Historic District Preservation Commission (HDPC)

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORIC DISTRICT PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2022 MINUTES STAFF REPORT Present: Louisa Montgomery, Chair, Gene Gallogly, Anne Shaw, Corey Barber. Absent: Robert Crosland. Staff: Kate Miller, Mac Deford, Aaron Bennett, Lynnette Lynes Ms. Montgomery called the meeting to order at 5:01 pm. I. Approval of Agenda Ms. Shaw moved for approval of the agenda. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor. II. Approval of January 10, 2022 Meeting Minutes Mr. Gallogly moved for approval of the minutes. Ms. Shaw seconded the motion. All in favor. III. Correspondence All correspondence was distributed and linked to the agenda. IV. General Public Comment Mr. Brett Bennett, 131 Hibben Street, stated that he was previously a member of the OVHDC and currently serves on the Planning Commission. He expressed concern with preservation of the OVHD. He asked that the Commission uphold the ordinances and guidelines to better preserve the OVHD. He asked that the Commission review what is allowed to be approved by staff to determine if stricter review should be completed. Mr. Chris Colman, 118 Pitt Street, spoke regarding 125 Pitt Street. He suggested that there have been several instances where loud equipment was running beyond the noise ordinances limitations, contentious verbal interactions with the construction workers, etc. He suggested that the noise ordinance and other regulations should be reiterated. Being no further comments, Ms. Montgomery continued with the agenda. V. Consent Motions Ms. Shaw moved for consent approval of the following agenda items as recommended by staff with the exception of 107 Bennett Street: ➢ 436 Church Street- Survey#6191/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-092) Applicant is seeking final approval for alterations to previously approved plans.  Historic District Preservation Commission February 14, 2022 Page 2 of 7 ➢ 231 Bennett Street- Survey#6137/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-012) Applicant is seeking final approval for demolition and new construction for accessory structure. ➢ 3 William Street- Survey#6035/ Non-Historic (TMS#532-13-00-113) Applicant is seeking final approval for a pool. ➢ 640 Pitt Street- Survey#5949/Non-Historic (TMS# 532-05-00-040) Applicant is seeking final approval for pool alteration. ➢ 827 Pitt Street- Survey#5897/Historic and Survey#5897.01/Non-Historic (TMS# 532-09-00-052) Applicant is seeking final approval for alteration to previously approved plans. ➢ 125 Pitt Street- Survey#5929/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-084) Applicant is seeking Final Approval for alteration to previously approved plans. ➢ 206 Hibben Street– Survey #6216/Historic – (TMS # 517-15-00-087) Applicant is seeking Final Approval for pool. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor. VI. Appeal of Staff Level Approval, 101 Pitt Street- Survey #5934/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-079) Applicant is appealing staff level approval. Mr. Deford reviewed the procedure for appeal. He stated that the notice for appeal is outlined in FOIA, which is 24-hour notice. He clarified that taking action on the staff approval at the previous meeting would not have been appropriate and a violation of FOIA. He stated that the Commission or any aggrieved party can appeal an administrative or staff decision as noted in §156.433(H)(1). Ms. Miller reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Carole Tinkey and Mr. Mike Tinkey, 208 Venning Street, reviewed their position with the Commission. Mr. Chris Colman, 118 Pitt St, suggested that the Commission should have the authority to overrule staff on a decision without an appeal being submitted. He stated that he agrees with the Mr. and Ms. Tinkey that this project does not fit within the guidelines of a staff approval. He suggested that the rules and procedures should be strictly reviewed and scrutinized, and changes made to provide better procedures. Mr. Ben Towll, 101 Pitt Street, suggested that they have applied and been approved in accordance with the guidelines. He also suggested that their business is providing valuable jobs and desire to be a good neighbor to those around them. He stated that he is open to resolving the issues as much as possible and within the guidelines. Ms. Eva Suarez, design firm for Posthouse, stated that they plan to re-attach the gate so that it would be to the height of the enclosure, but were told to halt any work until after the appeal process. She stated that the enclosure was located next to the electrical panel water heater. She stated that the gate would be raised to the height of the enclosure and a kick plate added to the bottom. There being no further comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comment.  Historic District Preservation Commission February 14, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Ms. Montgomery moved to convene into executive session. Mr. Deford moved for a point of order and stated that a reason for the executive session would need to be stated. He noted that he was not prepared to go into executive session for any substantive legal advice; therefore, all information could be provided in open session. He stated that reasons for an executive session are outlined under SC state statute and suggested that none of those reasons would be appropriate in this instance. Motion failed due to point of order and lack of a second. Ms. Miller rebutted that it was noted at the previous meeting that any staff level approvals could be appealed. She stated that staff followed the outlined procedures in approval of this request. She stated that there are times when an after-the-fact submittals and approvals are completed. Mr. and Ms. Tinkey rebutted that they have attended all of the meetings regarding this address. She suggested that the historic windows, the shed roof, and the placement of the structure is against to the historic guidelines. She suggested that located on the other side of the building would be more appropriate. She suggested that it was against Town code. Mr. Tinkey asked that the appeal be upheld and the applicant re-apply for review and approval by the entire Commission. He suggested that after-the-fact approvals are against the guidelines and should not be allowed. Ms. Shaw moved for denial of the appeal and to uphold staff’s decision and that the work be completed as was submitted and approved. Mr. Barber seconded the motion. Motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote with Ms. Shaw, Mr. Barber, and Ms. Montgomery in favor; Mr. Gallogly opposed. The Commission convened for a break at 6:11 pm and reconvened at 6:19 pm. VII. Business - a. 609 Royall Avenue- Survey#5994/Historic- (TMS#532-09-00-082) Applicant is seeking Final approval for partial demolition, addition, and new construction of accessory structure. Ms. Miller reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Kate Campbell and Ms. Victoria Goss, Beau Clowney Architects, reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comment. Mr. Barber moved for approval with the condition that the windows meet the design guidelines, the pool is screened and the applicant resubmits for approval of fence. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor.  Historic District Preservation Commission February 14, 2022 Page 4 of 7 b. 436 Church Street- Survey#6191/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-092) Applicant is seeking final approval for alterations to previously approved plans. This item was approved by consent. c. 235 Bennett Street- Survey#6136/Historic and Survey #6136.01/Non- Historic (TMS#532-01-00-013) Applicant is seeking final approval for alterations to previously approved plans and hardscaping. Mr. Bennett reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Daniel Beck and Mr. Madison Rice reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Mark Regalbuto, 754 Pitt St, suggested that this is a well-designed, beautiful project. He suggested that the project is “approval ready” and does not need to be “tweaked”. There being no further comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comment. Ms. Montgomery moved for approval for the alterations and renovations to main structure and accessory structure with denial of hardscape. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Barber moved for approval as presented. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. Ms. Lynes moved for a point of order asking if justification is needed for approval of the hardscape. Ms. Miller answered in the affirmative. Mr. Barber amended the motion to include the justification that the hardscape is as good a solution as can be expected, and #5 of the design guidelines is more for a streetscape scenario. Ms. Shaw seconded the amendment. All in favor. d. 237 Bennett Street- Survey#6135/Historic and Survey #6135.01/Non- Historic (TMS# 532-01-00-014) Applicant is seeking final approval for hardscape. Mr. Bennett reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Daniel Beck, architect, reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no further comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comment. Ms. Montgomery moved for approval of the request with the stipulation that it follow the same design and application as presented and 235 Bennett. Ms. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor.  Historic District Preservation Commission February 14, 2022 Page 5 of 7 e. 231 Bennett Street- Survey#6137/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-012) Applicant is seeking final approval for demolition and new construction for accessory structure. f. 3 William Street- Survey#6035/ Non-Historic (TMS#532-13-00-113) Applicant is seeking final approval for a pool. g. 640 Pitt Street- Survey#5949/Non-Historic (TMS# 532-05-00-040) Applicant is seeking final approval for pool alteration. These items were approved by consent. h. 734 Pitt Street- Survey#5957/Historic (TMS#532-09-00-071) Applicant is seeking final approval for addition/alteration and new construction of accessory structure. Ms. Miller reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Jaclyn Curtis, architect, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Mark Regalbuto, 754 Pitt St, suggested that this is a carefully thought through request and is sensitive to the historic structure and historic district. He suggested that the request should be approved. Mr. Barber moved for approval based on the fact that the home has been previously altered substantially and the request would improve the livability of the home. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor. i. 826 Pitt Street- Survey#5964/Non-Historic (TMS#532-09-00-064) Applicant is seeking final approval for alteration to previously approved plans. Ms. Miller reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Linda Balzac, architect, reviewed the request with the Commission. Mr. Barber moved for approval as presented as the precedent of the existing home being at 2 foot, 6 inches makes the addition at the same elevation acceptable and the shed dormer on the front makes the proposed shed dormers on the back acceptable, excluding approval of the pool. The pool will need to be resubmitted for review at a future meeting. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor. j. 234 Middle Street- Survey#6011/Non-Historic (TMS#532-09-00-025) Applicant is seeking final approval for alteration to previously approved plans. This item was removed by staff.  Historic District Preservation Commission February 14, 2022 Page 6 of 7 k. 827 Pitt Street- Survey#5897/Historic and Survey#5897.01/Non-Historic (TMS# 532-09-00-052) Applicant is seeking final approval for alteration to previously approved plans. l. 125 Pitt Street- Survey#5929/Historic (TMS#532-01-00-084) Applicant is seeking Final Approval for alteration to previously approved plans. These items were approved by consent. m. 754 Pitt Street- Survey#5960/Historic and Survey#5960.01/Non-Historic (TMS#532-09-00-245) Applicant is seeking final approval for partial demolition and new construction of accessory structure. Ms. Miller reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Mark Regalbuto reviewed the request with the Commission. there being no comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comment. Ms. Montgomery moved for approval. Ms. Shaw seconded the motion. All in favor. n. 107 Bennett Street- Survey#6144/Historic (TMS#517-15-00-074) Applicant is seeking final approval for new construction of an accessory structure. Mr. Bennett reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Mr. Billy Connell reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comment. Mr. Gallogly moved for approval. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor. o. 11 Pierates Cruz- Survey#6071/Non-Historic (TMS#532-09-00-017) Applicant is seeking final approval for addition. Mr. Bennett reviewed staff comments with the Commission. Ms. Patti Wilbourne and Ms. Liz Drake reviewed the request with the Commission. There being no comments, Ms. Montgomery closed public comments. Mr. Gallogly moved for approval. Ms. Montgomery seconded the motion. All in favor.  Historic District Preservation Commission February 14, 2022 Page 7 of 7 p. 206 Hibben Street– Survey #6216/Historic – (TMS # 517-15-00-087) Applicant is seeking Final Approval for pool. This item was approved by consent. VIII. Staff Approvals a. 200 Bank Street- Survey#5898/Historic (TMS#532-05-00-010) Home renovations. b. 957 Pitt Street- Survey#5891/Non-Historic (TMS#532-13-00-031) Hardscape approval c. 128 Chicco Lane- No Survey/Non-Historic (TMS#532-05-00-032) Alteration of accessory structure IX. Discuss Plantings, Fencings and Screenings in Design Guidelines Ms. Montgomery moved for deferral to the next meeting. Mr. Gallogly seconded the motion. All in favor. X. Discussion of Items for Next Agenda No other discussion items were discussed for inclusion on the next agenda. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes HDPC02142022