Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission approves theater reroof, residential roofs and signs; counsel clarifies 5–2 window vote
Summary
At its monthly meeting, the Augusta Historic Preservation Commission approved multiple Certificates of Appropriateness, including a reroof for the Imperial Theater and a residential slate-like roof, unanimously approved a commercial sign, and — after procedural confusion — counsel confirmed a 5–2 substitute vote on a vinyl-clad-window condition passed.
The Augusta Historic Preservation Commission voted on several Certificates of Appropriateness at its regular meeting, approving a reroof at the Imperial Theater, a residential roof in the Somerville district, and a commercial sign in the downtown historic district. Counsel later clarified a 5–2 substitute vote on a window-replacement condition passed despite initial confusion over the required threshold.
Planning staff recommended approval of the Imperial Theater reroof at 745 Broad Street, saying the proposed TPO membrane and stone coping meet downtown design guidelines. Commissioner Mabry moved to approve the staff recommendation; the motion carried with six in favor and one abstention. "The project represents an improvement to the existing structure, utilizes appropriate materials," staff told the commission.
The commission also approved a slate-like roofing material for a residence at 2530 Henry Street in the Somerville Historic District. Dr. Brian Armstrong, the applicant, said staff and contractors had worked with his insurer to select a material that matches the building’s character; the commission approved the request unanimously.
A signage application for 913 Broad Street (Top Shot & Fitness) was likewise approved after Historic Augusta indicated its earlier concerns had been addressed. Applicant Jimmy Odin stepped forward and the commission voted unanimously to approve the sign as presented.
A contested window-replacement matter at 624 Ellis Street produced a procedural wrinkle. Commissioners debated whether to require full wood windows or allow wood frames with vinyl cladding matched to existing muntin patterns; a substitute motion adding specific conditions (allowing vinyl-clad wood provided muntin patterns matched and staff approved a sample window) was reported at one point as "5 in favor, 2 opposed" and declared carried. Later, uncertainty arose about whether six votes were needed for passage. Counsel read the bylaws and advised that "a majority of the members present" governs; counsel stated that "the vote was 5 to 2 on the substitute motion. So that motion passes." The commission recorded that staff would notify the applicant the next morning.
The meeting closed with staff updates and follow-ups on outstanding COAs.
