Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues high‑profile carriage‑house dispute at 280 De Visidero to allow parties to seek compromise
Summary
After a long hearing with divided expert views, the Board of Appeals continued the appeal by Richard and Cher Zillman over a denied Certificate of Appropriateness for the carriage house at 280 De Visidero to May 11 to give the applicant and the Historic Preservation Commission additional time to explore compromise designs that retain more original fabric or avoid a 'false sense of history.'
The Board of Appeals on March 9 continued an appeal by property owners Richard and Cher Zillman after the Historic Preservation Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness to convert and substantially rebuild a landmarked carriage house at 280 De Visidero.
Planning staff and the HPC recommended denial under the Secretary of the Interior Standards, concluding the applicants’ proposed reconstruction would add undocumented stylistic elements, create a false sense of history and fail to sufficiently differentiate new elements from historic fabric. Planning's preservation coordinator, Tim Frey, emphasized that the carriage house was called out specifically in the 1988 landmark designation and that the department’s mandate is to prevent wholesale loss of landmark features.
Appellants and a large group of preservation‑community supporters urged the board to allow a replacement design that they said preserves the scale, footprint and intent of a carriage house while using historically sympathetic detailing. Counsel for the appellants argued the building has lost integrity and that reconstruction guided by selective application of the Secretary standards — or a sensitive reinterpretation — would be appropriate. Preservation experts and several neighborhood organizations spoke on both sides.
Because the record is long and commissioners noted divergent views on whether the structure retains sufficient original fabric, the board voted to continue the matter to May 11 and asked planning and the applicants to meet and explore whether a design that retains more original elements or otherwise avoids 'de facto demolition' could be reached. The continuation gives both sides time to consider alternatives before the board issues a final ruling.
