Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Windows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HARB continues 105 Marine Street case after lengthy debate over after‑the‑fact vinyl windows
Summary
The Historic Architecture Review Board continued an after‑the‑fact and future window‑replacement application at 105 Marine Street after a lengthy exchange about unauthorized replacements and the documentation needed to move forward.
The Historic Architecture Review Board on May 19 continued an after‑the‑fact and future window-replacement application for 105 Marine Street (HP2025-0537), instructing the owner to return to the June 18 meeting with a full window-condition survey, documentation of which windows were replaced without prior HARB review and proposals for more appropriate window materials.
Staff described a complex property with windows of many types — wood double-hung, 1-over-1 aluminum, multi-pane casements and recently installed vinyl — and said the initial submittal proposed American Craftsman 50-series vinyl replacements for a series of aluminum casements. The applicant, Trisha Dobosch, told the board the building’s windows had been replaced piecemeal over time and the owner was trying to arrive at a practical, consistent approach while work proceeds unit by unit as vacancies permit.
Board members pressed for a comprehensive approach. They repeatedly asked the applicant to commission a qualified window survey that documents each opening, identifies original or significant windows and clarifies which replacements were installed without HARB review. Several members said vinyl was not acceptable on prominent elevations and that wood or wood-clad windows were likely to be the appropriate materials; others suggested aluminum-clad wood as an alternate on secondary elevations. The board also discussed after‑the‑fact replacements already performed under an interior‑work building permit and advised the applicant that those changes could trigger code‑enforcement review if they occurred without required HARB approvals.
The board’s directions to the applicant included: provide a complete window-condition survey with photos keyed to a floor plan, supply side‑by‑side samples or cut sheets of proposed wood and clad alternatives, identify the scope of the after‑the‑fact work, and clarify how future phased replacements will be scheduled. Staff set a filing deadline for materials to be included in the June 18 packet.
Why it matters: 105 Marine is a large multiunit building in a historic district. Board members said a piecemeal approach can result in loss of character-defining features; the survey and details will let the board evaluate whether proposed changes are compatible.
What’s next: The applicant was continued to HARB’s June 18 meeting and must submit the window survey, material samples and installation details for the board’s review.
