Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conditional Approval Lp Siding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pontiac HDC conditionally approves LP faux‑cedar on Oliver St. if product meets seven criteria
Summary
The commission found the cedar-shake siding at 102 Oliver St. largely beyond repair and voted to allow replacement with LP faux‑cedar siding provided the product and installation meet seven specific criteria (board width, woven corners, skirting, flatness, sheen, texture, pattern); soffits must be repaired or replaced with comparable materials.
The Pontiac Historic District Commission on Dec. 17 found the second‑story cedar‑shake cladding at 102 Oliver St. to be largely deteriorated and conditionally authorized replacement with LP faux‑cedar siding if the applicant’s product and installation meet seven enumerated criteria.
Staff presented HCC‑25‑558 and told commissioners that the building official and planning staff, after site inspection, judged the cedar shake siding beneath removed asbestos to be extensively deteriorated (multiple nail holes and failing substrate). Paul explained that the HDC can approve non‑wood materials only if the proposed product “mimics all features” of the original, and he walked the commission through a seven‑point checklist (board width, corner/woven edges, cap/trim profile, flatness/thickness, sheen, texture/pattern, and matching skirting/location).
Applicant Mr. Sanchez described structural and weatherproofing problems that, in his view, made a full replacement necessary and said contractors were reluctant to perform piecemeal repairs that would meet current building‑code weather‑barrier requirements. He told the commission he preferred LP siding to achieve better durability and insulation and offered to use LP products that simulate cedar shake and to install woven corner edges and matching trim.
Commissioner Rachel (Clark) moved to permit the applicant to replace the deteriorated cedar with LP faux‑cedar shingle siding provided the product complies with criteria 1–7 and to require soffits to be repaired or replaced with comparable appearance (not particle board). The motion passed with a recorded majority and one recorded dissent. Staff will prepare a certificate of appropriateness reflecting the conditional approval and the soffit requirement.
Paul said the commission will also pursue a follow‑up process to clarify siding guidelines, request contractor documentation that the chosen product meets the seven criteria prior to work, and consider a temporary moratorium on new siding applications until the guidelines are revised and approved by SHPO.
