Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Roofs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northampton Historical Commission approves asphalt option for 345 Elm Street roof after debate over slate
Summary
The commission voted to grant a certificate of appropriateness allowing asphalt shingles at 345 Elm Street, weighing visual impact against slate’s cost and lead times. The contractor presented quotes showing partial slate work at $110,000 versus a full asphalt replacement at about $42,000; one commissioner voted against the approval.
The Northampton Historical Commission on June 8 approved a certificate of appropriateness allowing the replacement of the roof at 345 Elm Street with asphalt shingles, after a prolonged presentation and debate about slate, composite and asphalt options.
Patrick Morrisy, who identified himself as owner of Moresy Family Roofing, presented samples, cost estimates and installation timelines and told the commission the quote for replacing the damaged back quarter of the house in red slate was $110,000. Morrisy said timetables for slate roofers are long and many specialists are booked through the year, making full slate replacement difficult in the near term.
Commission members discussed alternatives. Michael, a commission member, said the average passerby would likely not notice a change from slate to a high‑quality asphalt shingle in this setting and emphasized the roof’s low visibility and slope when seen from the sidewalk. Other members weighed neighborhood precedent — several nearby properties were shown to have non-period roofing — against the durability and historic appropriateness of slate. Several commissioners said composite slate offered a closer aesthetic match but would cost substantially more than asphalt; Morrisy estimated composite at roughly $60,000–$70,000 for the whole house, and said some composite brands carry 50‑year warranties.
One commissioner said they would oppose the application on aesthetic grounds; the motion to approve the certificate nevertheless passed on a voice vote. The chair announced the opposition on the record, saying, "I'm going to oppose it." The commission did not record a numerical roll-call tally on the record for this item.
The commission noted that the homeowner may pursue hardship relief or choose different materials later, but the immediate decision allows the applicant to proceed with the proposed roofing material. Commission staff will include the decision in the written permit documentation.
The commission moved on to a separate public hearing after concluding the 345 Elm discussion.
