York City panel conditions approval of window replacement at 127 North Broad Street

The Historic Architectural Review Panel (HARP) in York City voted to approve an amended application requiring composite simulated-divided-light windows — for example, Andersen A- or 100-series models — instead of the vinyl windows the applicant initially proposed for 127 North Broad Street.

The requirement, announced after a lengthy discussion of materials and longevity, was conditioned on the applicant presenting exact product specifications to city staff so a formal staff review could be forwarded to HARP members and the city council ahead of the May 6 council meeting.

The issue matters because the building sits on a visible street face in a local historic district and previously participated in a federal historic-preservation tax-credit project before a fire about seven years ago. Panel members and staff repeatedly cited the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and state and National Park Service guidance as the basis for resisting vinyl on the primary facades. Nancy, a city staff member, read an emailed opinion from architect Mark Shermyer that recommended composite or clad-wood products rather than vinyl for a commercial building of this type and visibility.

During the review, the applicant described the project as a phased residential renovation intended to reopen the upper floors as apartments and eventually add 32 new units in a later addition. The applicant told the panel, “There’s 80 windows,” and clarified that would amount to “160 sashes, so to speak.” He said he had previously pursued historic tax credits and received approvals in 2017 but no longer had that financing. “Definitely do not. And this is all on my own trying to get this thing back and going because it’s been sitting for 7 years,” the applicant said when explaining why he wanted lower-cost vinyl now.

Panel members pressed on durability and visual compatibility. One member said past approvals on the site used metal-clad wood or composite windows with simulated divided lights and argued that vinyl “does not meet any of those guidelines.” Another member recommended allowing appropriate windows on the street-facing elevations while permitting less-visible elevations to use different products, but emphasized the risk of creating a precedent that could weaken the district’s status with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and National Park Service (NPS).

The applicant said he would investigate costs and product options and return product selections to city staff in the days following the hearing so staff could prepare a written review and the matter could go to city council. The panel’s motion — moved and seconded during the meeting — approved the application as amended (substituting composite simulated-divided-light windows for vinyl) subject to submission of the specific product for staff review and forwarding to council. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally for the final vote; the motion was moved, seconded, and called to a vote.

Panel members and staff also suggested additional financing avenues and technical assistance. A panel member suggested the applicant explore Federal Home Loan Bank programs (noting the Pittsburgh Federal Home Loan Bank’s regional office) and local partners such as the York County Economic Alliance for possible project support. The applicant said bank underwriting and previous special exceptions made the tax-credit route infeasible this time, citing a typical transaction threshold of around $5,000,000 for most institutions and saying he had relied on a one-time exception in 2017.

The panel and staff encouraged the applicant to supply final product samples and warranties; staff said it would prepare and circulate a staff review and recommended wording to the council. If the applicant later decides he cannot meet the stipulation, the transcript records that his option would be to take the matter to council and explain the change, which could alter the council’s acceptance of the HARP recommendation.

The panel’s action preserves an avenue for the applicant to move forward with window framing and limited preparatory work: staff and members agreed the applicant could build wood frames in advance but must submit the final window selection before permits for replacement sashes and the broader renovation proceed.

Votes at a glance: the transcript records a motion and second to approve the amended application and the chair calling for a vote; no roll-call tally or explicit ayes/nays for the final motion are recorded in the transcript.