Historic board approves remediation at 132 West Mount Vernon after State of Delaware abatement
August 28, 2026 | Smyrna, Kent County, Delaware
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Historic District Review Board voted to approve remediation work completed at a three-unit house at 132 West Mount Vernon during its Aug. 27 meeting (year not specified in the transcript).
The property manager told the board that the State of Delaware conducted a lead-based paint abatement program after a child at the property was found to have lead in their blood. She said the state's contractor replaced windows and doors, conducted testing and “encapsulated” areas where lead paint was found, and that she submitted invoices and testing documents to the board. "The property is completely cleared... it's as clean, as clean, as clean as could ever, ever, ever be," the property manager said.
Board members questioned whether the work—described by some as mechanical replacements of windows and doors—fully addressed residual lead hazards tied to original sills and trim that remain in place. A committee member said the owner should consider more extensive remediation if the units will be rented to families with children, while the property manager said full remediation would be financially burdensome.
The property manager also told the board she had not been involved in the contractor's decisions and that the contractor did not obtain historic-review permits before performing the work. At one point a board member said the contractor "charged $160,000 to put windows in," a figure offered in discussion without documentary confirmation in the transcript.
After discussion, the Chair asked for a motion to approve the remediation for the property's historical context; the motion was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The transcript does not record named movers, a roll-call, or a numerical vote tally.
The item record shows the manager supplied testing reports and invoices to the board and said the units remain vacant while permitting and final clearances progress. The board did not specify additional conditions to the approval in the discussed segments. Further follow-up was noted: staff said they have a contact at the state to notify the town if the state undertakes additional projects going forward.
The property manager told the board that the State of Delaware conducted a lead-based paint abatement program after a child at the property was found to have lead in their blood. She said the state's contractor replaced windows and doors, conducted testing and “encapsulated” areas where lead paint was found, and that she submitted invoices and testing documents to the board. "The property is completely cleared... it's as clean, as clean, as clean as could ever, ever, ever be," the property manager said.
Board members questioned whether the work—described by some as mechanical replacements of windows and doors—fully addressed residual lead hazards tied to original sills and trim that remain in place. A committee member said the owner should consider more extensive remediation if the units will be rented to families with children, while the property manager said full remediation would be financially burdensome.
The property manager also told the board she had not been involved in the contractor's decisions and that the contractor did not obtain historic-review permits before performing the work. At one point a board member said the contractor "charged $160,000 to put windows in," a figure offered in discussion without documentary confirmation in the transcript.
After discussion, the Chair asked for a motion to approve the remediation for the property's historical context; the motion was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The transcript does not record named movers, a roll-call, or a numerical vote tally.
The item record shows the manager supplied testing reports and invoices to the board and said the units remain vacant while permitting and final clearances progress. The board did not specify additional conditions to the approval in the discussed segments. Further follow-up was noted: staff said they have a contact at the state to notify the town if the state undertakes additional projects going forward.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
