Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Windows Retroactive Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission retroactively approves window replacements at 1588 Buchanan Ave., declines to cite homeowner
Summary
The commission retroactively approved aluminum‑clad replacement windows and a new front door at 1588 Buchanan Avenue, with staff to evaluate whether four front windows are salvageable; the commission also voted not to cite the homeowner for the unpermitted work.
The Oxford Historic Preservation Commission retroactively approved replacement windows and a front‑door change at 1588 Buchanan Avenue and decided not to issue a citation for the permit violation.
Staff member Kate told commissioners the house at 1588 Buchanan is listed as contributing in the South Lamar Historic District and that the windows had been removed without commission approval. Staff outlined three options: require reinstallation of original windows if salvageable, approve the existing aluminum‑clad replacements, or allow a mix of restored originals and replacements. Staff also noted the enforcement and penalties provision in the historic‑preservation code and asked the commission whether to pursue a citation, which would be determined in court.
Applicants Donnie Malmo and contractor Jim Williams addressed the commission. Donnie said his wife had purchased the windows and that RK Construction installed them after purchase; Williams said his crew was called in to install and was not part of the procurement. Williams said he could not yet confirm whether the originals are salvageable given how they were removed.
Commissioners debated precedent and recommended an approach that preserves front‑facing windows when feasible while allowing replacements in less visible locations. Commissioner (S2) moved to retroactively approve the replacements on the sides and rear and approve the new door; the motion as presented passed by voice vote. The commission clarified staff would evaluate the condition of original windows and the applicants would return with salvageability findings if originals proved not restorable.
On enforcement, commissioners discussed that any fines or penalties are determined by the court and that the commission’s role is whether to formally cite the homeowner. After discussion and comments from staff, the commission moved not to cite the homeowner for the unpermitted replacement; that motion carried by voice vote.
Kate will oversee the staff evaluation of the originals and guide the applicant on any follow‑up steps.
