1 STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT — ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
} In re Sheil Material Replacement Application } D ocket No. 249-12-09 Vtec } (Appeal from Montpelier DRB) }

Decision on the Merits Robert H. Sheil seeks the authority to replace the windows, siding, and other exterior
materials on his residence at 6 Cliff Street in Mon tpelier. When the City of Montpelier (“City”) Development Review Board (“DRB”) denied design revi ew approval for his proposed work, Mr. Sheil (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) file d a timely appeal. The Court conducted a site visit and bench trial, which were attended by Appli cant, his attorney (John L. Franco, Jr., Esq.), the attorney for the City of Montpelier (Joseph S. McLean, Esq.), and representatives of the City. The trial was completed on June 16, 2010, and the p arties were afforded the opportunity to file post-trial memoranda, which were completed on Augus t 11, 2010. This Decision is rendered to address all factual and legal issues presented by t he parties. Based upon the evidence admitted at trial, includin g that which was put into context by the site visit the Court conducted with the parties , the Court renders the following Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law:
Findings of Fact
1. Applicant owns and occupies a single family residen ce on property within the City at 6 Cliff Street. He has lived continuously at this re sidence since he purchased it in 1987.
2. Applicant’s property is located within the High Den sity Residential Zoning District. Applicant’s property is not far from the Vermont St atehouse, and is located near a relatively steep cliff section of the downtown area, northeast erly from the Statehouse. In fact, when one stands on the opposite side of Cliff Street from Ap plicant’s home, one enjoys a broad view of a portion of the City’s downtown.
3. Applicant’s home was constructed sometime between 1 890 and 1920. It is principally a wood structure; its exterior is composed of wooden clapboards, trim, exposed rafter eves, soffit, fascia, and corner boards. The glass windows are e ncased in wooden frames split in two sections, the upper sash having six panels of glass and the lower sash having one panel of glass.2

4. The property also includes a two-story garage struc ture with similar exterior wooden features. The work Applicant proposes to complete only involves the main residence; he does not seek authority to do any improvements on the ga rage structure. 5. Several years after purchasing his property, Applic ant contracted to have the exterior of his house repainted. The paint had degraded, peeli ng off the wooden exterior in several places. Applicant recalls that this work was completed in 1 992 or so.
6. The new paint began to peel off the siding several years after this work was completed. After about eight years, the paint on the exterior of the house had peeled considerably, making Applicant’s home look unkempt. In fact, neighborho od families began to refer to this area of Cliff Street as “the haunted corner,” due in large part to the condition of the exterior of Applicant’s home.
7. Applicant has not sought a detailed explanation for why the paint peeled so extensively from the exterior of his home. There appears to be consensus, however, that interior moisture passing through the home’s exterior contributes to the peeling of the paint.
8. Applicant investigated whether an alternative sidin g would provide a more permanent solution to the exterior upkeep of his home. Appli cant sought out and accepted an estimate from a vinyl siding contractor to first insulate the ext erior of his home and then cover the existing exterior clapboards with vinyl siding. He selected a vinyl siding that was similar in exposed width to the wooden siding on his home, and selecte d a color of vinyl siding that complemented the colors of exterior siding on nearby homes.
9. Technological advances have been made in the manufa cturing process of vinyl siding to such an extent that it can be produced to match the width, appearance, and color of nearly any type of wooden clapboard siding. The finish can be produced to replicate the grain of natural wood and can be produced in a satin finish, similar to painted clapboards. These advances in vinyl siding production are such that, when the vin yl siding is installed properly and viewed from a distance, a casual observer may have difficulty d istinguishing between it and wooden clapboards.
10. A close inspection by even a casual observer, howev er, can detect that the exterior siding on a home is vinyl and not wooden clapboards. Prof essional siding contractors and historians may be able to detect that siding is vinyl even wit hout a close inspection.3

11. The textured finish on vinyl siding sometimes sugge sts that it is vinyl and not wood. The grained surface of wood is often undetectable, part icularly after wooden clapboards have been painted one or more times. Also, no matter how fin e the finish of vinyl, it can be distinguished from wooden clapboards because of the overlapping s eams that vinyl siding employs, the gaps that sometimes occur between the installed vinyl an d the trim and corner boards, and because the vinyl siding is manufactured in sheets that include three or more rows of replicated clapboards as one piece of vinyl siding.
12. Vinyl siding is often installed over the existing w ooden siding of a home, sometimes after
a sheath of insulation is tacked onto the exterior of the home. Applicant’s contractor installed the insulation and siding on a portion of Applicant ’s home in this manner. This method of
installation can lead to the eventual destruction o f the original wooden clapboards because the original clapboards can become splintered by the na ils used to secure the insulation and vinyl siding and because moisture can become trapped betw een the original clapboards and new materials, leading the clapboards to rot.
13. An alternative installation process for vinyl sidin g results in the original wooden clapboards being removed and discarded, thereby los t forever.
14. Upkeep, maintenance, and repair of the exterior of a private residence do not often require an owner to receive design review approval from municipal authorities. However, such municipal approval may be required in the City for historically contributing properties.
15. The parties agree on certain underlying facts, and the Court so finds the following:

a. Applicant’s property is within the Design Control O verlay Zoning District (“Design Control District”). Work on certain prope rties within the Design Control District may only occur after design review approval has been granted by the DRB. b. Applicant’s property also lies within the Montpelie r Historic District (“Historic District”), which the City established p ursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The boundaries for both this Historic District and the Design Control District are deline ated on the City’s trial Exhibit G. Applicant’s property is located at appr oximately the center of Exhibit G.

c. Both Applicant’s home and garage are recognized as being historic and are listed as “contributing” structures in the applicab le section of the National Register of Historic Places. d. The National Register listing of Applicant’s home i ncludes the following description: “6 (formerly 61⁄2) Cliff Street. C. 192 0. Contributing wood frame,4 clapboarded, 21⁄2 stories, gabled, corbelled brick ch imney. This two bay front house has a double leaf French door in the east bay and a front porch with square posts and a solid clapboarded balustrade. B oth the house and porch have exposed rafter eves. The windows have simple wide surrounds and sixover-one light sash. Some of them on the side faca des are grouped in threes.”

e. Applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing wi ndows and siding on his home requires design review approval from the DRB.

16. The City has taken several measures to promote and preserve historic structures, particularly within the historic sections of the Ci ty. In addition to establishing the Design Review District “to guide development in an area [o f the City] with particular historical . . . significance”, 1 the City has undertaken several studies, titled “C ityscapes,” that provide reviews of and recommendations for preservation of historic al structures.
17. When the Historic District was first established, t he City gave notice to all then-current owners of properties with historic structures that their properties would now be subject to design review standards and a requirement to obtain design review approval prior to modification or further development of their property.
18. The City also established a Design Review Committee that is charged with making recommendations to the DRB on development proposals that impact historic structures within the Design Control District.
19. Eighty-eight percent of the 653 properties within t he Historic District have been deemed to be historically “significant” or “contributing” (as determined by their respective listing on the National Register of Historic Places). No more tha n 91 (13%) of the historic properties have some type of replacement siding on their exteriors, be it vinyl, aluminum, or asphalt. The record presented at trial revealed that less than a handfu l of these 91 properties have been specifically permitted to install replacement siding by the DRB; it was further suggested that replacement siding was installed on several of these properties prior to the enactment of the applicable provisions in the City of Montpelier Zoning and Sub division Regulations (“Regulations”) relating to the Design Control District. A signifi cant number of the remaining historic structures that have replacement siding may have had such sidi ng installed without permit approval or other legal authority.

1 City of Montpelier Zoning and Subdivision Regulat ions § 305.A5

20. One of Applicant’s neighbors testified convincingly about the compatibility of vinyl siding used on several neighborhood homes with hist oric recognition, including her own. On one such home, the vinyl siding contractor used a r outer to create a channel on the existing wooden trim of the home, so that the newly installe d vinyl siding could be secured inside the channel and be less likely to reveal itself as a re placement material. On another historic neighborhood home, the owner had only used vinyl si ding on the sides and rear of the structure and had restored and repainted the wooden siding an d trim on the front of the structure, so as to minimize the exposure of the vinyl siding from the front of the property.
21. The City, through its Zoning Administrator, concede d at trial that there exists no “per se” prohibition on the use of vinyl siding on historica lly contributing structures. Concerns about vinyl siding are premised upon the non-use, destruc tion, or removal of historically relevant materials that comprise a building’s original exter ior.
22. When Applicant sought to install vinyl siding on hi s home, he was unaware that his home and garage were historically contributing structure s and was unaware of the need to first obtain design review approval from the DRB prior to modify ing the exterior of his home.
23. Applicant contracted with a vinyl installation cont ractor to install vinyl siding on the exterior of his home and to replace the windows and frames in his home with vinyl replacement windows. The new windows would have vinyl-coated f rames, but would have an otherwise similar appearance as the original wood-framed wind ows. 24. The existing wood-framed windows on Applicant’s hom e are also in disrepair. In addition to peeling paint, they had become loose an d drafty through the years. They were of the older variety, having lead weights inside the frame s that operated to balance the window sashes. Many of the leaden weights had detached from their harnesses, thereby making the windows more difficult to operate. The original windows we re also of the single pane variety and were
therefore inefficient insulators from the outside e lements. A prior owner had installed aluminum storm windows which had no historical significance and detracted from the historical attributes of the original windows and exterior siding.
25. The new vinyl windows would be of the double pane v ariety, would be energy efficient and weather resistant, and would not require the us e of separate storm windows. Applicant does
not wish to use storm windows on his home.6

26. The contractor began his work on Applicant’s home i n August of 2009. In connection with this work, the contractor removed the pre-exis ting aluminum storm windows and some of
the distinctive trim elements around the exterior o f the windows, installed 3⁄4 inch, foil-backed insulation on part of the exterior of the home, and began installing the vinyl siding over the insulation and original wooden clapboards.
27. Shortly after work began, the Zoning Administrator was made aware of this work and advised Applicant that he must first obtain design review approval from the DRB before work could lawfully continue. Applicant immediately dir ected his contractor to suspend work.
28. On August 26, 2009, Applicant submitted his applica tion for design review approval to the DRB. His application included a general summar y of the vinyl replacement work to be done. A copy of the application was admitted at trial as Applicant’s Exhibit 1.
29. The DRB first referred Applicant’s application to t he Design Review Committee (“DRC”), which, by decision dated September 15, 200 9, recommended that the DRB deny Applicant’s request for approval. A copy of the DR C’s decision was admitted at trial as City’s
Exhibit B.
30. The DRB conducted a public hearing on Applicant’s a pplication on November 2, 2009, after which the DRB voted to deny Applicant’s reque st. The DRB issued its written decision on November 11, 2009, 2 and Applicant filed a timely appeal with this Cour t.

Discussion The principal legal issue presented here concerns w hether Applicant’s proposed modifications to the exterior of his historically c ontributing home satisfy the design review criteria presented in this appeal. Before addressi ng that substantive legal issue, we must first address several procedural and jurisdictional issue s presented by the parties.
I. Procedural Challenges First, we address the City’s request that it be per mitted to submit its memorandum in reply to Applicant’s post-trial memorandum. Applic ant has offered no specific response to the City’s request, and we find no reason to deny it. At the close of the evidence at trial, the Court re sponded to Applicant’s various offers to make modifications in his proposed work by directin g Applicant to specify the plan

2 See City’s trial Exhibit A.7

encompassed by his application. In response, Appli cant filed his “Post Hearing Memorandum” with the Court on July 15, 2009. The City filed it s Reply on July 26, 2009, which the City then sought permission to file by a motion and memorandu m of August 11, 2009. While the better practice would have been for the C ity to submit its request to make an additional filing before, or at least simultaneous to making the additional filing, we conclude that fairness requires that the City’s additional filing be allowed. The City is correct that Applicant suggested a revised work plan for the first time in its Post Hearing Memorandum, although we note that each component of Applicant’s revised pla n was based upon testimony or other evidence presented at trial. The City’s additional filing was the first opportunity the City had to respond to Applicant’s revision. The Court frowns upon multiple post-trial filings, since they cause the Court to delay its consideration of the merits of an appeal. As more time passes, recollections fade, and the Court is required to more heavily rely upon its trial not es. When the parties make no post-trial filings, a case goes under advisement immediately after the trial. The undersigned has worked to shorten the time during which merits determinations remain under advisement in this Court. Encouraging parties to limit their use of, or the t ime in which they make, post-hearing filings is one vehicle that the Court has used to help shorten the under-advisement timelines. Nonetheless, we conclude that the City’s request to make its add itional filing of July 26, 2010 should be
GRANTED and have reviewed the City’s additional filing in the course of our determinations
here. The next procedural issue raised by the City provid es a more problematic question: whether Applicant limited the scope of his appeal i n such a manner so as to limit the scope of the Court’s review of his application in this appeal. We begin our analysis with the general premise that this Court only enjoys jurisdiction over the l egal and factual issues that an appellant has properly preserved for our review. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) (“The appellant may not raise any question [i]n the appeal not presented in the state ment [of questions] as filed, unless otherwise ordered by the court in a pretrial order entered pu rsuant to subdivision (d) of Rule 2.”). In a specific reference to Rule 5(f), our Supreme Court noted both the general rule that our review of a land use appeal is “confined to the issues raised in the statement of questions” and that our
review must also consider “matters intrinsic” to th e legal issues raised by an appellant in their statement of questions. In re Appeal of Jolley Ass ocs. , 2006 VT 132, ¶ 9, 181 Vt. 190. With this8

directive in mind, we review the Statement of Quest ions filed here in relation to the DRB Decision that was appealed. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that Appellant’s Statement of Questions, while unartfully drafted, e ncompasses the scope of the DRB’s denial. First, we review the specific language of Applicant ’s Statement of Questions, which in
total states as follows: 1) Is the use of vinyl siding and/or windows at 6 C liff Street in the City of Montpelier compatible with other properties in the [Design Control D]istrict under Montpelier Zoning and Subdivision Regulation No. 305.F.3; and 2) Does the use of vinyl siding and/or windows at 6 Cliff Street constitute the use of incompatible exterior materials under Montpelier Zo ning and Subdivision Regulation No. 305.F.5?
A review of the November 23, 2009 DRB Decision from which Applicant appeals quickly reveals the source of the City’s concern an d challenge, since the DRB entered a specific finding that the DRC, in its recommendation to the DRB, “found [Applicant’s proposal] to be unacceptable under § 305.F applicable criterion 1, 2, 3, and 5. ” (City’s Ex. A at 2, Findings and Conclusions ¶ 3 (emphasis in original)). Thus, it would appear that Applicant only appealed two of the four legal criteria the DRB relied upon in d enying the pending application. Were we to adopt the City’s analysis we would be co mpelled to rule that the pending application must be denied as a matter of law, no m atter what credibility we assign to the evidence presented at trial, since Applicant would now be prohibited from challenging two of the four rulings below. See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(d) (an in terested person who fails to appeal a decision by an appropriate municipal panel “shall be bound b y that decision . . . and shall not thereafter contest [that decision], either directly or indirec tly”). However, the DRC’s recommendation, as found by the DRB, is somewhat unclear, as the DRB D ecision does not specify how the DRC found the pending application deficient under each of the four criteria it cites. More important, the DRB’s own conclusions (see City’s Exhibit A at 2, Findings and Conclusions) similarly lack specificity and provide no more detail. In short, the DRB Decision contains no distinction between the four cited criteria from Regulations § 305.F 3 and provides no guidance to the Court

3 Regulations § 305.F contains eight subsections. The subsections cited by the DRC in its recommendat ion state the following: 305.F. Review Criteria

. The Design Review Committee and Development Review Board shall evaluate [a proposed] design review plan based on the following considera tions:9

concerning what aspects of Applicant’s vinyl siding proposal violated each of the four cited
criteria. We are left to conclude that the DRB fou nd that Applicant’s vinyl siding and window proposals violated the four cited criteria collecti vely and without distinction. Applicant’s Questions specifically cite only to sub section 3 and 5 of Regulations § 305.F, and to the “incompatibility” standard referenced in those criteria. However, we are at a loss to
determine the distinction between the standards of those criteria and the standards of subsections
1 and 2: we cannot discern a distinction between wh ether Applicant’s proposal contains either an “appropriate historic style” and is in “harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district” (the standards in criteria 1 and 2) from whether its “exterior materials” and “designs” or “color schemes” are compatible with other propertie s in the Design Control District, which are the standards we are required to employ under crite ria 3 and 5. The DRB Decision provides us with no guidance, since it provides no distinction between these standards. We are left with
standards that are difficult to differentiate. Applicant first presented his legal issues in the N otice of Appeal he filed pro se with the Court on December 22, 2009. While his Statement of Questions was filed after he retained Attorney Franco to assist in the prosecution of his appeal, the Statement of Questions Attorney
Franco filed are a mirror recitation of the issues Applicant first posed in his self-represented filing. Applicant testified at trial that he focus ed his appellate Questions on the legal issue he understood was substantively at issue: compatibilit y. We fear that granting the City’s request, while well founded in a general reading of the appl icable legal standard, would ignore the lack of specificity in the DRB Decision and may well cause Applicant to suffer an unfair disadvantage due to his then-status as a self-represented litiga nt. We therefore decline to grant the City’s request and precede to our review of the conformanc e of Applicant’s proposed vinyl replacement plan with the applicable criteria from Regulations § 305.F

1. Preservation or reconstruction of the appropriat e historic style if the proposed project is in the historic district or involves an historic structure ; 2. Harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district; 3. Compatibility of proposed exterior materials wit h other properties in the district;
. . . ; 5. Prevention of the use of incompatible designs, b uildings, color schemes, or exterior materials;

. . . .10

II. Do Applicant’s Vinyl Materials Conform to Regul ations § 305.F.1, .2, .3 & .5? Any proposal to use replacement materials on the ex terior of a structure, especially one that has been acknowledged as historically signific ant or contributing, often presents similar legal issues that cause consternation for the prope rty owner and town officials. In the two appeals concerning replacement exterior siding over which the undersigned has most recently presided, 4 a similar set of facts were presented as are prese nted in the appeal here: that the property owners had become dissatisfied with the pr ocess of repainting wooden clapboards
because it frustrated their efforts to maintain the ir property. The suggestion had been made to these property owners that an alternate form of ext erior siding, such as vinyl siding, would help maintain the exterior of their property for a longe r period of time, and at less expense than repeatedly repainting wooden clapboards. Thankfull y, we are not charged in this appeal with determining which exterior material lasts longer or works more efficiently to preserve a home. Instead, our charge here is limited to determining whether Applicant’s proposed replacement materials conform to the applicable criteria in Reg ulations § 305.F. The City correctly notes that whether other replacement siding materials conforme d to ordinance provisions from other municipalities has little precedential force upon t he legal question posed in this appeal. The City has expended significant efforts and munic ipal resources to preserve the historic nature of its downtown. The fact that Montpelier i s the capital of our State and host to many historic facilities, including the Vermont Statehou se, adds to the importance of the City’s efforts. Some municipalities have proclaimed the importance of their historic structures or downtown areas, but then have not been vigilant in their eff orts to maintain those historic structures or regularly require owners to preserve the original e xteriors of their buildings. See, e.g., In re Appeal of Hartman , No. 81-4-02 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Oct. 10, 2002) ( Norton, J.). In the present appeal several examples of the City’s specific effo rts to preserve historic structures were discussed, including the implementation of design r eview, the use of the DRC to review renovation plans and make recommendations to the DR B, and two district-wide “Cityscape” studies to provide review and recommendations for h istoric preservation. The results of the City’s efforts are demonstrated by some of the unre futed evidence presented at trial, including that the use of replacement exterior materials on o nly a few historic structures has been approved

4 See In re Armour Siding Application , No. 134-7-05 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Dec. 18, 2006) (Durkin, J.) and In re ALPH Realty , Nos. 30-2-08 Vtec, 31-2-08 Vtec, and 32-2-08 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Jan. 30, 2009) (Durkin, J.).11

by the DRB, and the fact that only 13% of historic buildings in the Historic District no longer maintain their original exterior materials. The Co urt applauds the City’s efforts at historic preservation. However, we cannot interpret the applicable criteri a in Regulations § 305.F as absolutely prohibiting the use of vinyl siding materials. The City’s Zoning Administrator conceded this point when he admitted that no provision of the Reg ulations can be read as a “per se” ban of vinyl as an exterior replacement material. While t he Court was only presented with three or fewer examples of prior DRB approvals of the use of replacement siding, we concur with the Zoning Administrator’s assessment that the Regulati ons do not establish an outright prohibition. Thus, we conclude that, when appropriately designed , vinyl may be allowed under Regulations § 305.F as a replacement material on Applicant’s ho me. We reach this conclusion with an acknowledgement th at the Regulations cannot be interpreted in isolation. Applicant has struggled to find an appropriate way in which to preserve
the exterior of his home. The Court found convinci ng the trial testimony of some of Appellant’s neighbors that his home, in its current condition o f peeling paint on wooden clapboard, is in conflict with the character of their immediate neig hborhood. We found the vinyl samples Applicant presented at t rial to have a similar finish and color scheme of well-kept historic homes in his immediate neighborhood. Applicant’s proposal to leave the original wooden clapboards in place, cove ring them over with insulation and vinyl siding, will result in some damage to the clapboard from the nails used by the vinyl contractor, but at least the original clapboards will not be co mpletely lost through disposal. In fact, with certain amendments to Applicant’s plan that we have incorporated into our review, we have concluded that the careful, well-planned use of vin yl siding and vinyl replacement windows will allow for the historic preservation of Applicant’s home. Regulations § 305.F provides specific criteria by w hich we are to review Applicant’s proposed design plan. When read together, which we find appropriate because of the overlapping language and phrasing in the subsection s the DRC determined to be applicable, we understand that the collective criteria applicable in this appeal is whether Applicant’s plan incorporates “preservation or reconstruction of the appropriate historic style” by being compatible and harmonious in its design, materials, and color schemes with other properties in the Design Control District. See Regulations § 305 .F.1, .2, .3, and .5.12

The evidence presented convinced the Court that the vinyl siding and windows Applicant plans to employ are sufficiently similar to the ori ginal materials on his home so as to conform to the collective criteria under Regulations § 305.F. In fact, to a significant degree, the new materials will appear nearly identical to the casua l observer. The fact that the original materials will, to some extent, be preserved underneath the n ew materials has factored into our conclusions, although we share the City’s concerns that the stapling or nailing of insulation and vinyl siding could cause significant damage to the original siding. We also wonder why no party has suggested that Appl icant preserve a portion of the exterior siding, both to preserve the historic sign ificance, and to verify the compatibility and harmony of the new materials. The Court recalls te stimony of this approach being employed on at least one historic home in the City and recalls a similar approach being employed in at least one other vinyl siding appeal. See In re Appeal of Hartman , No. 81-4-02 Vtec (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Oct. 10, 2002) (Norton, J.). We will therefore imp ose such a condition, having concluded that this condition will bring about more assurance of t he project’s conformity with § 305.F. The most troubling challenges to the historic quali ties of Applicant’s home are that (1) some of the exterior wood window trim has already b een removed from the building and (2) the gaping that occurs when vinyl meets wood trim on th e exterior of a building often reveals that vinyl has been employed. Applicant has offered to replace, preserve, and repaint all wood window trim, and we will so condition our approval. Lastly, while Applicant did not specifically
offer to channel the wood window trim and corner bo ards on his home that will abut the vinyl, he offered the testimony about this procedure by one o f his neighbors, which we found convincing and beneficial from the perspective of compatibilit y and harmony. Thus, we have also conditioned our approval by requiring Applicant to employ similar techniques. Lastly, we note that as the presiding judge, the un dersigned is charged with rendering a final judgment in this dispute, and has sought to f ulfill that charge. But a judge presiding over a bench trial who is a stranger to this neighborhood and who is not well versed in its historical significance does not have the full capabilities of Applicant, his neighbors, and City officials to envision even better methods for attaining complian ce with the Regulations while affording Applicant an opportunity to effectively maintain hi s property. One such reality that we leave unanswered, since Regulations § 305.F does appear t o authorize this Court to address it, is whether Applicant needs to remedy a moisture or ven tilation problem at his home so that the13

application of vinyl does not become as disappointi ng as Applicant’s first attempt at repainting the wooden clapboards. We have concluded that the conditions imposed here allow Applicant’s proposed work to conform with the applicable § 305.F criteria, there by rendering the conditions appropriate under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(2). If our determination is no t successfully challenged and becomes final, it will become a final judgment. Nonetheless we encou rage the parties to investigate whether even more appropriate and acceptable conditions may be i mposed. If the parties reach an agreement on more appropriate conditions, the Court will ente rtain a joint motion to amend this judgment. Regardless of whether the parties choose to have su ch discussions, the Judgment Order that accompanies this Decision concludes these proceedin gs unless and until a subsequent order is
entered.
Conclusion Thus, for all the reasons detailed above, the Court does hereby APPROVE Applicant’s proposal to install vinyl siding and replacement wi ndows on his historic home at 6 Cliff Street in the City of Montpelier, subject to the following co nditions:
1. The vinyl siding to be used shall mirror the expose d reveals of the original clapboards and be of the same color as presented at trial, so as to be harmonious with the color schemes of surrounding properties;
2. Applicant shall preserve and replace, where necessa ry, the wooden clapboards on the front of his home and repaint the front clapboa rds, trim, and corner boards in a color scheme identical to the colors employed on th e other sides of his home, so as to preserve the historic integrity of the appear ance of his home from Cliff Street;
3. Vinyl replacement widows may be installed on all si des of Applicant’s home, including the front, conditioned upon all wood trim around the windows being preserved and replaced where necessary and painted in a color scheme that is harmonious with the surrounding properties and comp atible with the color scheme of Applicant’s siding, as Applicant represented at trial;
4. Applicant shall cause the existing and replaced woo den trim and corner boards to be routed in such a manner so as to allow the vinyl sheets to fit within the routed wood and make the vinyl less likely to reveal its c haracter as a replacement material. 5. Applicant, his successors, and assigns shall mainta in the installed siding and repair or replace any defects, cracks, peeling pain t, or broken panels that materially detract from its appearance.14

This completes the current proceedings in this Cour t concerning this appeal. A Judgment Order accompanies this Decision.

Done at Berlin, Vermont this 19th day of October, 2 010.

______________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge