Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic District Materials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB denies plastic shed at 2145 St. Charles Avenue, offers expedited path for wood or metal option
Summary
The board denied a request for a plastic (vinyl) storage shed at 2145 St. Charles Avenue because the material is inconsistent with the historic district; the board allowed the applicant to pursue an expedited approval process for a wood, metal or HardiePlank alternative.
Get email alerts on the Historic District Materials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Montgomery City Architecture Review Board denied a proposed plastic storage shed at 2145 St. Charles Avenue because members said the plastic material is inconsistent with the material fabric of the historic district, but they offered the applicant an expedited administrative path if she resubmits a wood, metal or HardiePlank-style shed that meets the expedited-procedure criteria.
Debbie Shook presented the application and said she sought a prefabricated storage shed on a 20-by-20 concrete slab where a detached garage previously stood. Board members and neighbors discussed sight lines and whether the shed would be visible from the street; staff noted that structures under 100 square feet can be approved administratively, while larger units must come before the board.
Several board members said they understood the applicant's budget concerns but said approving a plastic shed would set a precedent for vinyl structures in the historic district. One member cited prior decisions and said the ARB has generally not approved vinyl siding or plastic materials. The board recommended wood, metal or HardiePlank alternatives and said staff could approve a compliant submission through the expedited process.
A motion to deny the plastic shed on materiality grounds passed by voice vote; the motion included language allowing the applicant to pursue the expedited process for a wood or metal alternative and noted that any larger or nonconforming submission would return to the board for review.
The applicant was advised staff would share the expedited-procedure guidance and that a smaller or compliant material would enable staff-level approval.

