Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table exterior changes at 1515 Pierce Ave, urge preserving front facade and existing windows
Summary
The commission tabled a COA for 1515 Pierce Ave after staff recommended denial of a proposed front bump-out and wholesale window replacement; commissioners said side and rear additions are acceptable but asked the applicant to return with revised plans that preserve front window openings or include clear justification and matching profiles for any replacement windows.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oxford's Historic Preservation Commission tabled a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1515 Pierce Avenue after staff recommended denial of a proposed front gable bump-out and wholesale replacement of the front windows, while saying the proposed side and rear additions and the use of in-kind siding on non-primary elevations meet guidelines.
Staff reviewed the property's historic description and said the house is a contributing one-story, three-bay frame cottage with 6-over-6 double-hung sash windows. The staff report advised that guidelines favor retaining original entrances and porches and recommend that additions be placed on rear or non-character-defining elevations. Staff recommended approval of the rear/side additions but recommended denial of the front addition and replacement of historic windows, noting that repairs and restoration are preferred to wholesale replacement.
The representative for the project identified herself as Emily McGee and explained topographic constraints that limited rear additions; she said the team sought a modest three-foot forward bump to add a small sitting area. Commissioners said the front change would alter the house's historic look and emphasized retention or careful replication of the front window openings. One commissioner asked whether the front windows could be repaired rather than replaced, pointing to photos in the staff packet that suggest some front windows remain original and repairable.
After discussion commissioners moved to table the application and voted to continue the matter so the applicant could return with revised designs showing either retention/repair of the front openings or a well-justified replacement with manufacturer profiles and matching sash divisions. Staff noted that some flexibility exists on secondary elevations but stressed that the front facade is a primary character-defining feature of the historic district.

