Historic Review Board

HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD 112 Confederate Street September 12th, 2023 4:30 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. HRB Meeting: July 11th, 2023 [Pages 2 – 7] NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Final Bailey Bill Certification [Pages 8 – 63] Applicant Name: Kuester Commercial Owner Name: 219-221 Main Street, LLC Property Address: 219-221 Main Street Purpose: The applicant has requested final Bailey Bill certification Property information: Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District LC, Local Commercial Zoning District 2. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) [Pages 64-71] Applicant Name: What’s Up Buttercup Owner Name: Michael W. Chase Property Address: 231 Main Street Purpose: The applicant has requested approval for window signage 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, 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 July 11th, 2023 112 Confederate Street 4:30 PM Present: Chairwoman Megan Brinton, Vice Chairman David Booth, Scott Couchenour, Hynek Lettang, Elizabeth Leventis, Joanne Walker, Planning Director Penelope Karagounis, Senior Planner Alex Moore Absent: Jessica Scarlett Guests: Shaw Kuester, James Maynard CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Megan Brinton called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairwoman Megan Brinton entertained a motion to approve the minutes from the June 13th, 2023, HRB meeting. Vice chairman David Booth made a motion to approve the minutes. Joanne Walker seconded the motion. Then, by a vote of 6-0, the minutes for the June 11th, 2023, HRB meeting were approved. OLD BUSINESS 1. Request to modify a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) The first item on the agenda included a request to modify a certificate of appropriateness (COA) at 219 & 221 Main Street. The applicant, Kuester Commercial, was scheduled to be on the agenda for the June HRB meeting. However, they decided to defer their request until the July 11th, 2023, HRB meeting. At the June 13th meeting, by a vote of 4- 0, the HRB voted to defer action on this request until the July meeting. Senior Planner Moore gave an overview of the request to modify the COA at 219 and 221 Main Street. He noted that the applicant was originally granted a COA on September 14th, 2021, by the HRB. As part of the approval, the HRB stipulated as a condition that the unpainted portion of the demising wall between 219 & 221 Main Street remain unpainted. This condition was tied to the drawing on page 8 of the staff report. Later, during the rehabilitation of this property, the unpainted portion of the demising wall was painted and covered with TPO roofing. Subsequently, Kuester Commercial was informed of this issue with the demising wall. During this time, it was also discovered that the demising wall between 219 & 217 Main Street had been painted. Pictures of both demising walls are found on pages 9 & 10 of the staff report. 2 Page 11 of the staff report indicates the actions that occurred at the HRB meetings in November 2022. At the November 29th, 2022, HRB meeting it was determined that the applicant would provide a report, as stipulated, on what would be entailed to remove the paint and TPO from the demising wall along with any anticipated damage such removal would cause. In the meantime, Kuester Commercial did test an area of the painted demising wall with sandblasting. With this testing, Kuester noted the brittle nature of the original brick. The results of this testing are illustrated on pages 15 & 16 of the staff report. I would note that while this testing was not within the anticipated scope of action, it is certainly illustrative of why sandblasting does not meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for rehab of historic properties. Senior Planner Moore then summed up the application in noting that the purpose of the current HRB meeting was to gain closure on the case so that final Bailey Bill certification may proceed. "Final certification" means a property has met the following conditions: (a) the owner of the property applies for and is granted historic designation by the HRB; (b) the completed rehabilitation receives approval from the HRB; and (c) the minimum expenditures for rehabilitation were incurred and paid (20% of pre-rehab FMV). (d) In this instance, that would mean $230,00.00 in expenditures. Senior Planner Moore then asked HRB if they had any questions about this information. Chairwoman Brinton then asked Shaw Kuester and James Maynard, representing Kuester Commercial, why the painted section of the demising wall was sandblasted as this was not what the HRB had prescribed. James Maynard, the project architect, responded that he was not aware that the contractor had covered the previously unpainted/uncovered demising wall until near the end of the project. Mr. Maynard then stated that at this juncture he advised Shaw Kuester that the best thing to do would be to see what the National Park Service (NPS) recommended regarding this issue. Mr. Maynard stated that the NPS should have the final say since they wrote the standards which have now been adopted and applied within historic districts around the country. David Booth then replied that Mr. Maynard, as the architect of record for the project, should be responsible for ensuring that the contractor is following historic district standards. Mr. Maynard replied that construction administration was not part of his contract for this project, and thus he would not have known about the painting and covering of the unpainted portion of the demising wall. Mr. Booth indicated that he found it hard to believe that Mr. Maynard would not have known about problems with the project. Shaw Kuester then interjected that he had been prepared to leave the issue entirely after having done three years of work on the project and that he was not going to do anything else in trying to appease the HRB. Mr. Booth then asked if there was a response from the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SCSHPO) regarding the demising wall issue. Mr. Maynard responded that SCSHPO had provided approval of part three. Chairwoman Brinton asked Mr. Maynard what he meant by this. 3 Mr. Maynard responded that this meant that SCSHPO had approved the rehabilitation. Joanne Walker asked Mr. Maynard if SCSHPO was aware of what had transpired with this project. Mr. Maynard responded that SCSHPO had photographs of the project. He indicated that SCSHPO looks at the project as a whole and that there were some things that they had to go back an address per the review. However, the issue of the demising wall was never brought up by SCSHPO. Hynek Lettang then asked for clarification on several items, including the area of the demising wall which was supposed to remain unpainted. Mr. Lettang then asked what the root cause of the error was. Mr. Maynard responded that he believed the problem was that individuals in the field did not read the drawings properly. Mr. Lettang responded that he believed this was not really a root cause. He then asked why these individuals did not read the drawings. Mr. Maynard indicated that it was the contractor's responsibility to see that the drawings were understood by those on site doing the work. However, Mr. Maynard also noted that the contractor did what was perfectly acceptable if this was a new building. Mr. Lettang then noted that the instructions, which illustrated that the wall was not to be painted, were not followed. This resulted in substandard execution which led to an irreversible process. He then asked about the ramifications of not properly following instructions. Mr. Lettang asked if there are penalties placed upon those who do not following instructions in the historic district. Planning Director Penelope Karagounis replied that fines and penalties were not available to be levied on contractors who do not follow instructions in the historic district. She indicated that the town’s review policies have been tweaked due to this incident and have resulted in Alex Moore visiting the historic district to ensure that contractors are properly following the plans as approved by the HRB. Additionally, Alex Moore is visiting projects for a final inspection prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued by the town. Planning Director Karagounis then noted that Mr. Kuester did come before the HRB in November 2022 to ask forgiveness for the covering of the demising wall. In that Mr. Kuester was now telling the HRB that he was not going to do anything else, there was no other mechanism available. Mr. Lettang then asked if the paint on the brick would protect the brick more over time. Vice chairman David Booth responded that because it was a painted application, the brick would now be prevented from properly breathing. The result would be degradation via moisture being retained within the brick. This would ultimately lead to the brick being brittle and falling apart. Mr. Maynard then asked if it was known if the paint which was applied to the brick was a breathable one. Vice chairman Booth responded that such information would have been helpful in months past, but that the HRB has never received any such specifications regarding the brick. 4 After some discussion, it was determined that a letter had previously been received from the painting contractor which indicated that removing the paint would be likely to damage the underlying brick. Ms. Walker stated that it was her understanding that once brick was painted then its integrity would always be compromised. Mr. Maynard responded that he agreed, and that this building may be even more adversely affected because the demising wall was comprised of handmade, sun-dried bricks. This would make the brick even softer, and more susceptible to damage from attempting to remove the paint from them. He stated, that in his opinion, that attempting to remove the paint from the brick would result in much more damage than if you just leave the brick as is. While this may not be optimal, it is the best option. Mr. Maynard went on to state that since the NPS and SCSHPO have approved the project, he frankly didn’t understand why HRB could not move forward with amending what was previously approved. Ms. Walker followed up and asked Mr. Maynard that perhaps it was approved because NPS and SCSHPO were not aware of the mistake. Ms. Walker indicated that this paint was never going to be able to be removed without damaging the brick. Her primary concern, however, was that this case sets a bad precedent for future contractors coming to HRB and begging forgiveness for blatant mistakes that they have made within the historic district. She asked what the recourse was at that point. Planning Director Karagounis responded that this is why the department has initiated weekly reviews of the historic district so that hopefully problems can be resolved quickly. Beyond that, Ms. Karagounis stated that we could look at having more regulations in the historic district. However, she noted that both planning commission and town council would have to be amenable to this. Hynek Lettang interjected that his experience in dealing with Charlotte Paint indicates that it would be improbable that they would apply an inappropriate paint-type to brick. Senior Planner Moore then read the contents of a letter previously prepared by Charlotte Paint, the painting contractor for the project. This letter was written by Lucan Allen, a project manager with Charlotte Paint Company, and is quoted and italicized as follows: “I have spoken with my contact about the coating removal on main street Fort Mill. He feels confident that he can do it but like anything, there's some risks. Not only does it remove the coating or contamination being targeted, it also profiles and scars the underlying substrate in the process. This could cause a physical disorientation with the brick. I am concerned that attempting to remove such a small area will damage the surface and also discolor any other coating on other parts of the building itself. The brick itself doesn’t concern me as much as the mortar. With this building being old I am afraid that the mortar would weaken and cause bricks to become lose.” Chairwoman Brinton responded that she had previously spoken with SCSHPO and that they were not happy that the demising wall had been painted. She stated that she asked SCSHPO what the HRB should do in response, and they indicated that they could not tell the HRB to do without looking at it. Additionally, they stated that there could not be consequences unless they were written into our town code. Chairwoman Brinton also noted that within the municipality for which she previously served on a historic review board, the penalties for not following approved plans included monetary fines and even the potential for jailtime. She pointed out she was not advocating for putting people in jail, but that it would be good if the town did have some written deterrents in our code. Planning Director Karagounis concurred with the sentiments as expressed by Chairwoman Brinton. 5 There was then discussion regarding the findings of SCSHPO within this review process. David Booth noted that it would have been helpful if the board had known that SCSHPO did not penalize the project during their review for historic rehabilitation tax credits. Additionally, Mr. Booth stated that the HRB now needed to determine how to take care of the section of the wall that had been sandblasted. Ms. Walker then discussed the section of the wall that had been test sandblasted. She indicated that it would be her preference that it be left as is. Mr. Lettang then asked about why there was not similar concern over those buildings in the downtown that were previously painted. Chairwoman Brinton responded that these buildings had been painted prior to there being a review body such as HRB to oversee the historic downtown area. Mr. Lettang then asked why the HRB was now worried about removing the paint on the subject demising wall. Planning Director Karagounis then stated that Kuester Commercial had been kind enough to come before the HRB this evening. However, Mr. Kuester had not received the answers that the HRB initially asked for in November 2022. Thus, at this point there was nothing else that could be done. Ms. Walker then asked what the goal of this meeting was. Senior Planner Moore replied that this project was heading toward application for final Bailey Bill certification. As part of that, the applicant was now seeking to gain approval on what had been done up to this point, including the demising wall in question. There was then general discussion of the parameters and advantages of the Bailey Bill among staff and HRB members. Mr. Couchenour then noted that there were three items that needed to be discussed to finalize things. One included the roof membrane covering a portion of the demising wall. He indicated that he hated to see the HRB try to do anything with this. Additionally, the other two items included the painting of the demising wall between 219 & 221 Main Street along with the covering of the demising wall of 217 Main Street with paint and TPO roofing. He stated that his desire was that the HRB move on from the painting of the demising wall between 219 & 221 Main Street. Mr. Couchenour then stated that he wanted the owner of 217 Main Street to gain satisfaction with the issue of his demising wall having been covered. Vice Chairman Booth then stated that he believed the point of what the HRB was asking of Mr. Kuester at the last meeting was for him to provide documentation which would give support for amending the COA as approved for this property. This would provide clarity and understanding regarding leaving the demising wall as is. Planning Director Karagounis then stated that she apologized and that moving forward, specifically once the HRB has conditions, not to waste the time of the HRB or the applicant if those conditions and documentations are not provided. Vice Chairman Booth then made a motion to approve the proposed modification to the COA, which was issued on September 14th, 2021, with the following conditions: 6  • The applicant may now proceed with the submittal to the HRB for final Bailey Bill certification with the stipulation that documentation be included with this application citing likely negative outcomes of removal of paint and TPO roofing material from the brick (See Attached). • The applicant shall also include a letter indicating the appropriate manner for repairing and/or stabilizing that portion of the brick which was sandblasted. Ms. Walker then seconded the motion. Then by a vote of 6-0, the HRB voted to approve the request for a COA modification at 219-221 Main Street with the conditions as noted. There being no other business, Chairwoman Brinton adjourned the meeting at 5:46 PM Respectfully submitted, Alex J. Moore, AICP Senior Planner August 31st, 2023 7  H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D R E Q U E S T F OR F I N A L B A I L E Y B I L L C E R T I FI C A T I O N APPLICANT 219-221 Main Street, LLC 219 & 221 Main Street Tax Map # 020-02-01-008 & 020-02-01-009 Zoning District: Local Commercial/Historic District Zoning Case: 2021-0661 REQUEST The Town has received an application for final certification of the Bailey Bill project at 219 & 221 Main Street in downtown Fort Mill. The owner of this property is 219-221 Main Street, LLC. GENERAL INFORMATION This property is within the Town of Fort Mill Historic Preservation District. As noted on the application, a Special Tax Assessment for Rehabilitated Historic Properties (Bailey Bill) is authorized by the Town of Fort Mill Code of Ordinances and Section 5-21-140 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976 as amended. To be eligible for the special property tax assessment, an income-producing or non-owner-occupied property, such as 219 & 221 Main Street, must receive a minimum investment of 20% of the fair market value (FMV) of the property. FMV is defined as the appraised value as certified to the town by a real estate appraiser licensed in the State of SC, the sales price as delineated in a bona fide contract of sale within 12 months of the time it is submitted, or the most recent appraised value published by the York County Tax Assessor. In this instance, the FMV has been determined via the sales price as delineated within the bona fide contract of sale ($1,150,000.00). A copy of this bona fide contract of sale is attached. The Town of Fort Mill Historic Review Board (HRB) granted preliminary approval for a Bailey Bill project at 219 & 221 Main Street on September 14th, 2021. Subsequently, the applicant began an extensive rehabilitation project on these buildings. The application indicates that hard costs alone for the rehabilitation project total $1,503,561.00, which is 131% of the FMV for 219 & 221 Main Street. Therefore, this project meets the minimum 20% investment criteria as established by the town’s Bailey Bill program. Upon final certification, this property will be eligible for the Bailey Bill special tax assessment based on the pre-rehabilitation value ($1,150,000.00), for a period of twenty years. It 8 should be noted that York County does not currently participate in the Bailey Bill program, so only the town’s assessment will be modified by final certification. FINAL CERTIFICATION REVIEW Upon completion of the project, the property must receive final certification from the HRB to be eligible for the special assessment. The HRB shall review completed projects to determine if the work is consistent with the rehabilitation plan previously approved during the preliminary certification process. This plan, along with the preliminary application, which was given preliminary certification is included as Exhibit ‘B.’ Please note that this review may include a physical inspection of the property if the HRB so chooses. To be eligible for final certification, a property must have met the following conditions: 1. The property has received preliminary certification: As noted above, this property received preliminary certification on September 14th, 2021. 2. The minimum expenditures for rehabilitation as set forth by the Fort Mill Code of Ordinances have been incurred and paid: The required expenditures for this project are 20% of (FMV), which equates to $230,000. The applicant has provided information indicating that this minimum expenditure threshold has been greatly exceeded, with $1,503,000.00 in hard costs alone expended. A detailed project accounting sheet in included on page 32 of this report. 3. The reviewing authority has reviewed the completed rehabilitation work and has determined that all such work is consistent with the plans approved by the reviewing authority during preliminary certification. The Fort Mill Historic Review Board (HRB) shall serve as the reviewing authority for all completed rehabilitation work submitted as part of the final certification process: The review by the HRB must be based on the standards of rehabilitation which are listed on page 10 of this report. 4. All application fees have been paid in full by the applicant: All application fees have been paid in full. 5. The property has met all other requirements of the Fort Mill Code of Ordinances: The property has met all other requirements of the Fort Mill Code of Ordinances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As you know, a modification to the certificate of appropriateness was granted by the HRB on July 11th, 2023. The modification allows for the demising wall between 219 & 221 Main Street to remain painted and to retain the TPO roofing as applied during the rehabilitation project. Approval of the final certification shall be at the discretion of the HRB. However, based upon the facts presented, staff recommends that final Bailey Bill certification be approved for the project located at 219 & 221 Main Street. The HRB’s review and decision on final Bailey Bill certification must be based on the standards for rehabilitation as found below, on page 10. 9 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 10  LIST OF ATTACHED EXHIBITS • Exhibit 1: Application for Final Bailey Bill Certification • Exhibit 2: Documentation of Fair Market Value • Exhibit 3: Detailed Accounting of Eligible Rehabilitation Expenses • Exhibit 4: Color Photographs Illustrating Rehabilitation Work • Exhibit 5: Staff Notice of Action Letter on COA Modification Request (with attachments). • Exhibit 6: Letter from Architect • Exhibit 7: Staff Notice of Action Letter for Preliminary Bailey Bill Certification (with attachments). • Exhibit 8: York County Tax Information 11 Exhibit 1 12 13 If changes were not previously approved, please A modification to the certificate of appropriateness was include a detailed description of any changes to granted by the HRB on July 11th, 2023. The modification the original work plan. allows for the demising wall between 219 & 221 Main (Please note that any changes are subject to approval Street to remain painted and to retain the TPO roofing by the reviewing authority) as applied during the rehabilitation project. Financial Information What was the total amount invested on eligible rehabilitation expenses associated with the project? (Please attach a detailed accounting of project expenditures) @ Signed and completed Town of Fort Mill Application for Final Certification. [!:}' Documentation of fair market value as approved at Preliminary Certification (a valid appraisal, contract of sale, or appraised value published by the York County Assessor). @·A detailed accounting of eligible rehabilitation expenses. Accounting records shall, at minimum, provide enough detail to show that the project meets the minimum expenditures for rehabilitation as outlined in Chapter 2, Article IV, Division 3, Sec. 2-202(c) of the Town of Fort Mill Code of Ordinances. B Color photographs of the interior and exterior of the building that illustrate the rehabilitation work. Optional Attachments D There is a fee required for the review of rehabilitation work. The fee may be paid at the time the applicant applies for Preliminary or Final Certification; however, Final Certification will not be given until the fee has been paid in full. Fees shall be made payable to the Town of Fort Mill. The amount of the fee shall be as follows: ■ For owner-occupied, non-income producing properties, the fee shall be $150.00. ■ For income-producing or non-owner occupied properties, the fee shall b'e $300.00. g Check here if your fee was included with your application for Preliminary Certification. Please include a copy of your receipt as proof of payment. Under penalty of perjury, I certify that all information included in this application is true and correct. I understand that this property shall not be eligible for the Special Tax Assessment for Rehabilitated Historic Properties until final certification has been granted by the Town of Fort Mill pursuant to Chapter 2, Article IV, Division 3 of the Town of Fort Mill Code of Ordinances and Section 5-21-140 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, as amended APPLICATION TO YORK COUNTY AUDITOR: I understand that once Final Certification has been granted and the property has been deemed eligible for the Special Tax Assessment, I must contact and/or submit a separate application to the York County Auditor in order to receive the special assessment. DECERTIFICATION: I acknowledge that the special assessment shall remain in effect for the length of the special assessment period, unless the property shall become decertified under one or more of the following provisions: 1) Written notice from the owner to the Fort Mill Town Manager and York County Auditor requesting removal of the special assessment; 14  August 16th, 2023 September 14th, 2021 July 11th, 2023 September 12th, 2023 Alex Moore A modification to the certificate of appropriateness was granted by the HRB on July 11th, 2023. The modification allows for the demising wall between 219 & 221 Main Street to remain painted and to retain the TPO roofing as applied during the rehabilitation project. 15 Exhibit 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Exhibit 3 31  219-221 Main Street, LLC Schedule of Total Development Costs, Qualified and Nonqualified Rehabilitation Expenditures and Calculation of Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit and State Abandoned Building Tax Credit December 31, 2022 Total Non-Qualified Qualified Development Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Costs Ex�enditures Ex�enditures Land and Building $ 1,219,000 $ 1,219,000 $ Financing Fee 40,350 34,190 6,160 Interest Carry 59,927 22,254 37,673 Capital Raise 23,500 23,500 Legal 25,116 5,024 20,092 Appraisal 4,270 4,270 Accounting 27,059 27,059 Architect & Mechanical Engineer 47,892 47,892 Structural Engineer 5,575 5,575 Lease Commissions 49,611 49,611 Environmental (Phase 1) 3,765 3,765 Real Estate Property Taxes 33,158 2,746 30,412 Marketing Cost 8,745 8,745 Development Coordination Fee 130,000 130,000 SHPO Coordination Fee 15,361 15,361 Land Survey Cost 3,750 3,750 Hard Costs 1,503,561 1,503,561 Fees & Permits 8,167 8,167 Asbestos Removal 18,312 18,312 Preferred Carry - Interest 8,082 8,082 Insurance 19,800 19,800 Special Inspection 8,001 8,001 Termite Pre-Treatment 6,103 6,103 Title and Recording 8,623 354 8,269 Total $ 3,282,663 $ 1,369,174 $ 1,913,489 Federal Historic Credit Rate 20% Federal Historic Tax Credit $ 382,698 Total Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditures $ 1,913,489 State Historic - Income Tax Credit 25% State Historic Tax Credit $ 478,372 State Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Calculation Total Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditures - State Abandoned Buildings Revitalization $ 1,913,489 State Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Credit Rate 25% State Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Credit $ 478,372 Less first floor % 56.59% Less first floor non-certified adjustment $ (270,717) State Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Credit $ 207,655 Note 1: The taxpayer elects to receive the income tax credit in the amount of 25% of actual rehabilitation expenses allowed under S.C. Code Section 12-67-140(A)(1). 32 Exhibit 4 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  Historic Renovation After Photos 219-221 Main Street Fort Mill, SC 29715 Description: 219 Main St First Floor Description: 219 Main St First Floor 46  Historic Renovation After Photos 219-221 Main Street Fort Mill, SC 29715 Description: 221 Main St First Floor 47 Exhibit 5 48 49 Stuart, I have spoken with my contact about the coating removal on main street Fort Mill. He feels confident that he can do it but like anything, there's some risks. Not only does it remove the coating or contamination being targeted, it also profiles and scars the underlying substrate in the process. This could cause a physical disorientation with the brick. I am concerned that attempting to remove such a small area will damage the surface and also discolor any other coating on other parts of the building itself. The brick itself doesn't concern me as much as the mortar. With this building being old I am afraid that the mortar would weaken and cause bricks to become lose. Thank, ATTENTION: Please call the division number found in our email signature below: 704-827-1391 Lucas Allen .. Project Manager r � CHAR,TTE PAINT c10,, LLC .. . . .. - Charlotte Paint Co., LLC a PO Box 7 65, 1604 Lane Rd, Mt Ho l ly, NC 28120 w c h arlottepaint.com d 704-827-1391 50 51 52 Exhibit 6 53  4400 Park Road Suite 320 Charlotte, NC 28209 980-585-4998 james@redclaydesign.com July 28, 2023 Town of Fort Mill PO Box 159 200 Tom Hall Street South Carolina, 29715 803-547-2126 Re: 219 & 221 Main Street Certificate of Appropriateness – Modification: Zoning Case 2021-0660 To whom it may concern: Please consider the following as written response to the case listed above requesting “the appropriate manner for repairing and/or stabilizing that portion of the brick which was sandblasted”. The area may be repainted, using the same means, methods, and materials on the rest of the wall. Prior to re-painting, the brick should be inspected to determine if the exposed layer is softer than the brick face. Any brick with soft areas exposed should be removed and replaced with brick to match. The mortar in this area should also be inspected and repaired, if necessary, prior to painting. However, any undamaged brick may remain in place. I trust that the previous responses address your questions and concerns and your input in much appreciated. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please don’t hesitate to give me a call. Thank you and kindest regards, James Maynard RedClay, PLLC NC Board of Architecture #10113 SC Board of Architecture #7755 54 EXHIBIT 7 55 56 57 58 59 60 EXHIBIT 8 61 62 63  H I S T OR I C R E V I E W B OA R D Applicant: What’s Up Buttercup Subject Property: 231 Main Street Property Owner: Michael W. Chase Tax Map # 020-02-01-014 Zoning District: Local Commercial, LC/Historic District Zoning Case: 2023-408 REQUEST The Planning Department has received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from What’s Up Buttercup, owned by Melissa Dawson, for review and approval of window signage at 231 Main Street. A drawing and photographs of this signage are attached. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This property is located within the downtown historic district and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This building was constructed in circa 1900. The following link includes further information on this building 231 Main St — TBHH The Fort Mill Historic District Design Guidelines include schematic parameters for the implementation of signage. The window signage guidelines are attached. Generally, the historic district signage guidelines indicate there should be clear objectives established for signage with limited impacts on defining features of a given building. The impact on the overall area, including adjacent structures, should also be considered. DISCUSSION The drawing and photograph of the window signage each indicate a clear objective in that discernable and appealing graphics are used. Impacts upon the building’s character defining features will be limited. This window signage is compatible with the building and surrounding businesses. 64 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends that the HRB grant APPROVAL for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed window signage as submitted. ATTACHMENTS 1. HRB application with window signage illustrations 2. Historic district window signage guidelines 65 66 67 68 69 70  Window Sign This is a sign painted on the surface of, or located on the interior of, a display window. 5.11 Design a window sign to: • Minimize the amount of window covered. • Be painted on the glass or hung inside a window. Design a window sign to minimize the amount of window covered. Design a window sign to be painted on the glass or hung inside a window. Chapter 5: Guidelines for Signs 71