Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission denies second‑story addition proposal at Randallstown property, asks for redesign

5779749 · September 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The LPC denied a proposed 27.5 by 17.3 foot second‑story rear addition at 3611 Stony Brook Road, citing concerns about scale, roof connections and drainage; the commission asked the applicant to return with revised plans and their architect present.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission declined to approve a proposed second‑story rear addition at 3611 Stony Brook Road in Randallstown, concluding the design as submitted would create a visually heavy mass and could create roof drainage issues.

Staff described the proposal as a 27 foot, 6 inch by 17 foot, 3 inch second‑story addition over an existing patio; the addition would create a covered patio below and be finished in lap Hardie siding and shake detail. Staff recommended approval with the condition that only lap Hardie siding be used to keep the addition simple and consistent with neighboring noncontributing infill.

Applicant Jessica Emeka said the project is intended to keep her family in the house after her recent marriage and a blended family increase; she said she is willing to use a single siding type. Commissioners raised concerns about massing, the shed roof profile, the way the new roof would intersect existing roof slopes and valleys, and the potential for concentrated water at the roof junctions. Several commissioners described the addition as "top heavy" relative to the existing house and urged alternatives that reduce the apparent mass and better relate rooflines to existing eaves.

Commissioner John (last name not specified) moved to deny the application as submitted and to invite the owner to return with revised plans and the project architect present; Commissioner Chris Parts seconded. The roll call vote was affirmative and the motion carried. Commissioners recommended the applicant explore alternate solutions such as reconfigured first‑floor expansions, different roof forms, or shifting programmatic needs (bedrooms/bathrooms) to other parts of the house, and to return with plans that address eave, roof drainage and massing issues.

Staff will coordinate follow‑up with the owner and suggested the applicant consult an architect experienced in historic district additions before resubmitting.