Kalamazoo Historic District Commission denies retroactive window alteration at 1009 Oak Street

The Kalamazoo Historic District Commission on March 18 denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for retroactive removal of a front window and installation of a vinyl replacement at 1009 Oak Street, saying the work removed a character-defining feature and did not meet local and federal preservation standards.

The action matters because the commission enforces local historic-district rules intended to preserve building character across Kalamazoo’s historic neighborhoods. Staff cited the Michigan Local Historic Districts Act and Chapter 16 of the Kalamazoo Code of Ordinances and told the applicant the commission uses the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation when reviewing work in local historic districts.

Commissioners focused on two core issues: the removal of a visibly prominent center window on the front façade and the use of vinyl rather than a wood window that would match historic appearance. Commissioner Underwood said she visited the property and expressed concern that the removal “violat[es] our standards of removing a character defining feature,” and that the shorter vinyl window “disrupts the visual alignment of all the windows.” Another commissioner said the commission has “a hard time even with an inspector report saying things are moldy and rotten” justifying removal without attempting a replacement that matches historic materials and dimensions.

Michael Braun, the owner of 1009 Oak Street, told the commission he bought the property in February 2017 and described repeated water intrusion over several years. Braun said he hired a local contractor, Cagney Construction, to address what he described as an immediate health and safety concern for tenants with children and that the vinyl window stopped water entry. Braun asked whether preservation standards are “more important though than the health of the family?” and said he had consulted attorneys after the work because he believed there may be “a level of discrimination” against out-of-state owners.

Commissioners noted that an inspector’s 2017 report documented bubbling paint and rot at windows and flagged the center dining-room window as needing replacement, but several commissioners said that history did not justify installing a nonmatching vinyl window without attempting a wood replacement that preserves original size and sash pattern. Commissioners suggested options such as custom-sized wood double-hung windows and adding storm windows to address weather and insulation while preserving historic appearance.

Commissioner James moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the work as described in the application, as it complied with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; Commissioner Christie seconded. The motion was amended on the floor to cite Standards 2, 6, 9 and 10. The roll call vote recorded four opposing votes: Commissioner Portman — no; Commissioner Bridal — no; Commissioner Underwood — no; Commissioner Johnson — no. The motion failed 0–4, and the commission denied the retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness.

After the vote, staff told Braun the commission would provide a formal proposal for remedy and follow up with him by phone and formal notice by the end of the week. Commissioners said their typical remedy approach is to require that the property be returned to the preexisting condition with like-for-like wood windows (matching opening size, double-hung configuration and trim) or an acceptable replacement that replicates historic materials and features.

Next steps: staff will send the applicant a written notice describing the commission’s decision and a proposed remedy; the applicant may submit a new application proposing wood windows sized and detailed to match the historic openings and any requested building permits. The commission recorded the denial as final action at the meeting.