Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves most work at 307 Walnut and grants a single rear dormer after split votes
Summary
After lengthy debate about symmetry and structural capacity, the Madison Historic District Board approved all proposed work at 307 Walnut except dormers, then separately approved a single half rear dormer to create usable attic space.
The Madison Historic District Board of Review split its decision on a large renovation at 307 Walnut Street, approving most of the renovation but delaying and then narrowly approving a single rear half dormer.
Applicant Jason Pattison sought permission for multiple changes to the contributing 1840 duplex, including adding one or two dormers, demolishing a rear non-original addition, replacing rear windows with doors and installing decks for egress, repairing the roof and replacing windows with aluminum-clad wood or wood windows. He told the board the dormers could add 50–75% more attic space and that the rear dormer would be minimally visible from the street.
Board discussion focused on structural capacity, historic symmetry for the duplex and visual balance. One board member said they would not feel "comfortable voting for something that might cause the building to collapse," and asked for a structural engineering report; the building inspector said he had inspected the building and believed the structure "could definitely withstand dormers" (SEG 651–655).
Because members were split on the visual impact of dormers for a symmetric duplex, a motion was made to approve all elements of the project except the dormer (windows, front door restoration, demolition of the rear addition, decks and related egress work). That motion passed. The board then considered a separate motion to approve a half dormer at the rear of the building. The motion to allow a single rear half dormer passed with a divided vote: several members approved, two members opposed.
The applicant was told to proceed with the approved work and to pick up permits; the board expects any significant structural documentation or changes related to the dormer to be addressed in submitted permit documents if necessary.
The split decision leaves in place most of Pattison’s restoration and rehabilitation plan while limiting the size and visibility of rooftop changes on a historic duplex.
