Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
German Village Commission continues Lansing Street siding request after debate over James Hardie use
Summary
The commission continued COA 2501368242 after an extended exchange with a James Hardie representative over product performance, installation practices and whether cementitious siding is appropriate for principal historic façades; commissioners asked the applicant to provide exemplar installations and installation details for the addition only and to retain like‑for‑like siding on the principal elevation.
Commissioners at the German Village Commission hearing on April 1 continued review of an application to replace historic Dutch‑lap siding on a Lansing Street house with James Hardie Cedarmill fiber‑cement siding.
Staff presented COA 2501368242 and described prior approvals and site observations noting that the front (principal) elevation retains materials that staff recommend be replaced in like kind. Christian Sammons (applicant) and a James Hardie representative, identified as Mr. Atkins, attended and answered questions about material profiles, warranties and installation practices.
Mr. Atkins told the commission the company’s warranty and training programs support a 30‑year service life for the proposed product and offered to supply installation crews and exemplar projects. “That’s what our warranty is. That’s what we claim that it can last,” he said, describing installer training and a 15‑year non‑prorated product warranty he said protects homeowners.
Commissioners pushed back on product performance and long‑term compatibility with historic, settlement‑prone wall assemblies. One commissioner cited past test cases in which cementitious boards “started to separate, started to kind of push away from the structure” within a few years, and noted the German Village guidelines and National Park Service preservation briefs favor retaining or repairing historic materials and using substitute materials only where the original is unavailable.
The discussion focused on two distinct questions: whether principal, street‑visible historic facades should be replaced in like material, and whether the 1992 addition could accept a substitute profile and material. Several commissioners indicated they would consider a fiber‑cement product on a non‑historic addition if commissioners could review exemplar installations (ideally within the past five years), installation details and contractor qualifications to ensure the product had not failed in similar contexts.
Staff asked the applicant to provide addresses or documentation of nearby installations, manufacturer installation specifics, and any evidence showing long‑term performance on historic‑era structures. The commission voted to continue the application so the applicant can supply the requested sample projects, installation specifications, and clarify which elevations they propose to replace in kind versus with substitute materials.
Next steps: the applicant will return with the requested documentation and staff may work with the applicant to scope a more limited test case (for example, applying cementitious siding to a rear or addition elevation rather than the principal façade).
