Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC meeting summary 05282025 Orange County HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Approved Meeting Summary May 28th, 2025 Bonnie Davis Center, 1020 US 70 West, Hillsborough MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Deetz, Todd Dickinson, Rob Golan, Carol Ann Lewald, Cecelia Moore, Anne Whisnant MEMBERS ABSENT: Art Menius STAFF PRESENT: Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Coordinator GUESTS: Rod Mullen, interested citizen ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Dickinson called the meeting to order at 6:29 pm. ITEM #2: CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO AGENDA: None ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES for April 23rd, 2025, meeting: Golan moved to approve, seconded by Deetz; guest Mullen noted that his first name was Rod, not Ron; correction noted by staff; motion carried. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DECISION: None ITEM #5: DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Landmark evaluation form: evaluation exercise using updated edition of form: staff referred members to the handout of the updated evaluation form, incorporating input from our meeting when this was discussed. Staff suggested that the best way to refine the form will be to use it in a real evaluation exercise. The owner of the James H. and Bernetta Cole Hackney House at 753 Smith Level Road have expressed interest in applying for landmark status. Staff provided PowerPoint presentation about the ca. 1903 one-story Queen-Anne influenced farmhouse on a 12 acres site south of Chapel Hill, located within the Chapel Hill ETJ. This house is noteworthy for its exceptionally ornate patterned shingle detailing and stylish porch. This first came on our radar in 2000, when NCDOT evaluated it for a proposed road widening project and determined, with the SHPO agreement, that the house was eligible for the National Register, so it was placed it on the State Study. The shingle work and front porch are among the best examples of their type and style still extant in the county, outside of the town limits. Staff shared photos of the exterior and interior, along with site plan drawings and aerial photos showing the house in context. The interior exhibits two highly decorated vernacular Victorian mantels that are among the finest known in rural Orange County. These represent high levels of craft and inventiveness, to the extent that they are folk art, in the spirit of the work of Thomas Day in the northern part of the county fifty years earlier. Some outbuildings remain standing. This is a typical farmstead from that period, with typical outbuildings. It's likely that it stands on a portion of the land that was formerly part of the nearby Smith plantation. Discussion followed about the form, the scoring process, how to evaluate integrity of site features. Lewald suggested adding a rubric that provides explanatory detail and guidance about the criteria and how to apply it, ie, what is required for a high or low score etc. For example, architectural significance will be high for a property designed by a notable architect. But equally significant are vernacular properties crafted by talented but unknown carpenter- 1 builders. In this case, its notable details make it very significant, as an example of a small humble farmhouse with these amazing details. There were questions about the orientation to the road and if the alignment of Smith Level Road has been changed, and about how to evaluate the cultural significance. There was a sense that if a property was just average in every area of the evaluation, this new form might automatically determine that an average resource is eligible. So how do we discern all this? Properties should be eligible to be landmarks for being important/significant in just one of these main criteria categories. So in the first section, maybe there's a way to restructure it to allow properties to stand out or shine in one or two areas of significance, but not all of these. Maybe meet a minimum threshold. In its present form, this creates too many options/paths and might dilute its chance. So maybe structure this differently so that you have to be "special" in just one or two categories. Underrepresented might be under cultural. Like broader categories that will help us determine that something possesses "special" significance. So that you end up ranking things in maybe four categories. And using NA is an OK answer too. So maybe collapse all these down into fewer major categories. You'd be checking boxes in this first section, rather than scoring for all these attributes. So then maybe the scoring is more useful in the "integrity" section. The old form did that by assigning different weights for each box. So maybe take the top most criteria. All it needs to do is to get a checkbox in one of the top categories. Then you apply the underlying criteria, with a score, for condition, integrity, rarity, at risk etc. Not unlike the National Register criteria, which keeps the thinking at a high level. We determine why/what category it might be special in, without a score, then we apply the integrity criteria with scoring. A property can just be significant for its cultural aspects and have very little architectural or physical integrity. So we will judge on its merit and context. Rarity can be an example of something that is mostly gone, few survive with these details etc. We may still need to have a "mitigating circumstances" section. The rubric idea is still important. What makes something significant as a tenant house? Here's it's quality, and the nature of its quality is that its well documented or its rare or the best preserved of its type. So maybe it needs to have a set number of the checkboxes. It just needs to pass. The apples versus oranges situation. We need to have the rubric as backup. The NR criteria tend to bias toward precious, fine buildings, and against the sort of ordinary rural, even trashy, landscape. We don't want to give credit just for being on the NR?? Some things are objective, maybe integrity and rarity, as these can be quantified to some degree at least. Back in 2000, this was considered a rural setting, but now its definitely rapidly developing. It's actually remarkable that it survived, only due to the owner's love for the property. Members worked through the rest of the draft form with more discussion about the categories and criteria. Again, NA proved to be relevant. Maybe the mantels are considered "contributing features" as they are exceptional. For the integrity criteria, a really important structure might be in really bad condition. This goes back to having the rubric, that clarifies what is good condition versus bad condition. Condition applies to the fabric of the structure, rather than whether or not it has a modern HVAC or kitchen. Do we need to use points or not for this process? At risk? Well, larger tract could be subdivided and sold for lots for a subdivision? It's assessed tax value has almost doubled under the new updated county tax valuations, so that helps illustrate the risk. In the final tally, this property scores at around 57 or 58 using the new form. 149:00 b. DNA project at Black burial sites by ASHES Lab at NCSU: This proposal calls for examining the graves at the cemetery for the enslaved workers at Hardscrabble Plantation, to gather samples in a respectful way to analyze for DNA of the burial soil, to assess the bacterial microbiome DNA and maybe with luck some human DNA. The unique nature of each human's microbiome can be used to learn about diseases and health patterns of communities, and possibly can be correlated to living descendants. Discussion followed about the nature of the sampling, how invasive it might be, and the ethics associated with any activity at a historic or prehistoric human grave. This is being done in partnership with the local non-profit group called Indigenous Memories, founded 2 by Judge Beverly Scarlett who helped save the Hardscrabble cemetery. Staff will reach out to Judge Scarlett to learn more. c. Historical marker project: This is something we talked about at the last meeting and didn't have time to pursue. Staff will reach out to the volunteers, consisting of Moore, Whisnant, Deetz and Menius. There has been interest among the membership for some time to explore a marker program. d. Field trip planning: Staff has been working with owners to confirm dates. We now have the confirmed date of June 20 to go to Faucett Mill, at the invitation of the owners. Staff will follow up with final details for this. Staff will continue to work to set up a tour of the Andrews Modernist house later in the summer and will put out some dates. e. June meeting: Staff proposed cancelling the June 25th meeting in light the planned field trip to be held on June 20th. There are no items for decision pending, so staff will recommend not meeting in June. That was agreeable to the membership. ITEM #6: UPDATES AND INFORMATION ITEMS a. Currie-Neville Log House on Old NC 86: potential landmark designation: Staff showed a brief PowerPoint to review the Currie-Neville Log House, built by a white farmer then purchased in the early 20th century by the Nevilles, a Black farming family, who lived in the log house until 1962. The new owner is interested in Landmark status. b. Andrews House National Register Nomination: Underway; no additional update. c. Status of Federal Historic Preservation funding: Current projections show significant cuts to the federal funding for the state preservation programs nationwide. County funding holding at the moment, pending impact of potential federal/state cuts; Dickinson had heard that several key positions in the SHPO were federally funding. d. Book Project update: deferred to next meeting in the interest of time. e. Open airtime: None. ITEM #7: ADJOURNMENT: Dickinson adjourned the meeting at 8:43 pm. Meeting summary by Peter Sandbeck, DEAPR staff 3