Roanoke City ARB declines homeowner's bid to replace original metal roof with architectural shingles

The Roanoke City Architectural Review Board rejected an application from homeowner Eileen McCall seeking permission to replace a hand‑crimped standing‑seam metal roof at 525 Highland Avenue with architectural asphalt shingles.

Staff presented the case, saying the two‑story dwelling, built about 1917, retains an original hand‑crimped metal roof and that the H2 design guidelines emphasize retaining original materials and visual character on highly visible roofs. "Staff recommends denial of the COA application because it is not consistent with our H2 design guidelines," the staff presenter said.

McCall and her contractor argued the request reflected neighborhood precedent and affordability concerns. The contractor said a neighborhood survey showed about "54% of the homes on her street have been converted to architectural shingles," and that for this property a full standing‑seam replacement would be roughly "two and a half times" more expensive due to necessary structural repairs, sheathing (OSB) when plank gaps exceed a quarter‑inch, and hidden‑gutter work.

Board members debated treating the porch (low slope) separately from the main roof, noting the porch historically often accepts standing seam while the main roof could have different historic variants. Several members emphasized adherence to the guidelines: substitute materials should match original roofs in "scale, pattern, texture and color," and the board has been cautious about approving shingle replacements for hand‑crimp metal roofs.

The board discussed options — amending the application to specify a snap‑lock standing‑seam system (which staff may approve administratively), approving a mixed approach (standing seam on the porch and shingles above), withdrawing the application, or proceeding to a vote on the current request. A motion to approve the application as presented (full shingle roof) was put to the board; multiple members voiced opposition and the application did not receive board approval. Staff advised the applicant to work with staff on a revised proposal or to consider a snap‑lock standing‑seam system that could be administratively approved.

The board's action leaves the homeowner options to submit an amended application, pursue a staff‑approved snap‑lock standing‑seam system, or appeal. The board stressed any resubmitted application must differ materially from the request heard that night.

The board moved on to other items after providing those options to the applicant; no final administrative decision on a revised plan was recorded in the transcript.