Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables four Blue Crab COA requests amid concerns over materials, shutters and building type
Summary
Four related COA applications for Blue Crab lots (2, 4, 6 and 8) were presented together; commissioners raised repeated concerns about too many wall materials, shutter types, massing relative to adjacent townhomes and the use of 'additional building types' tied to Tabby Roads covenants, and the commission voted to table each lot for further clarification.
The Historic Preservation Commission tabled four Certificate of Appropriateness applications for Blue Crab lots 2, 4, 6 and 8 after extended discussion over materials, shutters, carriage‑house detailing and whether the proposals should be processed as "additional building types" because of established Tabby Roads setbacks.
Staff presented the group as related applications by the same applicant and noted that Tabby Roads has architectural review requirements that are more restrictive than the town UDO; staff recommended conditions and three determinations (e.g., allowable siding materials such as Hardie or Boral, shutter material, and details for porch and handrail placement). The staff presentation included proposed limits on wall cladding to two materials and a set of largely repetitive conditions for each lot.
Commissioners repeatedly said the schemes currently used too many materials and that the streetscape and scale at the interfaces with existing townhomes need clearer resolution. Several commissioners also expressed concern about inconsistent shutter treatments and whether some shutters should be operable and on hardware. Director of Growth Management Kevin Eichert explained that Tabby Roads was established before the UDO and that the lots’ pre‑existing setbacks make the "additional building type" process the practical route for these lots.
Applicant William Court said the development team had incorporated earlier HARB guidance and asked for clarity where staff and HARB comments appeared to conflict; Court also said many of the staff conditions arrived very close to the meeting date, creating implementation pressure.
Given the volume of outstanding conditions, the commission accepted a staff recommendation to allow the applicant and staff to address those items and to return with clarified materials, shutter details and consistent plan views. The commission then moved to table each of the Blue Crab applications (2, 4, 6 and 8) so the applicant and staff could provide the requested clarifications. Each motion to table passed by voice vote. Commissioners and staff discussed the possibility of a special meeting to shorten review timelines, but also noted filing deadlines that affect packet timing for future HPC hearings.
Next steps: staff will work with the applicant and HARB to resolve inconsistencies, provide clearer plans for materials and shutters, and return the projects to a future HPC meeting.
