Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Rooftop Additions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs rooftop addition rule change in CD 3 historic districts; Planning Board review set for June 21

2677619 · March 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee recommended forwarding an amendment that would allow multi-story rooftop additions in local historic districts within the CD 3 district up to the district height and FAR, subject to Historic Preservation Board review and appropriateness criteria.

The Land Use and Sustainability Committee on June 6 recommended sending an amendment to the Planning Board that would allow multi-story rooftop additions in local historic districts located in the CD 3 zoning district so long as additions do not exceed a district's maximum height limit or the existing floor-area-ratio (FAR) and continue to require Historic Preservation Board approval.

Tom (city staff) told the committee that under current local historic-district rules rooftop additions are limited to a single story even where property owners remain well below the district height limit. The amendment, sponsored by a property owner on Collins Avenue, would permit multi-story rooftop additions that remain within the district's FAR and height limitations; the administration's memo said the Historic Preservation Board would retain authority to require sensitive scaling and masking under its appropriateness criteria.

During the discussion preservation advocate Mitch Novick urged keeping a one-story rooftop limit on Ocean Drive because he said prior two-story additions had proved incompatible with historic context. "They are incompatible with the context of historic buildings and they should just be limited to a 1 story addition, in my opinion," Novick said. A caller, Daniel Sorealdo, asked whether rooftop additions would still have to meet HPB setback guidelines; Tom replied that setback requirements would remain and HPB could require greater setbacks depending on design and location.

A committee member moved the item "as presented" and it was seconded; the committee then voted to forward the proposal to the Planning Board for consideration at its June 21 meeting.

If transmitted by the Planning Board, staff said the item would be scheduled for commission consideration thereafter.