Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Windows Retrofit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HDC declines 214 Monument Street window replacement; commissioners urge retention or sensitive retrofit
Summary
The commission voted to reject the applicant’s proposal to replace 10 third‑floor windows at 214 Monument Street, citing guidelines favoring retention and restoration of historic windows and concern replacement would be premature given the house’s existing modern windows on lower floors.
The Historic Districts Commission on March 5 rejected a proposal to replace 10 third‑floor double‑hung windows at 214 Monument Street, concluding the record did not show the existing windows were deteriorated to the point that wholesale replacement was warranted.
Nick Bunny of Adams and Beasley Associates presented the application on behalf of homeowner Sarah Hawk. The proposal sought to replace ten third‑floor 2‑over‑2 double‑hung windows visible from Monument Street and Ripley Hill Road. The applicant offered two product options: a Marvin insert (clad, simulated divided light) and a Proper Bostonian (wood, true divided light). The applicant said the owners planned insulation work on the Third Floor and wanted improved energy performance; the Marvin product would have a U‑factor of about 0.30 and allow removal of existing triple‑track storms, while the Proper Bostonian option would retain the storms and preserve existing sash sightlines.
Commissioners debated restoration versus replacement. Several members (including Commissioners Dennis Fiore and Tim Whitney) urged preservation of existing wooden sash where feasible and noted pocket‑sash retrofit options and interior storm strategies that can improve thermal performance without wholesale replacement. Commissioner Dennis Fiore said the presented windows did not appear to be in a state of obvious decay and questioned whether replacement was necessary solely for energy performance. Commissioner Catherine Mast was the principal voice of opposition to rejection, arguing the house’s first‑ and second‑floor windows already use Marvin replacement products and that a sensitive wood window solution could be appropriate now.
Motion and vote: A motion to reject the replacement submittal carried. The commission’s recorded vote included affirmative votes to reject from Commissioners Kristen Dollman, Dennis Fiore, Tim Whitney and others; Commissioner Catherine Mast voted against the motion. The commission directed the applicant to explore sash‑preserving retrofit options (interior storms, jamb retrofit, or a Proper Bostonian installation that retains sash proportions) and pointed to precedents used elsewhere in Concord for true divided‑light wood replacement when restoration is not viable.
How this matters: The decision underscores the commission’s general preference for repair and restoration of historic wood sash and its scrutiny of frame‑in‑frame or insert systems that alter visible proportions. The commission emphasized alternatives that address energy efficiency while preserving historic fabric.
The commission invited the applicant to return with either a focused restoration plan or more detailed documentation showing windows are deteriorated beyond repair.
