0:28The meeting’s central discussion focused on whether the proposed architectural shingles would preserve the historic aesthetic of the 1925-built home. Senior planner Stephanie Streer presented the proposal, noting that the shift from metal to shingles necessitated a major review due to the change in materials. The plan involved removing the current roof, repairing any underlying damage, and installing new shingles. Streer reported that staff recommended approval based on ordinance consistency.

Concerns about the alteration were raised, particularly by board members knowledgeable about historic buildings. They emphasized the importance of preserving the building’s original look and cited the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, which recommend maintaining the historic appearance unless economically unfeasible. The proposed Georgetown gray shingles sparked debate, with some members worried about diverging from the traditional metal roofing, known for its durability and better insurance rates.

Lucy GTO from Habitat for Humanity addressed these concerns, explaining that only a small portion of the roof retained the original metal shingles, with most having been replaced over time. GTO argued that architectural shingles would be more consistent with the neighborhood’s prevalent roofing materials, which include asphalt and architectural shingles. She also highlighted the significant cost difference, noting that metal roofing was three to four times more expensive than shingles.

Homeowner Walters shared her personal circumstances, including her recent cancer diagnosis and financial burdens. Walters expressed her desire to replace the roof with shingles due to the financial assistance from Habitat, which was contingent upon using more affordable materials. She pointed out that neighboring homes had also transitioned from metal to shingles, creating a consistent aesthetic. The discussion acknowledged the limited funding available for roof replacements and the challenges of maintaining the historic district’s integrity amid evolving materials and homeowner needs.

21:59The board also considered the broader implications of their decision on funding mechanisms for roof replacements. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which provides financial assistance to low-income families, was identified as a potential resource, though it has specific parameters for use. A representative involved in the funding process clarified that shingle roofs’ lower cost allows for assistance to a greater number of families. If metal roofing were mandated, further consultations with city officials would be necessary to explore funding options.

35:46The board grappled with the complexities of balancing historical preservation standards and the financial realities faced by homeowners. A member noted the dilemma, stating, “we’re kind of like between a rock and a hard place their budget and your budget.” The conversation acknowledged the need for more information, including cost estimates for both shingle and metal roofing, to facilitate a more informed decision.

50:05Ultimately, the board decided to approve the application for architectural shingles, aligning their decision with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. They recognized the necessity of preserving the historic character without introducing conjectural features, as the proposed alterations would retain the building’s historic purpose and character. The motion to approve was passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote.

1:05:07In addition to the roof replacement discussion, the board addressed administrative matters, including the appointment of Patrice Campbell as the new vice chair. The board also discussed the importance of historical photographs for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) application process.

50:05The meeting concluded with a recommendation from Tony Campbell, a regular attendee, to conduct a workshop with the board’s consultant to clarify procedures and enhance understanding among members. Campbell noted that the current meeting felt disorganized and suggested that a workshop could help streamline future meetings and decision-making processes. The board agreed on the necessity of workshops and discussed scheduling future sessions to address bylaws and procedures.