Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After-the-fact window replacements at Charles G. Bryant double house lead applicant to withdraw application
Summary
An after-the-fact application for replacement of 21 windows at the Charles G. Bryant double house was discussed at length; the applicant withdrew the application to return with more documentation and options for partial remediation.
The commission spent the evening's longest discussion on an after-the-fact application for 16 Division Street, the Charles G. Bryant double house — a locally designated historic site — where the current owner replaced 21 windows without prior Historic Preservation Commission approval.
Jessica Richard, representing Chris Pepin Properties LLC, said the replacement occurred after the owner discovered extensive sash deterioration and mold. Richard and Tory Hafford (business manager for the property owner) told the commission the windows were failing, some sash elements and panes were missing, and that the new windows are vinyl. They said the replacements were intended to be reversible and noted cost and tenant-safety pressures. The applicant had no photographs of the pre-replacement condition to present at the meeting.
Commission consultant Mike Pullen's written report (read into the record) stated the new vinyl windows have wider frames and narrower glass areas than the originals, lack exterior narrow muntins and simulated divided-light details, and are white where the original historic windows had been painted black. The consultant provided measurements in the report (the application cited replacement windows roughly 31 by 50 inches and 33.5 by 53.25 inches in certain openings) and directed the commission to evaluation standards in section 148-9 of city code.
Commissioners pressed the applicant for evidence of the alleged mold or photographs showing the pre-replacement condition. The applicant said they had none because they acquired and began work on the property after the replacement occurred; they said code enforcement had alerted them to the historic designation. Staff explained the city's automated notification script that mails letters to new owners of historic properties had been intermittently failing late last year and early this year, which may have delayed owner notice in some cases.
Discussion among commissioners focused on options for remediation that could restore the building's visible historic character while acknowledging the owner's cost constraints. Commissioners suggested possible compromises such as painting the exterior sashes black, adding exterior or simulated divided-light storm windows that replicate the historic 6-over-6 appearance, and prioritizing the most visually significant facades (for example, the Division Street-facing elevation). Commissioners also noted existing photographic surveys and National Register materials might supply documentary images to guide repairs.
After extended discussion and the commission's suggestions, the applicant announced they would withdraw the application and return with a revised submission and more documentation. The applicant said they will “withdraw our application and resend it at a later date” and promised to provide additional photos, cost estimates and proposed mitigation measures when they return.
No formal finding or denial was made; the application was withdrawn by the applicant and will be resubmitted for future commission review.
