Pontiac panel approves vinyl‑look Hardie siding after debate over repair, lead and costs

The Pontiac Historic District Commission voted to approve replacement of the siding at 23 Fair Grove with Hardie (fiber‑cement) siding, reversing an initial presumption in the secretary of the interior standards that deteriorated historic features should be repaired rather than replaced.

The commission’s decision followed staff testimony and applicant materials showing extensive deterioration on a house built about 1910. A building‑department letter, included in the record, said the existing siding “would not likely survive the removal to do the necessary repairs and to reinstall reuse the existing siding,” a point proponents relied on during the discussion.

Why it mattered: Commissioners pressed the question of material and durability, weighing preservation policy against costs and long‑term maintenance. Commissioner Bales urged the panel to consider the practical burdens on homeowners, noting lead‑paint remediation “is not an easy process” and can be costly and time‑consuming. Other commissioners said they were bound by Standard 6, which says, in part, “Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.”

The applicant presented three replacement options — natural wood, LP composite, and fiber‑cement (Hardie) — and contractors described warranty and longevity differences. One contractor said James Hardie carries a 30‑year non‑prorated material warranty and a 15‑year color warranty; an LP representative described a 50‑year material warranty with prorated coverage after a period. Commissioners discussed whether the Hardie profile (6‑inch reveal) would visually match the house’s existing course pattern and noted a precedent house next door that already uses Hardie.

The motion, as read into the record, authorized replacement of the existing siding with Hardie board siding, permitted use of metal wire corner hangers where necessary, required duplicate trim and repair of corbels, soffits and fascia where feasible, and directed that any replaced features “mimic the original.” The motion maker also instructed staff to circulate the draft certificate of appropriateness to commissioners before final issuance.

The vote on the motion was 5 in favor, 1 opposed. The commission recorded the decision as an approval of a certificate of appropriateness with the conditions described.

Next steps: Staff will finalize the certificate reflecting the approved materials and the commission’s direction to prioritize repair of historic trim and to replace only where deterioration requires it. The motion maker said the draft certificate would be emailed to commissioners before issuance.