Historic board denies demolition of garage at 421 Mill Street, offers alternate design guidance

The Madison Historic District Board of Review on Feb. 23 denied a request to demolish the rear garage at 421 Mill Street, a contributing 1875 structure, but offered the homeowner guidance on alternative designs to achieve limited off‑street parking.

Brenna Haley, city staff, told the board the application sought full demolition of the rear outbuilding and replacement of the house’s wood windows with aluminum‑clad units. Homeowner Annette Fultz said the shed is functionally a small structure she and her contractor want to remove so they can park a car and a golf cart behind the house; she told the board she has a licensed contractor restoring the primary house and that the windows “are going to be properly repaired and restored.”

Board members questioned whether the garage is original to the house and noted the building shares a party roof with the adjacent duplex. Chair Chris Cody told Fultz the board cannot approve work that is not on the submitted application: “we can’t approve anything other than what was submitted to us.” The board discussed less‑destructive alternatives, including removing a single wall or creating an open carport configuration, and emphasized that any alternate design must be submitted in a new application.

After discussion a motion to deny the certificate of appropriateness for demolition carried on a roll call vote. The vote record (as read into the record) showed the following board members voting aye: Chris Cody; Bill Jewell; Ken McWilliams; Brian Rogers; Jared Anderson; and Jed Skillman.

The board encouraged Fultz to resubmit a tailored application for partial removal or an alternative design that better preserves the structure’s historic relationship to the main house. The denial was based on noncompliance with the historic district’s demolition guidelines, including the preservation of contributing outbuildings and party‑wall considerations.

The board noted staff can advise on documentation and recommended that the applicant return with measured drawings and photos that clearly show what part of the structure is proposed for removal. The item will return to a future meeting if the owner submits a revised COA.