[MassHistPres] How Heavy to Play It

[slater at alum.rpi.edu]

In Springfield, we have taken an approach which seems to work decently.

There was never any stomach to tell a homeowner that the $10,000
purchase they just made needed to be thrown away and another $15,000
purchase needed to be made in its place. But if the HC did nothing, this
encouraged people to just do the work, knowing they would always be
forgiven.

Instead, we wrote up guidelines which codified why certain styles of
replacement windows were bad. In Springfield, it came down to 5 things.

1) Grids between the glass.

2) Color -- most replacements are a bright white, and in Springfield,
that wasn't a standard window color on most Victorian houses (most were
dark in color). Although we don't govern paint color, we do govern the
color of materials such as vinyl and applied aluminum with a baked on
"never have to paint again" finish.

3) Grid design -- most often, grids on unauthorized replacements just
aren't there when the originals had them.

4) The style of the replacement. Most original windows have sashes that
sit on the window sill. Many replacements come in this variety, but the
cheap vinyl windows almost always come as a unit that resembles a storm
window, with the entire window protruding outward from the opening. 

5) Window size. This is rarely changed.

When we get an unauthorized replacement case, we hear it on its merits.
If there was no good reason found to allow the replacement, we deny it
and start talking about remediation. Our remediation typically will
require the homeowner to install exterior grids on the windows (there
are companies that do this) and to paint the vinyl a dark color with a
vinyl-specific paint. 

What that does is remove the incentive for flouting the rules, it makes
the replacement stand out less, and it is a penalty that causes the
homeowner some grief but not too much grief. 

We also go after contractors, because building permits are required for
replacement windows, and it's apparently a really bad thing for a
licensed contractor to be caught not pulling a permit to do work.
Sometimes the contractors will take the windows back or perform the
remediation for the homeowner.

Keep in mind that in Springfield, we swallowed the concept that original
windows could be replaced. I know that the replacements are bad, but
there wasn't enough public support to counter the idea that "old windows
must be replaced". So instead of fighting the battle now, we give
homeowners an option that preserves the look of the property in lieu of
preserving the original materials.

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA

<-----Original Message----->Jonathan:
>
>This happened (numerous times) when I was the historic preservation
planner in
>Newport RI. You might want to ask a few questions about the windows
that were
>removed before making any decisions--are they still around (probably
not, but
>it's worth asking), were they historic, are they repairable, etc?
Allowing him
>to retain inappropriate replacements is a precedent you'll be
addressing at
>almost every future window replacement request, I'm sure.
>
>Shanti
> 
>                                                                       
>
>Shantia Anderheggen | Easement Administrator | Law Department
>National Trust for Historic Preservation | 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW,
>Washington DC 20036
>Phone: 202.588.6159 | Fax: 202.588.6272 | Email:
shantia_anderheggen at nthp.org
>
>The National Trust for Historic Preservation helps people protect,
enhance, and
>enjoy the places that matter to them. Become our newest member today!
Learn more
>at www.PreservationNation.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]
>On Behalf Of Jonathan Feist
>Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:21 AM
>To: MHC MHC listserve
>Subject: [MassHistPres] How Heavy to Play It
>
>Hello,
>
>A developer bought two houses in Harvard Common historical district 
>and replaced all the original windows without an application. The new 
>windows are your usual crappy contemporary window, with plastic 
>stripes instead of muntins.
>
>We sent a "cease and desist" type of letter when we saw this, and told 
>him we needed an application. He claimed ignorance, though he actually 
>went through the process once before, but said he was copying another 
>window he saw used in the district (possible, but done long ago). He's 
>submitting an application after the fact.
>
>So, how heavy to play it? Insist that he replace the new windows with 
>windows that we approve? That would be an extremely major expense, and 
>he'd likely sue us over it. Let it go, just taking our lumps, and 
>accepting that the damage is done? That sets a bad precedent.
>
>Wondering about your thoughts.
>
>Jonathan Feist, Chair
>Harvard Historical Commission
>
>
>******************************
>For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
WHOLE LIST.
>MassHistPres mailing list
>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>********************************
>******************************
>For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
WHOLE LIST.
>MassHistPres mailing list
>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>********************************
>.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20101217/f4594a50/attachment.htm>