Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Window Replacement After The Fact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on after‑the‑fact window replacements at 187 Danforth Street
Summary
The board reviewed an after‑the‑fact installation of replacement windows at a contributing West End property and directed staff to work with the applicant on reversible mitigation such as applied muntins; the application was tabled so the applicant can pursue options.
The Portland Historic Preservation Board on May 7 took up an after‑the‑fact review of replacement windows installed at 187 Danforth Street, a contributing property in the West End Historic District, and tabled the matter to allow staff and the applicant to pursue mitigation options.
Staff showed historic photos and the current condition and told the board the issue before them was whether the installed windows are consistent with the board’s standards for alterations to contributing properties. Applicant Thomas Daugherty explained he replaced multiple windows for energy efficiency and light and said porch windows had been failing; he said the intent was to use high‑quality units common elsewhere in the West End.
Board members said the original multi‑pane upper sash and meeting‑rail proportions were a character‑defining feature of the house. Several members said the windows removed contained distinctive historic patterning that could not be fully recreated by the current replacement units. Members explored possible remedies that would avoid wholesale replacement of the newly installed windows, including applied muntins or snap‑in divided‑light kits available from some manufacturers to recreate the appearance of the historic sash without replacing the installed frames.
One neighbor who testified online said the new windows were not out of character with the street and supported approval. The applicant said some of the original windows had been discarded before the board convened and that he had discussed retrofit options with staff and some manufacturers.
The board agreed there is a character‑defining window pattern but that the windows are already installed. Members directed staff to work with the applicant to identify feasible, reversible modifications (for example, applied muntins or compatible retrofit kits) that would better reflect the historic divided‑light appearance while leaving the installed units in place if the modification is demonstrably achievable. The board voted to table the application so the applicant and staff can pursue those options.
What happens next: Staff will research retrofit options, work with the applicant and manufacturers on compatible applied muntins or kits, and bring a revised application or recommendation back to the board for final action.
