Norristown HARB recommends certificates of appropriateness for multiple façade projects, tables one window application

The Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) on Monday reviewed several façade and window preservation projects in Norristown and recommended that municipal council issue certificates of appropriateness for multiple applications while tabling one application for further review.

Gail, a HARB member who made the motions, summarized the board’s conditions for several cases: “I would like to recommend to municipal council that a certificate of appropriateness be issued” for each property subject to listed repairs and material conditions. The board approved projects that would repair or replace shutters, repoint and paint masonry with breathable/silica‑based coatings, restore metalwork, and replace or restore windows where necessary.

513 Swede Street: The board recommended approval of a proposal to remove a wood sign band, repoint and paint the bricks behind it if required, refurbish the wrought‑iron gate with rust inhibitor and repainting, replace the first‑floor window with a wood door and transom, install concrete steps with a gray tint to match adjacent stone, and install new wood louvered shutters on upper floors. Applicant representatives described the work as a set of alternates tied to bid pricing and noted uncertainty about the existing paint substrate behind the sign band. The motion carried.

515 Swede Street: HARB recommended approval of repairs that include cornice and trim restoration, repair of double‑hung windows on most floors, replacement of two third‑floor windows with wood or aluminum‑clad wood units, replacement of second‑ and third‑floor shutters with louvered wood shutters, removal of a sign board, repointing and silica‑based paint of brick, repair of stone steps and replacement of an exterior light with a gooseneck fixture. Board members discussed window profiles and agreed to conditions to match neighboring openings where feasible.

517 Swede Street: For the adjacent property, the board recommended approval of window repairs (including replacement where sash glazing was broken), replacement of shutters with louvered wood shutters, repointing and painting of facing brick, and repair/repainting of metal handrails. The motion carried.

408 West Main Street: Returning for additional alternates, the applicant proposed replacing 21 existing vinyl windows with 6‑over‑6 fiberglass windows to fit existing openings, replacing second‑ and third‑floor shutters with louvered wood shutters, repairing and repointing front masonry with a lime‑style mortar, and replacing front railings. The board recommended a certificate of appropriateness with the conditions discussed; members emphasized that no additional external capping was to be permitted.

1114 West Air Street: A contractor representing the homeowner explained plans to replace deteriorated porch plywood with a peel‑and‑stick underlayment and engineered tongue‑and‑groove decking, repair and paint railings and spindles, and repair lattice skirting and limited stucco/brick. The contractor characterized the work as repair and replacement "to match existing" in visible areas; the board required tongue‑and‑groove or engineered decking and painted finishes. HARB recommended approval with those conditions.

1027 West Main Street (tabled): The homeowner, represented by an interpreter, sought approval to replace windows on three façades and to encapsulate exterior trim because several units had been identified as lead‑paint hazards. Board members agreed to retain stained‑glass units and the half‑moon window and to specify exterior encapsulation where appropriate, but they tabled the application until the building‑department representative who had issued a stop‑work order and can clarify the lead/permit history could attend.

535 Hamilton Street (in‑kind): The board approved an in‑kind roof replacement using Owens Corning asphalt shingles; members treated this as a standard repair and granted the in‑kind approval.

Procedure, votes and next steps: Motions to recommend certificates of appropriateness were made by Gail and seconded; votes were taken by voice and the motions carried among the members present. Several applications included alternate scopes tied to bid pricing that applicants said would be decided after contractor estimates were received. The board adjourned at about 8:42 p.m.

Quotes and participant notes: Contractor representatives repeatedly characterized the porch/deck work as "not doing anything different than what's already there," describing repairs and in‑kind replacements rather than new alterations. Gail, speaking for the board’s recommendations, read the conditions for each motion and moved for recommendation to municipal council.

What remains unclear from the record: Several vote tallies were taken by voice ("I") and individual yes/no counts were not recorded in the transcript; the building‑department representative who could clarify the stop‑work and lead‑abatement history for 1027 West Main Street was absent, which is why that item was tabled. The addresses and some wording in the application packet showed inconsistent spellings in the transcript (e.g., St./Swede/Suede/Sweet) and are reported here using the form shown in the application discussion in the hearing.

The board is expected to forward its recommendations to municipal council; applicants were told they need not attend council for routine approvals and were given guidance on materials and samples as part of the HARB conditions.