Board conditionally approves retroactive porch alterations at 81530 Ninth Court; columns to be clad and shutters reinstalled

The Historic Preservation Board on July 22 granted conditional approval for retroactive front‑porch alterations at 81530 Ninth Court in the Northwood Hills Historic District, requiring remedial work to bring the property closer to the district's preservation standards.

Historic preservation planner Anthony Mendez told the board the property is a contributing minimal‑traditional house constructed in 1939 and designated a contributing property when the Northwood Hills district was established. Mendez said staff had recommended denial of the retroactive work because it removed or obscured character‑defining features and did not meet several Secretary of the Interior's Standards and local compatibility criteria. Staff's recommended path to compliance included removing the tile and hardy board encasement and uncovering original columns, repairing or replacing deteriorated columns in kind, reinstalling shutters and reinstalling rod‑iron balusters and railings where appropriate.

Resident applicant Denise Williams said she covered rusted iron columns and replaced deteriorating porch elements to make the porch safe and water resistant and that the work had been in place for years; she told the board she had later applied for a permit and paid fees. Williams said, "I went and got my permit," and explained she acted to remove a hazard and to protect the porch materials.

After deliberation the board approved a motion that allows the current work to remain provided specific corrections are made: the existing columns may remain in their current arrangement but must be clad in wood with traditional post bases and caps (to read as traditional porch posts); the shutters must be reinstalled; the stone cladding applied to the masonry scoring must be painted the same color as the rest of the house; and the installed iron railing may remain. The board tied approval to the staff presentation and the standard review criteria, and voted to record the findings as competent, substantial evidence.

Staff noted the property had been cited by building code enforcement in 2024 for unpermitted work; Mendez confirmed the applicant applied for a building permit but that a certificate of appropriateness had not been issued and the COA review was required to close the open compliance matter. The board and staff discussed practical restoration limits — for example, the middle column had been damaged and the group agreed that cladding and traditional post detailing could achieve a visually compatible result without creating structural harm. The board instructed staff to draft permit conditions consistent with the board's motion to allow the applicant to obtain final approvals.

Next steps: Applicant to work with staff to document required remedial work (cladding detail, shutter reinstallation, paint color) for final permit sign‑off; staff will confirm compliance before final permit issuance.