Board tables two applications for lack of details or applicant attendance; asks for specs or presence

5959225 · October 16, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Architectural Review tabled two items—BAR25-293 (408 North Kent Street) and BAR25-300 (703 South Loudoun Street)—requesting applicants provide specifications or appear in person before the board will act.

The Winchester Board of Architectural Review on Oct. 16 voted to table two applications after staff reported missing details or the applicant's absence.

BAR25-293, the request of Ray Beamer for a certificate of appropriateness to repair front porch decking and paint the handrail at 408 North Kent Street, was tabled because the applicant was not present and the application lacked material specifications. Staff recommended tabling "until the applicant could be here — just to make sure the scope of work is verified." The board voted to table and asked the applicant to provide material details or attend the next meeting.

BAR25-300, a request from Susan Gates for retroactive approval to replace garage doors at 703 South Loudoun Street, was also tabled. Staff said the board had previously denied the installed door and asked the owner to return with suitable alternatives; the applicant later presented a steel door option with a square-panel pattern. Board members questioned whether replacing only the center door would be acceptable or whether all three doors should match, whether wood should be required, and whether a steel door sample or full door view was necessary. The board asked the applicant either to appear at the next meeting or to provide a clear visual of the proposed steel door and to clarify whether one or all three doors would be changed.

In both cases the board cited insufficient specification details and the benefit of applicant attendance to clarify scope. The motions to table were seconded and approved by voice vote with no opposition.