330 Elm St Northampton LHD Appeal PVPC Response FINAL.pdf
TO: PAMELA L. POWERS
NORTHAMPTON CITY CLERK
201 Main Street, Room 4
Northampton, MA 01060
ppowers@northamptonma.gov
RE: Perry Cohen and Dallas Ducar Request for Review
c/o Attorney Mae Stiles, Fierst, Bloomberg Ohnm LLP
64 Gothic Street, Suite 4
Northampton, MA 01060-3042
June 11, 2021
Attorney Mae Stiles, property owners Perry Cohen and Dallas Ducar,
My name is Shannon Walsh and I am the Historic Preservation Planner for the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. I am
writing in response to your request for a review of the Northampton Historical Commission’s (NHC) denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, which was filed with the Northampton City Clerk on April 12, 2021. The requested outcome of your appeal
is that the Commission “reverse its denial of the requested Certificate of Appropriateness, or in alternative grant [the
property owners] a Certificate of Hardship” due to the pre-purchase of replacement windows prior to going before the
Commission. Another request was for the Commission to find the applicants exempt from replacing windows “not visible to
the public, including but not limited to all windows blocked from view by the large brick wall surrounding a significant portion
of their property,” and allow them to install a different type of replacement window in windows visible from the public way.
This review is specific to the existing application materials and to windows that would be visible from the public way based
on criteria within the ordinance. I’ve considered the appeal submission, application and related documents; meeting
minutes, city ordinance and district design standards for the Elm Street/Round Hill Local Historic District; related state,
federal, and organizational guidance regarding local historical commissions and appropriate historic preservation
treatments; and information relevant to the topic of window restoration cost concerns and energy efficiency and have found
that the NHC acted reasonably in denying a certificate of appropriateness and not making a determination for a certificate of
hardship for the replacement of existing windows, under the Commission’s jurisdiction, at 330 Elm Street.
I’ve attached a summary of my findings.
Sincerely,
Shannon Walsh
Historic Preservation Planner
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
swalsh@pvpc.org
cc: (mailed hard copies and emailed digital copies) Mae Stiles, attorney for Perry Cohen and Dallas Ducar - stiles@fierstbloomberg.com
Sarah LaValley, Northampton Conservatino and Preservation Planner - slavalley@northamptonma.gov
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 330 ELM STREET
The parcel identified as 31A-002-001 in the Northampton Assessor Database is listed in the Massachusetts Cultural Resource
Information System (MACRIS) public database as the A. B. Butler House 330 Elm Street (circa 1920, NTH.447).1 This Colonial
Revival style residence was inventoried in 1976 as part of the Elm Street Area (South), NTH.F and is listed as a contributing
resource within the Elm Street Local Historic District (NTH.P), formally designated in 1994 and expanded in 2013.2 (Figure 1) Today
this local historic district is known as the Elm Street/Round Hill Historic District. The current Elm St/Round Hill Historic District
Ordinance, 2010 Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, and Elm St/Round Hill Historic District Map are all available to the
public online through the city website.3 (Figure 2) There is also an Elm Street Historic District sign located on Elm Street just
northwest and within view of the A. B. Butler House.4 (Figure 3) An internet search of “Elm Street” and “Northampton” using
various search engines also results in a Wikipedia entry which identifies the historic district.
Figure 1: MHC MACRIS Map showing the inventory point for this property (see arrow) and the green area identifying a local historic district
1 Bonnie Parsons, “A.B. Butler House,” https://mhc-macris.net/Details.aspx?MhcId=NTH.447 , accessed May 2021.
2 Massachusetts Historical Commission MACRIS Maps, https://maps.mhc-macris.net/ , accessed May 2021.
3 “Elm Street/Round Hill Historic District,” Elm Street/Round Hill Historic District | Northampton, MA - Official Website (northamptonma.gov)
4 A 5/18/21 site visit confirmed that the sign is still in this location.
Figure 2: Map of the Elm Street/Round Hill Local Historic District boundaries and properties under ordinance (330 Elm Street noted)
Figure 3: Google.com/maps street view showing Elm Street Historic District sign and the historic resource at 330 Elm Street
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The initial permit application for a Historic District (Elm St) Determination of Appropriateness was submitted to the City of
Northampton for Northampton Historical Commission (NHC) review on January 12, 2021, by Pella representative Jonathan Schulz
on behalf of Dallas Ducar and Perry Cohen, owners of the parcel at 330 Elm Street.5 The project information is as follows:
Replace existing weight pocket hung windows with Pella Architect
Traditional series double hung windows. Installing into existing frames.
Interior and exterior trim will remain intact. Storm windows will be
removed and disposed of. White aluminum clad exterior with painted/
stained pine interior. Dual panel insulated glass with Low-E and Argon gas.
Removable ¾” wood grilles in traditional pattern matching existing.
Half screens. These windows will improve energy efficiency, improve
operation and cleaning while maintaining historical accuracy/appearance.6
The NHC public hearing was on February 3, 2021 and Schulz attended on behalf of the property owners. The motion was
continued to the February 24, 2021 public hearing. During this virtual hearing, which was attended by Schulz, Ducar, and Cohen,
the NHC asked for a window restoration estimate and an evaluation of existing window conditions. There was a vote to continue
the request to the March 29th hearing. This also required a timeline extension, which received applicant consent, as well as a
favorable vote by the Commission.
Schulz, and later, Cohen (March 12th), reached out to window restoration contractor Don Hayward with a follow-up email from
Cohen to Hayward on March 25th asking for window repair pricing information. Also on morning of the 25th, the City’s
Conservation and Preservation Planner, Sarah LaValley, sent a group email to include Schulz and Cohen asking if there were any
materials available in advance of Monday’s meeting. The appellants’ attorney, Mae Stiles, notes that the property owners
determined that “the costs of renovating the windows in the House would be in line with the cost of replacement” but ultimately,
at the March 29th NHC public hearing there was no further information submitted to support the application and there was no
representation from Schulz, Ducar, or Cohen.7 Stiles says that the property owners “were not informed about the meeting until
March 29, 2021 (the day it occurred), and that they were not sent a Zoom link to enable them to join and comment.8
During the March 29th public hearing, the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness was denied by five NHC Commissioners
with two abstentions.9 The permit decision was filed with the City Clerk on April 12 and Criteria/Findings were as follows:
The Commission finds that replacement of the majority of original hung
windows with the structure, a 1920’s brick colonial, as proposed, either
simulated divided light or removable grilles, is not compatible with the
District, and denies a Certificate of Appropriateness. In accordance with
the Design Standards specifications that “the complete replacement of all
5 “PermitApplication_Dallas Ducar & Perry Cohen,” PermitApplication_Dallas Ducar & Perry Cohen (northamptonma.gov) , accessed June 2021.
6 Ibid.
7 Stiles, II. Facts, Tenth paragraph beginning with “In response to the view…”
8 Stiles, II. Facts, Eleventh paragraph beginning with “The final Commission hearing…”
9 LHD 330 Elm Denial (northamptonma.gov)
windows in a building in which only a few are in disrepair will not be
approved,” that “Original or later windows, trim and features shall 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,” and that materials provided did not demonstrate
infeasibility of repair rather than replacement.
Any windows not visible from a public way, provided that they would
not be visible even in the absence of all freestanding walls and fences,
signs, accessory structures, and landscaping, are exempt.10 11
A copy of the decision was also emailed to Schulz and Cohen on April 12 by LaValley. In this email LaValley reiterated that “some
windows are exempt from historic district review and replacement of those can proceed at any time.”12
An appeal of the NHC’s determination at the March 29th public hearing was filed with the Northampton City Clerk on May 3rd
which triggered a 45 day window for review.13 As per the Northampton Ordinance and in accordance with Massachusetts General
Law (MGL), the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) was alerted by the city and Historic Preservation Planner Shannon
Walsh, designated by PVPC to perform reviews of historic district commission appeals, provided additional information to Stiles.14
The appeal documents and filing fee, prepared by Stiles, were received for review at PVPC on May 21st. The appeal review
response is due back to be filed at the office of the Northampton City Clerk by June 16, 2021.
RELEVANT POINTS FROM NORTHAMPTON ORDINANCE15
Administrative Code (within City Code following the Charter) former 195-3 through 195-4
Chapter A Administrative Code
Part II Multiple-Member Appointive Organization
13.0 Historical Commission16 (state law reference: MGL c. 40, 8D, and MGL c.40C 14)
Established
There shall be an Historical Commission which shall consist of seven members as follows: at least one member who resides or
owns property in the district; one member appointed from two nominations submitted by the Northampton Historical Society;
one member appointed from two nominees from the Western Massachusetts Chapter of the American Institute of Architects; one
member appointed from two nominees from the Realtor Association of Pioneer Valley, the local board of realtors.
Authorities and Responsibilities
The Historical Commission shall have all powers and duties in accordance with MGL c. 40, § 8C, and all the power and duties of
historic districts in accordance with MGL c. 40C. The commission shall have the authority to adopt such rules and regulations not
10 LHD 330 Elm Denial (northamptonma.gov)
11 Microsoft Word - Elm Street Standards_FINAL_current 9_24_2013.doc (northamptonma.gov)
12 Email from Sarah LaValley to Jonathan Schulz and Perry Cohen “Subject: Local Historic District Decision.” April 12, 2021.
13 Northampton, MA, Code of Ordinances, Ch. 195, Sec. 8 - Appeals
14 Email from Sarah LaValley to Shannon Walsh “Appeal re: Denial of Permit/Certificate of Appropriateness for 330 Elm St,” May 3, 2021.
15 https://ecode360.com/NO2226?needHash=true
16 https://ecode360.com/29447900
inconsistent with the provisions of MGL c. 40C. The commission shall carry out the preservation, promotion and development of
the historical assets of the City.
The Historical Commission is an advisory, regulatory and adjudicatory multiple-member body of the City.
City of Northampton, MA/Code of Ordinances
Part II: General Legislation
Chapter 195 Historic Districts17
195-1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public through the
preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics of buildings and places significant in the history and architecture of
the City of Northampton and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the maintenance and improvement of settings for
such buildings and places, and through the encouragement of design compatible therewith.
195-5 Project Categories
A. Exempt from Historic District review (Property owners may apply for a certificate of nonapplicability if they want a
written record.):
(1) General exemptions.
(b) Exterior architectural features not visible from a public way, provided that they would not be visible even in the
absence of all freestanding walls and fences, signs, accessory structures, and landscaping.
B. Potentially exempt with a certificate of nonapplicability from the Director of Planning and Sustainability or his/her
designee, based on the standards herein and in the Design Standards:
(11) Windows: duplication or rehabilitation of existing windows, provided that the new windows are identical in size to
the old windows, have the same style and details are consistent with the Design Standards.
195-6 Procedures
The following procedures shall apply to properties within the Historic District. All procedures shall be in accordance with Chapter
40C of the Massachusetts General Laws:
A. Prior to any construction, alteration, or demolition that in any way affects exterior architectural features, except those
activities exempted in § 195-5, a landowner or applicant must apply for and receive a certificate of appropriateness, a
certificate of nonapplicability or a certificate of hardship from the Historic District Commission.
B. To apply for a certificate, the applicant must complete and file the Commission's application form, with the appropriate
number of copies and supplementary material. Said application must be filed with the City Clerk.
C. A person may apply for a certificate of nonapplicability to determine if a project involves a regulated architectural
feature. Within 14 days, the Commission or its duly authorized subcommittee or agent shall issue a certificate of
nonapplicability if it finds that the project would not involve any exterior architectural feature or would only involve
exterior architectural features that are exempt from review. A denial of a certificate of nonapplicability by a
subcommittee or agent may be appealed to the full Commission within 14 days of its denial. In reviewing a denial, the
17 https://ecode360.com/27844782
Commission shall follow the same procedures as for any other request for a certificate of nonapplicability that is heard by
the full Commission.
D. A person may apply for a certificate of appropriateness to determine if a project will be appropriate for or compatible
with the preservation of the Historic District.
1. Within 14 days, the Commission shall issue a certificate of nonapplicability, as described above, or determine that a
public hearing on the application is required.
2. Within 30 days after the required public notice and public hearing, the Commission shall issue a certificate of
appropriateness with suitable conditions, if any, or disapprove the application. The public hearing may be waived in
accordance with Chapter 40C.
3. If the application is going to be disapproved, the Commission must first notify the applicant of the reasons for such
disapproval and recommend changes in the applicant's proposal which, if made, would make the application
acceptable to the Commission. If within 14 days the applicant files a written modification of the project in conformity
with the recommended changes, the Commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness.
4. If the Commission finds that a project is inappropriate (certificate is disapproved), it shall consider whether a
certificate of hardship should be issued.
E. A person may apply for a certificate of hardship to determine whether there is a unique hardship. The Commission shall
issue a certificate of hardship when it finds that, 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 this chapter.
F. A landowner in the district or his or her representative may request informal assistance from the Commission in planning
alterations or new construction. The Commission shall offer informal advice and comments to any proposal. This advice,
however, cannot be binding on the Commission when it formally reviews an application for a certificate.
195-8 Appeals
[added 2-6-1997]
A. Any person aggrieved by a determination of the Commission may, within 20 days after the filing of the notice of such
determination with the City Clerk, file a written request with the Commission for a de novo review by a person or persons
of competence and experience in such matters, designated by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission.
B. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s designee’s(s’) findings shall be filed with the City Clerk within 45 days after the
request and shall be binding on the applicant and the Commission, unless a further appeal is sought in Superior court, as
provide in MGL c. 40C.
RELEVANT POINTS FROM ELM STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS18
This local, district-specific publication was created in 2010, is available through the city’s website, and also contains links for
supporting information.
Page numbers are noted in parentheses.
18 Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010, Microsoft Word - Elm Street Standards_FINAL_current 9_24_2013.doc (northamptonma.gov)
Introduction (page 5, final paragraph)
The following design standards are intended to provide direction for Elm Street Historic District landowners who are intending to
make improvements and/or alterations to their properties, and to help streamline the application process for them. The
standards also serve as a tool in helping the Commission to make consistent decisions about the appropriateness of these
improvements and alterations and in finding solutions that might make the alterations more acceptable. Furthermore, each
application before the Commission is considered on a case-by-case basis and all circumstances taken into consideration.
Character of the Elm Street Historic District (page 9)
Details. Most of the buildings contain a high level of architectural detail.
Architectural Styles (page 13)
Colonial Revival (1875-present)
The Colonial Revival house re-interprets the Georgian and Federal houses of the 18th and 19th centuries, but generally at a larger
scale. The façade normally shows symmetrically balanced windows and a center door with a surround that often has a decorative
pediment or fanlight, supported by pilasters; or a porch supported on Doric columns. Windows with double-hung sashes, but
there are also single-pane windows with stained glass transoms. Examples: 47 Elm Street, 115 Elm Street, 123 Elm Street, 169 Elm
Street, 179 Elm Street, 186 Elm Street, 234 Elm Street, 259 Elm Street, 264 Elm Street, 276 Elm Street, 280 Elm Street, 281 Elm
Street, 302 Elm Street, 330 Elm Street, 336 Elm Street, 337 Elm Street.
The Application Process (pages 17-18)
Figure 4: Excerpt from “Application Process” section of the Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010
Figure 5: Excerpt from “Application Process” section of the Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010
Design Fundamentals (19)
The Commission refers to and utilizes the design standards in this handbook when evaluating specific projects and project
components and considering the following: (See Glossary for terms “Appearance” and “Design”.)
Exterior or façade changes to buildings that would damage historic features or are not otherwise readily reversible except
when such changes replicate historic features, restore previously damaged historic features, or are otherwise compatible
with the detail and character of the district.
District Design Standards
Architectural Elements (21)
(See individual architectural elements for design standards.) Architectural elements include features such as doors, windows,
dormers, porches and balconies, as well as decorative details such as cornices, columns, pediments, railings and trim. Large or
small, they play a key role in defining the architectural character of a building and deserve particular attention and respect.
Windows (39-41)
“Original and old windows are the most threatened element in preservation today…” Michael Lynch Vice President for Properties
& Preservation, Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities
Windows are one of the most important design features of any building. The material, design, and placement of the windows
reflect the architectural and cultural character of the building’s period or style.
Original or later windows, trim and features should be retained and repaired except in cases where they are beyond
repair. In such cases, replacement must be based on physical, photographic, or documentary evidence.
Figure 6: Excerpt from “District Design Standards, Windows” section of the Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010
Figure 7: Excerpt from “District Design Standards, Windows” section of the Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010
Figure 8: Excerpt from “District Design Standards, Windows” section of the Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010
Inventory of Principal Buildings in Elm Street Local Historic District (42)
This property is identified as a principal building within the district, located on the South Side of Elm Street
Assessors Map ID Address Date Style
31A-2 330 Elm St. Ca. 1920 Colonial Revival
Elm Street Historic District (44)
There is a map of the Elm Street Historic District which notes this parcel as a historic building within the boundaries of the district.
Depiction of Dos and Don’ts of Maintenance, Restoration and Rehabilitation (57)
Windows
DO maintain original windows and window configurations
DON’T replace wood windows with vinyl windows, and DON’T replace windows that have muntins with single-glazed windows.
Additional Resources (64)
Technical Preservation Publications
National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Preservation Briefs (link provided)
No. 9 The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (link provided)
The City of Northampton Online References (65)
This section provides a link to the Elm Street Historic District Ordinance and information on how to access the Massachusetts
Historical Commission inventory forms through the city website’s “Public File Cabinet: at www.northamptonma.gov/opd
RELEVANT POINTS FROM MA General Law MGL c. 40 8D and MGL c. 40C 14
MGL c. 40 8D: Historical Commission; establishment; powers and duties
A city or town which accepts this section may establish an historical commission, hereinafter called the commission, for the
preservation, protection and development of the historical or archeological assets of such city or town.19
MGL Chapter 40C: Historic Districts20
Section 6: Certificates of appropriateness, non-applicability or hardship; necessity; applications and plans, etc.; building and
demolition permits restricted
Except as the ordinance or by-law may otherwise provide in accordance with section eight or said section eight or nine, no
building or structure within an historic district shall be constructed or altered in any way that affects exterior architectural
features unless the commission shall first have issued a certificate of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability or a
certificate of hardship with respect to such construction or alteration.
Any person who desires to obtain a certificate from the commission shall file with the commission an application for a certificate
of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability or a certificate of hardship, as the case may be, in such form as the
commission may reasonably determine, together with such plans, elevations, specifications, material and other information,
including in the case of demolition or removal a statement of the proposed condition and appearance of the property thereafter,
as may be reasonably deemed necessary by the commission to enable it to make a determination on the application.
No building permit for construction of a building or structure or for alteration of an exterior architectural feature within an historic
district and no demolition permit for demolition or removal of a building or structure within an historic district shall be issued by a
city or town or any department thereof until the certificate required by this section has been issued by the commission.
Section 7: Factors to be considered by commission
In passing upon matters before it the commission shall consider, among other things, the historic and architectural value and
significance of the site, building or structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the features
involved, and the relation of such features to similar features of buildings and structures in the surrounding area. In the case of
new construction or additions to existing buildings or structures the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the size and
shape of the building or structure both in relation to the land area upon which the building or structure is situated and to buildings
and structures in the vicinity, and the commission may in appropriate cases impose dimensional and set-back requirements in
addition to those required by applicable ordinance or by-law. When ruling on applications for certificates of appropriateness for
solar energy systems, as defined in section one A of chapter forty A, the commission shall also consider the policy of the
commonwealth to encourage the use of solar energy systems and to protect solar access. The commission shall not consider
interior arrangements or architectural features not subject to public view.
The commission shall not make any recommendation or requirement except for the purpose of preventing developments
incongruous to the historic aspects or the architectural characteristics of the surroundings and of the historic district.
19 General Law - Part I, Title VII, Chapter 40, Section 8D (malegislature.gov)
20 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40c
Section 9: Maintenance, repair or replacement.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, repair or replacement of any exterior
architectural feature within an historic district which does not involve a change in design, material, color or the outward
appearance thereof, nor to prevent landscaping with plants, trees or shrubs, nor construed to prevent the meeting of
requirements certified by a duly authorized public officer to be necessary for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous
condition, nor construed to prevent any construction or alteration under a permit duly issued prior to the effective date of the
applicable historic district ordinance or by-law
Section 12: Review procedure provided by local ordinance or by-law
A city or town may provide in its ordinance or by-law or in any amendment thereof, for a review procedure whereby any person
aggrieved by a determination of the commission may, within twenty days after the filing of the notice of such determination with
the city or town clerk, file a written request with the commission for a review by a person or persons of competence and
experience in such matters, designated by the regional planning agency of which the city or town is a member. If the city or town
is not a member of a regional planning agency, the department of community affairs shall select the appropriate regional planning
agency.
The finding of the person or persons making such review shall be filed with the city or town clerk within forty-five days after the
request, and shall be binding on the applicant and the commission, unless a further appeal is sought in the superior court as
provided in section twelve A.
Section 12A: Appeal to superior court
Any person aggrieved by a determination of the commission, or by the finding of a person or persons making a review, if the
provisions of section twelve are included in a local ordinance or by-law, may, within twenty days after the filing of the notice of
such determination or such finding with the city or town clerk, appeal to the superior court sitting in equity for the county in
which the city or town is situated. The court shall hear all pertinent evidence and shall annul the determination of the commission
if it finds the decision of the commission to be unsupported by the evidence or to exceed the authority of the commission, or may
remand the case for further action by the commission or make such other decree as justice and equity may require. The remedy
provided by this section shall be exclusive but the parties shall have all rights of appeal and exception as in other equity cases.
Costs shall not be allowed against the commission unless it shall appear to the court that the commission acted with gross
negligence, in bad faith or with malice in the matter from which the appeal was taken. Costs shall not be allowed against the party
appealing from such determination of the commission unless it shall appear to the court that such party acted in bad faith or with
malice in making the appeal to the court.
RELEVANT GUIDELINES FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES 21
Standard 6 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: “Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather
than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing materials shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.”22
21 https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm , accessed May 2021
22 “Evaluating Historic Windows for Repair or Replacement,” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/windows-evaluating.htm, accessed May 2021.
RELEVANT GUIDANCE FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TECHNICAL PRESERVATION SERVICES23
Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows
“The windows on many historic buildings are an important aspect of the architectural character of those buildings. Their design,
craftsmanship, or other qualities may make them worthy of preservation.”
After all of the factors have been evaluated, windows should be considered significant to a building if they:
1. are original,
2. reflect the original design intent for the building,
3. reflect period or regional styles or building practices,
4. reflect changes to the building resulting from major periods or events, or
5. are examples of exceptional craftsmanship or design.
6.
The routine maintenance required to upgrade a window to “like new” condition normally includes the following steps:
1. some degree of interior and exterior paint removal,
2. removal and repair of sash (including reglazing where necessary),
3. repairs to the frame,
4. weatherstripping and reinstallation of the sash, and
5. repainting.
Technical Preservation Services recommends the retention and repair
of original windows whenever possible. We believe that the repair and
weatherization of existing wooden windows is more practical than most
people realize, and that many windows are unfortunately replaced
because of a lack of awareness of techniques for evaluation, repair, and
weatherization. Wooden windows which are repaired and properly maintained
will have greatly extended service lives while contributing to the historic
character of the building. Thus, an important element of a building's significance
will have been preserved for the future.24
RELEVANT RESEARCH REGARDING ORIGINAL AND REPLACEMENT WINDOW ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Energy efficiency is not generally addressed in local, state, or federal law governing preservation and local historic districts.
However, as this topic is referenced in this appeal as a reason that the property owners should be approved to replace the existing
windows even though this is in opposition to the ordinance, it was deemed useful to address this subject in the appeal review.
Specifically, Stiles states as fact that “the existing windows will never be as weathertight, nor will they be as environmentally or
economically efficient as the modern but architecturally identical windows proposed for installation.”25 The appeal further notes
that a review not in favor of the property owners’ appeal will cause hardship of a $100,000 investment as well as preventing “a
sustainable, environmentally friendly, cost effective and comfortable home.”26
23 John H. Myers, “The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm , accessed June 2021.
24 Ibid.
25 Stiles, III. Further Evidence, Paragraph 2.
26 Stiles, IV. Legal Analysis, A. Substantial Hardship, Paragraph I.
A 2016 report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation entitled Saving Windows, Saving Money: Evaluating the Energy
Performance of Window Retrofit and Replacement found that “Selecting options that retain and retrofit existing windows are the
most cost effective way to achieve these energy savings and to lower a home’s carbon footprint.”27 Key findings of this report
were that “retrofit measures can achieve performance results comparable to new replacement windows” and that “almost every
retrofit option offers a better return on investment than replacement windows.”28
The National Park Service Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows notes the following regarding the claim
that replacement windows are more energy efficient than older, wood sash, double hung windows:
Consider energy efficiency as one of the factors for replacements, but do not
let it dominate the issue. Energy conservation is no excuse for the wholesale
destruction of historic windows which can be made thermally efficient by
historically and aesthetically acceptable means. In fact, a historic wooden
window with a high quality storm window added should thermally outperform
a new double-glazed metal window which does not have thermal breaks
(insulation between the inner and outer frames intended to break the path of
heat flow). This occurs because the wood has far better insulating value than
the metal, and in addition many historic windows have high ratios of wood to
glass, thus reducing the area of highest heat transfer.29
A project by This Old House which investigated repairing or retrofitting circa 1725 windows noted that “Most people are surprised
to find that just below the surface of a seemingly unsalvageable piece of wood is quality wood, sound and bright as the day it
went in.”30 Regarding efficiency, the project summary noted that “Up to 85% of a window unit’s heat loss is through its poorly
weather-sealed sash,” and that new weather stripping “stopped 95% of the air infiltration and greatly improved the windows’
operation.”31
A common approach to increasing the efficiency of single-glazed sash
windows is to replace them with new insulating glass units. Contrary
to popular belief, very little energy efficiency is realized this way,
and such a move rarely justifies the cost; on average, it takes over
50 years to recover the expense. With an average expected life of
25 years or less, insulated glass units made little sense for this project.32
27 “Saving Windows, Saving Money: Evaluating the Energy Performance of Window Retrofit and Replacement.” Resource Library: National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Preservation Leadership Forum, https://forum.savingplaces.org/connect/community-
home/librarydocuments/viewdocument?DocumentKey=59eab0e4-f0f4-45c5-97c8-147a8def82ae&CommunityKey=00000000-0000-0000-0000-
000000000000&tab=librarydocuments , accessed May 2021
28 “Saving Windows, Saving Money:” Ibid.
29 “NPS Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm
30 John Stahl, “Saving Old Windows,” This Old House, 1997, https://www.thisoldhouse.com/milton-house/21014994/saving-old-windows , accessed June 2021
31 John Stahl, Ibid.
32 John Stahl, Ibid.
A recent look by Money at the value of replacement windows, which promotes them as efficient and considers “old windows” as
“drafty” and “unsightly” with storm windows, notes that “new windows will produce only about 5% to 15% total energy savings”
and that it “would take you more than 100 years to earn back your investment.”33 This report also acknowledges that “the solid
wood products sold today do not stand up as well to the elements as the wood used 50 or 100 years ago.”34
The Massachusetts Community Preservation Coalition has the following technical assistance information available to the public on
their website:
Repairing historic windows is more economical and environmental than you
might think, and almost always the right choice. In this market-driven economy,
we are constantly barraged with ways to buy our way to “go green.” Each
year, Americans demolish 200,000 buildings. That is 124 million tons of
debris, or enough waste to construct a wall 30 feet high and 30 feet thick
around the entire U.S. coastline.[1] Every window that goes into the dump
is adding to this problem.35
Figure 9: Applicant photo showing Main, Elm Street facing façade
33 Josh Garskof, “5 Things to Know Before You Replace Windows,” Money, May 3, 2016, https://money.com/replace-windows-need-to-know/ , accessed June 2021.
34 Josh Garskof, Ibid.
35 Rebecca Williams, “Windows of Opportunity: Repair – Don’t Replace – Those Older Wood Windows.” Community Preservation Coalition, Windows of
Opportunity: Repair - Don’t Replace - Those Older Wood Windows | Community Preservation Coalition, accessed June 2021.
ADDRESSING THE MAIN POINTS FROM THE COHEN/DUCAR APPEAL
Stiles made the following points in the 11 page appeal document submitted on May 3, 2021.
The appellants were unaware that they needed a permit prior to purchasing their windows and were unaware that
they lived in a historic district subject to design review The district, which was created in 1994 and expanded in 2013, is
noted by local signage within close proximity to the property in question. (Figure 3) The ordinance, design guidelines, and
district boundaries are publicly available on the city’s website with further documentation available online through
MHC’s MACRIS database and mapping program. (Figures 1-2)
The original proposed replacement windows should be allowed The initially purchased and proposed replacement
windows with removable grids are inaccurately described as “historically accurate” and “visually virtually identical”
although they clearly do not meet district design standards.36 Complete replacement of original, character-defining
windows that are not deteriorated beyond repair also does not meet design standards. The 330 Elm St Before and After
Examples document that was submitted is not appropriate to use as evidence in this application. Wilbraham does not
currently have any local historic districts or related ordinance that would control exterior alterations so an example of a
model window replacement project in this municipality is irrelevant to this application for replacing original windows
within a local historic district. Even if the example windows were replaced in a municipality using Community
Preservation Act (CPA) funding for the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources, and
window restoration would require review, CPA funded historic preservation projects must adhere to the United States
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties which would discourage unnecessary
replacement of original windows.37
The application should be changed to reflect hardship due to the cost of already purchased replacement windows The
pre-purchase of replacement windows for a property that is within a local historic district, publicly and properly identified
on the city’s web site and other on-line sites, through local signage, and is subject to exterior design control to protect
Northampton’s historic assets does not constitute hardship.38 The district ordinance and design guidelines are clear that
complete replacement of existing windows is not appropriate unless there is proven deterioration beyond repair. The
February 24th public hearing resulted in approval of an extension to allow the applicants time to gather additional
information to include a complete condition assessment proving major deterioration beyond repair as well as a cost
estimate specific to the restoration of these windows. This is documented in the minutes and acknowledged by a follow-
up February 25th email from Schulz, which included Cohen, and an email from LaValley on March 24th. This requested
information was not provided to the NHC prior to or during the May 29th public hearing meeting. The Appendix A
window condition report and related photographs submitted with the appeal describes and illustrates windows in need
of routine maintenance and repairs, as described by the National Park Service.39
36 Stiles, May 2, 2020, I: Introduction, First Paragraph and II: Facts, Fourth Paragraph
37 “Is Our Project Allowable?,” Community Preservation Coaltion, Is Our Project Allowable? | Community Preservation Coalition , accessed June 2021.
38 Description within “II. Facts” of Appeal 39 John H. Myers, “The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm , accessed June 2021.
The existing windows are deteriorated beyond repair and drafty The provided photographic evidence in the initial
application process as well as in Appendix A displays some deferred maintenance but does not, in my opinion, show any
windows that are deteriorated beyond repair. (Figures 10 and 11) In addition to window restoration contractors, some
painters, glazers, and general contractors could be consulted for issues such as broken sash cords and repainting trim.
Replacement hardware can also be found through various sources and some of the examples appear to be from newer
windows. The Historic Window Replacement Costs document provided to the Commission by Schulz actually provides
information in support of why the existing windows should be repaired rather than replaced.40 The provided
photographic examples and descriptions by Stiles of issues with lead paint note issues identify some paint deterioration
on the window sills and trim. These elements would remain in situ whether windows are replaced or not so that is also
not relevant to appeal the NHC determination and allow for replacement windows.41
Figure 10: Exhibit D (original application) examples of windows deteriorated beyond repair.
40 “Historic_Repair_Costs,” 31A-002 Dallas Ducar & Perry Cohen_2021_01_12 (northamptonma.gov) , accessed June 2021.
41 PermitApplication_Dallas Ducar & Perry Cohen (northamptonma.gov)
Figure 11: Examples from Appendix A of Appeal showing windows that are described as deteriorated beyond repair
Finding a restoration contractor was too difficult Stiles notes that the property owners researched window replacement
options and sought “assessments by green energy companies,” but, based on the appeal materials, apparently only
reached out to one restoration contractor, Don Hayward, of D Hayward Restoration. Hayward has extensive experience
with residential and municipal window repair and restoration projects and was referenced in the Historic Window
Replacement Costs document provided by Schulz.42 This outreach to Hayward was initially through Schulz and Hayward
indicated that he would only speak with the property owners. After he was contacted by owner Cohen, Hayward
responded on March 12th via email directly to Cohen that he could come to the site and look at the windows. He didn’t
hear back from Cohen until March 25th. Hayward has stated that at that point, his impression was that the request was
for a free proposal to support the application to the historical commission for replacement windows rather than for a
proposal that could lead to a repair and restoration project and there was no further communication from either party
regarding an estimate after that time.43 The window condition assessment provided at the February 24th meeting (putty
glaze and window sill deterioration on all, cracked glass, draftiness, lead paint, storm windows missing glass), as well as
the Appendix A condition report and photographs describe and show repairable conditions.44 Additionally, Hayward has
reviewed the photographs submitted with the appeal as evidence of deterioration beyond repair and has stated that the
windows shown appear to need repairs that are “nothing out of the ordinary.”45 Furthermore, if the goal is to have
functional and efficient windows, window restoration specialists are not the only options for projects which may only
require minor repairs or retrofitting.46
Repair is more costly than replacement The burden of proof fell to the property owners to demonstrate that it would be
cost-prohibitive and inefficient to repair the existing windows, which were constructed specifically for this building and
have lasted for more than 100 years in spite of what appears to be recent deferred maintenance. The evidence initially
provided to demonstrate the cost prohibitive nature of repairing the existing windows was general information and not
specific to this project.47 The requested window restoration estimate and window evaluation discussed at the February
24th meeting, which also led to the agreed upon extension, was not provided by the applicants prior to or during the
March 29th meeting. The written Appendix A Window Survey and related photographs does not describe or show
windows that are deteriorated beyond repair but rather illustrates windows that would benefit from repairs to specific
elements such as broken glass and sash cording, glazing, and hardware. The window sills will remain intact regardless of
the treatment so issues with chipped or flaking paint on the sills and trim are irrelevant to the request to replace the
existing windows. The property owners also did not submit the requested proposal by a contractor demonstrating that
repairs are cost-prohibitive.
42 https://dhaywardrestoration.com/
43 May 26, 2021 discussion with Mr. Hayward as part of the appeal review
44 Stiles, II. Facts, 2. “Reading and explanation of Pella’s window condition assessment…”
45 May 26, 2021 discussion with Mr. Hayward, Ibid.
46 “Preservation Resources,” Weston, MA, https://www.weston.org/1293/Preservation-Resources ; New England Window Restoration Alliance
http://www.windowrestorationne.org/ accessed May 2021
47 “Repair VS Replacement.” Https://www.greatplainswindows.com/window-replacement/historic-renovation-window-restoration-problem/, accessed through
31A-002 Dallas Ducar & Perry Cohen_2021_01_12 (northamptonma.gov)
The alternative proposed replacement with new, “historically appropriate windows” should be approved
As a modification to the original application request, with discussions during and after the February 24th NHC public
hearing, the property owners, via Schulz, proposed replacing 17 windows visible from the public way with “simulated
divided light grilles on ‘historically accurate [Pella] Architect Windows’,” while utilizing the originally proposed
replacement windows on the [under debate] areas of the house not visible from the public way.48 As the design
guidelines state, “the complete replacement of all windows in a building in which only a few are in disrepair will not be
approved” and the request “for detailed costs of window restoration/efficiency improvements for the home” and an
“extension of application review through end of March” acknowledged by Schulz in a March 25th email, didn’t lead to
further information to be discussed at the March 29th public hearing in support of the irreparable conditions of all
windows or of a window restoration estimate from the property owners.49 50
New windows would be more environmentally efficient While the appropriateness of window repairs versus window
replacement is clearly a topic that is up for debate, it is not a reason for wholesale approval of practices in opposition to
Northampton’s local ordinance and district guidelines. Studies have shown that old growth wood may be more durable
and resilient than new windows and has already lasted 100 years as part of the windows on this property.51 Windows
from the time period of this property, and older, are able to have deteriorated materials repaired rather than
necessitating complete replacement. Typically, repairs to elements like weather stripping will improve efficiency. If
exterior storms are deemed unattractive, interior storm windows are an alternative.52 If environmental concerns are
being noted in support of window replacement, alternatively, unnecessary removal of 100 year old windows that have
suffered deferred maintenance but could be repaired, in addition to being inconsistent with the historic district ordinance
and design guidelines, would add waste to a landfill.
The windows behind the brick wall and out of view of the public way should be exempt from design control The current
ordinance explicitly states that removable elements such as a freestanding wall or landscaping are not exempt from
Historic District Review.53 The ordinance does not specify that the age of a wall or landscaping should have any bearing
on this rule. Additionally, 330 Elm Street is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Elm and Vernon which makes the
side and rear elevations potentially more visible from the public right of way.
48 JSchulz “330 Elm St – Historical Commission Meeting #2 Recap” email, February 25, 2021 49 Elm Street Historic District Design Standards, September 2010, Microsoft Word - Elm Street Standards_FINAL_current 9_24_2013.doc (northamptonma.gov)
50 JSchulz
51 John Stahl, “Saving Old Windows,” This Old House, https://www.thisoldhouse.com/milton-house/21014994/saving-old-windows , accessed June 2021
52 “Interior Storm Windows,” Old House Journal, July 13, 2016, https://www.oldhouseonline.com/repairs-and-how-to/interior-storm-windows/, accessed June
2021.
53 City of Northampton, MA Historic DistrictsSearch: § 195-5 Project categories. (ecode360.com)
Figure 12: Provided example of circa 1985 brick wall
Within a February 26 response to Schulz’s “330 Elm St – Historical Commission Meeting #2 Recap” email, LaValley discussed the
questions about windows on the rear elevation:
Regarding applicability of the Ordinance to windows on the rear of
the house, the Ordinance would apply to all windows except those
"not visible from a public way, provided that they would not be visible
even in the absence of all freestanding walls and fences, signs, accessory
structures, and landscaping." If they are hidden from street view by a
wall only, the design guidelines would apply. If any windows are not
visible from the street due to their orientation on the house, then they
are not subject to the Ordinance at all. However also please note for any
nonoriginal windows that proposed replacements that are a "duplication
or rehabilitation of existing windows, provided that the new windows are
identical in size to the old windows, have the same style and details and
are consistent with the Design Standards" would be eligible for a certificate
of nonapplicability. 54
54slavalley, “330 Elm St – Historical Commission Meeting #2 Recap” email, February 25, 2021
Property owners were unaware of the date of the follow-up public hearing
The March 29th virtual public hearing date was discussed at the meeting on February 24th, and Schulz, Ducar, and Cohen
were all in attendance.55 The agenda and zoom link was made available to the public online on March 25th. 56
Additionally, on March 25th, LaValley sent a group email to Schulz and cc’d property owner Cohen and other Pella
representatives to see if there were additional materials “in advance of Monday’s meeting” and received a reply to all
from Schulz that there were no additional materials except for a potential quote from a restoration company which may
have been submitted to the homeowners.57 It is not standard practice to email virtual meeting links to expected
attendees as these are public meetings, posted in advance and information is accessible online.58
FINAL COMMENTS
Based on the materials provided, I have determined that the NHC acted appropriately and in accordance with the current
ordinance and design guidelines in denying a Certificate of Appropriateness and not providing a Certificate of Hardship for the
application for 330 Elm Street to install replacement windows visible from the public way, including those that would be visible
with the removal of landscaping or the brick wall.
The appellants purchased this property in July of 2020, with windows that had already suffered from some deferred maintenance
as described by Stiles “in obvious need of upgrade,” and caused the appellants to have suspicions about lead paint. These issues
were not enough of a concern to prevent the purchase of what was, at the time, a 100 year old home.59 The A. B. Butler House,
at 330 Elm Street, has been part of a local historic district and under design ordinance since 1994 with a district expansion and
ordinance update in 2013. This property is recognized locally and on a state level as a “historical asset” and is a contributing
resource within the district and subject to design review for exterior alterations to architectural elements visible from the public
way, including windows.60 The 2010 Elm Street Historic District Design Standards is available through the city website to inform
property owners of best practices for planning for repair or replacement of architectural features under the Northampton
Historical Commission’s purview. It also serves the NHC in the task of making reasonable and consistent decisions about
properties within the district and bound by the ordinance. While the appellants state they were unaware of the publicly
advertised local historic district in which they purchased a property and argue that they Northampton ordinance should be flexible
so they don’t have to shoulder the burden for a costly window purchase, they do not place any blame on the previous property
owner, local realtor, or window replacement company’s West Springfield showroom, which is located in proximity to
municipalities with local historic district ordinance, but did not consider this aspect of the permitting process for their client.61
The NHC is charged with the “preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics of buildings and places significant in
the history and architecture of the City of Northampton and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the maintenance and
improvement of settings for such buildings and places, and through the encouragement of design compatible therewith.”62 This
55 http://www.northamptonma.gov/AgendaCenter/Historical-Commission-43/
56 http://www.northamptonma.gov/AgendaCenter/Historical-Commission-43/
57 JSchulz, “
58 Per Sarah LaValley
59 Book 13691/Page 69 Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, masslandrecords.com, accessed May 2021; Description within II. Facts, Third Paragraph
60 https://ecode360.com/NO2226?needHash=true
61 Springfield Historic District Guidelines, https://www.springfield-ma.gov/planning/index.php?id=hist-guidelines
62 https://ecode360.com/27844782
“preservation and protection” includes character defining features such as original wood sash windows and this charge to the
Commission is prioritized ahead of considerations of compatible design, which is generally reserved for guidance related to new
construction.63
The district is clearly delineated and there is appropriate publicly accessible information available to help property owners
understand the process and procedures for working with the NHC. As noted in the minutes of the initial public hearing on
February 3rd, the Elm Street/Round Hill Historic District “guidelines are specific and clear.”64 NHC decisions regarding exterior
alterations to properties within the district are made on a case-by-case basis. The Schulz/Ducar/Cohen application for a
determination of appropriateness and consideration of hardship was for window replacement on a scale that was not appropriate
through the lens of local ordinance, specific district design guidelines, and state and federal guidance. These resources provide
the framework for Commissions when making appropriate decisions related to the protection of locally significant historic
resources. Approving the application, as presented, would set a precedent in opposition to the ordinance and district design
guidelines. The information requested to help the NHC consider if a determination of hardship was even appropriate was not
received to be considered at the March 29th public hearing. Additional evidence submitted to PVPC with the appeal did not
support the claim that the windows under ordinance and proposed for replacement were deteriorated beyond repair. Finally, as
noted in the April 12th email from LaValley, windows which are not visible from the public way, without the presence of the
existing wall or landscaping, are not under the jurisdiction of the NHC or of this review and would need to go through the standard
city permitting process.
63 Ibid.
64 http://www.northamptonma.gov/AgendaCenter/Historical-Commission-43/