ask for a withdrawal of this case.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Historic Preservation███████████████████████████████████████████43%
Zoning And Land Use███████████████████19%
Legal Framework██████6%
Procedural█████5%
Public Engagement█████5%
Flooding████4%
Community Engagement████4%
Fence Regulations███3%
Sustainability Initiatives███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - May 13, 2021

The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, May 13, 2021, at 5:31 p.m. in the Wilmington Convention Center. The meeting, which adjourned at 9:16 p.m., included evidentiary hearings on nine new and old business items, a vote on revised rules of procedure, and a staff update on a legal settlement concerning a mural. All votes were recorded with tallies.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of Minutes – Minutes from the March 11, 2021 and April 8, 2021 meetings were approved 8-0 (Commissioner Smith not present).
  • Withdrawal of Item – Application for 7 South 2nd Street, Unit 9 (window replacement) was withdrawn 8-0 due to change in property ownership and lack of response from the new owner.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • 14 South 5th Avenue – John Doherty (neighbor at 419 Dock Street) spoke in opposition to the proposed two‑story screened porch and pool equipment location, citing privacy and noise concerns. Applicant Brian Keever responded that the pool equipment would be screened and the porch only 10 feet deep.
  • 509 Dock Street – Travis Gilbert (Historic Wilmington Foundation) spoke in support, noting the proposed design’s similarity to Henry Bonnet’s historic houses and the appropriateness of a 5‑foot setback given nearby examples.
  • 512 Nun Street – Mark Smith (513 Nun Street) expressed general approval of the design but opposed front‑yard parking and requested the existing pecan tree be preserved. He suggested a shared easement with the adjacent church for rear parking.
  • 514 Nun Street – Mark Smith spoke in favor of the design but recommended 2‑over‑2 windows to match the block’s character, rather than the proposed 1‑over‑1 windows.
  • 516 Nun Street – Mark Smith spoke in support of the overall design, including the belvedere (cupola), but opposed Bahama shutters and expressed concern about parking. Travis Gilbert clarified that the feature is a belvedere and noted three similar existing structures downtown, all with 1‑over‑1 windows and no shutters. Tom Richardson (513 Nun Street) also supported the project and requested preservation of the street‑side tree.

Discussion Items

  • 609 Dock Street (Old Business) – Staff presented revised plans for window and door alterations on the rear second floor. The applicant agreed to use all‑wood sliding doors (instead of aluminum‑clad) and to install a stained‑glass window matching an existing side window. Approved with conditions.
  • 1919 Chestnut Street – Owners Jim and Susan Beam described recurring flood damage from adjacent Burnt Mill Creek, with water depths up to 5 feet during Hurricane Florence. They proposed a retaining wall, fill dirt (max 4.5 feet), a picket fence, and modifications to accessory buildings (garage and storage shed) for flood mitigation. Staff noted the property is in a Historic District Overlay and only visible portions are subject to review. Approved with conditions.
  • 14 South 5th Avenue – Applicant proposed a rear two‑story screened porch, a 22‑ft by 9‑ft (260 sq ft) swimming pool, door/window alterations, and landscaping on a house being returned to residential use. A neighbor opposed citing privacy and noise. Applicant noted the elevator was changed from a wheelchair lift to a two‑story residential elevator. Approved with conditions, including archaeological monitoring during pool excavation.
  • 313 Church Street – Modification to a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness: retaining the original footprint of a den/family room, adjusting the rear deck and side screened porch, and replacing the front door. The commission allowed the door replacement on condition that the original door be donated to architectural salvage. Approved 7-1 (Wilson dissenting).
  • 509 Dock Street – New construction of a 1,818‑sq‑ft single‑family home on a vacant lot. The applicant proposed a 5‑ft front setback; some commissioners expressed concern about the setback’s impact on future development of adjacent lots. The applicant agreed to move the house back to 6.5 ft if needed. Approved 7-1 (Wilson dissenting) with 14 conditions, including preservation of the existing brick knee wall and pervious concrete driveway runners.
  • 512 Nun Street – Proposed 2,023‑sq‑ft house with two front‑yard parking spaces and removal of a pecan tree in the right‑of‑way. Staff recommended parking be placed to the side or rear per design standards. The applicant explored an easement with the adjacent church but also considered a variance for on‑street parking. The commission continued the item 9‑0 to the June 10 meeting to allow resolution of parking and driveway issues.
  • 514 Nun Street – New 1,928‑sq‑ft residence and 808‑sq‑ft detached garage on a lot reconfigured via recombination plat. Parking would be in a rear garage accessed by a side driveway. Approved 9-0 with 12 conditions, including a 31‑inch max foundation height, replacement tree, and protective fencing for an adjacent tree.
  • 516 Nun Street – Proposed 2,906‑sq‑ft residence with a belvedere and wraparound porch, no on‑site parking. The applicant had applied for a variance for parking. Staff conditioned the Certificate of Appropriateness on obtaining that variance. The commission voted to approve the design but required removal of Bahama shutters on the belvedere and preservation of a street‑side tree. Approved 9-0 with conditions, including that the COA is contingent on the Board of Adjustment granting the parking variance.
  • Rules of Procedure – Assistant City Attorney Melissa Huffman presented revised rules required to comply with NC General Statute 160D. Changes included gender‑neutral language, clarified conflict‑of‑interest procedures, and a simplified landmark designation process. After discussion, the commission voted 9-0 to approve the rules and forward them to City Council for final adoption.

Key Outcomes

  • All votes with recorded tallies are noted above (e.g., 8‑0, 7‑1, 9‑0).
  • 609 Dock Street – Approved with conditions: wood‑clad doors, stained‑glass window, trim matching existing, and administrative bypass for minor changes.
  • 1919 Chestnut Street – Approved with conditions: existing footprints preserved, fiber‑cement siding smooth side out, clear glazing, grade changes reviewed by city engineer.
  • 14 South 5th Avenue – Approved with conditions: clear glass, archaeological investigation for pool excavation, preservation of removed brick/windows for salvage, existing brick wall retained.
  • 313 Church Street – Approved with conditions (7‑1): front door replaced but donated to salvage, original windows retained or donated, all prior conditions remain.
  • 509 Dock Street – Approved (7‑1) with 14 conditions including revised elevations, brick knee wall preservation, tree protection, and pervious driveway.
  • 512 Nun Street – Continued to June 10, 2021 (9‑0) to resolve parking/driveway access.
  • 514 Nun Street – Approved (9‑0) with conditions including 31‑inch foundation, replacement tree, and landscape/lighting plans.
  • 516 Nun Street – Approved (9‑0) with conditions: Bahama shutters removed, foundation max 31 inches, tree protection fence, and COA contingent on Board of Adjustment parking variance.
  • Rules of Procedure – Approved (9‑0) and will be sent to City Council.

Other Business

  • Pour House Settlement – Staff reported a consent order signed by a judge regarding a mural on a stairwell below a historic building. The mural on the wall parallel to the street must be removed within 45 days; the perpendicular wall mural may remain until 50% deterioration or business closure. No attorney fees were awarded. The city is addressing mural regulations in the Land Development Code rewrite.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, good. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the historic preservation commission meeting from May 13, 2021. 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 special character of the Storic District or Lark. Decisions of the Commission are based on the record of these proceedings, the Wilmington Design Standards for Stored Districts and Landmarks, and the Secretary of 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 spirit your court and are based on the record. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date of the commission's action. Evidence is received during the evidentiary portion of an agenda item. Those who want to address the commission are sworn as witnesses to protect to present material and substantial evidence to the commission. The chair recognizes those who want to submit such evidence during the evidentiary hearing. Evidence should be directed to the commission to ensure that evidence is properly recorded. Please come to the podium in the hall to address the commission, state your name and address, and speak clearly. Our charge is with respect to the protection and preservation of properties in the city's designated historic district. We are held to standards to the standards of the Wilmington Design Standards for historic districts and landmarks and per applicable NC state law to determine if exterior changes are congruent with the special character of the city's historic districts. It's important that it that we deliberate the merits of each request in a manner that provides a record as to the basis of our for our decisions. Please remember that our deliberations should be centered on how a project meets meets the design standards and whether the proposed change is congruous or is not congruous. Commissioners, if you've received or been made aware of any outside evidence related to any of the matters, please recuse yourself. At this time, I would like to request that all cell phones be either turned off or put on silence mode. Thank you. And I'd like our commissioners to start introducing themselves if you don't mind, Chris. Right on time. Christopher Urimel. Stephen Salke. Ron Wilson. Marianne Casser. Rob Romero. John Keston. Kathleen Egan. Ashley Wilson. Thanks. I also like to introduce our assistant city attorney, Melissa Hoffman. Our staff, Jeff Walton, Amy Bradshaw, Christine Hughes, and Ivy Freytag. And Greg, our tech here. Thank you, Greg. And since we have a long agenda, let's try to keep it succinct, everybody. For everybody's sake. All right, we have to approve some minutes, looks like, correct? Yes. Either one of them. I would move to approve the minutes from Thursday, March 11th, 2021, and Thursday, April 8th, 2021. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. We'll deal with some old business first.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com