OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 14, :00 p.m. Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A MINUTES

Transcription

1 OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 14, :00 p.m. Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A MINUTES Members Present: Staff Present: Also Present: Brett Bennett, Chair; Joe Keenan, Vice Chair; Leigh Rowe and Susan Dickson (Scott Hirshorn arrived at 5:10 p.m.) Michael Robertson David Pagliarini, Town Attorney Mr. Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. and reviewed the procedures with the public. I. Approval of Minutes Ms. Dickson moved for approval; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. II. General Correspondence Mr. Robertson stated that the Town received notification from the applicant on item #10, (141 Toomer Lane), to withdraw. He stated as per the bylaws the applicant may withdraw and resubmit at a later date. He stated there is no timeline. He read public comments into the record. III. Public Comment Mr. Bennett stated that moving forward there will be a change in the agenda as per a new Town Ordinance. The Commission will now accept public comments on any issue associated with the Old Village. Those wishing to speak on a specific project when it appears on the agenda will have a limit of two minutes. No public comments were made. IV. BUSINESS STAFF REPORT Church Street TMS Final Approval for Sign Steve Miller, Sign Monkey on Clements Ferry Road, stated that they would like to put a sign up at 302 Hibben Street at the Mount Pleasant Presbyterian Learning Center. He stated that it would be 3 x5 white sign. Ms. Dickson asked why they chose white, as it is so out of character for the setting. Sarah Wendell, Board Member of the Mount Pleasant Presbyterian Learning Center. She said that when speaking to the church, they had a sign very similar to this one on the other side (Church Street). Ms. Dickson stated that the sign in front of the church has a different font and sits in front of a white building. She stated that the proposed sign for

2 Page 2 of 16 the Learning Center is completely out of character with the brick building and the huge oak that is over it. She stated that it would look nicer in a Charleston green with white lettering, similar to the one in front of the Darby Building. Ms. Rowe stated that she agrees with Ms. Dickson and said it appears very stark looking. She stated that the Charleston green would be much more attractive. Ms. Wendell stated that she is happy to receive comments, as their goal was to have a sign in front of the building that identified it as the Learning Center. Mr. Bennett s stated that he would like to see the sign consistent with the church sign in terms of type, face and scale, but thinks that placement should be on the Church Street side instead of the Hibben Street side. He stated that drop off and pick up is presently on the Church Street side. He said that his concern about the signage in front of the traditional education building is that is commercializes further into the neighborhood down Hibben Street, recognizing that it is not a commercial operation. He stated that he would prefer the sign be placed on the Church Street side facing Church as opposed to Hibben. He also likes the idea of the different color background. Mr. Keenan asked if the applicant would be amenable to changing the sign color and font size and color, which would satisfy the board. Mr. Bennett stated that they could come back next month. He stated that the alternative would for the Commission to agree to more detailed standard of font, color and size, that could be voted on tonight, then have staff approve that you have complied with the request. Ms. Wendell stated that time-wise they would prefer to obtain approval this evening and then have staff approve. Ms. Dickson moved that the proposed sign be accepted with the specified modifications of having to do with font, color and placement, as it will not adversely affect the character of the Old Village; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor. Ms. Wendell stated that the question she has is about placement of the sign. She said when they submitted, the idea is that it would be on the corner of Church and Hibben, facing out to Hibben Street. She stated that they enter on Hibben Street, but there is a carpool pickup and drop of on Church Street. She stated that the actual front of the building is on Hibben Street. Ms. Dickson asked what the purpose of the sign is for. Ms. Wendell stated that it is to identify it as a school. She said the church congregation is very large and many do not realize there is a preschool there. She said there are also other preschools in the immediate area that have their own signs identifying their preschools.

3 Page 3 of 16 Ms. Dickson stated that it would not make any difference if it faced Church Street or Hibben Street. Mr. Bennett s preference would be for it to face Church Street; however, if it did face Hibben Street, to have it set back closer to the building Richter Way TMS Final Approval for Modifications to Accessory Structure Mr. Bennett stated that the applicant and/or a representative were not present. He stated that the Commission may address without the applicant being present, defer until the end of the meeting or defer until next month. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would move to defer until the April meeting based on not being specific enough as to guidelines #3 and #9, style and placement of the windows; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. Mr. Keenan asked staff to advise the applicant that their paperwork is incomplete. Mr. Robertson stated for clarification, Commission members would like more specifics particularly in regards to guidelines #3 as far as the style and materials. Mr. Keenan stated that completed elevations, especially in front as it is prominent there. Mr. Hirshorn stated that windows and doors, guidelines #3 and beyond the door cut sheet Pitt Street TMS Final Approval for Demolition and New Construction (corrected ) Anton Roeger, homeowner stated that he did the conceptual review in December, 2015 and his property is almost at the corner of Center and Pitt Streets and is a flag shaped lot. He stated that the proposal is for the ADU to be on the front portion of the small part of the flag and the main house will be in the back. He said that the existing ADU touches the neighbor s property line and is only six feet from the road; therefore, it is nineteen feet in front of where the setback is supposed to be. He stated that there is a little shed in the back of this structure. He presented the existing tree survey and there are no trees over twenty-four inches and there is a replacement schedule for the pecan tree, which is twenty inches. He stated that the proposed cottage would sit in the front and it is within the twenty-five foot setback, but the porch sits inside the setback, so it is technically seventeen feet from the road. He said because of the way the other cottages along Pitt Street current sit, putting it all the way back to twenty-five feet is going to make it out of sync with the other cottages. The main house will be on the back property with the driveway which would be pervious material, and on the left side there is a separate

4 Page 4 of 16 parking for the ADU. He stated that there are at least two parking spaces plus the garage for the main house. He presented to the Commission the drainage plan. He stated that he met with the neighbors and showed them the drainage plan. He is putting in some French drains and said that his plan is to have everyone work on it at the same time. Mr. Bennett asked if this was the responsibility of the Town or the individual homeowners. Mr. Roeger stated that it is a combination of the two. He said that if William Street backs up there is nowhere for any of the properties in that area to drain. The William Street drain must be addressed by the Town, but the neighbors can better control getting the water to that drainage. He stated that he is discussing tying in his French drain with another neighbor s. Mr. Robertson stated that the Old Village does not have any purview over drainage, but the basic guideline and principal would be that you cannot shed water into the neighbor s yard. This is handled during the building permit review. Mr. Roeger stated that the existing grade is nine feet and naturally slopes back to five. He stated that he is only bringing in six to ten inches of dirt. He stated that he is taking advantage of the slope. He stated by flood, he must be an elevated house. Mr. Keenan stated that no work has been done and Mr. Roeger is doing the right thing by studying this, because there is a lot of hardscape in the back and if it is not addressed, there will be issues for Mr. Roeger and his surrounding neighbors. Mr. Roeger stated that the height on the cottage is 21 ½ feet high and the main house is 39 ½ feet high. He stated that there is a historic cottage at 912 Pitt and is set back approximately 19 feet. Mr. Roeger reviewed the house and garage plans with Commission members. He showed the elevation for the cottage. Ms. Dickson asked if the proposed cottage has the same footprint as the existing cottage that is currently there. Mr. Roeger stated that it is smaller at 841 sf, than the existing cottage which is 1,050 sf. He said that some challenges he had with the existing cottage is that it is too wide and touches the adjacent property and if he were to put it to current flood code and within the setback, he would not be able to put a driveway in behind it. He stated that since it is a flag lot, there is only so much width he has to work with. He reviewed a letter from an engineer regarding the condition of the existing cottage structure and stated that if he has to do a 50% or more improvement, he would then have to update it to current flood code, raise the house significantly and would have to move it. He said this causes two problems, because where it needs to move is only approximately 10 to 12 feet off of where it is now. He said he would have to move the house, get the foundation right, and move it back onto the foundation, with the bigger problem

5 Page 5 of 16 being that he can no longer get a driveway around it. He stated that the new driveway is narrower, so he is able to get a driveway along the side to get to the main house. Mr. Bennett asked what the width is to the left of the cottage as it presently sits. Mr. Roeger stated as it presently sits, it is twenty feet. He stated that the existing cottage is twenty-eight feet wide and he would have to elevate it for flood, which is his understanding if he does 50% or greater improvements. Mr. Robertson stated it would have to be raised. He stated that this board does have purview over setbacks, so they can give leniency on those setbacks. Mr. Bennett asked if BOZA has any authority over whether the structure is required to be elevated with more than 50%. Mr. Robertson stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA), not the Construction Board of Adjustment would review this. BOZA would have to be consulted, because in order for Mr. Roeger to build a second house on the property, one of them has to be the primary residence and the other an ADU (accessory dwelling unit). ADU s have a limited footprint of 850 square feet; therefore, that is what he would be limited to on the front house. Therefore, he is unable to build another structure behind it, because this would not comply with the ADU requirements. The ADU would have to be the primary structure and the second could only be 850 square feet. In order for Mr. Roeger to build a second home behind and maintain the first one, he would need a variance from BOZA to have an ADU over 850 square feet. Mr. Roeger said that the ground is approximately 8 ½ feet where the cottage sits and has to get to fourteen feet with the structure. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would like to discuss one issue which is the historical nature of the cottage and surrounding cottages in this area and cited Ordinance B, designation of historic properties. He stated that he has done some research and there is a rich tapestry, not of just this cottage, but others on the same street. He believes it is worthwhile to first make a distinction of what the Commission is addressing on B, subset 2d. He stated that 908 Pitt Street is in the 1999 report of endangered structures that was completed by Kristopher King, now the Executive Director of the Preservation Society of Charleston. He stated that he believes that these are important historical structures that need special attention for preservation. He stated that he spoke to the neighbors and said it appears to be primarily one family that lives in all of the cottages on Pitt Street, and have always lived there. He stated that there is a rich history to those cottages, including 908 Pitt Street. Mr. Bennett stated that he shares the same concern, because demolishing one of those cottages disrupts the grouping of the cottages. He stated that some of the preservation experts in the community also

6 Page 6 of 16 agreed with Mr. Hirshorn as well. He stated that as a reminder, it technically does not fall within the historic designation per the Town ordinance. He stated that the Commission is left with making a decision as to whether they believe this property does contribute and prefers to seek this designation individually for it, or accept the demolition proposal based on other criteria. Mr. Hirshorn stated that if the Commission decides one is not worthy of preservation, then they will all soon be sold and demolished. He stated that the Commission must take this into consideration as well as the fact that most of the cottages are in bad shape and will require almost complete restoration which is costly. He said there may be some opposing views as to whether this is historical. Mr. Keenan stated that he was in the same situation; however, he wanted to preserve the cottage. He stated that in order to restore, they would have had to adhere to the setbacks and move it and it was a large structure. He stated that they had to prove it was not historic in nature. Ms. Dickson asked what made Mr. Keenan s cottage less historic than Mr. Roeger s structure. Mr. Keenan stated that it was built in the mid 1940 s. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it was after Mr. Roeger stated that when he purchased the property, his guideline was basically what the Old Village guidelines were. He stated his structure was built in 1940, so it was not designated historic. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it is right on the fringe. Mr. Roeger stated that it is his understanding that if he has to move the structure, it would no longer be historic. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would support an application for any of the variances to reduce the requirement to have the structure raised or moved, as long as Mr. Roeger is willing to try and restore the cottage and work it into the schematic of the whole project. He stated that he believes this area of cottages are worth preserving and adds to the tapestry for the village. Mr. Bennett stated that there are a handful of alternatives. He said that one is accepting the proposal as is with minor adjustments. He stated that the second would be that the Commission request that the property be designated historic which would require that the applicant make further adjustments. He said that a third would be to restore/update the cottage mostly as it exists with more preservation than replacement with minor changes to the primary residence that Mr. Roeger is proposing in the rear. He stated that he has reservations about this as well, since it overwhelms the space in the back. He stated that the fourth alternative would be to restore the freedman s cottage as it exists, but with significant changes to the primary residence, where you take advantage of the freedman s cottage as the front elevation, but do more to the rear, not separately, not unlike what some of the homeowners on Pitt Street have done.

7 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Roeger stated that the challenge with doing this is that is it only six feet from Pitt Street. He stated that he would have to take it twenty-five feet more straight back and would have a shotgun house that is going to be sixty or seventy feet deep. Mr. Bennett stated that he has seen two or three homes further up Pitt Street, closer to Shem Creek where they have achieved what the Commission is conceptualizing without it going one room wide all the way back. He stated that one for variation would be to restore the freedman s cottage but with more substantial changes to a separate residence behind the home. Mr. Keenan stated that he read the engineer s letter and understands the cottage is in very poor condition. He stated that he likes the design of the new cottage, so he is in favor of the new cottage. He stated that his concern is the main structure which appears overwhelming for that lot. He stated that it is a beautiful house; however, has concerns with the scale and mass. Mr. Hirshorn stated that under the Old Village guideline under new construction, both #1 and #2 states, New construction must be harmonious in size, scale, mass and form type and location of the lot to the majority of existing buildings on the block, in particular and in the district in general. He stated that this is a good guideline. Mr. Roeger stated that he can come back with a different proposal for the pool. He stated that he has a fifty-three foot backyard from the back line to the house, which is a significant yard for the Old Village. Mr. Bennett stated that it is his understanding that under any circumstances, with the improvements, the existing cottage will have to be raised. Mr. Roeger stated that the quote for the renovations is more than the actual quote to build a new cottage. Mr. Robertson asked about the elevation of the property. Mr. Roeger said that the ground is eight and a half feet. Mr. Robertson stated that the cottage would have to be raised six feet. He stated that without a variance from the Construction Board of Adjustment and they typically do not do this, because this comes from FEMA and 50% improvement is their standard for all properties. He stated that he is unaware of any variances being issued for flood regulations. He stated that the other variance would have to be issued from the Board of Zoning Appeals for a structure larger than the 850 sf. Mr. Bennett stated that he would ask that Mr. Roeger improve or preserve the structure as it presently exists in the situation that it exists, but stated that the applicant does not have this latitude. The cottage would have to be raised. Ms. Rowe stated that it would destroy the integrity of what is trying to be preserved.

8 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Robertson stated that if more than 50% improvement is done, it must be raised. Mr. Roeger stated that the cottage has a zero value; it is all in the land only. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would rather see it improved and raised, retaining the existing square footage, than to demolish it, and to apply for a variance, which the Historical Commission would support, to have a larger than normal auxiliary house. He said taking into consideration the comments that have been made, build the main residence more in scale so that it complies more with the block. Mr. Roeger stated that it will cost more to renovate than to build new, which is why he is putting a cottage there that mimics the one at 721 Royall Avenue. Ms. Dickson asked if there are tax credits available for working to preserve a building. She stated that there are two separate definitions; one is 75 years and the other 50 years. Mr. Keenan asked Mr. Pagliarini if he had anything to add. Mr. Pagliarini said that in reference to the designation, there can be a request if there is an issue as to the designation. He stated that the statute provides that there be some determination as to whether it is historical or not. Mr. Bennett stated that designating it historic may be advantageous to the applicant and advantageous to the district as well. Mr. Keenan stated that it is difficult for him to argue against it, because he did the same thing. He stated that he does not have an issue demolishing the current structure and building the cottage. He stated that he has some issues with the proposed main house. Mr. Roeger stated that his plans were per the Historical Commission s guidelines not being historic. He stated that if he cannot obtain a variance, he will be unable to build the main house. Mr. Hirshorn stated that it appears Commission members are on the fence about whether the cottage is designated historical or not. Mr. Robertson stated that one thing to be aware of is if the Commission goes through the process specifies the criteria that is forwarded to Council requesting historical designation, there will be a three month minimum process for this to go through the Planning Commission, a Public Hearing, the Planning Committee of Council and the full Council. He said during that time, the property owner may appear and either agree or offer their reasons why it should not be designated. He stated that if Council approves it and the applicant still requests for the structure to be demolished, then the Commission would still go by the standards of the code for a historic property to be demolished. He said that if Council does not approve this, the Commission is back to where they started.

9 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Hirshorn stated that his plans as presented assume that it is not historic. He stated that the Commission must first clarify the historic nature of the structure and then move on to the remainder of the project. Mr. Robertson stated that the Commission may either move forward with the historic designation or approve the demolition. Linda Balzac, architect stated that there is a way around this. She stated that if there is even a breezeway connecting the main house to the small historic structure, then it becomes part of the main structure, and the applicant will need to reduce in size and variances will need to be granted for setbacks. After lengthy discussions by the Commission members, Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Pagliarini if it is important for the Commission to request executive session. He asked for clarification. Mr. Pagliarini stated that when specific issues are discussed related to a specific application an executive session is warranted. Ms. Rowe made a motion to adjourn into executive session for clarification on vested rights of the applicant as to historic status; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. The Commission adjourned into executive session at 6:23 p.m. and reconvened at 6:47 p.m. Mr. Bennett stated that no votes were taken into executive session. He stated that specific to this project and the question on demolition, he stated that discussion on this particular matter and the criteria that Mr. Roeger has proposed. Mr. Keenan made a motion that the Commission approves the demolition for the cottage at 908 Pitt Street as supported in the demolition guidelines, Section (b) Hardship: The structure cannot be economically rehabilitated on site to provide a reasonable residential environment compared to the other structures in the general area; and (c) as well; seconded by Ms. Rowe. Mr. Bennett stated that there has been a motion and second to approve demolition per criteria (b) and (c). Mr. Keenan and Ms. Rowe voted in favor. Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Dickson and Mr. Bennett opposed. Motion fails 2-3. Mr. Hirshorn stated that moving forward to the issue of the main residence, new construction guideline #1: new construction must be harmonious in size, scale, massing, form, roof type and location on the lot, as the majority of existing buildings on the block in particular. He stated that Mr. Roeger s plan was not harmonious to the block where there are a number of smaller cottages and structures with not as large of a scale and massing as the plan that was submitted. He stated that he takes issue with the main residence.

10 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Bennett stated he believes there is a general agreement on those concerns. He asked if there was additional thought with respect to pursuing historic designation status for the property. Mr. Hirshorn stated that there are many options, but a plan that would incorporate the existing cottage and paying homage to it, whether or not it is pursued as historic, believes that at another time should look into that whole area of cottages on a historic basis. He said that there have been really good designs in the village where they incorporate that cottage and build off of it. He stated that there is another one on Church Street which is the type of design that would pay respect to that particular block and the historical nature of it. Mr. Bennett stated that in order to achieve this, the Commission will be asking the applicant to restore the structure that already exists close to the street. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would support a variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals with this in mind. Mr. Hirshorn moved to defer this application potentially if the applicant would be interested in pursuing a variance with the cottage to use it as an auxiliary structure that is larger than acceptable with the support of the Commission, and that the applicant pursues another design that incorporates a non-demolished Freedman s Cottage up front; seconded by Ms. Dickson. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he could couch this on both the demolition ordinance and the new construction guideline #1. Mr. Bennett stated that the motion has been made a seconded to restore the structure as it exists at 908 Pitt Street with further consideration of the home design towards the rear at a later time. Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hirshorn, Ms. Dickson and Ms. Rowe were in favor. Mr. Keenan was opposed. Motion passed Pitt Street (Historic) Final Approval for Demolition and New Construction of Accessory Structure Linda Balzac, architect stated that this was approved several months ago to pick the garage up in the back and move it forward due to flooding. She said that it is not historic; however, the main house is. She stated that upon further investigation, the contractor stated that this has been flooding for years and has mold and rot. She said what they are proposing is to build a new structure that is the same height, scale and mass, location and garage that was approved last time. She said the only thing that would be different is adding a row of block at the bottom to help with the water, because it is still in a wet area and also change the roof to a metal roof. She stated that they are 17 ½ feet off of the next door neighbor to the left. She stated that the muttons are six over six now.

11 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Keenan made a motion to approve the new garage structure at 305 Pitt Street as it will not adversely affect the character of the Old Village Historic District; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor Live Oak Drive Final Approval for New Construction Carl McCants stated that they took into account the comments from the last review. Mr. McCants explained how the retaining wall would be constructed, placement of the home, plants screening the HVAC unit, large paving stones stepping out to the street. He stated that the pavers will follow the grade and connect to the backyard. He stated that he has recessed the doors back five or six feet. He stated that what they have done is make this house more of a background structure than an architectural statement. He stated that this house marries in well with the neighborhood. Ms. Dickson asked what the square footage was for this home. Mr. McCants stated that it is 2,390 square feet. Mr. Keenan asked if there were gutters. Mr. McCants stated that there were no gutters at this time, but said they will need some. He stated that they will have galvalume roofing and the exterior color will be white. Charlie Montgomery, 139 Toomer Lane stated that this is the type of home the neighbors like and the size and scale fits in well. Mr. Keenan stated that he would like for the applicant to focus on the drainage. Mr. Bennett stated that his only reservation is the cable railing in the front, which he does not think is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. McCants stated that he does have a degree in Historic Preservation and stated that he does not want to take away from any of the other houses. He stated that the cable rail indicates that it is not a historic home. Mr. Keenan moved that the Commission approve 129 Live Oak Drive as submitted, as it will not adversely affect the character of the Old Village; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor Pitt Street (Historic) TMS Final Approval for Sculpture Mr. Robertson stated that these are sculptures that generally rotate on Coleman Boulevard at the pocket park. He stated that this was a sculpture that was donated to the Town and the Recreation Department would like to mount it at the entrance going into the Darby Building on the parking lot side. He stated that it would be on the side entrance as

12 Page 12 of 16 you come in off of King Street. He stated that most of the dance programs take place at this building which is why they would like to place the sculpture at this site. Mr. Bennett asked if this was intended to be a permanent structure. Mr. Robertson stated that this was his understanding. The height is approximately 4 ½ to 5 feet tall. Linda Balzac, architect stated that it is not affecting the building and for the neighborhood would give it a little whimsy. Ms. Rowe stated that she does not like it at this location and believes it should be placed elsewhere. Ms. Dickson stated that she agrees. Ms. Rowe stated that it would look great at Ann Edwards Park, but not at the Darby Building. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve the structure as submitted to be placed in front of the Darby Building; seconded by Mr. Keenan. Mr. Hirshorn and Mr. Keenan were in favor. Mr. Bennett, Ms. Rowe and Ms. Dickson were opposed. Motion fails Center Street TMS Final Approval for Roof Color James Bryan, homeowner stated that they are in the middle of renovation and said that the contractor was up on the roof and stated that there has been a great deal of neglect on the roof itself. He stated that they would like to request changing the roof color. He stated that it is currently red and would like to do more of a slate color. He stated he would like to paint the main house and cottage the red that is proposed and the slate roof will allow it to blend in to the landscape of the property. Mr. Bennett stated that he does not have any reservations about the color. He stated that his concern is that it does not fit within the guidelines. He stated that the guidelines call for tinners red, patina green, natural black and natural metal. Ms. Rowe stated that she has seen this before, where you believe a color is one thing and then it is not that color. Mr. Hirshorn moved to approve the change in roof color in variation from the guideline #11 under roofs, to burnished slate, as it will not adversely affect the character of the Old Village; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor Pitt Street TMS Conceptual Comment for Demolition and New Construction of Accessory Structure Wynne Thomas, stated that the current structure is very dilapidated and they would like to update it to match the front of the house. She stated

13 Page 13 of 16 that they would like to use a different color so that it will blend well with the trees. She stated that the window shift would be 6 over 6 and not the current 2 over 2. She stated that the color of the roof and structure would be a dark color. She stated that there is a proposed window on the back side of the building, elevation C A1.1, which backs to the rear. Mr. Bennett stated that with respect to the footprint, the plan states 32 feet wide. Ms. Thomas stated that it is 18 feet wide and 32 feet long. She said they will be putting two dormers in to match the windows underneath. She stated that the structure has a shed roof and the proposal shows 18 feet tall. She said that is on one side and slopes down to 10 feet. She stated that it will be a storage shed and playroom for her children. Mr. Hirshorn stated that are a number of guidelines regarding accessory sheds. He stated that the guidelines stated to keep and protect historic and older garages and accessory buildings that contribute to the special character of the Old Village. He stated that the new building is very different from the old building and asked what the justification is to build a new one that is so different. Ms. Thomas stated that they would love to keep it similar; however, the shed roof is no longer available; you are not able to build a shed roof which is why our roof is now proposed as an A frame. It no longer meets code. Mr. Keenan stated that if it not historical, that it is within the property owner s rights. He stated that this is a very large lot and the structure is very well hidden from the back of the home. Mr. Robertson stated that the Commission needs to follow the ordinances and make the determination on the appropriateness for demolition criteria as previously done. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he would like to make a motion to approve the demolition of the structure on the grounds of public safety #2(a), (b) and (d); seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor. Mr. Bennett stated that in terms of the design of the structure, it would be taller than what is currently there. Mr. Hirshorn stated that the guidelines make a particular reference to keeping the old sheds looking like old sheds. Ms. Thomas said that it is taller than the previous structure. Mr. Robertson stated that the board no longer reviews colors. Ms. Thomas stated that her neighbor has an ADU with the type of brown color she would like to paint her shed. She will take pictures and forward to staff. Ms. Dickson made a motion that the design of the structure at 820 Pitt Street be approved as it does not adversely affect the character of the Old Village; seconded by Mr. Hirshorn. All present voted in favor.

14 Page 14 of Church Street TMS Final Approval for Demolition and New Construction Ross Ritchie and Beau Clowney, architects for the homeowner stated that they are requesting the demolition of the non-historic structure that was built in the late 1960 s. He stated that the new design is going to be more in spirit with the Old Village. He stated that the site slopes from the street to the back with the new design, there will need to be grading. He stated that his client has an accessibility concerns and would like to keep everything at one level. He stated that putting the garage in the back, it would need to be raised and they are working with the landscape architects on drainage. He stated that there is a dry well at the back of the property. He stated that currently, the water moves all the way off onto the property in the rear so they are containing all the drainage. He stated in terms of height, it will be lower than the house to the left and right. He stated that the house shaped in a c which opens up to a courtyard area. Mr. Bennett stated that his only concern is the separation between the homes with the large trees being taken out, as it will only be separated by a driveway. Mr. Ritchie stated that there is an existing 6 foot fence that will be planted out and cleaned up. Ms. Dickson asked why the home is two stories if the homeowner is handicapped. Mr. Ritchie stated that there is a lift and they do have a family. He said that the main floor will have the master and all common areas which will be accessible for the handicapped family member. Mr. Hirshorn stated that this is the last small house on the block. Mr. Keenan stated that he likes the design and variation of brick to siding. He hopes that there will be more planting. Mr. Hirshorn stated that he did speak with one of the neighbors and said they were comfortable with the new house. David McCall, stated that the sense of double hungs with case mounts, he is curious historically that 6 over 1 and 4 over 1, the variety of different divided lights, it looks like a picture with large divided lights, it seems to be a variation of divided window lights. Mr. Ritchie stated that one of the main ideas behind changing from a 6 to a 4 is more looking at the ratio of the divided light, being more of a vertical ratio. Mr. Hirshorn moved to approve the demolition based on #2(d); seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor.

15 Page 15 of 16 Mr. Keenan moved to approve the re-submitted plans for 416 Church Street, as submitted as it will not adversely affect the character of the Old Village; seconded by Ms. Dickson. All present voted in favor Toomer Lane WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT ( )TMS (TMS Corrected) Conceptual Comment for Demolition and New Construction Bennett Street (Historic) TMS Final Approval for Shutter and Driveway Linda Balzac stated that she is requesting approval after the fact for the shutter they installed on the second floor for privacy, which is a composite material. She stated that when open for the breeze and when closed, for privacy. The homeowner apologized for not knowing ahead of time. She said that the driveway that was previously there, although it was marked gravel in the original survey, was a compacted fill and had severe flooding issues. She stated that there is a letter attached from an environmental engineer that said that it was not draining at all and draining towards the main house and adjacent properties. She stated that the new driveway has French drains. She stated that they are taking up the rear pad in the back. Ms. Dickson stated that the stairs were also changed. Mr. Bennett stated that he raised these concerns to Mr. Robertson, because he knew they had not gone through the process. Ms. Balzac stated that they are the hurricane shutters and are an approved composite. Mr. Robertson said if they are composite, when were they approved? He stated that the composites can be milled to look like historic shutters. There was once two types; one was a solid panel and the other was half louvers in it so when the window was open, it appears to be a louvered shutter tied back against the house. If this was installed back then, then it likely was approved. Mr. Bennett stated that he does not have any issue with the driveway. He stated that his concern is with the screen because it is the Bahama style which is inconsistent. He stated if it was more consistent with the Boatright s house, then it would be acceptable. Ms. Dickson stated that they did not obtain permits and said if there are no consequences to their actions, then why is the Commission here. There should be a consequence. Mr. Hirshorn asked if it would be better if fixed. Mr. Bennett stated that it would be his preference and is more consistent with the style and period. Mr. Hirshorn made a motion to approve the retroactive driveway and porch blind, with the exception in accordance with guidelines for porches stoops and steps may not be altered or moved on a primary façade and

16 Page 16 of 16 require that the blind be affixed to the porch/shutter be closed; seconded by Ms. Rowe. All present voted in favor. V. Staff Approvals 1. Mr. Robertson stated that at 613 Pitt Street, there was a pervious paver walkway that was approved. They had a larger driveway and they added a small walkway portion to it. He stated that it was just a change in material. He said there are two that are not listed that will show up on the April agenda, because they have it today. He said that one is 200 Ferry Street pervious paver walkway MR pervious paver approved and walkway change of material. Will show up on April agenda. 200 Ferry Street on roofing where they went from a brown to a black, architectural grade shingle. He said the other is a 967 Royall. A family purchased the property and has a special needs child. He asked for a temporary fence around the property so that the child cannot get out into the marsh. He stated that they do intend to come to the board with a request for a wall on the property, but they would not have been able to apply until April and with another thirty days to construct. They requested something temporary, which would be removed prior to the 4 th of July. VI. Motion to Adjourn Ms. Dickson moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Keenan. All present voted in favor. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe Administrative Secretary March 30, 2016