Architecture Review Board tables Central College Road house after members question mixed‑style waivers and garage height

The New Albany Architecture Review Board on June 8 voted unanimously to table an application for a new single‑family house at 16905 Central College Road after members said the plans lacked a coherent architectural style and showed a garage massing that exceeded the main roof.

The motion to table was made by the chair (Mister Hinson) and seconded by Committee member Mister Eitan; the board voted in favor with all present members. Staff had warned the board that one related item would be recused because an applicant would be present, leaving only four voting members for agenda decisions.

Staff presented the request as a certificate of appropriateness to allow the use of hardy board and stone and two waivers: one to permit a mix of exterior styles and another to allow a garage taller than the primary roof. "This is for the use of hardy board and stone as exterior materials on a new home with waivers to allow the mix in exterior styles and to allow a garage that is taller than and located in front of the main portion of the building," staff said during the presentation.

Multiple board members focused discussion on the waiver standard for mixing styles and on whether the design demonstrates the necessity or unusual site conditions required to grant a waiver. Committee member Mister Eitan said the city architect "does not appear to be a single clearly selected architectural style and recommends one architectural style be chosen and used as a basis for all design decisions." Another member added that the drawings do not show four‑sided use of primary materials, raising a concern that the stone and hardy board treatment is limited to the front façade.

Several members requested clearer visualizations. One board member said the 2‑D plans underplay roof complexity and recommended 3‑D imagery to better assess multiple gables and roof forms. Board members also flagged garage massing and sight lines, noting the garage mass extended roughly 55 feet from the main house mass and that the curb‑to‑rear elevation relationship affects perceived impact.

Applicant representative April Small said client preferences and maintenance considerations informed some material and window choices but agreed to return with additional drawings. "She's very particular in regards to maintenance and type of materials because she's built multiple times before," Small said, adding the team would provide additional views and details.

The board directed the applicant to revise plans to show a single, coherent architectural style or demonstrate why waivers are necessary and to address the garage height and massing. The application was tabled for 30 days to allow the applicant to provide the requested revisions. The next procedural step is resubmittal with updated drawings and any required permitting reviews; detailed architectural permitting will follow staff review if the board later approves waivers.

No formal policy or ordinance was adopted; the board recorded a unanimous vote to table the case.