Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables privacy‑screen request after neighbors object; seeks city attorney opinion
Summary
Homeowners at 317 West 3rd asked to keep black vinyl privacy panels attached to an existing wrought‑iron fence for privacy during medical treatment. Neighbors argued the panels obscure historic ironwork and may not remain temporary. The board tabled the application pending a city attorney determination of whether the installation is impermanent (staff jurisdiction) or permanent (board jurisdiction).
Owners of 317 West 3rd Street asked the Madison Historic District Review Board on May 26 for approval of black vinyl privacy panels attached to an existing wrought‑iron fence. Sandy Deirdorf read a prepared statement and told the board the panels were attached with removable fasteners and were intended to be reversible. She said the measures were taken "to provide privacy…approximately 5 months ago, I was diagnosed with lymphoma and currently facing treatment decisions," and that the screens help the family maintain privacy while not removing the historic fence.
Multiple neighbors, including Mike Pittman, spoke against the installation. Pittman said the wrought iron fence is a historic element of the streetscape and urged the board not to approve the application, arguing the panels were installed without prior approval and expressed skepticism they would remain temporary. He presented photographs and questioned the durability of added wood backing and fastenings.
Board members debated jurisdiction: several argued impermanent, reversible installations typically fall to staff review; others said the complaint brought the case to the board and that the specifics of the installation (zip ties, panels sitting on the ground) made the determination unclear. The board asked staff to seek a formal opinion from the city attorney on whether the screen constitutes a permanent alteration requiring the board’s approval. Without that legal clarity the board moved to table the application; the motion passed with one board member recorded as opposed.
The board discussed the preservation principle of reversibility and noted that if the city attorney finds the screen is impermanent and outside the board’s purview, the matter will not return. If the attorney finds it is permanent, the application will come back for board action.
Clarifying details recorded in the hearing: the panels are attached to the historic wrought‑iron fence with black zip ties, rest on the ground and are slotted to allow airflow; they were installed before a COA was sought, and the applicants purchased the house in July 2016.
