Historic District Commission

Town Hall TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Historic District Commission Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Meeting Minutes Chair Sean Murphy Josh Gurlitz Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles Nancy McCormick Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde Anne Perl De Pal Chris Berndt David Schwartz Brian Daniels Tuesday, December 14, 2021 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting Notification Board members will attend and participate in this meeting remotely, through internet access, and will not physically attend. The Town will not provide a physical location for viewing the meeting. The public is invited to attend the Zoom webinar directly online or by phone. Register for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89267536210? pwd=Ti9jaXVnSUVmd1hHcHJOVG55Q0Zmdz09. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar in listen-only mode. Phone: 301-715-8592, Meeting ID: 892 6753 6210. Opening Roll Call Anya Grahn, Liaison to Commission, Charnika Harrell, Liaison to Commission, Kevin Hornik, Counsel to Commission Present 8 - Chair Sean Murphy, Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles, Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde, Christine Berndt, Brian Daniels , Nancy McCormick, Anne Perl De Pal , and David Schwartz Absent 1 - Josh Gurlitz Secretary reads procedures into the record Commission Chair reads public charge Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner van de Velde, seconded by Perl de Pal to approve the agenda. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Announcements Page 1 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2021 Commissioner Berndt stated she needed to leave at 8:30 p.m. Grahn informed the commission that the next meeting will be held virtually on January 11, 2022 and the materials will be distributed by December 22, 2021. Petitions Approval of Minutes 1. November 9, 2021 Action Minutes [21-0926] Commissioner Perl de Pal joined the meeting at 6:38 p.m. Commissioner Berndt suggested edits to the discussion summary for 728 Gimghoul Road in the November 9, 2021 action minutes. Berndt advised that Commissioner van de Velde’s name was spelled incorrectly. Berndt was also concerned van de Velde’s objection was written in a way that sounded like solar panels on the street side façade was permissible. Van de Velde thought the minutes reflected her statement. Counsel Hornik stated the minutes are not meant to be a verbatim transcript and did not bind the commission in any way. Berndt asked if the commission would act on David Swanson’s petition regarding the construction of masonry walls. Hornik stated that petitions are opportunities for the public to raise topics or concerns and addressing them is up to a majority of the commission. Commissioner Schwartz stated that the commission will want to review the design standards annually and Swanson’s petition would be considered when reviewing the masonry standards. Chair Murphy suggested adding this topic to the January meeting and tabling the petition discussion for the night. A motion was made by van de Velde, seconded by Schwartz to approve the minutes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Information 2. Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals [21-0927] New Business 3. 6 Briarbridge [21-0928] Keith Saling, property owner, stated they were issued a Certificate of Appropriateness to add solar panels to their roof in 2012. They had leaks in their roof earlier this year and needed to replace the existing solar panels as part of the roof replacement. They also requested to add more panels to the Page 2 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2021 roof. Davis Jones, Southern Energy Management, said they proposed to install 25 new panels on the side and rear elevations. He mentioned 18 of the 25 panels will be on the roof slopes where there had been existing panels. He presented photos and a roof plan showing the visibility of the panels. He described how the proposal complies with the Design Standards noting that the panels have a low profile and match the color of the roof. A motion was made by van de Velde, seconded by Perl de Pal, that the application was not incongruous with the special character of the historic district. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. A second motion was made by van de Velde, seconded by Perl de Pal, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Rules of Procedure 4. Historic District Commission Rules of Procedure [21-0929] A motion was made by Commissioner van de Velde, seconded by Daniels, to adopt the Rules of Procedure. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Berndt asked why the Rules of Procedure did not specify time limits for speakers as the Commission had recommended. Grahn explained that members of the public and applicants that have standing need to be able to argue their case. Hornik stated that the Commission should not impose artificial time limits on speakers as it may infringe on their due process. He said the ability to impose deadlines is an expressed duty of the chair. He explained the chair will have latitude to limit public comment or decide to impose a stop time for new applications. Legal Training Legal Training Materials [21-0985] Hornik pointed out that staff had shared via email a Historic District Commission (HDC) training presentation and an outline for legal training. Hornik wanted to discuss the Commission’s role and how to perform evidentiary hearings and quasi-judicial procedures. Hornik clarified the Commission’s role in reviewing applications for Page 3 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2021 development, like a Conditional Zoning or Special Use Permit, and applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. He stated that when the HDC is acting in place of the Community Design Commission (CDC) in reviewing development applications in the historic district, they are doing so in an advisory capacity. He stated their role is to review the applicant’s materials against the objective and applicable development review standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) and forward a recommendation to Council. Hornik explained that reviewing applications for Certificates of Appropriates is a quasi-judicial decision. He stated that the HDC cannot act except to prevent development within the historic districts that would be incongruous with the special character of the district. He explained that their role is to ensure the work meets a minimum standard, and not that it is the most congruous or historically correct. Hornik stated that evidentiary hearings follow quasi-judicial procedures. He explained quasi-judicial decisions should be based on evidence presented on the record during the evidentiary hearing. He discussed that meetings about a COA application should be structured, and he emphasized the importance of opening and closing the public hearing. He stated that no new evidence of testimony can be added once the hearing is closed and only evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing will be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment or Superior Court if there is an appeal of their decision. Hornik advised that any questions commissioners may have about a COA application should be directed to him at least a week prior to the meeting. He explained that he will review the questions and coordinate with staff and the applicant to make sure substantial questions are addressed during the evidentiary hearing. He explained how ex parte communication with town staff or others creates a basis for an aggrieved applicant to appeal the HDC’s decision, and he recommended sending questions through him to minimize the potential for ex parte communication. Hornik and the Commission discussed commissioners conducting site visits. Hornik found that the Commission can only make decisions based on the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing. He discussed the challenges relaying the individual observations of commissioners made during independent site visits. He stated that it was better for site visits to be organized prior to the meeting with notice given to the applicant or property Page 4 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2021 owner and that site visits should be scheduled to ensure that commissioners have the same opportunity to make the same observations on the site. He offered to coordinate with town staff and applicants to schedule site visits on behalf of commissioners. Some commissioners advocated the need for site visits to understand the context of a property and neighborhood and visualize proposed changes. The group considered parties with standings. Hornik explained that the applicant will always be a party with standing. He pointed out that a person with a legal interest, such as an easement holder, can also have standing. He described the difficulties of proving whether someone is a party with standing due to potential special damages as a result of the decision. Commissioners considered whether photos could substitute for a site visit. Some pointed out that photos could be manipulated to mislead the Commission. Hornik explained that the Commission could request additional photos or find that a photo is not competent evidence in which to base a decision. They discussed whether certified plans and surveys were necessary to the work of the Commission, and most found that better photographic evidence was needed. They brainstormed ways to allow site visits and determined that the entire commission could visit the site together, schedule a site visit through their attorney, or request additional information from the applicant one week prior to the meeting through their attorney. Commissioner Berndt left the meeting at 8:20pm. Discussion Council petition regarding Design Review Advisory Committee Design Review Advisory Committee [21-0986] Commissioner Schwartz had heard from property owners that there was interest in receiving informal feedback on their proposals prior to submitting a formal Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application. The Commission is not permitted to provide design guidance prior to a formal COA application because of due process, and he had found Raleigh’s Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) addressed this issue. Hornik did not recommend the commission provide a pre-application review due to the difficulties of the commission having ex parte communication with applicants about future COAs. Murphy described his analysis of the number of COA applications the commission had reviewed in the last three Page 5 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2021 years, and he found that those involving new construction and new additions were typically not the applications that required multiple meetings. He did not believe that the number of applications received justified the tremendous amount of Commission time and town resources necessary to support the proposed committee. Perl de Pal echoed Schwartz in that she is frequently approached by the public about work in the districts and it would be helpful to support future applicants. Lascelles thought that the commission needed to optimize and fix how meetings ran to improve applicant experience. McCormick found that a DRAC would be difficult to implement without additional staff resources and promoted expanding educational outreach. Commissioners Perl de Pal, Schwartz, and Daniels were interested in pursuing a survey of historic district property owners to determine if a DRAC would be useful. Adjournment January 11, 2022 Order of Consideration of Agenda Items: 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant’s Presentation 3. Public Comment 4. Board Discussion 5. Motion 6. Restatement of Motion by Chair 7. Vote 8. Announcement of Vote by Chair 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 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Unless otherwise noted, please contact the Planning Department at 919-968-2728; planning@townofchapelhill.org for more information on the above referenced applications. See the Advisory Boards page http://www.townofchapelhill.org/boards Page 6 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2021 for background information on this Board. Page 7 of 7