Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE November 13, 2017 at 5:00pm Town Hall Committee Meeting Room 100 Ann Edwards Lane Floor 3, Room 3300 ****************** NOTE: Items in blue are hyperlinks (some file sizes are large and may take a minute to load). MINUTES PRESENT: Joe Keenan, Chair; Leigh Rowe, Vice Chair; Susan Dickson, Scott Hirshorn and Heather Wilson STAFF PRESENT: Eric Pohlman, Senior Planner, Joe Juan, Plan Reviewer Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., and reviewed the meeting procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes September 18, 2017 October 9, 2017 Ms. Wilson moved for approval of the September 18, 2017 and October 9, 2017 minutes; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. II. Public Comment & General Correspondence Guideline Revision regarding Garages & Accessory Buildings #6 Mr. Pohlman stated that this is in reference to: Garages and Accessory Buildings #6; addition of definitions; Elimination of Sidewalks Driveways and Streets #7 Reason: To further clarify the intent of the Guideline; elimination of redundancy for parking requirement.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 2 of 33 1. Current Wording of Garages and Accessory Buildings #6: Pergolas and trellises, being absent in historical context, should be placed in rear yards and not visible from public rights of way. Revised Wording: Pergolas, trellises, and arbors should be placed in rear yards and not visible from public rights of way. The structure should be proportional and harmonious to the primary structure on the lot. 2. Addition of the following terms to Definitions: Pergola - an archway in a garden or park consisting of a framework covered with trained climbing or trailing plants. Trellis - a framework of light wooden or metal bars, chiefly used as a support for fruit trees or climbing plants. Arbor - a shady garden alcove with sides and a roof formed by trees or climbing plants trained over a wooden framework. 3. Guideline to be eliminated: Sidewalks Driveways and Streets #7: A minimum of one off-street parking space should be provided on all residential lots. A standard parking space should be 9 feet x 18 feet. Reason: Current parking ordinance is in excess of this guideline. Mr. Pohlman stated that this has been posted on the Town’s website for thirty (30) days to receive any comments from the public. He stated that the Commission will need to make a motion to accept or deny the changes. (Ms. Dickson arrived at 5:10 p.m.) Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to accept the revisions of Guideline: Garages & Accessory Buildings, #6; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. Mr. Keenan stated that this will provide more clarity for the applicants. Mr. Pohlman stated that there is one more request for a revision to the guidelines.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 3 of 33 Fences & Walls, Guideline #11: Enclosures intended to screen trash and/or recycling containers are defined as fences and may not be constructed forward of homes or on the streetside. Mr. Pohlman stated that the applicants are present. Sarah Cannon, 216 Bennett Street, stated that she does not understand what streetside means. Mr. Keenan stated that it is facing the street, up on the street, front of the house. Ms. Cannon asked if this meant that it has to line up with the façade of the house. Mr. Keenan asked if this is in reference to where the trash receptacles are contained. Ms. Cannon stated that she and her husband built an enclosure around their trash containers that are approximately the height of the containers, which is behind their fence. She added that it is landscaped and painted dark gray. She said prior to constructing this, she asked her neighbors and real estate agents and no one mentioned having to come before the Commission for approval. She said they received a notice from the Town stating that they had to come before the Commission for approval. She said the ruling is because it is forward of the front of the house. Mr. Keenan stated that he has not seen the application. Ms. Cannon stated that she understands that the Commission would like to control enclosures; however, if it were lined up with the front of her home, it would be more visible from the street than it is now; therefore, she does not know what the objective is. She suggested that the guidelines should be written in a different way without using the language that it must line up with the front of the house. She stated that there are many trash enclosures that have received approval that are on the sides of the homes and do not line up with the front of the house, but very visible from the street. Ms. Wilson stated that the applicant is asking the Commission to respond to a very specific condition and the guidelines provide the Commission the  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 4 of 33 purview to grant accommodations for this. She said that without seeing this particular case, the Commission is not able to comment. (Ms. Dickson arrived at 5:10 p.m.) Ms. Cannon said that there is a picture. Ms. Wilson stated that an application needs to be received to come before the Commission. Mr. Pohlman stated that they are asking for a revision to the guideline. Mr. Keenan advised that he has not seen the picture and the Commission needs to review and discuss this request. He said the application has not been reviewed. Bill Dietch, 216 Bennett, stated that they approached it this way because they inadvertently built it without understanding that this guideline was in place or an application was required. He said when they learned that they were in violation of this provision, they believed the right approach would be to request the Commission reconsider modifying the guideline, because it does not appear to serve any apparent function as long as the Commission retains authority over design, historic appropriateness, etc. He said they are here, along with the support of several neighbors who also wrote in and thought their enclosure was far more attractive. He said if the Chair is suggesting that this is not necessary, because the Commission has the ability to waive that requirement, they would be happy to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission is unable to revise the guideline this evening and added that there are several items on the agenda that are being heard ex-post-facto approval. He said that the Commission addresses these items almost on a monthly basis. He said that in this case, the Commission will address it at the December meeting when it is actually on the agenda and if the Commission is in agreement, the item could potentially be approved ex post-facto. He said currently, there are eleven other items on the agenda that need to be addressed.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 5 of 33 III. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT Ms. Wilson made a motion to recommend two projects for consent motions, Item #1, 911 Pitt Street and Item #9, 212 Live Oak Drive; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 1. 911 Pitt Street – (Survey 5895) TMS 532-11-30-072 – Final Review for Addition. [Consent Motion] 2. 129 Live Oak Drive – TMS 517-15-00-062 – Final Review for After-the-Fact Alterations to Facades. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Carl McCants, architect for the homeowners, stated that his clients were living in North Carolina during the construction of this project. He was not hired on for construction administration and many of the changes were made by the contractor without approval. He added that the contractor is no longer involved with this project, and he would like to go through all the items that were revised on the house. He said that in reference to the steps, they received the CO and final, and then the Commission came back to request revisions and he is not sure how this can be accomplished. He said the front door went from a double to a single door, and the size of the window adjacent to that, reduced in size due to a revision on the interior for a bathroom. The larger window would not work. He said the front steps are the most significant revision. He said it now is all stucco and per building code, there must be a handrail. He said they tried to nestle it into the berm behind it and due to the large oak tree, they were not able to bring in enough soil to produce what was approved through the Commission. He said the Town’s arborist stated that it would damage the tree. He said they had to install a handrail which made the stairs look larger. He said another revision was the chimney cap, which changed, and there were brackets around the house and all of the brackets were never installed by the contractor. He said that the windows on the left front façade were mulled together and now they are not. There is a wood separation between them. He said that the stucco revision, all the brick was taken off and there were areas that were breaking up the massing  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 6 of 33 showing bricks in portions of it and stucco in other areas. He said that it is now monochromatic on the whole lower elevation of stucco. He said if you look through the other elevations, he has highlighted the revisions. Ms. Dickson asked again why this is ex post-facto. Mr. McCants stated that he was not involved in the construction administration, and the homeowners assumed that the contractor was doing what was required of him. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. McCants was not involved in the construction process and is now coming in to rectify the situation. Mr. McCants said that the house is built and the Town of Mount Pleasant issued the CO (Certificate of Occupancy), so the family is now residing in the home. Ms. Wilson asked if the homeowners have the interest or desire to add the brackets that were originally designed. Mr. McCants said that they do; however, now they are in a financial issue with the contractor. He said that it may be a struggle for them at this time. Ms. Wilson asked if it would be fair to say that they are working on trying to get their costs refunded or obtain the brackets. Mr. McCants stated that they are trying to resolve it. He said that the homeowners are present if the Commission has specific questions for them. Ms. Wilson said that she is more in favor of what Mr. McCants designed than what was actually built. She said the overhangs are big, so the brackets would be favorable. She said that the Commission could allow time and leeway to allow the homeowner to work through this with the builder. She said that regarding the other three sides, she does not have an issue with any of those changes. She is struggling with the cable rail, because it has a very commercial look. Mr. McCants said the cable rail was approved on the porch, but was not approved for the handrail. He said they were going to nestle the stairs behind the parapet brick wall.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 7 of 33 Ms. Wilson stated that it is very different when it is in the shadow of the porch and then there is the stepped brick knee walls that are handling the landscape and give it a much more refined look, as opposed to all the cable on diagonal and stepping and changing elevation. She said she would like to see the corbels come back, but is not in favor of the cable rail; she has an issue with it. Ms. Rowe said that she feels the same way about the cable rails, but is not sure what else can be done, because there must be a rail. Mr. Keenan asked if there was a brick wall on the approved front elevation. Mr. McCants stated that there is a brick wall behind at the porch level and there was a parapet wall that was set in front of it towards the streetside and the stairs were hidden inside where they were not seen. Ms. Wilson stated that with railing, you would not have any of the diagonal runs of railing, but three straight runs stepping down. Mr. McCants said that the large oak is almost right in front of the area being discussed so it is somewhat screened. He said if he fills in the hand rails with pickets or something else, it will look more massive, but the cable rail is somewhat transparent and not noticeable. Ms. Wilson asked about putting the knee walls back so there are three straight runs of cable rails, part of the original design. Mr. McCants stated that the issue with this is they are not able to bring the fill in that they needed to berm it up to code. Ms. Wilson said to do rail, but keep the stepped foundation wall so that there are three simple horizontal sections of cable rail, so you get back to the parapet walls on streetside. Mr. McCants asked if Ms. Wilson is asking to add more of the stucco up higher. Ms. Wilson responded in the affirmative. Mr. McCants said that it would be counter to what they are looking to accomplish, because it would look more monolithic and make it appear like a large concrete wall.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 8 of 33 Mr. Hirshorn stated that his issue is, if this had been presented as it has already been built, he would have personally not accepted it. He said what to do with it now is a difficult question. He said that this design, as built, is an issue with him. Mr. McCants asked about using shiplap to make a shiplap parapet wall. Ms. Rowe stated that it is transparent the way it is so she is unable to envision seeing another texture. Mr. Keenan said that all the other changes are inconsequential; however, he agrees with Mr. Hirshorn. He said he would like to see the corbels come back. He feels that the homeowner has a significant amount of funding tied up in the railing which puts the Commission in a very tough position. He said that adding another element of siding will not remedy the situation. He said this situation puts the Commission in a very difficult situation, because they do not want to tell the homeowners that they must demolish what has been done and start over, because they have a significant financial investment. Ms. Wilson asked if the homeowners would be willing to do something else such as stepped planters or something that brings it back to where the design was headed originally. Mr. McCants said that their first approach was to wrap the lower portion of the stairs in shiplap and leave the handrails where they were, which would soften it. They were also discussing planting fig to grow over the whole section and let the handrails rest above the fig. He said there are already plants in place that will mature and cover up the majority of that area. He said that he does not have an issue studying other solutions, but would like more of a definition about what the Commission would like to see. He said that they are at the mercy of the Commission. Mr. Keenan suggested tall vegetation. Mr. McCants stated that Ms. Wilson’s suggestion of staggered planters are doable, which would also change the grade without getting into the root system of the oak tree. Ms. Wilson stated that she is in favor of what was approved initially and would like for Mr. McCants to come back with ideas.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 9 of 33 Mr. McCants asked if this could be handled at staff level. Mr. Keenan stated that he would like for it to come back. Ms. Wilson moved to approve all items, with the exception of the cable rail, which will be deferred only for a study of the front façade of the house; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 3. 707 Pitt Street – (Survey 5908) TMS 532-09-00-039 – Final Review for After-the-Fact Installation of Fence. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Henry Ravenel, homeowner, said that he was in and out of town during the summer and requested that the contractor make the connections with the Town. He said that the contractor is no longer in town, which appears to be a trend with contractors. He said he asked him numerous times to ensure he had the appropriate permits and approvals. He said that he made a mistake trusting the contractor, because he was formerly an OVHDC member. Ms. Wilson asked if Mr. Ravenel directed the design of the fence. Mr. Ravenel stated that he liked the split rail fence that is all around Alhambra Hall Park. He said that they had red tips and Hurricane Matthew destroyed them. He said that he decided that he would like to put a fence up and put plants behind it that will grow up to the second rail. He said that they would also like to add to the other side of the driveway, two sections of the same fencing. He said that the fence is redwood which will weather and not be painted with plants behind it, softening it. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the fence at 707 Pitt Street ex post facto; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 4. 321 King Street – (HISTORIC 6115) TMS 532-05-00-055 – Final Review for Window Installation. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Phill Rosenbaum, representing the homeowners, stated that if you look at the elevation drawing, the homeowners would like to install a kitchen window directly below the two windows on the 2nd floor.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 10 of 33 Ms. Wilson said that it is a kitchen window, which is why it is shorter than the rest. She asked if the homeowners would be open to a casement so that it does not look like a smaller version of the other windows on the same elevation. Mr. Rosenbaum said that they went through a great deal of effort to duplicate what was there. Ms. Wilson said that the window does not duplicate. Mr. Rosenbaum said that in style and design it does. Ms. Wilson said it would be more appropriate not to try and duplicate it, because the others truly are historic. She said that a nine light could still be accomplished, but it would be in a casement or single sash, as opposed to having the two sashes that are shorter versions. She added that she appreciates that they are using all wood windows and matching all the detail. Mr. Rosenbaum asked if the Commission would be amenable to either a single sash or a casement. Ms. Wilson said it would be easier to use across the kitchen counter. Mr. Rosenbaum said it is going to be difficult to reach to open it no matter how it is installed. He said they even considered doing a single fixed window. Ms. Wilson said she would prefer a nine light fixed window, then all the lights line up and are the same size. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the new window at 321 King Street as a single sash nine light window; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 5. 310 King Street – TMS 531-01-00-040 – Final Review for Alterations to Hardscape. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Katie Dunan, Duncan Design Studio, representing homeowners, stated that the house was constructed in 2013 and one of the primary goals of the residents is that it is an age-in-place, which means that if there is ever  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 11 of 33 a time that the home requires handicap accessibility, it would be. She said in the original design, the drive goes uphill to meet the elevation at the side door and because it was designed with the crushed stone, it has caused rutting and is falling down the slope. She said the crushed stone is not working well. She added that the residence already has the concrete pavers on the right and other places on the property and they would like to continue this down the driveway so that it all matches. She stated that the pavers are pervious; however, she has counted it towards the lot coverage just as a precaution. She said that the pavers are actually pervious. She said the concrete pavers for the entry walk are poured in place concrete pavers with green joints and are already existing. She said to tie the driveway and entry walk together, she is proposing a poured in place concrete band that cuts the driveway so as you come up the drive, there is a place to open the car door to access the front door. She said that they would like to leave the crushed stone on the circular portion of the drive. She said that it already has existing concrete paver boarders and although more crushed stone needs to be added, it does not rut, because that piece is more level versus the side driveway, which is steep. She said on the second portion, they are requesting a design for the back courtyard. She said that existing now there is a freestanding garage, the residence and a small screened in porch area, with a large oak tree. She said there is a wonderful courtyard space in the back and she would like to put a deck on the whole piece so that it is all at one level so it is handicap accessible for the entire yard in order to come out of all of the doors and be on one level and enjoy the backyard without having to step down. She said that there is already an existing back deck and a breezeway deck existing between the screened in porch and they would like to run the boards the same way with the same material and details. She said they would like to expand the deck in order to have an indoor and outdoor living space. She added that there is an HVAC unit that is an eyesore for the space, so she is proposing to have a dry stack stone backdrop to a barbeque that would be in that area in order to cover and hide the HVAC unit. Mr. Keenan asked about the sliding barn doors.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 12 of 33 Ms. Duncan stated that currently there is one single at the screened in porch door that opens to the space and she would like to propose barn doors in order to open up the screened in porch and enjoy the space as one outdoor space. Ms. Wilson asked about the six foot stack wall. Ms. Duncan said that there are courtyards formed with existing oak trees and when you are sitting on the screened porch, you see the beautiful oak tree and nothing else. She would like to create the same theme of the stack stone wall that is behind the barbeque have a backdrop. She said this is within the setbacks and it is not fencing it off and there is still open circulation. Mr. Hirshorn asked about the barbeque space. Ms. Duncan said that the barbeque is not visible at all from anywhere, as it is in the very back of the property. Mr. Keenan asked about the type of wood for the decking. Mr. Duncan said that it is pressure treated pine, which will match the existing. Mr. Keenan said that his concern was the front. He said there is so much topography with this lot. He said that his concern was the water runoff; however a neighbor said that he was not concerned. Ms. Duncan said her clients are very interested in having as much pervious material as possible for everything that is being proposed. She said they are attempting to use all environmentally sensitive products and are not contributing to runoff. Ms. Wilson said that her one concern is the stack wall that would be seen from the street. She said that with a stack wall, a footer will be required and the oak tree already has footers on all four sides. She said it is a tall stone wall and she worries about the tree. She added that she loves all the other designs that Ms. Duncan has done, as well as the driveway. Ms. Duncan asked about reducing the height of the wall. Ms. Wilson said that her concern is the footer limiting the growth of the tree and the trees are one of the best features of the house.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 13 of 33 Mr. Keenan asked about the purpose of the stack stone wall. Ms. Duncan said the idea is when you are on the screened in porch sitting, the space is beautiful, but it does not have a backdrop for the tree. Ms. Dickson asked if this could be accomplished with plants instead of a stone wall. Ms. Duncan said that this could certainly be considered. Ms. Wilson said that the stone wall is the only thing she has a concern with, and everything else is wonderful. Mr. Keenan said that he agrees, because stone is not typically found in the Old Village. He said it appears the applicant may be agreeable to some tall planting which he would be in favor of. He said everything else in the design looks great. Commission members all agreed. Ms. Wilson made a motion to approve the plans for 310 King Street with the exception of the six foot forward garden stone wall; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 6. 701 Royall Avenue – TMS 532-09-00-089 – Final Review for Alterations to Hardscape and Fencing. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Charles Claus, said that the goal is to create a fenced in border for the home. He said they have a new seventeen week old puppy that they would like to have a yard area so the puppy does not get out. He said there is podocarpus that borders, and the fence will not be visible from the street and will be behind the podocarpus, and the fence will go all the way to the garage area with a small gate. He said the only element that will be visible from the street is the new gate. Ms. Rowe said that she likes the hedge and gate. Ms. Dickson appreciates that the fence is going behind the podocarpus. Mr. Keenan stated that his only question was the living fence which is typically not what is seen in the front of the house. He said since there is going to be a hedge, he is not opposed; however, believes it is in the  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 14 of 33 guidelines, so the Commission would be making a motion for this. He asked if the homeowner is proposing to install a living fence. Katie Duncan, Duncan Design Studio, stated that the property is on a corner lot and the front façade is on Royall Avenue. She said that this is the side street and it is really the backyard where the fence will be installed. Mr. Clause stated that they enter in and out on McCormick Street by design. He said although the address is technically on Royall Avenue, it is an inaccessible entrance. Ms. Wilson said that it is helpful that there are mature podocarpus foliage on site. Ms. Duncan said that they will reuse any existing hedge are able to obtain podocarpus that size to match. Ms. Rowe made a motion to accept the application at 701 Royall Avenue, final review for alterations to hardscape and landscaping; seconded by Ms. Wilson. All present voted in favor. 7. 127 Chicco Lane – TMS 532-05-00-036 – Final Review for New Construction. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Julie O’Connor, designer on the project, stated that they were here last month for conceptual comment and with those comments they have made changes to the design. She stated that they moved the house away from the marsh approximately five or six feet, but at the same time, added an 11 foot deep one story porch on the back that was not there previously. She said that they also reduced the entire rear mass to one story. She said previously they had a two story mass that was closer to the marsh and there was no porch on the back, so they reduced the entire section to a one story element. She said the only two story section is the square section that is forward on Chicco Lane. She said they deepened the front porch to give a better entry statement and slightly modify the bays on the front. She said they added piers under them to make more of a statement. She said they also modified the siding materials which were initially shingle on the Chicco Lane side and lap siding underneath. This has been changed  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 15 of 33 to board and batten on the top. She said the comments made were that it was too busy. She added that everything will be the same color so it will be more of a textural change. She said that the amount of heated and cooled square footage has been reduced and increased the amount of the porch square footage. She said it went from 12% of porches on the original submittal to 15%. She said the BAR remained somewhat the same, although slightly reduced. She said they are now at 4,081 heated and cooled square feet. She did a quick survey of the adjacent properties to the left and right of their square footage and averaged those together. She mentioned that the house at 121 Chicco Lane was the smallest of them all, but their proposed home is at the average size of heated and cooled square footage and exceed the amount of porches necessary. She said they are happy with the amount of porch gained on the marsh side. She submitted drone photographs electronically from the marsh in order to show how their proposed home will relate to their adjacent neighbors. She said the impact that the fencing around their neighboring properties has on the marsh front, was particularly of interest to her. She said their closest neighbors have large trees on the marsh side and their property does not. She said you are able to see just how much more forward the lots on the right are. She said that while their proposed home is approximately 15 feet forward of their neighbor, she does not believe it is a significant impact given the amount of fencing and grade that has been added to that property and the trees that make such an impact. She feels that they have done a good job at responding to the Commission’s comments and one of the great benefits of going down to one story is now they have a beautiful vaulted space for the living room and the amount of porch is beautiful making it a see through structure. She stated that the drone photograph also shows that all of the adjacent homes, with the exception of 121 Chicco Lane, are full two stories and have a large presence on the marsh and fill up the width of their lots. She said in terms of the harborscape, their home is consistent with this. She said they have responded well to the Commission’s comments. Ruth Brennan, 121 Chicco Lane, property owner, stated that she has a handout for the Commission and she and her husband have been living there for over 21 years. She said she would like to address the culture of  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 16 of 33 the Old Village and stated that to own this type of property and enjoy the marsh, ecology and everything present is appreciated, and the value of this property is very high. She said when they moved into their home, they knew what they were getting and understood the respect they had to have for all their neighbors. She said that the designer failed to show any example of how the house would sit out on the marsh, which is very imposing and using the critical line to get the mass of the house that they want. She said that they all have the critical line, but no one she knows on the waterfront has done this. She said the proposed home is out of the norm for the Old Village and the harborscape. She said that there is also a pool that is 30 feet out into the marsh past their front metal gate corner and said what they will be looking at is a pool, which is not inconspicuous. She said the house and piers will sit out into the line of the actual land mass and will be built into the marsh. She said the second page is their rendition, and added that this is a 70 foot wide lot, and there is a 5,400 square foot home on it and it is entirely too big for the lot. She said it goes all the way down the entire lot on both sides so the neighbors on either side see a wall of a house, especially on the Gaskin’s side. She said that on page three is the biggest issue, which is the flooding. She said that they have a very strong flooding issue along the marsh area and have always had issues. She said that any high tide that is 8 feet, it is on the property. She said that this is not going away. She said this is an Army Corps of Engineers issue that is going to have to be addressed; however a pool and piers do not need to be approved, which would be a potential issue for drainage and for their land that is adjacent. She stated that this is a very significant concern for them. She said the next page is the Gaskin’s home, which is 131 Chicco Street and it indicates how much water goes into their yard. She said if the proposed home builds up with the two feet requirement, which is allowed, from where their pier sits, which is four feet, this is now a total of six feet. She said an eight foot tide would go into the proposed pool and into the subfloor area. She said there is going to be an issue with moisture and controlled moisture, which is not going to work. She provided additional photographs that indicate how many occasions the water line goes back. She also added an article from September, 2017 that discusses the new restrictions on property and the  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 17 of 33 way homeowners are addressing their properties for flooding purposes, because the water table is rising. She said there are other articles regarding the Old Village and lot coverage. She said just because a critical line is used to increase the massing of a house, it does not mean that you also push it into the marsh. She added that it is so negligent, stripping the neighbors of their wonderful experience on the water. She said none of the houses are without green space, which brings to the culture a sense of respect. She said on the proposed plans, they do not have any green space and said that the house is ten feet off both sides. She said it is only six feet from the front of her home, because there is a thirty foot pool proposed. She said that it is completely disrespectful to the culture, the environment and the neighbors are very concerned. She said that they are setback fifty feet, when the requirement is twenty-five. She said she is asking that the Commission look at this, because they could easily move their house up towards the driveway and the twenty five feet forward and still have the twenty five foot setback. She said all that is out there is concrete. She said what they are really there for is the water front and all the neighbors sit on their porches. She said it would be simple for the homeowners to push their house up twenty five feet forward and still be setback twenty five feet and respect that the adjacent properties are also back. They should not be an exception. She said what sticks out to her is the appropriate and the inappropriate plan shown on the guidelines and said the proposed home falls into the category of the inappropriate plan presented. She said that new construction should be harmonious in size, scale, massing, form, etc. She does not feel the house is attractive and other things could have been done to make it attractive. She said the property owners have every right to build their home and they welcome them. She asked if this was a spec home or if there are real homeowners. She read the guidelines that state, “new construction should adhere to the underlying setbacks required of the lot”, which according to the Town ordinance, it does adhere; however, for the Old Village, it does not apply. She further indicated that the setbacks should respect the structures of the adjacent properties, which is on page 28. She said in closing, she would like to ask that the pool not be approved, as more work needs to be accomplished in order to consider a pool and it should be inconspicuous to the neighbors.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 18 of 33 She said that she has a pool that sits in the middle of their property. She said she has the right to do things on her property, but does not do them, because it is the right thing to do. She said if a precedence is set, it will cause a landslide effect and the Old Village and the marsh will cease to exist. Keith Jones, 121 Chicco Lane, said that he always knew that a house would be built on that lot one day. He said his concerns are very similar to his wife’s and all her comments were from the Old Village Historic District Commission guidelines. He said there is streetscape, harborscape and how buildings are subject to the Commission’s design. He said that the home does not follow the harborscape of the Village. He said that in reference to the proposed pool, the shallow end of the pool is at six feet and the deep end is at five feet and this is the elevation on the property. He said that on a seven foot tide, he does not see how this can be done. He said the pool goes six feet past the corner of the fence of their property in front of the old sewer, not where their house comes to. He said he does not understand the engineering of this or any of their retaining walls. He said with the amount of water that comes onto this lot, they must look at what is going to happen when the water comes in on both sides. Janice Gaskins, 131 Chicco, stated that she is here to speak on behalf of her neighbor, Fred Crawford who lives next door to her. She said he was unable to attend this evening. She read Mr. Crawford’s note: My name is Fred Crawford and we have lived for 37 years in the house we built at 135 Chicco Lane, in 1985. At that time, our neighbors’ homes on either side were set back to the exact same distance from the water. We saw no reason to be any closer to the water and we also wanted to be a good neighbor, so we set our home back at the same distance as theirs. There were no oak trees on our lot and we still have no oak trees on our lot that would have prevented us from building closer to the water. In 1989, hurricane Hugo pretty much destroyed both neighbors’ homes. After the lots were sold, the new owners chose to also be good neighbors and set their houses back at the same exact line with us, as to the distances as previous houses and made the same choice as ours.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 19 of 33 Ms. Gaskins said that what Mr. Crawford is saying is when he built his house at that time, there were no exact setback rules and he could have put his house all the way to the water, but he didn’t, because he had neighbors on either side and wanted to be a good neighbor. She said that his house was built first, her house was destroyed by hurricane Hugo and was setback exactly with Mr. Crawford’s. She said the neighbor on the corner of Chicco and McCants were the last to build and they also chose to set back. She said they are all set in a row and the proposed home is going to come out and sit 25 feet, which was previously 40 feet. She said it will stick out way in front of them and this is not what any of the neighbors have done, trying to be good neighbors. She would like to ask them to think about pushing it more towards the road and be a good neighbor. Joanne Cooke, 631 Pitt Street, said they are on two lots and have a cottage on the back lot, which is at 130 Chicco Lane. She has lived there for 52 years. She said her husband’s office was in the cottage in the back yard. She said he was in the shipping business. She said he also took care of the maintenance of the lot at 127 Chicco Lane. She said they lived through hurricane Hugo and added that her lot is the highest lot in the village, so they did not have any flooding or damage. She said the lot at 127 Chicco is always flooding and whatever debris floats into the river during the storm come onto 127 Chicco. She said she has neighbors on the front on Pitt Street and neighbors in the back on Chicco Lane and said it is all one little village. She said in regards to water runoff, there is only ten feet on either side of the proposed house on this lot and asked where the water will run off. She said the water will need to go somewhere which means all the houses in that area are going to flood. Mr. Pohlman reminded the Commission that water and storm runoff is not reviewed by the Commission, but accomplished during the building permit phase. Ms. Cooke said everyone was using Mr. Robert Broome’s lot (127 Chicco Lane) as a garbage disposal, even the Town. She said he (or his attorney), wrote letters to everyone and asked them not to do anything on this property, because “someone should question whether there was toxic waste on this lot, as it appears that there are a lot of people who are not  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 20 of 33 going to be able to escape liability”. Ms. Cooke stated that the Town’s Public Services Department was using this lot, so there is a lot more to it than building a big house. She said that people are on their porches and look to the left and right and see Fort Sumter and downtown and if a house is built too far out, it spoils the view for many of the neighbors. Ms. O’Connor stated that she would like to thank the neighbors for their information regarding the flooding and this something they will take under advisement. She said they do have their pool raised up two feet. Mr. Keenan asked if there was any fill dirt coming in. Ms. O’Connor said the properties on either side are higher than this lot so it is something they need to consider. She said in terms of drainage, the lot slopes severely from Chicco Lane down towards the marsh. She said the idea of moving the pool back is potentially on the table. She said she appreciates the information regarding the flooding from the neighbors. She said that at the last meeting 40 feet was mentioned and was incorrect. She said the house was forward of the neighbor by 25 feet at the last meeting and now it is at 16 feet. She said in reference to the graphic provided by Ms. Brennan, on the first page it shows that the house is all the way out to the fence line of the neighbor. In fact, the proposed house is 20 feet back from the fence line of the neighbor, so the graphic is incorrect. She stated if the Commission looks at her sheet #2002, it will indicate where their fence line is and it is 20 feet in front. Ms. Wilson stated that what Ms. O’Connor is referring to is the riprap wall. Ms. O’Connor stated that she is not familiar with what a riprap wall is. Ms. Wilson stated that it is the seawall. She said on the drone photographs, you are able to see the seawall. Ms. O’Connor said that she is 20 feet back from that. Ms. Wilson stated that she is not. Ms. O’Connor stated that she is talking about the Gaskin’s property and the image shown from the drone photograph is indicating the fence line, which is the riprap wall and reiterated that she is 20 feet back from there. She said the porch is 11 feet deep.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 21 of 33 Ms. Rowe asked Ms. O’Connor if she indicated that she was 25 feet back at the last meeting. Ms. O’Connor stated that she was 25 feet forward of the Gaskins’ house and now she is 16 feet forward of the Gaskins’ house. Mr. Hirshorn asked if Ms. O’Connor was measuring from the end of the house or the porch. Ms. O’Connor said from the porch. She said that her porch corner is now 16 feet in front of the Gaskins’ corner. Mr. Keenan stated that there appears to be some discrepancies. Ms. O’Connor stated that she would like to point out the drawings are to scale and have dimensions on them. She said the front of the Gaskins’ house is 75 feet from their property line which is in the marsh and is an odd way to measure it, but the only fixed point she has. She said that the Gaskins’ house is 75 feet from their rear property line which is in the marsh. She said that her house is 59 feet from their property line which lines up with theirs, so their property is now 16 feet in front. Mr. Jones said that their porch takes up the whole view. Ms. O’Connor said that she is not debating this, but advising what the numbers are. She said that on Ms. Brennan’s first photograph with their proposed house noted on it is not correct. She said it is the same as the next image. She said the next few images regarding the flooding are very helpful and she appreciates those very much. She said that she would also like to respond to the statement that Ms. Brennan made that no one goes up as close as they can get to the critical line. She said that this is not the case. She said the 101, 105 and 107 Middle Street homes are built as close as possible to the critical line, so this is not an unusual circumstance in the Old Village. She said in terms of setting back from Chicco Lane, all of the homes on Chicco Lane are setback more than 50 feet from Chicco lane. She said she wanted to clear up some of the misinformation that was provided. She said in terms of toxic waste on the property, she said this is something they definitely would like to know. She thanked the neighbors for this information.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 22 of 33 Ms. Wilson stated that she understands that Ms. O’Connor feels there is some discrepancy and said that the neighbors are not the professionals and have done the best they were able to do. She said that their drawing was actually closer to scale with regards to the house than the drawing that Ms. O’Conner did with the appendix where the CAD drawing was done on the photographs. She said because this is a significant request, this item was important. Ms. O’Conner said that she was unsure which drawing Ms. Wilson was referring to. Ms. Wilson said that it does not have a label on it, but was towards the back. She said it has Ms. O’Connor CAD drawing on it, not to scale with the photographs. Ms. O’Connor said that she did scale the photographs and said that it is to scale. She said those houses are taller than their proposed house. Ms. Wilson said that she went to the site and measured the width of the Gaskins on the front, which was approximately 20 feet – the piece that comes to the forward of the street and Ms. O’Connor’s is 50 feet. She said that it could be to scale, but it does not read that way. She said that the addresses on Middle Street are not relevant. She said that it is the two blocks on Chicco Lane. She said that she stood out there and felt there was no reason for this house to go even one foot past the houses to the left. She said she would personally add that it should split the difference between the house on the right and the left. She said that the proposed house is 30 feet in front of the Brennan’s and 16 feet in front of the Gaskins and it should be behind the Gaskins and somewhere in the average between the two properties set. She said that this would be the compatible neighborhood thing to do. Ms. Pohlman asked Ms. Wilson to clarify “in front”. Ms. Wilson stated marsh side. She said that the proposed house is already pretty far in front of them on Chicco Lane already as well and while she appreciates that the change was made to drop to a one story on the back, there was a discussion at the last meeting about the massing on the front which is tremendous at 50 feet wide and over 40 feet tall and just not in  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 23 of 33 keeping with what is there now. She said it is a thorough set and has a great deal of detail which she appreciates, but said she was hoping the Commission was going to have the opportunity to have another conceptual review of this, because she feels the front massing needs to be broken up and needs to come back off the critical significantly. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees with Ms. Wilson’s comments and going in front of the neighbors’ homes is not something she will support. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he concurs and ties this to the guidelines on new construction on massing and scale and location on the lot, as well as in conjunction with the street in general, which is crucial and something the Commission reviews closely. He said the house that Ms. O’Connor designed on Middle Street has a similar issue. He said that there are a number of issues with the front façade of this proposed home, the extension of the rear façade, the materials and windows, and to echo Ms. Wilson’s comments, another conceptual review would be necessary. Ms. Dickson stated that she agrees with the comments of Commission members and added that it is too big of a house for the lot. Mr. Keenan stated that his concerns are fairly consistent, and believes it needs to come back off of the marsh. He said there is ample room on Chicco lane. He said that he is also concerned with the front elevation as far as the scaling. He said that typically, there are up to three rounds of conceptual review and believed it was premature after the comments Ms. O’Connor received last month. He said the Commission would like to work with the property owners on this project, and the neighbors would also like to work with them. He said that he would like to see both existing and proposed side by side at the next meeting in order to understand what was drawn and what is being proposed. He said that the pool is also a concern and the flooding is a great point and he would like for the pool to shift back as well. John Frick, stated that he is the owner of 127 Chicco Lane and is also curious about the flooding issues and appreciates what the neighbors have experienced through their years of living there. He said if he pulls the house back substantially, approximately 15 or 16 feet, or however far they are past the Gaskins’ now and brings in fill to work on the elevation with  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 24 of 33 the flooding, they are still lower than the neighbors. He said that there was discussion about bringing in fill; however, they did not want to create an issue for the neighbors with flooding. He said with a small amount of fill and mindful planning, the runoff can be controlled, because the lot is sloped and the water is going to flow towards the harbor. He said there have been a number of comments regarding the home being too big for the neighborhood. He said that he does not believe this is true. He said that he is a family of six and needs a big home and asked Commission members if he should not purchase the lot because he cannot build the home he needs for his family. He said he would like for this to be taken into consideration. Ms. Wilson moved to deny the application for final approval at 127 Chicco Lane; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. 8. 108 Carr Street – (Survey 6269) – Final Review for New Accessory Structure, Pool, Addition, and Fencing. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Michael Taliercio, Charleston Drafting Company representing the homeowners, Stephen and Charlette Zacharkiw. He said that he would like to review some of the changes from the last meeting. He said one of the main changes was the rear fence/pool enclosure. He said originally there was a privacy fence; however, the neighbors to rear facing Royall Avenue, decided that they would prefer the fence to match theirs. He said that it slopes, so the fence was terraced down. He said that it is five feet on the right side; however, because of the grade, it puts it just over four feet to meet the pool enclosure standards. He said they would like to keep the same design of the fence and use it on the side property lines as well. He said the width of the pool cabana was reduced by another three feet to bring it away from the oak tree and reduced the scale and coverage of impervious surfaces. He said they changed the guardrail on the front porch to match the guardrail on the rear porch of the home. He said currently, they are not showing any shutters for more privacy on the pool cabana until it is built and potentially put up curtains or hang shutters. He said at this time, they are not proposing to show anything there. He said water runoff was another concern of the rear neighbors, so they will have  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 25 of 33 gutters on the pool cabana, which will run towards the front of the property instead of the rear. He said in reference to the proposed shed, one of the comments at the last meeting was the materials, which were previously lap siding and it is currently showing as brick. He said Ms. Wilson’s comment was to try and study to see if the height of the shed could be raised in order to relate more to the house. He said they did study this and showed it to his clients. He said they did not feel it was appropriate because with the doors on the front and back of the shed, it would relate to the ground level and not to the first floor level which is the raised crawl space. He said while a window could be installed on the side so it appears to relate to the inside, with the doors on it, it was still awkward. He said they would like to keep it at the height it is now, but change the cladding to brick instead of lap siding. Mr. Keenan said that it is basically a brick enclosure. He asked if the pool was always raised. Mr. Taliercio said that on one side, it is a few inches above grade, and said that because the site slopes considerably, it is less than thirty inches on the other end. Ms. Wilson asked if the Town’s arborist has provided his comments. Mr. Taliercio stated that prior to his involvement last year, Mr. Zacharkiw met with Mr. Bernard and he required Mr. Zacharkiw to hire a certified arborist to see if the roots would be an issue and the certified arborist found that they would not be. He said that the plans on how the main conduits from the house to the pool cabana for electricity still need to be reviewed by Mr. Bernard to ensure it does not interfere with the root system. Ms. Dickson asked if the pool would cause issues with the root system. Mr. Taliercio said that was the main concern and the arborist said that it would not. He said the main trunk line roots do not go under that footprint. Bobby Byrd, said he and his wife live at 304 Bank Street on the corner of Bank and Carr Streets. He said that his backyard is the property that is next to the Zacharkiw’s. He said when Mrs. Zacharkiw came in this evening, he  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 26 of 33 advised her that he was not here to speak against the application and does not have an issue with the Zacharkiw’s building a pool or the aesthetics. He said that he did have a concern about the large oak tree in the back; however, he is confident it will be remedied by the experts. He said the minutes from the last meeting eluded to the fact that he consented to what was going on and he does not. He said that his biggest concern is the water drainage. He said they have lived in their home for 22 years and have never had any water drainage from their property, even after the house was built. He said they have not had any standing water in the yard. He said that this is his only real concern. He said the neighbor on the other side on the corner of Bank Street and Royall Avenue spoke at the last meeting, he has hired an engineer and advised him that he should be concerned about the water runoff. He said that he heard earlier that it is beyond the purview of this Commission. He said that he does not know how this can be. He said that of the three properties, his is the only one that is historic, having been built in the 1900’s. He said his concern would be the standing water draining into his property. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission does not have any purview over the drainage plan. He said that it is up to the engineers. Ms. Wilson stated that she is still having an issue with the shed. She said because of the historic cemetery on the left side, she has concerns. She said if this means a floor needs to go in and have steps to lift the stair, then this is something that could be done. She said she appreciates the brick, because it is an added expense; however, it still looks like a shed tacked on to a house. She said that her recollection from the previous meeting was the back side of the pool cabana was going to be shuttered. She said that this cabana is backing up to a major thoroughfare entering into the Old Village and other people do not need to view this. She said that this is an unusual situation, because what is being entertained is a backyard accessory structure, in what is someone else’s front yard. She said the cabana should not be open air and seen from Whilden, Royall or any other road. She recalled the discussions of louvered shutters in order to obscure it on the backside.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 27 of 33 Ms. Rowe stated that she has had concerns about the shed from the first application, because of the scale and it appears to be stuck on the side of the home. Mr. Hirshorn stated that could support a utility shed structure and would defer to the professional, Ms. Wilson, from an architectural standpoint. He stated that being situated next to the historic cemetery, all of the proposed changes are being taken into context. He said it is very difficult for him to see an appropriate way to build a pool cabana so close to the cemetery. He said that this again falls into the guidelines on new construction. He said he is willing to hear other comments on this. He said from a historical preservation standpoint, it is difficult to consider. Ms. Dickson said that she agrees with Commission members’ comments; however, her main concern are the trees and prior to her consideration, she would like to have something concrete from the arborist. She asked if one of the trees was being removed. Mr. Taliercio stated that none of the grand trees were being removed; however, there is a 16 inch oak that they requested to be removed. Mr. Pohlman stated that Mr. Bernard is aware of all that has been stated and will review thoroughly prior to permitting. He stated that the Zacharkiw’s have received an email from Mr. Bernard, the Town’s arborist. Mrs. Zacharkiw stated that she appreciates all the feedback as this is their 5th time coming back before the Commission. She said that they did meet with Mr. Eddie Bernard, from the Town and also had an arborist come and dig trenches to examine the roots. She said they care very deeply for their oak trees, so much so that they would not have proposed the pool if it meant harming the trees. She said Mr. Bernard was appalled that their home was built to the tree. She said it was not their design, but they purchased the house already constructed. She said that when the arborist dug the trench, he found that the tree roots are growing into the cemetery and not their property. She said there is a letter of approval. Mr. Pohlman stated that when the plans are submitted for building permits, Mr. Bernard will re-review to ensure all the data is still appropriate.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 28 of 33 Mr. Taliercio said that at the last meeting, he was under the impression that the pool cabana and the pool were acceptable if they brought it down in scale. He said he feels like things are regressing. He said other details are not as important until there is clarity on the pool and pool cabana. He said the size of the cabana is fairly small. Mr. Keenan stated that he is fine with the utility shed and understands the need for storage. He is having some concerns with the pool and the pool cabana, based on the location of the backyard and the visible viewpoint from everything around it. He said that louvered shutters would be helpful on the pool house from the Royall Avenue viewpoint. Mr. Hirshorn said that it is the pool house and its location that has been the issue, adjacent to the cemetery. Ms. Rowe said that a pergola that is seen from the road is not allowed to be built. Mr. Pohlman responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rowe asked what the difference is between the pergola and the pool cabana being seen from the road. Mr. Taliercio stated that it is being defined as an accessory building and not a pergola. Mr. Pohlman said that the proposed cabana would have a solid roof structure. He stated that pergolas, arbors and trellises are typically open air structures. Mr. Keenan stated that the fence and chimney help hide this. Ms. Wilson stated that Mr. Hirshorn’s concern is this being visible from the cemetery. Mrs. Zacharkiw asked if the Commission would consider voting on the fencing this evening, so they are able to move forward one aspect of the project. She said that they would love to make their home and yard beautiful for the neighborhood, and added that they have received positive feedback on their front yard. She said that they are willing to do whatever the Commission is requesting and if the Commission does not want the pool house/cabana, then they will not build it.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 29 of 33 Ms. Wilson said that she does not totally disagree with the cemetery view; however, she is in favor of an accessory structure, because it anchors their property. She said with the appropriate façade facing Whilden, the accessory structure would be acceptable. She said she would be amenable to the louvers being operable on Whilden and on the cemetery side, they should be fixed. She said if some type of louvered system, or fence or landscaping of the whole panel on the gable end of the accessory structure and pool became something that was screened, she would be in favor. She asked the homeowner if they considered rotating the pool, because then the back of the cabana would be facing the cemetery. She said that she has more concern with the cemetery than the view on Royall Avenue. Mr. Taliercio stated that it would be pushing it closer to the grand oak and would be an issue. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes the Commission is at a point where they are able to make a motion on the fence. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve the fence at 108 Carr Street, as submitted and defer the pool, pool house and shed until the December meeting. Ms. Wilson said she would second the motion if the Commission is actually telling them that with the revisions they are going to be able to move forward on their project. Mr. Pohlman stated that before there can be discussion, a second must be made. Mr. Hirshorn withdrew his motion. Ms. Wilson stated that regarding the pool house, the pool house should not be viewed from the cemetery. Mr. Hirshorn stated that in order to approve the pool house, there would have to be significant elements of privacy, particularly on the historical elements where the cemetery sits. He said with reference to the shed, he is open to an appropriate design and is very close to approving that element.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 30 of 33 Ms. Wilson said that it should be lifted and tied into the elevation of the house with a window or a fixed shutter, as it has shed proportions instead of house proportions, but seen as an extension of the house. She stated that the roof should lift up and be in line with the porch roofs on both sides. She said she does not have an issue with the back being solid, because it is currently blank; however, if they would like to install a window or fixed shutter, it may provide some detail, but it would be up to the homeowner. She said that the shed needs to look like it belongs with the floor plates of the house. Mr. Taliercio stated that the door on the front would have to be eliminated on the front side of the shed and only put in a door on the rear side with steps going up. He said, otherwise, he is not sure about having a high window and a low door on the same bump out. Ms. Wilson said that there will be stand up paddle boards and other equipment. Mr. Taliercio said that there will also by bicycles and toys. Ms. Wilson said that they could float a floor in there with pressure treated wood, with a few steps to go into the door and everything is raised. Mr. Taliercio stated that if it is going to relate to the house by raising the roofline, he feels that the doors going into the shed from the outside also need to be at that level. He said that they would likely eliminate the one on the front side of the house. Ms. Wilson stated that she was suggesting a few steps on the front to step up. Mr. Taliercio asked if this would be for the back side as well. Ms. Wilson said if they want both doors; she does not have an issue with the doors. Ms. Rowe suggested just a window on the front. Ms. Wilson stated that it is the left side elevation because of the cemetery that is more of a concern to her than the doors.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 31 of 33 Ms. Wilson stated that if the storage is important, she would approve the storage, assuming that Mr. Taliercio will line the top plate up with the porch and the drawings could be submitted to Mr. Pohlman. Commission members agreed. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the fence and the storage shed, with the top plate of the storage shed to align with the top plate to align with porches at 108 Carr Street, and conceptually accept the pool and cabana, pending enclosure details at the next Commission meeting; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. (Mr. Hirshorn departed the meeting at 7:26 p.m. 9. 212 Live Oak Drive – (HISTORIC 6233) TMS 517-15-00-028 – Final Review for New Addition and Exterior Alterations. [Consent Approval] 10. 131 Live Oak Drive – TMS 517-15-00-139 – Final Review for Alteration to Hardscape and Fencing. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Jennifer Dickerson, property owner, said that she did come before the Commission in September. She said that the original proposal was to extend the driveway to the fence line and after listening to the Commission’s comments, she decided that they would not change the footprint of the driveway at all. She said that there are brick pavers bordering the entire driveway and will leave those in place and take out the gravel that is currently there and proposes to replace them with pervious pavers. She said their driveway sits on a hill and the gravel spills out onto Toomer Lane. She said that the pervious pavers accomplish the same permeability for water and are much more attractive. She said the other reason why they were originally requesting to extend the pavers to the fence line to the back of the house was because they believed they could park their golf cart in that area. She said Mr. Martschink, who owns the property behind theirs, pointed out that their fence along the back of the property followed the wrong fixed point and built the fence two feet over onto Mr. Martshink’s property. She said that they bought the home  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 32 of 33 when it was less than one year old and did not get a survey. She said that they must now move the fence off of Mr. Martshink’s property. She said the original proposal from the architect shows what they would like to accomplish. She said she would like to put the fence and the gate exactly how it was drawn by the architect. Ms. Wilson asked if it is a stucco column with vertical wood. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the new pavers on the driveway and fencing at 131 Live Oak Drive, as submitted; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. 11. 840 Pitt Street – (HISTORIC 5966) TMS 532-09-00-057 – Final Review for Replacement to Porch, Columns, and Rails. Mr. Pohlman reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Coleen Griffin, property owner, stated that their second story porch floor is leaking into the ceiling of the first floor porch and causing wood rot. She said that a number of contractors have advised that it needs to be replaced. She said they are proposing to replace the second story porch floor with treated tongue and groove, which is the same as what it is. She added that some of the corner columns also have wood rot and contractors have stated that structurally, they need to be replaced. She said they are proposing to replace the corner wood columns with new wood columns that are the same as what is in place now. Mr. Keenan asked if the application is only for the floor decking and the columns. Ms. Wilson moved to approve the proposal for flooring and columns at 840 Pitt Street; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. IV. Staff Approvals 1. 645 Royall Avenue – (Survey 5990) TMS 532-09-00-250– Minor Work for Replacement of Window V. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Dickson moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor.  Old Village Historic District Commission November 13, 2017 Page 33 of 33 There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe November 13, 2017