Zoning board reverses Landmark Commission ruling, allows vinyl windows and alternative siding on East End house

GALVESTON, Texas — On April 9, 2025, the Galveston Zoning Board of Adjustment reversed a Landmark Commission condition that would have required wood windows to replace vinyl‑clad replacement windows installed on the rear façade of a house in the East End historic district.

The appeal was filed by homeowners Robert Fakney and Donna Baker, who told the board they purchased the deteriorated four‑unit property adjacent to their full‑time residence at 1717 Post Office and are converting it back to a single‑family house. The owners said much of the rear‑facing work — replacement windows, smooth Hardie (fiber‑cement) siding and relocating a side door to the rear—was undertaken after interior alterations and in part to stabilize a structurally compromised rear wall.

Why it matters: the Landmark Commission issues Certificates of Appropriateness when exterior work affects designated historic properties or properties in historic districts. Staff had recommended replacing the cement (Hardie) siding with wood and replacing vinyl‑clad windows in existing openings with wooden windows closely matching originals, except when those windows were necessary to reflect interior floor‑plan changes. At its February 3 meeting, the Landmark Commission approved the Hardie siding on the rear facade but required replacement of several vinyl windows with wood (recorded as condition 1B). Fakney and Baker appealed that condition to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Hearing highlights and board decision

Robert Fakney described buying a neighboring, deteriorated four‑unit building and said the owners first contacted Landmark staff and were told to proceed with building permits. Subsequent inspections led to a stop‑work order, he said. Fakney told commissioners his team had removed nonoriginal additions and that the rear façade now reflected new openings tied to interior reconfiguration; he argued the Landmark staff guidance allowing replacement windows where interior changes occurred applied in his case. “We love the East End,” Fakney said, and described their effort as restoring the property and improving the neighborhood.

Two neighbors, Tom Green and Doug Coop, spoke in support, telling commissioners they had inspected the property and believed the house retained its original appearance from the street.

After brief discussion, a zoning commissioner moved to reverse the Landmark Commission’s determination with respect to the windows, saying the rear windows at issue were new openings related to interior plan changes and therefore fall under the exception staff described. The motion to reverse passed.

What the reversal means

The board’s reversal removes the Landmark Commission’s requirement that the specified vinyl‑clad windows on the rear façade be replaced with wooden windows; the Landmark Commission had already approved smooth Hardie siding on the rear as an alternative material. The zoning board’s decision applies only to the subject property and does not change policy for other properties in the historic district.

Limitations and record items

- The hearing record identifies the appellants’ residence as 1717 Post Office and describes the appealed property as the adjacent twin house, but the transcript does not record a separate, explicit street address for the subject parcel in the hearing text. The official case file and the zoning/landmark files should be consulted for the precise property address and the final written order.

- Staff reported 24 public notices were mailed; seven responses were returned (four in favor of the appeal and three opposed). The transcript contains staff’s summary of Landmark actions and conditions and the text of the motion used by the Zoning Board of Adjustment when reversing the Landmark Commission’s ruling.

Next steps

The board’s decision resolves the contested window replacement condition for this property. Any remaining Landmark or building‑permit conditions (including completion deadlines and construction details) will be enforced through the city’s permitting process and the Landmark/Planning Division’s follow‑up.

Speakers quoted or summarized in this article are those who appeared in the public hearing transcript: applicant‑appellants Robert Fakney and Donna Baker, planning staff, and two supporting neighbors.