HARB clears Crystal PVC simulated‑divided‑light windows for 20 North Penn; larger dormer plan tabled pending planning review
October 31, 2025 | York City, York County, Pennsylvania
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 York City Historical Architectural Review Board on Oct. 30 approved a window‑replacement plan for 20 North Penn and separately tabled a more substantial roof/dormer concept for nearby alley properties pending city planning review and permit drawings.
For 20 North Penn the board approved replacement of visible street‑facing windows with a Crystal PVC product in dark bronze with external (simulated) divided lights to match the existing window configurations on the principal facades. The board’s approval required that existing sills and frames that can be retained be repaired and repainted; where frames or sills are routed or too deteriorated, full frame replacement is permitted. The board emphasized that high‑visibility facades require materials that approximate the appearance and durability of traditional architectural windows; staff noted the district typically does not accept basic vinyl on primary street facades but will accept higher‑quality PVC/composite or fiberglass products and metal‑clad wood on those elevations.
The applicant described cost pressures (individual units priced as high as $1,500 and near‑$200,000 total for full replacement) and said the Crystal line being offered carries long warranties and can be specified to resemble divided‑light sash with external grids. Board staff requested the applicant submit the exact Crystal product specification for the record and for staff review; the board indicated color choices of dark bronze or black were acceptable as presented.
Separately, the applicant presented a concept to alter roofs and add shed dormers on a row of alley/garage buildings behind the primary frontage. Board members and staff treated that work as a potentially "major project" requiring planning and zoning review, engineered permit drawings, and coordination with city permitting. The board voted to table the dormer/roof‑raising application pending submission of planning and permit drawings but stated conceptual support for the shed‑dormer approach and for using the approved Crystal windows where appropriate. The board suggested the applicant pursue a preliminary meeting with planning and engineering and return with final plans for a formal HARB vote.
The approvals were recorded by voice vote in the meeting transcript; individual roll‑call tallies were not provided.
Actions recorded: approval of the Crystal PVC window replacement on primary façades (simulated external divided lights; existing frames/sills to be retained and repaired when feasible) and tabling of the related dormer/roof work pending planning/zoning review and final permit drawings.
For 20 North Penn the board approved replacement of visible street‑facing windows with a Crystal PVC product in dark bronze with external (simulated) divided lights to match the existing window configurations on the principal facades. The board’s approval required that existing sills and frames that can be retained be repaired and repainted; where frames or sills are routed or too deteriorated, full frame replacement is permitted. The board emphasized that high‑visibility facades require materials that approximate the appearance and durability of traditional architectural windows; staff noted the district typically does not accept basic vinyl on primary street facades but will accept higher‑quality PVC/composite or fiberglass products and metal‑clad wood on those elevations.
The applicant described cost pressures (individual units priced as high as $1,500 and near‑$200,000 total for full replacement) and said the Crystal line being offered carries long warranties and can be specified to resemble divided‑light sash with external grids. Board staff requested the applicant submit the exact Crystal product specification for the record and for staff review; the board indicated color choices of dark bronze or black were acceptable as presented.
Separately, the applicant presented a concept to alter roofs and add shed dormers on a row of alley/garage buildings behind the primary frontage. Board members and staff treated that work as a potentially "major project" requiring planning and zoning review, engineered permit drawings, and coordination with city permitting. The board voted to table the dormer/roof‑raising application pending submission of planning and permit drawings but stated conceptual support for the shed‑dormer approach and for using the approved Crystal windows where appropriate. The board suggested the applicant pursue a preliminary meeting with planning and engineering and return with final plans for a formal HARB vote.
The approvals were recorded by voice vote in the meeting transcript; individual roll‑call tallies were not provided.
Actions recorded: approval of the Crystal PVC window replacement on primary façades (simulated external divided lights; existing frames/sills to be retained and repaired when feasible) and tabling of the related dormer/roof work pending planning/zoning review and final permit drawings.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting