Decatur board splits retroactive COA for 1045 Grant Street, rejects synthetic trim and enclosed eaves, sets 90-day compliance

Acting Board Chair Paige Bridges presided over a June 12 Decatur Architectural Review Board hearing on a retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 1045 Grant Street that the board split into eight separate votes and outcomes.

In a detailed review, staff explained the property’s existing small metal front fence is grandfathered but that the owners had added treated 6x6 posts with synthetic post caps. Commissioner Carol Chanel and others said the synthetic caps and posts are not historically appropriate to the Albany District and that the board had not previously approved similar post-cap combinations. Commissioners voted on the submission as presented and the motion to accept the front-fence work as submitted failed; the board directed the applicant to return the front-post treatment to the original metal posts or revise the post/cap design to align with district guidance.

The board addressed eight distinct components rather than voting on the COA in a single motion so members could consider each alteration on its merits. For the rear yard fence, staff noted rear fences may be up to six feet and that structural framing should not be exposed to public view; the board indicated the applicant should install planks to cover exposed structural faces on the alley side and approved the fence subject to that modification.

On architectural details, the board voted against reintroducing non-historic knee (roof) brackets on the main gables of the house and garage after staff said historic evidence was insufficient; the motion to accept the proposed brackets failed (one in favor, two opposed).

The board approved adding matching continuous window trim on secondary elevations but rejected the synthetic trim material as submitted. Commissioners voted to allow the trim only if the applicant removed the synthetic material or replaced it with wood that more closely matches the original profile and appearance.

Commissioners also found that enclosing the rafter tails (boxing the eaves) would remove a character-defining Craftsman feature. The motion to accept boxed eaves did not carry, and the board required the boxed eaves be removed so the exposed rafter tails are retained.

The board approved a small roof cover over a side/rear French door to address water intrusion, with a subsequent vote to require the cover’s eaves remain open to align with the house’s existing exposed-rafters character. A trellis that had been shingled was ordered returned to an open, in-kind framework; the motion requiring a replacement consistent with the original open structure carried. The rear porch addition — located on the rear elevation — was accepted as built, with the caveat that the building department will review setbacks and any permits or variances required.

Finally, the board set a 90-day compliance deadline for removals and required revisions (including removing boxed eaves and non‑historic knee brackets) in keeping with the board’s customary timeframe for bringing alterations into compliance.

Paige Bridges noted the board’s decisions are guided by the written district standards, which the board enforces as city ordinance; staff will issue a written COA or compliance letter summarizing approvals and required changes and will copy the building department so permits and setbacks can be checked.

What happens next: the applicant must complete the directed revisions within 90 days or engage with staff and the building department on timelines and enforcement; staff will send a follow-up letter outlining the board’s requirements and the next administrative steps.