2021.10.25 Staff Report
To: Historical Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
Re: October 25 2021 Historical Commission Staff Report
Please note that staff recommendations are based on the paper record. Applicants may present
other information that could be persuasive. The Commission should review the Design
Standards for each proposed piece of regulated work. Portions of larger projects may be exempt
from historic district review.
5:30 PM: Continuation - Request for a Local Historic District Certificate of
Appropriateness pursuant to Section 195 of the Northampton Code for proposed
window, door, and roof replacement, and chapel shell removal. SNEC Association
of SDA, 354 Elm Street, Map IDs 31A-001, 23C-043.
As part of a substantial building renovation project, work is proposed that includes exterior
architectural changes that are subject to Local Historic District review. These are replacement
of the existing asphalt roof with a metal roof and removal of clerestories, window replacement
and window opening modifications, stained glass removal, handrail upgrades, sidewalk repair,
and removal of a chapel shell structure. Additional plans and revisions have been presented, as
well as historical information about original vs. later additions to the structure.
The Commission should review the Design Standards for each proposed piece of regulated work.
Excerpts below:
Roofs, page 36
The asphalt shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with a non-reflective metal of similar color.
The roof shape and slope shall be preserved as integral to the period of the building. In new
construction, harmonious roof pitches are a major consideration. The roof shape, slope, and
materials should be appropriate to the style of building or structure. The color and texture of
the roofing material should reflect that of the original, historic roofing material.
• Slate is an important historical material used on many of the homes in the district. Its
maintenance and repair is encouraged.
• Repairs shall be of the same material (e.g., slate roofs repaired with slate; cedar roofs
repaired with cedar, asphalt shingles with asphalt). Slate shall match the original in design,
color, coursing and texture.
• Roofing materials shall be non-reflective.
Doors, page 24:
The application includes information that the doors proposed for replacement are not original to
the structure.
Existing original or later architecturally appropriate doors visible from a public way shall be
retained and repaired, including fanlights, sidelights, surrounds, canopies, transoms, and
other features that comprise the doorway.
`2
The original entrance design and arrangement of door openings shall be retained. Enlarging
or reducing entrance/door openings for the purpose of fitting stock doors (larger or smaller)
will not be allowed. Enlarging door openings to meet mandated accessibility standards may
be considered, provided that the original style, appearance, and materials of the doorway are
retained.
If a replacement door is necessary, the preferred material is wood. An alternate material may
be considered if the door is appropriately designed with regard to architectural style and
compatible with other doors on the building and of low visibility.
Dormers, page 24:
Historical documentation confirms that roof dormers are original to the structure. Originally
proposed to be removed, original gables with retained stained glass are proposed to be clipped
to the roof to retain the current roofline appearance.
Dormers that were part of the original design shall not be altered in scale or form.
Windows, page 39:
Original or later windows, trim and features should be retained and repaired except in cases
when they are beyond repair. In such cases, replacement must be based on physical,
photographic, or documentary evidence.
The introduction of openings not characteristic in proportion and scale and the blocking up of
original openings are not allowed.
Where the building has been altered to have several types of windows, proposed changes shall
be consistent with either the predominant window pattern of the building or the original
historic pattern.
Historic oriels shall not be removed or replaced. Alterations to oriels on the primary elevation
are inappropriate mandatory.
Retrofitting original window sashes with weather-stripping and/or insulated glass is
encouraged.
Alterations to the design and arrangement of window openings on the historic façade, other
than restoration to documented historical conditions, are generally not allowed.
Where it is not feasible to repair existing windows, replacement windows should meet the
following standards:
The replacement window shall be all wood or clad with metal exteriors and of the same
dimensions for muntins, frames, sash, rails, and stiles, and be of the same design (unless new
window is truer to original design than existing one to be replaced), and same number of
panes as the original or existing window.
Openings shall not be reduced or enlarged to accommodate stock sizes or shapes.
Glazing should be limited to the following: - Insulating glass - Single glass with removable
energy panels
Divided light options (muntin bars) should be limited to the following: - Authentic divided light
- Simulated divided light with spacer bar between insulating glass
The following are unacceptable options for divided lights: - Simulated divided light (applied to
glass) - Grilles between insulating glass - Removable grilles
Narrow muntin bars that closely match existing muntin widths. Muntin bars wider than 7/8”
are not acceptable
Wood clad exteriors are preferred. Aluminum clad exteriors are acceptable, provided the
profile reasonably matches existing window muntins.
Retention of original historic material such as curved, leaded, or stained glass is mandatory
`3
If the Commission agrees that all or portions of the work meet the standards and is appropriate
for the character of the District, a Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued. The Commission
should refer to the Design Fundamentals on page 19 of the Standards.
If the Commission finds that a project is inappropriate (certificate is disapproved), it shall
consider whether a certificate of hardship should be issued. The Ordinance specifies that a
hardship can be issued if “owing to conditions especially affecting the building or structures
involved, but not affecting the historic district generally, failure to approve an application will
involve a 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 purposes of the Historic District Ordinance.
Discuss Local Historic District Design Guidelines Updates
The Local Historic District Guidelines have not yet been approved by Council, a necessary step
to make them part of the LHD Ordinance. That makes now an opportune time to review and
make any edits and updates that might be needed. Staff is preparing an updated roof and
ground solar section, Commissioners should review and flag anything that could benefit from
revisions prior to Council review.
Section 106 Review – Main Street Complete Streets
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the
effects of federally funded projects on historic properties (Here, Federal highway funding
through MassDOT) by consulting with State Historic Preservation Offices. As part of these
reviews, local Commissions can review the work, and provide advisory comment to
MassHistoric if it could negatively impact “buildings, structures, archaeological sites, districts,
objects, and landscapes that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic
Places.” Comments should be limited to those items, and not aspects of the larger project. The
work will improve vehicle and pedestrian safety with tree plantings, refuge islands, signal timing
and curb bumpouts, and will retain the overall layout through the downtown historic district.