Historical commission approves screened porch and side stairs for Elm Street house

The Northampton Historical Commission voted Monday, April 28, 2025, to award a Certificate of Appropriateness for a screened porch and side stairs at a house in the local historic district on Elm Street (Parcel 24C-044).

The decision followed a presentation by the homeowner, Beatrice O'Shea, and the project architect, Mark (architect), who described a roughly 10-foot-deep by 20-foot-wide screened porch above an existing two-car garage, a side porch and two sets of exterior stairs. Commission members discussed visibility from the street, materials and how the new work references existing historic details.

The commission's vote, taken after questions and discussion, passed with all voting members in favor and one recusal. The commission did not record individual roll-call votes in the transcript; the meeting record noted one recusal and a majority in favor.

The homeowners and the architect told the commission the house dates to about 1865 and has had later additions; a nonhistoric wing added in 2005 was removed previously and replaced with a three-story reconstruction that includes the garage beneath the proposed porch. Architect Mark described design choices that borrow columns, capitals and balustrade profiles from the house's front porch to keep new work visually consistent with the building's Italianate/vernacular detailing. "This screen porch section is about 10 feet deep by 20 feet wide," he said, and added that the new balustrade would meet modern code with a 36-inch top rail while keeping historical proportions.

Materials described for the project include painted wood columns and trim, a standing-seam metal flat roof over the side porch, and thermally treated hardwood treads for exterior stairs. The homeowners and the architect said the porch ceiling would be beaded tongue-and-groove pine or fir and that screening would be removable seasonally. The interior-to-porch connection would be a folding-door system creating a roughly 12-foot opening between the kitchen/dining space and the screened porch.

Commissioners asked whether the rear porch would be visible from public ways; members said the rear porch is unlikely to be clearly visible except at select angles and that the side porch is the principal element visible from Elm Street. Commissioners complimented the applicants on restoration work the owners previously completed and on detailed design drawings provided in advance of the hearing. One commissioner suggested additional planting or landscape measures to "ground" the elevated porch and soften its appearance; the applicants said they were considering climbing plantings and a short brick landing at the driveway transition but had not finalized those details.

The commission discussed two options for the side entrance: a door with transom and sidelights or a paired French-door option. One commissioner said, "I vote for the French door," while the project team noted the paired door option would be narrower because it matches the original window opening and might affect egress; the applicants said they would continue to evaluate which option meets code and design goals.

After public comment (none were raised during the meeting), a commissioner moved to award a Certificate of Appropriateness for the porches and side stairs; another commissioner seconded the motion. The commission then conducted a hand vote; the motion passed with one commissioner recusing.

The commission did not attach additional conditions in the meeting transcript beyond standard compliance with the city's design-standards guidance for porches, stairways and replacement materials. The project team said work will be wood construction except for metal handrails, and the stairs will use thermally treated hardwood treads to reduce preservative treatments.

The applicants were excused after the vote; the commission will expect to see construction progress and documentation consistent with its standards.