Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on 28-window replacement at 409 Sedgwick Drive for site visit and more documentation
Summary
Applicants Eric and Chrissy Libergood sought to replace 28 windows at 409 Sedgwick Drive with fiberglass insert units; the board said the submission lacked keyed exterior photos and window-by-window condition documentation and arranged a site visit and additional materials before deciding.
The Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board on March 13 declined to decide on an application (CA-25-5) to replace 28 windows at 409 Sedgwick Drive and asked staff to schedule a site visit and require additional documentation from the applicants.
Eric Libergood and Chrissy Libergood presented the proposal to replace all windows at the house with Marvin fiberglass insert units to preserve the home’s aesthetic, improve durability and increase energy efficiency. They told the board that, after consulting repair specialists, the applicants concluded repair would cost roughly 50 percent more than replacement and would not achieve the desired longevity.
Board members said the packet lacked a consistent, keyed set of exterior photos tied to the application’s window schedule. Members requested a side-by-side comparison showing each existing window, measurements (including muntin/muntin-profile thickness), glazing area, sash and trim details, and explicit notes tying photographs to each window number. The board also asked for full-condition photographs keyed to the house elevations so members can confirm the stated level of deterioration for each opening.
Kate Auwetter, board staff, said she would arrange a site visit; the board said no more than three members would attend the on-site review to avoid a quorum problem. The applicants agreed to provide a representative for the site visit if they cannot attend. The board set an expectation to receive the supplemental materials and reconvene the matter at the next scheduled meeting in three weeks.
No members of the public spoke for or against the application during the hearing.
Because the board did not close deliberations with an approval or denial, the application remains open pending the site visit and the additional documentation requested by the board.
