Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown design review board approves exterior renovation at 210 Trips Road with historic-window condition
Summary
The Middletown Design Review Board approved exterior renovations at 210 Trips Road, urging preservation of the house’s historic appearance and asking the homeowner to use wood-frame, 8-over-12 style windows and to match existing siding reveals where feasible.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Middletown Design Review Board on Tuesday approved proposed exterior renovations at 210 Trips Road, asking the homeowner to prioritize historically accurate window and siding details.
The contractor for homeowner Brian Cubak told the board the house has been “abandoned and dilapidated” and that the plan is to retain the building’s historic look while replacing failing exterior elements. The contractor said the proposal calls for aluminum-clad-over-wood windows from Sierra Pacific, solid wood exterior doors, and either clapboard or cementitious siding with a wood-grain finish to replicate the original appearance.
A preservation reviewer on the board said state guidance recommends preserving existing windows where possible and asked whether the project could use an 8-over-12 asymmetrical muntin pattern consistent with the historic survey. The contractor replied the original windows are too deteriorated to save, described panes and sashes as “dry rotted,” and said the team can match muntin profiles and return with specific window options if required.
Chair opened the discussion on windows and said wood-frame windows are the board’s preference for a historically significant property. After discussion, the board set conditions of approval that include using an 8-over-12 sash pattern consistent with the survey, matching the profile and reveal of existing siding, and providing window details that present a wood appearance at the street. The contractor agreed to relay the preferences to the homeowner and to provide options if necessary.
Committee member (mover) made a motion to approve the application “based on our conversation,” which was seconded and approved by the board in a voice vote. The record does not report a roll-call tally; the motion passed with no recorded dissents.
The board did not require full-time on-site preservation; rather, members emphasized a hierarchy of choices: preserve original windows if feasible, use wood windows if preservation is impossible, and avoid vinyl-clad alternatives. The contractor said he will arrange for wood-look or wood-frame windows per the board’s preference.
Next steps: the contractor will supply window options and final material details consistent with the board’s conditions; no additional formal action on the application was recorded at the meeting.
