Historic Review Board
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · November 8, 2022
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
November 8th, 2022
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Vice Chairperson Megan Brinton, David Booth, Scott Couchenour, Niki Todaro, Planning Director
Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Absent: Elizabeth Leventis, Louis Roman, Jessica Scarlett
Guests: Shaw Kuester, Karli Phillips, Mark Kurowski
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Megan Brinton called the meeting to order at 4:34 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chariperson Megan Brinton entertained a motion to approve the minutes from the October 11th, 2022, Historic
Review Board (HRB) meeting. Scott Couchenour made a motion to approve the minutes. David Booth seconded
the motion. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 4-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to modify an approved Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Senior Planner Moore provided an overview of a request to modify an approved Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) at 219-221 Main Street. This COA was originally approved by the Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board
on September 14th, 2021. Moore stated that the approval included those items on pages five and six of the HRB
packet, but that particular focus would now be on that portion of the COA dealing with the demising wall between
219 and 221 Main Street.
Moore indicated that the HRB had included a condition as part of their approval of the COA in September 2021
that this demising wall was to be left unpainted. Thus, the following language was included within the approval
notification subsequently sent to the applicant: “The original brick of the demising wall between 219 and 221 Main
Street shall remain unpainted. This demising wall is illustrated within the attached color rendering.”
Moore continued as he stated that at some point during the exterior refurbishment of 219 and 221 Main Street, the
demising wall was painted. He shared recent pictures of the building which indicated this condition. As a result,
Kuester Real Estate is specifically requesting that the HRB allow for a modification to the approved COA which
would remove the condition that the demising wall be left unpainted and thus allow the brick to remain painted as
shown.
Moore then concluded his initial presentation by asking HRB members if they had any questions regarding the
request.
David Booth clarified that on the originally approved COA in September 2021, HRB made it a condition of the
approval that the demising wall was to be left unpainted, and yet now Kuester is asking for amendment to allow for
the demising wall to remain painted because Kuester painted this demising wall when it should not have been
painted to begin with.
Senior Planner Moore concurred with this statement.
Vice Chairperson Megan Brinton then asked exactly what was painted.
Shaw Kuester, President of Kuester Real Estate Services, then interjected that the portion of the demising wall that
was now “painted white” was in fact was covered by a white roof membrane.
David Booth then asked why the roof membrane was installed at this location.
Mr. Kuester responded that he believed that that the architect determined to place the roof membrane over this
section of the demising wall.
Planning Staff then asked Mr. Kuester to provide the HRB with his presentation on the demising wall issue.
Mr. Kuester first noted that it was not the intention of his company to have the unpainted portion of the demising
wall covered with paint and roofing material. Rather, he gave all the information from the HRB approval to his
construction company, Simon & Watson Construction, Inc., along with his architect, Red Clay Design.
Mr. Kuester then stated that Kuester Real Estate did not know that the demising wall had been covered until they
were contacted by the Town of Fort Mill. He indicated that at that point he discussed with the Planning Department
about what to do. Ultimately his goal is to request forgiveness from the HRB and to find the best solution to address
the paint and roofing material without damaging a project that his company has put millions of dollars into. Mr.
Kuester stated that due to the delicate, historic nature of these buildings that his preferred solution would be to keep
the condition as is with the paint and roofing membrane allowed to remain.
Vice Chairperson Brinton then stated that this situation is indeed a dilemma because the letter of approval
subsequent to the September 2021 HRB meeting, along with the minutes from that meeting, indicated very clearly
that the unpainted portion of the demising wall was to remain as is.
Mr. Kuester agreed but noted again that his intention was not for the demising wall to be covered with paint and
roofing material. He stated that Kuester Real Estate hired contractors to complete this portion of the project but that
they did not do it correctly. He agreed that it was a problematic situation.
Mr. Kuester then stated that if the HRB wanted his company to try and remove the materials they could. But, at this
juncture he did not know what the method for removing the materials would be. He then deferred to the HRB for
their thoughts on removing the materials.
David Booth speculated that the roofer may have put the membrane material on the demising wall so that the roof
would have a single seam rather than having flashing along the top to conceal the membrane material and to provide
for a tight seal. But he then noted that this was unfortunately a poor decision based on what the understanding of
the COA approval should have been.
Mr. Booth then stated that the HRB was now in the position of perhaps setting an undesirable precedent. On the
other hand, Mr. Booth noted, if the roofing membrane is now removed from the building, the result may have the
undesirable result of opening the building to the weather elements. He stated that he was of the mind to try to cut
down the roofing membrane and put flashing on it to restore the brick, but conversely, he did not want to damage
the building. Mr. Booth then stated that now, in the future others may come forward on other projects with a similar
situation with the idea that the developer at 219 & 221 Main Street did it, so why can’t we do the same? Then there
is the constant influx of project developers asking for forgiveness.
Mr. Booth then stated that at the same time, we need to understand that these buildings are historic, and they need
to be protected long term. He then asked Mr. Kuester what the contractor and architect of record are suggesting to
be done to rectify the situation.
Mr. Kuester replied that he had spoken with the architect and that he was told by him that the brick was not intended
to be painted. The architect will be okay with whatever is decided regarding the paint. The error was in fact with
the contractor and not the architect.
Vice chairperson Brinton noted that the letter from Kuester Real Estate seemed to indicate that the problem was in
the design documents.
Mr. Kuester replied that it was not necessarily the design documents because they looked at them and it was
determined that the problem was with the contractor.
Mr. Booth asked if we have those approved design documents from the town to review with the elevations.
Mr. Kuester indicated that he did have them, and these documents indicated that the demising wall was to remain
unpainted.
Mr. Booth then asked what the architectural cross section indicate because it is on the architect to make sure that
the plans are followed.
Senior Planner Moore stated that this cross section was included within the HRB packet for review and noted the
location within the on-screen agenda presentation. He noted the plan which states “Restore existing brick. Patch
and repair cracks and other damage areas with brick to match. See specs and finish plans for additional
information.”
Mr. Booth then asked Mr. Kuester if his contractor had provided him with a change order request to make the
change.
Mr. Kuester stated that the contractor did the work on the demising wall on their own with no approved change
order.
Mr. Booth noted that it is on the contractor to review the approved drawings and they assume responsibility for
following the documents.
Mr. Kuester concurred with this statement.
Vice chairperson Brinton then stated that she spoke with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) to get some direction on this issue. The SHPO representative indicated to her that there was no clear answer
on what to do as a remedy for this situation because of the strong need for the building not to become damaged due
to attempts at removing these materials from the demising wall.
Ms. Brinton also indicated that she agreed with Mr. Booth on the danger of creating an undesirable precedent of
making it easy for downtown developers to come to the HRB and ask forgiveness for project mistakes. She stated
that she would have a hard time allowing for such an amendment when it would be clearly in opposition to the
Secretary of Interior’s guidelines.
Mr. Kuester asked Ms. Brinton if she was now stating that she wished for them to remove the paint from the wall.
Ms. Brinton responded that she was unsure due to the potential ramifications of doing so.
Mr. Booth then pointed out that there were two problems, first, the paint on the demising wall, and second, the
roofing material as well.
Mr. Kuester then stated that the rendering being used for discussion was done early on. However, he indicated he
would investigate the reasoning for placing the membrane roofing on the demising wall as well as the paint. The
work, though, was left under the purview of the project manager and architect. He stated he would be happy to bring
the architect to a future meeting.
Mr. Booth then stated that his recommendation would be to have some type of investigation to determine what the
condition of the TPO roof is on the demising wall and get a better understanding of what is underneath it and what
the result would be of removing it.
Mr. Couchenour stated that there could be mastic behind the membrane roof.
Mr. Booth concurred with this and indicated that if that was the case, the brick would be destroyed in trying to
remove the membrane roof. Thus, his recommendation would be to have an analysis done resulting in understanding
what would need to be done to remove the membrane roof. He stated that he was not as concerned about the paint
as it might be a little easier to remove than the TPO with potential mastic beneath it.
Mr. Couchenour then asked if there would be a preference to try and remove the paint from the demising wall from
the “Local Dish” building (217 Main Street) as well. He noted that the existing bricks on this building were in very
poor condition.
Mr. Mark Kurowski, owner of 217 Main Street stated that he, like Mr. Kuester and the HRB, wants what is best for
the historic buildings, but that he wanted to maintain the integrity of the structures as well as their historic value.
There was some discussion about testing portions of the buildings to determine the best method of removing the
materials placed on the demising wall.
Mr. Kurowski indicated that he would be open to testing on his building but that his intention would be to repair
the existing brick on his demising wall.
Senior Planner Moore then asked what type of testing they had in mind since sandblasting the brick would not be
recommended.
Mr. Booth stated that the contractor should probably coordinate this and find out what is recommended for the
removal of the membrane roof in instances such as this one. The result would be that a determination would be
made on whether the membrane roof, and its supporting material, could be removed without damaging the demising
wall.
Mr. Couchenour then stated that the same method could be used by the painting contractor.
Discussion then took place about how similar situations in the Town of Fort Mill not within the historic district are
handled. Planning Director Karagounis indicated that it would be up to the town’s building official to decide on
this, but that it was unlikely that similar, aesthetic related mistakes were so critical from the town’s perspective
outside of the historic district
There was then discussion about the timing of a decision to be made by the HRB as related to the internal deadlines
that Kuester Real Estate had established with the future tenants of this building. Mr. Kuester indicated that he
intended to work quickly upon the rendering of a decision by the HRB. Thus, he did not immediately see any
conflicts here.
Planning Director Karagounis then clarified that the HRB would want this case to come back to them for review
and approval based on the analysis as previously discussed. She indicated that the HRB could have a special meeting
prior to the December meeting if necessary.
Mr. Kuester stated that his group would most likely need until the December meeting to gather all the information
needed.
Vice chairperson Brinton entertained a motion.
Mr. Booth made a motion consisting of the following three points:
1) Kuester Real Estate shall provide written documentation from the roofing contractor, or manufacturer of
the TPO roof, as to the method of its application to the brick on the demising wall and what it would take
for the application of the TPO roof to be removed from this brick, and what damages to the brick would
be expected due to this potential removal.
2) Kuester Real Estate shall provide written documentation from the painting contractor, or the manufacturer
of the paint, regarding what could be done to remove the paint from the brick of the demising wall, and
what damages to the brick would be expected due to this potential removal.
3) This documentation will be reviewed by the HRB. Should this documentation be provided prior to the
scheduled December 13th, 2022, meeting, the HRB would entertain convening for a special meeting to
review the written documentation and render a decision on whether the certificate of appropriateness as
issued on September 21st, 2022, will be modified to allow the paint and/or TPO roof to remain on the
demising wall. Otherwise, the HRB will consider this information at its regularly scheduled meeting on
December 13th, 2022.
Scott Couchenour seconded the motion.
This motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
There being no other business, Vice Chairperson Brinton adjourned the meeting at 5:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
November 15th, 2022
Agenda
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETI NG
112 Confederate Street
November 8th, 2022
4:30 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. HRB Meeting: October 11th, 2022 [Pages 2 - 4]
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to modify a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 5 - 30]
Applicant Name: Kuester Commercial
Owner Name: 219-221 Main Street, LLC
Property Address: 219-221 Main Street
Purpose: The applicant has requested to modify a previously approved COA
Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District
LC, Local Commercial Zoning District
ADJOURN
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.
1
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
October 11th, 2022
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour, Elizabeth Leventis, Jessica Scarlett,
Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Planner I Tim Kramer, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Absent: David Booth, Niki Todaro
Guests: Mark Kurowski, Jon Fortes, Amy Fortes
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 from the September 13th, 2022, Historic
Review Board (HRB) meeting. Scott Couchenour noted that he was not at the September 13th HRB meeting although
the minutes indicated he was in attendance. Chairman Roman asked that the minutes be corrected reflect that Scott
Couchenour was not in attendance at the September meeting. Meghan Brinton made a motion to approve the minutes
with this correction. Jessica Scartlett seconded the motion. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Senior Planner Moore provided an overview of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) at 217
Main Street. He noted that that this location is both located within the town’s historic district and listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
The building was constructed in circa 1900 and once was home to Frosty Witherspoon’s Men’s Shop. Most recently
it was home to a restaurant, Local Dish, which was very popular and successful. The current applicant for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, Mark Kurowski, will be opening a new restaurant at this location.
As part of this new endeavor, Mr. Kurowski is requesting permission via the COA application for the following
improvements:
• A new projecting sign
• A new awning
2
• New, exterior paint colors
• Repair of minor masonry issues on the rear elevation of the building
Moore stated that the historic district guidelines have parameters for the implementation of projecting signage and
noted that this information was presented within the staff report. Additionally, he provided the zoning and building
requirements for projecting signage which included the following:
• The maximum signage area for such a sign is 12 square feet
• The sign may extend a maximum of 3’ from the façade
• The bottom of the sign must be at least 8’ above the sidewalk
Moore stated that the projecting sign as submitted meets these standards.
He then explained that the applicant is also proposing to change the exterior paint color including the base layer
and trim. If approved, the base layer would be “Naval” (Sherwin Williams brand name for navy-like color) and
the trim would consist of “Fleur de Sel” (Sherwin Williams brand name for white-like color).
Additionally, Moore stated that the applicant is proposing replace the existing awning. The proposed new awning
would be black and include the restaurant branding on either end. Finally, he noted that the applicant is proposing
minor masonry repair on the exterior of the rear elevation. Moore then stated that staff recommended approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted.
Mark Kurowski, the new owner of the building, then provided additional information on the project. This included
noting that the existing, second story apartment, although currently vacant, would continue to be used as a domicile
in the future.
Jessica Scarlett asked Mr. Kurowski if the existing railing on the rear of the building would remain the same.
Mr. Kurowski indicted that the railing would remain unchanged.
Scott Couchenour asked Mr. Kurowski if the unpainted brick on the northward facing demising wall of his building
would remain unpainted.
Mr. Kurowski stated that this wall had unfortunately been painted by the contractor doing the exterior painting on
the building located at 219 and 221 Main Street.
Planning staff then indicated that the demising wall separating 219 and 221 Main Street was to be left unpainted as
part of the work going on at that location and that this issue would have to be looked at by the town.
Elizabeth Leventis then asked if the exterior doors of the building would also be painted naval.
Amy Fortes, co-owner of the restaurant to be located at 217 Main Street, then stated that the exterior doors would
be painted “Heirloom Red.” She then provided a color sample for the HRB members to look at.
There was then general discussion among HRB members regarding the proposed color of the building.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Roman then entertained a motion on the application.
3
Elizabeth Leventis made a motion that the certificate of appropriateness be approved, including the proposal that
exterior doors be painted “Heirloom Red.”
Megan Brinton seconded the motion.
The HRB then voted 5-0 to approve the certificate of appropriateness application for 217 Main Street.
INFORMATION ONLY
1. Certified Local Government (CLG Evaluation) Report
Chairman Roman presented the recent letter from the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO)
indicating that the town had earned a satisfactory rating from SCSHPO. This means that the Town of Fort Mill is
meeting its responsibilities as a participant in the South Carolina Certified Local Government (CLG) program. The
evaluation period included fiscal years 2016-2017 to 2020-2021.
There being no other business, Chairman Roman adjourned the meeting at 5:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
October 25th, 2022
4
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
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 a request from Kuester Commercial to amend a previously approved
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 219 & 221 Main Street.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On September 14th, 2021, the Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board (HRB) granted a COA for exterior
improvements at 219 & 221 Main Street which included the following items:
(1) Proposed improvements to the façade and roof at 219 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint the
existing brick; Replace upper story windows with clad, wood windows; Removal of full aluminum
storefront and metal siding; Replacement of full aluminum storefront and metal siding with materials
matching the historic façade; An additional door will be placed along the right façade; A new
thermoplastic polyoefin roof (TPO) will be added to the building.
(2) Proposed improvements to the rear elevation at 219 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint the
existing brick; Installation of new, clad, wood windows; Addition of an outdoor patio/deck; Addition
of handrailing as required.
(3) Proposed improvements to the façade and roof at 221 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint the
existing brick; replace upper story windows with clad, wood windows; Restoration of existing metal
panels and steel windows on the storefront; Restoration/reinstallation of awning hood and new
awning; A new thermoplastic polyoefin roof (TPO) will be added to the building.
(4) Proposed improvements to the rear elevation at 221 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint the
existing brick; Installation of new, clad, wood windows; Addition of handrailing as required.
Additionally, as part of this approval, the HRB made the following points conditional to the approved items
above:
• Glass shall not be incorporated into the design of any handrailing at the rear of 219 or 221 Main
Street.
• All handrailing used within this project 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).
5
• The original brick of the demising wall between 219 and 221 Main Street shall remain
unpainted. This demising wall is illustrated within the attached, color rendering.
Thus, based on the highlighted condition above, the original brick comprising the demising wall between 219
and 221 Main Street was not to be painted. Rather, it was to remain unpainted.
Recently, however it came to the attention of the HRB and town staff that this demising wall has been painted in
violation of the approved COA in September 2021. Subsequently, town staff contacted Kuester and informed
them that there were two options at this juncture for remedying the situation: (1) Remove the paint from the
demising wall so that it matches what was approved; or (2) Appear before the Town of Fort Mill HRB to request
a modification to the September 2021 COA. An approval of a modification is the only way the paint may remain
on the demising wall as is. Otherwise, it will have to be removed by the property owner.
To that end, Kuester has submitted a request to modify the COA via the attached letter. Also attached to this staff
report is the original application as presented to the HRB in September 2021. Kuester will attend the HRB meeting
on Tuesday November 8th to make a presentation as part of a request to retain the paint on the demising wall
between 219 and 221 Main Street.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Request from Kuester for modification of the COA (October 2022)
2. Notice of Action letter sent to applicant subsequent to the original HRB approval (October 2021)
3. Original COA application (September 2021)
6
7
Original COA Approval Notification & Application
2021
8
October 7th, 2021
Mr. Sean Gorman
sean@kuestercre.com
RE: 219 & 221 Main Street
Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior improvements
Zoning Case 2021-0660
Mr. Gorman,
On Tuesday September 14th, 2021, the Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board (HRB) met to consider
your application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for proposed exterior improvements at 219 &
221 Main Street which included:
(1) Proposed improvements to the façade and roof at 219 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint
the existing brick; Replace upper story windows with clad, wood windows; Removal of full
aluminum storefront and metal siding; Replacement of full aluminum storefront and metal
siding with materials matching the historic façade; An additional door will be placed along the
right façade; A new thermoplastic polyoefin roof (TPO) will be added to the building.
(2) Proposed improvements to the rear elevation at 219 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint the
existing brick; Installation of new, clad, wood windows; Addition of an outdoor patio/deck;
Addition of handrailing as required.
(3) Proposed improvements to the façade and roof at 221 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint
the existing brick; replace upper story windows with clad, wood windows; Restoration of
existing metal panels and steel windows on the storefront; Restoration/reinstallation of awning
hood and new awning; A new thermoplastic polyoefin roof (TPO) will be added to the building.
(4) Proposed improvements to the rear elevation at 221 Main Street: Refurbish and repaint the
existing brick; Installation of new, clad, wood windows; Addition of handrailing as required.
As detailed in the minutes of this meeting, the HRB approved the COA for the above, exterior
improvements. This approval is based upon on the above project description, the attached drawings as
submitted, along with the following conditions set by the HRB:
• Glass shall not be incorporated into the design of any handrailing at the rear of 219 or 221
Main Street.
• All handrailing used within this project 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).
• The original brick of the demising wall between 219 and 221 Main Street shall remain
unpainted. This demising wall is illustrated within the attached, color rendering.
9
Additionally, to proceed with the façade improvement grant application for these exterior improvements,
we will need you to submit three (3) detailed cost estimates/bids for the proposed enhancements. The façade
improvement grant application is attached.
Please note that approval by the HRB for this COA does not preclude the requirement for obtaining the
necessary building permits from the Town of Fort Mill. Additionally, a Town of Fort Mill business license
will need to be obtained by any contractor performing work on this project. For questions about building
permits and business licenses, please contact Parrish Dunn, Town of Fort Mill Development Coordinator,
at 803-835-2337.
If you have any questions or comments about the contents of this letter, please contact me at (803) 835-
1162, or via email at amoore@fortmillsc.gov. We look forward to continued collaboration with Kuester
Sincerely,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments
Ecc: shaw@kuestercre.com
developmentcenter@fortmillsc.gov
10
11
12
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.
13
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
14
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.
15
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
16
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
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
%XISTING&ACADE
219 & 221 Main St.
24
%XISTING&ACADE
219 Main St.
25
%XISTING2EARº%LEVATION
219 Main St.
26
%XISTING2EAR%LEVATION
219 Main St.
27
%XISTINGFrontFacade
221 Main St.
28
•
%XISTING %LEVATION 219
& 221 Main St.
29
%XISTINGRear%LEVATION
221 Main St.
30
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.