Board approves window, deck and soffit work at 272 West Market with condition to pursue historic spindle preservation

The York City Historical Architectural Review Board voted to approve work at 270–272 West Market Street that addresses lead-contaminated paint on a second-floor fire-escape balcony, subject to efforts to preserve or replicate historic decorative spindles where feasible.

Kevin Paul of Servpro told the board the property “failed a lead test” and that the UPMC report found lead-based paint “throughout the fire escape, balcony,” with deteriorated paint on rails, spindles and windows. He said the proposal includes replacing windows (nine on the second floor: six at 272 and three at 270), removing and replacing deck boards, and replacing the rail system. The application listed Andersen A-series windows in the revised specification sheet; Paul said the 100 series would also be acceptable.

Board members discussed options for preserving the distinctive jigsaw-cut spindles. One member suggested fabricating replacements from cypress or cedar with a computer-controlled router; another proposed composite replicates if wood is impractical. The applicant said some spindles are rotted and that an abatement/repair option — stripping and resealing existing spindles and replacing only the rotted ones — had not been fully costed.

A motion approved the windows and the proposed deck and rail work while directing the applicant to investigate cost-effective ways to preserve or replicate the jigsaw-cut spindles (including wood reproduction or composite fabrication). If preservation or accurate replication is not feasible, the board authorized replacement with simpler straight inch-and-a-quarter square balusters and a historically appropriate cap and base rail profile (a profile commonly sold by molding suppliers and composite vendors). The board also approved a vented composite soffit in lieu of vinyl if a composite vented product with a beadboard look is available; otherwise the board said it would accept vented vinyl as a fallback.

The applicant and board discussed detailing to prevent water intrusion under new deck materials; board members described a membrane-on-subfloor approach with sleepers for composite walk boards as the durable solution, but they acknowledged it is costlier. The applicant reported Andersen windows would be approximately a 12-week lead time.

In discussion, the board emphasized visibility from Market Street and the desire to retain historic character where possible while allowing the property owner to address lead hazards and structural deterioration. The motion carried and included a staff follow-up to review proposed spindle replication options, soffit material samples and final window specifications.