Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Alterations 116 Lewisburg topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks multiple alterations at 116 Lewisburg Avenue; DRC urges documentation and verification of historic features
Summary
The owner of a circa-1929 Tudor at 116 Lewisburg Avenue proposed demolishing a nonhistoric greenhouse and filling a failing pool, enlarging a rear deck, and making several door and window changes.
Get email alerts on the Residential Alterations 116 Lewisburg topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amy Adkins, the owner and applicant for 116 Lewisburg Avenue, laid out a broad package of proposed changes to her circa-1929 Tudor house that is contributing to the local historic district. "I'd like to demolish the greenhouse, which was built in either '84 or '86," Adkins said, and described plans to fill and cover an in-ground pool, replace a rotting back deck, add a larger rear deck with slate pavers, install a wood fence at the rear property line, remove a satellite dish, and replace several windows and a side garage door.
Preservation staff said the principal building is a c.1929 Tudor and that the rear garage addition dates to circa 1988. Staff noted that the greenhouse and pool appear non-historic and that the greenhouse owner-signed letter says it was added around 1986. Staff advised that many of the rear and site changes will not be readily visible from public view and that demolition of the greenhouse and pool is unlikely to adversely impact the site, but asked for additional specifications for windows, doors and other materials for a future COA packet. "The guidelines recommend avoiding replacing original doors unless significant deterioration is demonstrated," staff told the DRC and asked the applicant to document the age and condition of the front door.
Commissioners generally supported removing the greenhouse and removing or filling the pool because both are non-historic and poorly maintained, but urged the applicant to document existing conditions and to confirm whether the front door and the prominent light fixture are original before replacing them. Several members recommended retaining the best stone walls where feasible and suggested simpler, period-appropriate rear railings rather than overly ornate ironwork. Commissioners also advised restraint on large-format checkerboard pavers and asked the applicant to prepare measured site drawings and elevations for the expanded rear deck and proposed raised fencing, noting the zoning ordinance limits rear yard fence height to seven feet.
Adkins said she will consider staff and commissioner feedback and provide more documentation: she noted the prior owner told her the greenhouse was added in the mid-1980s and that the front door "has been there since 1986," while agreeing to gather older ownership records if available. Staff asked for photographic documentation and specifications when the applicant files a formal COA application. No formal vote was taken; the DRC provided guidance and requested further documentation and drawings.

