This morning, Charles Gottlieb, attorney for Galvan, attended the HPC meeting on Zoom to present an application for a certificate of appropriateness to apply limewash to 501 Union Street, which, as we all know, has already had limewash applied to it. It should be remembered that the certificate of appropriateness granted for the building specifically indicated: "Original patina of brick shall be maintained."
Also present at the meeting, on Zoom, was Kurt Hirschling from Jan Hird Pokomy Associates, the expert Galvan hired to advise them about correcting the illegal application of limewash. Hirschling confirmed what everyone already knew: trying to remove the limewash risked damaging the brick. His recommendation was to apply another two to three coats of a 20 percent solution of limewash (80 percent water to 20 percent hydrated lime). According to Hirschling, the north facade of the building now has two coats of a 3 percent solution, and the rest of the building has just one coat of 3 percent solution. Hirschling argued that doing a limewash treatment, which would cause the building to appear as if it had been painted white, would make it blend in better with the surrounding structures, which for the most part are painted wood. He also indicated that it would take three to five years for the limewash that had already been applied to erode away.
Barry said she didn't think the example provided was relevant because the house wasn't brick. Hirschling told her that it was in fact brick.
Since it was agreed all around that trying to remove the limewash would damage the brick, the HPC has two choices. They can deny a certificate of appropriateness and wait for the limewash that has already been applied to wear away. That process is expected to take three to five years, and in the meantime the limewash will be increasingly blotchy and mottled. Or they can allow more limewash to be applied and accept a building that will, now and forever, look like it has been painted white.
According to Hirschling, there are thousands of historic buildings that have been limewashed. HPC member Miranda Barry wanted to see pictures of some of those buildings. During the meeting, Hirschling was able to produce only this one, which shows an Arts and Crafts house that has been limewashed.
Throughout the discussion, Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, came back to the question of why the directive, clearly stated in the certificate of appropriateness, had been ignored. The only answer he got from Gottlieb was that it was "simply a miscommunication."
Barry suggested that a public hearing on the limewash was in order, adding, "We should have some examples of other buildings with limewash and show them to the public." It was decided that a public hearing would be held at the next meeting of the HPC, which is scheduled to take place on Friday, January 12.
Earlier in Friday's meeting, the HPC approved a certificate of appropriateness for 28-30 Allen Street, which contains the following condition:
This C of A does not authorize any painting of the exterior brick facade of the building. The original patina of the brick shall be maintained and any cleaning that is done shall be nonabrasive and not debride the finish.
Of course, in the case of this house (also a Galvan project), the paint was removed from the brick without a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC or even a building permit to do work on the exterior.
In discussing the project, Victoria Polidoro, legal counsel to the HPC, said the brick had been sandblasted, a statement that no one on the HPC seemed to react to with appropriate horror. Sandblasting is extremely harmful to old brick. Not only does it remove the patina of old brick, leading to a loss of architectural authenticity, it can cause irreversible damage to the porous nature of brick. In most cities with historic preservation ordinances, sandblasting is outlawed altogether. Curious to know if 28-30 Allen Street had in fact been sandblasted, I asked Walter Chatham, who was the architect for the project, how the paint had been removed. He provided the information that the paint had been removed with a hot water pressure washer.
Somehow, hot water pressure washer didn't sound significantly better to me than sandblasting, so I decided to consult the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, this country's highest authority for historic preservation. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards has this to say about removing paint on masonry:
Recommended Retaining the original or early color and texture of masonry surfaces, including early signage whenever possible. Brick or stone surfaces may have been painted or whitewashed for practical and aesthetic reasons.
Not Recommended Removing paint from masonry surfaces indiscriminately. This may subject the building to damage and change its appearance.
The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings lists the following things as Not Recommended:
Applying high pressure water cleaning methods that will damage historic masonry and the mortar joints.
Removing paint that is firmly adhering to, and thus protecting, masonry surfaces.
Using methods of removing paint which are destructive to masonry, such as sandblasting, application of caustic solutions, or high pressure waterblasting.
Obviously, the paint on 28-30 Allen Street should not have been removed without thoughtful review by the HPC of the method proposed. Equally obvious is that the HPC needs to step up its game when it comes to the application and removal of paint--and limewash--on historic masonry buildings.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK
That perverse M.O. is also evident in other aspects of Galvan's property "management" where vacant houses and other buildings of theirs all over town are neglected for years or decades with little to no consequence or attention from Code Enforcement or anyone else at City Hall. Property owners are supposed to pay the city one thousand dollars a year in fines if their buildings remain on the CEO's vacant building registry, on which Galvan is well represented. Code Enforcement does not enforce its own rule meant to make a better Hudson and create revenues. Nothing. Zero effort.
ReplyDeleteOver a year ago, Galvan removed the garbage dumpster for their tenants in the small apartment complex in the 200 block of State Street. Garbage, some in bags and some not, can be seen any day of the week on the ground along the the alley where the dumpster once stood, much of it torn into and spread around by animals. This is a clear code violation and quality of life issue for everyone, another violation that the CEO has no time or interest in enforcing.
Galvan acts like a criminal organization by ignoring the rules, but City Hall only encourages and supports their "we can get away with this" behavior, delighted to help Galvan however they can. Maybe the HPC is afraid of them, too. It's been going on for so long, City Hall probably wouldn't know how to do any differently, especially with an ineffective mayor supposedly in charge. Corruption, dysfunction, whatever you want to call it, it is really really difficult to eradicate at the municipal level, especially when no effort is made to do anything about it.
Galvan knows this all too well.