Design review: owners propose yards, fencing and lighting changes for Magnolia Hall properties on William Campbell Court

At the August Design Review Committee meeting, project team representatives led by Jason Goddard discussed a series of related applications affecting the William Campbell property and adjacent Magnolia Hall lots on William Campbell Court.

Jason Goddard said the work includes two related but separate submissions: one to extend and relocate four‑board “horse” fencing to define a private green and pool enclosure around Magnolia Hall and a second to modify hardscape, drive, lighting and fencing at the William Campbell House. He told the committee the closest proposed fence point is about 130 feet from the historic structure at an angle and about 182 feet if measured straight from the front corner; he emphasized that the new fencing would leave the viewline from Boyd Mill to the house’s front porch largely unobstructed.

Staff summarized the review: because the project was vested under 2016 design guidelines, wooden picket fences were historically the common treatment for primary yard fencing and the guidelines generally recommend front‑yard fences no higher than 3 feet and recessed wooden plank/split‑rail fences 20 feet from the plane of a residence facade. The 4‑board horse fencing proposed at 4 feet tall does not match the 2016 guideline language for this development; staff said the newer guidelines allow horse fencing in rural settings at 4.5 feet but noted this area is now a more blended neighborhood. Staff also pointed out that wire‑backed horse fencing would not meet pool‑barrier code for a compliant pool enclosure.

Committee members divided on how strictly to apply the 2016 guideline text. Several members said the area already has an existing 4‑board fence and argued precedent weighs in favor of allowing matching materials in this instance. Holly and Mary said the proposed fence fits the site context and helps define an owner/resident green; Madeline asked that the applicants bring a curved sample of the horse fence and a photo returning to historic picket precedent if available. Jared Carter, Codes, told the panel that wire‑backed horse fencing as proposed would be climbable and therefore does not meet pool‑barrier standards; he recommended alternatives such as iron fence options that comply with pool codes.

On hardscape and the William Campbell House, staff described intended materials: gravel walks and a reused brick lead walk, a concrete apron and ribbon curb in front of the carriage house, and a stone path to a fire pit and reconstructed smokehouse. Commissioners expressed concern the motor‑court concrete pad was large and encouraged shrinking the apron or breaking its visual impact with brick, pavers, or planting strips; several commissioners suggested practical changes such as reducing the concrete apron depth, adding paver or brick “ears” for guest parking, or using partial permeable patterns to soften the mass of paving. Staff and the applicant agreed to provide more detailed dimensions, photos of the grade change (the site drops three to four feet at the retaining wall), and material samples at the voting submittal.

On lighting, staff noted the guidelines favor simple fixtures compatible with the house’s period; the project team proposed a mix of gas lanterns (historic precedent exists) and electric fixtures. Commissioners asked for fixture dimensions and scale on elevations before approval; several members recommended simplifying ornate Art Deco fixtures proposed for the front entrance.

Committee feedback summary: staff and the committee signaled conditional support for reusing cast iron fencing where historically present and for many of the hardscape materials (gravel, brick, stone), but asked the applicants to (1) resolve pool‑barrier code compliance by replacing wire‑backed horse fencing where it would be used as a pool barrier, (2) provide scaled fixture specs and elevations for proposed lighting, (3) reduce and visually soften the concrete motor‑court area or change materials, and (4) return with a curved fence sample and any historic photos showing previous picket fencing for Magnolia Hall.

Why it matters: The proposals affect multiple parcels recorded within the local historic district and reuse historic fencing and ironwork; the committee’s guidance balances preservation goals, public‑safety requirements for pool barriers, and homeowner desires for enclosed private greens.

Next steps: Applicants will return with revised drawings, material samples and code‑compliant pool‑barrier proposals for the Historic Zoning Commission voting packet.