Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infill Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves redesigned infill house at 814 Macumber Alley over neighbor objections
Summary
The Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to approve a redesigned 1½‑story bungalow at 814 Macumber Alley, after staff recommended conditions on materials, glazing and foundations. Neighbors objected to an 8–9' setback, house length and the addition of a fourth bedroom (possible short‑term rental impacts).
The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new 1½‑story bungalow at 814 Macumber Alley on July 9 after a staff presentation and public comment.
Staff presented the applicant’s revised design, noting the parcel is a non‑contributing vacant lot and describing a 21‑by‑47.33‑foot house with a 6‑foot front porch, two stacked shed dormers, a block foundation and Hardy lap siding. Staff recommended conditions including clear (non‑tinted) glazing, hardy material installed smooth side out, a foundation raised 12–24 inches at the front facade, a stabilized washed‑stone driveway set on a reinforced grid, and required right‑of‑way permits before driveway work begins.
Applicant Kurt Andelson said the design was reduced after prior meetings and now features a narrower plan, a one‑level porch and side parking rather than front parking. He said the house was modeled on other alley dwellings: “we did get the surveyor to mark the house next door … so we feel like it’s congruent with the look of the street.”
Several nearby residents urged denial or modification. Anthony Demings, who lives at 812 Macumber Alley, said the revised northwest setback of 8.5–9 feet would “stick out like a sore thumb” compared with 12–16 foot setbacks on neighboring homes and argued the house’s length and number of windows made it appear two‑story rather than a 1½‑story. Mike Belmonte asked why the plan included four bedrooms, saying more bedrooms would attract more people and worsen parking problems; staff and the commission noted interior bedroom counts are generally outside the commission’s design‑review authority and would be handled by building/zoning permits or code enforcement.
Commission discussion focused on congruity with existing massing and setbacks. Commissioners reviewed submitted footprint comparisons showing neighboring houses of similar depth and width and noted the alley’s “sawtooth” pattern creates variable setbacks. One commissioner said the design “honors the standards that we’re asking for” and that staff’s data on neighboring massing supported approval.
A motion to approve the request with staff conditions was made and seconded; the commission voted to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness unanimously. The commission’s approval includes the staff conditions described in the presentation, and any changes will require further review or permits.
