Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board delays decision on 171 Church Street roof after dispute over slate vs. synthetic materials
Summary
Board members and the homeowner debated whether a failing slate roof must be replaced with original slate or a high-quality synthetic 'slate-line' shingle; the board tabled the application to Dec. 10 to review additional product samples, metal valley details and vendor information.
The Design Review Board on Nov. 19 delayed a decision on a full roof replacement at 171 Church Street after a lengthy presentation and debate over materials.
John Caney, attorney for the applicants, and contractor Matt Fortier told the board the house’s slate roof is at the end of its service life: slates are missing or failing, metal porch flashings are rusted, and spray-foam insulation without a proper vapor barrier has caused condensation and accelerated deterioration. Fortier described proposed work that would remove the existing roof, install re‑sheathing and modern underlayment, place metal valleys and caps, and install a “slate-line” synthetic shingle across the main roof with standing-seam metal on porch roofs.
The homeowner, Jill Masetti, said the roof is a safety concern — pieces of slate have fallen into the yard — and asked the board to consider realistic replacement options given the scale and cost. When asked, Fortier estimated an all-slate job (removal, decking repairs, and labor) could exceed six figures.
Several board members pressed the legal and design standards that guide decisions in the city’s architectural review overlay. The chair read the board’s guidance emphasizing that "roofs are important character-defining features" and said replacement should be a last resort; several members argued that, when replacement is necessary, the material should "match the original" where the roof contributes to the structure’s historic or architectural character.
Board members who spoke in favor of requiring slate said synthetic alternatives do not fully reproduce the texture and detail of a historic slate roof. Supporters of allowing a modern slate-look product cited the neighborhood survey presented by the applicant (which showed many nearby roofs using asphalt or synthetic materials) and noted the house already has other nonoriginal alterations (aluminum siding, replaced windows), arguing for a balanced approach that preserves overall architectural character while addressing moisture/vapor issues and construction feasibility.
The Preservation Foundation had submitted a letter noting the roof’s historic slate; the board discussed that letter and the Unified Development Ordinance criteria around compatibility and materials.
After extended technical discussion and with one board member absent, the board agreed to table the application until its Dec. 10 meeting. The board asked the applicants to supply: physical samples or high-resolution mockups of the proposed slate-line product, specifications and mockups of metal valley and cap details, manufacturer underlayment documentation (proof of high-temperature underlayment), and any third-party warranties or track-record information. The homeowner will also provide documentation of contractor findings about the spray-foam/vapor issues and a clearer cost estimate.
The board emphasized it was not rejecting the need to replace the roof; members said they want to review the proposed materials and details in person before applying the board’s standards. The application remains pending; applicants were told to return with the requested materials at the next full-board meeting.
