The Metro Historic Zoning Commission on June 18 approved skylights at 201 Manchester Avenue but disapproved the reconstructed roof form and added dormers, directing the homeowners to restore the original roof form or return with a compliant alternative.

The commission’s staff presentation said the contributing house in the Eastwood Neighborhood conservation overlay originally had a hip roof and a recessed wraparound porch. Staff reported the rear roof had been reconstructed and two dormers and a side gable were added without preservation or building permits; two stop-work orders were posted on May 22. Staff recommended approval of the skylights (finding they meet the design guidelines) and disapproval of the revised roof form and dormers, and recommended removal of the added dormers and reconstruction of the original roof within 90 days.

Homeowner Nicholas Bates told the commission he and his wife, Michelle, bought the house in 2022 and discovered rot and failing rafters after removing roofing material; they said they rebuilt the back portion of the roof, added dormers for ventilation and attic storage, and used locally sourced materials. Bates said the work was carried out without a contractor — he said he and his wife performed the work themselves — and that they had collected a petition of neighbors supporting the dormers. Neighbor Matt Nathanson of 198 Manchester urged the commission to consider neighborhood context and noted recent changes nearby.

Commission discussion centered on two tensions: the safety and permit issues raised by work done without approval, and the practical consequences for a homeowner who put work into a house before learning about the overlay. Commissioners acknowledged sympathy for the owners but emphasized the purpose of the Eastwood Neighborhood Conservation Zoning Overlay and the risk of setting a precedent if work done without permits is allowed to remain. Several commissioners said they were open to compromise if the owners work with staff to produce a dormer design and roof form that meet the guidelines.

A motion that followed accepted staff’s recommendation — approving the skylights and disapproving the new roof form and dormers — but extended the compliance window to 180 days to give the owners time to work with staff on alternate solutions. The commission voted in favor; no roll-call tally was provided on the record.

Because the commission’s decision was based on the overlay’s design guidelines and the administrative code process, staff and the homeowners discussed follow-up steps: the owners may submit revised drawings for final review and, if they later propose a different addition, that future work would be considered on its merits.

The commission’s action distinguishes between discussion, direction and decision: the record shows extensive discussion and an explicit formal decision to disapprove the dormers and require corrective work, with a direction (180-day timeframe and invitation to work with staff) rather than a punitive penalty.

The commission also noted that building permits and preservation permits remain required; staff clarified that the building permit could not be finalized without a preservation permit from the commission.