The issue of whether a new third floor dormer will be allowed on a historic Elm Street home in Woodstock Village was back before the Design Review Board yesterday. The Board dug in its heels firmly indicating a dormer would be the worst kind of abomination for a “pure” and rare Woodstock example of a Greek Revival Style home from the early 1800’s.
The four board members in attendance, Carl Taylor, Nancy Sevcenko, Jeff Bendis and Beverly Ritchie were in full agreement that they could not — and would not — consider the presence of other dormers in the neighborhood in making a decision about the white-pillared brick home.
Architect Hank Savelberg and Abramson family attorney Tom Hayes wanted to ask for specific review of four design points as they believe the Woodstock Development Review Board had asked for based on their review of the issue last week. But Ritchie said the Design Review Board was not in agreement that those were the only points worth considering.
In fact, Ritchie said what concerns her most is that the Elm Street home might be in danger of losing its National Historic Register designation if a dormer is placed on its roof. The new owners have asked for the window opening to maximize space and ease mobility for their young son.
Town Planner Michael Brands pointed out that the protection or loss of the Historic Register designation was certainly related but not specific to the Design Review Board’s task in considering the dormer.
Sevcenko read a prepared statement from the group quoting books and journals about the architectual values of the Greek Revival Style and the importance of “protecting the architectual integrity” of the Woodstock building.
Sevcenko said, “I will not be able to sleep at night if this passes.” When pressed by Hayes that the Board seemed to have already made a decision without re-consideration, she said, “Well, then, this calls into question the issue of what our job is. We already voted twice. We had no reason to change our opinion.”
Repeatedly the Board members shook their heads at the dormer request and attempts by Attorney Hayes to sway their opinion, with statements about dormers “…they disrupt the crisp profile and the style and the glory of this house…(and) detract from integrity and purity of the façade.”
For Carl Taylor the issue is that, from the front, the Greek Revival Style has to maintain the look of a Greek Temple with the columns and the triangle pediment above it. Design Review Board members say any indication of disruption to the roof line would ruin this pristine “look”. They did not make any mention of or address the architectual relevance or purity of a rectangular wing that was added long ago and juts off to the right of the “temple.”
Savelberg and Hayes countered that from a full-on look at the front of the home, the proportionally set dormer would not be seen. They also said the Design Review Board was required to consider the look of surrounding homes in the district, many of which have dormers. Beverly Ritchie said that was not relevant to the case at hand. She and others said that just because dormers have been added to other buildings does not make it right for this one. She went on to describe her horror at the idea of seeing a dormer on the home, “I hate to say this…but it would look like an ear sticking out!”
The terse exchange between the Board, who appeared, in their expertise, to be fully capable of giving a Smithsonian lecture on the issue, continued until Hayes stated it was obvious there would be no swaying the board on the four specific points concerning height, proportionality and others.
Carl Taylor said he had never been more certain about the importance of the decision and that the current Design Review Board had never been in greater agreement about turning down a Design Review District request.
However, this is not the last stop for the issue. It now gets bounced back to the Woodstock Development Review Board a second time for their presumably final decision.
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 