Historic Review Board
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · April 13, 2021
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
April 13th, 2021
Virtual Meeting
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, David Booth, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Samantha Nifong,
Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Guests: Les Spencer, Terry Kountz
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Louis Roman called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Louis Roman entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve
the minutes from the March 9th, 2021, meeting as presented. David Booth seconded the motion to approve the
minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Louis Roman opened the new business portion of the meeting by noting the contents of the agenda and
the associated packet of information.
NEW BUSINESS ITEM ONE (1)
The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the replacement of
windows at St. John’s United Methodist Church. Mr. Les Spencer represented St. John’s UMC.
Senior Planner Moore gave an overview of the COA request. He noted that the windows to be replaced
were located within the church’s education building as shown on the submitted drawings. The applicant’s
request for replacement was based on the deterioration of the current windows. This property is located
within the Town of Fort Mill Historic District.
It is not located on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The property is zoned local commercial
district. The church notes on their application that they would like to replace deteriorating windows within
the education building.
This deterioration includes wood rot and flaking paint caused by condensation aggravated by the existence
of storm windows. Additionally, the applicant indicates that the existing single thickness glass affords little, if
any, sound attenuation.
So, the church would like to replace the existing windows with Pella 250 series vinyl units. These windows
will incorporate the color, size, detail, and lite pattern which matches the existing windows by location. The glazing
on the proposed windows will be insulated, clear glass. Thermal and acoustical performance will be
improved.
Page 13 indicates that portion of the St. John’s campus, the educational building, which will have new
windows. Page 14 shows east and west elevation views of the building along with typical, existent window
conditions. Page 15 illustrates the look of the replacement windows.
Pages 16 and 17 contain elevation views of those windows to be replaced. I would then note the historic
district guidelines review on pages 6 and 7:
• Section 3.23: Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Frames and sashes
should be repaired and replaced, whenever conditions permit. The applicant has indicated within this
application that the existing wood windows are deteriorated in the form of wood rot and flaking. Thus, it
seems that these windows cannot be repaired as a practical matter.
• Section 3.24: Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original
opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is
inappropriate. Preserve a distinctive window opening shape, such as an arched top. The number of
existing window openings are not being reduced. Additionally, the application materials indicate that the
replacement windows will be appropriately sized for the existing openings.
• Section 3.25: Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary façade. The
historic ratio of window openings is not being altered.
• Section 3.26: Match a replacement window to the original in its design. The replacement windows will
be double hung just as the existing windows. The grille pattern of the replacement windows matches the
existing windows with 6/6 and 4/4 patterns.
• Section 3.27: In a replacement window, use materials that appear like the original. The materials that
are being used will appear to be very similar to the existing windows. See the page within this packet
containing the window types, grille details, color, and pattern information. Though they are vinyl, the
replacement windows do incorporate materials that appear very similar to the existent, original windows.
• Section 3.28: Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window. The applicant has noted that the proposed replacement model will contain simulated
divided lite design that creates shadows very similar to that of a true divided lite.
• Section 3.29: Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
The application indicates that there are no window openings proposed to be enclosed.
• Recommendation: The project as presented indicates that a total of 52 windows are being replaced. While
the historic district design guidelines do state that vinyl replacement windows are not appropriate, the
applicant has carefully chosen a window that very closely replicates the original, wooden ones. This is due
to the design details which are incorporated into the respective Pella 250 series. Therefore, staff believes
that there will be no discernable difference between the current windows and the proposed replacements.
The new windows will additionally be much more efficient than the original windows and will meet the
parameters of the 2009 Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2009). The IECC 2009 is a model code produced
by the International Code Council (ICC). This document provides the foundation for the building code upon
which the Town of Fort Mill operates. Planning staff thus recommends that the HRB grant APPROVAL for
a Certificate of Appropriateness for the application as submitted.
Senior Planner Moore then asked if the HRB members had any questions or comments on this information.
Megan Brinton asked the age of the church educational building.
Les Spencer, representing St. John’s UMC stated that the educational building was originally constructed in the late
1920s or early 1930s.
Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Spencer if the church had investigated repairing the windows.
Mr. Spencer stated that the church did not investigate repairing the windows due to the perceived advantages of
replacing them.
Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Spencer if the church looked at the cost difference between replacing the existing windows
with wood versus the vinyl product.
Mr. Spencer stated that he did not but that others did. Based on this he believed that the cost difference was as much
as 50% to 100% more than the vinyl window product.
To Ms. Brinton’s point of asking if the church had looked at non-vinyl products, Chairman Roman noted that he
has found that there are manufactured windows in existence which will facilitate the replacement of wooden
windows with a like, composite product costing roughly the same.
Ms. Brinton asked Mr. Spencer if the vinyl windows would contain less glass than the existing windows.
Mr. Spencer stated that he had not specifically looked at the amount of glass in the proposed windows versus the
existing windows. He did note that the muntins on the replacement windows were nearly identical in size to the
existing. Based on this, he surmised that the glazed window area on the replacement windows should also be nearly
identical to the existing.
Chairman Roman then stated that moving directly to a vinyl replacement without having any other window models
for comparison may set a bad precedent within the historic district. He stated that his thought on this was not
generated to ignore the cost of replacement windows that would be incurred by the church, but rather to provide
more information to the HRB in reaching a decision.
Scott Couchnour stated that he would make a motion to approve the request as submitted with the notation that the
church could look at other options if they wished. Then the church could come back to HRB with that proposal with
no application fee required.
This motion did not receive a second and therefore was not voted on.
Ms. Brinton stated that she would instead like to see other alternatives presented by the church, including repairing
the windows, as well as the option of replacing with materials other than vinyl.
Chairman Roman asked the other HRB members if they agreed with Ms. Brinton’s idea and they responded
affirmatively.
Chairman Roman then indicated that the HRB wished to see a cost analysis prior to making a final recommendation
on the windows. This analysis would indicate the price differences in vinyl, composite, and wood replacement
windows.
Scott Couchnenour then made a motion to defer this item pending the applicant obtaining the information that the
HRB requested.
Samantha Nifong seconded the motion.
The HRB then voted 5-0 in favor of the motion to defer this business item to a subsequent meeting.
NEW BUSINESS ITEM TWO (2)
The second item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the installation of
new equipment on the existing playground at the First Baptist Church of Fort Mill. Mr. Terry Kountz represented
First Baptist Church of Fort Mill.
Senior Planner Moore gave an overview of the COA request. This property is within the Town of Fort Mill Historic
District and is located at 121 Monroe White Street. It is not located on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The church wishes to install new equipment on their existing playground.
The location of this playground is noted on page 23. Per the plans submitted, this playground consists of 1,410
square feet and has a perimeter of 148 feet (see page 29). The playground equipment is illustrated on page 26-28.
Additionally, they will be replacing the existing fence around the playground. The new fence is proposed to be
black aluminum.
So, the historic district guidelines which will apply in this instance are those for historic, civic, office, industrial,
institutional buildings. These are found in Section 3.82 and are found on page 22 within the agenda information.
This guideline notes that properties within the town’s historic district include both buildings and the surrounding
grounds. All such additions should preserve the key character-defining features that are important in defining the
traditional setting of the historic property.
Senior Planner Moore noted that the existing church playground fits very well within the traditional setting of this
property as well as into the overall historic district. The new playground equipment as proposed will serve to
enhance the existing playground.
Moore then stated that Planning Staff recommends that HRB grant approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the addition of the playground equipment at 121 Monroe White Street as presented within this application.
Senior Planner Moore then asked if the HRB members had any questions or comments on this information.
David Booth asked if the proposal was only an update and replacement of what was already in place.
Senior Planner Moore replied that this was correct.
Megan Brinton asked if there was a chain link fence in place currently.
Terry Kountz replied that this was correct. He added that the older playground equipment that was in place was an
Eagle Scout project consisting of a wooden structure. He noted that this was beginning to deteriorate and needed to
be replaced.
Ms. Brinton stated that she was ok with the proposal and that she liked the look of the proposed aluminum fence
and that this would be an upgrade. She also noted that the purpose of the space was not being changed in that there
was already a playground at this location.
David Booth then made a motion to approve the COA application as presented.
Megan Brinton seconded the motion.
Chairman Roman asked if there were any further discussions. There being none he asked all those in favor of
approving the COA application as presented to signify by saying “aye.”
The HRB then voted 5-0 to approve the application as presented.
Chairman Roman then asked the HRB if anyone had any other items to discuss before adjournment.
There being none, Chairman Roman then noted that he had one comment. He went on to state that HRB members
were free to speak with citizens about matters that were discussed publicly in HRB meetings. However, members
shall not communicate individually on behalf of the HRB within a public forum, whether this be online or otherwise.
Rather, when deemed necessary, at the direction of the chairperson, and after consultation with appropriate Town
of Fort Mill personnel, suitable messaging will be developed and published publicly. This is to avoid any confusion
on the part of citizens and the public due incomplete or inaccurate information due to improper messaging.
There being no other business the meeting adjourned at 5:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
May 5th, 2021
Agenda
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
April 13th, 2021
Virtual Meeting
4:30 PM
Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 4:00pm on Tuesday, April 13th, 2021 to Penelope G.
Karagounis, Planning Director at pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov
Public Access by Phone: Dial (toll free) 1-866-899-4679 and use access code 146-472-901
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. HRB Meeting: March 9th, 2021 [Pages 3-5]
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 6-19]
Applicant Name: St. John’s United Methodist Church
Owner Name: St. John’s United Methodist Church
Property Address: 130 Tom Hall Street
Purpose: COA request for the replacement of existing windows
Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District
LC, Local Commercial Zoning District
2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 20-34]
Applicant Name: First Baptist Church Fort Mill
Owner Name: First Baptist Church Fort Mill
Property Address: 121 Monroe White Street
Purpose: COA request for new playground equipment
Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District
R-15, One-Family Residential
ADJOURN
1
The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:
The Herald; CN2; WRHI; Fort Mill Times, and WBTV. The agenda was also posted at the entrance to Town Hall
the required length of time and on the Town website.
The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with reasonable accommodation, of Town services
and facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law. Please contact the Town Manager’s Office at 803-
547-2116 if you need assistance.
2
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
March 9th, 2021
Virtual Meeting
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, David Booth, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Samantha Nifong,
Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Guests: TJ Christenburg
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Louis Roman called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON & VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Scott Cochenour made a motion to nominate Louis Roman as Chairman. Chairman Roman recused himself and
Vice-Chairman David Booth then presided Vice-Chairman. Megan Brinton then seconded the motion to nominate
Louis Roman as Chairman. By a vote of 4-0, the HRB elected Louis Roman as Chairman for the year 2021.
Chairman Roman returned to the meeting and noted that nominations would then be accepted for vice-chairperson.
Samantha Nifong made a motion to nominate Megan Brinton as Vice-Chairwoman for the year 2021. David Booth
seconded the motion. By a vote of 4-0, the HRB elected Megan Brinton as Vice-Chairwoman for the year 2021.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Louis Roman entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Couchenour made a motion to approve
the minutes from the December 8th, 2020, meeting as presented. Samantha Nifong seconded the motion to approve
the minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Louis Roman opened the new business portion of the meeting by noting the contents of the agenda and
the associated packet of information.
3
NEW BUSINESS ITEM
The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by TJ
Christenburg of Sign Techniques. Mr. Christenburg represented several business owners located at 135 Confederate
Street who wished to install a pole mounted/freestanding sign. The location of this address is within the Town of
Fort Mill Historic District. The property is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Mr. Christenburg gave an overview of the proposed sign and noted that Bliss Real Estate, one of the businesses at
135 Confederate Street, was leading this initiative. He stated that they desired for the sign to be interchangeable in
the event any of the existing tenants left and a new tenant(s) wished to then lease space within the building. Mr.
Christenburg referred to this type of sign as a “post and panel” sign. The panels would be acrylic.
Chairman Roman then asked if there were any questions from HRB members about this proposal.
Megan Brinton asked if this sign would be replacing an existing sign.
Mr. Christenburg stated that no sign currently existed on site. Additionally, he noted that the only issue that had
been brought forth regarding the proposed sign was with the height of the sign. Mr. Christenburg indicated that due
to this that the design had been adjusted.
Chairman Roman then asked if the submitted package represented the actual color scheme that would be used with
any future tenants.
Mr. Christenburg answered affirmatively.
Chairman Roman inquired if the proposal as submitted met Town of Fort Mill requirements.
Senior Planner Alex Moore stated that the only issue with the sign as presented included the height of the sign. The
staff report noted that the recommendation was that the sign not exceed the height of the front porch plus 36-inches.
Chairman Roman concurred and asked if there were any other comments from HRB members on the sign proposal.
Ms. Brinton asked about the location of the driveway location on Confederate Street as shown within the submitted
drawing. She also asked if there was additional parking on site.
Senior Planner Moore noted that this is a driveway and that there was at least one ADA space at this location. He
also noted that there was additional parking immediately off Monroe White Street within this site.
There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Roman entertained a motion on the COA application.
Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve the COA application with the condition that the sign not exceed the
height of the front porch plus 36-inches.
Chairman Roman then noted that he would like to add a condition that future tenants could change out signage
panels, to the extent that the existing color backgrounds were maintained, without being required to come back to
the HRB for approval.
Scott Couchenour accepted this condition to his original motion.
4
Megan Brinton seconded the motion with the conditions that the sign not exceed the height of the front porch plus
36-inches and that future tenants could change out signage panels, to the extent that the existing color backgrounds
were maintained, without being required to come back to the HRB for approval.
The motion then carried by a vote of 5-0 by the HRB.
Chairman Roman then asked Senior Planner Moore if he had any other items that needed to be addressed by the
HRB.
Moore stated that he did not.
Megan Brinton then stated that she would like to discuss the possibility of conducting a historic survey of properties
within the Town of Fort Mill. She noted that there were grants available from the South Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SCSHPO) and that the town would need to match the available funds. Ms. Brinton also
discussed several additional tools that could be advantageous to preserving the historic heritage of the town.
Chairman Roman stated that this was talked about a few years earlier but that there were some challenges such as
finding property owners who wish to cooperate with being listed on the NRHP or having property owners who
agree with the expansion of the town’s historic district. However, Chairman Roman indicated that such endeavors
could be beneficial to the town.
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 5:18 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
March 30th, 2021
5
H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D
A P PL I C A N T
St. John’s United Methodist Church
Subject Property: 130 Tom Hall Street
Tax Map # 020-03-01-013
Zoning District: Local Commercial/Historic Preservation District
Zoning Case: 2021-0066
REQUEST
The Town of Fort Mill Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) from St. John’s United Methodist Church requesting to replace deteriorating
windows located within their education building.
S I T E D E S C R I P T I ON A N D G E N E R A L C ON S T R U C T I ON P L A N
This property is located within the Historic Preservation District. It is not listed on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). The applicant indicates that the existing double-hung windows have
deteriorated in the form of wood rot and flaking paint. The intent is to improve both the aesthetics and
functionality of the existing windows by replacing them with Pella 250 series vinyl units. This product
will incorporate the color, size, detail, and lite pattern which will match the existing windows.
H I S T OR I C D I S T R I C T D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W
The Town of Fort Mill Historic District Guidelines indicate that historic windows are one of the many
key characteristics of building style. Therefore, historic windows along with their distinct decorative
features should be preserved. Replacing a window should occur only if the existing historic material is
beyond repair. These guidelines do state that the use of vinyl windows is not appropriate.
The specific points below, which are taken from the town’s historic district guidelines are applicable to
the review of this application:
Section 3.23: Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Frames and
sashes should be repaired and replaced, whenever conditions permit. The applicant has indicated
6
within this application that the existing wood windows are deteriorated in the form of wood rot and
flaking. Thus, it seems that these windows cannot be repaired as a practical matter.
Section 3.24: Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original
opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is
inappropriate. Preserve a distinctive window opening shape, such as an arched top. The number
of existing window openings are not being reduced. Additionally, the application materials indicate that
the replacement windows will be appropriately sized for the existing openings.
Section 3.25: Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary façade.
The historic ratio of window openings is not being altered.
Section 3.26: Match a replacement window to the original in its design. The replacement windows
will be double hung just as the existing windows. The grille pattern of the replacement windows matches
the existing windows with 6/6 and 4/4 patterns.
Section 3.27: In a replacement window, use materials that appear like the original. The materials
that are being used will appear to be very similar to the existing windows. See the page within this
packet containing the window types, grille details, color, and pattern information. Though they are vinyl,
the replacement windows do incorporate materials that appear very similar to the existent, original
windows.
Section 3.28: Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window. The applicant has noted that the proposed replacement model will contain simulated
divided lite design that creates shadows very similar to that of a true divided lite.
Section 3.29: Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall. The application indicates that there are no window openings proposed to be enclosed.
Z ON I N G G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W
There is no zoning guideline review necessary for consideration of this application.
S T A F F R E C OM M E N D A T I ON
The project as presented indicates that a total of 52 windows are being replaced. While the historic
district design guidelines do state that vinyl replacement windows are not appropriate, the applicant has
carefully chosen a window that very closely replicates the original, wooden ones. This is due to the
design details which are incorporated into the respective Pella 250 series. Therefore, staff believes that
there will be no discernable difference between the current windows and the proposed replacements.
The new windows will additionally be much more efficient than the original windows and will meet the
7
parameters of the 2009 Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2009). The IECC 2009 is a model code
produced by the International Code Council (ICC). This document provides the foundation for the
building code upon which the Town of Fort Mill operates. Planning staff thus recommends that the HRB
grant APPROVAL for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the application as submitted.
8
9
10
Historic Review Board Submittal
Window Replacement
for
St. John's United Methodist Church
Fort Mill, South Carolina
Section Page
Project Description 2
Location of Project 3
Existing Conditions 4
Window Types, Grille Details, Color & Pattern 5
North & West Building Elevations 6
South & East Building Elevations 7
Window Installation Specifications 1 of 2 8
Window Installation Specifications 2 of 2 9
Index
Window Replacement 1
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
11
Proposed Window Replacement
The existing double hung windows of the Education Buildings have deteriorated due to
age and moderate maintenance. Deterioration is in the form of wood rot and flaking
paint, both aggravated by condensation caused by the addition of storm windows
intended to improve thermal performance. Additionally, the added storm windows have
had a visual impact and screen the "texture" and scale of the window details created by
the 6 over 6 and 4 over 4 sash glazing. As the storm windows are not removed seasonally,
the windows, both wood and storm, are not as clean as they might be.
Single thickness glass was used in the original windows since insulating glass was not
readily available nor common practice. With the church located across the street from the
Fort Mill Fire Department, the single thickness glass affords little, if any, sound
attenuation, especially high frequency sounds common to emergency vehicles.
Although not used for ventilation, the windows have aging counterbalance systems: sash
cords and weights pocketed into the jambs or stile-mounted tensioning springs.
Due to these issues, the church would like to replace the existing windows.
The choice for replacement is the Pella 250 series vinyl unit incorporating a color, size,
detail, and lite pattern matching the existing windows by location. This nationally
recognized manufacturer offers the selected simulated divided lite design that creates
shadows rivaling the appearance of a true divided lite. The glazing for these windows is
insulated, clear glass with a low-e coating that will improve thermal and acoustical
performance. Additionally, the windows are to be installed using the manufacturer's
professional labor.
Project Description
Window Replacement 2
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
12
1
2
Limits of Window Replacement 4
(See Elevations Pages 6 & 7)
3
Location of Project
Window Replacement 3
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
13
View at West Elevation from Tom Hall Street
South View at Rear of West Elevation South View at Rear of East Elevation
View at East Elevation from Tom Hall Street
Typical Window Conditions
Existing Windows & Window Deterioration
Window Replacement 4
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
14
EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
HEAD
CHECKRAIL
Rail, Stile, & Muntin Color: White
Grille Styles Simulated-Divided-Lite
Grilles:
- Adhered to the interior and exterior
panes of glass for authentic look of
divided lites.
- Grilles at 7/8" wide. SILL
- Color matches frame.
- Grille pattern matches existing
6/6 and 4/4 patterns and muntin
width. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
Section at Windows
Simulated Divided Lite Replacement Window Replacement Window
B A
Stained Glass to remain
S See pages 6 & 7 for Window Type locations
Stucco Infill to remain
I
Window Types, Grille Details, Color, & Pattern
Window Replacement 5
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
15
S S S
A A A A
S S
A A A A
S S
1 North Elevation - Tom Hall Street
Note: Only Windows Types A and B are being replaced.
See page 5 for window details
B A A A A
A A A A
A
S
S B A A A A A A
A A A A
2 West Elevation – Toward Main Parking
Window Type Locations
Window Replacement 6
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
16
A AA A
A AA A
A A A A A
3 North Elevation
South Elevation –- Tom HallFellowship
Toward Street Hall
A
Note: Only Windows Types A and B are being replaced.
See page 5 for window details
A A A A A A A
A
A
S
A A A I I A
4 East Elevation – Toward Playground
Window Type Locations
Window Replacement 7
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
17
Manufacturer's Installation Specifications
Removal of Existing Windows
A. Score the paint between the interior trim and the window frame to minimize damage.
B. Remove the interior trim.
C. Temporarily pry any head flashing up to avoid damaging or cutting it.
D. Cut through the sealant line and nailing fin (if existing) on all four sides and examine
jambs, head and sill to determine how windows were installed and attached to
framing.
E. Remove windows taking care to avoid breaking glass or damaging buikldng subframe
to remain.
Measure Rough Opening
A. Measure width and height of the opening in the wood framing or masonry. The
window must be at least 1/2" smaller in width and height.
B. Compare dimensions to the new window frame depth.
1. If the window is larger than the return opening, it can typically beinstalled against
the exterior edge of the drywall return.
2. If the frame depth is larger than previous window, cut the drywall back with a utility
knife and straight edge enough to allow the window to fit within the jamb depth.
(Note:Interior shades/blinds may have to be moved to the interior.)
3. If the window is smaller than the drywall return opening, add treated blocking
to the opening until the opening is approx. 1/2" larger in width and height than
the window.
Prep Rough Opening
A. Prepare head flashing with no up-turned leg by cutting it the same width as the
brick/siding opening. The head flashing should not extend past the interior of the
window frame.
B. Apply (2) 3/16" beads of sealant, one at the interior edge of the flashing and one along
the exterior edge of the sheathing.
C. Apply a 3/16" bead of sealant at each corner connecting the two beads from the
previous step.
D. Secure the flashing to the opening over the sealant using roofing nails or corrosion
resistant pan head screws at 12" max. spacing. (Important: The flashing must slope
to the exterior. Flashing may be installed before blocking at head (if required). “Z"
shaped flashing may be appropriate for some applications.)
E. Clean the siding J-channel/trim or brick and rough opening thoroughly.
F. If a head flashing with upturned leg was used, seal between the back of the flashing
and the sheathing at the head. Tool the sealant athead and/or jambs with a putty
knife to press the sealant into the opening.
G. Place a 3/8" bead of sealant at each corner of the opening.
H. Apply flashing tape over the sealant at the head if a flashing with upturned leg was
used. Extend the flashing tape 6" down each jamb. Cover the exterior surface of the
drywall (if applicable).
Manufacturer's Specifications for Installation
Window Replacement 8
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
18
Manufacturer's Installation Specifications
Prep Rough Opening (Continued)
I. Apply flashing tape at the sill, folding it behind the brick onto the surface of the
building wrap (if applicable) or vapor barrier and up each jamb 6". Apply up the
exterior edge of the drywall. If 2 pieces of flashing tape are required, apply the 2nd
so it overlaps the first by 1". F. For brick, apply low expansion foam at the jamb to
seal between the back of the brick and the sheathing. G. For siding, apply flashing
tape at each jamb extending 3" onto the head and sill. Cover the exterior edge of
the drywall (if applicable) and extend the tape over the sealant onto the side of the
trim or j-trim. (NOTE: The jamb flashing tape may also be used on brick . Apply
sealant to the brick before application.)J. If the window is smaller than the drywall
return opening, add treated blocking to the opening until the opening is approximately
1/2" larger in width and height than the window.
K. Cut treated blocking equal to the width and height dimensions as necessary.
L. Rip the treated blocking as required. The width may be reduced to fit behind
brick/siding or head flashing or to fit behind a flush flange as with Pella® 350 Series.
M. Apply (2) 3/16" beads of sealant. One just to the exterior of the drywall return and
one along the exterior edge of the sheathing.
N. Apply a 3/16" bead of sealant at each corner connecting the 2 beads from the
previous step.
O. Secure the treated blocking to the opening over thesealant using 2" corrosion
resistant screws.
P. Install and level sill shims. Place 1" wide x 1/4" to 3/8" thick shims 1/2" from each
each side. Keep shims back 1/2" from interior and exterior face of window. For vinyl
windows, add shims so maximum spacing is 18".
Q. Attach shims to prevent movement after they are level. (NOTE: Improper placement of
shims may result in bowing the bottom of the window.)
R. Drill pilot holes in the window frame (if they are not factory pre-drilled). Refer to the
anchor and shim spacing instructions as recommended by the manufacturer.
S. Secure drywall return installation clips using #8 x 2-1/2" flat head screws at the jambs
to align with each pilot hole in the window frame. These clips provide secure
attachment when frame screws will not penetrate the framing or treated blocking .
T. Apply sealant to the exterior edge of the drywall return on all four sides.
Window Installation, Operation, and Cleaning
A. Position windows taking care to avoid damage to any finishes or working parts and as
recommended by the manufacturer.
B. Secure windows to subframes using SS fasteners or as recommended by manfacturer
for type substrate.
C. Test operations of windows and correct any non-conforming operations.
D. Clean all window surfaces using agents appropriate for substrate and as recommended
by the manufacturer.
Manufacturer's Specifications for Installation
Window Replacement 9
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9
19
H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA RD
A P PL I C A N T
First Baptist Church Fort Mill
Subject Property: 121 Monroe White Street
Tax Map # 020-06-09-001
Zoning District: R-15/Historic Preservation District
Zoning Case: 2021-0265
REQUEST
The Town of Fort Mill Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) from First Baptist Church Fort Mill requesting approval for the addition of
playground equipment to their property.
S I T E D E S C R I P T I ON A N D G E N E R A L C ON S T R U C T I ON P L A N
This property is located within the Historic Preservation District. It is not listed on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). The applicant indicates that this equipment will be placed within an existing
fenced, playground area on the property. This equipment will be incorporated into the church’s
children’s ministry.
H I S T OR I C D I S T R I C T D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W
Prior to any new construction, alteration, modification, or addition to an area designated as a historic
district in the Town of Fort Mill, a COA from the Historic Review Board (HRB) is required. Because
the First Baptist Church is located within the historic district a COA is required for this project. The
design guidelines that will apply in this instance are the guidelines for historic, civic, office, industrial,
institutional, and religious buildings. See Section 3.82 on page 64 of the Town of Fort Mill Historic
District Design Guidelines (attached). These guidelines note that such historic properties include the
buildings as well as the surrounding grounds. Specifically, any additions should preserve the key
character-defining features that are important in defining the traditional setting of the historic property.
Please note the attached and completed COA application from First Baptist Church along with
illustrations of the proposed playground equipment. Additionally, the applicant has provided a site plan.
20
As indicated on the site plan, the actual playground area is already established within the fenced portion
of the property. The new equipment will be placed within this existing fenced area.
Z ON I N G G U I D E L I N E S R E V I E W
There is no zoning guideline review necessary for consideration of this application.
S T A F F R E C OM M E N D A T I ON
The children’s educational ministry at First Baptist Church Fort Mill is a long-established program. The
existing church playground is used as part of this. The existing playground fits very well within the
traditional setting of this property as well as into the overall historic district. The new equipment as
proposed will serve to enhance the existing playground.
Planning staff therefore recommends that the HRB grant Approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the addition of the playground equipment at 121 Monroe White Street as presented within this
application.
21
iÃ}Õ`iiÃvÀÃÌÀV ÛV]"vwVi]`ÕÃÌÀ>]
ÃÌÌÕÌ>>`,i}ÕÃ Õ`}Ã
These design guidelines address office buildings (complexes), churches, schools, libraries and government
buildings. These historic properties including the building and setting are important resources within the
community and should be preserved.
3.82 Preserve the key character-defining features that are
important in defining the traditional setting of the historic
property. These can include:
Site features such as expansive front, side and rear yards
Site features such as fences and walls
Building orientation to the street or lawn
Natural and topographic features
View corridors
3.83 Preserve the key character-defining features of historic
Civic, Office, Industrial, Institutional and Religious Buildings.
These can include:
3UHVHUYHWKHNH\FKDUDFWHUGH¿QLQJ High quality materials such as brick, stone and stained glass
IHDWXUHVRIKLVWRULFFKXUFKHV Four-sided architecture
Building features such as: a grand entry, porticoes, stairways,
canopies, etc.
Building division into base, middle and cap, as well as streamlined
features
Steeples, towers and penthouses
Solid to void ratio
Elaborate window openings
64 Chapter 3: Treatment of Historic Resources
22
23
24
25
First Baptist Church Sales Representative Equipment Manufacturer
Fort Mill, SC POST & COMPONENT ROTOMOLD PLASTIC 2-COLOR PLASTIC ECO-ARMOR
21-4289A.PWC 26
First Baptist Church Sales Representative Equipment Manufacturer
Fort Mill, SC
21-4289A.PWC 27
First Baptist Church Sales Representative Equipment Manufacturer
Fort Mill, SC
21-4289A.PWC 28
98'
PLAYWORLD PREFERRED
11515 Vanstory Drive
Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
1-800-459-7241
PICNIC TABLE PICNIC TABLE
PART#ZZPQ106Q PART#ZZPQ106Q EQUIPMENT SIZE:
16' x 20' x 11'
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
USE ZONE:
6' BENCH
PART#ZZPQ303Q See Dwg
33'
9'-10" AREA: PERIMETER:
1,410 SqFt. 148 Ft.
6'-8"
FORT MILL, SC
6'-3"
NUVO
360°
GLIDE
SPIRAL
SLIDE
SLIDE FALL HEIGHT:
71'
6' BENCH 12'-1" 6'-1" 6 Ft.
PART#ZZPQ303Q
COZY COCOON
72" PART#ZZXX0483
1,83M
PIPEWALL
72" USER CAPACITY: AGE GROUP:
W/ TELESCOPE
1,83M 9'-1"
(deck)
STOREFRONT
ADA
STAIRS
ROCK
CLIMBER 47 2-12
34' (ground)
ACTIVITY PANEL
W/ VERY BURIED
INSERT (deck) 30'
ADA BELL 48"
PANEL (ground) 1,22M
BUTTONS
ADA SCHEDULE
(2) 12" Total Elevated Play Activities: 7
POST
36" (1) 18"
MOUNT
DRUM
0,92M 7'-4" Total Ground-Level Play Activities: 8
ADA
STAIR 10'
Accessible Accessible Accessible
MOON ROCK Elevated Ground-Level Ground-Level
GLIDE
TRANSFER BLOCK SLIDE CLIMBER Activities Activities Play Types
STATION CLIMBER PART#ZZXX0148
W/ STEP Required 4 2 2
Provided 7 8 6
6'-2"
ASTM F1487-11
42'
CPSC #325
10'
PROJECT NO: SCALE:
21-4289A.PWC 1/8"=1'-0"
DRAWN BY:
Paper Size
L.RICE
0 5' 10' DATE:
B
29
*PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED 12-JAN-21
6' BENCH
PART#ZZPQ303Q
23"
396"
52" PLAYWORLD PREFERRED
118" 120" 11515 Vanstory Drive
Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
6' BENCH
1-800-459-7241
PART#ZZPQ303Q
NUVO FOOTING LEGEND
360°
SPIRAL 92"
14" COZY COCOON
SLIDE
18" PART#ZZXX0483
852"
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
GLIDE
57"
15" SLIDE COMPONENT FOOTING (DETAIL 3)
3"
51"
160 93"
"
160 ADA
29" " 36" 160 STAIRS ROCK
" SPIRAL SLIDE CENTER POST FOOTING (DETAIL1)
44" CLIMBER
33"
160
408" " 16" 24"
FORT MILL, SC
36" 25" 136 18" 9" N
" ZZU 40 22" "
165" 37" 18" 71
ZZU N
360" 136
136 ZZU 40
" 714 N 74" 4"
124 36" 136 6 71
" 14"
" BUTTONS SUPPORT POST FOOTING (DETAIL 1 or 4)
15" (2) 12" 547" (136" INDICATES POST LENGTH)
8" 20" 16" 296"
124 136
" 36" " (1) 18"
124
263" 2" " ADA 16"
STAIR
20" 7"
16" 10" 15" 64" 4" H
124
" ZZC 0
185
TRA
STA NSFE
TIO R
N
19" 4" 75"
14" 18"
41" 103"
170" TRANSFER 32" TRA
STA NSFE
TIO R 11" GLIDE MOON ROCK CANTILEVER, "T" POST, AND COMPONENT
STATION
N
BLOCK SLIDE CLIMBER POST FOOTING (DETAIL 2)
16"
W/ STEP CLIMBER PART#ZZXX0148 (ZZCH1850 INDICATES PART NUMBER)
117"
"
148
GZ
GROUND ZERO POST FOOTING (DETAIL 2)
(148" INDICATES POST LENGTH)
504" 122"
"
210 P
S
122" SHADE HAT POST FOOTING (DETAIL 5)
(210" INDICATES POST LENGTH)
PROJECT NO: SCALE:
21-4289A.PWP 3/16"=1'-0"
DRAWN BY:
Paper Size
AWB
1176" DATE:
B
30
*PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED 16-MAR-21
First Baptist Church
Design Number: 21-4289A - Bill Of Material
Ref.
No. Part No. Description Quantity
Posts
1 ZZCH0018 3.5in OD x 124in STEEL POST W/RIVETED CAP 4
2 ZZCH0028 3.5in OD x 136in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED CAP 4
3 ZZCH0048 3.5in OD x 160in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED CAP 4
Decks & Kick Plates
4 ZZCH0616 SQUARE COATED DECK ASSEMBLY 3
ADA Items
5 ZZCH2006 TRANSFER STATION (36in DECK) 1
6 ZZUN2019 APPROACH STEP FOR TRANSFER STATION 1
Slides
7 ZZCH2696 GLIDE SLIDE (72in DECK) 1
8 ZZCH3126 GLIDE SLIDE (48in DECK) 1
9 ZZCH3537 SLIDE- NUVO 360 SPIRAL SLIDE 1
Activity Panels
10 ZZCH4357 PIPEWALL WITH LOWER TELESCOPE 1
11 ZZCH4646 STORE FRONT PANEL 1
12 ZZCH4671 CH PANEL FRAME- DECK LEVEL 1
13 ZZUN4677 VERY BURIED INSERT 1
Climbers
14 ZZCH7087 CLIMBING SQUARES BLOCK CLIMBER (36in) 1
15 ZZCH7439 ROCK CLIMBER (48in DECK) 1
Balance
16 ZZUN7140 STATIONARY BUTTONS (12in) 2
17 ZZUN7146 STATIONARY BUTTONS (18in) 1
Audible Activities
18 ZZCH4409 ACCESSIBLE BELL PANEL 1
19 ZZCH4649 POST MOUNT DRUM 1
Stairs and Ladders
20 ZZCH9168 12in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO DECK) 1
21 ZZCH9170 24in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO DECK) 1
Additional Tool & Maintenance Kits
22 ZZUN1471 INSTALLER HARDWARE KIT 1
23 ZZUN9930 PIPE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE KIT W/ AEROSOL 1
24 ZZXX0678 LABEL KIT- COMPOSITE STRUCTURE - ASTM 1
25 ZZXXGNGUID GENERAL INSTALLERS GUIDE 1
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 1 of 1 Playworld.com
31
First Baptist Church
Design Number: 21-4289A - Compliance and Technical Data
Reference Document: ASTM F1487
Pre- Post-
Unit Total Consumer CO2e Active
Ref. ASTM Weight Recycled Content Footprint Install Concrete Play
No. Part No. Qty. Description Status (lbs) (lbs) (kgs) Users Hours (Yds3) Events
1 ZZPQ106Q 2 6ft RECTANGLE TABLE - PERFORATED- N/A 514.00 1,597 0 0.00 0.00 0
PORTABLE
2 ZZPQ303Q 2 6ft BENCH W/ BACK - PERFORATED - N/A 250.00 813 0.00 0.00 0
IN-GROUND
3 ZZXX0148 1 MOON ROCK Certified 242.30 1,073 8 4.00 0.18 1
4 ZZXX0483 1 COZY COCOON - SPINNING Certified 132.00 834 3 1.50 0.13 1
5 ZZXX8905 1 WHEELCHAIR ACCESS RAMP - BORDER N/A 213.68 456 0 1.00 0.00 0
TIMBER
6 ZZXX9409 1 1ft BORDER TIMBER w/STAKE N/A 5.51 13 0 0.25 0.00 0
7 ZZXX9410 4 2ft BORDER TIMBERS w/STAKE N/A 30.44 64 0 1.00 0.00 0
8 ZZXX9430 34 4ft BORDER TIMBERS w/STAKE N/A 350.54 677 0 8.50 0.00 0
9 ZZCH0018 4 3.5in OD x 124in STEEL POST W/RIVETED Certified 155.64 215 0 4.00 0.50 0
CAP
10 ZZCH0028 4 3.5in OD x 136in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED Certified 174.04 234 0 4.00 0.50 0
CAP
11 ZZCH0048 4 3.5in OD x 160in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED Certified 200.84 272 0 4.00 0.50 0
CAP
12 ZZCH0616 3 SQUARE COATED DECK ASSEMBLY Certified 164.58 521 9 3.00 0.00 0
13 ZZCH2006 1 TRANSFER STATION (36in DECK) Certified 145.80 308 2 2.00 0.09 0
14 ZZUN2019 1 APPROACH STEP FOR TRANSFER STATION Certified 35.83 72 1 1.00 0.04 0
15 ZZCH2696 1 GLIDE SLIDE (72in DECK) Certified 151.63 653 2 1.50 0.03 1
16 ZZCH3126 1 GLIDE SLIDE (48in DECK) Certified 119.73 492 2 1.50 0.03 1
17 ZZCH3537 1 SLIDE- NUVO 360 SPIRAL SLIDE Certified 650.00 1,417 2 6.00 0.15 1
18 ZZCH4357 1 PIPEWALL WITH LOWER TELESCOPE Certified 32.11 118 1 0.50 0.00 1
19 ZZCH4646 1 STORE FRONT PANEL Certified 33.98 243 3 1.00 0.00 1
20 ZZCH4671 1 CH PANEL FRAME- DECK LEVEL N/A 32.87 163 0 1.00 0.00 0
21 ZZUN4677 1 VERY BURIED INSERT Certified 17.97 470 2 0.25 0.00 1
22 ZZCH7087 1 CLIMBING SQUARES BLOCK CLIMBER (36in) Certified 129.12 437 2 4.00 0.12 1
23 ZZCH7439 1 ROCK CLIMBER (48in DECK) Certified 136.38 555 3 2.00 0.03 1
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 1 of 3 Playworld.com
32
First Baptist Church
Design Number: 21-4289A - Compliance and Technical Data
Reference Document: ASTM F1487
Pre- Post-
Unit Total Consumer CO2e Active
Ref. ASTM Weight Recycled Content Footprint Install Concrete Play
No. Part No. Qty. Description Status (lbs) (lbs) (kgs) Users Hours (Yds3) Events
24 ZZUN7140 2 STATIONARY BUTTONS (12in) Certified 54.24 179 2 1.50 0.26 2
25 ZZUN7146 1 STATIONARY BUTTONS (18in) Certified 27.92 92 1 0.75 0.13 1
26 ZZCH4409 1 ACCESSIBLE BELL PANEL Certified 22.16 211 1 0.50 0.00 1
27 ZZCH4649 1 POST MOUNT DRUM Certified 12.78 167 1 0.50 0.00 1
28 ZZCH9168 1 12in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO Certified 70.28 277 1 2.00 0.00 0
DECK)
29 ZZCH9170 1 24in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO Certified 135.24 296 1 2.00 0.00 0
DECK)
30 ZZUN1471 1 INSTALLER HARDWARE KIT N/A 57
31 ZZUN9930 1 PIPE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE KIT W/ N/A 90
AEROSOL
32 ZZXX0678 1 LABEL KIT- COMPOSITE STRUCTURE - ASTM N/A 0.04 TBD 0 0.08 0.00 0
33 ZZXXGNGUID 1 GENERAL INSTALLERS GUIDE N/A 1
Totals: 4,241.65 586 642 13,064 47 59.33 2.69 15
1,908.74 Kg 264 Kg 289 Kg 13 Metric Tons 2.04 m3
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Playworld.com
33
First Baptist Church
Design Number: 21-4289A - Compliance and Technical Data
Reference Document: ASTM F1487
Pre- Post-
Unit Total Consumer CO2e Active
Ref. ASTM Weight Recycled Content Footprint Install Concrete Play
No. Part No. Qty. Description Status (lbs) (lbs) (kgs) Users Hours (Yds3) Events
ASTM F1487
The lay-out for this custom playscape, design number 21-4289A, has been configured to meet the requirements of the ASTM F1487 standard. In addition,
each of the above components listed as "Certified" have been tested and are IPEMA certified. Components listed as "Not Applicable" do not fall within the
scope of the ASTM F1487 standard and have not been tested. IPEMA certification can be verified on the IPEMA website, www.ipema.org. In the interest of
playground safety, IPEMA provides a Third Party Certification Service which validates compliance.
2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
The lay-out was also designed to meet the 2010 Standards published 15-Sep-2010, by the Department of Justice when installed over a properly maintained
surfacing material that is in compliance with ASTM F1951 "Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment" as well as
ASTM F1292, "Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment", appropriate for the fall height of the structure.
Installation Times
Installation times are based on one experienced installer. A crew of three experienced individuals can perform the installation within the given time, each
member working 1/3 of the given hours. [Eg. Installation Time = 30 hours. For a crew of three, each member will work 10 hours on the installation for a
total of 30 hours on the project.]
Carbon Footprint
The CO2e (carbon footprint given in Kilograms and Metric Tons) listed above is a measure of the environmental impact this play structure represents from
harvesting raw materials to the time it leaves our shipping dock. Playworld Systems nurtures a total corporate culture that is focused on eliminating carbon
producing processes and products, reducing our use of precious raw materials, reusing materials whenever possible and recycling materials at every
opportunity. Playworld Systems elected to adopt the Publicly Available Specification; PAS 2050 as published by the British Standards Institute and
sponsored by Defra and the Carbon Trust. The PAS 2050 has gained international acceptance as a specification that measures the greenhouse gas
emissions in services and goods throughout their entire life cycle.
Pre-Consumer Recycle Content
A measurement, in pounds, that qualifies the amount of material that was captured as waste and diverted from landfill during an initial manufacturing
process and is being redirected to a separate manufacturing process to become a different product. E.g. 100% of our Aluminum Tubing is made from
captured waste material during the manufacturing process of extruded Aluminum products such as rods, flat bars and H-channels.
Post-Consumer Recycle Content
A measurement, in pounds, that qualifies the amount of material that was once another product that has completed its lifecycle and has been diverted from
a landfill as a solid waste through recycling and is now being used in a Playworld Systems' product. E.g. **20% to 40% of the steel in our steel tubing and
sheet steel have been diverted from landfills. Automobiles are scrapped and recyclable steel is purchased by the steel mill that produces our raw product.
** The amount of Post-Consumer recycled steel fluctuates daily based on the availability of the recycled steel.
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Playworld.com
34
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.