McLean County Times

Town of Normal Historic Preservation Commission met Feb. 21.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Members Present: Nancy Armstrong, Chris Niebur, Robert Porter, Justin Vickers, Anne Matter Members Absent: Kathy Burgess, Larry Schumacher

Others Present: Mercy Davison, Town Planner; Tessa Ferraro, Associate Planner; Hannah Neal, Inspections and Planning Office Associate; Kevin Sheahan, Legal Assistant Corporation Counsel

Call to order:

The meeting was called to order at 12:30 pm by Ms. Matter

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Niebur moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting on January 9th, 2024. Ms. Armstrong seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

Public Hearing:

a. CA-24-02-06: Vinyl privacy fence, 408 W Virginia

Ms. Armstrong moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness request; Mr. Porter seconded. Ms. Matter asked if the homeowner had anything they wanted to say about the fence.

The homeowner said that they would like the fence to look better, and that they aren’t able to keep up with the wood fence as is. It is currently made out of several different materials.

Ms. Armstrong asked if they had explored options besides vinyl.

The homeowner said yes, but that they haven’t explored wood. She added that they thought it would look better if it was at least all the same material, and since it’s not street facing, they thought it would be ok to replace with another material. They are currently hoping to replace with a vinyl fence.

Ms. Matter said that there is quite a bit of the fence that is visible from the street. She said that the commission does not approve vinyl as it is not compatible with the historic district.

Mr. Vickers asked if they had gotten a quote for a wood replacement as opposed to the vinyl. The homeowner said no, because they have no intention of replacing the fence with wood. Ms. Matter asked if they had explored the option of an aluminum fence.

The homeowner's contractor spoke up at this time and said that the aluminum doesn’t offer privacy. He also asked if they would consider vinyl if it was a different color.

Ms. Matter said it was really more the material, and that she opposes a vinyl fence.

Ms. Armstrong said she was opposed to vinyl as well, and that they can’t set the precedent when they have consistently denied vinyl previously.

The homeowner said that when the Historic District had first started, she was told that just the front of the house would be considered.

The contractor asked for a compromise and wanted to know if they kept the aluminum in the front and did vinyl on the side, if that would be acceptable.

Ms. Ferraro said that the code lists anything that is visible to the street needs to go along with the Historic Preservation Commission codes.

At this time the contractor asked for clarification on what the issue is with the vinyl and Ms. Matter said that it is not historically compatible, meaning it would not have existed when the property was originally built.

He had asked if that was the case, then the metal building on the property should also be against code.

Ms. Matter said no, and that the building was grandfathered in. It had already been there when the code was put in place. Ms. Ferraro added that the metal building is also not visible from the street so does not need to adhere to the preservation code.

Mr. Vickers asked if the commission would approve Trex and Ms. Matter said that yes, they had approved Trex in the past, although it was mostly for flooring. He asked if the homeowner would consider this as a compromise, as it looks like wood grain, and it would maintain the visual consistency of the fence.

The commission said that they would consider this but would like to see the material and design prior to construction.

Ms. Matter called for a vote.

Ayes: None

Nayes: Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Vickers, Ms. Matter.

The Certificate of Appropriateness is not approved.

b. CA-24-01-02: Tile Roof Replacement for house and garage, 414 W Virginia (carried over from January’s agenda.)

Ms. Matter started off by explaining that there were two agenda items involving this property and that they should be treated separately.

Mr. Porter moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request, and Mr. Vickers seconded.

Ms. Matter asked if the homeowner, Ms. Reiter would like to speak.

Ms. Reiter mentioned that she acknowledges that the roof is authentic and appealing, but that she has had multiple roofers out to look and at this point it’s a hazard. It is causing various safety concerns and has also been leaking. Some of the leaks are coming from areas of the roof that have already been repaired. Collin’s Roofing specifically came out and quoted in the range of $50,000 to replace with no guarantee that it would solve the issue. She has also consulted a specialist, who quoted around $25,000 to repair one section of the damage on the roof, and also had no guarantee.

Ms. Reiter asked if she had gotten the estimates on the metal, and at this time Ms. Ferraro provided the commission with copies of the quotes to review.

Ms. Reiter added that some of these contractors had longer waiting lists, up to at least a year.

Ms. Matter said there is no question that the roof needs replaced, but for the sake of the Certificate of Appropriateness the commissions needs to determine if they would approve an asphalt roof replacement on a tile roof. The precedent is that tile roofs should be repaired instead of replaced.

It was then pointed out that this is the purpose of the Bone Grant, to encourage homeowners to maintain historic accuracy.

Mr. Vickers asked who makes the alteration to the existing Bone Grant funding distribution. Ms. Ferraro said it would ultimately need adjusted and approved by Town Council. Ms. Matters called for a vote.

Ayes: None

Nay: Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Vickers, Ms. Matter

The Certificate of Appropriateness is not approved.

c. CEH-24-01-01: Tile Roof Replacement for house and garage, 414 W Virginia (carried over from January’s agenda)

Mr. Vickers made a motion to approve the Certificate of Economic Hardship, and Ms. Armstrong seconded.

Ms. Matter said that the Ms. Reiter has done a lot of work to get reasonable estimates to get this project done. The cost is overall going to be approximately $50,000 to replace the tile. The homeowner added that it could be closer to $100,000 based on other estimates she has received.

Ms. Matter added that they Commission also has to consider the value of the home compared to the price of the project.

Ms. Ferraro reviewed the estimates. There were options ranging from tile restoration to upgrading to Metal Spanish tile, to a metal seam roof, to an asphalt roof.

Mr. Sheahan interjected at this time to remind the Commission the standard of the Certificate of Economic hardship is that if the homeowner were to be denied they would lose value on the house. If the Town is too aggressive it could cause us to run in to legal issues.

Ms. Matter said that historically. The Commission has only approved one other Certificate of Economic Hardship for a tile roof. However, this situation is a good example as to why the Certificate exists as an option.

Ms. Armstrong said she would be sorry to see the roof go but on the other hand it is the only one left in the neighborhood, and generally it would not be jarring for the neighborhood to have this house have a different roof.

Ms. Matter added that there are a variety of architectural styles in that neighborhood, and while she agrees with Ms. Armstrong’s point, we have lost houses in the past that were one of a kind because we didn’t have any protection for them.

Mr. Neiber said that while he’s lacking some details, almost anyone could buy a historic home and say that the roof was too expensive to fix, when considering the cost compared to the value of the home.

Ms. Davison pointed out that one thing that can be different in these cases is how far gone a roof is. In this case, the entire roof is in disrepair, as opposed to other cases in which only a portion of the roof needed repair. This highlights the importance of ongoing maintenance.

It was noted that the realtor that sold the home was also the previous homeowner and did not disclose the actual state of the roof and had just mentioned that it had “been repaired”.

Mr. Queen said that the previous owner’s dishonesty should not be taken out on the current homeowner.

Mr. Vickers asked if the Commission could take a closer look at the Chuck While quote listed on the estimates. He wanted to know if there was a scenario where the Commission could see a change to the Bone Grant expedited with the Town Council and if there was a way to achieve the Chuck While Metal Spanish Tile with the Bone Grant.

Ms. Ferraro said that the Bone Grant states that the whole project has to be paid in full for the Bone Grant to be reimbursed, and we are not in a spot to change those regulations right now.

It was reiterated that Ms. Reiter is in a dangerous situation and has to have the repair done as soon as possible.

Ms. Matter called for a vote.

Ayes: Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Niebur, Mr. Porter, Mr. Vickers, Ms. Matter

Nay: None

The Certificate of Economic Hardship was approved.

Other business:

Ms. Davison does think that it’s time to do more research into modern materials. Mr. Vickers added that it would make sense to have some modern materials on hand for future issues. The alternatives will likely be more expensive.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:18 PM

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4909