Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Decisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sudbury Historic Districts Commission approves exterior work, continues two applications
Summary
At its June 4 meeting the commission approved paint, roofing, door and window applications with conditions, continued applications for a solar canopy and two sign/deck proposals pending additional information, and approved minutes from April and May.
The Sudbury Historic Districts Commission approved several Certificate of Appropriateness applications on June 4, 2026, and continued two others for additional materials.
In Case 26‑09 (132 Peakham Road), applicant Edmund Stanton sought replacement windows, a front door and cedar siding; commissioners approved Andersen/Woodwright clad windows for this post‑1940s house provided the new muntin profile matches the existing 5/8" putty‑glaze profile, shutters remain proportionate to the windows, and siding uses wood clapboard with exposures adjusted to align with headers and sills. The motion to approve included a recommendation that the applicant seek a second opinion on repairing the door sill rather than replacing the door; the motion passed with one abstention.
Case 26‑11 (18 Hudson Road), the repainting of an 1828 Federal‑period house using a Benjamin Moore historic palette (Monterey White body, historic blue sashes, red door), was approved unanimously; commissioners noted colors were historically appropriate and recommended re‑puttying windows during painting.
The commission approved Case 26‑13 (258 Dutton Road) for replacement of the front door with a smooth nine‑light cottage‑style door (black), a wood screen door, replacement of failing front and garage sconces, and rebuilding a failing two‑tiered fieldstone retaining wall, finding the changes compatible with the property.
In Case 26‑14 (16 Rice Road) the commission approved replacement of barn roof shingles with Owens Corning Estate Gray architectural shingles given the barn’s separation from the primary house.
Two items were continued for more information. Case 26‑12 (353 Boston Post Road) — a proposed cedar sign with raised letters and a concealed black metal frame — was continued to July 2 after commissioners determined the proposed sign was too large for the site and suggested a reduced size near the precedent of 6 ft 4 in by 2 ft. Case 26‑15 (18 Wolbach Road), a deck replacement proposed by the Sudbury Valley Trustees, lacked photos, drawings and visibility context and was continued to July 2; commissioners noted composite AZAC decking is generally not preferred in the district without strong justification.
The commission also approved minutes from April 6 (as amended) and May 7 by roll call votes, and discussed scheduling a separate guideline‑focused meeting and a possible Community Preservation Committee funding item for a future agenda.
