629 Lesseps St.

Staff Recommendations: 

The current owner purchased this property in October 2017 and quickly began renovating it without applying for or receiving building permits or a Certificate of Appropriateness. Some of this initial work involved changes which are not considered appropriate by the HDLC Guidelines, such as removal of original windows for replacement with inappropriate vinyl windows, installation of inappropriate front entry door transom, removal of side entry door and canopy, changes to the rear roof form and window configuration, and installation of HVAC and inappropriate light fixtures. The property has also been continuously cited by the HDLC for working without a CofA violations since 2020, of which two have received Adjudication fines which have not yet been paid to date. 

It appears the current owner is in the process of selling of the building, and has submitted this application to address and correct some of the violation items at the site, and to request retention approval for the remainder. For example, the applicant has agreed to correct the side elevation gable vents and install appropriate light fixtures, low-profile power roof vents, and fencing.

Inappropriate Vinyl Windows:

Several previously existing historic 6-over-6 wood windows were removed from the left and right side elevations so that all openings could be replaced with inappropriate new vinyl windows. The current windows are considered inappropriate because they do not match the previous double-hung operation and do not have sash dimensions, profiles, and proportions to adequately replicate a historic wood window. Additionally, the windows have half-screens and utilize an inappropriate grille-between-glass muntin rather than the required simulated divided light. Based on this, and because the HDLC Guidelines note that historic windows are an important exterior building feature that help to define the character, style, and type of abuilding, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention, at least for the highly visible windows at the left side elevation.

Change of Rear Roof Form, Window Configuration, and Removal of Side Entry Door & Awning:

The rear area of the building previously had a hipped roof form, with a small connected lean-to type addition at the left side. While the footprint of the building appears to have remained the same, the applicant modified the roof from a hip to a gable roof form. The side lean-to addition was also incorporated into the slope of the new main building roof, visually obscuring the fact that this was a smaller, non-original addition. The lean-to addition also previously featured three mulled windows which were removed and replaced with two standard size window openings at this area. Additionally, a previously existing side entry door and trim with simple wall-mounted canopy above were removed and the area was concealed with new weatherboard siding. While these changes fundamentally alter the appearance of the historic building and are generally not supported by the HDLC Guidelines, they are located at the rear, non-original portion of the building. Based on this, Staff has no objection to the request for retention.

Wall-Mounted HVAC at Rear Building Wall:

A new wall-mounted HVAC condenser unit was installed on a small wood platform at the rear of the building without a mechanical permit or CofA issued shortly after the current owner purchased the property. The unit is only visible at the rear of the building, primarily from Royal Street. Because the unit is only minimally visible at the rear and is located beneath a slight rear roof overhang that further helps to obscure it, Staff has no objection to the request for retention with a proviso that an mechanical permit application must be submitted after-the-fact for this equipment.

Inappropriate Front Entry Door Transom:

When the current owner purchased the property, the front elevation had already been previously altered with the typical transom above the entry door removed and concealed with vinyl siding. Shortly after purchasing the building, the current owner reinstalled a new transom window above the door, without a building permit or CofA issued. Unfortunately, the proportions of the transom do not appear to be correct because the header height of the overall opening should align with the adjacent paired window opening, where it is currently taller. Because this work was not submitted to HDLC for review and approval prior to commencement of work, and because the modified transom is highly visible at the prominent front elevation, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends the transom be corrected to an appropriate size/proportion.