The Houston Archaeological Historical Commission on Nov. 6 accepted work performed on a contributing house at 1208 Cortland in the Houston Heights after an extended hearing on whether original wood siding must be reinstated.

Staff told the commission that the contractor removed the original wood siding and installed cementitious (fiber‑cement) siding during construction; staff recommended denying issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for the out‑of‑scope work and requiring the installation of wood siding on the contributing structure, allowing fiber‑cement only on the more recent addition. Terrence Jackson presented photographs and a tracker record showing the work exceeded the approved COA scope.

Sam (Creel Design), the project architect, and Pete Stockton, a long‑time historic‑preservation inspector, testified that the house had multiple historic siding types and significant deterioration; Creel said the remaining salvageable original siding was insufficient to re‑cover the elevations and argued that restored fiber‑cement would provide long‑term stability. Pete Stockton urged applicants to contact staff when rot or unforeseen conditions are found during construction and described technical measures that help wood siding last longer if used.

Commissioners debated the policy and practical implications: whether preserving original wood is always practicable, how the ordinance treats repair versus replacement, and whether the drawing notes were sufficiently explicit. Staff acknowledged the ambiguity in submittals and noted that in this case the office had not been contacted before siding removal: staff learned about the change via a 311 call.

After discussion and a motion, the commission granted a COA/COR accepting the work as performed on the sides of the contributing structure — allowing cementitious siding on those elevations — while maintaining the requirement that the primary front elevation remain wood (original material retained where present). Commissioners stressed the need for clearer documentation and earlier staff contact when extensive repairs are discovered.

Ending: Staff said the episode highlighted process gaps and recommended additional guidance and clearer submittal notes to avoid similar conflicts.