[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6646200,"mediaKeyId","3388106-343626d4fe8549141b77241257e8fdb4","parentId",3388106,"title","Appeals board allows 1x17 siding in lieu of brick at deteriorated Norhill house after structural findings","audioSeconds",1169,"startMs",2471000,"endMs",3640000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3388106-343626d4fe8549141b77241257e8fdb4&start=2471&end=3640","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3388106-343626d4fe8549141b77241257e8fdb4/thumbnail_2471000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6646200/Houston/Harris-County/Texas/Appeals-board-allows-1x17-siding-in-lieu-of-brick-at-deteriorated-Norhill-house-after-structural-findings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6646200-b8428df680f36804da451d11b75a7719/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452962&Signature=LhpPu5WZNB8vlxrs-S7t1rdgnP3EuyfgcLXtoNj9i7GwsihbIfHDOLcGovBVymE76H8UtseOAqHX7wv2IdOmGtgSMn-h59NPixXEZuwFT1tmvlnKuyGFXEI2xooXlArkh2xrZVoPkPZGcV-1bw-gQObynmR6L0RRGKzjBR4cX15AA~1YB5yzkxWMsppFmlnblgg-9FsChJJhl4NfXtss0DLESYRVMsq-WbwbxvjLQmq-mZDCqBxPQzU5v8jL~-AeWEwFe9Ch0r1-F~I2QodD7e6z7th481JFXLyQyoD8aahHd1nVfqAcAVREjd26cVw1Vk-IPSDTgDQWyGzJFqO0jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Houston","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Historic Preservation Appeals Board on May 19, 2025 granted an appeal allowing the owners of 1138 West Fugate in the North Hill (Norhill) Historic District to use 1x17 siding in place of full brick re-cladding on the contributing portion of the house, overturning an HHC condition that required scratch-face brick on three sides.

Staff presented the application (Terrence Jackson) describing a contributing wood-frame house built circa 1925 on a 5,000-square-foot lot. The applicant proposed a rear two-story addition (approximately 1,192 square feet total: 364 square feet on the rear first floor with 728 square feet second-floor above), bringing the total conditioned area to about 2,308 square feet. The HHC approved the COA at its April meeting with conditions that included installation of a fascia board and replacement of brick at three sides of the contributing structure. The owners appealed the HHC condition that required installing scratch-face brick across the contributing portion of the house.

Owner Tabitha Hensley and homeowner Kevin Simmons told the board that extensive deterioration required removal of the brick veneer and that salvaging and reusing the brick would be costly and likely impractical. Staff and a city structural inspector, Pete Stockton, provided written comments describing a failed brick veneer with a lack of brick ties, broken spread footing supporting the brick, and the veneer's advanced deterioration. Stockton estimated that salvaging the removed brick would likely lose roughly 25 to 50 percent of the material to breakage and noted the structural and moisture-control issues involved in re-bricking a wood-frame, pier-and-beam house.

Terrence Jackson explained staff's earlier conversations with the owners and the inspector; staff had recommended approval with conditions on aspects such as rafter tails and repairing rather than replacing historic windows, but the HHC had imposed the scratch-face brick requirement on three sides and the fascia-board requirement.

During deliberations board members discussed material compatibility, structural risk, and visual compatibility. Commissioners and staff noted that applying full brick veneer can require additional structural work, proper cavity and flashing systems for moisture control, and that thin-brick products or siding entail different trade-offs in thickness, structural support, and final appearance. The owners' representatives said they had not been able to find an acceptable match for the original scratch-face brick and that the cost and structural work to reinstall full brick would be substantial.

Rob Hellyer moved to grant the appeal and allow the application to use 1x17 siding in lieu of brick while retaining the fascia-board requirement; Libby Viera Bland seconded. The motion passed 4-1 (Rob Hellyer 'aye'; Libby Viera Bland 'aye'; Truman Edmondster 'aye'; JD Bartel 'aye'; Douglas Elliott 'no'). The Appeals Board's action overturns the HHC requirement for scratch-face brick on three sides and allows the owners to proceed with the approved addition and permitted siding alternative subject to the retained conditions (including the fascia board).

Key technical details in the record: the contributing house is approximately 1,216 square feet originally; proposed addition is about 1,192 square feet (364 first floor + 728 second floor) for a total about 2,308 square feet; the structural inspector reported a lack of brick ties, broken spread footing, and that salvaging removed brick would likely lose 25\u001250% of material.

The board directed no additional staff actions beyond the conditions placed on the COA by the Appeals Board. The owners may proceed under the Appeals Board's ruling and must meet the retained conditions documented in the COA record.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Houston - Historic Preservation Appeals Board - May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Historic Preservation Appeals Board voted 4-1 on May 19, 2025 to allow 1x17 siding instead of replacing failed brick veneer on a contributing house at 1138 West Fugate in the Norhill/North Hill Historic District, while retaining a requirement for a fascia/facia board.","taxTitle","Houston, Harris County, Texas","taxId",2797,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6646205,"Houston appeals board upholds HHC ruling denying full second-floor addition at 825 Columbia",2056,420000,2476000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3388106-343626d4fe8549141b77241257e8fdb4&start=420&end=2476","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3388106-343626d4fe8549141b77241257e8fdb4/thumbnail_420000.jpg","/articles/6646205/Houston/Harris-County/Texas/Houston-appeals-board-upholds-HHC-ruling-denying-full-second-floor-addition-at-825-Columbia","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6646205-cc483859a37c066ddd3dcc6183fe984f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770452962&Signature=ZpCdd9T8ttfKpCv-SZJFOx5SWU7wud8ooTFWbidrDvt8yfYS0fy~bIg7m5VV4ySuVbWsQnYSnW9w6Q2PYYHiOkRvloHnhzW5ZgE6SQ23ZasK0e7XU5FjDUIhrL3gDDPHdWzYToPPgRE2B7EZgHe4xkxUGI3ak8J3zBJbME66camc0oLDk4bchkka2JHHVekLLrK1qed0mZ6iuGq7VKJw1LjU2MtNjSieNw-n5Cpqbywb70TvtibhvXmWt7oPxAWL84gMYmhS6-AzbE4Q5cSNQiR~XficPfWY3tj2CYN6SesZI7x-VlUGpshwDsxw9MtqdXLEFAADq1rHD2ZkqsN53w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Preservation Appeals Board upheld the Houston Historic/Historic Heritage Commission\u0000(HHC) decision on May 19, 2025, denying an appeal that sought full approval for a roughly 250-square-foot second-floor rear addition at 825 Columbia in the Houston Heights South Historic District.

Staff presented the case for 825 Columbia, a contributing Queen Anne residence on a 6,600-square-foot lot, saying the house currently measures 3,267 square feet and exceeds the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR) limit of 2,904 square feet under the Heights measurable standards. The applicant proposed removing 28 square feet of conditioned space and adding about 250 square feet above a new covered rear porch; staff\u0000recommended partial approval (the rear unconditioned porch only, without conditioned space above it) and advised the HHC it could not recommend the full addition because it failed measurable standards. The HHC accepted staff\u0000\u0000recommendation, and the applicant appealed that decision to the Appeals Board.

Applicant Matthew Fisher told the board the addition is effectively invisible from the street, would not alter the original historic fabric, and has the support of immediate neighbors. He presented a contextual analysis showing multiple nearby houses on the 800 block also exceed the FAR and argued the proposal is compatible with the block's existing built reality.

Board members split on how to apply the guidelines. Supporters of the applicant pointed to the context area, the concentration of existing FAR exceedances on the 800 block, the lack of street visibility, and neighbor support; opponents said the design guidelines and measurable standards were adopted to stop excessive additions and that allowing this addition would undermine those standards.

During deliberations the board voted first on a motion to overturn the HHC decision and approve the applicant's proposal as submitted. That motion, moved by the commissioner identified in the record as Truman Edmondster and seconded by Libby Viera Bland, failed on a 2-3 vote (Edmondster 'aye'; Viera Bland 'aye'; Douglas Elliott 'no'; Rob Hellyer 'no'; JD Bartel 'no'). The board then voted to uphold the HHC decision; the motion to uphold, made and seconded from the dais, passed 3-2 (Douglas Elliott 'aye'; Rob Hellyer 'aye'; JD Bartel 'aye'; Truman Edmondster 'no'; Libby Viera Bland 'no'). By upholding the HHC, the Appeals Board left the HHC's partial approval in place (approval of the rear porch without conditioned space above).

Key factual details reflected in the record: the property is a contributing Queen Anne house built circa 1910; the lot is 6,600 square feet; existing conditioned area is 3,267 square feet; maximum allowable based on the measurable standards is 2,904 square feet, so the existing structure is already 363 square feet over the FAR limit. The applicant's plan would remove 28 square feet then add roughly 250 square feet, yielding a proposed total of about 3,489 square feet\u0000approximately 585 square feet over the FAR limit.

The board's decision hinged on competing interpretations of the Heights design guidelines'measurable standards and whether the context area (the block face and nearby properties) justifies an adjusted application of those standards. Commissioners who voted to deny the appeal emphasized the purpose of the measurable standards to curb excessive additions; commissioners voting to overturn cited the immediate context, neighbor support, and limited street visibility as mitigating factors.

The Appeals Board did not direct additional staff action beyond applying the upheld HHC decision. The applicant may pursue any further administrative or legal remedies available under the city's ordinance process.

","The Houston Historic Preservation Appeals Board on May 19, 2025 upheld the Houston Historic/Historic Heritage Commission\u0000(HHC) decision to deny full approval for a roughly 250-square-foot second-floor rear addition at 825 Columbia in the Houston Heights South Historic District, rejecting the applicant's appeal by a 3-2 vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals board allows 1x17 siding in lieu of brick at deteriorated Norhill house after structural findings

Houston appeals board upholds HHC ruling denying full second-floor addition at 825 Columbia