Board approves rear addition and garage at 608 Ellesmere Park, directs fence be returned to originally approved configuration

2727567 ยท March 21, 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 approved a certificate of appropriateness for a rear addition and garage at 608 Ellesmere Park with standard staff conditions and resolved a fence violation by directing the front fence be restored to the previously approved 4-foot height to a midpoint and 6-foot beyond.

The Lexington Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a rear addition and a garage at 608 Ellesmere Park and resolved a separate fence violation at the site.

At the meeting staff and the applicant confirmed agreement on staff recommendations for the addition and garage, including submission of final door and window details and the preservation offices standard two conditions: resubmission to staff after review by other LFUCG divisions and resubmission if changes alter the information before work begins.

The board approved items A (rear addition) and B (garage and driveway) with those conditions. For item C (the fence), the parties agreed the constructed fence did not match the previously approved plan and the board directed that the front and primary elevation fence be returned to the previously approved configuration: a 4-foot solid fence from the front corner to approximately the midpoint of the historic house elevation, where it would step up to 6 feet and continue to the rear. Board members and staff clarified that the fence topper shown on some drawings would not create a total height above 6 feet, and that the 4-foot front section should remain solid without a topper unless it met other requirements.

The board also reminded applicants to include trees and site imagery on future site plans. A board member had warned staff not to accept plans that omit tree locations in the future.

A motion to approve items A and B and to leave C to the previously approved fence arrangement passed by voice vote; the board added that the midpoint step-up to 6 feet should be worked out in consultation with staff.