Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 1912 Wildwood Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Zoning Commission denies large rear addition at 1912 Wildwood after neighborhood objections
Summary
The commission voted to reject a proposal to more than double the footprint of a small, historic Wildwood house after neighbors and several commissioners said the scale would harm neighborhood character and affordability; staff had recommended approval with conditions.
The Metro Historic Zoning Commission voted to deny a proposed rear addition at 1912 Wildwood Avenue after multiple neighbors said the project would swallow the block’s modest historic houses.
Staff presented the application as a rear addition that would add roughly 1,294 square feet to an existing circa-1938 house with a current footprint of about 965 square feet, yielding a proposed footprint of approximately 2,259 square feet. Staff recommended approval with standard conditions, saying the large lot and lack of an alley made a modestly larger addition appropriate in some cases.
Neighbors told the commission the proposal conflicted with the Belmont–Hillsborough overlay’s stated intent to preserve small and medium-sized houses. Sandra Shelton, who said she helped implement the historic overlay and has lived on Wildwood since 1974, told the commission the neighborhood’s houses were intentionally small when developed and said, “You might as well eliminate the word small,” arguing the addition would eliminate affordable housing options.
Janine Cristiano, a nearby resident who organized a neighborhood letter, urged the commission to deny the variance so the owner and architect could return with a design more in line with overlay guidance, saying the current petition “does not do that.”
The applicant, Curtis Johnson, said the project removes an existing protruding carport and tucks parking under the new footprint, and described the design as an attempt to make a more usable family home in a neighborhood he said has become family-oriented.
During deliberations commissioners discussed the overlay language that seeks to preserve smaller homes and whether the applicant could instead build a detached outbuilding to meet parking needs. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to neighbors and that precedent in the district favored more modest additions. A motion to not approve the staff recommendation was made, seconded and carried, denying the project as filed. The commission noted the applicant could return with a revised plan that complied with the guidelines or reduced the footprint and remains eligible for future consideration.
The commission’s action was procedural: staff had identified the application as requiring a commission review because the proposed addition exceeded the doubling threshold in the guidelines. The denial was based on scale, context, and the commission’s interpretation of the overlay’s intent to preserve smaller historic house footprints.
Next step: the applicant may revise the design and return to staff review or to a future commission meeting.
