At the Oct. 20 meeting of the Historic District Commission, commissioners discussed the possibility of explaining negative votes in more detail. At that time, Chair Dee Bright continued the item to the next agenda and asked everyone to give some thought to the subject. Last week, discussion continued as commissioners considered which applications might need more detail, and how to provide that.
Bright reminded everyone that those voting against an application should have specific guidelines to justify a decision, not just a sense of whether or not they like the project. Commissioner Steve Holifield said any efforts toward transparency would benefit the commission, and that he would personally benefit from hearing why others voted the way they did.
Commissioners considered extending a grace period of up to 72 hours to allow a rejected applicant to ask for specific reasons. City Historic Preservation Officer Kylee Hevrdejs raised logistical questions that would arise if she had to obtain quick responses from commissioners several days after a meeting.
She also noted that the process would not be part of the public record, as it would be at a regular meeting. Hevrdejs agreed with Bright about reasons to oppose an application. “When you make your vote, you should know why you made that vote,” she said. The process of explaining negative votes would help the applicant and the general public as well.
All agreed to leaving the discretion with the Chair to ask for justification after a rejected application. The applicant can also request that polling.
In other business:
- At 145 Mill Hollow Rd., Mike Breedlove asked to remove a small wooden bridge and add a deck. The house was built in 1990. Photos accompanying the application showed the deterioration of the bridge, and that although the deck would be on the front of the house, it is set back from the road and separated by a creek. Landscaping and vegetation between the house and the road also help to minimize its appearance.
The application was approved, with commissioner Randy Maddox opposed.
- Tom Buford received approval to build a single-family residence at 3 Dairy Hollow Ct. Buford said he is buying the property and plans to build a house 44 by 24 feet. Design of the house includes a shed roof with a low slope, and Buford had asked for approval of a form of lap-panel roofing that the HDC does not generally accept. A true standing-seam roof would cost considerably more.
The application noted that Buford would use asphalt shingles if the HDC objected to the metal panels he had selected. All approved the application, but Maddox then noted that the low roof pitch would call for continuous material, not asphalt shingles. Buford said he would check with his roofing contractor, and Bright asked him to report any changes to Hevrdejs.
During the discussion on Buford’s application, Maddox read from commission guidelines. He noted that although the HDC prefers a standing-seam roof, commissioners can consider other materials on a case-by-case basis.
- Kimberly Clark, a resident of Pivot Rock Rd., came to the microphone after the Dairy Hollow Ct. project was approved. She complained of Pivot Rock Rd. “getting gentrified by the day with $50,000 lots.” She said the commission needs to consider ways to increase affordable housing.
- Commissioner Marty Cogan had requested a discussion of the required elements of an application. In her absence, that item was moved to the agenda for the next meeting.
- The HDC will next meet at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 17. Level III applications were due Nov. 4, and other levels are due by Nov. 10.