Probably the most interesting item that recently came before the Historic Preservation Board was the following:
The house at 718 North M Street was constructed in 1939. The owner wanted to replace the existing galvanized metal shingle roof with a new 5v crimp metal roof. Metal roofs last much longer than other types. Other houses adjacent to and in the neighborhood have metal roofs.
Directly across the street--also with metal roof
Staff
decided to hold the board’s feet to the fire and said that roof material can, in
and of itself, be a contributing historic element of a building, but design is
only one of seven aspects of historic integrity. Staff took into consideration
previous discussion and the decision made by the Board concerning 918 North
Palmway, and what they considered the ‘twin’ of the subject property. For that
COA request for roof replacement (HRPB 12-00100181) the Board voted to approve
the replacement of the original metal shingle roof with a new dimensional
asphalt shingle roof. In other words, the owner’s request was denied.It was the opinion of Staff that the proposed change from metal shingle to asphalt shingle roof is consistent with past decisions by the Board concerning similar requests. This change would be consistent with the original design of the roof covering, though the material of the roof would be changed. It was a pragmatic opinion and the board went along with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Herman Robinson, not a rubber stamp, was the only one who said, again, that the board's decisions need to be on a case-by-case basis and was visibly uncomfortable with staff's and the Board's direction. Four board members were in attendance. Those absent were Judith Just and Mark Clary. The vote was unanimous to go with staff's (William Waters) recommendation--asphalt not metal.
So, once a decision is made on one property, you can't divert in a decision on a different property? As one general contractor said after his project (a different one) was later voted upon, the Historic Preservation board needs some consistency...to paraphrase what he said--you can't allow other properties to have metal roofs and not this one--be consistent. This is how law suits develop.
God, at least these people are maintaining their property!!! We need to stop making life difficult for productive citizens! Give some petty idiots some power,,,, and they turn into the Lake Worth historical board !!!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad someone is looking out for our historic properties. We really do need to preserve and treasure them. But, this seems like the wrong call.
ReplyDeleteYou can thank Lorretta Sharpe for that decision. When on the historical (as she calls it) board she would rant that she hated metal roofs and would never vote in favor of one.
ReplyDeleteGood! A crimp metal roof would look terrible on this sweet little house. Good call historic preservation staff and board! So glad to hear you've finally started ENVISIONING proposed changes, instead of just OKing everything all the time. So many lovely historic homes are being destroyed. Take a look at the new doric columns and replacement windows on the home on the west side of the 800 block of Lakeside. Horrid.
ReplyDeleteThe board didn't like a seam coming down the roof. Here is an example of a crimp metal roof:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bestbuymetals.com/images/5v-crimp-panel-1.jpg
Thanks for the link, Lynn. Every time I see one of these roofs I draw back in horror and revulsion. The red ones are the worst. They look like plastic. BLEHHH! They completely destroy the appearance of the home. Don't do it, homeowners!
ReplyDeleteThe HRPB has made certain that the homeowners CAN'T DO IT.
ReplyDelete