Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves most elements of 300 S. Washington project but tables roof material decision
Summary
The board approved an application for an addition, exterior repairs and other materials at 300 South Washington Street but removed the front stone fence from the application and tabled the decision on replacing a slate roof with standing‑seam metal until the applicant demonstrates extreme financial hardship.
The Board of Architectural Review reviewed a detailed submission for 300 South Washington Street (BAR24‑528) and approved most elements of the proposed addition and exterior work while separating the fence review and tabling the roof‑material question.
The applicant’s representative presented plans for an addition to the main house, a detached carriage‑style garage in the rear, a new stone‑clad CMU fence with metal railing at the Washington Street frontage, an 8‑foot rear wood fence, buff masonry for the new addition, restored wood windows, repaired chimneys and either a standing‑seam metal roof or natural slate. The representative said obtaining new natural slate would exceed $200,000, while a standing‑seam metal roof was quoted at roughly $60,000; the team said they would return with additional cost details if required.
Board members praised many aspects of the design — including restored windows, cast‑stone surrounds, and sympathetic detailing — but debated roof material. One member said the board has resisted removing natural slate in the past, while another noted prior approvals have allowed metal standing‑seam roofs on historic houses where slate was beyond economical repair.
A motion carried to approve the submission with two modifications: (1) the new stone fence/wall facing Washington (and turning the corner onto Clifford) will be pulled out of this application and submitted separately to zoning and then returned to BAR for materials review, and (2) the roof‑material decision (replacement of natural slate with standing‑seam metal or manufactured alternatives) was tabled pending additional documentation showing extreme financial hardship — specifically, comparative quotes and the roof cost as a proportion of the overall project budget. The motion passed 3‑ayes, 1‑opposed.
The board directed the applicant to return with itemized roof pricing (natural slate, manufactured/synthetic slate, and standing‑seam metal) and context on how the roof cost relates to the total project budget so the board can apply the residential‑rehabilitation hardship guidance consistently.
