The Historic Resources Commission voted to approve most exterior rehabilitation work at 43 Second Avenue, the former School No. 17, but deferred a decision on whether the applicant may paint the historic exterior brick.

The applicant seeks to convert the building into 32 residential units and has already replaced the roof, stabilized interior structure and proposed a program of studios, one‑ and two‑bedrooms and mezzanine units. The plan includes repairing or replacing windows with two‑over‑two wood sash to match historic configurations, retaining and repairing the two front doors, repointing with a historic mortar mix and sensitive masonry repair techniques.

Planning staff recommended partial approval and specifically recommended denial of painting or staining the historic hard‑faced brick. Staff noted the building’s brick appears to be hard‑pressed face brick that historically was not painted, and cited field observations that the exterior brick is in “very good to excellent” condition and does not show widespread spalling that would require coating. Staff advised low‑pressure cleaning, historically appropriate mortar matching and that any retained historic windows be repaired and reinstalled.

The applicant argued that multiple prior paint and stain treatments, damage from interior water intrusion and prior deterioration left large, unevenly stained areas and that testing and cleaning have not restored a uniform appearance. The applicant said he has invested heavily in structural repairs and that painting would ensure a uniform, single color to “make it look like one building.” He also said preservation contractors and paint suppliers recommended sealing or coating to stabilize and protect some elements.

Representatives of Historic Albany Foundation and other public commenters urged preservation approaches that avoid painting exposed hard‑faced brick because paint can trap moisture and accelerate deterioration; they recommended targeted testing of chemical cleaners and, if necessary, use of masonry coatings approved by the commission and tested on small areas.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the staff recommendations — allowing the door and window repairs and other work but denying painting — and to defer the specific painting decision for one month to permit the applicant to submit additional testing, preservation‑architect scope and product specifications. The motion passed unanimously. The commission’s action permits the applicant to proceed with permitted exterior repairs and window work but requires further information before any authorization to paint the historic face brick is granted.

Commission staff cited municipal code sections in the historic resources overlay in the record (sections referenced in hearing: 3 75 2 0 6 1 d 2; 3 75 2 0 6 1 d 15 a and b; 3 75 2 0 6 1 c 7) that distinguish historic painted brick from hard‑pressed unpainted face brick and that counsel the retention of original materials.