Historic Review Board
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · September 14, 2021
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
September 14th, 2021
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, David Booth, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Elizabeth
Leventis, Samantha Nifong, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex
Moore
Guests: Sean Gorman, Tracey Roman, Kathryn McDowell
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Louis Roman called the meeting to order at 4:33 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 July 13th, 2021, meeting as presented. David Booth seconded the motion to
approve the minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
The first item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by
Kuester Commercial Real Estate to perform external improvements at 219 & 221 Main Street.
Senior Planner Alex Moore gave an overview of the application and associated materials for this COA
application. He noted that 219 & 221 Main Street are located within the Historic Preservation District and
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Moore stated that the facades of both buildings currently consist of original brick along with augmented
elements as noted within the staff report.
At 219 Main Street, Moore stated that the applicant proposes to refurbish and then repaint the brick. He
indicated that the upper story windows at 219 Main Street would be replaced with clad, wood windows.
Further, the full aluminum storefront would be removed and replaced with materials which match the
historic façade with an additional door installed along the right façade.
Additionally, Moore stated that a new thermoplastic polyolefin roof would be added to 219 Main Street.
He then noted that the rear elevation would receive brick restoration as well as the inclusion of a new roof-
top deck and stairs.
Senior Planner Moore then presented the slated exterior improvements at 221 Main Street. These would
include the refurbishment and re-painting of the façade brick along with the replacement of the upper story
windows with clad, wood windows. The existing metal panels and steel windows on the storefront would
undergo restoration as well. He noted that the applicant intended to restore the awning hood and have it
reinstalled with a new retractable awning. The rear elevation would undergo brick restoration along with
the installation of clad, wood windows. Finally, a new thermoplastic polyolefin roof would be added to
221 Main Street.
Senior Planner Moore then noted the historic district guidelines review as presented on pages 8 and 9 of
the HRB agenda packet. He corrected historic guideline finding number 7 as presented within the packet
by noting that it should state: “It is not anticipated that sandblasting will be used for this project. All
surface cleaning must be done in a manner that is conducive to preservation.”
Moore then pointed out the color renderings within the HRB packet as provided by the applicant. These
renderings illustrated the improvements proposed at 219 and 221 Main Street.
There were then two points of clarification that Senior Planner Moore wanted to receive from the Kuester
team. First, he asked if there would be an awning at 219 Main Street. Second, he asked if the additional
door at 219 Main Street, to the right of the principal entrance, would be a faux door.
Sean Gorman with Kuester Commercial responded that there would not be an awning at 219 Main Street.
Additionally, Mr. Gorman indicated that the door in question at 219 Main Street would not be faux, but
rather, it would be operational.
Senior Planner Moore then asked Mr. Gorman to speak to the proposed color of the buildings and any
other items he deemed pertinent.
Mr. Gorman then stated that the color of each respective building would be as indicated on the current
color renderings.
Mr. Gorman then also noted that the project would entail retail downstairs and office upstairs within both
buildings. Additionally, he indicated that Kuester would attempt to use as much of the existing historic
materials as possible.
Chairman Roman then asked HRB members if there were any questions about any of the information
presented.
Megan Brinton asked if the color renderings provided an accurate depiction of the windows that would be
installed within this project.
Mr. Gorman responded affirmatively.
David Booth asked about the color as depicted in the renderings. He noted that there were two different
shades of green shown on the facades of 219 and 221 respectively, but that the rear elevation renderings
indicated that there would be a single shade of green. He asked if it was the intent to provide the same
color divergence on the rear elevations?
Kathryn McDowell, representing the project architectural firm, responded that the color renderings did
indeed show the colors as Mr. Booth had described, with two shades of green on the facades and one
uniform color on the rear elevations.
Mr. Gorman interjected that he imagined that the colors would be uniform on both facades and both rear
elevations.
Mr. Booth then asked if it was the intent on the rear to maintain the brick, as shown on demising wall in
the renderings, in its natural color, or would these areas be painted over?
Mr. Gorman responded that they would likely paint the demising wall.
Ms. Brinton asked if any original, unpainted brick was present on either of the buildings.
Ms. McDowell responded that the brick as present on the demising wall is the only original, unpainted
brick present.
Ms. Brinton also asked if they would plan on leaving this brick as is.
Mr. Gorman responded that the plan was to paint the demising wall brick unless the board would rather
see it remain as is.
Chairman Roman stated that the consensus of the board was for the brick demising wall to remain
unpainted.
Mr. Booth then asked if the TPO roof would be implemented on the rear porch area of 219 Main Street as
well as the upper roof area.
Mr. Gorman responded that the rear porch would consist of reinforced decking with the upper sections of
219 Main Street consisting of TPO roofing. He also noted that the entirety of the roof areas of 221 Main
Street would consist of TPO roofing.
Chairman Roman then asked if any of the areas of either building would ever include housing.
Mr. Gorman responded that both buildings would consist of only office and retail with no housing
components.
Scott Couchenour then asked about the handrails as shown on the rendering for 219 Main Street. He noted
that the handrailing on the rear elevations for the Spratt Building and the Local Dish building were
matched. He observed that the railing as proposed within the project renderings did not match these other
buildings.
Mr. Booth interjected that it appeared the Kuester project proposed metal handrailing with stainless-steel
cable.
Mr. Couchenour then asked if this was cable or glass.
Ms. McDowell clarified that it consisted of glass as proposed for the decking handrails but that the stairs
did not contain any glass as part of the handrailing design.
Mr. Couchnour then asked for clarification on the handrailing as shown on the rear elevation of 221 Main
Street.
Ms. McDowell responded that the handrailing as shown on the rendering was the current railing as it
currently exists. She also noted that this handrailing could be tweaked to match that of 219 Main Street.
Mr. Booth noted that he presumed that the building code would require that handrailing be placed on the
dock area at the rear of 219 Main Street.
Ms. McDowell concurred with this.
Mr. Booth then asked what material would be used for the decking at 219 Main Street.
Ms. McDowell indicated that the current architectural drawings indicated that pressed concrete pavers
would be used. She also noted that this portion of the roof at 219 Main Street would consist of a complete
reconstruction to accommodate patrons.
Mr. Booth then inquired regarding the drainage of this roof area at 219 Main Street.
Ms. McDowell responded that the current drawings were incomplete in this regard, but final drawings
would account for the drainage.
Senior Planner Moore then asked Ms. McDowell to clarify if all handrails on the rear elevations of 219
and 221 Main Street would match.
Ms. McDowell indicated that the design of the handrails would involve a uniform approach except that
the handrail on the deck area of 219 Main Street would incorporate glass.
Chairman Roman then asked Mr. Couchenour if he had in fact recommended via his previous comments
that this deck handrailing be more ornamental in nature.
Mr. Couchenour responded that his intention was to ask if the board would rather that the handrailing as
proposed within the current Kuester project be more consistent with the handrailing that was implemented
at the rear of the Spratt Building as well as with the Local Dish building. He did indicate that he was not
a fan of the glass handrailing within the town’s historic district.
Chairman Roman and Mr. Booth concurred with this sentiment.
Ms. Brinton expressed that 219 Main Street is located directly next to the Local Dish building which has
a more traditional type handrailing on the rear elevation.
Mr. Couchenour restated that the railing at the Local Dish was similar to that of the Spratt Building. He
then indicated that he would like all of the railing on the rear elevations of 219 and 221 Main Street to be
similar to that of the Spratt Building and the Local Dish.
Elizabeth Leventis asked if there were any historic images of the rear of 219 and 221 Main Street.
Senior Planner Moore indicated that unfortunately only historic pictures of the front elevations were
available.
Ms. Leventis stated that the reason she asked this question was to determine what the historic use was
beyond the antique or rug store. Her point was that buildings within historic districts are not always
completely uniform regarding design components such as handrailing.
Mr. Gorman indicated that 219 Main Street was historically Ardrey’s Drug Store and 221 Main Street was
Mill’s Mercantile.
Ms. Leventis then stated that perhaps the railing did not have to be exactly the same as the other buildings
but rather period appropriate to these historic uses.
Chairman Roman then asked if there were any other comments or questions.
Mr. Booth asked about the wall signage as rendered had been sized per town requirements. He noted that
reduced wall signage may not be congruent with the metal panel as designed.
Senior Planner Moore replied that a wall sign could comprise up to 15% of the wall area to which it is
attached and that it did not appear that this signage exceeded this measure. He also noted that future tenants
of these buildings would need to come back before HRB for sign review and approval.
Ms. Brinton then segued by asking Mr. Gorman if Kuester had any prospective tenants.
Mr. Gorman replied that they did have potential tenants but that he did not want to release specifics since
they were still in negotiation.
Chairman Roman then summed up the findings of the board to indicate that there should be conditions, as
previously discussed, added to any motion to approve. These conditions would be that glass not be
included in any handrail design and that Kuester install a more traditional style using as inspiration the
handrailing at the rear of the Spratt Building (215 Main Street) and the Local Dish building (217 Main
Street). He stated that the railing did not have to be an exact replica of the railing at these locations but
something more period appropriate than glass. This would include all railing and pickets on both buildings.
Chairman Roman asked the HRB if there was anything else.
Samantha Nifong noted that the board had discussed requiring that the original brick on the demising wall
between 219 and 221 Main Street should be left unpainted.
Chairman Roman concurred with this statement from Ms. Nifong. He then asked if the board had any
other comments or questions.
There being none, Chairman Roman entertained a motion.
Ms. Brinton made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 219 and 221 Main Street
with the following conditions:
(1) Glass shall not be incorporated into the design of any handrailing at the rear of 219 or 221 Main Street.
(2) All handrailing shall be modeled after, but not necessarily an exact replica of, the handrailing currently
in existence at the rear of the Spratt Building (215 Main Street) and the Local Dish building (217 Main
Street). (3) The original brick of the demising wall between 219 and 221 Main Street shall remain
unpainted.
Ms. Nifong seconded the motion.
Then, with a vote of 6-0 the HRB voted to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 219 and 221
Main Street with the three conditions as noted above.
2. Request for Preliminary Bailey Bill Certification
The second item on the agenda included a request for preliminary Bailey Bill certification for the Kuester
project at 219 and 221 Main Street.
Senior Planner Alex Moore gave an overview of the application and associated materials. He noted that
the goal for the Bailey Bill within the Town of Fort Mill is to encourage the rehabilitation of historic
properties, promote community development and redevelopment, encourage sound community planning,
and to promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.
To be eligible for the Bailey Bill special tax assessment, historic properties must receive both preliminary
and final certification. For commercial properties, the minimum investment is 20% of Fair Market Value
(FMV). For this application, the FMV of $1.15 million has been determined via the contract of sale. This
contract of sale is found on page 48 of the packet.
Additionally, historic properties must be listed on the NRHP, or the property must be located within the
historic district and be at least 50 years old. The following work will be reviewed: Repairs and alterations
to the exterior of the designated building, Alterations to the interior, and any remaining work where the
expenditures for such work are being used to satisfy the minimum expenditures for rehabilitation,
including but not limited to, alternations made to mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems.
The standards for the historic rehabilitation are noted on page 26 of the packet. The application indicates
that the anticipated project cost is $2.7 million which greatly exceeds the FMV as provided via the contract
of sale.
Senior Planner Moore noted that the exterior improvements had been extensively covered within the COA
portion of this meeting. He asked board members if they had any further questions about the exterior
improvements as submitted. There being none, he asked the Kuester team to discuss the proposed interior
improvements at 219 and 221 Main Street.
Sean Gorman then gave a brief overview of the proposed interior improvements. He noted that the most
important thing was to bring both buildings back to structural integrity. Thus, a lot of the work would
involve reinforcement.
Mr. Gorman stated that there would be common area restrooms added to each building in both the upstairs
and downstairs sections. The upstairs offices in both buildings would also include common break areas.
Mr. Gorman indicated that brand new plumbing, electrical, and mechanical would be installed throughout
both buildings. He also noted the new TPO roofs that would be installed.
Chairman Roman then asked if there had been any historical elements or features internal to the buildings
that impressed the design team enough to try and restore or save.
Mr. Gorman responded that within the 219 Main Street building, original hardwood was discovered
beneath a more recent floor installation. He stated that they were going to do everything possible to save
these.
Chairman Roman then asked if there were any other comments or questions regarding the preliminary
Bailey Bill application.
There being none, Chairman Roman noted that it appeared that the minimum preliminary Bailey Bill
certification requirements had been met via the application.
Chairman Roman then entertained a motion on the application.
Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve.
Megan Brinton seconded the motion.
Then, with a vote of 6-0 the HRB voted to approve the Bailey Bill preliminary certification application
for 219 and 221 Main Street as presented.
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 5:12 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
September 30th, 2021
Agenda
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
September 14th, 2021
4:30 PM
Live Viewing Online: Request Access by emailing before 4:00pm on Tuesday September 14th, 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 727-455-957
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. HRB Meeting: July 13th, 2021 [Pages 3-6]
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 7-24]
Applicant Name: Kuester Commercial Real Estate
Owner Name: Rugs & Antiques, Inc.
Property Address: 219 & 221 Main Street
Purpose: COA request for the exterior refurbishment of 219 & 221 Main St.
Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District
LC, Local Commercial Zoning District
2. Request for Preliminary Bailey Bill Certification
Applicant Name: Kuester Commercial Real Estate [Pages 25-61]
Owner Name: Rugs & Antiques, Inc.
Property Address: 219 & 221 Main Street
Purpose: Request for Bailey Bill Preliminary Certification of 219 & 221 Main St.
Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District
LC, Local Commercial Zoning District
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
July 13th, 2021
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Elizabeth Leventis, Jessica
Scarlett, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Guests: Lynn Blackwell (virtually)
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 May 11th, 2021, meeting as presented. Jessica Scarlett seconded the motion
to approve the minutes. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS ITEM
The new business item on the agenda included a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
submitted by Lynn Blackwell of Lynn Blackwell Interior Design requesting to replace awning fabric, add
window signage, and to change the color and text of an existing projecting sign at 223 Main Street.
Senior Planner Alex Moore gave an overview of the application and associated materials for this COA
application. He noted that 223 Main Street is located within the Historic Preservation District and is also
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Moore then presented the general construction plan which included the following:
• Bracket sign - Front Elevation – The proposed change included color and text only.
• Awning – Front and Rear Elevations – The proposed change is for fabric only and proposed to be
“Seaside 32055” in color.
• Front Door color and signage – Front Elevation – The proposed color was “Oxford Blue #031d4e.”
• Display Window Signage – Front Elevation
• Display Window Signage – Front Elevation
• Window Signage – Rear Elevation
3
Moore then presented the specific, exterior improvements that Ms. Blackwell was requesting to do at 223
Main Street.
The first request included a bracket, or projecting, sign on the front elevation. The elevation currently
contained such a sign, but the request, if approved, would entail removing the existing design and copy,
and then replacing it with a new design and copy. The existing signage hardware system would be retained
and used to facilitate the new signage. Moore stated that the proposed bracket signage met all Town of
Fort Mill requirements regarding historic district design and zoning and building guidelines.
Moore then noted appropriate examples from the Town of Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines
regarding awnings. He stated that the Historic District Guidelines recommended, but did not require, that
such awnings be of a solid color. The proposed awning as submitted by Ms. Blackwell was a material
consisting of a striped design.
Senior Planner Moore then presented the proposed window signage as submitted by Ms. Blackwell. He
stated that the key design guideline as presented within the historic district standards indicated that such
signage minimizes the amount of window area to be covered. Moore then clarified that the window
signage as presented met the town’s historic district design guidelines.
Moore then summarized the proposed improvements via an overall illustrative plan which presented the
following elements shown at their respective locations on the front and rear facades.
• Bracket sign - Front Elevation – The proposed change included color and text only.
• Awning – Front and Rear Elevations – The proposed change is for fabric only and proposed to be
“Seaside 32055” in color.
• Front Door color and signage – Front Elevation – The proposed color was “Oxford Blue #031d4e.”
• Display Window Signage – Front Elevation
• Display Window Signage – Front Elevation
• Window Signage – Rear Elevation
Senior Planner Moore then presented the specific drawings for each of these proposed improvements.
Moore then reiterated that each of the items as submitted within the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness principally met the parameters of the town’s historic district guidelines as well as zoning
and building department standards.
With that, Senior Planner Moore stated that Planning Staff recommended that the Certificate of
Appropriateness application be approved as submitted.
Chairman Roman then asked Ms. Blackwell, the applicant, if she had anything to add to this information
as presented.
Ms. Blackwell asked for Chairman Roman to clarify if the striped awning had been recommended for
approval as submitted and presented.
4
Chairman Roman indicated that the striped awning as presented had indeed bee recommended for approval
as submitted and presented.
Chairman Roman then asked the Historic Review Board members if they had any other comments on the
proposal.
Scott Couchenour asked Ms. Blackwell if the proposed awning was going to be retractable.
Ms. Blackwell stated that this awning would not be retractable. Rather, she stated that the existing frame
that had been in place since 2013 would be used to facilitate the new awning.
Mr. Couchenour then asked what color of blue that the bracket sign would consist of.
Ms. Blackwell responded that this sign would be Oxford Blue.
Megan Brinton then asked for clarification about the center, upper story window as presented on the rear
façade illustration as submitted by Ms. Blackwell.
Ms. Blackwell indicated that the new fabric would be facilitated by the existing frame. The center, upper
story window would thus remain enclosed as shown within the existing photograph of the rear façade.
Chairman Roman asked if there were any other comments from HRB members.
Elizabeth Leventis stated that the proposed improvements looked great.
Chairman Roman added that this seemed to be a consensus among the HRB members.
There being no other questions or comments, Chairman Roman entertained a motion on the COA
application as presented.
Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve the COA application as presented.
Elizabeth Leventis then seconded the motion.
Megan Brinton then interjected that she would like for the “motion to approve” be amended to contain a
condition indicating that the existing awning frame on the rear façade will be used to facilitate the new
fabric rather than a new awning frame and new center window being installed.
Scott Couchenour and Elizabeth Leventis concurred with this proposal to amend the motion as requested
by Ms. Brinton.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Roman asked the HRB members to vote on the amended
motion as presented.
HRB members then voted affirmatively 5-0 to approve the COA application as presented with the
condition that the existing awning frame on the rear façade will be used to facilitate the new fabric rather
than a new awning frame and new center window being installed.
5
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
September 1st, 2021
6
H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D
APPLICANT
Kuester Commercial
Subject Property: 219 & 221 Main Street
Tax Map # 020-02-01-008 & 020-02-01-009
Zoning District: Local Commercial, LC/Historic District
Zoning Case: 2021-0660
REQUEST
The Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from Kuester
Commercial. The purpose of this COA request is to refurbish the exterior of the buildings located at 219 & 221
Main Street.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
These properties are located within the downtown historic district, and both are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). The buildings were constructed in circa 1900. The front façade of the building at 219
Main Street consists of the original brick, now painted, and augmented with aluminum awning windows, an
aluminum storefront, and metal siding. The rear elevation of this structure currently consists of original brick, an
awning over the rear door, infill wood sections surrounding the rear windows, along with a concrete loading deck.
The front façade of the building at 221 Main Street also consists of the original brick, now painted, and augmented
with metal storefront panels, and an awning. The second story windows were covered/enclosed in past years.
The applicant proposes the front façade upgrade at 219 Main Street to include refurbished brick. Upper story
windows will be replaced with clad, wood windows. The full aluminum storefront and metal siding will be
removed and replaced with materials which match the historic, 1920 photo as included within this application.
These windows will be clad, wood. A primary, recessed door will be added. An additional door will be installed
along the right façade.
The existing awning hood on the front façade of 219 Main Street will be restored and reinstalled with a new,
retractable awning.
The rear elevation refurbishment at 219 Main Street will include restoration of the existing brick, removing the
infill sections and replacing them with clad wood windows. A new rooftop deck and stairs will be added.
Additionally, a new, TPO roof will be installed.
7
The refurbishment of the front façade of the adjacent building at 221 Main Street will also include restoration of
the existing brick. The covered, upper story openings will be replaced with clad, wood windows. The existing
metal panels and steel windows on the storefront will also be restored.
The existing awning hood on the front façade of 221 Main Street will be restored and reinstalled with a new,
retractable awning.
The rear elevation refurbishment at 221 Main Street will include restoration of the existing brick, installation of
new clad, wood windows, and the installation of a new TPO roof.
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES REVIEW
When considering an application for a COA for alteration, repair, or restoration, the HRB shall use the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as guidelines in making its decisions. These guidelines are to serve as
the basis for determining the approval, approval with modification, or denial of a COA. These guidelines are
listed below. The staff findings follow each guideline and are in bold and underlined.
1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal
alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its original
intended purpose. This is an adaptive reuse project. As such, significant historic characteristics of
the exterior will be retained and refurbished while accommodating a new function.
2) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall
not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features
should be avoided when possible. The original qualities and character of this building are not being
destroyed but rather enhanced. Historical materials will be retained as appropriate.
3) All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that
have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. The
proposed work to be done consists principally of enhancements to the original architectural
features of the building rather than alterations.
4) Changes which have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history development of a
building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their
own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. This building is an example of an
early 20th century vernacular storefront. Subsequent changes to the front and rear building
elevations are not reflective of that era and have not obtained significance in their own right.
5) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure
or site shall be treated with sensitivity. It is anticipated that distinctive features of this building will
be treated with sensitivity. The plans as submitted by the applicant indicate a desire to maintain
significant, original features found on both the front and rear elevations.
6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. In the event
replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition,
design, color, texture, and other visible qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features
8
should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by history, physical, or pictorial
evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from
other buildings. The applicant has indicated that the deteriorated brick on the exterior of both
buildings will be restored.
7) The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and
other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building material shall not be undertaken. It is not
anticipated that sandblasting will not be used for this project. All surface cleaning must be done in
a manner that is conducive to preservation.
8) Every reasonable effort should be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or
adjacent to the property. There are no known archaeological resources that will be affected by this
project.
9) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when
such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural materials,
and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property,
neighborhood, or environment. Contemporary design is not being used as this is an adaptive reuse
project. The work will include refurbishment and enhancement of original architectural features.
10) Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such
additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure
would be unimpaired. The elements within this exterior refurbishment project are not anticipated
to be removed in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends that the HRB grant APPROVAL for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed
exterior refurbishment project at 219 and 221 Main Street.
9
Page 1 of 2 Date Received: _08/24/2021___
Historic Review Board Date: _09/14/21__
Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
Town of Fort Mill, South Carolina
Owner/ Applicant Information:
Submission Checklist
Applicant Name: Kuester Commercial �
pleted application*
Mailing Address: 127 Ben Casey Drive Suite 103 �
wings and specifications of
proposed improvements*
Telephone Number: _8_0_3 _-5_7_8 _-7_78_ 8
_ _______
C2rsite plan showing location of
Property Information: proposed improvements*
Address: 219 and 221 Main Street �Application fee ($125 residential
/ $250 non-residential)*
Current Zoning: Commercial/ Residential
Additional materials may be required
Current Use of Property: -----------
Commercial *Required with submission
Work Summary: Please check all areas that apply to the proposed improvements
0 DEMOLITION □ NEW STRUCTURE 0 EMERGENCY REPAIR
0 GRAPHICS/SIGNAGE 0 MAINTENANCE
REHABILITATION ADDmONS TO EXISTING SITE WORK
0 Foundations D Room addition D Fence or wall
GZ} Masonry D Garage 0 Site lighting
GI Siding Ill Porch or deck D Street furniture
0 Roof D Greenhouse D Special features
I!) Gutters/downspouts O Dormer D Parking
D Chimney 0 Skylight D Walks, patios
G:j Doors/entrances D Chimney 0 Other
Q Windows D Other
D Porch
D Cornice/frieze
O Ornamentation
(II Awning/canopy
G Storefront
[J Color/painting
D Other
APPLICATION CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
P.O. BOX 159 • 200 TOM HALL STREET • FORT MILL, SC 29715
TELEPHONE (803) 547-2034 • FAX (803) 547-2126
10
Page 2 of 2 Date Received: _08/24/2021___
Historic Review Board Date: _09/14/21__
Explanation of Work: Please use the area below to provide a detailed explanation of the proposed work. When
explaining the work, please provide information on the design, materials, colors, as well as installation/construction
procedures. For example, when applying for a wall sign please provide detail on the design of the sign, what
materials will be used, what colors will be used, and how will the sign will be affixed to the wall. Please attach
continuation sheets as needed.
Acknowledgement of Requirements: The applicant acknowledges that the information provided is complete and
that any exterior modification, except for ordinary maintenance or repair (not involving change in design, material,
color, or outer appearance), shall not commence until the Historic Review Board approves the specific modification
through a Certificate of Appropriateness. Additional permitting may be required prior to beginning work, including
zoning review, stormwater/engineering review, building permitting, and business licensing. Please note,
incomplete submissi will not be accepted.
P.O. BOX 159 • 200 TOM HALL STREET • FORT MILL, SC 29715
TELEPHONE (803) 547-2034 • FAX (803) 547-2126
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
%XISTING&ACADE
219 & 221 Main St.
18
%XISTING&ACADE
219 Main St.
19
%XISTING2EARº%LEVATION
219 Main St.
20
%XISTING2EAR%LEVATION
219 Main St.
21
%XISTINGFrontFacade
221 Main St.
• 22
%XISTING %LEVATION 219
& 221 Main St.
23
%XISTINGRear%LEVATION
221 Main St.
24
H ISTORI C R EVIEW B OARD
A P PL I C A N T
Kuester Commercial Real Estate
Subject Property: 219 & 221 Main Street
Tax Map # 020-02-01-008 & 020-02-01-009
Zoning District: Local Commercial, LC/Historic District
Zoning Case: 2021-0661
REQUEST
The Planning Department has received an application for Bailey Bill Preliminary Certification
submitted by Kuester Commercial Real Estate. The purpose of this request is to obtain preliminary
certification for the existing buildings at 219 & 221 Main Street.
P R E L I M I N A R Y C E R T I FI C A T I O N R E V I E W
The Town of Fort Mill Code of Ordinances authorizes a Special Tax Assessment for Rehabilitated
Historic Properties that meet the criteria for eligibility This is authorized by Section 5-21-140 of the SC
Code of Laws and is generally referred to as the Bailey Bill. Upon final certification, the Bailey Bill
allows the property’s value to be assessed at the pre-rehabilitation value for a period of 20 years. It
should be noted that this is only for the Town of Fort Mill as York County does not participate in the
Bailey Bill Program.
The goal for the Bailey Bill within the Town of Fort Mill is to:
1. Encourage the rehabilitation of historic properties;
2. Promote community development and redevelopment;
3. Encourage sound community planning; and
4. Promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the community
In order to be eligible for the Bailey Bill special tax assessment, historic properties must receive both
preliminary and final certification. For income-producing or non-owner-occupied properties, the
minimum investment for a Bailey Bill project is 20% of the fair market value. Additionally, the property
must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the property must be located within
a historic district listed on the NRHP and the primary structure to be rehabilitated must be at least 50
25
years old. For preliminary certification, the proposed rehabilitation work must receive approval from
the Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board. To be eligible the following work will be reviewed.
1. Repairs to the exterior of the designated building
2. Alterations to the exterior of the designated building
3. New construction on the property on which the building is located, including site work.
4. Alterations to interior primary public spaces, as defined by the reviewing authority.
5. Any remaining work where the expenditures for such work are being used to satisfy the
minimum expenditures for rehabilitation, including but not limited to, alterations made to
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems.
The historic rehabilitation must be conducted according to the following standards:
1. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alterations or of features and spaces that characterize each property shall be
avoided.
2. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development shall not be undertaken.
3. Most properties change over time. Those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
4. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property should be preserved.
5. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement or of a distinctive feature, the new should match the old in
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement
of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence.
6. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials
shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using
the gentlest means possible.
7. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the historic property and its environment.
8. New additions and adjacent new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
Additionally, there is a minimum expenditure requirement for such projects. The amount spent on all
improvements must be at least 20% of the appraised value. The applicant has submitted a bona fide
contract of sale dated December 2020 indicating the fair market value (FMV) to be $1,150,000. As the
26
application was submitted on August 24th, 2021, this sales contract meets the timeframe within which
the contract of sale remains valid.
The application indicates that the anticipated project cost to be $2,700,000 which is 235% of the
currently established FMV of $1,150,000. Thus, the minimum projected expenditure 20% of FMV is
greatly exceeded within this preliminary phase.
If this application receives preliminary approval from the HRB, rehabilitation work may begin
subsequent to plan review, approval, and issuance of permits by the Town of Fort Mill Building
Department. The project must be completed within two years of the date of the preliminary certification.
If the project is not complete after two years, but the minimum expenditures for rehabilitation have been
incurred, the property continues to receive the special assessment until the project is completed or until
the end of the special assessment period, whichever shall occur first.
Upon completion of the project, the property must receive final Bailey Bill certification in order to be
eligible for the special assessment. The HRB shall review at a regularly scheduled meeting, and
inspect, if they so desire, completed projects to determine if the work is consistent with rehabilitation
plan previously approved during the preliminary certification process.
The applicant’s submittal information for Bailey Bill Preliminary review, including pictures, plans,
etc. are included subsequent to this staff report.
S T A F F R E C OM M E N D A T I ON
Based on the information provided by the applicant, Planning Staff recommends that HRB grant
APPROVAL for preliminary certification for the proposed Bailey Bill project at 219 & 221 Main Street.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.