The Historic Resources Commission of the City of Albany voted to deny an application to apply a masonry coating to the brickwork at 43 Second Avenue after a public hearing in which staff and commissioners said available testing and documentation did not justify repainting the building.

Commissioners and staff said the product and test materials submitted — including references to Loxon XP and other acrylic coatings — were not convincing that the coatings would be appropriate for the building’s hard-pressed face brick and could trap moisture and accelerate deterioration. Christopher Lowman, the city’s historic preservation planner, told the commission staff’s recommendation remained that the cited products were “not appropriate masonry coatings.”

The commission heard from the property owner and applicant, identified in the record as Nick Maxoonie, who said he has invested substantially in the building and that his interior work and perceived marketability would be hurt if he could not use an external finish. “I do care for the building because I bought it like this,” Maxoonie said, and he told commissioners he had invested about $2,000,000 in interior work.

Commissioners stressed that their review focused on the exterior historic fabric and the technical effects of coatings. Staff cited the commission’s applicable criteria, noting a provision in the application materials that unpainted hard-faced brick should be left unpainted when feasible (referenced in the staff packet as Criteria 3 75 2 0 6 1 d 15 b). Staff and outside technical reviewers flagged gaps in the applicant’s testing documentation — for example, nozzle pressure, distance, and sampling methodology for cleaning tests — leaving uncertainty about whether the proposed treatment would harm the masonry.

Multiple commissioners recommended selective cleaning, targeted repointing where mortar is failing, repair of stonework at the base, and replacement of doors and windows already identified as part of the rehabilitation, rather than wholesale application of an impermeable coating. One commissioner summarized the technical concern to the applicant: applying an impervious paint film to sound brick can “cause greater brick failure and issues with the stone” over time.

After discussion, a motion to deny the application to apply the proposed coating carried. The motion directs that the specific coating proposed not be approved as part of the present certificate of appropriateness. The commission’s stated options going forward include providing written guidance on acceptable cleaning and restoration approaches, accepting additional technical testing or documentation from the applicant, or considering a hardship waiver process if the applicant pursues that path.

Commission staff noted Historic Albany and others had submitted commentary and that staff are available to work with the applicant on alternative treatments. The commission said it is open to re-evaluating the project if new, verifiable engineering or materials-testing information is provided or if the applicant files for a denial-based hardship waiver with the documentation required by the commission’s procedures.

The commission’s action applies only to the coating application described in the current certificate of appropriateness submission; the previously approved work on windows and other items remains subject to inspection during construction and may raise separate, site-specific questions (for example, where interior partitions might intersect window openings).

The commission closed the public hearing on the application after the vote and moved on to other business.