The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission met on Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Skyline Center, to consider ten evidentiary hearings on proposed alterations to properties in historic districts. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. and adjourned at 7:25 p.m. A quorum of five members (Vice-Chair Christopher Yermal, Joan Keston, Stephen Sulkey, Ross Tomaselli, Ashley Wilson) was present. Chair Kathleen Egan and member Alison Watts were absent. The commission approved four applications, denied two, continued two to the April 10, 2025 meeting, and handled one item with a recusal.
Staff presented the proposal to remove a non-historic concrete parking pad, install a water feature, concrete walkway with brick edging, and a 4-foot black aluminum fence, plus landscaping. The applicant confirmed the property will remain an office. Commissioner deliberation noted the improvement reduces impervious surface. Motion to approve with conditions (waste concrete removed, driveway unchanged, no mature tree removal, compliance with codes, minor changes via admin bypass) carried 5-0.
Staff explained the proposal to improve the shared driveway, install concrete parking pads (12x18 ft) in front yards, and repair damaged brick at 505 with a lime wash. The applicant argued the pads allow safe turnaround and the driveway is too narrow for rear access. Vice-Chair Yermal expressed opposition, citing design standards against front-yard parking pads and concerns about precedent and impervious surface. Commissioners discussed alternatives (gravel strips to rear parking). The applicant agreed to continue. Motion to continue to April 10, 2025 (with revised application due March 26) carried 5-0.
Proposal: replace deteriorated concrete driveway (widen, regrade), add brick walkway, replace unsafe wood steps with brick-faced concrete steps and landing. No opposition. Motion to approve with conditions (retain retaining wall, no encroachment on easement, no mature tree removal) carried 5-0.
Staff described removing volunteer trees damaging brick-clad stone retaining walls, repairing walls, and replacing chain-link fence with black metal palisade (max 6 ft). The applicant noted budget constraints may delay fence installation but requested approval of full scope. Commissioner Christopher recommended contacting Public Archaeology Corps during excavation for potential artifacts. Motion to approve with conditions (remove volunteer trees, salvage brick, match replacement brick, fence ≤6 ft, engineering review/permit) carried 5-0.
The applicant was absent. Staff described a two-story wood deck (10x20 ft) in the rear. Commissioners expressed concerns about structural load on the historic foundation, design prioritizing stairs over usable space, and inability to clarify without applicant. Motion to continue to April 10, 2025 carried 5-0.
Proposal: extend existing driveway with permeable gravel into backyard to create parking for a law office (4-6 spaces). Arborist report recommended removing some trees but preserving an elm. The applicant (attorney James Seay) explained the purchase is contingent on this approval. Discussion included retaining iron gates, moving fountain/bench, and ADA compliance (handled by county). No impervious materials. Motion to approve with conditions (gravel only, no easement to adjacent parking without right-of-way, preserve brick wall, follow arborist report) carried 5-0.
Vice-Chair Yermal recused himself due to professional involvement; Joan Keston acted as chair. Proposal: remove non-historic materials and restore storefronts with wood windows, urethane panels, and a larger period clock based on historic photos. The applicant (Chuck LaVendiere, owner of 8th floor) answered questions. Motion to approve with conditions (match historic details, replacement windows low-E no tint) carried 4-0 (Yermal recused).
Applicant (Nick Goody) proposed replacing deteriorated ground-floor wood windows with aluminum-clad (matching 1998 second-floor approved windows). The commission expressed concern about precedent and long-term maintenance (aluminum cladding failing on second floor). Discussion favored wood restoration companies (Double Hung). Staff noted in-kind wood replacement could go through admin bypass. Motion to deny (inconsistent with design standards) carried 5-0.
Applicant (Eric Lee) proposed removing second-floor windows and infilling with stucco due to $56,000 cost for replacement and privacy during Masonic meetings. Commissioners emphasized landmark status, suggested storm windows and funding sources (New Hanover County Endowment, Historic Wilmington Foundation). Discussion noted fire egress concerns. Motion to deny (inconsistent with design standards) carried 5-0. Staff agreed to facilitate a meeting with preservation resources.
Evening. All said. Yeah. Good. Um, welcome to the historic preservation commission meeting on uh this Thursday, March 13th, 2025. Um 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 special character of the historic district or landmark. Decisions of the commission are based on the record of these proceedings. The Wilmington Design Standards for Historic 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 Board of Adjustment of Wilmington and then to the Superior 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 hearing portion of an agenda item. Those who want to address the commission are sworn as witnesses 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 the evidence is properly recorded, please come to the podium in the hall to address uh the commission, state your name and address and speak clearly. Adjust the microphone if necessary. A brief reminder that members of the HBC are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council. Our charges with respect to the protection and preservation of properties in the city's designated historic districts. We are held 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 congruous with the special character of the city's historic districts. It is important that we deliberate the merits of each request in a manner that provides a record as to the basis for our decisions. Please remember that our deliberation should be centered on how a project meets design standards and whether the proposed change is congruous or is not congruous. Commissioners, if you have 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 either be turned off or put in silent mode. I'll lead by example on that. Thank you. I'd like to introduce staff, Gina Esse, Assistant City Attorney, Brian Chambers, Assistant Planning Director, Ben Regal, Planning Manager, Monica Davis, Historic Preservation Planner, and Amy Bradshaw, our planning coordinator. And then if commissioners could please introduce themselves, starting over here with Ross. Ross, Thomas Sally. Stephen Salkey. Ashley Wilson. I'm Chris Yermal. Joan Keston. At this time, staff will swear in witnesses that we'll be speaking this evening. If I could have all staff applicants and any members of the public, anybody who wishes to be speaking this evening, or will be speaking this evening. If you have an item before the commission, or you are a member of the public that wish to speak. Please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Uh first item of business to approve the minutes from last month. Any adjustments needed? If not, if someone can make a motion to approve the question. Is there a second? Stephen, is that a second? All in favor? Aye. Passes. Those minutes are approved. And then our, if I'm not mistaken, we go to the first item of business, and that's 614 Market Street being presented by Monica.