Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Window Replacement Shutters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HRC continues review of window replacements and unapproved shutters at Parkersburg‑area house
Summary
The Historic Resources Commission on May 15 continued a hearing on exterior repairs at 204 East Oakland Avenue, ordering the applicant to submit historic documentation for shutters and more detailed window and trim drawings before it will act.
The Historic Resources Commission on May 15 continued consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for exterior repairs and code‑violation corrections at 204 East Oakland Avenue in the Parkersburg District after lengthy discussion about window types, siding and nonhistoric shutters.
Steve Glasgow, representing the property, told the commission the house is a two‑story wood frame house built by 1924 and described recent work and prior approvals. He said that earlier approvals authorized retaining or replacing wood trim and that some work on the property was done without proper permitting, prompting a code violation. Staff noted prior approvals from 2022 and 2023 and recommended the application be continued to allow the applicant to revise drawings to meet the city code and HRC guidelines.
Staff and commissioners were particularly focused on four issues: a dormer window replaced with a casement that does not match the double‑hung appearance of the rest of the home; vinyl and aluminum trim additions that staff said are inconsistent with the certificate of appropriateness previously issued; storm windows and siding details; and decorative shutters that were removed in 2019 and reinstalled in 2023 without documentation to show they were historically present.
The commission reiterated standard guidance that new shutters require historic documentation to be retained; staff recommended removal of non‑historic shutters unless documentation demonstrates prior historic use. Commissioners asked the applicant to document that shutters were original (staff had photos from the county website showing shutters at earlier dates but could not confirm they were original) and to submit an example window from the HPO approved list demonstrating appropriate proportions and profiles. Staff noted the Marvin Elevate fiberglass casement had been previously approved in other cases as a simulated divided‑light window that functions as a casement while preserving historic sightlines.
The applicant said he preferred not to replace a currently installed casement window with the Marvin product unless required, citing existing stained interior trim and a desire to avoid wholesale replacement. Commissioners pressed for a practical resolution that will address egress code requirements while maintaining compatible exterior sightlines and proportions.
After discussion the commission voted to continue the application to allow the applicant time to submit additional documentation of historic shutters (if available), detailed sections for trim and sills, and window options/samples compatible with HRC guidelines. Staff cited city code 306.11 (standards for alterations) and related guidelines as the basis for the continuation.
The continuation does not resolve the code violation; applicants were told to coordinate with HPO staff and return with revised materials for the June hearing.
