Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic board denies His Covenant Children plan for major window and door replacements at 303 E. Rusk
Summary
The Rockwall Historic Preservation Advisory Board denied without prejudice a request to remove and replace 73 stained‑glass windows and six wood doors at the landmark property occupied by His Covenant Children, citing missing timelines, incomplete quotes and concern that proposed materials aren’t like‑for‑like for a National Register building.
The Rockwall Historic Preservation Advisory Board on Sept. 19 denied without prejudice a certificate of appropriateness (COA) for major exterior work at 303 E. Rusk, a landmark property on the National Register used by His Covenant Children. Staff told the board the property has a long compliance history, 34 active property‑maintenance citations and prior COAs that were not implemented.
Annette Law, who identified herself as the applicant’s representative, told the board she seeks approval to replace 73 windows with premium vinyl picture windows trimmed to resemble wood and to install six fiberglass doors. She said a prior contractor’s patch work cost $17,000 and that full stained‑glass restoration would require roughly $256,000 and must await funding. “This is not a small job,” Law said, arguing that new windows and doors would protect the building and help stop citations totaling $5,112.
Staff said the application lacked timelines and quotes for several elements (notably the stained‑glass repairs and tower molding), and noted the board cannot remove citations that are enforced by Neighborhood Improvement Services. Staff recommended denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to return with fuller documentation that better aligns with the Unified Development Code and historic guidelines.
Board members repeatedly pressed for a clear plan for when the stained‑glass windows would be repaired and for specifics on materials. One member said previous COAs were granted without work starting and expressed concern that replacing historic stained glass with vinyl and fiberglass could harm the property’s historic integrity. Heath Jackson, the installer, described a full‑frame rebuild and said stained glass could be reinstalled behind the new units, and Home Depot representatives described an 8–12 week manufacturing timeline for the proposed windows.
After discussion the board voted to deny the COA without prejudice, allowing the applicant to gather additional information and return with a more complete application. The motion was made by the vice chairman and seconded by a board member; the vote was recorded as 5–0.
The denial stops the applicant from proceeding with the proposed exterior replacements as presented; staff noted that the applicant may request extensions or return with supplemental materials and that citations remain under Neighborhood Improvement Services’ authority.
