Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bayre Windows Materials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic commission asks Bayre applicants to revise rear windows, clarify grade and materials
Summary
At its Sept. 29 meeting, the New Shoreham Historic District Commission voted to have the owners of the Bayre residence return with revised drawings showing two double-hung windows on the rear elevation, an additional window on the left elevation and a corrected materials list and grade/stair details.
The New Shoreham Historic District Commission on Sept. 29 voted to require the applicants for the Bayre residence at 334 High Street to return with revised drawings that show two double-hung windows on the rear elevation, add a matching window on the left elevation and clarify exterior materials and access to grade.
Commission members said the elevations and the application materials submitted by owners Greg Gregory and Crystal Behr contained inconsistent window drawings and a materials list that did not match the renderings. The commission asked for a clearer set of elevations and a materials list that reflects the actual products proposed.
The commission’s discussion focused on window configuration and trim. Several commissioners noted the rear bedroom elevation originally showed a single narrow fixed light; members said that elevation would read better and be more consistent with the house if it showed either one or two double-hung windows to match other existing openings. Commissioners also asked the applicants to indicate whether the rear access by the sliding-glass-door location requires steps and to show finished grade and any stair details on the drawings.
After discussion, a motion passed directing the applicant to return to the commission’s next meeting with updated drawings showing two double-hung (2-over-2) windows on the rear elevation, an additional double-hung on the left elevation, clarified grade/stair details for all sides and a revised materials list that specifies siding exposure, shingle type and trim dimensions. The motion also asked the applicants to confirm exact Anderson window models proposed where the application referenced Anderson windows.
The commission did not approve the changes as submitted; it approved the request only to return with the revisions for administrative review at the next meeting. No statutory citations were referenced during the discussion.
The commission also asked staff to confirm whether the proposed window sizes comply with any building-code egress or ventilation requirements, and to include that clarification on the revised submission.
If the applicants return with the requested clarifications and the commission’s administrative review finds the revised materials and drawings consistent with the guidance given, the commission indicated it would consider final approval at the subsequent meeting.
