On a recent Tuesday morning, members of the Historic Preservation Commission gathered in City Hall to deliberate case COA2400079: a proposal for a garden shed at 707 Yancey St.
“Do you swear or affirm the testimony and evidence you are about to give in this action before the Historic Preservation Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” Clerk Chezney UpChurch asked senior planner Karla Rosenberg and Caleb Milliken, the witness on behalf of the shed.
The Historic Preservation Commission is one of nine boards and commissions that work with the Durham City-County Planning Department. Primarily, it issues Certificates of Appropriateness for changes to historic landmarks or properties within historic districts. The property at 707 Yancey sits in the Morehead Hill Historic District, so the commission must give its blessing to new buildings — even sheds.
The nine members meet on the first Tuesday of every month. According to its website, the commission “holds quasi-judicial hearings” to decide whether changes “are appropriate by state law, local ordinance and historic preservation plans for the districts.” And quasi-judicial they are.
Vice-Chair Michael Vampran said the commission doesn’t create a legal precedent, but members need to follow procedures carefully. “What’s kind of scary is, if someone wants to appeal our decision, they actually have to go to a lower court and appeal it at a state level,” he said.
It’s a complex process. “We have, like, a 200-page document that we have to review all these different applications on,” he said.
After about 10 minutes of taking attendance and approving the agenda, the commission called Milliken to stand behind a lectern and testify. Milliken and his wife Erin Voichoski have lived in their 1,000-square-foot bungalow since October 2023.
Shifting on his feet and shuffling his notes, Milliken explained that the shed, a 10-foot-tall and 120 square-foot structure with a simple gable roof, would stand in the southeast corner of the lot.
He plans to use the shed to store tools for his garden (he grows tomatoes, peppers, and leafy greens alongside flowering native plants and grasses).
Milliken emphasized the shed was designed to look like the house and fit in with the neighborhood—he even mentioned that the Hardie Board (a fiber cement siding) would be painted to resemble the wood on the primary structure. Those details are important. The Historic Properties Local Review Criteria commands that residents “design new accessory structures to be compatible with the architectural style of the primary structure.”
However, one feature did not comply: the wooden shutters. “I’m a woodworker, and I plan to make those myself,” he said to the commission, “to give it a kind of garden shed aesthetic.”
He realized that could have jeopardized the fate of the shed. “You know that might [have been] a little bit of a stretch,” he said in a later interview. “I do woodworking…so I threw that in as a way to try to sound like we’re making custom, fancy shutters.”
It was not the shutters that caught board member (and architect) Scott Singeisen’s attention. Instead, he asked whether the structure would have a corner beadboard, which is a piece of trim on the edge of the siding. Milliken assured Singeisen that yes, the shed would.
“Thank you for walking me through that,” Milliken said with a smile, met with chuckles from the other commissioners.
“Thank you for answering,” Singeisen said.
“He educates us all,” Vampran said.
Once the shed survived Singeisen’s questioning, Vampran moved for approval, specifying the dimensions, the simple gable roof, the slab foundation, and specs for the doors and windows. No trees will be removed, and no significant grading is necessary. The shed was approved unanimously.
Then, a second vote, to approve that the Certificate of Appropriateness was, in fact, approved, and to confirm that the requests and conditions were accurate. The document was shown on a screen for the members to read—after they checked the process with the city attorney’s office—and they motioned and seconded once more. The motion passed 8-0, again. The commission deemed the shed appropriate.
Was this too much bureaucracy … for a shed?
Milliken said the process might be somewhat of a deterrent to construction in his neighborhood. “Maybe I would have already built a shed if I didn’t have to go through these hoops,” he said.
Nonetheless, attorney and new member Jonathan Biggs said that such procedures are necessary for an organization that deals with individuals’ property rights.
“Formality is a way of making sure that something happens in the same process today as it would tomorrow or next week or last week, for that matter,” he said.
Vampran had a different perspective. “I have a passion for seeing how our city can grow while also respecting the history of a place and its people, so it’s a cool, cool interface,” he said.
At top, the front view of the proposed shed. (From Durham Historic Preservation Commission materials)
Sophie Endrud
