Design Review Board allows composite decking and railing at 8 Alexander Circle with configuration conditions

The Fort Thomas Design Review Board voted to allow composite decking and railing on a nonhistoric garage addition at 8 Alexander Circle, with conditions on configuration, color and appearance.

Applicant Jesse Harris told the board he plans to remove a wooden roof and pitch it to the rear, and to install a deck and new railing on the garage addition. Harris asked whether the board would allow a TimberTech (composite/PVC) railing product that mimics the existing porch railing. He said the product "doesn't have, like, a shine of, like, a white fence" and that the company offers higher-end, satin-finish materials.

Members of the public and the board discussed precedent and material compatibility. Peggy Maggio, a resident at 37 South Charlayne, urged the board to consider the design guidelines and cautioned against introducing synthetic siding and trim products into historic areas. A historic preservation consultant cited in the record, Wes Cunningham, was summarized by staff as concluding that changes to nonhistoric garage additions are allowable if the new work is compatible with the building’s architecture and matches existing railing appearance where appropriate.

Board members noted technical constraints: many historic homes have railing heights of roughly 30–32 inches, while new residential safety rules often require 36 inches; the proposed railing units under discussion would be 42 inches in some places. The board concluded that because the garage is a nonhistoric addition and the decking surface is largely not visible from the public right-of-way, composite decking and railing could be acceptable provided the visual configuration matches the house. The board’s motion recommended that the railing be white or match the color of the front porch railings, that all spindles be vertical, and that composite material is allowed for both railing and decking. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (ayes recorded).

The board asked the applicant to provide a sample of the composite material for staff review and to avoid decorative panels that lack precedent on the house. The board recorded concerns about a high-gloss sheen on some synthetic products and suggested matching the porch railing configuration rather than introducing new decorative panels.

The board voted to approve the application with the listed conditions; the motion and second were recorded without individual mover names on the transcript.