Historic Resource Commission

APPROVED 3/19/18 Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 20, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wiles called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. Vice Chair Wiles explained to the public that with four Commissioners present there are enough votes to have a quorum and to act on application, and that because the Commission has seven members, a majority of the full Commission (four votes) is required to approve or deny a proposal regardless of how many Commissioners are present at the meeting. Thus, for an item to be approved at this meeting it would require all four Commissioners present to vote to approve. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry; Ben Wiles; Patricia Yager STAFF: Rima Shamieh, Assistant Planner; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary EXCUSED: Dr. Dean Bennett III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Because there were not four Commissioners present who had attended the January meeting, the vote on the January Meeting Minutes was postponed until March. V. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation about historic wood window restoration by Chris Templin, Historic Preservationist with the general contracting firm of Rosch Brothers, Inc. Chris Templin presented information to the Commissioners regarding the restoration of historic wood windows. Mr. Templin stated that he has worked hands-on with historic properties for many years and has had much experience restoring wood windows. Mr. Templin explained that windows, besides siding, are the most important component in maintaining the historic character of a building. He showed slides of historic buildings with replacement windows, which resulted in a dramatically Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 1 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 altered overall look of the building. He explained that the most common argument for replacing windows is to have increased energy efficiency but noted that most often heat loss results not from the windows themselves but from the area around the window – the casing and sill areas – which can be caulked and trimmed properly to eliminate most issues. He also advocated for the use of traditional window shutters, where they were original to the building, as closing these shutters at night can greatly improve energy efficiency. Mr. Templin discussed the differences in the types of wood used to construct windows, both historically and presently, explaining that the old growth wood used in the past has a tighter grain and is much more resistant to weathering and decay. He explained that old growth wood windows can be found today but are much more expensive. He noted that another option is wood windows constructed of torrefied wood, similar to that used in musical instruments, which is heated to remove moisture and tighten the overall structure of the wood. Mr. Templin stated that often windows that are in disrepair can be restored, through re-glazing, restoring sections of the wood by piecing it or using epoxy, and altering the frames to have a tighter fit. Regarding storm windows, Mr. Templin stated that they should be sealed every year when they are put on, in order to reduce drafts and provide better efficiency. He explained that generally wood windows and storms that are properly maintained should last a lifetime, citing examples of European buildings whose windows are more than several hundred years old. He stressed the importance of finding skilled tradesmen who have experience in the historic preservation of windows and who stay informed of new technologies and materials that become available. VI. NEW BUSINESS - APPLICATIONS A. Consideration for approval submitted by Drupattie Moteelall to allow new paint color to remain. The premises is located at 1216 Union Street. Mr. and Mrs. Moteelall appeared before the Commission. Mr. Moteelall explained that they had the house scraped and painted before they were aware that they were in a Historic District and were required to have the work approved by the Commission. He stated that they had contacted the City Building Codes Department regarding installing siding on the house and were told that vinyl siding is not allowed in the Historic District, but that they did not need a permit if they were planning to paint the house the same color that it was. Mr. Moteelall explained that they then took a chip of the old paint to Home Depot and had a new batch of paint mixed that was supposed to match the old color, however, when they applied it the color was much brighter. Mr. Moteelall stated that they thought perhaps the original color had been very faded and the current color resembled what it had looked like when it was previously freshly painted. He noted that he Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 2 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 had also painted the stairs and porch rails red but would repaint them white as soon as weather allowed. Commissioner Yager stated that she is shocked that the new color is so different from the previous one and feels that it is very out of character and incompatible with the rest of the area. Mrs. Moteelall stated that it cost them $8000 to have the building scraped and painted. Commissioner Yager stated that unfortunately financial concerns cannot be part of the Commission’s consideration. Mrs. Moteelall stated that if she must repaint the house she will most likely have to sell it. She added that she believes that someone from the City should have better explained the situation to them before the painting was completed, or when they purchased the property. Commissioner Craven stated that she is surprised that their realtor did not mention that the property is in an Historic District. Mrs. Moteelall stated that they were never told by anyone. She noted that they were told by the City that it was permissible to repaint in the same color. Commissioner Wiles stated that as a rule no approval by the Commission is required to paint the building the same color as existing, which creates a problem with the current situation, because now the present color is the existing one, so in the future the homeowners could argue that they are just repainting in-kind, and thus the unapproved color could remain indefinitely. Mr. Moteelall stated that they now understand what they had done wrong and asked that the Commission please consider letting the color stay, as they cannot afford to repaint at this time. Commissioner Lowry asked on what basis the Commission could require that the color be changed. Assistant Planner Shamieh stated that they must determine if the color is historically appropriate for the building, both on its own and in relation to the surrounding area. Commissioner Yager stated that she feels that the color negatively impacts the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Moteelall stated that they would have preferred to put vinyl siding on the house, which is not allowed. He added that the existing color will most likely fade very rapidly. Commissioner Craven stated that it will not fade to the degree that it will resemble the previous color. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Wiles stated that had the applicants come before the Commission before the painting was completed, as they should have, the current color would not have been approved, but the question before the Commission at this point is how to best deal with the circumstances as they exist. He suggested that one option would be to require that when the house is repainted any color it would have to be approved and repainting it in-kind without approval would not be an option. Mrs. Moteelall stated that the house was not painted very well and would most likely have to be redone in a few years. Commissioner Wiles asked for opinions from the other Commissioners about this condition of approval. Commissioner Yager stated that she has a problem with the building remaining the existing color. Ms. Shamieh asked what would happen if the applicants sell the house before they repaint. Commissioner Wiles responded that it is his understanding that the decision Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 3 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 remains with the property and not the owners. Ms. Shamieh suggested requiring that the applicants repaint within a certain period, because the Commission does not find the current color acceptable. She suggested requiring that the repainting be completed within three years. Commissioner Lowry stated that this sounded like a good compromise and seemed reasonable. The Commissioners agreed. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to approve the application as submitted, with the following modifications and conditions: 1. The applicant will repaint the building and replace the current blue color within three years from the date of this decision, regardless of the condition of the existing paint. 2. This approval does not indicate the Commission’s approval of the existing color. The Commission must approve the new color prior to any repainting. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. A red accent color has been used for the railing and a portion of the trim. The applicant has indicated that this color is not permanent and will be repainted white within a few days, or as soon as temperatures allow. 3. The house painting was completed before the applicants were aware that they were within the Union Street Corridor Historic District. If they had been aware of their location within the district this problem may have been avoided. 4. This decision applies to the property and not the owners. If the owners sell the property prior to the three-year term expiring, the new owners must repaint the house prior to the expiration of the three-year term. It is the sellers’ obligation to disclose this decision to the new owners. 5. The existing color is not acceptable because it is not consistent or compatible with the surrounding properties, nor is it historically appropriate for this structure. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by William and Sharon Sudduth to replace wood windows, and wood and metal windows, with composite windows. The premises are located at 1031 Ardsley Road. William and Sharon Sudduth appeared before the Commission. Mr. Sudduth stated that when they purchased their home they did not know that it was in the Historic District and were only made aware of this when their contractor went to the City to pull a permit for window replacement. Mr. Sudduth stated that the home was built in 1925 and has gone through several significant revisions since that time, as is evidenced by the original blueprints he provided, including earlier Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 4 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 window replacements. He noted that the house also originally had shutters, which have been removed, and that the four attic windows do appear to be original. Mrs. Sudduth stated that they would like to use the Renewal by Anderson composite windows for all of those being replaced, as these would be consistent with earlier replacements they had done. Assistant Planner Shamieh directed the Commissioners to the information communicated by SHPO regarding the opinion that having matching windows is not an argument for replacement. She also noted that despite all the work done on the house in recent years there is no evidence in City files of any permits being pulled, at which time the homeowners would have been informed of the need for approval from the Commission. Mrs. Sudduth stated that they had used reputable contractors and had trusted that they would pull the necessary permits. Commissioner Wiles asked which windows they wish to replace. Mr. Sudduth stated that there are four on the second floor on the Waverly Place side, and two on the Union Street side and two on the Ardsley Road side. He noted that they have all been previously replaced. Commissioner Wiles asked if they were all replaced at the same time. Mr. Sudduth stated that he does not know, but that they are all the same style Pella windows, which were manufactured beginning in 1938. Commissioner Wiles asked if the new windows will be white and have divided light. Mr. Sudduth stated that they will be white and will have grids but will not be true divided light, but they will appear to have an identical configuration to existing. Commissioner Wiles asked if they had investigated repairing the existing windows. Mr. Sudduth stated that they had not, and that because of his extensive experience with restoring historic homes he felt that he could judge the condition of the windows accurately. He added that the existing windows have no storms or screens and do not open which presents a considerable inconvenience. He noted that the windows in question are not original and are replacements, and thus he didn’t see the historic value in trying to save them, as he does with the existing original attic windows, which he would prefer to repair rather than replace. Ms. Shamieh reminded the Commissioners of SHPO’s comments that what should be considered is not only what is original to the building but what is historic, meaning fifty years or older. Mrs. Sudduth asked why there are buildings in the Historic District that have aluminum siding. Ms. Shamieh responded that many buildings were altered before the Historic District was adopted. Mrs. Sudduth stated that since purchasing the house they have invested $100,000 in renovations. Ms. Shamieh stated that if permits had been pulled for this work they would have been informed that they were within the Historic District. She added that the question is not one of aesthetics but about preserving the historic fabric of the building, and if the windows can be acceptably repaired or if it is necessary to replace them. Mrs. Sudduth stated that the contractor who previously did work for them on her invalid sister’s rooms told them that the windows could not be repaired. Ms. Shamieh explained that, as Mr. Templin had stated earlier in the meeting, often contractors do not have specific experience or knowledge regarding Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 5 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 the preservation of historic windows. Mrs. Sudduth stated that the contractor in question had done considerable historical work. Commissioner Wiles asked if there were ever interior or exterior storm windows on the existing windows. Mr. Sudduth stated that he sees no evidence of any. Commissioner Wiles asked if the new screens would stay on all the time. Mr. Sudduth stated that they would. Commissioner Wiles asked why they preferred using the composite windows. Mr. Sudduth replied that they matched what they had previously installed. Commissioner Wiles asked if they had investigated aluminum-clad wood windows as an alternative. Mr. Sudduth stated that he had not, because he had not been aware that there would be an issue with the composite windows. Commissioner Lowry asked if prior to making any decisions the Commission should have some more evidence that the existing windows cannot be repaired. Mr. Sudduth stated that even if the windows were repaired they still would be without storms or screens. Ms. Shamieh suggested that perhaps the Commission would want some information from a window expert regarding the viability of the existing windows. Commissioner Yager stated that she has mixed feelings about the issue and thought that previously SHPO had not approved of aluminum-clad wood. Commissioner Craven agreed. Ms. Shamieh stated that she is not certain when SHPO decided to allow aluminum-clad wood, but that the question in this case is not which new window is appropriate but if replacement is appropriate at all. Mrs. Sudduth stated that most of the windows on the house have been replaced at some time. Mr. Sudduth stated that whatever the Commission decides they should make a better effort to inform homeowners that their properties are in an Historic District so that issues such as this one could be avoided in the future. Commissioner Lowry asked if there is any requirement that the seller disclose this information. Ms. Shamieh stated that she researched this issue and seller disclosure is not required in New York State. Counselor Savarese stated that NYS has a caveat emptor (buyer beware) policy for much of real estate law. Commissioner Craven asked the applicants when they plan to have the windows replaced. Mrs. Sudduth replied that they had planned to have them done in January, until the need for HDC approval came up. Commissioner Wiles stated that from the pictures provided by the applicants it does not appear that interior storms would be a viable option and thus he would be inclined to say that the argument for replacement rather than restoration would be justified. Commissioner Lowry asked if storm windows are necessary. Commissioner Wiles stated that without them the windows are considerably less energy-efficient. Ms. Shamieh stated that the Commissioners looked at photos of one window and have no specific evidence as to the condition of the other nine. Mrs. Sudduth stated that they are all the same except the bathroom window. Ms. Shamieh stated that the Commission Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 6 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 has no material evidence of this information. She stated that it often is possible to retrofit storm windows and maintain the historic fabric of the building. Commissioner Wiles stated that if the windows are replaced and have no outside storms the appearance would be the same as it is now. Ms. Shamieh stated that he is referring to the aesthetics of the building, but the historic fabric of it would significantly change. Commissioner Wiles disagreed. Commissioner Craven stated that the Commissioners have no evidence as to the actual condition of the windows, and that they can trust what the homeowners say but ideally they would have photos to back up this information. Commissioner Yager stated that she concludes from the SHPO communication that aluminum- clad wood windows are acceptable, so one could argue that composite windows are the newer version of this option. Commissioner Craven stated that she would approve aluminum-clad wood if replacement was ultimately deemed necessary. Commissioner Wiles stated that it would make sense to table the proposal and allow the applicants some time to further research their options and come back with their specific proposal. He added that the Commission would also like to see specific photos of each window. Mr. Sudduth asked if they will be allowed to replace the windows that cannot be seen from the right-or-way prior to returning to the Commission. Ms. Shamieh stated that she can speak with the Building Department and they can be allowed to pull a permit for those windows and leave it open pending the Commission’s decision. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to table the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Status update on new Commissioner appointments Assistant Planner Shamieh stated that the process of appointing new Commissioners is progressing, and she believes that suitable candidates have been identified. B. Discussion of Commission guidance document Ms. Shamieh stated that she and Commissioners Bennett and Yager met and worked on a draft document, which is in the process of being revised and will then be presented to the Commission for their opinions. C. Staff Report Ms. Shamieh reminded the Commissioners that the 2018 training session will be held on Thursday, March 22, from 6:30 to 9 pm and will be conducted by Linda Mackey from SHPO. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 7 of 8  APPROVED 3/19/18 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –February 20, 2018 –Page 8 of 8