Advisory board upholds staff recommendation on painting application; commissioners cite preservation concerns

The Compliance and Technical Advisory Board on Jan. 23 voted to uphold staff's recommendation regarding an application to paint the exteriors of three buildings (case no. 20-25-3-42-204), effectively declining the applicant's proposed scope and asking staff to collaborate on alternative solutions.

Eddie Vergelen, representing Roof Sharts, presented photos showing damaged brick and argued that limited, mineral-based painting of upper brick areas would preserve the structure and allow future removal. Vergelen said the supplier's mineral paint under consideration is vapor-transmissive, offers about 70% coverage, and comes with a 20-year warranty if applied correctly.

Commissioners and public commenters pushed back, noting that painting brick can change a building's character in a historic district and that established guidance often discourages painting original masonry. Several participants said repairs or matching-brick replacement are preferable where possible; one commenter and multiple commissioners emphasized that accepted practice in the district is generally to avoid painting brick.

Staff acknowledged that mineral paints have been approved in some historic contexts but recommended caution given possible long-term maintenance costs and irreversible changes to perceived historic fabric. The board moved to adopt staff's recommendation (the recommendation as presented was to not accept the applicant's proposal); the motion passed on a roll-call vote. Commissioners asked staff to work with the applicant to explore repair or other solutions and to return with alternatives if needed.

The board's action preserves the local preservation standard that painting masonry is generally disfavored and signals staff-to-applicant follow-up rather than an outright prohibition on all finish treatments.