Historic Preservation Commission — Boone, NC
Date: 2026-01-13

Town of Boone
 Historic Preservation Commission Quasi-Judicial Meeting
 3:00 PM, December 9, 2025
 Planning & Inspections Conference Room
 680 W. King St., Suite C
 Boone, NC 28607


 The public may attend the meeting in person at the Planning and Inspections
 Conference Room at 680 West King Street, Suite C, or online via WebEx, a video
 conferencing software.

 Public Comment: To give public comment, you should appear in person at the physical
 location of this meeting. Persons who attend the meeting remotely via WebEx may be
 permitted to speak during public comment but are not assured of that opportunity.

 WebEx Participations: To join online or by phone, email Planning and Inspections at
 planning@boonenc.gov or call 828-268-6960, and you will receive an email invitation.
 Requests must be submitted no later than one hour before the meeting begins.

 I. Call to Order

 II. Adoption of Agenda

 III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

 1. November 18, 2025, HPC Quadi-Judicial Meeting Minutes

 IV. Quasi-Judicial Hearing Certificate of Appropriateness Case(s)

 1. Case A25-0811 Ram's Rack Roof - COA

 V. Other Matters

 1. Statement of Conformity Report - as of December 1, 2025
 No SoC applications to report

 VI. Adjournment




Town of Boone Historic Preservation December 9, 2025
 Commission
 1

TOWN OF BOONE
 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
 MEETING MINUTES
 DECEMBER 9, 2025, 3:00 PM
 Planning & Inspections Department & WebEx Video Conferencing
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Historic Preservation Commission Members Present: Vardell Smyth-Chair, Krystal Carter, Bennie
Gaetano, and Melody Oxendine
Historic Preservation Commission Members Absent: Bettie Bond-Vice-Chair
Planning Staff Present: Amy Snider-Commercial Zoning Administrator, Brandon Wise-Deputy Director of
Planning & Inspections, Jessica Mitchell-Advanced Planning Specialist (via WebEx), and David Pedersen-
Administrative Staff
Other Town Staff/Representatives Present: Virginia Roseman-Council Member Liaison (via WebEx)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Call to Order
Chair Smyth called the Boone Historic Preservation Commission meeting to order at 2:55 pm. The meeting
was held in the Planning & Inspections Conference Room at 680 West King Street and via WebEx.
Adoption of Agenda
Commission Member Carter made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Commission Member
Gaetano seconded the motion.
Vote: Aye – 4
 Nay – 0
 Absent – 1 (Bond)
The motion passed.
Approval of Meeting Minutes
Chair Smyth requested a change to the minutes to add the word “possibly” after “could” to read: “Chair
Smyth noted that this might allow the Council time to modify the standards so that the mural could
possibly be approved.” The requested change is on packet page 4, minutes page 3. There were no other
requested changes by the members.
Commission Member Gaetano made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commission Member
Oxendine seconded the motion.
Vote: Aye – 4
 Nay – 0
 Absent – 1 (Bond)
The motion passed.
Chair Smyth provided a brief overview of the Historic Preservation Commission, its makeup, and function,
and guidelines for Certificate of Appropriateness cases.
Case A25-0811 Ram’s Rack – Certificate of Appropriateness
Resort Area Ministries, Inc., submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Work
for 877 West King Street, located in the Downtown Boone Local Historic District. The request is for roof

 1
repairs to the building. The scope of work details changing the flashing around the parapet from tin to
aluminum, changing the downspouts from six-inch PVC to a round sheet metal, and altering the chimney
by removing the flue cover and adding an aluminum flashed cap.
Brandon Wise, Deputy Director of Planning & Inspections, and Amy Snider, Commercial Zoning
Administrator, were sworn in by Chair Smyth.
Commission members indicated they had no fixed opinions, no conflicts of interest, and had not
participated in ex parte communication regarding this case.
Mr. Kelly Barefoot and Mr. Lawrence Caviness were sworn in by Chair Smyth.
Chair Smyth asked the applicants if they had any objections to the contents of the meeting packet. No
objections.
Ms. Snider explained the request as it was outlined in the meeting packet. Mr. Barefoot made one
objection to the opening statement regarding the sheet metal: it will be square, not round, as it was
written in the staff report.
Mr. Wise highlighted staff notes addressing the specific concerns about the proposed work, in particular
items from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Appendix D 4.2 recommending repointing to repair
masonry over wrapping in plastic with TPO membrane, and UDO Appendix D 7.6 for roof coverings being
replaced with materials compatible with the old in color, and that white or very light roofing materials are
not permitted unless historically appropriate.
There was no public comment for this case.
Chair Smyth discussed that the guidelines were clear on masonry repair by repointing and not covering
the chimney with the TPO membrane. He had walked around the location, and the roof itself is not publicly
visible, so per standards, the white membrane color would not be an issue other than the chimney. The
applicant did not have an issue accepting the condition that the chimney be repointed.
Commission Member Gaetano asked whether the applicant would have to reapply due to the change
regarding the chimney, and Chair Smyth advised that this could be completed under this case with the
change as a condition of approval.
Mr. Barefoot inquired regarding the flashing on the parapet, stating that it was currently tin and the
request is to change to aluminum, which has color options available, or if it could be left with the bright
metal appearance. Ms. Snider advised that the proposed work was for the flashing to be matched to the
surrounding color as much as possible, and Mr. Barefoot agreed to leave the proposed work as is. Mr.
Barefoot also wanted the Commission to know there was an intention to add a roof hatch, which Chair
Smyth clarified would not be publicly visible and therefore would not be an issue for the Commission. Mr.
Wise added that the roof hatch would be considered as part of their building permit application.
Motion and Vote:
Commission Member Carter made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Gaetano, that the
proposed development is congruous with the special character of the Downtown Boone Local Historic
District. The COA is approved subject to the following conditions, as discussed:
 • The chimney shall be repointed and repainted for repairs and will not be wrapped with the white
 TPO for waterproofing.
 • Where there is a conflict between the application information and the plans (June 26, 2025), the
 plans control. Insignificant deviations may be permitted to comply with the requirements of the
 UDO.

 2
 • Any commitments and representations concerning the proposed exterior modification made by
 the applicant or its representatives at the public hearing shall also become a condition of the
 permit, and a basis for a stop work order and/or permit revocation if violated.
 • The applicant shall submit the necessary applications, plans, details, and specifications which
 meet the requirements of the Town Code, UDO, Building Code, and any other applicable codes
 for review and approval necessary to issue Zoning and Building Permits.
Vote: Aye – 4
 Nay – 0
 Absent – 1 (Bond)
The motion passed.
With no further discussion, Chair Smyth closed this case.
Other Matters
Mr. Wise mentioned that Town Staff had submitted information to permit a roof replacement on the
Jones House property. The roof replacement is to be a like-for-like replacement, with any insulation to be
installed on the interior. The roof will be replaced with asphalt shingles in a similar color; the exact color
is no longer available, but it will be as close as possible to the original. Mr. Wise added that this is being
discussed, so the HPC was aware of this project on Town property, although it was not a Statement of
Conformity application.
Jessica Mitchell, Advanced Planning Specialist, informed the Commission of her conversations with the
Civil War Trails (CWT) marker program regarding the map design for the Stoneman’s Raid interpretative
panel. She shared the material on screen, and the material was distributed to the Commission members.
Map revision Option 1 was based on the Commission’s suggestion at the December 2, 2025, Advisory
meeting to remove the inset map and to add that material to the larger map. CWT Staff informed Ms.
Mitchell that, in order to accommodate that change, the mountains on the top and bottom would be
removed to make the map more horizontal.
Map revision Option 2 would involve keeping the inset map with modifications to make the map more
understandable. The parenthetical labels for the Courthouse and Councill House locations would be
moved to the corresponding points in the inset map. CWT would also find the best design option for
adding callout lines to connect the shaded box on the wider map to the inset map. Street labels would be
added to the larger map where Highway 321 would also be labeled as “King St,” and the inset map would
also include a ”Queen St” label. Ms. Mitchell added that the CWT would also remove the “You Are Here”
label in the inset map since both included the star, and since the wider map would keep the label.
The CWT were amenable to the Commission’s changes as follows for either design option:
 • To change “KEOGH” to “Union Cavalry”
 • To change “Home Guard” to “Confederate Home Guard Retreat”
 • To identify in a legend the red arrows with wavy lines as the Confederate Home Guard Retreat,
 and to identify the red boxes in the inset map as troop fallback locations
 • Add “College Street” identifier to map
Additional changes that would apply to either map design option are to:
 • Remove the last line of added text to the quote that states “Union forces reported no casualties.”
 • Make the image citation text smaller


 3
 • Adding to the legend that the blue arrows represent “attack,” where the red arrows represent
 “retreat”
A final note Ms. Mitchell shared is that map revision Option 2 would be something that could be included
in a revised design proof. Alternatively, map revision Option 1 would be considered a major design change
by the CWT Staff and would not be revised until other reviews are completed.
With that explanation, Commission members then discussed and agreed to Option 2. Chair Smyth added
that, if needed for space on the wider map, the red wavy arrows could be removed; Ms. Mitchell said she
would share that with CWT.
Ms. Mitchell concluded that she would share the HPC’s input with CWT and hoped to have a revised proof
for the January 6, 2026, Advisory meeting.
Adjournment
Commission Member Gaetano made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Carter, to adjourn the
meeting at 3:35 pm.
Vote: Aye – 4
 Nay – 0
 Absent – 1 (Bond)
The motion passed.




_________________________________ _______________________________________
Vardell Smyth, Chair Amy Snider, Commercial Zoning Administrator




 4