Owner acknowledges unauthorized fence at 1490 Perry Street; board asks for comprehensive site plan

David Sadler told the Montgomery City Architecture Review Board that he accepts responsibility for an unauthorized fence installed at 1490 Perry Street and described efforts to stop further work after staff and neighbors raised objections.

Sadler said the fence contractors continued work despite being advised to stop and that he arranged for a replacement fence to be reinstalled for an adjacent neighbor whose fence had been removed. He told the board he intends to add hedges and additional trees to screen the fence from the street.

Neighbors and the Garden District association urged the board to require wrought-iron or other visually lighter solutions along Felder Avenue and the public street face rather than a tall, solid wooden privacy fence. Daniel Hannon, speaking for his mother Dottie Hannon, said the wooden street-facing fence “does not comport with the area” and raised concern about a possible new driveway and tree removal if the petitioner pursued a u-drive later.

Staff and board direction

- Staff (Warren Adams and Sean Rose) told the petitioner staff has met with him on-site and requested a formal landscape/site plan showing proposed plantings, how the pool and fence will sit on the lot, and any driveway changes. Staff said sod and additional trees should be added to address runoff and screening.

- Staff confirmed a stop-work notice is in place and advised against finishing or painting the fence while the matter is unresolved. Staff recommended the board review the project “as if the fence is not built.”

Board action and next steps

Board members suggested the petitioner obtain a comprehensive site plan prepared by a landscape architect experienced with historic properties. The board discussed tabling the item to allow time to produce a plan; a motion to table for a subsequent meeting was made but the transcript records that the motion failed on a voice/abstention procedural vote and remained unresolved at the end of that exchange. The petitioner and neighborhood representatives offered to meet with staff immediately to accelerate the plan submission; staff requested a complete site plan by the meeting filing deadline (noted in the meeting as the upcoming Thursday) if the petitioner wanted the item heard at the next meeting.

Concerns preserved in the record

- Material choice for the street-facing fence and its scale relative to the sidewalk and brick wall already on site.

- Potential driveway changes and tree removal were raised as future concerns; the board emphasized that any future driveway would require a separate petition.

- The board and staff emphasized the need for a holistic plan that integrates the pool, fences, gates, hedging and parking so the board can evaluate compatibility with the historic district.

Quote

"We should really be reviewing this as if the fence is not built," a staff member said during the hearing, urging that approvals be based on a complete plan rather than existing construction.

What the transcript shows (procedural clarity)

The transcript documents extensive public comment, multiple staff site visits, and repeated requests for a formal landscape/site plan and tree/hedge mitigation. It records a stop-work notice and a staff recommendation that no finishing occur until a compliant plan is accepted. The record also shows a motion to table was made and that vote's outcome was procedurally unclear in the transcript (an abstention was recorded and the chair and staff sought clarification). The upshot in the meeting record is that no final approval was granted that night and the petitioner was directed to work with staff on a complete plan.