Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocala preservation board denies metal roof for 1938 home at 8255 Southeast Eighth Street
Summary
The Ocala Historic Preservation Advisory Board on May 1 denied a certificate of appropriateness to replace an existing asphalt shingle roof with a dark-gray or charcoal metal roof on a contributing 1938 home in the Ocala Historic District, citing the Secretary of the Interior standards and the city's historic-preservation criteria.
The Ocala Historic Preservation Advisory Board on May 1, 2025, voted to deny a certificate of appropriateness for replacing the asphalt shingle roof at 8255 Southeast Eighth Street with a dark-gray or charcoal metal roof.
Staff said the home, which was built in 1938 in a frame-vernacular style and is a contributing structure in the Ocala Historic District, should retain roofing materials consistent with its historic character. Bria, the board’s preservation staff presenter, told the board the application did not meet the board’s certificate-of-appropriateness criteria and cited the board's decision standard at section 94-82(g)(1) of the Ocala Historic Preservation Ordinance and guidance in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
The homeowner, Christina Donahue, told the board she needs a new roof and prefers metal because contractors had advised it is more durable and resistant to wind. "I'm a single mother, and I'm on a limited income, and so if I'm gonna make this investment in the home, I'd like for it to... withstand," Donahue said.
At least one board member questioned compatibility with the district’s historic character. "Our concern is that it look historically appropriate according to the Secretary of the Interior standards," a board member said during discussion.
On a motion to deny the application "as requested based on findings of COA" under section 94-82(g)(1), the board voted in favor and the request was not approved. The motion language recorded by staff specified denial; the meeting record does not identify individual mover/second by full name.
Staff later reported that the applicant withdrew a separate application to alter a garage with metal materials after the meeting, citing the additional work and cost required to meet the board’s recommendations.
The board’s decision applies to the specific proposal presented on May 1 and is based on the materials and standards discussed at that hearing. The denial does not by itself prohibit other roofing repairs or a differently specified application that complies with the city's criteria.
