Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Materials And Alterations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Saint Paul's Parish rectory roof decision, asks applicant to explore alternatives
Summary
After a contested public hearing about replacing the rectory roof at Saint Paul's Parish Church (239 Congress Street), the Historic Preservation Board voted to table the application and asked the applicant to research alternatives — including simulated wood shingles or other products that better match historic wood — and to provide further documentation and mock‑ups.
The Historic Preservation Board on April 15 tabled a decision on a proposed roof replacement at the rectory of Saint Paul’s Parish Church at 239 Congress Street, directing the applicant to return with more documentation and alternative material samples.
Staff and the applicant explained the rectory currently has an asphalt shingle roof installed in 2002; Sanborn and photographic evidence suggested the building historically had wood shingles. The project team proposed replacing the asphalt with an artificial slate (sampled product referred to in packet materials) because the existing roof framing reportedly lacks the capacity to support heavy natural slate.
One of the project presenters explained the weight rationale: “Real slate weighs on average around 9 pounds per square foot. The simulated slate we are proposing weighs in around 2.75 pounds per square foot,” the architect said, describing structural constraints and cost comparisons among slate, simulated slate and other options.
Board members debated whether the roof material is a character‑defining feature for this rectory (Standard C) and whether replacing missing historic features may permit an alternative material that visually matches the original (Standard F). Several members pointed to documentary evidence for historic wood shingles and said adding slate (or synthetic slate) where there is no historic basis risks creating a false sense of history. Others cited precedents in which synthetic slate was accepted when natural slate had been documented and noted that standards allow some flexibility when a feature is missing.
Public commenters were split: preservation advocates said simulated slate would be an improvement over existing asphalt and a visually compatible option, while a preservation professional urged that synthetic plastic materials be avoided if a wood historic profile can be documented and a suitable simulated wood product exists.
After deliberation, a motion to table the application and invite the applicant to research other visually compatible options (in particular simulated wood shingles or other composites that match historic wood appearance) passed; the board asked staff to prepare draft findings reflecting the discussion for return at a subsequent meeting.
The board’s action preserves the applicant’s ability to return with revised materials and documentation; it does not approve a specific roof material at this time.
