Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission conditions roof work at 172 Washington Street to preserve metal roof edge, require metal gutters and wood facia
Summary
The commission approved a roof‑and‑gutter application for 172 Washington Street with conditions to repair and retain the existing metal roof edge where feasible, install metal half‑round gutters (5–6 inches), and replace the facia with wood; the homeowner said full metal replacement was cost‑prohibitive.
The Canal Winchester Historic Preservation Commission approved an application for roof and gutter work at 172 Washington Street, with conditions aimed at preserving historic materials where feasible. Staff introduced the application (listed as CO25045 in the agenda packet and later referenced in remarks as CADash25Dash045). The commission—s motion approved repair of the existing metal roof edge rather than a full standing‑seam replacement, required metal half‑round gutters (5 or 6 inches), and specified the new facia be wood.
Staff noted the house dates to about 1872–1882 and that the existing roof is a standing‑seam metal roof over an older cedar shake roof. The homeowner said the metal roof is generally intact except near the eaves, where hammering for gutter attachment and rust have damaged the edge. He told commissioners he received repair estimates ranging from about $10,000 to scrape and repaint the roof, roughly $20,000 for an asphalt shingle option that imitates cedar shake, and $40,000–$60,000 for a full standing‑seam metal replacement. The homeowner said he could afford the asphalt shingle option but not a full metal roof at this time.
Commissioners discussed alternatives that would retain historic appearance while addressing the damaged eave: sliding a flat band of metal up underneath the existing standing seam, adding flashing or a drip edge, localized metal repairs or an ice‑guard at the eaves, and considering simulated cedar or synthetic shake products as alternatives. Commissioners emphasized preserving the historic metal where practical and suggested the applicant speak with contractors who specialize in historic roofs; one commissioner offered contact names for contractors who work on slate and metal roofs on older houses.
A commissioner moved to approve the application with the exceptions stated above; the motion was seconded and approved on a roll‑call vote.
The commission—s conditions allow the homeowner to proceed with repairs that address the failing edge and the gutter attachment while retaining the roof—s historic character to the extent feasible. The homeowner thanked the commission and said he would follow up with contractor options and that he had two contractor phone numbers provided during the meeting.
