Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks owner of 40 Hampton Place to revise rear‑yard proposal after unpermitted demolition
Summary
After noting prior unpermitted demolition at 40 Hampton Place, commissioners asked the applicant to reduce the depth of a proposed rear‑yard extension, reinstate or incorporate historic bay/oriole elements and study energy‑efficient cavity wall construction; the Commission took no action and asked the applicant to return with revised plans.
Commissioners spent extensive time on 40 Hampton Place, focusing on a prior unpermitted demolition of the rear facade and a proposed two‑story, 15‑foot rear extension. The owner’s representative said emergency stabilization occurred without prior approvals and now seeks to rebuild the facade and add a two‑story enlargement; the applicant acknowledged the owner’s regret for proceeding without permits.
Preservation groups urged restoring lost architectural features. The Victorian Society and HDC explained that the row contains characteristic duplex “Kinko” houses with distinctive tripartite windows and shallow oriel bays; Christina Conroy said those features are “significant architectural features of this house on the row” and should be retained. Commissioners concurred that the oriole and tripartite window rhythm are important to the row’s character and instructed the applicant to reduce the rear‑addition depth (the applicant was asked to study reducing from 15 to about 10 feet), incorporate an oriole or bay at the ground level and retain the third‑floor tripartite opening while making one of the openings a door for terrace access. Staff asked the applicant to return with revised drawings; no final vote was taken.
