[MassHistPres] Springfield HC loses vinyl windows case

[Sullivan, Charles M.]

Many years the CHC adopted a regulation that allows homeowners in historic districts to install storm windows without review, as long as the meeting rails are aligned and the color of the frame matches the color of the sash.

Since the replacement window movement heated up we recommend upgrading storm windows instead of replacing the prime windows, on the grounds that a) it is a cost-effective measure that will provide most if not all of the energy savings of window replacement, b) it preserves original fabric, and c) it can be done without commission review. We also remind the owner that replacement windows will themselves have to be replaced in 15 years or so. 

Triple tracks are homely, but they're a fact of modern life. People usually keep them way beyond their useful life, and there can be efficiency gains even from replacing ones that are a decade or so old. We usually recommend Harvey's Tru-Channel grade, which are expensive but high quality; see http://www.harveyind.com/product_info/storm_windows/tru_channel.asp. Allied's "Invisible Storms" are also good and less obtrusive: http://www.invisiblestorms.com/.

I wonder if the Springfield case would have come out differently if the commission's denial had been in the context of a storm-window policy.

________________________________
Charles M. Sullivan, Executive Director
Cambridge Historical Commission
831 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Mass.  02139
617 349-4684 voice, 349-3116 fax


-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]On Behalf Of slater at alum.rpi.edu
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:04 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Springfield HC loses vinyl windows case


I don't know what the process was, but I think that we can get a clue
from the ruling - it was a ruling on the plaintiff's "motion for a
judgment on the pleadings". I think that may mean that no additional
testimony was given, perhaps the judge merely reviewed the audiotape of
our meeting. Everything mentioned came from the tape, and references to
the tape were made in the ruling.

We voted last night to urge the city to appeal. 

I think the biggest error the judge made was to regard energy efficiency
as a condition that was "especially affecting the building or structure
involved, but not affecting the historic district generally". 

Last time I checked energy efficiency is something that affects each
property the same. If my interpretation isn't correct, then what is
something that "affects the district generally"?

Not to mention that the judge didn't take into consideration that we
wanted the homeowner to explore other solutions to the problem without
jumping directly to offwhite vinyl windows with grids between the glass,
or the fact that she took the lies of the Home Depot representative as
gospel.

We just had a homeowner propose a 2 over 2 window by Brosco for a barn
last night, a similar size to the homeowner who took us to court. He
said that each window would run about $250. That's a lot less than the
$2,500 that the homeowner said a suitable replacement would cost him.

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA

>Ralph, This decision could have ramifications beyond
>Springfield. Do you 
>have a list of submitted expert testimony (in person or published) used
by 
>the HDC for this case? Who represented the city and the HDC? Marcia
Starkey, 
>Greenfield
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: 
>To: 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:21 PM
>Subject: [MassHistPres] Springfield HC loses vinyl windows case
>
>
>A homeowner in one of Springfield's districts appealed the denial of
>a hardship petition to install vinyl windows to superior court. The
>historic commission lost the case. I've attached it below.
>
>This is a very troubling decision because of a few key assertions in
>it.
>
>First, the judge called the position "absurd" that the need to
>replace windows is a condition that is not specific to the homeowner.
>The homeowner did not claim his windows were in bad condition, he
>claimed that they were not energy efficient.
>
>The judge essentially claimed that the lack of insulating value of
>the old windows was a hardship. The judge also took at face value the
>ridiculous claim of a Home Depot representative that older windows
>lose "96% of energy while new windows lose 4% of energy".
>
>The petitioner claimed that to install windows with raised grids
>would cost an absurd $2,321 per window, including $800 more per
>window to have exterior grids. To my recollection he did not provide
>the quote in writing, although the judge did seem to be quoting from
>something. We did not take this quote at face value, however the
>judge apparently did.
>
>The Home Depot representative testified that the state has mandated
>that replacement windows must have a maximal thermal transmittance of
>0.44, and while there is an exception for "for true divided light
>windows that are being replaced with "like kind" units", he said that
>the only windows sold in MA that are in compliance are double-pane
>windows.
>
>The discussion turned to the color (off-white) of the windows.
>Unfortunately we focused too much on this, and didn't realize that
>our guidelines specifically allow off-white as a window color in this
>district. Unfortunately the judge pounced on this as a key piece and
>ignored the fact that the guidelines do not allow vinyl.
>
>The judge then definitively ruled that internal grids do not
>"interfere with the statue governing historic districts".
>
>As far as I can tell, this is disasterous for Springfield because it
>sets the following precedents:
>
>1) Energy efficiency alone is a hardship.
>
>2) Single quotes must be accepted at face value even if they appear
>bogus.
>
>3) Vinyl is not a reason to deny a petition.
>
>4) We can't require external grids on windows.
>
>I'm flabbergasted at this ruling. Does anyone have any advice?
>
>Ralph Slate
>Springfield Historical Commission
>
>====
>
>COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
>TRIAL COURT
>SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
>CIVIL ACTION NO. 2005-00973
>TANIEL V. SANTOURIAN vs.
>SFRINGFIELD HISTORICAL COMMISSION
>ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
>
>
>This is an appeal, pursuant to G. L. c. 40C, of an order of the
>Springfield Historical Commission (the "Commission") denying the
>plaintiffs, Taniel V. Santourian's ("Santourian"), petition for a
>Certificate of Hardship to install vinyl, double hung windows,
>without raised grids on the front of his Victorian Row house. For the
>reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs motion is ALLOWED, and the
>Commission's decision is ANNULLED.
>
>Santourian owns 11.5 Mattoon Street, which is a Victorian Row house
>located in a historical district of Springfield. On September 15,
>2005, Santourian filed a request with the Commission to replace nine
>windows of his Mattoon Street property with vinyl double hung sash
>windows.1 The dimensions of the windows on the first floor are 36"
>wide by 81" high and those on the second floor are 49" wide by 74"
>high.
>
>During the hearing, Santourian submitted documentation that showed
>the difference in pricing between windows with external grids and
>windows with internal grids.2 Charles Moore ("Moore"), the District
>Manager of Home Depot, testified as to the difference in the cost of
>the windows.
>
>The estimates provided by Home Depot for Anderson replacement windows
>were $5,898.00 for vinyl clad and $12,387.00 for vinyl clad wood
>windows. Moore stated that single pane windows have less insulating
>value than double pane windows. Finally, Moore said that in order to
>replicate the look of the mullions (or grids) on the windows would
>increase the cost by $800.00 per window.
>
>The Commission voted, four to two, to deny Santourian's petition for
>hardship, reasoning that he 1) failed to propose windows with raised
>grids as found on the street, 2) provided no options for vinyl
>windows with raised grids or their cost, 3) provided no hardship
>documentation on why he could not install vinyl windows with raised
>grids, and 4) proposed a light colored window.
>
>According to documents prepared by the Springfield Historical
>Commission, the agency is charged with establishing rules and
>regulations in order to "preserve and promote Springfield's historic
>assets." To this end, the Commission has established and continues to
>enforce strict guidelines for the "preservation of this
>architecturally delightful area." As such, "any change to the
>exterior of a building ... which can be seen from a public street...
>must be approved by the Commission prior to beginning any work."
>
>The relevant portions of the guidelines established by the Commission
>regarding windows states as follows:
>
>"Windows of this period are double hung and fitted with large panes
>of glass and, if replaced, should duplicate the original. Movable
>window sash should be dark with acceptable colors being matte black,
>off-white, slate gray dark brown and gray/brown. Wooden window frames
>should be similar in color to the window sash with acceptable colors
>being deep shades of gray, brown and green or matte black, off-
>white."
>
>In a G. L. c. 40C appeal, the plaintiff has the burden of proving
>that "owing to conditions especially affecting the building or
>structure involved, but not affecting the historic district
>generally, failure to approve an application will involve substantial
>hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant and whether such
>application may be approved without substantial detriment to the
>public welfare and without substantial derogation from the intent and
>purpose of this chapter." G. L. c. 40C, § 10(c). The purpose of the
>chapter is to:
>
>"promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of
>the public through the preservation and protection of the distinctive
>characteristics of building and places significant in the history of
>the commonwealth and its cities and towns or their architecture, and
>through the maintenance and improvement of settings for such
>buildings and places and the encouragement of design compatible
>therewith." G. L. c. 40C, § 2.
>
>In its hearing brief, the Commission asserts that the "need to
>replace windows is not a condition which especially affects the
>plaintiff's house." This position is absurd. The evidence presented
>to the Commission clearly established that the current windows
>essentially have no insulating value. Although it does not take an
>expert or one with any scientific acumen to determine that an older
>window will not provide the same or similar protections as those
>built in the 21st century, Moore did testify that a single pane
>window loses 96% of energy while double pane windows lose only 4% of
>energy.
>
>Furthermore, the Commission has ignored or minimized the financial
>burden advanced by the plaintiff. The Commission claims that the
>plaintiff failed to provide hardship documentation "on why he could
>not install vinyl windows with raised grids." According to the tape
>of the hearing and the documents presented to 
>
>=== message truncated === 
_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres