Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Windows And Structural Repairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables Wilfrid/TAR application, schedules site visit after dispute over historic windows
Summary
The commission tabled a multi‑element application for 106–122 Green Street (window replacement, porch repairs, and site work) and agreed to schedule a site visit and require additional design/engineering drawings after applicants and preservation advocates disputed whether windows should be restored or replaced.
The Historic Landmark Preservation Commission on Feb. 6 tabled a multi‑part application for work at 106–122 Green Street — referred to during the meeting as the Wilfrid/TAR project — and scheduled a site visit after protracted discussion over the condition and treatment of the building’s windows and structural work on the front porch.
Representatives for the applicant (identified in the meeting as Cam Davis and attorney Jim Bacon) removed the rear porch from the application for financial reasons and stated intentions to proceed with porch repairs, stone repair and window work. The applicant’s team told the commission they had contracted to install replica windows, saying those sash were made to match the existing openings and that $60,000 had been spent on the window order.
Preservation advocates and commission members pushed for closer inspection and additional documentation. Commissioners asked for close‑up photographs and for design/structural drawings, particularly for the front porch’s bluestone slab and substructure; the applicants acknowledged they will engage a design professional (architect or structural engineer) to prepare drawings. The commission recommended that the applicant obtain a structural engineer to document the temporary support and final foundation repairs before the commission signs off on the porch work.
The most contested item was the proposed wholesale replacement of windows. The applicant’s attorney referenced a prior court decision and expert assessments (submitted in earlier litigation) that concluded the windows currently in place were not original to the 18th or 17th centuries and that DAR experts recommended full replacement, a point he said would weigh in court. Commissioners reiterated their interest in preserving extant historic fabric where feasible: they asked for clearer photographic evidence, on‑site inspection of the exterior (and removal of storm windows where practicable), and measurements of any windows that might be repairable.
The commission voted to table the application and to schedule a site visit (exterior inspection) for March 19–21, asking staff to coordinate with Building Safety and to confirm that storm windows can be removed so commissioners can assess the windows’ condition from outside. The board also advised the applicant to assemble design drawings for the porch work and expected the applicant to supply contractor acknowledgements of COA conditions for staff to include in the permit process.
