Historic Window Replacement Sparks Debate at Westport Historical Commission Meeting

The Westport Historical Commission meeting centered on discussions about maintaining historical integrity in property renovations and approving various applications for certificates of appropriateness and non-applicability. Key topics included the replacement of historical windows, the approval of a boat shed modification due to flooding, and the resignation of a long-serving commission member.

31:37One notable matter was the debate over window replacements for a historically property located on Main Road. The discussion revolved around the appropriate styles and materials for replacing windows in a house built in 1780. Dennis Hammond, representing the property, explained that while the house underwent renovations in 2005-2006, the windows installed at that time were not historically accurate, featuring solid panes of glass typical of Victorian architecture instead of the six-over-six divided light windows that would have been more appropriate for a Cape-style house of that era.

Commission members emphasized the importance of historical accuracy, stressing that any new windows should reflect the period’s architectural style. They deliberated on the advantages and disadvantages of using reproduction windows from manufacturers like Boston Sash and Green Mountain Window, which offer insulated glass options that balance modern efficiency with historical aesthetics. The conversation highlighted concerns about the use of insert windows, which could alter the visual proportions of the house by reducing the glass area. Instead, it was recommended that only the window sashes be replaced to maintain the original frames, preserving the historical character of the property.

Cost considerations were also a point of discussion. With window replacements estimated at around $1,500 each, the total cost for 37 windows could reach approximately $122,000. This significant expense raised questions about the feasibility of adhering strictly to historical standards, though the majority consensus leaned towards prioritizing historical integrity.

07:23In another significant agenda item, the commission reviewed and unanimously approved an application for a certificate of appropriateness from Dorothy Paul regarding her boat shed on Main Road. The shed needed to be raised due to persistent flooding during high tides. Paul assured the commission that the visual appearance of the shed would remain consistent despite the height increase, as the surrounding grade would also rise. The application received support from abutter Lynn Carter, who emphasized the necessity of the modification due to flooding issues.

25:01Further discussions at the meeting addressed the suitability of materials used in historical restorations, particularly for gutters. An application from Dennis Rob on Main Road proposed replacing rotted wooden gutters with fiberglass alternatives. The commission debated the merits of different materials, with a focus on durability and compatibility with historical aesthetics. The proposal was ultimately approved with the condition that a monitor would oversee the work to ensure compliance with the commission’s standards.

26:13The meeting also involved the approval of a certificate of non-applicability for solar panel installation and reshingle work on Main Road, and an application for a new window and HVAC condenser on Drift Road. Both applications were approved after confirming that the proposed changes were appropriate for the historical district and would not be visible from the public way.

50:59Additionally, the commission addressed general business, including the resignation of Beverly Schuch after nine years of service. Her contributions to preserving the town’s historical character were acknowledged with gratitude. Katrina Stroszik, an alternate member, was invited to transition to a full membership role, a motion that was unanimously approved.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: