Historic commission denies roof‑replacement COA after heated debate over materials and cost

The Augusta Historic Preservation Commission on a split vote denied a certificate of appropriateness for a roof replacement at 1148 Montasano Avenue in the Somerville Historic District after an extended hearing that drew the building owner, cost estimates and neighborhood supporters.

Todd Kennedy of the planning and development staff summarized the application and noted the property’s original slate roof and the commission’s earlier December decision asking for additional information. The applicant returned with contractor quotes showing natural slate ranging roughly $54,000–$89,000, synthetic slate options around $49,000–$61,000, and architectural asphalt shingle proposals from about $15,000–$39,000. The owner and family urged approval of a 50‑year architectural shingle product on affordability grounds.

Owner representatives and neighbors said the house has been carefully restored since 1976, that recent storm damage has worsened leaks and that limited insurance payouts and possible asbestos abatement raise overall project cost. ‘‘We rescued the house,’’ one supporter said, asking the commission to weigh preservation alongside practical constraints.

Eric Montgomery of Historic Augusta told the commission that the design guidelines require roofs to be preserved or replaced in kind where feasible, and that if substitutes are approved they should match ‘‘as closely as possible in texture and color’’ the original appearance. Commissioners questioned how broadly allowing architectural shingles would be applied to other Somerville properties and whether it would create inconsistent precedent.

The commission debated three motions during the hearing: a motion to permit the applicant’s proposed architectural shingle product (advocated by several commissioners because of the demonstrated cost differential and the owner’s fixed income), a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation for a synthetic‑slate substitute, and procedural motions about evidence. Neither substitute motion secured a majority; after roll‑call votes and two failed motions the final result left the COA denied. Commissioners who voted against the shingle option cited fidelity to the guidelines and fairness to other applicants; those in favor cited demonstrated financial hardship, insurance limitations and unknown abatement costs.

The commission’s decision means the applicant may appeal the denial under the code’s appeals process. Staff noted they will provide a written letter explaining the decision and next steps. The owner said she would consider appeal options.

The commission also discussed follow‑up work on design‑guideline language for roofs and directed staff and a continuing subcommittee to research substitute materials and draft clearer guidance for future applications.