The Madison Historic District Board of Review on a July 2025 meeting approved a certificate of appropriateness for new construction at 116 Elm Street after the applicant revised plans to use brick and stone and provided material details requested by the board. The vote followed extended discussion about orientation, setbacks and massing for the corner lot and a late rendering submitted at the meeting.

The board approved the application by motion that specified exterior materials: brick on all four elevations, a stone foundation, LP Smart siding for soffits/rake/gutter boards where needed, architectural asphalt shingles for the roof, aluminum-clad windows with simulated divided lights (SDLs), solid wood entry doors, wood porch columns and a poured concrete porch slab. The approval included the final rendering presented at the meeting.

Board members and the applicant emphasized the site’s sensitivity: the lot is within Madison’s National Historic Landmark District and sits across from the Lanier Mansion. The applicant, speaking for the owner, said the family prefers brick and stone and had adjusted a pre‑existing off‑the‑shelf plan after reviewing the district guidelines. The board required the approval to reference the submitted exterior-materials list and the rendering introduced at the meeting so inspectors and contractors can verify compliance.

Members pressed the applicant for specifics about foundation exposure (stone was proposed where grade drops), dormer materials (applicant said possibly different cladding only on a dormer), window type (aluminum‑clad with SDLs), roofing (architectural shingles), and front‑porch construction (poured concrete with wood columns). The applicant said the house footprint and setbacks were set to align with adjacent corner properties and explained sewer and easement constraints that influenced garage placement and orientation.

Some board members and a written commenter urged stricter adherence to multiple guideline sections that address orientation, massing, and outbuildings on corner lots. The board acknowledged those concerns but said the applicant’s switch from vertical siding to brick and the submitted details reduced the number and severity of guideline conflicts. One board member noted that while new construction rarely meets every guideline, the presented changes made the proposal acceptable.

The formal motion to grant a certificate of appropriateness named the owner as Sherry Emlen and listed required materials and the rendering submitted that day. On roll call the majority voted in favor; one member recorded a dissenting vote. The board directed staff to include the adopted materials list and the final rendering in the permit packet to guide the building inspector and contractor.

The owner’s representative was told the permit paperwork would be available from the city the next day.