Historic zoning panel defers vote on proposed 115 Winslow infill after neighbors raise massing and spacing concerns

The Franklin Historic Zoning Commission on Jan. 13 deferred consideration of a proposed new principal structure at 115 Winslow Road after commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about the building’s massing, proximity to adjacent houses and wing-wall features.

Staff said the vacant lot sits between a 1928 Tudor Revival cottage and a 2023 infill house and that the proposed one-and-a-half-story Tudor-inspired house would be clad in brick and lap siding with half-timber details. Staff recommended approval with conditions but noted that the dormer roof pitches on the garage did not meet the guidelines’ recommended minimum 3:12 pitch; staff suggested a condition to meet the 3:12 pitch. The applicant team said changing the garage dormer pitch could raise the dormer above its ridge, creating new problems.

Two nearby residents spoke in opposition to the current design based on scale and siting. Stacy Ligon, who lives at 110 Winslow, told the commission the proposed house "feels very heavy and intense" compared with other properties on the block and asked the commission to consider reducing the size. Harold Dell, who lives next door at 111 Winslow, also said he supported concerns about the house’s proximity to property lines.

Commissioners said the application had improved since earlier Design Review Committee sessions — wing walls and dormers had been reduced in height, and ridge and dormer lines were modified — but multiple members said the right-side wing wall made the house feel too close to its neighbor and disrupted the street rhythm. One commissioner said, "If that right side wing wall was removed, I could support what they're wanting to do." Several commissioners asked to see a clearer comparison between the latest submission and the prior DRC version showing how much the massing and wing walls were reduced.

Because multiple design elements still required revision and a clearer streetscape comparison, Commissioner Brown moved to defer the application to the next voting meeting; the motion to defer passed by voice vote. The commission set the application to be heard at the next voting meeting — Feb. 10 — and asked the applicant to provide comparative streetscape drawings (before/after) and further design revisions showing reductions in the wing wall and steps, and clarification of setback encroachments.

Why it matters: The commission both aims to preserve the scale and rhythm of historic neighborhoods and to allow compatible infill; commissioners concluded more design work and clearer comparative materials are needed before a final decision.

Next steps: The applicant may return to the Design Review Committee or the Feb. 10 voting meeting with revised drawings and the requested streetscape comparison showing reductions since the DRC submission.