Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Board rejects accessory pole‑barn at 611 Presbyterian, cites siting and materials concerns
Summary
The board denied a COA for a 20×30 pole‑barn proposed by the applicant (Mister Ash) because the proposal violated accessory‑building siting rules, one‑third setback requirements, and used metal siding/roof with exposed fasteners that read as a pole barn rather than a compatible accessory structure.
The Madison Historic District Board of Review voted Feb. 23 to deny a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed 20‑by‑30 accessory pole barn associated with a contributing Queen Anne house now on a reconfigured parcel listed as 611 Presbyterian.
Applicant Mister Ash presented detailed design elements — an 8‑inch wood tongue‑and‑groove front facade, true divided‑light wood windows and both barn and man doors — and argued the design is “historically compatible.” Board members acknowledged the design elements but raised two central issues: the building’s siting and the choice of metal siding and roofing with exposed fasteners that would make the structure read as a modern pole barn visible from public ways.
Members cited the district’s accessory‑building guidelines (Section 24) and a one‑third setback standard. The chair and multiple board members expressed concern that the accessory structure would appear associated with a different residence (608 West 3rd) because of current parcel lines and that the visible fasteners on metal siding and roofing would be inappropriate in the historic district. One member moved that the board deny the COA for the application for 611 Presbyterian on the grounds of noncompliance with placement, setbacks, materials and the pole‑barn prohibition; the motion carried on roll call.
The board suggested options the applicant could consider before returning: use of concealed‑fastener metal siding (or board‑and‑batten wood siding), setting the building further to the rear when linked to the primary historic house, or building fully in wood. Staff and the applicant discussed the administrative notice and parcel labeling issue, and the board asked staff to ensure proper notice for any future hearing.
The motion to deny was recorded in the meeting minutes with the roll call showing ayes by the full board. The denial was explicitly based on noncompliance with the historic district guidelines as cited.
