Commission permits porch standing seam, denies asphalt main roof at 510 West 20th Street

Richmond — The Commission of Architectural Review partially denied a retroactive request to retain asphalt shingles on the main roof of 510 West Twentieth Street and allowed an existing standing‑seam metal porch roof to remain in place.

Why it mattered

The work had been completed without a certificate of appropriateness; staff recommended denial because the asphalt shingles and the porch treatment do not visually match the original standing‑seam metal roof material documented in assessor records and in the district guidelines. Neighbors and the homeowners offered conflicting views: the owners said the change reflected neighborhood practice and was performed because of urgent water intrusion; neighbors said inconsistent enforcement and prior unauthorized changes in the block make strict enforcement feel inequitable.

What the commission decided

After public comment from nearby homeowners and an explanation from the applicants — Austin and Andy Farrell — that a contractor had performed the work and the owners had received a stop‑work order months later, Commissioner Easterling moved to deny the application for reasons in the staff report. The commission adopted a friendly amendment to partially deny the application: the main roof replacement with asphalt shingles was denied, but the previously installed standing‑seam porch roof may remain. Recorded votes in the meeting transcript show the motion passed with yes votes from Easterling, Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez and Strickland.

What commissioners said

- Commissioner Easterling underlined that the house is a contributing structure in the historic district and that owners are expected to follow the guidelines for in‑kind roofing material: “Your house is a contributing structure to the historic district… you need to read and understand,” Easterling said when addressing the owners.

- Commissioner Moore and others offered a partial compromise to preserve some of the work that is least visually prominent from the public right of way.

Owner and neighbor comments

Homeowner Austin Farrell told the commission the work was urgent because of a hole and water damage and that the contractor had represented he would secure required permits. Farrell said the owners had recently welcomed a baby and were trying to make the house watertight quickly.

Neighbor Jeremy Weiland, who lives across the street, urged clearer and evenhanded enforcement and said he and other neighbors were concerned about inconsistent outcomes in the neighborhood: “It seems like we’re getting nickel‑and‑dimed for minor violations,” he said.

Next steps

The commission’s partial denial requires the applicant to revise the principal roof to a material that better matches the building’s original standing‑seam metal appearance or an acceptable substitute; staff will issue the decision letter and meet with the applicant to discuss permitted options and whether any portion of the main roof not visible from the public right of way might be retained or treated differently.

— Sources: CAR meeting transcript (public comment and vote), Department of Planning and Development Review staff report.