Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Permit Windows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants limited approval for after‑the‑fact impact windows at 6710 Lejeune Road; conditions restrict future replacements
Summary
After citing an after‑the‑fact permit violation, the Historic Preservation Board narrowly approved a proposal May 14 allowing impact low‑E glass on the west elevation of 6710 Lejeune Road while requiring other visible windows be clear, non‑low‑E and correcting muntin patterns.
The Historic Preservation Board on Thursday considered an after‑the‑fact building permit for replacement windows and doors at 6710 Lejeune Road, a prominent contributing resource in the South African Village Historic District, and approved a narrowly scoped solution that split the difference between energy‑performance demands and preservation standards.
The property owner had replaced multiple windows without a prior COA; staff recommended denial because the installed units are low‑E and exhibit reflectivity and tint that staff said detracts from the historic fabric and could set a precedent for the front‑facing windows. Architect William Arthur and the owner contended the new windows are clear low‑E (not tinted), meet energy code requirements for permits, and in their view are more historically appropriate than the previous windows.
After extended discussion the board adopted a motion allowing the installed low‑E units to remain on the property’s west elevation (the windows explicitly cited in the enforcement action) but ordered that all other windows covered by the application must be clear, non‑low‑E glass and that certain apertures with incorrect muntin/casement configurations be corrected as shown on revised permit drawings. The board’s roll call resulted in a 5‑3 split, with the five‑vote majority allowing low‑E only for the specified western elevation windows; the other visible facades must use clear glass when replaced and final muntin configurations must match the approved drawings.
Board members debated precedent, visual reflectivity and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; staff noted alternative ways to meet energy code but recommended clear glass where visibility is high. The board also directed staff to work with the applicant on an application to replace additional front windows under an appropriate COA if the owner wishes to pursue them.
The board’s action resolves the immediate code enforcement matter for the cited windows but leaves open the requirement that any future window replacements affecting visible facades must follow the city’s historic‑preservation review process and the conditions adopted by the board.
