Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Roofing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board postpones roof replacement at Acequia Madre house pending review of unpermitted façade changes
Summary
The Historic District Review Board postponed consideration of a roof‑replacement exception for 964 Acequia Madre on June 25 after members observed changes to the primary façade that were not reflected in the noticed packet. The board requested staff investigate and return with a complete record.
The Historic District Review Board on June 25 postponed review of a request to replace the roof at 964 Acequia Madre after board members found discrepancies between the packet materials and the site condition.
Senior Planner Duran summarized the request: the 1940s Spanish‑Pueblo house is listed as contributing and the owner sought permission to replace multiple roof materials with a single crimp‑seam metal roof (26‑inch gauge) to address leaks and deterioration. Staff recommended approval, noting the replacement material would imitate historic color and profile while addressing the roof’s poor condition.
During the site discussion board members and staff identified work on the north elevation — notably a door/window configuration that appeared different on‑site than in the packet — and raised concern that unpermitted changes might have been made to a primary façade. Member Cherry asked whether the board should postpone action until code enforcement/staff could investigate the on‑site alterations and determine whether a restoration or a separate status review is required. Board members stressed the legal standards that allow the board or staff to require restoration of a structure altered without approvals.
Public commenters at the meeting noted the practical urgency of repairing a leaking roof and urged the board to allow the roof work to proceed; others said the board must first get a complete and accurate record of façade changes. The board voted to postpone the roof application to a date‑certain while staff investigates and clarifies what exterior changes have been made and whether a separate application or status‑review proceeding is required. The board’s motion asked staff to arrange follow‑up inspections and, if necessary, to bring a separate case (with new case number and proper notice) to resolve any unpermitted façade alterations. The board set the continuation for July 22.
Staff told the board it would send an inspector to the site and follow code‑enforcement procedures (red tag/notice of violation) if necessary, and it would advise the board whether separate action to restore the façade should be filed.
