Changes to the South End Landmarks District Commission criteria for replacing or refurbishing historic windows remain to be finalized.

At a June 5 public subcommittee meeting, committee members disagreed about a few key points regarding where to draw a line between historic preservation and everyday issues like accessibility of historic materials, flooding and environmental sustainability.

Introduced at the meeting were some changes to the policy recommended by the city historic preservation staff in line with recent changes to the same policies in the Bay Village historic district.

The proposed changes put forward by city preservation staff included a rule allowing replacement of window sashes that are more than 50% deteriorated, while requiring repair for any sash with 50% or less damage. This assessment applies on to the sash, not the glass pane itself. But this technical detail sparked some concern.

Committee members disagreed on who had the authority to determine whether a window meets the 50% threshold. While some committee members indicated they should be the sole assessors, neighborhood activist Steve Fox pointed out in a Facebook post following the meeting that many homeowners have brought in third-party historic window specialists who sometimes reach different conclusions.

“An outside source will assess a condition as to what the client wants, so I don’t think it truly is an objective evaluation in many cases,” said committee member Peter Sanborn.

Committee member Cristopher DeBord also raised issue with requiring components to be replaced with “historic material deemed appropriate by the Commission,” saying that, “There are no original materials anymore, because there’s no old-growth fir that’s being used to make these windows. If we can replace these sashes that are falling apart with good, let’s say mahogany-made curved sashes that look exactly like they did the day the buildings were built, and might be more climate appropriate and save energy, maybe we’re doing a disservice by forcing people to have to continue to repair these.”

Fox agreed. “Those of us who have wood in the front of our buildings and metal or composite at the rear and cannot tell the difference visually can attest to the fact that the new materials look brand new when the front windows have significant deterioration due to weather and time.” Fox could not be reached for comment directly.

Another issue raised during the meeting involved windows located at ground level, which are increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Commissioners showed general openness to the idea of granting exceptions in these cases, reflecting a growing awareness of the climate-related challenges facing property owners in the South End.

Sanborn expressed a concern which he admittedly felt was premature, but asked the committee if they would consider allowing a window to be blocked up to prevent water entering in the event of future coastal flooding. The committee agreed that the concern was premature but conceded that the issue of environmental resilience and resulting changes to policy should be addressed with the full South End Landmarks Commission and lay outside of the subcommittee’s current attention to windows.

The subcommittee concluded by agreeing to meet publicly again in about a month to further discuss these changes to the guidelines.