Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders replacement in kind after nonpermitted removal of historic windows at 800 Gildersleeve
Summary
Preservation staff issued a stop‑work tag after four historic wood windows were removed without a permit; the board approved a conditional application requiring in‑kind wood replacements and staff approval of color and dimensions.
The Historic Districts Review Board on Aug. 26 approved a restoration plan for four windows removed without a permit at 800 Gildersleeve, requiring the owner to replace the openings with wood, true‑divided‑light windows matching the previously installed sizes and a staff‑approved paint color.
Preservation staff said inspectors issued a stop‑work writ after they discovered the removal and that the original sashes had been taken from the site; the board conditioned approval on restoring the historic openings and installing painted wood windows consistent with the property's existing windows.
Paul, a preservation staff member, told the board that the property and detached garage are contributing to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District and that a city inspector had issued a stop‑work order after four historic wood windows on the south primary façade were removed without permits. "Given the egregious act of removing historic material without a permit and not complying with what was previously approved by the historic district's review board, staff is requesting the historic windows that were removed be replaced in kind," Paul said.
A window assessment by Ray Patterson concluded moisture intrusion had damaged the historic frames and sashes; staff said the removed sashes are no longer on the property and recommended replacement "in like and kind" — painted wood, two‑over‑one divided light — sized to match the original openings. The applicant, sworn in at the hearing, said the intention was to replace the windows "in the same size that they were were, not no change in size," and that the removed windows were in poor condition. The applicant asked that the board allow the replacements to be painted to match the other windows on the house.
Public commenter Stephanie Benonato supported staff's recommendation and urged that the replacements not be aluminum‑clad. She asked staff to confirm that rooftop equipment previously visible on the primary façade had been removed; Paul said the HVAC unit mentioned was not currently present.
Member Beechside moved to approve the application with the condition that the four windows be replaced in kind with painted, true‑divided‑light wood windows and that staff confirm the replacement color matches the existing windows (hemlock green was cited as the current color). The motion carried on roll call; Member Cherry abstained. The board also approved minor related items including a nonpublic garage door modification, a mini‑split HVAC installation sited to be invisible from the street, exterior lighting, repaired stucco around the openings and infilling a nonprimary garage door.
Staff noted that the exceptions requested by the applicant did not meet the criteria but that the board's conditional approval resolves the violation by requiring restoration of the historic window openings. The board directed staff to document the agreement and to proceed with issuance of permits only after conditions are met.
