Council denies appeal of ARB decision on 709 West Princess Anne windows; owner sought approval after replacement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The City Council voted not to grant a certificate of appropriateness for replacement windows at 709 West Princess Anne Road, leaving in place the Architectural Review Board's denial. The homeowner said windows were unsafe and replacement cost about $90,000; the ARB concluded the windows should have been repairable and denied them.
The Norfolk City Council declined to grant a certificate of appropriateness for replacement windows at a single‑family home at 709 West Princess Anne Road, upholding the Architectural Review Board’s denial.
A lawyer for the homeowner, Ari Stein, told the council the owner, Dr. Maroon, had bought the house in February 2024, discovered extensive window deterioration and had replacement work performed after consulting three window companies. Stein said Pella concluded most windows were not salvageable and that replacement work cost about $90,000. He urged the council to reverse the ARB and grant a certificate of appropriateness or, at minimum, provide specific guidance on how the owner could come into compliance.
Council members questioned the qualifications of the cited experts and whether the city had provided notice that the property is in a historic district. A staff member said the city mailed a notification for property transfer in December 2024 and a subsequent yearly mailing in February; staff confirmed they sent a letter in December prior to late‑January window installation but said they do not know whether the homeowner received it.
When the ARB reviewed the after‑the‑fact request on May 5, 2025, it approved other repair items but denied the windows, citing concerns about the introduction of a six‑over‑six pattern and concluding the windows were repairable. Stein said Pella’s letters and a home inspector report document that the windows were deteriorating and unsafe.
At the vote, the council considered an ordinance to grant the certificate of appropriateness (which, if approved, would have reversed the ARB). The motion to grant failed: a majority of council members voted no, leaving the ARB decision in place.
The council record shows this was an after‑the‑fact request filed following a notice of violation issued in March 2025. The homeowner and his representative said work was done with the intent of preserving the house’s character and because existing windows posed safety and code issues. The ARB and council discussion focused on whether the work conformed to the Norfolk Historic District design guidelines and on what guidance the ARB provided to bring non‑conforming work into compliance.