Board denies COA as submitted for nine window replacements on Woods Avenue

The Roanoke City protection review board voted against approving a Certificate of Appropriateness for window replacements at 3636 Woods Avenue SW at its July public meeting. Staff had recommended denial, saying the proposed PVC windows and metal-wrapped trim would change material character in the historic district.

Staff member (reading the applicant’s submission) told the board the homeowner sought to replace nine units — three large fixed windows and six casement windows — citing fogged glazing, units that do not open and rotted sills. "I'm respectfully requesting approval for replacement of windows on my property above," the staff member read from the application, which said the owner planned white sashes and metal encasing in the existing almond color.

Board discussion focused on three discrete questions: (1) whether the windows are deteriorated enough to merit replacement, (2) whether the proposed window profiles and materials match district standards, and (3) whether an aluminum wrap around existing wood trim would set an adverse trend. A staff presentation described the board's guideline approach: repair when possible, and when replacement is necessary, "replace with new elements of the same design and material." The staff member stated, "So, currently, staff does not recommend approval from the COA application as proposed."

Several members said the damage described could justify replacement but urged preservation-minded details. One committee member said the proposed windows were a "nicer version" of products seen previously but warned that a thin aluminum wrap historically approved by the board was heavier and more durable than the simple metal encasement in this application. Another member said they would be open to replacement if the applicant provided wood or a cementitious trim product that better matched existing profiles.

The applicant was not present to amend the submission; staff reminded the board that it cannot condition an application in the applicant’s absence and that the owner would need to file an amended application if they wished to change materials or trim details. The board then voted on a motion to approve the application as submitted; roll-call responses recorded in the transcript show the motion failed by a 6-1 margin (six members voting no, one member voting yes). The transcript does not map each vote to a named board member in a way that unambiguously ties names to individual votes.

What it means: The applicant may return with a substantially different application — for example, a different window product or modified trim—because staff and multiple board members signaled openness to replacement materials that more closely match the historic character. Staff said it will pass the board’s feedback to the applicant and that administrative approvals remain an option where guideline-compliant products are used.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote; the applicant’s options are to revise the application and reapply, taking into account the board’s guidance on material, profile and trim.