This report was written on November 1, 1998

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the William and Cora Osborne House is located at 12445 Ramah Church Road, Huntersville, North Carolina 28070.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the present owner of the property: The present owner of the property is:

Martin Osborne
P.O. Box 1365
Huntersville, NC 28070

Telephone: (704) 875-2105

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains maps that depict the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the Property: The most recent deed to Tax Parcel Number 011-181-13 is found in Deed Book 8405, page 0611.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property by Caroline Wells and Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

7. A brief architectural sketch of the property: This report contains a brief architectural sketch of the property by Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-400.5:

a. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the William and Cora Osborne House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations: 1) the William and Cora Osborne House (c. 1890) is representative of the two-story frame I-houses built in rural Mecklenburg County in the late 1800’s and is reflective of the robust cotton economy that characterized Mecklenburg County during those years, 2) the William and Cora Osborne House was erected by John Ellis McAuley (1861-1929), a local craftsman who built several structures in the Huntersville vicinity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the sanctuary and rectory for St. Mark’s Episcopal Church and the Lindsey Parks House.

b. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the attached architectural description by Dr. Dan L. Morrill demonstrates that the William and Cora Osborne House meets this criterion.

9. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property that becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current appraised tax value of the improvements on the property is $116,350. The current appraised tax value of the 2.15 acres of land is $44,100. The total appraised tax value of the property is $160,450. The property is zoned R3.

Date of Preparation of this Report: November 1, 1998

Prepared by:Caroline Wells and Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Landmarks Commission
2100 Randolph Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28207

Telephone: (704) 376-9115

The William and Cora Osborne House, although not on its original site, possesses local historic significance in the areas of Agriculture and Architecture. Built c. 1890, the Osborne House is a manifestation of the flourishing cotton economy of Mecklenburg County during the so-called New South era of the late nineteenth century. With the establishment of the Charlotte Cotton Mills in 1881, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County began to experience rapid industrial growth, especially in textiles. Mecklenburg farmers found ready markets for cotton, both locally and regionally; and those who had the ability and the resources to take advantage of this expanding economic opportunity prospered. With rising incomes, successful farmers like William and Cora Osborne were able to build impressive vernacular farmhouses. A particularly popular house type in Mecklenburg County was the so-called I-house. The builder of the William and Cora Osborne House was John Ellis McAuley (1861-1929). A “country carpenter,” McAuley erected several structures in northern Mecklenburg County in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In addition to the Osborne House, these include St. Mark’s Episcopal Church (his most imposing), the St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Rectory, and the Lindsey Parks House. McAuley’s buildings constitute a significant collection of vernacular rural structures dating from the New South era in northern Mecklenburg County.

The William and Cora Osborne House was built c. 1890 about 1.6 miles northeast of Huntersville, N.C. in rural Mecklenburg County. The original owner was William Eldridge Osborne (1861-1930), the husband of Cora Watts Osborne. Cora was the daughter of Thomas and Mary Cecelia Allison Watts of neighboring Iredell County; and he was the son of William Osborne, Sr., a farmer, and his wife, Lenora Beard Osborne. William Osborne participated and prospered in the expanding cotton economy of Mecklenburg County during the so-called New South era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He inherited or bought several parcels of land in the Huntersville area and built a home commensurate with his improving economic standing . Historian Thomas W. Hanchett notes that after the Civil War “the Southern attitude toward industry changed radically.” “The end of slavery crippled plantation agriculture,” he explains, “and the region’s investors began to work toward a ‘New South’ based instead on industrial development.” The expansion of the textile economy of Mecklenburg County was nothing short of spectacular. “Cotton was not an easy crop to grow in Mecklenburg County,” writes preservation consultant Sherry Joines. “In fact, only 6,112 bales were ginned in 1860. However, after the discovery of the fertilizer, Peruvian guano, the production rapidly increased to 19,129 bales in 1880. The production of cotton peaked in 1910 with 27, 466 bales.” “Thus, between 1860 and 1880,” says Joines, “the image, economy, and lifestyle of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County changed dramatically.” An additional stimulus to the local cotton economy was provided by the establishment of a substantial number of textile mills in Mecklenburg County during the New South years.

Clearly, these developments brought new challenges and opportunities to local farmers. Among them was the rapid growth of the city of Charlotte, which placed greater pressure on farmers to supply the more diversified needs of Charlotte’s increasing populace and burgeoning textile industry. Successful farmers like William Osborne learned that they had to specialize in order to maintain a profit. In addition, the growing demand for products meant that expensive machinery replaced beasts of burden; and as land also grew more costly, losses were felt more intensely. Many farmers in Mecklenburg County could not keep up with these new financial and technological demands. Those like Osborne who could, saw their incomes increase substantially.

In keeping with his improving economic circumstances, William Osborne decided to build a new and more imposing home c. 1890. The contractor was John Ellis McAuley (1861- 1929), a “country carpenter,” who had erected several similar two-story frame I-houses in northern Mecklenburg County. Among the houses McAuley fashioned were the Lindsey Parks House on Neck Road and the rectory for St. Marks Episcopal Church. William Eldridge Osborne became, as his obituary states, “one of the best-known farmers in this section of the county.” After they moved into their new home, William and Cora Osborne had three sons, Thomas Preston Osborne (1892-1968), George H. Osborne (1897- 1920), and Herman L. Osborne (1905-1975). In 1920 the Osbornes lost their second son, George, at the age of twenty-three to pneumonia. When William Osborne died in 1930, he divided his farm between his two remaining sons. Thomas Osborne received 30 acres of land on the south side of “home place,” along with a wagon and some household items. Herman Osborne acquired the home, farm, tractor, Chevrolet, and much of the farming machinery, while cattle, hogs, and other livestock were divided between the sons. Cora Osborne lived in the Osborne House until her death in 1954 at the age of 89. William Eldridge Osborne and Cora Watts Osborne are buried in Huntersville A.R.P Cemetery.

Herman Osborne married Norma Spain Gray (1907-1954) in 1928, and from 1930 the couple lived in the Osborne House for the rest of their lives. Norma Spain was the daughter of R. A. Gray and Mary Long Barnette of Huntersville. She had two children, Otis Gray Osborne and George Lee Osborne. Norma Osborne suffered from arteriosclerosis, which claimed her life in 1954 at the early age of 45. Herman Osborne then married Mary Vance (1906-1975), the daughter of John David Vance and Mary McAuley. Mary Vance Osborne brought two children from a previous marriage, William Franklin and Betty. Herman Osborne worked as a farmer until his retirement; and Mary Vance Osborne was a housewife. Herman Osborne died in 1975 and was buried with Norma Osborne in the cemetery of Huntersville A.R.P. Church. Mary Osborne died less than a month after her husband’s demise and is also buried at Huntersville A.R.P. Cemetery.

Herman and Mary Osborne bequeathed the house and one acre of land and 1/3 of the Osborne farm on the north side of Ramah Church Road to their son Otis Gray Osborne in 1975. George Lee Osborne received the remaining 2/3 of land (except the one acre homesite). In 1976, the brothers exchanged the parcels of land. The William and Cora Osborne House now stood empty. Farming operations had ceased. George Osborne and his wife, Marie Elizabeth Primrose Buxey, a native of Great Britain whom George had met while serving in the United States military, resided in Huntersville with their son, Martin Lee Osborne (b. 1963). George and Marie Osborne granted to Martin Osborne a tract of land near their own in 1995-1996. In 1996, Martin Osborne moved the two-story frame “home place,” from a wooded area approximately 500 yards south to a narrow tract of land in the open fields along Ramah Church Road. The William and Cora Osborne House, built by his great-grandfather, William Eldridge Osborne, is the home where Martin Osborne now resides.

Research Notes

Will of W. E. Osborne (Record of Wills, Book V, page 283):

To Preston Osborne: 30 acres on south side of home place, second best wagon and reversible disk plow, best broom set, one walnut table, bookcase, grandfather’s shotgun, the “note that he holds against him”.

To Herman L. Osborne: all of the remainder of home farm, tractor, the best wagon, woodsawing outfit, Chevrolet, blacksmith tools, grain drill, kitchen equipment, best iron bed, a sofa, chairs, bureau, glass, bookcase, folding walnut table, tools, grandfather’s clock, all leftover money.

Both sons should divide the rest of the farm tools and cattle, hogs and other stock equally .
Will of H. L. Osborne (Record of Wills, microfilm roll 578, frame 1468)

To Mary Vance: all personal property, bank accounts, moneys, bonds, household goods; 19 acre; home place north of Ramah Church Road

To William F. Alexander and Betty Privette: fee interest in 80 acres on property north of north of Ramah Church Road, except for 8 acres which goes to Mary Vance

To Otis Gray Osborne: House and one acre of land; 1/3 of land on north side of Ramah Church Road

To George Lee Osborne: 2/3 of land on north side of Ramah Church Road, except 1 acre to Otis as above
Death Certificates

1. William Eldridge Osborne Book 36, page 205
Born: 1-13-1861, Mecklenburg County
Died: 8-6-1930
Age: 69 years, 6 mos., 23 days
Occupation: farmer
Father: William Osborne
Mother: Lenora Beard
Informant of death: T. P. Osborne, Huntersville
Buried in Huntersville
Cause of death: Diabetes?? (Not legible)

2. Listing for the death of George H. Osborne in 1920, son of William E. Osborne (Book 14, page 215)

3. Listing for the death of Mary Cora Osborne on 4-18-54 (Reg. 534) at age 89

4. Thomas Preston Osborne
Died: 12-11-1968 (Reg. 2690) at Memorial Hospital
Age: 76
Cause of Death: cerebrovascular accident

5. Herman L. Osborne
Died: 10-17-75 Huntersville Hospital
Age: 69
Born: 12-20-1905 North Carolina
Occupation: retired farmer
Father: William E. Osborne
Mother: Cora Watts
Informant of Death: George L. Osborne
Cause of Death: Parkinson’s Disease (advanced-20 years); massive intestinal hemorrhage
Buried in Huntersville Presbyterian Church Cemetery

6. Mary Vance Osborne
Died: 11-2-75
Age: 69
Born: 4-25-1906
Occupation: housewife
Father: John David Vance
Mother: Mary McAuley
Informant of Death: George L. Osborne
Cause of Death: Acute Thrombosis (instant)
Burial in Huntersville ARP Cemetery

7. Norma Spain Osborne
Died: 3-24-54 Mercy Hospital
Age: 46 (less 5 mos. 3 days)
Born: 10-21-1907 Mecklenburg County
Married to Herman L. Osborne
Occupation: housewife
Father: R. A. Gray
Mother: Mary Long Barnette
Cause of Death: cerebral hemorrhage due to arterio sclerotic disease (10 hours)

Site Description

The William and Cora Osborne House is set well back from the northern side of Ramah Church Road on a treeless lot that rises slightly from the road to the house. A gravel driveway traverses the eastern edge of the lot and terminates at a parking area just to the right rear of the house. The Osborne House faces south toward Ramah Church Road. The only outbuilding is a spring house at the immediate left rear of the house. Every effort was made to approximate the original setting of the Osborne House and the spring house when they were moved approximately 500 yards south to their present location to prevent their being demolished.

Physical Description

The William and Cora Osborne House is a two-story, three-bay wide by two-bay deep, clapboard- sided building with a one-story kitchen ell projecting from the right rear. A one-story porch with a shed roof covers most of the southern or front facade, which contains the front entrance at the center. The front door is flanked by sidelights. The gable roofs of the house and rear ell were originally wooden shingle but are now tin. The end chimneys on the main block of the Osborne House are replacements, as are the handrails leading to the front porch, the porch balustrade, and the porch posts. The Osborne House originally sat on brick piers. Except for the front and rear porches, it now rests upon a continuous brick foundation. The predominant window type is 6/6 double hung sash, except for 4/4 sash on the side elevations of the house. An original porch with a sold wooden wall at the edge and attenuated wooden pickets supporting the roof is at the left rear of the house. The spring house is located to the immediate rear of the house in roughly its original orientation to the main house. It too is a clapboard-sided building with a gable roof covered in tin (original).

The interior of the William and Cora Osborne House has been changed. The center hallway has been closed off about half way to the rear. A new bathroom with shower and an updated kitchen have been added. Otherwise, the interior is largely in-tact. The floors are heart pine. The ceilings are beaded board. In detailing and overall feel the house reflects the lavish tastes associated with Mecklenburg County farmhouses of the late nineteenth century. The balustrade and newels of the main stairway, which rises toward the front of the house from the original center hall, have extravagant detailing, as do the mantels in the house — all original.

LEFT: Main Stairway RIGHT: Mantel

For discussions of the rise of industrialism and the concept of the New South, see C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), hereinafter cited as Woodward, Origins of the New South; Paul M. Gaston, The New South Creed: A Study in Southern Mythmaking (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970); Holland Thompson, The New South: A Chronicle of Social and Industrial Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919), hereinafter cited as Thompson, The New South; Broadus Mitchell, The Rise of Cotton Mills in the South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1921).

For an account that challenges the interpretation of Woodward and others about the men who led the industrialization movement in the New South, see Dwight B. Billings, Jr., Planters and the Making of a “New South”: Class, Politics, and Development in North Carolina, 1865- 1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), hereinafter cited as Billings, Planters and the Making of a “New South. “

Southern urbanization is surveyed in David R. Goldfield, Cotton Fields and Skyscrapers: Southern City and Region, 1607-1980 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982).

Mecklenburg County Record of Marriage Licenses N-S.

Thomas W. Hanchett, “Charlotte’s Textile Heritage: An Introduction” (1984). Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission.

Sherry L. Joines and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Historic Rural Resources in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina” (1997). Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission.

“For a description of the textile mills established in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “A Survey of Cotton Mills In Charlotte In Charlotte And Mecklenburg County For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission” (1997). Charlotte- Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission.

Edgar T. Thompson, Agricultural Mecklenburg and Industrial Charlotte (Chapel Hill, 1926). According to some sources, I-houses derive their name from the fact that they were prevalent in states like Iowa, Illinois and Indiana.

McAuley also built St. Mark’s Episcopal Church.

Charlotte Observer, August 8, 1930, p. 10.

Index to Deaths, 1910-1926, Mecklenburg County, Book 14, p. 215.

Record of Wills, V 283.

Mecklenburg County Deed Book 1331, page 318. In 1916, he bought a 60 acre tract from G.M Riley, a salesman with Wilson Motor Company, for $2410.

Marriage Bonds of Mecklenburg County, 1924-1934.

Records of Deaths, Mecklenburg County, Reg. 2591.

Ibid.

Mecklenburg County Deed Book 3897, page 958-959; earlier deeds were granted from Herman Osborne to George L. Osborne (see Deed Book 1775, page 195) and to Herman’s nephew William E. Osborne, the son of Thomas P. (see Deed Book 1863, page 357).

Mecklenburg County Deed Book 8405, page 609-611 and 8431, page

This report was written on September 1, 2000

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Erwin-Oehler House is located at 14401 Huntersville-Concord Road, Huntersville, N.C. 28078.
2. Name, address, and telephone number of the current owner of the property:

Frances Ferrell Rogers P.O. Box 236 Huntersville, N.C. 28078

Telephone: (704) 875-6953

3. Representative photographs of the property:  This report contains representative photographs of the property.
4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains maps depicting the location of the property.
5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property:  The most recent deed to the property is located in Mecklenburg County Deed Book #1140, page 245.  The tax parcel number to the property is 019-401-02.
6. A brief historical sketch of the property:  This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.
7. A brief architectural description of the property:  This report contains a brief architectural description prepared by Emily D. Ramsey.
8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria for designation set forth in N.C.G.S 160A-400.5: 
9. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Erwin-Oehler House possesses special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg.  The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:  1)      The Erwin-Oehler House is a tangible reminder of the agricultural economy that shaped life in largely rural nineteenth-century Mecklenburg County. 2)      The Oehler family figured prominently in the social and religious activities around the Ramah community in northeast Mecklenburg County.  3)      The Erwin-Oehler House is a rare example of farmhouse architecture in Mecklenburg County, and reflects the melding of European building practices with local and regional vernacular architecture. 4)      The Erwin-Oehler House retains its pastoral setting, recalling the rural landscape of pre-twentieth century Mecklenburg County.
10. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association:  The Commission contends that the architectural description prepared by Emily D. Ramsey demonstrates that the Erwin-Oehler House meets this criterion.
11. Ad Valorem Tax Appraisal:  The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on tall or any portion of the property which becomes a “historic landmark.”  The current appraised value of the house is 413,390.  The current appraised value of the 140.47 acres of land is $709,030.  The property is zoned OPS.

Date of Preparation of this Report: September 1, 2000

 Prepared by: Emily D. Ramsey 745 Georgia Trail Lincolnton, NC 28092

 Statement of Significance

The Erwin-Oehler House is a structure that possesses local historic significance because it is a tangible reminder of the agricultural economy that shaped life in largely rural nineteenth-century Mecklenburg County and because of its association with the Oehler family, which figured prominently in the social, religious, and business activities of the Ramah Community of northwest Mecklenburg County.  The mid-nineteenth century saw the beginning of a period of rapid development and growth in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County that would continually progress well into the twentieth century.  Although the vast majority of Charlotte-Mecklenburg was still rural, Charlotte’s economic, commercial and physical growth in the decades leading up to the Civil War created new opportunities and advantages for the area’s farmers and helped to attract farmers relocating from northern states and from abroad.

One such farmer was George Martin Oehler, who, along with many of his relatives, emigrated from Germany to northern Mecklenburg County in the early 1840s.  Oehler married a native of Mecklenburg and settled in the Ramah community in the northwestern section of the county.  In 1852, he purchased 250 acres from Caleb Erwin and built an impressive and unusual farmhouse on the property for his growing family.¹  There, the Oehler family farmed the land and became important figures within the social and religious spheres of the Ramah Community.  George Oehler became an elder of Ramah Presbyterian Church in 1856 and remained a prominent member of the congregation until the Civil War, when he was asked to leave because of his “Northern sympathies.”  George Oehler’s youngest son, James Cornelius Oehler, would continue the family’s dedication to the church by attending Princeton Theological School and becoming a Presbyterian minister.²

The Erwin-Oehler House is also significant architecturally for its unusual blending of German building practices and regional vernacular building styles.  The two-story, three-bay-wide and one-bay-deep farmhouse, or “I-house” plan, was one of the most popular forms for rural residents and farmers throughout the nineteenth century.  The Erwin-Oehler House is a rare example of this common form; while the vast majority of I-houses in Mecklenburg County (and throughout the state) were wood frame construction covered with wooded clapboards, the Erwin-Oehler House is a heavy, almost spartan brick structure and the only known brick I-house in the county.  Although the house itself is unusual, the land that surrounds the Erwin-Oehler House reflects the rural landscape as it was on countless farms in and around Charlotte- Mecklenburg.  While many nineteenth-century farm complexes have been stripped of their original rural surroundings by encroaching suburban development and subdivisions, the Erwin-Oehler House, encircled by pristine fields, woodlands, and streams, retains its rural, agricultural setting.

Historical Overview

During the decades leading up to the Civil War, Charlotte-Mecklenburg entered the beginnings of a prolonged period of growth and prosperity that would continue, in one form or another, until the Great Depression well into the twentieth century.  The discovery of gold in the area in 1799, which resulted in construction of a branch of the U.S. Mint near the center of Charlotte, along with the arrival of the Charlotte and South Carolina Railroad (one of the first railroads in western North Carolina) in 1852, which prompted the completion of four railroads through Charlotte by the time of the Civil War, all helped to make Charlotte-Mecklenburg a main trading and distribution center by the mid-1800s, in addition to its already solid reputation as a leading agricultural center.³  Farmers nearby now had easy access to railroads and, consequently, to an expansive trading network for cotton, the county’s leading cash crop since the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, and other cash crops such as corn and wheat.

These new developments, coupled with Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s strong and agriculturally diverse economy, made the area an attractive location for farmers relocating from northern states and from abroad.⁴  In the mid-nineteenth century, a large group of at least six related Oehler families, descended from Johann Georg Oehler and Maria Magdalena Leonhardt of Wuerttenberg, Germany, immigrated to the United States and settled in northern Mecklenburg County and southern Cabarras County.⁵  George Martin Oehler was among them, and he wasted no time putting down roots in his new country.  By the early 1850s, George Oehler was married to Mecklenburg native Elizabeth B. Thomasson and was the father of seven young children.⁶  Since church affiliation formed the center of community life in nineteenth-century Mecklenburg, George and Elizabeth Oehler became active members of Ramah Presbyterian Church, which in turn helped establish the Oehler family in the small, closely-knit Ramah community in northeast Mecklenburg County.

In 1852, George Oehler purchased a large parcel of land (around 250 acres) from Caleb Erwin, a wealthy planter and well ­known public figure in Mecklenburg County who owned almost 800 acres in Ramah near Clarks Creek.⁷  Although there has been some debate as to whether the house was built by the Erwin family in the early 1800s and sold to George Oehler in the1852 transaction, or built by George Oehler after he bought the property, no evidence exists to suggest that the house predates George Oehler’s purchase of the property.  Furthermore, architectural features of the house examined in a 1988-1989 survey suggest a mid-nineteenth century construction date; this information, coupled with the unusual use of brick for the otherwise simple farmhouse, indicates that George Oehler was most likely the builder of the house.⁸

After completing the two-story, one-pile farmhouse, George Oehler began farming his land, eventually cultivating over ninety of the two hundred and fifty acres he owned.  The Oehlers grew corn, wheat, oats and some cotton as primary cash crops, in addition to a variety of vegetables produced in the family’s kitchen garden.  The family also raised swine for slaughter, cows for milk, cheese and butter, and sheep for wool and meat.⁹

The Oehlers, like most farming families in Mecklenburg County, did not own slaves before or during the Civil War, although they did employ two teenage boys, Martin and John, as farm hands and one young female laborer, Elizabeth, to help Elizabeth Oehler and her daughters with household chores and gardening.  Martin, John and Elizabeth lived on the farm with the Oehler family.¹⁰

Although George Oehler adjusted well to his life in the United States and in the South, his views on slavery clashed with those held by the majority of southern farmers, and these differing views created tension and division within the Ramah community when the Civil War broke out.  The Oehlers had never owned African-American slaves, and family stories depict George Oehler as a man staunchly opposed to the system of slavery that had created the wealthy plantation economy in the South.  These beliefs, even in an area where most farmers did not own slaves, were extremely controversial.  According to Ramah Presbyterian Church history, George Oehler, along with his sons, James and Milas, and his son-in-law, Thomas Brewer, divided the congregation and aggravated tensions and dissention in the church when they attempted to bring in a Northern Presbyterian minister, Reverend McFarland, to preach to the Ramah Presbyterian congregation in 1866.¹¹ Still smarting from the recent defeat of the Confederacy, the people of Ramah Presbyterian Church were determined to keep northerners, and all those with northern sympathies, out of their congregation.  What had begun as a heated debate reached a surprising climax when McFarland attempted to enter the church to preach.  Several of his more vehement opponents locked the church doors, and Thomas Brewer, whom most of the church members assumed was acting on George Oehler’s orders, responded by “jump[ing] through the window and open[ing] the door of the church by violence.”  The congregation reacted swiftly; on April 7, 1866, the elders of the church voted to suspend George Oehler, “whose sympathies were entirely with the north from the church and from his office as elder.”¹²

Despite his suspension from the church, which no doubt damaged his standing within the Ramah Community, George Oehler, his wife and his children stayed in the community and continued life on their farm.  Eventually, the family was welcomed back to Ramah Presbyterian Church, where George and Elizabeth Oehler worshipped until their deaths.¹³

George Oehler’s death in 1871 left his wife, Elizabeth, with full ownership of the farm.  She and her son, Milas, ran the farm with the help of tenants and farmhands, and after Elizabeth Oehler died in 1883, Milas took over ownership of the farm and a majority of the land.¹⁴  Although Milas continued to farm his father’s property after his mother’s death, living in the house with his wife, Susan Morrison Oehler, their five children and several relatives, his interest in farming dwindled as his interest in gold increased, until finally, in the early 1920s, Milas (then in his sixties) abandoned the farm in Mecklenburg County and headed west to look for gold.¹⁵  Other members of the Oehler family drifted into and out of the Erwin-Oehler House, until Milas returned briefly in 1926 to mortgage his family homestead to a man named Wash Davis.  The property, including the house and approximately 160 acres, was sold in 1945 to Sherrill and Georgia Ferrell of Guilford County for $5,500.00.¹⁶  The family lived in the house until Sherrill’s death in 1985.  The property is presently owned by Ferrell’s daughter, Frances Ferrell Rogers, and was occupied by her son, David Rogers, until 1999.¹⁷  Now vacant, the house remains an excellent example of a nineteenth century farmhouse, and a visible reminder of the prosperous agricultural economy that existed in Mecklenburg County before, during, and after the Civil War.

Architectural Description

Mecklenburg County was, like most areas in North Carolina, primarily a county of small farmers until well into the twentieth century.  As a result, most of the rural dwellings built in Charlotte-Mecklenburg during the 1800s tended to be modest farmhouses.  By far the most popular and widespread vernacular architectural form in Mecklenburg was the simple “I-house” ­ a two-story, three-bays-wide by one-bay-deep rectangular structure, often with a front porch and detached kitchen in the rear (many were later attached to become rear kitchen ells).  The interior was a straightforward, practical plan, most often consisting of a central hall flanked on each side by a single room.  Although Mecklenburg farmers were not entirely ignorant of national architectural trends, particularly after the arrival of the railroad in 1852, only a select few had the time or the means to erect elaborate structures.  Often, details of a particularly popular architectural style would be modified and simply integrated or “attached” to the basic I-house form.  In this way, well-to-do farmers in the first half of the 1800s could use restrained Federal ornamentation or grand Greek Revival elements to reflect their status in the community.  Only a few decades later, the mechanization of building practices and the widening network of railroads allowed even modest farmers the opportunity to transform their simple dwellings into elaborate Victorian structures, with the addition of mass-produced spindles, sawnwork, and vergeboards which could be tacked onto the exterior of any building.  Despite this continual changing of surface details, the I-house remained the most popular house form in Mecklenburg County until well into the twentieth century.  Even today, a person driving through rural portions of Mecklenburg and surrounding counties might typically encounter dozens of clapboard-covered I-houses.¹⁸

When George Oehler arrived in Mecklenburg County in 1842, he was no doubt influenced by the vernacular architecture of the area, particularly the ubiquitous I-house.  When he bought land on which to erect his house in the Ramah community in 1852, Oehler planned a house that fit perfectly into the rural built environment, but which also reflected European architectural influences.  The Erwin-Oehler House is undoubtedly an I-house form (a rectangular, two-story, one-pile structure) but several features make the house distinctive – a unique version of a rather common house type.  Oehler’s use of brick in place of the usual wooden clapboards reflects a European predilection for brick and stone structures ­ according to Virginia and Lee McAlister, authors of A Field Guide to American Houses, although structures with masonry load bearing walls were the minority in America, they were most often constructed by European immigrants who wished to continue the tradition of their homelands, where wood was scarce and brick was  considered a superior building material.¹⁹  The walls of the Erwin-Oehler House, several feet thick in places, are unusual features on a relatively small farmstead.  Oehler’s decision to build a basement kitchen instead of a detached kitchen also diverged from popular local building practices.  Basements required more time and labor than a simple frame outbuilding, and though small root or storm cellars were common in Mecklenburg farmhouses, a large kitchen basement like the one beneath the Erwin-Oehler House, complete with brick floor and two large cooking fireplaces, was an unusually elaborate element in a simple farmhouse.

The original portion of the Erwin-Oehler Houseis a two-story, side gable, rectangular brick structure done in common bond, three-bays-wide by one-bay deep with regular fenestration and two brick end chimneys.  Several family stories debate the origin of the brick used for the house ­ one story contends that the brick was shipped from England to Charleston and brought up to the homesite by a wagon train led by slaves; another contends that the bricks were made on site.²⁰  Although brick was commonly brought from Charleston to areas inland, and particularly to Charlotte, it was most often a type of brick called “pressed brick,” made and shipped to Charleston from Philadelphia.  North Carolina produced mainly common brick, both in commercial brickyards and small, on-site productions.²¹ The foundation is constructed of large slabs of granite, encasing a full kitchen basement beneath the house.  Granite was also used for the sill of the houses windows, which contain wooden muntins and frames, many held together with wooden pegs and apparently original to the house.  Oehler family history claims that, originally, two large porches flanked the front and back elevations of the house.  The present porch is not original, and was most likely constructed in the 1940s by Sherrill Ferrell, who also constructed the wooden addition on the southeast side of the house, which contained a more modern kitchen, bathroom and family room.²² Another major addition was added earlier to the rear of the house, quite possibly as a kitchen ell to replace the original basement kitchen, which may have proven impractical for the household.  The wooden ell is in a state of great disrepair and has fallen away from the original house.

Although the house itself has suffered from neglect and interior alterations, it remains an excellent and uncommon example of a nineteenth-century farmhouse. Moreover, the rural and agricultural context of the house have remained virtually intact.  The house is currently surrounded by over 140 acres of undeveloped, undisturbed land.  From the house, one can look out onto an uninterrupted view of fields and woodlands, and it is easy to imagine what life on this farm  (and in rural Mecklenburg County in general) might have been like almost 150 years ago.

Notes

¹ Auswanderungsakten, 1806-1888, Brackenheim (Wuerttemburg) Oberamt (microfilm):         record of application for permission to emigrate.  Marriage bond for George Martin Oehler and Elizabeth B. Thomasson, 5 January 1841, Mecklenburg County, NC.

² Ramah Presbyterian Church Records.  George and Elizabeth’s children were all baptized at the church.

³ Thomas Hanchett, “The Growth of Charlotte: A History” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1985).

⁴ Sherry J. Joines and Dr. Dan L. Morrill, “Historic Rural Resources in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina”  (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 1997).  An 1850 North Carolina agricultural analysis listed Mecklenburg County third in the state in cotton production, fourth in butter production, eleventh in corn production and twelfth  in wheat production.

⁵ Letter from Marilyn Brown to Emily Ramsey, dated 20 August 2000.  These six Oehler families settled around the Mecklenburg/Cabarras County line and joined Presbyterian congregations in Ramah, Mallard Creek and Poplar Tent.

⁶ Marriage Bond for George Martin Oehler and Elizabeth B. Thomasson, 5 January 1851, Mecklenburg County, NC.   Eighth Census of the United States: Population  Schedule, Mecklenburg County (1860). 

⁷ Interview with JoAnne Brown Miller, August 2000, hereafter cited as “Miller Interview.”   Seventh Census of the Unites States; Population and Agricultural Schedules, Mecklenburg County (1860). Erwin, in addition to serving two terms in the North Carolina State Legislature, was also a Deputy Sheriff, a Justice of the Peace, and an Elder at Ramah Presbyterian Church.

⁸ Joines and Morrill, www.cmhpf.org .  The Survey contends that “inspection of the property suggests the house might date from the 1860s or 1870s.”

⁹ Eighth Census of the United States: Agricultural Schedule, Mecklenburg County (1860). 

¹⁰ Eighth Census of the United States: Population  Schedule, Mecklenburg County (1860). 

¹¹ Miller Interview.  Letter to Dr. Robert D. Billinger from Marilyn Brown, dated August 17, 2000.

¹² Nell Bradford Jenkins.  They Would Call It Ramah Grove: A History of Ramah Presbyterian Church (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library ­ Main Branch, Robinson Spangler Carolina Room, 1999), p.14.

¹³ Ibid, p. 283-284.  George Oehler (who died in 1871) and Elizabeth Oehler (who died in 1883), along with a number of their children and descendents, are buried in the Ramah Presbyterian Church cemetery.

¹⁴ Will of George Oehler, Mecklenburg County, N.C., probated May 1873.

¹⁵ Miller Interview.

¹⁶ Mecklenburg County Deed Book #692  (Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds, Charlotte, N.C.), page 176.  Mecklenburg County Deed Book #1140 (Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds, Charlotte, N.C.), page 245.

¹⁷ Interview with Frances Rogers, September 2000, hereafter cited as “Rogers Interview.”

¹⁸ Catherine W. Bisher,  Charlotte V. Brown, Carl R. Lounsbury and Ernest H. Wood III,  Architects and Builders in North Carolina: A History of the Practice of Building (The University of North Carolina Press, 1990)  p.193. Joines and Morrill, www.cmhpf.org .

¹⁹ Virginia and Lee McAlester,  A Field Guide to American Houses  (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, 1984) p. 89-90.

²⁰ Miller Interview. Rogers Interview.

²¹ Bisher, et. al, p.235-236.

²² Miller Interview.

Special Note:   Subsequent to the preparation of this report, the Commission received an email on November 4, 2009, from Linda Long, a descendant of Caleb Erwin:

I am writing concerning the George & Elizabeth Oehler House.  I am a direct descendant of Caleb Erwin.  I recently received a box of photos that was in my mother’s attic.  In is a photo from early 1900’s of a house.  On the back it says, “Great, great grandfather Erwin built is still standing.  N.C.”  I’m attaching a copy of the front and back of the photo.  According to what I’ve read there has been a debate over whether the Oehler house was built by Caleb or by Oehler’s and that no evidence exists to support that Caleb built it but that he just sold the land to the Ohelers.  My picture appears to be the same house and apparently it was believed at the time of the picture that the house was built by Caleb.  I just thought someone might be interested in this information. 

This information proves that the house was built by Caleb Erwin, not George and Elizabeth Oehler.  Hence, the name of the house should be changed to the Erwin-Oehler House.

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as the Oakley House is located at 129 Main Street, Pineville, North Carolina.
2. Name and address of the present owner of the property: The present owner of the property is:

Charles R. and Frances Eubanks Yandell

PO Box 69

Pineville, NC 28134

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property. Color slides are available at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission office.
4. Maps depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.   The UTM coordinates are 17510195E  3882238N.

5. Current deed book reference to the property: The most recent deed to this property is recorded in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 03453 on page 210. The tax parcel number of the property is #22106410
6. A brief historical sketch of the property: This report contains a brief historical sketch of the property.
7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains a brief architectural description of the property.
8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets criteria for designation set forth in N. C. G. S. 160A-400.5:
9. Special significance in terms of its history, architecture, and/or cultural importance: The Commission judges that the property known as the Oakley House does possess special significance in terms of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The Commission bases its judgment on the following considerations:

1)      The house was built by C.S. Oakley, a prominent man of commerce in Pineville, who owned the Pineville Lumber Company and was the President of the Pineville Loan and Savings Bank.

2)      The Oakley House is Pineville’s only example of an early twentieth century grand town home with meticulous attention to architectural detail and scale.

3)      The house is one of the few remaining historic homes on Main Street and one of the last vestiges of the former residential streetscape of Main Street.

4)      For over eighty years the Oakley House was home to some of Pineville’s leading citizens.  Richard Eubanks, who occupied the house from 1930 to 1971, was a community leader and served on the Mecklenburg County School Board for ten years.   His son-in-law Charles R. Yandell, who lived in the house from 1972 to 2002, has been active in Pineville local government for nearly fifty years, serving as mayor, mayor pro-tem, and several consecutive terms on the town council.

5)      The Oakley House features elements of the Prairie Style, which is extremely rare in Mecklenburg County.

1. Integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or association: The Commission contends that the physical and architectural description which is included in this report demonstrates that the Oakley House meets this criterion.
2. Ad Valorem tax appraisal: The Commission is aware that designation would allow the owner to apply for an automatic deferral of 50% of the Ad Valorem taxes on all or any portion of the property which becomes a designated “historic landmark.” The current total appraised value of the improvements is $3,600. The current appraised value of the lot is $561,200. The current total tax value is $564,800.
3. Portion of property recommended for designation: The exterior and interior of the House, and the property associated with the tax parcel are recommended for historic designation.

Date of preparation of this report: May 2003

Prepared by: Stewart Gray and Dr. Paula M. Stathakis

Historical Overview  

Businessman and banker C.S. Oakley built the house that bears his name on Pineville’s Main Street in the early 1920s. Pineville, a rural hamlet eleven miles south of Charlotte, was historically a cotton center. Originally named “Morrow’s Turnout,” the town changed its name to “Pineville” when the Charlotte, Columbia, and Augusta Railroad built a depot there in 1852. The name Pineville derived from the large stands of pine trees common in the area.[1] The town was incorporated in 1872, and its charter was locally famous for its  provision that prohibited the sale of “spirituous liquors” within the town limits or within one mile from town.[2] By 1903, the population was nearly 700, and the majority of these inhabitants were involved in some way with the production or processing of cotton. According to D.A. Tompkins, by 1900 the town had ten stores, [located in a commercial district of approximately two blocks] and three to six thousand bales of cotton were sold there annually. In 1890, businessmen from Charlotte established the Dover Yarn Mill. A weaving department was added to the mill in 1902 that by then employed over two hundred operatives on 9400 spindles and 400 looms.[3] The mill was purchased in 1902 by Chadwick-Hoskins Mills and acquired in 1946 by Cone Mills.[4] The cotton gin built by the Miller brothers in 1915  remained in continuous operation, in various incarnations, until the 1970s.[5]  In the autumn, farmers loaded their cotton onto mule-drawn wagons and lined up for blocks outside of the gin, some spending the night in line, anxious to gin and sell their cotton since this was the only income most of them had to show for the year.[6] Local cotton farmers plowed with mules and flocked to town on Saturdays to sell their crops, shop, pay debts, extend their credit, trade mules, and take corn to the mill.[7] The Miller family owned most of the stores on the north side of Main Street, and William Yandell owned most of the stores on the south side of Main Street. There was substantial commercial diversity crammed into this two block business district: four grocery stores, a dime store, a drug store, a doctor’s office, a hardware store, two barbershops, a pool room, a beauty shop, a radio repair shop, a livery stable and blacksmith, hotel rooms, the Post Office, and ice house, movie theatre, a gas station and a funeral home.[8]

Main Street, Pineville – 1915

The Pineville of C.S. Oakley’s day was a small cotton town on a railroad line the quiet weekdays of which were punctuated by bustling Saturdays in the mercantile and commercial shops along Main Street’s modest business corridor. The mill whistle signaled the start of the day at 5:30 am. Whistles from steam engines and trains, the sound of tractors, A and T model Fords, and the distant sounds of cows mooing formed part of  the ordinary daily experience of the Pineville resident.  Of all of the town’s inhabitants, Oakley was perhaps the most prominent of his day. He was a leading man of business in the small town and was the owner of the Pineville Lumber Company and the President of the Pineville Loan and Savings Bank. Oakley acquired the property on which the house sits, then approximately four acres, in 1919 from W.E. Younts for $1500.00.[9] Little else is know about Oakley, but this large and stylish house amply demonstrates his community status and preeminence. Of the grand houses that once lined Pineville’s Main Street, this house was certainly the most finely appointed and designed. The scale and fine millwork evident in the structure are silent testimony to a man who was, for a brief time, influential, upwardly mobile, and anxious to display this facility through the grandeur of his home. Unfortunately, according to the scant references available for Oakley in the public record, his fortunes appear to have dissipated as quickly as they were amassed. By 1922, Oakley had declared bankruptcy and had to sell the house at auction. J.M. Niven purchased the house, with the high bid of $7500.00. Oakley’s wife Gertrude received $350.00 to satisfy her claim of dower, and the house was formally transferred to Niven on January 30, 1923.[10] According to local tradition, Oakley quickly left town after this unpleasant change of fate.

The Niven family retained the house until 1935, when they sold it to Richard Gatling Eubanks.[11] Eubanks, a native of Como, North Carolina, was educated at Major Baird’s School in Charlotte and at Harvard University. During the First World War, Eubanks served in the United States Navy and after the war worked as the plant manager for the Southern Cotton Oil Company, located in Charlotte near the intersection of Tremont and South Boulevard. He also served on the Mecklenburg County School Board for ten years. He married Lila Hall, whose family was established in Pineville, and whose family home was formerly located across Main Street on the other side of the Main Street and Polk Street intersection. William Lee Hall ran a general store next door to his house and also owned a corn mill located behind the store.[12]

Tom Eubanks ca. 1950	Eubanks Grandchildren 1962

Although the Oakley House was formally located “in town,” the Eubanks family raised chickens, cows and a garden on their four-acre tract. They also rented one acre to the Miller family who used it to grow cotton. Tom Eubanks recalled several entertaining anecdotes about growing up in the house. His father always wondered if Oakley hid any money in the house, so he often looked in newel posts and other discrete locations just in case. One afternoon Tom and his older brother Dick were playing with a .22 rifle in the east-facing bedroom and shot out the window because they did not realize the gun was loaded. The windowsill is still chipped from this escapade. Tom Eubanks often hid from his music teacher, Anna Lee Younts Hoffman, [who lived to be 103], in the music room closet. [The Eubanks family designated the small room off the foyer as the music room.] Invariably Anna Hoffman thought Tom was hiding outside which gave him some reasonable opportunities to avoid or at least curtail his music lesson.[13]

Perhaps the most intriguing stories were related to Tom by their neighbor across the street, Mrs. Beulah Younts. Tom Eubanks remembered that as a boy, the ladies of Pineville put on their formal attire in the afternoons and sat on their front porches to watch the social activity and to engage their neighbors and friends in conversation. Beulah Younts sat on her porch finely dressed down to her white gloves, and would often tell young Tom interesting stories about the old days in Pineville. She related, for example, that several months after the Civil War ended, a straggler came to their home; and as they tried to chase him away, the family realized the bedraggled man was their father, who was so threadbare and disheveled as to be unrecognizable. However her most memorable and most mysterious story concerned the refugees that staggered through Pineville after the Civil War. In those days, Main Street was narrower and unpaved. The Oakley house was not yet built, and most of that lot was covered by a stand of tall pine trees, and this became a place where the refugees camped on their way through town. One evening, a little girl belonging to one of these families died and was buried in the camp. Beulah Younts told Tom that the child was buried in what is now a section of the Oakely House front yard. Tom Eubanks says that no human remains have ever been found on the property, but the family never disturbed the area where this burial was alleged to have taken place. [14]

Richard and Lila Eubanks lived in the house until the early 1970s. Richard Eubanks died on July 4, 1971, and after his death, the house was conveyed to his daughter Frances and her husband Charles R. Yandell. Charles Yandell is the son of William Yandell, both lifelong Pineville residents and civic leaders. Charles married his childhood friend Frances Eubanks in 1950, and the couple occupied the Oakley house from 1972 until 2002. The Yandells built the downstairs rear addition to the house. Charles Yandell was educated at the University of South Carolina and served in the United States Army Air Force during the Second World War. At 23 years of age he was a second lieutenant and a navigator in the 8^th Air Force. On his fifth bombing mission, he and his crew were shot down fifty miles from Dusseldorf, and he was subsequently taken prisoner, spending nine months in Stalag 1.[15] When he returned to civilian life, he had a career as a pharmacist and a pharmaceutical salesman for Eli Lily. Although Yandell traveled for his job, he devoted a considerable part of his life to local government. He was elected to his first position on the Pineville Town Council in 1946 and served continuously on that board until the 1980s when he was elected mayor pro-tem. He was elected mayor in 1988, and he remains civically active by serving on various town boards.[16]

The Oakley House has seen many changes in Pineville, the most notable of which has been the result of increased suburban land use and development in the area. As land prices rose in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, farmers began to sell their cotton fields to developers. As commercial and retail development converged on the town along the U.S. 521 and N.C. 51 corridors, the once rural area became more congested with new residents and traffic, and less isolated from Charlotte. Antiques shops have replaced the general stores that once dominated the town’s business district, and nearly all of the town’s older stately homes have been removed to accommodate new businesses along Main Street. The Oakley House is one of the few remaining residential structures that provides a snapshot of early twentieth century Pineville.

[1] The Charlotte Observer, February 28, 1950, “Pineville Has Been Important Area  of Mecklenburg Since Its Founding;” The Charlotte News,  December 27, 1975, “Depot May Become Museum,” 8A.

[2] The Charlotte News, Clippings file, Spangler Room, Public Library of Mecklenburg County no date or title.

[3] D.A. Tompkins, History Of Mecklenburg County and The City of Charlotte From 1740-1903, Vol. 2, (Charlotte, N.C.: Charlotte Printing House, 1903), p. 198.

[4] LeGette Blythe and Charles Raven Brockman, Hornets’ Nest. The Story of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, (Charlotte: McNally, 1961), p. 418.

[5] The Charlotte News,  October 12, 1972, “Pineville Braces for Era of Rapid Growth,” Tom Denton, 2C.

[6] Joe Howard Griffin, Sr., “My Hometown, Pineville. History, Hearsay, Memories, and Scrapbook of Pineville” Unpublished manuscript, property of Thomas H. Eubanks.

[7] Booklet, “Welcome to Pineville,” Clippings file; The Charlotte Observer, October 18, 1989, “Where Cotton Wagons Once Rolled, Now Cars, Antiques rule Pineville’s Main Street,” Dianne Whitacre, p. 20, Mecklenburg Neighbors.

[8] Joe Howard Griffin, Sr. “My Hometown, Pineville.”

[9] Mecklenburg County Court House, Register of Deeds, Deed 412-265, November 4, 1919. Younts acquired the property in 1885 from H. K. Reid, deed 47-1.

[10] Deed 491-127.

[11] Deed 869-316, June 25, 1935. Eubanks purchased the house for $4000.00.

[12] Obituary, Richard Gatling Eubanks, The Charlotte Observer, July 5, 1971; Interview with Thomas H. Eubanks, May 8, 2003.  Richard Eubanks was a distant relative of the inventor of the Gatling Gun.

[13] Interview, Tom Eubanks. May 8, 2003

[14] Ibid.

[15] The Charlotte Observer, July 13. 1988, “ 44 Year Old Memories revived by Pineville Mayor’s POW Medal,” Pat Borden Gubbins, Mecklenburg Neighbors.

[16] Joe Howard Griffin, Sr., “My Hometown Pineville.”

Architectural Description

The Oakley House is a substantial and impressive building.  Built around 1920, the house incorporates architectural elements associated with the Prairie and Craftsman Styles, but it shares none of the cottage aesthetic associated with many of Mecklenburg County’s early 20^th Craftsman Style-influenced homes.   Instead the house was a showplace, reflecting the status of one of Pineville’s leading businessmen, and perhaps advertising the stylish millwork available through his lumber business.  During the first half of the 20^th century, the Oakley House was considered the grandest house in the town of Pineville[1], and a survey of existing homes near the town’s historical center supports that contention.  The only extant house identified with a similar degree of stature and architectural elaboration is the 1883 Italinate-Style Younts House, which sits across Main Street from the Oakley House.

The Oakley House faces north and is situated on a large flat lot that is elevated above Main Street.  The house sits 70 feet from the road.  The massed plan two-story house features a crossed gable design, with a large gable over each elevation.  Despite this, the house is notably asymmetrical, with a great deal of effort having been taken to avoid flat exterior walls. Among the house’s many notable architectural features, perhaps the most prominent is the gabled front porch.  Supported by massive Prairie-Style square masonry piers, the large porch features boxed beams, which curve down to form capitals.  The piers were constructed with terra cotta blocks covered with stucco, and etched to resemble masonry block, and the concrete porch was covered with square tile.  The westernmost end of the porch extends beyond the house forming a cross-gabled porte-cochere, also supported by massive Prairie Style square masonry piers.  A curving drive, consisting of two narrow strips of poured concrete, begins at the northwest corner of the lot and runs through the carport.  The house’s fenestration is impressive, especially on the front elevation.  The house is three bays wide, with the front entrance and easternmost bay recessed approximately five feet.  The four-foot wide mahogany front door contains a single large beveled light, and is border by tall single-light mahogany sidelights.   The easternmost bay contains a large picture window topped by a five-light transom.  To the west of the front door an even larger picture window is topped by an eight-light transom.  On the second-story the asymmetrical fenestration continues with a prominent three-sided bay with another transom-topped picture window set between double-hung four-over-one windows.  The three-sided bay is protected by a projecting secondary gable.  To the east of the three-sided bay, three more four-over-one double-hung windows are ganged together.  All ten of the house’s principal and secondary gables are decorated with green shingle siding, and are supported by Craftsman-Style brackets.  The end of each bracket is beveled and protrudes through the house’s substantial vergeboards.  The vergeboards are topped with moulded trim.  A shed-roofed oriel is centered in the principal front gable, and contains two four-vertical-light sash.  The topmost section of the gable is a vent, covered with square lattice.

The west elevation is nearly as complex as the front, with the west gable of the porte-cochere, a square stuccoed stepped chimney, and a large bowed five-window bay.  The Chimney, like the porch piers and the house’s brick foundation, is etched to resemble masonry block, and is bordered on each side by pairs of three-lite casement windows.  On the second-story two sections of the wall cantilever over the first-story bowed bay, with a secondary gable covering the most deeply projecting section.  The extended eave of the primary gable runs down to the porch roof.

Bay on west elevation

East elevation

The east elevation is simpler, featuring one picture window with a five-light transon, and a ribbon of four three-vertical-lite casement windows.  On the second-story, the wall section directly under the east-facing gable is cantilevered out slightly and contains two pairs of four-over-one windows.

The rear of the house is covered by a single large gable.  A ribbon of three casement windows abut a shallow hipped-roof kitchen wing and screened porch, which extend from the rear of the house perhaps six feet.  Above this another hipped bump-out encloses closets for the upstairs bedroom.   Original glazed panel doors remain in place.  The second-story is pierced by more four-over-one double-hung windows.

The most notable change to the exterior of the house is the addition of vinyl siding, which obscures moulded corner boards, a wide water table band over the foundation, and the vergeboard, brackets, and rafter tails in the eaves.  The small windows in the oriel have also been covered.   A large two-car garage has been added to the southwest corner of the house, along with a one-story gabled rear bedroom addition.  The ribbon of casements windows on the rear of the house have been incorporated into a new interior hallway.

The interior of the house is largely intact.  Plaster wall are found throughout, along with tall baseboards and simple but pronounced door and window trim.  Craftsman-Style interior features include tapered interior posts, a corbelled brick fireplace, and numerous built-in cabinets and window seats.  I appears that all of the home’s French and paneled interior doors remain in place with their original hardware.  Narrow strip oak floors are covered by carpet.  The upstairs bedrooms appear to be unaltered and feature original wall sconces.  The upstairs bath features the original tub and fixtures.

The condition of the house appears to be good, and the integrity of the building is high due to the large amount of original material.

OAK ROW AND ELM ROW

Elm Row

Oak Row

This report was written on May 3, 1977

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as Oak Row and Elm Row is located on the campus of Davidson College in Davidson, NC.

2. Name. address, and telephone number of the present owner and occupant of the property:
The present owner of the property is:
Davidson College
Davidson, NC 28036

Telephone: 892-8021

3. Representative photographs of the property: This report contains representative photographs of the property.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: This report contains a map depicting the location of the property.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to this property is found in Mecklenburg County Deed Book 2434 at page 339. The Parcel Number of the property is 00316201.

6. A brief historical sketch of the property:

Oak Row and Elm Row constitute part of the original Quadrangle of the Davidson College Campus. The structures initially served as dormitories and were constructed shortly before the college opened its doors to students in March 1837. Elm Row, the farther of the two from N. Main St., originally stood between two structures which no longer exist — Steward’s Hall (a dining commons and classroom building) to the right or south, and Tammany Hall (a two-story professor’s house) to the left or north. The structure was moved a few feet southward in the 1960’s. Oak Row is the only one of a series of one-story brick dormitories (probably three) which initially stood on the western side of the Quadrangle and stretched from Eumenean Hall to a point opposite the President’s House. Both Oak Row and Elm Row originally contained four rooms. The style and placement of the buildings suggest that the founders of the institution were hoping to duplicate the ambience of Thomas Jefferson’s famous “Lawn” at the University of Virginia. The exteriors of the buildings retain their original Jeffersonian Classical features, but the interiors of the structures have been massively altered and now house facilities of the Fine Arts Department of the college. Nevertheless, Oak Row and Elm Row possess historic significance because of their age. The Campus of Davidson College contains five antebellum structures (President’s House, Philanthropic Hall, Eumenean Hall, Elm Row and Oak Row) of which these two constitute forty percent.

7. A brief architectural description of the property: This report contains an architectural description prepared by Jack O. Boyte, A.I.A.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria set forth in N. C. G. S. 160A-399.4:

a. Historical and cultural significance: The historical and cultural significance of the property known as Oak Row and Elm Row rests upon two factors. First, the buildings constitute part of the original campus of a regionally-important institution of higher education. Second, the structures are among the more architecturally significant antebellum edifices which survive in Mecklenburg County.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: As mentioned above, the buildings retain much of their exterior integrity. If the owner wishes, he could return the interior of the structures to an approximation of their original appearance.

c. Educational value: The educational value of Oak Row and Elm Row stems from their historic significance. Also worth noting is the fact that these are the only antebellum structures surviving in Mecklenburg County which once served as dormitories.

d. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance or repair: At present the Commission has no intention of purchasing the fee simple or any lesser included interest in this property nor is it aware of any intention of the owners to sell. The Commission assumes that all costs associated with renovating and maintaining the property will be paid by the owner or subsequent owners of the property.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: The structures are currently being used for adaptive uses and are therefore clearly suited for that purpose. The Commission would welcome, however, the restoration of the interior of the structures to an approximation of their original appearance.

f. Appraised value: The current tax appraisal value of Elm Row is $2390.00. The current tax appraisal value of Oak Row is $15060.00. The Commission is aware that designation of the property would allow the owner to apply annually for an automatic deferral of 50% of the rate upon which Ad Valorem Taxes are calculated. This property, however, is exempt from Ad Valorem Taxes.

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: As stated earlier, the Commission at present has no intention of purchasing the fee simple or any lesser included interest in this property. Furthermore, the Commission assumes that all costs associated with the property will be met by whatever party now owns or will subsequently own the property. Clearly, the present owner has demonstrated the capacity to meet the expenses associated with maintaining the property.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: The Commission judges that the property known as Oak Row and Elm Row does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Basic to the Commission’s judgment is its knowledge that the National Register, established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, represents an expansion of the Federal Government’s listing of historic places to include places of local, regional and state significance. The Commission believes that the property known as Oak Raw and Elm Row is of local and regional significance and thereby meets the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: As noted earlier, the property known as Oak Row and Elm Row is historically significant for two primary reasons. First, the buildings constitute part of the original campus of a regionally-important institution of higher education. Second, the structures are among the more architecturally significant antebellum edifices which survive in Mecklenburg County.

Bibliography

An Inventory of Older Buildings In Mecklenburg County and Charlotte for the Historic Properties Commission.

Chalmers Gaston Davidson, The Plantation World Around Davidson (Davidson Printing Co. for the Mecklenburg Historical Association, Davidson, NC, 1973 2nd ed., rev.) pp. 1-7.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Resister of Deeds Office.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Date of Preparation of this report: May 3, 1977

Prepared by: Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
139 Middleton Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28207

Telephone: 332-2726

During the eighteenth century, and especially in the post-revolutionary years, large numbers of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians came to Mecklenburg and its neighboring Piedmont Carolina counties. These disciplined people fostered education as well as piety. Having the distinction of being the site of the first college in North Carolina, Charlotte was the center where these pioneers established Queens College in 1771. Responding to urging from Mecklenburg Presbyterians, Governor Tryon successfully sponsored an act which established the college and financed it by a duty of six pence per gallon on all rum made or consumed in the county. Troubles with George III and later financial stringencies caused by the war forced the school to close in 1780. The Presbyterian determination to establish a college for Mecklenburg youth never flagged, however. In the early 1830’s, the local Presbytery appointed committees to find land for a seminary, to raise the needed money, and to build a college. Important to this charge were instruction from the Presbytery that the site “must be within fifteen miles of Cowan, Ford.” Obviously the name of the school was already on their minds, for at Cowan’s Ford the namesake, General William Lee Davidson, fell a hero during the Revolution. On high land said to drain eastward to the Yadkin and westward to the Catawba the site committee secured acreage for the college (traditionally said to have been donated by General Davidson’s descendant, William Lee Davidson, II.) Meanwhile supporters in Mecklenburg and its neighboring counties subscribed over $30,000, and the building committee contracted with Messrs. S. & J. Lemly and H. Owens to erect eight buildings for the college, described thusly:

“three blocks one story high, 18 x 66 feet; one, two stories, 40 x 50 feet; one, two stories, 20 x 66 feet; one two stories, 22 x 32 feet; one, one story, 18 x 18 feet, and one, one story, 12 x 12 feet. All structures to have rock foundations, to be covered with tin, painted and completely finished for a total sum of $10,250.00. Installment payments due March, 1836, March, 1837, and March, 1838.”

From this remarkable document emerged the Davidson College campus of 1838.

Listed first in the contract, “three blocks one story high, 18 x 66 feet were four room dormitories, later expanded to include two additional blocks and known collectively as “The Rows”. The campus plan was originally matching four sided courts or quadrangles anchored by a centered chapel, “two stories, 40 x 50 feet” in the contract, the President’s House, “two stories, 22 x 32 feet” in the contract, and Stewart’s Hall, “two stories, 20 x 66 feet.” Aligned with the long sides of the quadrangles, the dormitories came to be known as “Oak Row” on the west and “Elm Rows on the east. And now one block from each of these rows is preserved, Oak in its original location and Elm recently relocated a short distance southward. The recorded agreement with the contractors fails to mention brick. But an initial purchase by the building committee consisted of 250,000 brick “bought from Major John Caldwell at the kiln for $4.00 per thousand to be ready by November, 1835.” All eight first buildings were obviously to be solid brick construction, and the preserved “rows” illustrate this. With solid exterior brick walls over 12″ thick, the simple rectangular 18 x 66 foot structures rest on field stone foundation walls. Rising about ten feet to corbeled headers which form overhang cornices, exterior brick work is irregular American bond with one course of glazed headers for each four, five or six courses of stretchers.

Here and there in the face brick in order to maintain a proper bond masons placed small ‘closers’ which vary from one to three inches wide. The two buildings are basically similar, yet they vary in some details. After the cornerstone was laid in April of 1836, there must surely have been delays in construction, for the work appears to have been hastily done. There are waves and undulations in the horizontal coursing, not at all typical of the skilled craftsmanship usually found in early nineteenth century brickwork. In Oak Row the window heads have uneven, even carelessly laid small headers over openings which do not align with adjacent courses, another rare example of poorly done work. There is no record of the founders having hired anyone to design the structures other than the builders mentioned in the contract. Nevertheless the influence of more sophisticated Federal Style comes through in the general proportions of the structures as well as in the detailing of wood components. Records of the other six original buildings, which were later demolished, describe them as being ‘Jeffersonian’ and there are dormitories on Jefferson’s University of Virginia campus called ‘Ranges’, which are quite similar to the Davidson ‘Rows’. In plan the two dormitories are similar, each containing four rooms with an entrance opening from the axial quadrangle, and each with a fireplace. Adjacent to the entrance in each room is a six light over nine light window, while on the opposite wall in each room are two symmetrically placed windows, assuring the students generous ventilation during the warm fall and spring semesters.

Door frames and trim are original, but all of the original hand fabricated doors have been replaced. The windows all show mortise and tenoned connections joined with wooden pegs typical of the early nineteenth century. Muntins, casing, etc. have recognizable delicate molded shapes typical of the late Federal period. Several lights are still glazed with the original blown glass. In the face of the far right sill of the western building, the words “Oak Row” are legibly cut in the granite. Likely a later feature, the letters appear to be quite old. Window sills in both buildings are heavy Mecklenburg granite, as are door thresholds throughout. In the brick work of the window heads, however, there are surprising differences. All of the windows and doors in “Oak Row” have simple, even primitive, brick rowlock headers laid in a noticeably irregular manner over the openings. Whereas, in the twin building, “Elm Row”, the window and door openings are crowned with carefully rubbed wedge brick which form precise brick jack arches. Elsewhere the two remaining rows are similar, even to the irregularities which occur in the quality of the face coursing. When the first building committee wrote the specifications for the rows they said that the buildings were to be ‘covered with tin,’ an obvious reference to the first roofing material. Later changes included a wood shingle roof which appears in an 1893 daguerreotype of Oak Row, and still later this was changed to slate, which now covers both buildings. Rising at a moderate slope to a long uninterrupted ridge, the roof terminates at each end with simple gables.

From fireplaces at each end there are brick chimneys built integrally with the gable walls. At the very center of the buildings another chimney occurs which contains flues from the two adjoining fireplaces in the middle rooms. These three chimneys are laid in common bond and rise well above the ridge to corbeled courses which form typical expanded chimney crowns. The earliest photograph of the dormitory entrances shows no canopy or cover. Presently, however, there are simple shed roofed covers over all entrances. These were added soon after the turn of the century. Steps at each door rise directly from the ground and do not include a landing at the doors. Original brick fillers under the stairs create solid strings. These two extraordinary buildings are intriguing reminders of the original Davidson College architecture. Having been in constant use since first erected in 1836, the structures have a rich history, and contribute significantly to the architectural history of North Carolina as well as this region.

This report was written on December 26, 1975

1. Name and location of the property: The property known as Oak Lawn is located on the northern side of McCoy Rd. to the southwest of the intersection of McCoy Rd. and Gilead Rd. in the northern portion of Mecklenburg County.

2. Name, address, and telephone numbers of the present owners and occupants of the property:
The present owner of the property is:
Mrs. Wilson L Stratton
930 Berkley Ave.
Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone: (704) 333-6018

3. Representative photographs of the property: Representative photographs of the property are included in this report.

4. A map depicting the location of the property: A map depicting the location of the property is included in this report.

5. Current Deed Book Reference to the property: The most recent reference to the property is found in the Deed Book 1367, page 410, as filed in the Mecklenburg County Registry.

6. A brief historical sketch of this property:

The traditional building date for Benjamin Wilson Davidson’s house, later called Oak Lawn, is 1818, the year Davidson married Elizabeth (Betsy) Latta. The property on which the house was built, however, was not acquired from his father, (Astor John Davidson, a participant in the American Revolution) until April 14, 1819. Furthermore, purchases from Charleston in Davidson’s account with his father-in-law, James Latta, in 1821, are of the type and quantity to indicate the building of his house at that time. Tradition holds that Davidson was called “Independence Ben” by his father because he was born on May 20, 1787, the twelfth anniversary of the controversial Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. Davidson lived the life of a prosperous cotton planter as a member of the numerous and locally prominent Davidson family. Davidson died relatively young in 1829, leaving his widow with six sons. Betsy Latta, Benjamin’s wife, had been educated at Salem Academy where, it is said the Moravians placed much stress on gardening.

One of her granddaughters, Mrs. J.W. Bradfield, wrote of the house as it appeared just after the Civil War. She described an avenue of once a quarter of a mile long, leading from the house to the road. Where the oaks ended, cedars were planted to lengthen the avenue almost a mile. She further described the gardens with their neat beds bordered with trimmed box bushes. There were beds of old fashioned flowers and herbs which were planted to blend the aromas of the garden. There were long seats under the grapevine arbors. She tells of a high brick wall, with four gates, surrounding the house. Only a few large oaks remain of the above description. Mrs. Bradfield continues her recollection with the house interior: “but the glory of the house was the Indian room. It was above the parlor and quite 30 by 20 feet. The paper was from England, decorated with Indian scenes. Red men carrying strings of fish and bananas and leading them in primitive ships and canoes.” This has been authenticated as “Captain Cook” wallpaper, issued by Dufour in Macon, France, 1804.

She continued with her recollection that this was the guest room and that there were three or four beds in this room. The kitchen at this time was described as being forty feet from the rear door. Following her husband’s death, Betsy Davidson remained at Oak Lawn until 1835. It is said that because of her strong religious convictions (Presbyterian) she would never permit a fire in the kitchen on Sunday; meals were prepared on Saturday and the servants were given a day of rest. To her religious convictions was also attributed her calm among the panic and shouts of “Judgment Day” that ensued at midnight on November 13, 1833, when “stars fell on North Carolina, “as they did that same night on Alabama. On January 24, 1835, Betsy Davidson married Rufus Reid, widower of one of her deceased sisters who had left three small daughters. They lived at his plantation home, “Mount Mourne,” until her death following the birth of their first child, a daughter. Following Betsy’s death, Reid married the step-daughter of the third Latta sister, who was a widow with a daughter, and this marriage produced four more children. Following the Civil War, the plantation passed from the Davidson family to John W. Moore who bought the property at the courthouse door on December 13, 1886. In 1904 the place was sold to John R. Cross and his wife; in 1933 the farm was once again sold at public auction, this time to the town of Huntersville. It passed through three more owners and was purchased in October, 1941 by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson L. Stratton who began architecture rescue work on the long-neglected house. Mrs. Stratton continues as owner of Oak Lawn.

7. A brief architectura1 description of the property:

Oak Lawn is a transitional Georgian-Federal style plantation house with distinctive features clearly related to Holly Bend, a nearby house also related by family ties. Oak Lawn, facing south, is a two-story, five-bay, frame house resting on a stone foundation with Flemish bond exterior end chimneys. The central entrance is slightly off center to the west (left), as is the corresponding window above. A three-bay, one-story replacement porch protects the handsome entrance, markedly similar to that at Holly Bend; the entrance has slender, fluted pilasters flanking a boldly molded, three-part door frame which contains a four-light transoms. Near the top edge of the transom, each of the pillars is a fluted scroll console surmounted by an applied circular molding; above, the pilaster continues, unadorned, to the porch ceiling cornice. The front door has six shallow flat panels. The three-bay wall area of the porch is flush sheathed and is separated from the lapped siding by pilasters similar to those flanking the door. The lapped siding is replacement but the flush siding appears to be original. The window sash is nine-over-nine at both levels but smaller at the second level. The windows at the first level have shutters with three flat panels in each leaf, supported by strap hinges. There are fixed louvered shutters at the second level. The shutters and blinds are replacements but are made to be patterned after the original. The windows also have three-part molded frames an well as molded sills. There are three granite front steps; the first step has a volute on each end.

The cornice of the house and the front and rear porches is ornamented with a series of blocks formed by incised lines suggestive of tiny triglyphs — one block running vertically and the next horizontally. The pattern is said to have been original but the cornice was so badly decayed that it had to be replaced. The cornice has a small, neat return at each gable end. The gable ends are similar, with windows flanking the chimney at both the first and second floors, as wall as eight-light windows flanking the chimney in each gable. The basement entrance is in the east gable end, north of the chimney. The gable ends have no roof overhang. The rear of the house is similar to the front except for a door in place of a window in the second bay from the east and a one-story, hip roof porch that carries the length of the house. The extra door led into the one-story wing, since removed, that can be seen in a documentary photograph made in 1941. The interior is a modified “Quaker plan” with a center hall; that is, there is one large room to one side and two small rooms at the other. The hall has a molded chair rail and cornice. The open-string stair rises from the rear of the hall along the east wall in an unbroken run. A unique feature of the stair is the end of the first step which is defined by an extended baseboard in a crossette-like manner. The square newel and one baluster rest on the first step. The balustrade treatment is like that at Holly Bend. The newel has a molded cap flush with the molded handrail. The handrail is supported by very short, turned balusters, two per step. Both have an equally unturned long base section, but the urn-like turned section of the rear one of the pair is longer to accommodate the rise of the handrail. The stair brackets are ornamented with distinctive, fanciful, curvilinear forms.

The string is defined by a robust half-molding which is repeated on the wall above the stair treads. The horizontal wooden edge on the stair supporting platoon is chamfered and molded. There is a closet beneath the stair and the sofitt of the stair has a large, flat panel. Overall, the balustrade is Georgian in feeling and is such lower than might be normally expected. The interior doors have six shallow flat panels and are supported by long strap hinges. Much of the original hardware survives throughout the house. The parlor is to the west of the hall and occupies all of that end of the house. It has a chair rail, wainscot, and molded cornice annular to the hall but it is dominated by the vigorous, vernacular, highly ornamented chimney piece which is nearly identical to that at Holly Bend. Flanking a reeded, molded architrave are pilasters resting on unadorned plinths of baseboard height and rising to the height of the fire opening where a small scroll-shaped console with gouged stop molding which ends at the top with a curvilinear pattern located. The console has a reeded and molded lower portion. A doubled, square-link chain-like motif is deeply incised to about one-third of the way down the pilaster. The molded and reeded shelf breaks over the end consoles and center tablet; the tablet is unadorned except for quarter fans in each corner. The overmantel has two panels with a molded outer frame and a cable molding within. At the upper outside corners of each panel is a truncated pilaster and cap with pierced atop fluting and a reeded band. The molded reeded band carries into a broken pediment with circular bosses ornamented with uneven gougework in a rosette-like pattern. The pediments are joined to the central element above the panels by a cable molding swag. The central element — an elaborate composition resembling a tall, complex keystone reaches almost to the ceiling and consists, from top to base, of a seeded and molded band, a wooden floral boss, a small molded band, a block with two concentric applied rings, and a molded console resting on a gouged band with a gouged shell design suspended from the bottom. Near the bottom of the panels, separating them, is a reeded and molded block.

Across the hall in the front root are a chair rail, wainscot and molded cornice similar to the others with notable but less elaborate mantel. The other room of the first floor has become a kitchen. The upstairs rooms are well finished but less elaborate than the first floor. Remnants of “Captain Cook” wallpaper, issued by Defour in Macon, France, in 1804, remain in a corner of an upstairs room made into a closet. To the rear of the house is a well house made of brick which are laid in Flemish bond. There are iron ventilator grills in the well house walls. There is also a small square Greek Revival outbuilding with pyramidal roof.

8. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria set forth in N.C.G.S. 160A-399.4:

a. Historical and cultural significance: The historical and cultural significance of the property known as the Oak Lawn is primarily due to its architectural merit. As one of Mecklenburg County’s notable group of Federal era dwellings, Oak Lawn is especially significant for its elaborate vernacular woodwork of a vigorous and distinctive character, clearly the work of the same carpenter who worked at nearby Holly Bend, a house related by family as well as stylistic connections.

b. Suitability for preservation and restoration: The present owners of the property maintain it in a high state of preservation.

c. Educational value: The structure’s architectural merit alone is sufficient proof of the educational value of Oak Lawn. Moreover, the fact that the builder and his wife came from families of local historical importance increases the educational value of the structure.

d. Cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance, or repair: The Commission has no intention of purchasing this property. Neither is it aware of any intention of the owner to sell the property. Therefore, this criterion would not seem to be applicable.

e. Possibilities for adaptive or alternative use of the property: Because the structure is maintained in a high state of preservation and is of substantial architectural merit, it should not be adapted to an alternate use.

f. Appraised value: The 1975 appraised value of the structure itself is $8,780.00. The appraised value of the land is $82,600.00. The Commission is aware that designation of the property would allow the owner to apply for a special tax classification.

g. The administrative and financial responsibility of any person or organization willing to underwrite all or a portion of such costs: The Commission assumes that the present or subsequent owners will meet all financial obligations associated with the preservation of the property.

9. Documentation of why and in what ways the property meets the criteria established for inclusion on the National Register: The Commission believes that the property known as Oak Lawn does meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places because of its architectural merit and because of its association with locally prominent families of distinguished lineage. Also worth noting is the fact that the North Carolina Division of Archives and History is presently processing Oak Lawn for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

10. Documentation of why and in what ways the property is of historical importance to Charlotte and/or Mecklenburg County: Oak Lawn, as one of the few surviving Federal era structures in Mecklenburg County, possesses considerable local historical significance, especially in view of its refined architectural merit and unspoiled setting. In addition, its association with the Latta and Davidson families places it among the structures which reflect the lifestyle of the gentry of Mecklenburg County of the early nineteenth century.

Bibliography

An Inventory of Older Buildings in Mecklenburg County and Charlotte for the Historic Properties Commission.

Letter from Charles Greer Suttlemyre, Jr. to Dr. Dan L. Morrill.

Materials Supplied by the Division of Archives and History.

Records of the Mecklenburg County Tax Office.

Date of Preparation of this Report: December 26, 1975

Prepared by: Dan L. Morrill, Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
Telephone: (704) 332-2726