Commission approves retroactive cedar-shake roof for Miles Manor Court house despite staff recommendation

The Franklin Historic Zoning Commission voted April 13 to grant a retroactive certificate of appropriateness for a cedar-shake roof at 121 Miles Manor Court and to approve EPDM roofing on a rear, nonhistoric addition.

Staff had recommended denying the retroactive cedar-shake approval, saying commission guidelines require "conclusive documentation" that a material was historically present on a building. Emily, a staff planner, told commissioners the guidelines favor preserving known historic materials and that the record did not conclusively show cedar shakes were original to the house from the 1930s.

Applicants Scott and Michelle Cash urged the commission to apply discretion. Michelle Cash said the family had searched archives and supplied evidence they say supports cedar: "We have aero photography that is from 1950...it most certainly shows that our house has a significantly lighter colored roof than all of the homes around it," she said. The Cashes told the commission they did not mean to bypass the process and asked the body to consider the "spirit of the guidelines."

Contractor and inspector testimony buttressed the applicants' case. Paul Anderson, a roofing restoration project manager who inspected the attic, described physical signs consistent with prior cedar shakes: "Larger nail holes...irregular vertical spacing...board decking is visible," he said, adding that the observed nail patterns and decking are consistent with cedar-shake installation.

Several neighborhood residents and local officials spoke in favor of the application. Alderman Matt Brown, whose Ward 2 includes Miles Manor, asked the commission to weigh community benefit and the hardships the owners would face if required to remove the roof: "This family has endured incredible hardship… I can't imagine a city we would actually ask a family to endure that kind of a hardship to take off a roof that, at the end of the day, isn't hurting the neighborhood," Brown said. Multiple neighbors and design professionals also testified they supported retaining the cedar material.

Commission discussion centered on two competing points: the need to follow public-process rules versus whether cedar shake is an "historically appropriate" material for the house. Several commissioners said they were troubled that the property owner had not followed the COA process before installing the roof, but others noted that the commission's guidelines list wood roofing as an approved material and that physical and expert evidence raised a "high probability" cedar was appropriate.

A motion by a commissioner to approve both the EPDM material for the back addition and to grant a retroactive certificate for the cedar-shake roof carried by voice vote. No roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript; the chair announced "the ayes have it." Several commissioners asked staff to clarify guideline language in the future to reduce similar disputes.

What the decision means: the approval permits the Cash family to keep the cedar-shake roof as installed; staff and the commission emphasized that future work in the historic overlay still requires prior review and approval. The commission also approved use of EPDM roofing on the low-slope rear addition with standard staff conditions.

The commission moved next to other agenda items; no appeal or further procedural step was recorded at the meeting.