Board of Architectural Review

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Architectural Review convened on March 27, 2019, with Mr. Chairman presiding over the session. The board reviewed five agenda items, all involving properties located within various historic districts throughout the city, including the Aylesford Historic District, Bell Court Historic District, Ashland Park Historic District, and South Hill Historic District.

During the meeting, the board took six votes and heard three public comments from community members. Four of the five agenda items resulted in approvals: 131 Old Park Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District, 132 East Bell Court in the Bell Court Historic District, 210 South Hanover Avenue in the Ashland Park Historic District, and 225 South Hanover Avenue also in the Ashland Park Historic District. The fifth item, concerning 353 South Mill Street in the South Hill Historic District, was presented for informational purposes only and did not require board action.

The meeting focused entirely on architectural review matters within the city's designated historic districts, demonstrating the board's ongoing role in preserving the historical character and architectural integrity of these significant neighborhoods.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 27, 2019:

• Mr. Chairman
• Ms. Hill
• Ms. Tate
• Josh
• Sarah

No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All five attendees were present for the proceedings.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included several Certificate of Appropriateness applications and procedural matters, all decided by voice vote.

Case Number 3220131f - 131 Old Park Avenue 0:00 The Chairman motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application, which passed by voice vote. The approval included the condition that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, the applicant must resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work.

Case Number 01530132-f - 132 East Bell Court 0:00 Ms. Hill motioned to approve this Certificate of Appropriateness application, which passed by voice vote. The approval came with specific conditions requiring that the porch roof not extend beyond the main mass and that roofing shall have ribbed 16 to 18 inches with ribbed height no more than 1.5 inches high.

Case Number 0210e - 210 South Hanover Avenue 0:00 Josh motioned to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for this property, which passed by voice vote. The approval specified that the 6-foot fence with a 2-foot lattice for a total of 8 feet may only occupy the southern edge of the property.

Case Number 08760225a - 225 South Hanover Avenue 0:00 Ms. Hill motioned to approve this Certificate of Appropriateness application, which passed by voice vote. The approval required specific modifications: remove cross bucks from garage doors and remove muttons from doors and windows except transoms.

367 Transylvania Park Application 0:00 The application for this property was postponed by voice vote until April 10, 2019.

1012-1014 Fincastle Road Application 0:00 The application for this property was withdrawn during the meeting.

All approved applications included standard conditions requiring compliance with submitted plans and staff review of any modifications.

Public Comment

Three members of the public addressed the board during the public comment period 0:00.

Rebecca McCully spoke regarding material specifications for a proposed fence project. McCully inquired whether the fence material needed to be cast iron, seeking clarification on the specific requirements for the fencing material.

Robert Sparks raised concerns about a property line dispute related to a fence approval. Sparks expressed opposition to approving a fence installation where the property boundary has not yet been established, noting an ongoing dispute with a neighbor regarding the exact location of the property line.

Belinda Sharkey addressed window design preferences for a project under consideration. Sharkey advocated for windows with muntins, expressing her view that single-pane windows have a 1970s appearance that would not complement the elegance of the house in question. She emphasized the importance of window design choices that would be more appropriate for the architectural character of the building.

The public comments covered three distinct topics: fence material specifications, property boundary concerns, and architectural design elements. The speakers raised both technical questions about material requirements and aesthetic concerns about design compatibility.

Contested Items

Two significant disputes arose during the March 27, 2019 meeting, both involving neighborhood concerns and property modifications.

210 South Hanover Avenue Fence Height

A contentious disagreement emerged regarding fence height at 210 South Hanover Avenue, with community opposition centered on neighbor disputes. The conflict involved disagreements between adjacent property owners over the proposed fence height and its potential impact on privacy and neighborhood aesthetics. Neighbors raised concerns about how the fence would affect the visual character of the area and whether it would create privacy issues for surrounding properties.

Solar Panels on Historic Properties

A heated discussion developed around the installation of solar panels on historic properties, specifically focusing on the appropriateness of placing panels on front elevations. The debate centered on balancing environmental sustainability goals with historic preservation standards and neighborhood character concerns. Participants discussed the visibility of solar installations from public streets and how such modern additions might affect the historic integrity and aesthetic appeal of designated historic properties. The discussion highlighted the ongoing challenge of incorporating contemporary energy-efficient technologies while maintaining the historic character that defines certain neighborhoods.

Both contested items reflected broader community tensions between individual property rights and collective neighborhood standards, with residents and officials weighing competing interests of privacy, aesthetics, environmental responsibility, and historic preservation.

131 Old Park Avenue (Aylesford Historic District)

0:00

The commission reviewed a proposal for constructing a front yard fence at 131 Old Park Avenue, located within the Aylesford Historic District. The discussion involved key speakers Jim Nelson and Rebecca McCully.

During the meeting, the applicant presented their plans for the fence installation. Staff had previously reviewed the proposal and established specific conditions for the project to ensure compliance with historic district guidelines and preservation standards.

The applicant demonstrated cooperation with the review process by agreeing to accept all conditions that had been set forth by staff. This agreement addressed any potential concerns about the fence's design, materials, or placement that might impact the historic character of the property or the surrounding district.

The commission approved the application for the front yard fence construction at 131 Old Park Avenue, with the applicant's acceptance of the staff-recommended conditions ensuring the project would proceed in accordance with historic preservation requirements.

132 East Bell Court (Bell Court Historic District)

0:00

The commission reviewed agenda item 2, a proposal for 132 East Bell Court located within the Bell Court Historic District. The application involved reconstructing an existing deck and constructing a new roof over the deck structure.

Suzanne Irwin served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The proposal was presented to the commission for their consideration and review under the historic district guidelines.

Staff had previously reviewed the application and established specific conditions for the project. During the meeting discussion, the applicant indicated their agreement to comply with all conditions that had been set forth by staff for the deck reconstruction and roof construction work.

The commission proceeded with their deliberation on the proposal, taking into account the historic nature of the Bell Court Historic District and the appropriateness of the proposed modifications to the property. The discussion focused on the reconstruction of the existing deck and the addition of the roof structure, ensuring these changes would be compatible with the historic character of the district.

Following the presentation and discussion, the commission reached a decision on the application. The proposal for reconstructing the deck and constructing a roof over the deck at 132 East Bell Court was approved by the commission. The approval was granted with the understanding that the applicant would adhere to the conditions previously established by staff during their review process.

210 South Hanover Avenue (Ashland Park Historic District)

0:00

The commission reviewed a request for constructing a backyard fence at 210 South Hanover Avenue within the Ashland Park Historic District. The application involved key speakers Diane Meyard and Robert Sparks during the discussion.

The applicant sought approval for a 6-foot fence with an additional 2-foot lattice section on top, creating an 8-foot total height structure. The primary justification for the fence construction was to provide privacy due to ongoing neighbor disputes that had created tension in the area.

During the discussion, the commission evaluated whether the proposed fence design would be appropriate for the historic district's character and guidelines. The request for the additional lattice component was specifically intended to enhance privacy screening while maintaining some visual permeability.

The commission ultimately approved the fence construction request, determining that the proposed design met the district's requirements and that the circumstances warranting additional privacy were justified given the neighbor relations issues.

225 South Hanover Avenue (Ashland Park Historic District)

0:00

The commission reviewed a comprehensive renovation proposal for 225 South Hanover Avenue located within the Ashland Park Historic District. The project involved multiple modifications to the existing property including changing openings, constructing a mudroom and porch, demolishing an existing garage and shed, and constructing new structures including a garage, shed, and swimming pool.

Key speakers during the discussion included Rees Reinhold and Belinda Sharkey, who presented details about the proposed changes and addressed questions from commission members.

The scope of work represented a significant alteration to the property, requiring careful consideration of the historic district guidelines and the impact on the neighborhood's historic character. The proposal included both demolition of existing outbuildings and new construction, which typically requires thorough review to ensure compatibility with the historic district's architectural standards.

After reviewing the plans and hearing from the applicants, the commission approved the proposal. The approval indicates that the commission found the proposed changes to be appropriate for the historic district and in compliance with the relevant preservation guidelines.

The project demonstrates the ongoing balance between property owners' needs for modernization and the preservation requirements of historic districts, with this particular proposal successfully meeting the standards for approval within the Ashland Park Historic District.

353 South Mill Street (South Hill Historic District)

0:00

The commission conducted a conceptual review of a proposal to install solar panels on both the front and rear of a house located at 353 South Mill Street within the South Hill Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 5 and represented an informational discussion rather than a formal decision-making process.

Kelly Bartley served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the solar panel installation proposal to the commission members. The discussion centered on the appropriateness of adding solar panels to a historic property and the potential visual impact such installations might have on the character of the historic district.

The commission examined the visibility concerns associated with placing solar panels on both the front-facing and rear portions of the historic house. This type of review is typical for properties within designated historic districts, where exterior modifications must be evaluated for their compatibility with the historic character and architectural integrity of the surrounding area.

As a conceptual review, this agenda item was informational in nature, allowing the applicant to present their proposal and receive initial feedback from the commission before proceeding with more detailed plans or formal applications. The outcome was classified as informational, indicating that no binding decisions were made during this discussion phase.

The review process for solar panel installations on historic properties typically involves balancing modern energy efficiency goals with historic preservation standards, considering factors such as visibility from public rights-of-way, impact on the building's historic appearance, and potential alternative placement options that might be less visually intrusive.