The Historic Preservation Commission on Nov. 14 declined to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 198 Broadway (Map Lot 047-012) in the Broadway Historic District, rejecting an application to remove an existing slate roof and install GAF Slate Line asphalt shingles.

The commission’s decision followed a lengthy public hearing that included a consultant report, testimony from the property owner and a presentation from local slate contractors. Chair Edmond Chernevski opened the item and read the application into the record before the applicant spoke and the commission heard the consultant’s comments.

The applicant, Steven Farren, described repeated repair attempts and said contractors told him the existing slate is “brittle” and that “the majority of the existing shingles will most definitely break and deteriorate even further during removal.” Farren told the commission he believes 90% of the slates are damaged and said replacing with the proposed asphalt product is the only financially viable option: “Financially, yes,” he said when asked whether alternative slate repairs were possible but unaffordable.

Commission staff and the appointed consultant reviewed the application and raised standard preservation questions. The consultant noted that slate is more sustainable than asphalt and asked whether the slate could be repaired in place or replaced “in kind,” and whether distinctive metal eave and ridge trim would be retained. The consultant also cited the Broadway Water Works project as an example where original slates were previously replaced with asphalt and emphasized that each property must be evaluated on its own merits.

Contractors from Blackstone Restoration presented to the commission during public comment, showing photographs and material samples and offering professional assessments of slate condition and costs. Elliot Hugenard of Blackstone Restoration described slate as a durable, serviceable material and said slate-only replacement costs vary widely; he estimated $2,200 per square for a simple slate roof and noted that complex roofs can cost substantially more. He and colleagues also provided local examples and discussed repair techniques, copper flashings and gutters used in traditional work.

Commission members pursued several lines of inquiry: how many roofers were consulted, whether written quotes or documented repair attempts exist, the extent of visible leaks (the applicant said four interior leaks are visible when it rains), and whether the metal drip edges and ridge details could be retained or replicated. Commissioner Nathaniel King and others emphasized the city’s standards (historic preservation section of city ordinances, section 1-48) that call for repair rather than replacement “wherever possible” and require new materials to match the replaced material in composition, design and finish.

The commission also considered the ordinance’s undue-hardship exception (subsection on certificates when standards are not met). Commissioners said they lacked sufficient written cost comparisons and contractor estimates showing slate repair or like‑for‑like replacement is infeasible. Several commissioners recommended that the applicant supply documented quotes for slate repair and replace-in-kind work, plus comparable written estimates for the proposed asphalt replacement, and more evidence of prior repair attempts.

After discussion, Commissioner Nathaniel King moved to approve the application to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed replacement; Commissioner Matthew White Kent seconded. The motion failed on a roll-call style outcome: 2 votes in favor, 3 opposed, preventing issuance of the certificate (the commission’s rules require four affirmative votes for approval when five members are voting). Chair Chernevski earlier led a separate procedural vote in which the commission determined that Matthew White Kent did not have to recuse himself from voting on the item.

The commission did not approve the application. Members described two next steps the applicant may pursue: withdraw and resubmit a revised application, or provide the additional documentation requested and seek either a continuance or consideration at a special meeting before the next regular session. Chair Chernevski and staff noted the applicant’s right to appeal a commission decision to the Board of Appeals.

Clarifying details offered during the hearing included contractor ballpark figures Farren reported (one slate estimate at about $125,000 and another at about $140,000 to replace the roof in kind), repair patch costs the applicant gave as roughly $3,000–$5,000 per repair, and contractor testimony that asphalt replacement can be less expensive (contractors cited local asphalt pricing and GAF warranty terms). The applicant said the proposed GAF Slate Line product comes with a lifetime warranty to the original and second owner if installed by a certified contractor; contractors and the consultant discussed longevity, maintenance and historic appearance tradeoffs.

Commissioners asked the applicant to document: (1) written estimates or written refusals from qualified slate contractors; (2) a log of repair attempts and associated costs; and (3) a plan showing how eave and ridge metal trim would be replicated or retained if an alternative roof material were used.

The denial does not preclude the applicant from returning with more documentation, withdrawing and revising the application, or appealing the commission’s decision. The commission’s staff reminded applicants that certificates of appropriateness, if issued, generally require projects to be started within six months and completed within one year to remain valid.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 198 Broadway to replace slate with GAF Slate Line asphalt shingles — mover: Nathaniel King; second: Matthew White Kent; tally: yes 2, no 3; outcome: failed. Procedural motion on recusal: commission determined Matthew White Kent need not recuse; outcome: approved (commission determined no direct financial conflict under local standard).