Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Windows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies vinyl window replacement at 168 Thompson Street, asks for external grids
Summary
The Springfield Historical Commission denied an application to replace historic wood windows at 168 Thompson Street with vinyl units lacking external grids, citing concerns about frame profile and absence of visible external muntins; the applicant may revise and return.
The Springfield Historical Commission voted on Feb. 5 to deny a window‑replacement application at 168 Thompson Street after commissioners said the proposed vinyl units lacked necessary external grids and had a frame profile incompatible with the house’s historic character.
A contractor representing the applicant explained the existing wood windows were "extremely drafty" and beyond repair and that the proposed double‑hung, double‑pane windows were designed to match the historic three‑over‑three configuration on the property. The applicant presented samples and photographs and said interior grids were part of the proposed product.
Commissioners questioned whether the proposed window model was on the commission’s approved list, whether external grids could be attached, and whether the vinyl frame’s thickness and bright white exterior would be appropriate. One commissioner said external grids are required on this property and encouraged the applicant to find a product with attachable external muntins; another said the sash and sill profile appeared 'fat' for a historic frame.
A member of the public, Mary Seymour, told the commission she opposed internal‑grid replacements and that the trim should be a darker historic color. After discussion a motion to approve the current proposal was moved and seconded; the voting recorded multiple “no” responses and the motion failed, effectively denying the application. The commission advised the applicant to research external grids or historically compatible profiles and offered additional time to return with revised documentation.
The commission did not adopt a specific alternate product at the meeting; staff encouraged the applicant to provide external‑grid options and clearer photographs that show the sill and frame details for the next submission.
