Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alteration Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables review of exterior modifications at 211 N. Kent Street pending more information on gutters and rear porch
Summary
The board tabled BAR-25-248, a request to modify previously approved exterior changes at 211 North Kent Street, asking the applicant (or owner) for additional photos and final porch/gutter details.
Get email alerts on the Alteration Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Winchester Board of Architectural Review on June 5 tabled consideration of a request to modify previously approved exterior work at 211 North Kent Street, citing differences between the built work and the approved drawings and a lack of final information about gutters and the rear porch.
Staff said the addition—s footprint and many interior elements match the previously approved plans, but the exterior finishes, fenestration and the rear porch as built differ from the approved drawings. The rear porch was constructed square rather than at the angled orientation shown on the approved site plan; staff said the porch may encroach over the CSX railroad right-of-way and the owner and staff are still exploring that encroachment issue.
Board members generally said they preferred the look of the as-built materials but raised questions about consistency between historic and new portions, whether the delineation between old and new is blurred, and whether certain lower porch paneling appeared temporary or unfinished. One member recommended the board ask for final materials and clearer photos of the completed porch before acting.
A motion to table BAR-25-248 was made and seconded; the board voted to table the matter and asked staff to request additional information from the owner about gutters, final porch materials and whether previously approved trim/color treatments were followed on the rear elevations.
Staff noted a chimney on the property had already been removed under prior review; board members said the removed chimney appeared to have been a later cinder-block addition rather than original masonry.
The item remains tabled pending submission of the requested photographs and clarifying details on the rear porch and gutter treatments.
