Commission approves roof work to slate‑line asphalt, defers built‑in gutter repairs to September

The Evansville Historic Preservation Commission voted to bifurcate an application for a roof replacement and built‑in gutter work on a historic property on Southeast Second Street, approving the roof portion with conditions and deferring the built‑in gutter work for further review.

Darryl Whiting, a contractor presenting for the homeowner, described an existing Vermont slate roof that he said is “deteriorated and unrepairable,” and provided a contractor cost estimate included in the record: approximately $40,000 for materials, $60,000 for labor and about $15,000 for tear‑off and disposal. Whiting said the owner had asked for an asphalt shingle price; commissioners discussed alternatives including a slate‑line asphalt product that mimics slate but is an asphalt shingle.

Owner Tara Sikink addressed the commission and said, “I would like to go ahead and get approval on the slate line, and I'll do whatever color you want. I just would like to move forward.” The commission discussed whether the gutters and roof could be considered separately. Staff and commissioners emphasized that the building’s built‑in (walk‑in/box) gutters are integral to the roofline and historically significant and that any change to those gutters may be a substantial alteration requiring careful review.

The commission adopted a motion to bifurcate the application: the commission approved the roof replacement portion subject to the historic preservation officer’s final approval of the slate‑line asphalt product color and specifications; the portion of the application addressing the built‑in gutters (repair or rebuild) was deferred for consideration at the September meeting. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with recorded “aye” votes from Commissioner Richard, Commissioner Hayden, Commissioner Guthrie, Commissioner Bryant and Commissioner Cooper; Commissioner Dixon was recorded absent.

Commissioners and staff advised the owner to submit product specifications for the slate‑line asphalt and to provide documentation addressing the gutters ahead of the September meeting. The historic preservation officer said he would accept specifications by email and handle coordination with building‑permit staff to avoid conflicting permit actions.

The commission directed staff to split the application files so the roof work may proceed upon receipt of the specifications and officer approval, while the built‑in gutters will be scheduled for the next meeting for fuller review and possible repair requirements.