Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Siding Replacement Junius Heights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies application to replace all siding at 5406 Junius without prejudice, urges limited removal and mock‑ups
Summary
An application to replace all siding on a contributing house at 5406 Junius Street with No. 117 pine siding was denied without prejudice; staff recommended up to 50% removal pending paint‑removal exploration and cautioned against wholesale replacement without documentation.
The Dallas Landmark Commission on Feb. 3 denied without prejudice an application to replace all siding on the main structure at 5406 Junius Street in the Junius Heights Historic District, and asked the applicant to pursue paint removal tests and targeted repairs rather than wholesale replacement unless necessary.
Staff recommended approval of No. 117 pine siding to match existing materials but included a condition that no more than 50% of the historic wood be replaced after exploratory paint removal revealed the existing condition. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties advise repair rather than replacement of historic wood features.
Applicant Sally Welch told the commission the homeowners intended to remain historically accurate and had only begun work after finding damage; she said earlier attempts at paint removal had been unsuccessful because the siding had been coated with an elastomeric paint that would not lift in routine removal tests.
Commissioners urged a cautious approach. Commissioner Anderson and others recommended paint‑removal mock‑ups and limited test areas (for example, a 10-by-10 area) to determine how much original wood could be preserved. Staff agreed to work with the applicant to approve a controlled routine maintenance/test removal and to place the application on the March agenda so the applicant could return with results. Staff also explained enforcement and inspection procedures for determining whether more than the permitted percentage of historic fabric would be removed.
Commissioner Anderson moved to deny without prejudice and requested a 10-by-10 test area be evaluated and reported back to staff or the commission; the motion carried. Staff told the applicant how to coordinate a routine maintenance/paint‑removal test and scheduled the applicant for the next meeting as staff and the applicant pursue further documentation.
Votes at a glance: Motion to deny without prejudice carried (applicant to pursue paint removal mock‑ups; staff to review up to 50% replacement only if tests show wood is too deteriorated).
