Historic Review Board
Regular MeetingFort Mill, SC · December 13, 2022
Minutes
MINUTES
TOWN OF FORT MILL
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
December 13th, 2022
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Vice Chairwoman Megan Brinton, Scott Couchenour David Booth,
Elizabeth Leventis, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Absent: Jessica Scarlett, Nikki Todaro
Guests: Mike Kachin, James Stacy, Kevin Higgins, Tom Duzan (via teams).
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 special meeting of November 29th,
2022, Historic Review Board (HRB) meeting. David Booth made a motion to approve the minutes. Elizabeth
Leventis seconded the motion. The minutes were then approved by a vote of 5-0.
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ONLY
1. Discussion of Proposed Exterior Modifications at 232 Main Street & 102 Tom Hall Street
Mike Kachin, a commercial real estate broker with Ardor Commercial Advisors, gave a general overview of a
proposal for exterior modifications at 232 Main Street and 102 Tom Hall Street. He noted with the schematic
drawings that the proposal pushes for a project which brings vibrant life to the downtown. The goal would be to
have some sort of restaurant there, maybe a brewery, something real life to that portion of downtown.
Mr. Kachin then stated that the idea is to shut that off the existing alley adjacent to 232 Main Street and to the left
of it you create a safe walkway to access the rear parking lot. We would be creating 16 to 17 parking spaces back
there the maximum what we can do with the space and then have easy safe access up to the front Main Street for
everybody's parking there so that's the idea of having that that alleyway down to the side and obviously having
some sort of access cut into the side of building with some maybe garage doors and some additional windows.
At 102 Tom Hall Street, the current warehouse building, the plan would be to create a use with an outdoor patio
fronting on the street. At this time, Mr. Kachin indicated that they were proposing perhaps one tenant for the
warehouse space at 4,000 square feet, or possibly be split up into two, 2,000 square foot spaces. The rendering as
presented to the HRB showed only one tenant within the warehouse building.
Mr. Kachin indicated that this was their vision and that they would love to hear feedback and thoughts from the
HRB.
David Booth stated that it was a very modern design with and was reminiscent of design in South End in Charlotte.
Mr. Booth indicated that he wanted to understand further the relation of the design to the historic district.
Elizabeth Leventis noted that she had done a lot of background work in preparation for the discussion. She noted
that there was a lot to love about the design, but that it was also important to make sure that a pedestrian friendly
vibe could be brought to downtown while still adhering to the historic district guidelines.
Ms. Leventis then presented her findings. First, she stated that if available, historical survey information should be
consulted to determine the building’s age, style, and key character defining features. Ms. Leventis asked Mr. Kachin
if any such information was available.
Kevin Higgins, the property owner, responded that 232 Main Street was the last building constructed on Main Street
and that it was completed in the late 1940s and that it was originally a grocery store. Mr. Higgins stated that
Kimbrell’s took over the building in the late 1950s and that it has essentially looked the same since its completion.
Mr. Higgins then stated that the rooftop signage was placed within the new design as homage the current Kimbrell’s
signage on the building. The same concept is seen with the support poles incorporated into the new design as there
are now support poles for the metal awning overhanging a portion of the sidewalk along the façade of the building.
The new façade’s black color was chosen rather than the existing red to perhaps avoid an overbearing design impact
along Main Street.
Ms. Leventis then indicated that the overall project could be broken down into three elements consisting of the
Kimbrell’s building, the pedestrian walkway, and the warehouse. She stated that the most important from a historical
perspective is the Kimbrell’s building and that it would be desirable for the design of the Kimbrell’s building to be
in harmony with the town’s historic district guidelines.
Thus, Ms. Leventis went on to describe, per the town’s historic district guidelines, the parameters for planning a
preservation project. First, there is the question of why the building is significant? This step, she noted, helps
determine to what degree the property should be preserved as it is, or where there may be opportunities for
compatible alterations to occur.
The second step, Ms. Leventis noted, is to gauge the integrity, condition, and the character defining features which
contribute to the overall significance of the building. A building with historic integrity has a sufficient percentage
of character-defining features, and key features remain intact. These key elements allow a building to be recognized
as a product of its time She indicated that 232 Main Street has been there throughout her memory, and though it is
a somewhat nondescript structure, it has nonetheless become part of the fabric of the Fort Mill downtown historic
district. Ms. Leventis indicated that the current utilitarian design of 232 Main Street remains within the newly
presented schematic drawings under discussion.
Ms. Leventis stated that in looking at the integrity of this building that it could be categorized as a vernacular style.
The late 1940s era of this building represents vernacular architecture in that the construction methods and materials
met the needs of the grocery store use.
Ms. Leventis then discussed the aspect of locating façade treatments in planning a project strategy. This, she noted,
will indicate where on the structure that the HRB will make preservation a priority, along with where preservation
is preferred, but maybe not as much of a priority.
Ms. Leventis then highlighted the importance of establishments such as coffee shops, restaurants, specialty retail
shops, and shops that retail local products in forming active uses which enhance the pedestrian nature of downtown.
Such uses are encouraged at the storefront level along Main Street. She indicated that these types of uses would be
a nod toward the importance of the pedestrian walkway as designed within the project.
Planning Director Penelope Karagounis then interjected that the town is currently working on a trail master plan.
Additionally, she noted that one of the things that caught her attention with the schematic drawings as presented is
the sidewalk along Main Street. She noted that it appears to have been narrowed down from the current condition.
Thus, she suggested that the design team look at not diminishing the current width of the sidewalk.
Megan Brinton asked if the project would even be allowed to encroach into the current sidewalk area.
Ms. Karagounis responded that she would need to look at this.
Mr. Booth concurred with Ms. Brinton’s concern regarding the sidewalk, noting that narrowing it would not be
conducive to a pedestrian environment.
Ms. Karagounis asked Tom Duzan, the project architect, if he could look at this issue.
Mr. Duzan responded that they did review the sidewalk width, and that while the drawing may be bit deceptive,
they could look at this again.
Ms. Karagounis then stated to Mr. Duzan that a complete site plan would be required as well. This would allow for
dimensions to be properly evaluated, along with the proposed ingress/egress points.
Mr. Duzan replied that with the current plan iteration they were attempting to address the poor condition that exists
with the driveways. Mr. Duzan noted that closing off vehicular access to the alley will make pedestrian conditions
safer.
Mr. Booth then noted that it would be important to determine if a fire truck could properly navigate the site if the
alley is closing.
Chairman Roman stated that it was his understanding that fire trucks do not currently navigate the alley, but that
they instead traverse to the rear of the buildings.
Senior Planner Moore stated that it would be helpful if the site plan would indicate that a fire truck could properly
traverse the alley from Tom Hall to Confederate Street.
Ms. Karagounis stated that staff is amenable to the alley being closed and that it would be great if a historical
narrative could be worked into the design of this alley. This would mesh with the town’s desire to be more pedestrian
friendly.
Mr. Higgins then solicited input from the board on how his group might make the project more historically
significant.
Ms. Leventis stated that, while Section 3.29 of the historic district design guidelines indicates that adding a new
window opening is inappropriate, a conversation could be had on this because the location in question is a secondary
wall. However, having the brick remain intact would need to be discussed.
Regarding historic interpretation, Ms. Leventis stated that people like to read things. So, if there are some nods to
history here, along the wall, then it would be very appropriate.
Chairman Roman stated that to Ms. Leventis’ point, he has seen many communities that incorporate placards,
illustrations, vintage photos, etc., into the design so that pedestrians can take in historic information.
Mr. Higgins indicated that he has lots of historical photos of when the building was used as a grocery store.
Ms. Leventis asked Mr. Higgins if he know if the grocery store had windows on the side.
Mr. Higgins stated that the grocery store did not have windows on the side. He went on to describe how they worked
on determining to close the alley while still allowing the tenant to have access to this space. So, they wanted to keep
it open and were forced to create some smaller openings that mirrored the front windows in size and shape. Instead
of going with garage doors, which really don’t fit with downtown, they ended up going with more expensive doors
that would fold open and look like the front doors.
Ms. Leventis noted that she was happy to see this. She also stated that she appreciated Mr. Higgins coming in for
the discussion. This was good because areas of concern could be pointed our early in the process.
Mr. Higgins then noted that the railing was like that at Hobo’s restaurant. All the posts are exactly like they are
because the building as is does not have a large amount of appeal. They felt the best way to overcome this was to
set the wall back into the building, so that the seating area and the people essentially become the feature.
Ms. Leventis stated that using old photographs from the archives and implementing placards might be worth the
conversation.
Ms. Karagounis noted that Belmont, NC has an instance of a brick wall with 1940s pictures of downtown. These
pictures have been placed on the respective wall as a vinyl application.
Senior Planner Moore stated that painting, or covering, the brick was not desirable and that this would not be
consistent with previous HRB cases.
Ms. Leventis noted that the portion of the brick where the painted Kimbrell’s sign was could indeed be painted over
per the historic district guidelines.
Mr. Duzan interjected that the mural wall as shown within the drawings could become a history wall. He also noted
that existing firewalls may prevent windows. This is perhaps why windows were not initially included within this
wall.
Mr. Booth noted that this was a good point. He then stated that the team should be aware that the canopy is being
extended. This would cause more of the building to be in shadow and create the need for additional light. If windows
are possible on the side of the building, then this would help with lighting.
Chairman Roman then stated that there should be consistency in how previous HRB cases have been handled,
regarding the painting and covering of brick. But he also noted that one of the ways this could be mitigated is with
a placard which would not actually be flush against the wall. This way it would not take away from the historic
nature of the brick.
Ms. Brinton stated that this might only be visible to patrons of the restaurant rather than pedestrians.
Mr. Higgins stated that such signage could possibly be placed on the posts for better visibility.
Chairman Roman stated that there were several different places that the signage might be placed, that that it was a
great opportunity to tell the story of the building. He then stated that thriving main street districts are typically one
quarter mile distance from the center. With the proposal for the former Kimbrell’s building, we are getting closer
to this threshold. He also noted the rule of ten as related to this. This is when you have then things for pedestrians
to interact with in a downtown area. Such items could include water features, benches, public art, coffee shops, etc.
When people have things to interact with in a downtown area, they loiter and spend money.
Chairman Roman also noted that the HRB is recognized by the Department of Interior and the South Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office to encourage development due to the unique elements of downtown. The proposal for
the Kimbrell’s building is exactly the type of potential project that an HRB can help to facilitate so that economic
development is furthered.
Chairman Roman then stated that he was glad that Ms. Leventis brought up the points she did because the historic
district standards give a good departure point for design. He noted that the HRB wanted Mr. Higgins’s group to be
successful. And, while the HRB could not recommend specific tenants for this project, they could indicate their
general support for those which would generate increased pedestrian circulation.
Mr. Kachin then stated that the building does have a basement and that it is anticipated that they would try and
secure uses that would increase pedestrian activity downtown. He noted, though, that at some point parking could
become an issue. They will include as many parking spaces on this site as they can.
Chairman Roman responded that parking is always going to be an issue, but that Fort Mill is at an advantage over
many communities in the southeast. This is because in Fort Mill, you generally only must walk one-block after
parking. In other localities, one must park and then walk 7-8 blocks to reach a given destination.
Mr. Brinton then asked where the proposed parking on site would be.
Mr. Kachin responded that most of the parking would be placed behind 102 Tom Hall Street.
Ms. Leventis then asked about the plan for the warehouse at 102 Tom Hall Street.
Mr. Kachin stated that they would need to figure out the parking but that the plan was to remove the existing shell
on the building at 102 Tom Hall Street and then place a new exterior on it.
Ms. Leventis stated that this would be an upgrade.
Mr. Higgins stated that walkability would also be improved.
Mr. Kachin then identified areas of the plan which would be used as a gathering space. This space would be located
between the existing warehouse and Tom Hall Street.
Mr. Couchenour asked if the back alley was owned by Mr. Higgins and if they would be leaving it open.
Mr. Kachin confirmed that the alley is owned by Mr. Higgins and that it would remain open, although the geometry
of how this would work would need to be determined. It could be one-way from Tom Hall Street toward Confederate
Street with angled parking.
Ms. Karagounis reiterated that it was important that a site plan be submitted.
Mr. Booth concurred with this so that it could be determined if the site works from a traffic and pedestrian flow
standpoint.
Ms. Karagounis stated that branding would be important for parking locations.
Mr. Higgins asked if the HRB is okay with the proposed patio.
Ms. Karagounis responded that it might be beneficial if the fence is removed from the front patio.
Mr. Higgins then noted that the stools were included in the drawing to encourage people to sit and be on Main
Street. He indicated that he wanted to make the space so that you did not have to go into the restaurant to use the
outdoor space.
Ms. Leventis responded that with the front setback it was appropriate to remember that there needed to be enough
room for pedestrian flow. She used the example of people with baby carriages as an instance where there might not
be enough room with the railing for pedestrians to properly navigate this area.
Mr. Kachin responded that they would look at this.
Senior Planner Moore then noted that roof signage would not be allowed.
Mr. Duzan responded that he didn’t believe that roof signage was an architectural feature that had to be kept. He
stated that the roof signage could be shifted out to another location very easily.
Mr. Booth suggested that they might include a fin within the new design, such as the veterinarian building next door
contains, along with the Bossy Beualah’s building on North White Street.
Senior Planner Moore stated that the fins on the buildings mentioned by Mr. Booth allowed signage at these
locations to be considered wall signage rather than roof signage.
Mr. Higgins stated that he would appreciate it if the HRB could make an exception and allow him to do roof signage
because this is the only character that the building has, that being the old school letters.
Mr. Booth responded that he would need to go to the board of zoning appeals to request this.
Ms. Karagounis stated that town council could be asked if a text amendment could be initiated.
Mr. Duzan then asked if the town would be opposed to increasing the height of the canopy line and then tucking
the signage underneath the canopy. He then indicated that he would actually prefer for the signage to be down at
the street level and be scaled back a bit. The signage could then be incorporated in a manner that would not be so
prominent. He stated that he was very aware of the desire not to have signage on the roof, which would be a
departure from the rest of downtown.
There was then general discussion among the HRB members about how the signage might be facilitated and still
be within the parameters of the ordinance.
Mr. Duzan stated that the existing parapet looks to have been rebuilt. They would like to match what the original
heights were in this regard. This might help with signage.
Mr. Higgins then asked if the HRB liked the front privacy screen as proposed on the front of the building.
The HRB concurred that they were amenable to this.
Mr. Higgins asked if the HRB liked the pedestrian walk.
The HRB indicated that they did but that they wanted to see a site plan.
Senior Planner Moore then asked about the storage containers on site.
Mr. Higgins indicated that these are temporary and will not be permanently located outside.
Senior Planner Moore then asked Mr. Higgins and his team if they would be applying for Bailey Bill tax credits
along with a façade improvement grant.
Mr. Higgins responded that they would be applying for these on both buildings.
Mr. Booth stated that a site analysis would be needed.
Mr. Duzan responded that they will look at stretching out the sidewalks as much as possible so that pedestrian areas
are maximized. Additionally, Mr. Duzan asked if there was an initiative or desire by the town to incorporate trees
in this area.
Senior Planner Moore responded that all Main Street was within the SCDOT right of way and that they may not
desire for additional street trees to be placed here.
Mr. Duzan responded that he was referring to the area along the potential pedestrian way between the Kimbrell’s
building and the veterinarian building.
Ms. Karagounis indicated that this could be a possibility.
Mr. Higgins then asked the HRB members if they liked the drawing on the side of the warehouse building.
Ms. Leventis stated that it would be great to incorporate a local artist who uses historic colors and no neon. She
used Kingsley as an example.
Chairman Roman noted that art would be encouraged, but that the colors mattered.
Mr. Higgins asked the HRB if they would be opposed to a cigar and whiskey blues bar at this location.
The HRB indicated that they have no control over this.
Mr. Higgins then stated that they were trying to follow the town’s 2040 plan and that this is what had attracted him
to this location.
Mr. Booth then noted that while growing food is the concept, do they actually have a relationship with an entity
such as a restaurant or venue.
Mr. Higgins responded that the front, right area of the 232 Main Street building would be where something like this
takes place. They would grow food within the building and then teach others how to do this. A vegan restaurant
would also be at this location.
Chairman Roman then stated that everything that the board has heard is really encouraging. He indicated that he
believed this potential project has been well received by the HRB and noted that they really appreciated Mr. Higgins
and his team coming to present the discussion information.
Mr. Kachin thanked Chairman Roman and the HRB for their discussion comments and their time.
2. Adoption of the 2023 Meeting Calendar
Planning Director Karagounis presented the proposed HRB meeting dates for 2023. She noted that the HRB
meetings will continue to be scheduled for the 2nd Tuesday of each month at 4:30 PM. Additionally, Ms. Karagounis
asked that HRB members let staff know as soon as possible upon receiving meeting agendas if they are not able to
attend a meeting so that we can try to ensure that we always have a quorum available. Ms. Karagounis stated that it
is of course preferable to have seven members at every meeting to avoid problems in the instance of a tied vote.
Ms. Karagounis then wished the HRB members happy holidays and thanked them for their service and the expertise
that they render.
There being no other business, Chairman Roman adjourned the meeting at 5:56 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
January 30th, 2023
Agenda
HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD
112 Confederate Street
December 13th, 2022
4:30 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. HRB Meeting: November 29th, 2022 [Pages 2 - 9]
INFORMATION / DISCUSSION
1. Preliminary Review/Discussion [Applicant’s Presentation]
Applicant Name: Mike Kachin
Owner Name: Growing Main, LLC
Property Address: 232 Main Street & 102 Tom Hall Street
Purpose: For discussion only
Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District
LC, Local Commercial District
2. Adoption of 2022 Meeting Calendar [Page 10]
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, WSOC, 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
SPECIAL MEETING
November 29th, 2022
112 Confederate Street
4:30 PM
Present: Chairman Louis Roman, Scott Couchenour David Booth, Elizabeth Leventis, Jessica Scarlett,
Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore
Absent: Vice Chairwoman Megan Brinton, Nikki Todaro
Guests: Brian Rollar, Shaw Kuester, Chris Wolfe, Douglas Roman
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 November 8th, 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 5-0.
OLD 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. He stated that at the previous HRB meeting on November 8th, this request included
the following information:
This COA as approved on September 14th, 2021, required that the demising wall between 219 and 221 Main Street
to remain unpainted.
As noted at the November 8th meeting, during the exterior refurbishment of 219 and 221 Main Street, the demising
wall was painted. After hearing the facts of the case at the November 8th meeting, the HRB ultimately determined
the following:
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
2
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.
Moore then indicated that information from both the painting and roof contractors was included within the HRB
packet. The first letter is from Charlotte Paint Company, the painting contractor. Charlotte Paint indicates that the
paint can be removed from the demising wall. However, Charlotte Paint also states that removing the paint will be
risky in that damage to the underlying brick and mortar may result. The second letter is from Johnson’s Roofing
Service. This contractor indicates that the TPO wall flashings can be removed. However, this contractor also
indicates that this process could have negative effects on the underlying brick.
Chairman Roman then recognized Shaw Kuester the applicant and property owner and provided him with an
opportunity to address the HRB.
Mr. Kuester noted again that it was not the intent of Kuester Real Estate to cover any portion of this demising wall
as much time, effort, and expense had gone into this project. They were in fact not aware that the demising wall had
been covered. Once the town informed them of this they went back and talked with the roofer and the painter.
Mr. Kuester then stated that they now want to do what they need to so that the demising wall issue is resolved. At
the same time, he indicated that they do not want to damage the building as a result of correcting this mistake. Mr.
Kuester then noted that it is imperative that the building be waterproof. It was his understanding that this was the
reason the roofing contractor added the TPO to the demising wall.
As to the painting of the demising wall, Mr. Kuester stated similarly that he wanted the situation corrected but also
did not want to damage the brick of the demising wall. He noted that this portion of the building was constructed in
1898. He then indicated that the situation may be better left as it is. However, he then stated that they would do
what they needed to do per the board’s decision.
Chairman Roman then asked Mr. Kuester if there was a miscommunication on the part of the contractors.
Mr. Kuester responded that he believed that the contractors simply thought the entirety of the demising wall was to
be painted because the rear of the building was being painted green.
Chairman Roman stated that the adjacent property owner at 217 Main Street was also surprised that his wall was
painted and covered with the TPO roofing during this process.
Mr. Kuester agreed and noted that they had spoken to the property owner of 217 Main Street.
David Booth then asked Mr. Kuester if there was any documentation provided for work done above and beyond the
approved plan.
3
Brian Rollar responded that there was no change order, but rather it was just a miss.
Mr. Booth then asked Mr. Rollar why he was not on-site supervising the project.
Mr. Rollar indicated that he has been on-site pretty much every week at least two times a week. He stated that the
did not realize that this wall was not to be painted. He also noted that he did not instruct anyone to paint the wall as
the question was never raised.
Mr. Booth then asked if a field verification was done by the architect of the existing condition and then also after
the TPO was installed with the understanding that there was variation in the plan and what was installed.
Mr. Rollar responded that there were multiple conversations and that the architect was asked to come out and look
at the demising wall after the installation. He then stated that there was a varying opinion between the architect and
the general contractor on where the line started and stopped regarding covering of the demising wall. Nonetheless,
he noted that he and Mr. Kuester were in attendance to work with the HRB on the issue. Mr. Rollar then stated that
by coming back to the HRB and perhaps taking a less invasive approach on the demising wall than sandblasting,
e.g., silt blasting, the structural integrity of the wall may still be affected.
Mr. Booth stated that what he read in the report indicated that the painting and roofing contractors did indicate that
removal of paint and roofing from the demising wall may damage the brick. However, there was no specific
indication from the contractors on the exact method or alternative solution that might be used. Rather, the painting
and roofing contractors only stated within their respective reports that the brick might be damaged.
Mr. Rollar responded that what they did in this instance was to get the opinions from these contractors per the
November 8th HRB meeting and then looked at those opinions and then spoke with Stuart Simon, of the general
contractor Simon & Watson Construction as well as the project architect. From this it was determined that they
would then present the information to the HRB and open up the discussion again based on the opinions from the
painting and roofing contractors. Mr. Rollar stated that within these conversations that this team had, chemical
removal was not entertained while silt blasting was looked at as an option. He then noted that while silt blasting
was less abrasive than sand blasting, it was still abrasive.
Mr. Rollar then stated that if the HRB had a continued desire to have the paint removed from the demising wall
they might look at doing the silt blasting on a small area of the wall to see how it affected the brick. However, Mr.
Rollar then stated that the demising wall had a good deal of variation because it was an older wall. Thus, there could
be some spots that work out well and other sections that do not.
Jessica Scarlett then asked Mr. Rollar if the contractors who presented the information for this meeting were those
who performed work on this project.
Mr. Rollar responded that yes, these contractors were the respective painting and roofing contractors for this project,
working under the license of Simon and Watson Construction.
Ms. Scarlett then asked if either of them have experience working with silt blasting on historical structures.
Mr. Rollar stated that he did not know the answer to this question but that he could find out.
4
Chairman Roman stated that this would be important information to obtain. He then noted that he was at a loss as
to why this information was not provided for this meeting. He then asked Senior Planner Moore what the timeline
was for the approval on the 219 & 221 Main Street project.
Senior Planner Moore responded that this project was originally approved in September 2021.
Chairman Roman then noted that the Town of Fort Mill had been part of the State of South Carolina certified local
government (CLG) program for over a decade. Thus, he stated that while the HRB did not want to be overbearing,
it was important to expect that things within the historic district be done a certain way. The town has expended a
lot of resources to make sure that the HRB should be doing what it’s supposed to be doing.
Chairman Roman then commended Kuester for their tremendous work in the community. However, he personally
believed that there must be a point and time when something happens it must impact other things. He noted that
this instance of a project not being fully constructed to plan could possibly impact the Bailey Bill. Thus, the HRB
would have to figure out what they are to do with this. While the current discussion involving the demising wall
involves only a small portion of the overall project, Chairman Roman noted that if the current applicant is allowed
to retain what was not built per the approved plan, then it may very well set a bad precedent of future projects
coming forward and requesting that the HRB forgive them as well.
Chairman Roman then stated that HRB certainly wanted qualified contractors to address the very sensitive demising
wall and what the result of paint and TPO removal from the brick and mortar would in fact be. He questioned why
the applicant did not bring in qualified contractors to discuss this issue.
Mr. Rollar responded that these contractors may in fact be very qualified, but that he will have to do further
investigation on this and that he could just not say with certainty at this time.
Scott Couchenour then noted that in fact there were two painted walls, one being the demising wall on the 219 &
221 Main Street project, and the other being the demising wall between 219 and 217 Main Street which was also
painted and covered with painting and TPO roofing. Mr. Couchenour wanted to be sure that the owner of 217 Main
Street was thus kept in the loop about what was going on.
Mr. Kuester concurred with this sentiment.
Chairman Roman then asked Senior Planner Moore if staff had a recommendation for the board on the matter at
hand.
Mr. Moore responded that staff did not make a recommendation but that the applicant provide the information as
requested on November 8th at the previous HRB meeting.
Chairman Roman then asked Senior Planner Moore to provide information on how a decision on the covering of
the demising wall could potentially impact the status of the Bailey Bill as related to this project.
First, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis noted that a certificate of appropriateness, the Bailey Bill, and the
façade improvement grant were each part of the project at 219 & 221 Main Street.
Mr. Moore then briefly explained the Bailey Bill and how it is related to this project. He noted that this project was
granted preliminary Bailey Bill approval in September 2021. This meant that the project must be completed by
September 2023 in order to receive final Bailey Bill approval from the HRB. And, he noted, if that portion of the
5
demising wall were granted approval to remain covered with paint and the TPO roof, it would be indicated within
the final approval proceedings that this area was not constructed to plan.
Chairman Roman then asked Senior Planner Moore if the HRB had any influence on the façade improvement grant.
Mr. Moore stated that the façade improvement grant for 219 & 221 Main Street was currently being processed. He
noted that the applicant had installed the wood clad windows and that the town had inspected the property and found
it to be in conformance with what was approved.
Chairman Roman asked if there were any other questions from the HRB.
Elizabeth Leventis stated that she had no questions but indicated that it was too early to consider granting an
amendment to the previously approved certificate of appropriateness without exploring all options available for
remediating the situation with the demising wall. This would include the applicant gleaning the opinions of
specialists with experience with this type of brick and bringing the results back to the HRB. She stated that this
would take more time, but allow the HRB to properly explore the options before approving yes or no.
Planning Director Karagounis then stated that the next scheduled HRB meeting would be Tuesday December 13th.
Chairman Roman stated that he didn’t know if the applicant would be able to obtain all of the information needed
due to the holiday season.
Mr. Kuester said that they would do their best to address the HRB requests. He indicated that Charlotte Paint was a
large company. Regarding the roof, he stated that he wanted to be more careful with because the original roof was
in horrible condition and as the letter from Johnson’s Roofing Services indicated, they can remove the TPO, but at
that point the integrity of the building is going to be at stake. Mr. Kuester noted that much of the work that they
undertook on the building refurbishment involved water damage. Thus, roof integrity would be critical moving
forward.
With this, Mr. Kuester requested forbearance on the demising wall issue regarding the TPO flashing. He asked the
HRB to allow them to keep the TPO as is since the roof was in such bad shape to begin with.
Planning Director Karagounis then asked the HRB to keep in mind that any motion made could be split up, with
the result that part of the request could be approved and part of the request could be continued.
Mr. Couchenour stated that he would like to see that regarding the demising wall, he would like to see the demising
wall for 217 Main Street be broken out separately since there was a different property owner involved for that
particular property.
Senior Planner Moore stated that the demising wall at 217 Main Street was not being considered under the current
request and was not on the agenda. He indicated that it was his understanding that Kuester was dealing with the
owner of 217 Main Street on their own, apart from the current HRB proceedings.
Mr. Kuester then stated that they have a good relationship with the owner of 217 Main Street and that he had told
the proprietor there that whatever he wanted Kuester to do that they would do it.
Mr. Couchenour then stated that as far as the TPO was concerned, he could make a motion to allow that to remain
since it was his understanding that it would be very difficult to remove without causing considerable damage.
6
Conversely, he started that he would also be fine if the HRB decided to request additional information on its
removal. Generally, he indicated that he believed it may be the right thing to do to leave the TPO>
Mr. Booth stated that he also believed it may be the right thing to do, however he also stated that it was a failure on
the part of the architect to bring it to the attention of HRB knowing full well what the condition of the brick was.
He indicated that a conversation should have been had which considered the delicate nature of the historic brick on
the demising wall. This was a failure of the architect to understand the two conditions of the brick and roofing
coming together. None of this was presented to HRB or indicated on the plan. Thus, he stated that before the HRB
granted approval on the TPO, they needed to review and make sure everything was understood.
Chairman Roman agreed and noted that he personally had experience on Main Street with the property he owned.
Here he was considering touching up the TPO membrane. With this, he brought in someone to look at the structural
integrity of the wall in the attic and determine if something else needed to be done before applying the roofing
membrane. This was done prior to him considering applying for a certificate of appropriateness for any work to be
done. Thus, Chairman Roman noted that it was hard for him to understand why such details were not undertaken at
219 & 221 Main Street.
Chairman Roman then stated that he personally did not believe that the board had enough information to obtain any
motions at this time. However, he would of course allow the board to make any decision they deemed appropriate.
Mr. Couchenour then stated that he would likely make a motion to defer, however he indicated that he believed the
board needed some direction on what information they should ask to be presented at the next meeting.
Senior Planner Moore then stated that to Mr. Couchenour’s earlier point regarding 217 Main Street, the HRB could
consider this at the next HRB meeting.
Chairman Roman concurred with this idea.
Mr. Couchenour agreed, but also noted that with that, all of the needed direction on what the applicant needed to
do should be included as well.
Chairman Roman then asked Mr. Kuester if it was clear on what needed to be done.
Mr. Kuester then stated that yes, but it was a frustrating situation because they did not want this to happen. He noted
that he understood the position of the HRB.
Chairman Roman then noted that while the demising wall issue was a small part of the overall project, but that the
HRB had a process which they were very sensitive to. Thus, it was this process that the applicant was receiving
feedback on in conjunction with the issues that were created on site.
Mr. Kuester then stated that he appreciated the HRB showing up tonight and being in attendance for an extra
meeting.
Mr. Couchenour then asked Mr. Couchenour if the TPO information requested would be provided by the architect
and the roofing contractor and the manufacturer.
Mr. Booth started that it would be the architect, roofing contractor, and the manufacturer.
Mr. Couchenour then asked who would be responsible for providing the information on the paint.
7
Mr. Rollar stated that he would be defining the types of paint removal available and what that means and what kind
of experience the contractor has in this method.
Chairman Roman asked Mr. Rollar to also include information on any chemical processes which may be available.
Mr. Couchenour then asked if they needed a brick mason to be involved in providing information as well.
Ms. Scarlett then stated that she thought it would be reasonable that if the painting contractor did not have previous
experience with this type of situation that there should be an effort made to find a company that does have the
experience necessary to provide an opinion on how best to handle this situation.
Mr. Couchenour then stated that from his experience Charlotte Paint was a very reputable company and that it was
his opinion that they could provide the information needed.
Mr. Kuester stated that he would find out.
Chairman Roman then recognized Douglas Roman who attended the meeting.
Mr. Roman stated that if the wall is old and it is not waterproof, and you seal it with paint or some other covering
this can damage the wall. So, if you paint the wall, then you must do it with a natural paint which means it has the
chemistry of the walls that allows breathability. And as far as old walls are concerned, it is the mortar which is the
static of the wall. This can be grouted out and re-plastered with lime, sand, and water. It is very important that the
wall is breathing. If it is sealed on one side, it must breathe from the other side.
Chairman Roman then indicated that Douglas Roman is his brother and that he owns a professional painting
company in Germany.
Mr. Couchenour thanked Chairman Roman for allowing Mr. Roman to speak. Mr. Couchenour then indicated he
was going to make a motion and noted that he was open to all friendly amendments. Mr. Couchenour moved that
for item number one, the TPO roofing membrane, that information be received from the manufacturer, the architect,
and the contractor of the options to have the demising wall reflect the approved plan from September 14th, 2021.
Mr. Booth added that there should also be included any precedent that the contractor or architect has in removing
this material, or if the manufacturer has precedent in removing this material, from brick and mortar of this type.
Mr. Couchenour then moved that for item number two, which involved the removal of the paint, that more detailed
information be received from the architect, the painting contractor, on the options available to have the demising
wall reflect the approved plan from September 14th, 2021. This would include any precedent that the contractor or
architect has in removing such paint, or if the paint manufacturer has precedent in removing this paint, from brick
or mortar of this type. This would include silt blasting, chemical removal, or other options that they have. Such
options would include the least invasive industry methods available. Additionally, this portion of the motion
requires that information be received from a masonry company qualified to repair the underlying historical brick
after removal of the paint.
Thirdly, Mr. Couchenour moved that the same information as noted above for the TPO roofing membrane and paint,
be provided for the demising wall at 217 Main Street. Additionally, the owner of 217 Main Street shall be involved
and be present at the respective HRB meeting to ensure the board that he is agreeable to this process.
8
A decision on the demising wall by the HRB will be deferred until such time the applicant has this required
information.
Ms. Leventis seconded the motion.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Roman asked all those in favor of the motion to signify by saying aye.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Chairman Roman then noted that the HRB appreciated the diligence of Mr. Kuester in handling this situation.
Additionally, Chairman Roman indicated that they certainly did not want to in any way discourage this type of
development within the town’s historic district on Main Street and that they were very appreciative of the efforts
that Kuester Real Estate had undertaken there.
There being no other business, Chairman Roman adjourned the meeting at 5:14 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex J. Moore, AICP
Senior Planner
December 6th, 2022
9
Board & Commission Meeting Dates
2023
2nd Tuesday - 4:30 PM 3rd Monday - 6:00 PM 3rd Tuesday - 6:00 PM
Month Historic Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals Planning Commission
January 01/10/23 01/16/23 01/17/23
February 02/14/23 02/20/23 02/21/23
March 03/14/23 03/20/23 03/21/23
April 04/11/23 04/17/23 04/18/23
May 05/09/23 05/15/23 05/16/23
June 06/13/23 06/19/23 06/20/23
July 07/11/23 07/17/23 07/18/23
August 08/08/23 08/21/23 08/15/23
September 09/12/23 09/18/23 09/19/23
October 10/10/23 10/16/23 10/17/23
November 11/14/23 11/20/23 11/21/23
December 12/12/23 12/18/23 12/19/23
Application Deadline 3 Weeks Before Meeting Date 3 Weeks Before Meeting Date 3 Weeks Before Meeting Date
All meetings will take place in Fort Mill Town Council Chambers, 112 Confederate Street, Fort Mill, SC 29715.
Meeting agendas will be posted to the town's website (www.fortmillsc.gov) no later than the Friday before each meeting.
For more information, or to be added to the Town of Fort Mill's agenda distribution list, please contact:
Penelope G. Karagounis (Planning Director) at 803-835-1160 or pkaragounis@fortmillsc.gov
* Date may be rescheduled due to Town offices being closed for a holiday. Tentative Date 1/19/2022
10
Get email alerts for Fort Mill
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.