Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 27 Bridge Foundation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates unauthorized brick foundation at 27 Bridge Street; decision tabled
Summary
Commission confronted a builder-installed solid brick foundation that diverged from an approved design showing brick piers with wood louvers. Commissioners criticized the field change as precedent-setting and tabled the amendment so the applicant can present repair or alternative materials and samples.
The Historic Preservation Commission confronted an on-the-ground change to a previously approved foundation at 27 Bridge Street and paused action to get clearer options for compliance.
Staff reported that the original COFA approved brick piers with wood louvers that give the appearance of a crawl space; contractors instead installed a solid brick inset across the foundation without returning to the commission. "Instead, it was a solid brick, inset that was installed," staff said, describing the work as not what had been approved. Commissioners expressed concern that allowing the alteration would set an undesirable precedent and urged remediation.
Jason Bruni of Court Atkins Architects said the homeowner disliked the louvers in the field and preferred a solid brick appearance; he referenced UDO provisions that allow solid brick or tabby underpinning in some circumstances. The panel debated practical remedies — thin-brick application, stucco/tabby finish, or full removal and rework — and whether reversal to the originally approved detail was feasible given the way the slab and framing were executed.
Because the construction as-built differed materially from the approved detail and because commissioners wanted to see material samples, corrected details for the water table, and a clear plan for achieving an acceptable historic-appearance solution, the commission voted to table the amendment and asked the applicant to return with options, corner samples and a clarified remediation plan rather than issuing an immediate approval or denial.
The commission emphasized that while thin-brick or stucco could be considered, the council did not want to encourage in-field deviations from approved COFAs without prior review and approval.
