Jun 05, 2024 Town of Bluffton Historic Preservation Commission Meeting

TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES.

THIS IS A NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT.

UH, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WILL NOT HEAR NEW ITEMS AFTER 9:30 PM UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE 9:30 PM MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR AN ADDITIONAL MEETING DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS.

WE'LL MOVE ON

[IV. ADOPTION OF MINUTES]

UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH FOR THE PREVIOUS MEETING? UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE.

ALL THE, UH, MINUTES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.

UH,

[V. PUBLIC COMMENT]

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES.

CHRIS MURPHY, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.

NOT CAN I GO FIRST? CAN I GO FIRST? CHRISTINE MURPHY.

HEY, UM, I'M CHRISTINE MURPHY.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY, UM, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY TODAY.

I, UM, BEFORE WILLIAM PRESENTS OUR PROPOSAL, I THOUGHT IT'D BE GOOD TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND, CHRIS MURPHY.

UM, MY FAMILY MOVED HERE 46 YEARS AGO, AND MY PARENTS HAVE BEEN SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ON HILTON HEAD FOR 25 YEARS, AND THEY STILL LIVE HERE IN BLUFFTON.

SO, YOU KNOW, BLUFFTON IS OUR HOME.

WE'VE KNOWN SO MANY LONG TIME BLUFFTON, BABIE AND WILL GUO, WHO ARE HERE.

I'VE KNOWN THEM FOR JUST AS LONG AS WE'VE LIVED HERE.

ALICE HAYWARD, HER, UM, I MET HER IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

HER, SHE'S A REALLY GOOD FRIEND OF MINE, AND HER DAD WAS MAYOR, AS YOU KNOW.

HE WAS ALSO MY HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, SHELLY WEST.

YOU KNOW HER FROM THE, UH, HAYWARD HOUSE.

WE WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL TOGETHER.

ANSLEY, HESTER, MANUEL, AND I TELL YOU THESE NAMES BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL REAL.

WE'RE ALL BLUFFED IN TOGETHER.

AND, UM, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT, UH, ANSLEY'S MOM WAS MY EIGHTH GRADE EARTH SCIENCE TEACHER IN THIS VERY BUILDING.

SO, UM, THAT SAID, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A INTRODUCTION OF WHO WE ARE AND KIND OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

I GUESS.

WHEN I WAS 18, I WENT TO UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

THAT'S WHERE I MET CHRIS.

WE GOT MARRIED 30 YEARS AGO IN HILTON HEAD AND RAISED THREE KIDS.

AND WHEN ONE 13 BRIDGE STREET CAME ON THE MARKET, WE SAID, THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MOVE TO BLACKTON.

SO BASICALLY, WE JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU WHAT OUR INTENT IS, AND OUR INTENT IS TO WORK WITH EVERYONE INVOLVED, AND WE REALLY HOPE TO MAKE THIS PROJECT A WIN FOR EVERYONE.

UM, WE LOVE BLUFFTON.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING A PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND, UM, WE'LL BE INVOLVED COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I I'LL TELL YOU THAT CHRIS IS GONNA SHARE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION WITH YOU.

WILLIAM COURT'S GOING TO GIVE US OUR PLAN DETAILS AND, UM, WE JUST WANNA TELL YOU THAT WE WANNA MAKE THIS WORK AND WE WANNA RESPECT EVERYONE'S INTEREST IN WHAT'S GOING ON ON BRIDGE STREET.

YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT ABOUT IT TONIGHT.

AND, UM, THANK YOU AGAIN.

UM, MY NAME'S CHRIS MURPHY, CHRISTINE'S HUSBAND, AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW ME BY.

BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS A PART OF THE BUYING PROCESS, WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF ONE 13 BRIDGE STREET, YOU KNOW, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE HOUSE WAS VERY MATERIALLY CHANGED FROM WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DEEMED HISTORIC.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHANGE WAS DONE, UM, ALL WITH, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE PERMITS THAT WERE SUBMITTED VERY AS A PART OF THE PROCESS AT THE TIME OF BLUFFTON.

THE CHALLENGE WAS THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT FOR THE HISTORIC COMMITTEE AT THAT TIME.

SO EVERYTHING WAS CHANGED, AND I THINK YOU'LL, YOU'LL LEARN MORE AS YOU GET THROUGH WHAT WAS FULLY PERMITTED, YOU KNOW, IS NOW IT'S CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THIS DECISION IS NOT SIMPLY A BLACK AND WHITE DECISION.

THERE'S A, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GRAY, AND THAT'S

[00:05:01]

WHAT MAKES THIS DECISION VERY UNIQUE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE IS JUST SIMPLY NOT WHAT IT WAS WHEN IT WAS DEEMED HISTORIC, WHICH IS WHY WE WANTED TO AT LEAST CONVEY OUR FEELINGS TO YOU THAT WHAT WILLIAM WAS GONNA GO THROUGH IN A LOT MORE DETAIL.

ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THAT AS A PART OF THIS PROCESS, WE TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY.

WE CONTACTED THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR THE COLLECTIVE THE LAST 60 PLUS YEARS.

AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE IN THE, IN, IN THE, THE AUDIENCE HERE TONIGHT.

BUT THEN ALSO THERE ARE LETTERS THAT ARE DOCUMENTING THEIR SUPPORT AS A PART OF THE PACKAGE.

WE, WE WANTED TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED AND THEY UNDERSTOOD, AND THEY WERE A PART OF THIS DECISION MAKING PROCESS ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO APPROACH IT.

AND I GUESS OUR REQUEST TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION GREATLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING.

WE, OUR REQUEST IS TO KEEP A VERY OPEN MIND ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SIMPLE, CLEAR, BLACK AND WHITE DECISION, AS I MENTIONED.

AND THE MORE THAT AS YOU DIG INTO IT, YOU'LL SEE, AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS OF IT, BUT YOU'LL HOPEFULLY UNDERSTAND THE FACT, OUR COMMITMENT TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.

WE WANNA BE RESIDENTS IN THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON, OLD TOWN OF BLUFFTON.

WE WANT TO MAKE THIS A GREAT SITUATION WHERE IT'S A WIN FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

IT'S A WIN FOR THE ROWS WHO ARE THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S A WIN FOR US THAT ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO, UH, DEVELOP A PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT'S GONNA MAKE OUR LEGACY HOME A, A GREAT PLACE AND PROTECT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF WHAT'S RELEVANT TO THE HISTORIC SOCIETY OR HISTORIC COMMISSION FOR BLUFFING.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'RE GONNA BE HERE FOR THE NEXT, HOWEVER LONG THIS TAKES.

WE'RE DEFINITELY WILLING TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

OF, UH, AT LEAST FIVE, UH, CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES AS THEY WERE KNOWN AS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE PAST.

ROBERT JONES.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS ROBERT JONES.

I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HISTORIC BLUFFTON FOUNDATION.

CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? SORRY.

UM, GOOD EVENING ESTEEM MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS ROBERT JONES AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HISTORIC BL AND FOUNDATION.

I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS MY FULL SUPPORT FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE TYLER DURST HOUSE LOCATED AT ONE 13 BRIDGE STREET.

THIS HISTORIC PROPERTY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES HOLDS CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL VALUE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THE PROPOSED RESTORATION EFFORTS ARE COMMENDABLE ENDEAVOR TO PRESERVE OUR LOCAL HERITAGE AND ENSURE THE CONTINUED APPRECIATION OF OUR HISTORICAL ASSETS.

HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT WHILE I FULLY SUPPORT THE RESTORATION OF THE TYLER DURST HOUSE, I MUST VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THE PLAN TO RELOCATE THE BUILDING TO ACHIEVE THIS RESTORATION.

THIS PROPOSED RELOCATION THREATENS TO UNDERMINE THE HISTORICAL INTEGRITY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE COHESION OF OUR NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.

OUR DISTRICT WITH FEWER THAN 50 STRUCTURES LEFT REMAINS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

HISTORIC PLACES SERVES AS A TANGIBLE LINK TO OUR PAST AND IS A TESTAMENT TO OUR RICH HISTORY AND CULTURAL IDENTITY.

ANY LOSS OF THIS WOULD BE BE A SIGNIFICANT BLOW TO OUR COMMUNITY'S HISTORICAL FABRIC.

I URGE THE COMMISSION TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE RELOCATION OF THIS HOUSE.

LET US STRIVE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF OUR NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

AND I JUST WANNA SAY, I MEAN, ON THE EVE OF JUNE 6TH, 1863, WE LOST HALF OF OUR BUILDINGS IN THE BURNING OF BLUFFTON.

SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE LOST ANOTHER HALF OF THOSE.

WE'RE DOWN TO ABOUT 12 ANTEBELLUM STRUCTURES AND SEVERAL DOZEN, UM, POST CIVIL WAR STRUCTURES.

ANY LOSS IS LIKE, IT'S TERRIBLE FOR THIS TOWN.

I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES JUST TO WILLY-NILLY MOVE THINGS AROUND.

AND IF YOU ALLOW THIS PERSON TO DO THAT, THEN THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY ELSE THAT COMES IN, SUCH AS THE HOUSE THAT I CITED IN MY LETTER, UM, WHICH IS THE MILFORD HOUSE OR SOME OF THE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE WATERFRONT THAT PEOPLE MIGHT COME IN AND THEY'LL LOOK AT IT AND THEY'LL SAY, OH, WELL, THE HOUSE IS NOT THAT GREAT OF A HOUSE.

IT'S LITTLE, IT'S TOO SMALL FOR US.

IT'S NOT MODERN ENOUGH.

WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

WE EITHER NEED TO MOVE IT.

I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT PROTECTING THE HOUSE.

THAT'S WHAT THIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IS FOR, TO PROTECT BUILDINGS LIKE THAT.

THANK YOU WILL CIO.

GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE.

I'M WILL GUO.

UH, I'M A LIFELONG, UH, RESIDENT OF THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON, UH, AND 35 YEARS OF REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE IN THE SALE

[00:10:01]

I, UH, I'M A REALTOR.

UH, I LIVE ON 56TH CALHOUN STREET WITH MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER FARMING.

AND, UH, AS THIS, UH, IT'S, IT'S WONDERFUL TO SEE MY DAUGHTER GROW UP UNDER THE SAME CANOPY THAT I HAD MYSELF.

AND, UH, WE ENJOY THE DOWNTOWN LUPTON AREA.

UH, I'M A REALTOR FOR THE, AND A, A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE MURPHY'S AND THEIR INTEREST OF THIS PROPERTY.

I HAVE DONE RESEARCH WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER, UH, THE DURST AUSTIN, UH, SON OF MACK AND, UH, DOROTHY, WAS IT DURST, UM, AUSTIN, UM, THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, SO, UH, SHOWED DURST A VIDEO WALKTHROUGH AS WELL AS PICTURES OF WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE NOW AS IT SITS.

THEY HAD, UH, SOLD THE PROPERTY IN 99 TO THE PRESENT OWNERS AND, UH, THE PRESENT OWNERS DID WHAT THEY COULD WITH THE PROPERTY AND TURNED IT INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY.

THE, UH, PROPERTY HAD CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED, AND, UH, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO IT.

UM, THE MURPHY'S ARE A FAMILY THAT SEE TO PRESERVATION AS A PASSION.

AND WHEN THAT PROPERTY CAME ON THE MARKET, I FELT THAT IT WAS THE PERFECT MATCH.

AND THERE ARE NUANCES THAT WERE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, AND WILLIAM COURT WILL BE GOING OVER THERE AS WELL.

AND, UH, I WOULD HOPE THAT, UH, MAYBE WITH AN INTERPRETIVE LOOK AT, UH, WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED, YOU WOULD SEE THAT, UH, THERE HAD BEEN SOME CHANGES THAT ARE SO DRAMATIC THAT IT MIGHT RENDER THE PROPERTY NOT AS HISTORIC AS IT ONCE WAS IN THE RESERVATION THEREOF.

SO ANGRY TIME AND BABI CIO, YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

DID YOU, OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR MOUTH.

MY NAME IS BABI GUO AND I LIVE 73 BRIDGE STREET.

AND I'VE LIVED HERE MOST OF MY LIFE.

AND WHEN WE FIRST MOVED TO BLUFFTON, MY HUSBAND DON AND I, THE POPULATION OF BLUFFTON WAS ABOUT 700 PEOPLE.

AND AMONG THOSE PEOPLE WERE FLO AND MAC AUSTIN.

AND WE WERE PRIVY AT THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THEIR HOUSE AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S HOUSES.

WE HAD A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT LIVED DOWNTOWN AND AROUND THE AREA, AND THEY WERE AMONG THEM.

AND WE WENT TO THEIR HOUSE.

AND I MUST SAY THAT THEIR HOUSE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE IT USED TO LOOK NOW SINCE THE ROSE REDID, BUT HE REDID IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE CHILDREN AND NEEDED THE ROOM, NEEDED THE SPACE FOR THE CHILDREN TO HAVE, UH, BEDROOMS AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.

BUT THE HOUSE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE IT USED TO LOOK, BUT I FEEL AS THOUGH, AND MY HUSBAND DOES TOO, WE LIVE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM, UH, WHERE THEY'RE THINKING OF DOING THIS, UM, THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH DOING.

THEY'RE GONNA, IF THEY MOVE THE HOUSE, THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE HOUSE AND REFURBISH IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL FOR BLUFFTON BECAUSE IT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT'S WELL TAKEN CARE OF, REFURBISHED, REHABILITATE, REHABILITATED, PARDON ME.

AND IT WILL BE A NICE ADDITION TO TOWN IF MAY MAYBE ONE, THEY MIGHT THINK ABOUT OPENING ONCE A YEAR OF SOMETHING FOR PEOPLE TO TOUR THROUGH, BECAUSE I THINK THE GARVEY HOUSE IS ABSOLUTELY CHARMING WITH YOU DID A BEAUTIFUL JOB WITH THAT.

ANYWAY, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE WITH ME IF YOU LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO BRIDGE STREET AND IT WOULD BE A NICE ADDITION TO THE WHOLE AREA AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.

BUT THANK YOU ANYWAY FOR MY, LET ME EXPRESS MY OPINION.

I LIVE AT 14 OMATA BEACH LANE.

UM, IT IS ACTUALLY IN GREATER BLUFFTON.

I'M NOT, UM, A RESIDENT OF THE TOWN I REPRESENT AS, UM, A REALTOR, THE SELLERS.

SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW THAT I DO HAVE A VESTED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE I SEE ANYTHING ELSE.

UM, I HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THIS HOME, INSIDE AND OUT.

I HAVE CRAWLED ALL SORTS OF PLACES.

UM, I KNOW VERY CLEARLY, AND YOU'RE GONNA HEAR THIS, I'M CERTAIN FROM, UM, WILLIAM COURT

[00:15:01]

TONIGHT, THE ARCHITECT WHO'S INVOLVED WITH THE MURPHY'S.

UM, THERE IS NOTHING VISIBLE FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME THAT WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE HISTORIC.

I'M GONNA HAVE TO, UM, TAKE A SEPARATE POSITION FROM WHAT ROBERT JONES SAID.

UM, BECAUSE WHAT EXISTS THERE TODAY IS CIRCA 2000.

UM, EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE FROM THE RIVERSIDE AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE FROM THE STREET SIDE AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS, WITH THE EXCEPTION MAYBE OF A WINDOW ON ONE SIDE, CANNOT BE HISTORIC.

IF YOU CLIMB IN THE ATTIC OF THIS HOME, YOU CAN TELL EXACTLY WHERE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE LAYS BECAUSE I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WHAT EXISTS UP THERE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TODAY.

YOU CAN ALSO TELL VERY READILY THAT THE ROOF AND ITS JOISTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF IS, IS A 2000 CPA ROOF.

SO BASICALLY THE HISTORIC COMPONENTS OF THIS BUILDING ARE HIDDEN FROM VIEW CURRENTLY.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT ANYBODY IN TOWN IS EVER GONNA SEE.

IT'S THAT HOME AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW IS REHABILITATED AS IT SITS.

SO IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE TONIGHT IS THAT TO REQUIRE THIS AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO BE REHABILITATED AS IT SITS, IS REQUIRING A CIRCA 2000 HOME, WHICH I DON'T THINK WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE HISTORIC.

THERE ARE NO OTHER HOMES THAT I CAN FIND IN THE TOWN THAT ARE CIRCA 2000 THAT ARE ON THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE LIST, AS I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT I, UM, WHAT THE MURPHY'S WANT TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY.

UM, AND, AND MOVING THE HISTORIC COMPONENT TO A SEPARATE LOCATION.

UM, I CERTAINLY WOULD BE IN SUPPORTIVE, THEY'RE MEMBERS, UM, OF THE ROW FAMILY, THE CURRENT, UM, OWNERS OF THE HOME WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT.

UM, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA SPEAK, BUT I'M SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF.

THEY ARE VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT, UM, OF THE ENDEAVOR.

UM, I KNEW NANCY ROWE PERSONALLY, NANCY AND BILLY NANCY WAS, UM, A REALTOR, UM, ONE OF WHOM WAS KIND OF LIKE THE OG HERE IN BLUFFTON.

AND WHO I WOULD THINK, UM, WOULD BE VERY, UM, HAPPY TO HAVE ME SPEAK ON BEHALF OF HER FAMILY.

I THINK SHE'D BE QUITE PROUD OF MY SUCCESS IN THE INDUSTRY, UM, BECAUSE SHE WAS A VERY SUCCESSFUL AGENT HERSELF.

UM, SO HAVING SAID THAT, I HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION JUNE C**K JANE JANE, MY NAME IS JANE HANCOCK LONG, AND I HAVE A HOUSE AT 1 2 3 BRIDGE STREET.

IT WAS BUILT BY MY FATHER AND IT DOES NOT RESEMBLE WHAT THE ORIGINAL WAS IN ANY WAY.

AND MY GRANDPARENTS, WHO I WERE THE TYSONS, AND THAT'S T-I-S-O-N, NOT T-Y-S-O-N, BUILT THE HOUSE THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT.

AND I, I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT IT IN NO WAY RESEMBLES THE HOUSE MY GRANDPARENTS BUILT AND THE GUEST HOUSE IN NO WAY RESEMBLES THE GUEST HOUSE THAT MY GRANDPARENTS BUILT.

AND WHATEVER THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DO, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IMPROVEMENT.

I LIVE TWO DOORS DOWN FROM 'EM.

I WISH EVERYBODY ON THE BLUFF WOULD DO SOMETHING THAT MAKES THIS BLUFF MORE LIVABLE AND WONDERFUL FOR THIS TOWN.

WHAT KAY STANLEY DID WITH THE MRSA HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO ME, I THINK IS JUST FABULOUS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING IN THIS TOWN.

UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

[VI. OLD BUSINESS]

UH, MOVING ON, UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS.

SO MOVING

[VII. NEW BUSINESS]

ON TO NEW BUSINESS, UM, HERE.

THE FIRST MATTER, A REQUEST BY RFD

[1. Certificate of Appropriateness: A request by RFD Construction, on behalf of the owner, Hunter H Hansen and Sue A Hansen, for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness-HD to allow the construction of a new 1.5-story Single Family Residential Structure of approximately 2,619 SF Carriage House structure of approximately 1,123 SF, located at 28 Stock Farm Road, Lot 33 in the Stock Farm Development, in the Old Town Bluffton Historic District, within the Neighborhood General - HD zoning district. (COFA-03-24-019041)(Staff - Katie Peterson)]

CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, HUNTER H HANSON.

AND SUE A HANSON FOR APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

HD TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE AND A HALF FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OF APPROXIMATELY 2,619 SQUARE FEET CARRIAGE HOUSE STRUCTURE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,123 SQUARE FEET.

LOCATED AT 28 STOCK FARM ROAD, LOT 33 IN THE STOCK FARM DEVELOPMENT IN THE OLD TOWN BLUFFTON HISTORIC DISTRICT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL HD ZONING DISTRICT.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER.

UM, AS CHAIRMAN DEPAUW JUST INDICATED, THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY? I'M ECHOING FUNNY IN MY OWN EARS.

UM, THIS IS, UM, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE

[00:20:01]

APPROVAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE STOCK FARM DEVELOPMENT.

THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF, UM, STOCK FARM ROAD.

SO THIS IS ACCESSED ACTUALLY, AND I NEVER HAVE SAID THIS WORD RIGHT AT THE CURVE IN THE ROAD OF S-I-M-L-A-X LANE, WHICH IS A WORD THAT I WILL NOT TRY TO PRONOUNCE TONIGHT.

SO THE ACCESS IS OFF THE REAR AND THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WILL ACTUALLY SIT HERE FACING TOWARDS STOCK FARM ROAD.

I HAVE INCLUDED IN OUR SLIDESHOW TONIGHT THE FLOOR PLANS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS AN ATTACHED CARRIAGE HOUSE.

SO THIS LINE RIGHT HERE IS WHERE THAT DELINEATION TAKES PLACE FOR OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS AS WELL AS THE ARCHITECTURE.

UM, THERE IS A POOL THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REAR YARD AS WELL.

SO YOU'LL SEE THAT IS A STRUCTURE, BUT IT IS NOT A, UM, ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURE HERE.

THEY'VE GOT THE SERVICE YARD ON THE SIDE HERE AS WELL AS A SERVICE YARD ON THE OTHER SIDE HERE.

AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR PLAN.

SO IT IS A ONE AND A HALF STORY STRUCTURE.

SO YOU HAVE THIS PORTION HERE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SECOND STORY ABOVE IT, BUT THE MAIN MASS OF THE BUILDING IS THAT TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY GOING TO BE AN UNFINISHED AREA.

HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS AS IT IS.

UM, ENCLOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE HERE IS THE FRONT ELEVATION.

SO THIS ELEVATION HERE, UM, THEY'VE PROVIDED A RENDERING OF EACH ELEVATION IN A LITTLE BIT MORE 3D AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET FROM THE, UM, FLAT DRAWING.

SO THE, THE RENDERING IS ON THE TOP WITH YOUR ELEVATION ON THE BOTTOM HERE, UM, FOR THE FRONT ELEVATION.

SO THIS IS WHAT FACES TOWARDS, UM, STOCK FARM ROAD.

YOU HAVE YOUR CARRIAGE HOUSE STRUCTURE HERE WITH YOUR PRIMARY STRUCTURE HERE.

THE GARAGE DOORS FOR THE CARRIAGE HOUSE ARE ON THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AND THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE, HERE'S, OOPS.

SO THIS IS THE RIGHT ELEVATION YOU'VE GOT DOWN BELOW, BUT YOU ACTUALLY JUST, THAT'S THIS PORTION HERE.

UM, THEY DO HAVE A PARTIAL SCREEN IN PORCH SECTION, WHICH YOU'LL SEE ON THE NEXT ONE AS WELL AS AN ALTERNATE FRONT PORCH.

SO ONE OF THE, THE COMMENTS THAT STAFF FOUND IS THAT THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY MEETING THE FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT OR THE FINISHED PORCH HEIGHT.

UM, REQUIREMENTS.

THE PORCH HEIGHT IS REQUIRED TO BE 30 INCHES ABOVE AVERAGE ADJACENT SIDEWALK GRADE.

UM, IT'S CURRENTLY SITTING BELOW THAT, BUT UM, I'VE GOTTEN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT SAYING THAT THEY'RE HAPPY TO MEET THAT ELEVATION.

UM, IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD THE PORCH HEIGHT, B PLUS OR MINUS ONE INCH OF THAT 30 BECAUSE AT 30 INCHES YOU REQUIRE THE RAILINGS AROUND THE PORCH, WHERE AT 29 AND THREE QUARTERS YOU DO NOT BY BUILDING CODE.

SO, UM, AS LONG AS IT WAS WITHIN ONE INCH OF THAT NUMBER, WHEN WE GO OUT IN THE FIELD AND ACTUALLY MEASURE IT, UM, THEY HAVE SHOWN THE ALTERNATE SO THAT WHEN THEY GO OUT AND THEY BUILD THIS, IF FOR SOME REASON IT IS NOT UNDER THAT BY BUILDING SAFETY'S MEASUREMENTS, WE DO HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE HERE.

UM, SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THEM HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

THIS IS THE REAR ELEVATIONS.

YOU CAN SEE THAT SCREENED IN PORCH.

THAT'S WHERE THAT ELEVATION WAS SHOWING YOU PREVIOUSLY, AS WELL AS THOSE GARAGE DOORS HERE AND THEN THE LEFT ELEVATION.

UM, SO THIS IS THE FRONT PORCH, FRONT ELEVATION WITH THOSE RAILINGS SHOULD THEY NEED TO BE INSTALLED.

I HAVE INCLUDED SOME SECTIONS AND DETAILS.

I HAVE NOT INCLUDED ALL OF THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS VERY, VERY SMALL ON THIS SCREEN, BUT THEY ARE ALL INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THE PACKET THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE FOR ANYBODY WHO IS WATCHING ON THE COUNTY CHANNEL OR AT HOME.

AND THEN THE WINDOWS AND DOOR TABLE.

THE ONE WAS WITH THE BLACK LINE THROUGH IT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL INTERNAL DOORS OR THE GARAGE DOOR, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE, THE REVIEW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER THE GARAGE DOORS ARE PART OF THE REVIEW, BUT THEY'RE NOT A MATERIAL THAT IS OF CONCERN.

SO I JUST PUT A LINE THROUGH THOSE SO THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO TRY AND READ WHILE I'M STANDING HERE.

WHAT, UM, DOORS ON THIS DOOR TABLE ARE INTERNAL HERE IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE, OR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN PORTION THAT SHOWS THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES.

SO YOU'VE GOT THE HOUSE PLACEMENT HERE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALLER TREES IN HERE, UM, AS WELL AS THE BUFFER THAT IS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY UP AT THE FRONT HERE.

SO THERE IS A, A MASS OF TREES PLUS THESE TREES SAVE AREAS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT HERE AND ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU CAN SEE THOSE SAVED SECTIONS AGAIN HERE.

AND THEN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS WITH THE PROPOSED PLANTINGS, INCLUDING THAT STREET TREE THAT THEY'LL NEED IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR CANOPY COVERAGE CALCULATION.

THE STREET TREES THAT ARE DOWN IN THESE AREA ARE EXISTING CANOPY TREES THAT WILL COUNT TOWARDS THEIR REQUIREMENTS.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLANT A TREE AT THE BASE, UM, OF THE SCREEN ALONG STOCK FARM ROAD.

[00:25:01]

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT CANOPY COVERAGE IS HERE WITH THAT EXTRA LIVE OAK THAT NEEDS TO GO IN TO MAKE THE CANOPY COVERAGE CALCULATIONS WORK.

I'VE INCLUDED THE FENCE DETAIL, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A LIVING FENCE.

IT IS PROPOSED ALONG JUST THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY HERE.

UM, IT SHOWS UP BETTER.

THERE YOU GO.

SO HERE'S YOUR GATE AND THEN THE FENCE THAT RUNS ALONG THE BACK OF THE, THE PROPERTY.

SO IT'S GOING TO BASICALLY ENCLOSE THE POOL AREA.

IT DOES NOT RUN ALONG THE FRONT.

SO ITS HEIGHT HERE AT FOUR FEET IS AN APPROVABLE HEIGHT.

UM, IN THE FRONT YARD IT WOULD HAVE TO BE JUST A FEW INCHES SHY OF THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THE HPC CONSIDERS THE EIGHT REVIEW CRITERIA, WHICH ARE FOUND IN SECTION 3 18 3 OF OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

AND THEY HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.

BASED ON THOSE REVIEW CRITERIA STAFF FOUND WITH SIX ITEMS, UM, IT WOULD MEET THOSE CRITERIA AND UM, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT.

IF YOU DO NOT MIND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL RUN THROUGH THESE BECAUSE, UM, THEY ARE, A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE EASIER FOR ME TO GO THROUGH QUICKLY AND THEN GO BACK TO THE PLANS TO SHOW YOU WHERE THOSE LOCATIONS ARE.

UM, IF YOU ALL HAVE QUESTIONS ON THOSE CONDITIONS WORK.

OKAY? YEP.

IS IT'S HORIZONTAL AND THEN IT'S UP AND DOWN IN THE ELEVATION.

SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE FIRST FINISH FLOOR HEIGHT MUST BE RAISED TO BE AT LEAST THREE FEET ABOVE AVERAGE ADJACENT SIDEWALK GRADE THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE THIRD ONE, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM PORCH HEIGHT.

I ALREADY MENTIONED BOTH OF THOSE.

THE SECOND ITEM IS THAT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS AND PAIN PROPORTION VARIATION MUST BE REDUCED TO PROVIDE A BETTER PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER.

UM, THAT'S THE, THE MORE CHALLENGING ONE DESIGN-WISE IN ORDER TO MEET.

BUT THE LAST THREE ARE THAT THE SOFFIT MATERIAL IS SHOWING AS A T ONE 11 SIDING, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY A PLYWOOD MATERIAL NOT PERMITTED IN THE SOFFIT.

IT CAN BE EITHER A PRESSURE TREATED DURABLE WOOD OR A, UM, CEMENT SIDING OR CEMENT BOARD SOFFIT IN THAT, UM, IN THAT SOFFIT, THE EXTERIOR DOORS, THE FRONT DOOR IS SHOWN AS A WOOD DOOR, BUT THE, UM, SIDE AND REAR DOORS ARE SHOWN AS A FIBERGLASS PLAID DOOR.

AND SO THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED TO BE WOOD METAL OR METAL CLAD.

AND THEN THE DRIP BOARD AND SKIRT BOARDS ARE BOTH LISTED AS A ONE BY MATERIAL, WHICH WHILE A FIVE QUARTER STOCK MATERIAL IS ONE BY WHEN YOU GO OUT AND YOU ACTUALLY PUT A MEASUREMENT TO IT, WE DO NEED IT TO BE A FIVE QUARTER OR BIGGER MATERIAL ON THE WATERBOARD WATER TABLE TRIM BOARD AND SKIRT BOARD GRID BOARD AND SKIRT, UM, SKIRT BOARD.

SO, UM, I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE DETAIL SHEET WHERE I'M SEEING THAT IT IS NOT JUST IN THIS WALL SECTION, IT'S ON SEVERAL OF THE WALL SECTIONS, BUT BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE VERY SMALL ON, UM, THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I AT LEAST CAPTURED ONE OF THOSE AREAS AS WELL AS WHERE I'M SEEING THAT T ONE 11 WOOD, UM, IN THE SOFFIT.

SO, UM, THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE.

I, DID I GO THE RIGHT DIRECTION? PARTIALLY COLOR COORDINATE BECAUSE THE RED DID NOT SHOW UP ON HERE, UM, OR THE ORANGE.

SO THAT'S HELPFUL, RIGHT? BUT THE WINDOWS THAT ARE ON HERE, I'VE COLOR COORDINATED THEM.

SO IF THEY'RE WHITE, THEY'RE EITHER THE RED OR THE ORANGE, UM, ON THE LITTLE LETTERS BELOW EACH ONE OF THE WINDOWS TO SHOW THOSE DIFFERENT WINDOW TYPES WITH THE DIFFERENT PANE PROPORTIONS.

SO THESE HERE ARE ALL ONE TYPE ALONG WITH THIS ONE, THIS ONE HERE ON THE END, UM, THESE TWO HERE, AND THEN THESE TWO BELOW IT HERE, THE SHORTER ONES, WHICH IT'S CONVENIENT AT LEAST THAT ONLY THE RED SEEMS TO HAVE NOT SHOWN UP IN ORANGE BECAUSE YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE VERY MUCH.

SO BETWEEN THOSE TWO, BECAUSE IT'S A SMALLER ONE AND A BIGGER ONE, UM, SOME OF THESE, IF YOU LOOK AT THEM, THEY'RE OFF BY ONLY A FEW INCHES, BUT THEY ARE STILL LIKE, SO IT'S TWO EIGHT ON SOME OF THEM AND TWO, FOUR ON OTHERS.

SO IT'S A, IT'S A SMALL DEVIATION, BUT IT IS TECHNICALLY A DIFFERENT WINDOW SIZE THERE.

UM, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT ON THE ELEVATIONS AND SEE WHERE POTENTIALLY A CHANGE COULD BE MADE TO REDUCE THAT NUMBER, UM, TO HELP FIGURE OUT THAT ITEM.

UM, THE APPLICANT IS, WAS, IS HERE STILL SORRY ABOUT ME, UM, TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT.

SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO HER OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, UM, RENDERING VERSUS THE ELEVATION, THE RENDERING IS SHOWING THE SHUTTER SHUT AS ON LIKE THE FRONT ELEVATION GO BACK TO THE FRONT ELEVATION.

IT'S SHOWING SHUT SHUTTERS, BUT WE DON'T SEE SHUTTERS.

ANYTHING ELSE? I I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST SHADED.

SHADED.

YEAH, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST SHADED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SHUTTERS PROPOSED AND THE APPLICATION INDICATES NONE AS WELL.

AND IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE SHUTTERS ON SINGLE WINDOWS? NO, NOT UNLESS THEY'RE ON ALL SINGLE WINDOWS ON THE WHOLE HOUSE.

BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THEM OR NOT HAVE THEM.

THEY DO HAVE, UH, THE SIDING IN BETWEEN THE FRONT AND THAT LEFT FAR LEFT WINDOW

[00:30:01]

WE HAVE A CLARIFICATION.

OH, I THE BOARD AND BATTEN IN BETWEEN.

HEY, IF WE CAN LET THE OH APPLICANT PRESENT AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I DO SEE THAT, THAT'S STRANGE.

I LET THE SPEAK TO THAT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT? GOOD AFTERNOON.

UH, MY NAME IS KATRINA RITTER.

I'M REPRESENTATIVE RFD CONSTRUCTION FOR UH, SUE AND HUNTER HANSEN.

UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START OFF ASKING ME QUESTIONS OR CAN I GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THE SIX THAT ARE ON HERE? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PRESENT FIRST, THAT'D BE GREAT.

GREAT.

UM, FOR NUMBER ONE, WE, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THOSE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE HEIGHT.

UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH IN REGARDS TO ADJACENT SIDEWALK GRADE.

SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE, UM, CAN I PLAY WITH IT? YEAH, IT'S JUST PERFECT.

UM, SITE PLAN WITH THE ELEVATIONS ON IT.

I MAY NOT, I MAY NOT HAVE PULLED THAT PAGE, BUT I CAN PULL IT UP.

UM, I'M JUST GONNA PULL UP MY PLANS HERE.

SO ACCORDING TO UH, DEFINITION I FOUND ON THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK THAT IS MEANS THE, THE PROPORTION OF A PUBLIC SIDEWALK BETWEEN THE CURB LINE AND THE PROPERTY LINE.

UM, SO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT WAS THAT THIS WAS THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IS THE ONE THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

UM, RIGHT HERE, NOT OUR SIDEWALK.

SO, UM, IN OUR SITE PLAN, WHICH THESE ONES DO NOT STAY, THE ELEVATIONS, UM, TRYING TO GET TO MINE HERE, JUST BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND.

UM, THE SIDEWALK IS AT 23.3 AND THE HOUSE IS AT, I'LL GET THERE.

IT SAYS 26.5 ON THE SITE PLAN.

SO AT IS THAT THE HOUSE IS AT 26, SO, AND THAT AT THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IT'S 23.3.

SO THAT GIVES US THAT 30 INCHES OF EXPOSURE.

UM, THERE, I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE TAKING OFF FROM THAT SIDEWALK.

UM, JUST IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS AT 24, SHOWING AN EXPOSED FRONT PORCH OF 24 INCHES.

YES MA'AM.

I BELIEVE IT'S FROM THE FRONT PORCH, THREE FEET OUT AND DOWN.

IT'S GONNA BE YOUR HEIGHT FOR THE PORCH HEIGHT.

YES.

HERE, THE TWO SIDE ONES ARE OFF BY FOUR INCHES.

SO THE FINISH FLOOR THOUGH, IF SHE'S CORRECT ON THAT, SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS IN WALL SECTIONS HAVE IT OFF A LITTLE BIT.

I DID NOTICE THAT.

SO IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS IT SAYS TWO SIX, THAT'S INCORRECT.

WE'RE GOING OFF THE ELEVATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN HERE.

UM, WE CAN MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS NO PROBLEM TO THE PLAN REGARDLESS.

I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT ADJACENT SIDEWALK.

UM, I'M GONNA SKIP THE WINDOWS 'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA, I GOT A QUESTION ON THAT.

JUST EVERYTHING ELSE AGAIN.

NUMBER THREE, UM, HEIGHT OF THE, UH, THE PORCH.

WE CAN, WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

NO PROBLEM.

SOFFIT MATERIAL, WE'LL SWITCH THAT TO A B GROOVE.

UM, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

EXTERIOR DOORS, WOOD, METAL OR CLAD.

UM, WE'RE GOING WITH A SIERRA PACIFIC, WHICH IS A WOOD CLAD PRODUCT VERSUS ALUMINUM, UH, FIBERGLASS CLAD.

BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION 'CAUSE THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE NEXT DOOR, MR. DON AND JIM, UH, MR. JIM AND MS. DONNA, EXCUSE ME.

UM, THEY HAVE MARVIN ELEVATE, WHICH IS A FIBERGLASS CLAD PRODUCT, WHICH IS APPROVED FOR THEIR HOME NOT TOO LONG AGO.

SO I'M JUST CONFUSED IN THAT IF WE DECIDE TO GO WITH A MARVIN ELEVATE PRODUCT, THERE IS A HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT HAS WHAT WE'RE SUBMITTING.

REGARDLESS, WE'RE GOING WITH SIERRA PACIFIC.

IT'S A WOOD CLA PRODUCT.

UM, SO THAT, THAT, THAT VERBIAGE WILL CHANGE.

UM, AND THEN THE DRIP BOARD AND SKIRT BOARD, NO PROBLEM.

WE'LL CHANGE THAT TO FIVE QUARTER BOARD.

UM, GOING BACK TO THE WINDOWS, I'M ASSUMING, UM, PLEASE TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT, UM, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SQUATTY WINDOWS.

SO WE DO HAVE SIX DIFFERENT WINDOW SIZES.

UM, I KNOW YOU GUYS PREFER ABOUT THREE TO SIX.

UM, SO I ASSUME WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE NOW.

I'M GONNA GO TO THE FRONT ELEVATION 'CAUSE I THINK I KNOW.

OH, THANK YOU.

YEAH, YEAH.

UM, THE ONES WHERE THOSE RELATE IS THIS, THIS GUY RIGHT UP HERE THAT IS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT IS WINDOW F IT IS MORE SHORT AND STOUT THAN THE REST, WHICH ARE LONG AND LEAN, WHICH I KNOW YOU GUYS LIKE, IF WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT ONE, WE CAN.

MY QUESTION IS, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THE TWO ON THE SIDE IN THE SERVICE YARDS.

UM, IF THOSE CAN, IF THOSE CAN STAY THOUGH, UM, ON THE SIDES OR THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE, THEY'RE NOT REALLY THE FRONT OF THE, THE STRUCTURE THAT IS MOST REPRESENTED.

CAN I, I, REAL QUICK, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH HAVING A SMALLER WINDOW PROPORTION AS WELL.

UM, THERE ARE SOME KIND OF FUNKY THINGS WHERE, LIKE THE SIX WINDOWS ON THE FRONT ELEVATION

[00:35:01]

SO THOSE ARE FOUR INCHES SMALLER THAN THE FOUR IN THE MIDDLE.

SO IF YOU INCREASE THOSE AND MAKE IT THE SAME SIZE WINDOW ACROSS THAT ENTIRE THING WHERE IT APPEARS TO BE ALMOST THE SAME, IT'S JUST THAT YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT, A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT PORTION.

UM, SO YOUR TRIM WORK IS GONNA BE DIFFERENT ON THE OUTSIDE TWO AND THEN THE MIDDLE FOUR.

SO THE MIDDLE FOUR ARE ALL THE SAME AND THE OUTSIDE TWO ARE THE SAME, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY SMALLER THAN THOSE.

SO IF THEY'RE ACTING AS EGRESS, WANTING THE BIGGER WINDOW WILL BE MORE BENEFICIAL.

AND THEN THE THREE ON THE CARRIAGE HOUSE ARE THE SAME AS THE FOUR IN THE MIDDLE.

SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE TWO THERE.

YEAH, THOSE ARE IN A CLOSET AND A BATHROOM, WHICH IS WHY I THINK, UH, WE WENT WITH A LITTLE BIT SMALLER THERE.

UM, BUT THAT WOULD REDUCE IT BY WHOLE BY ONE.

MM-HMM.

? I NO PART OF THE HOUSE.

YEAH, WE CAN MATCH THOSE TO BEING WHAT'S ACROSS, WHAT'S ACROSS THE FRONT.

I WAS KIND OF A GUESS ON WHAT, WHICH ONES THEY WERE, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ADDRESSING BOTH.

IT MIGHT BE THE MASTER BEDROOM.

NO, IT'S E IT'S E SIX ACROSS THE TOP RIGHT HERE, SUSIE.

OH, RIGHT HERE.

SO THESE TWO ARE A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THESE ARE HERE IN THE CENTER ALONG WITH THESE ONES ON THE .

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

OKAY, THAT'S NO PROBLEM.

DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? SMALL QUESTION ON THE GARAGE DOORS.

UM, THE, THE HORIZONTAL, IS THAT A DES UH, WILL THOSE BE GLASS OR WINDOWS OR IS THAT JUST A DESIGN FEATURE ON THE DOOR? UM, THOSE WILL, THAT'S A DESIGN FEATURE.

UM, YOU SCROLL BACK TO THE DOOR, WE HAVE A DOORBELL.

UM, ARE YOU ASKING FOR THEM TO, LIKE, YOU PREFER TO SEE GLASS IN THERE OR, I MEAN THIS IS, THIS IS A DESIGN FEATURE.

THAT'S ALL.

AND THAT IS ALL PANEL ON THE GARAGE DOORS, CORRECT? NO GLASS.

MM-HMM.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE BOARD AND BATTEN? IT APPEARS IT'S ON THE BACK PORCH.

THE RE THE RENDERING IS DIFFERENT AND THE RENDERING IS DIFFERENT.

SO WHERE'S, WHERE DOES THE BOARD AND BATTEN GONNA START AND WHERE'S IT GONNA STOP VERSUS THE HORIZONTAL? IT'S GONNA START AND STOP ON INSIDE CORNERS, RIGHT? YEAH.

I MEAN, COULD YOU MAYBE SHOW US ON THE FLOOR PLAN? UM, THE BACK PORCH IS WHAT'S IN QUESTION OR, OH, THAT'S FRONT OF THE FRONT ELEVATION.

MOST TIME IT'S JUST IN BETWEEN THE LEFT WINDOW AND THEN SO THE, THE FRONT DOORS ARE BUMPED FORWARD.

I THINK IF WE COULD GO TO THE FLOOR PLAN AND IT JUST, IT IS SHOWING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

PULL THAT UP.

I THINK COMMISSIONER SMELTER ISS QUESTION IS IN BETWEEN, AT THE FRONT DOORS IN BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE SET OF THAT CENTER SET OF FOUR COLUMNS.

UH, THERE'S GORDON BATTEN IN THE CENTER AND IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THIS VIEW WHETHER THAT WALL'S FORWARD OR NOT, BUT I THINK IT IS IN PLAN.

UM, I NEED TO VERIFY WHAT THE, WITH THE ARCHITECT, BUT I'M MOST POSITIVE WE'RE GOING OFF OF THESE, UH, NOT, NOT THE DRAWING, BUT THE, THE ACTUAL RENDERING.

AND THEN IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN, THAT IS GOING TO BE STOPPING HERE ON THIS IN INSIDE CORNER HERE, INSIDE CORNER HERE.

AND THEN SAME RIGHT HERE.

UM, ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE, CAN WE SEE THE REAR ELEVATION AGAIN PLEASE? THAT SHORT ON THE BOARD AND BATON IN BETWEEN ON THE SCREEN PORCH AS WELL.

RIGHT HERE ON, I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT ELEVATION, THE EL, THE RENDERING AND THE ELEVATION ARE NOT THE SAME AGAIN ON THE RIGHT SIDE.

YEAH, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT SIDE NOW BECAUSE YEAH, NO, EVEN ABOVE THE SCREEN ON YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE PORCH.

THE ELEVATION SHOWS NOTHING.

THE UPPER SHOW IS BOARD AND BATTEN LOOKED LIKE YOU GOT A LOT OF BOARD AND BATTEN IN THE BACK, LIKE ON THE GARAGE.

AND THEN THERE'S, IT'S JUST NOT CLEAR.

YOU HAVE THE, DO YOU, UH, DO YOU THE BEHIND THE SCREEN YOU PULLED UP ON YOUR POCKET? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT? I'M JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW.

EVEN WHERE, I'M SORRY, WHERE WAS THE SECOND PLACE YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THIS? OH, BEHIND THE SCREEN, RIGHT? IF YOU LOOK AT THAT RENDERING ABOVE THE SCREEN, THEY'RE SHOWING BOARD AND BED.

YEAH, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN PORCH.

THEY'RE SHOWING NOTHING.

SO THE BACK APPEARS TO HAVE THIS, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE THE SAME, THE RENDERING AND THE ELEVATION.

THAT WE'RE NOT SURE IN WHAT'S BOARD AND BATTEN AND WHAT IS HORIZONTAL BECAUSE THE ELEVATION AND RENDERING ARE DIFFERENT.

IS THE, IS THE SITE IS A BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SHOWN IN A RENDERING ABOVE THE DOORS ON THE BACK WALL.

AND HERE, SO THE BOTTOM IT SHOW THE BOARD BOTTOM LEFT, I CAN'T BE LOOKING RIGHT.

SO IT'S GOT, UM, VERTICAL BOARD BATTEN INSIDE THAT THREE PORCH AS WELL.

I GUESS IT'S JUST CONFUSING

[00:40:01]

I'M NOT SEEING IT ON THE BACK ELEVATION.

UM, IF YOU LOOK ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ON THE BACK.

YES MA'AM.

GO TO THE SIDE.

I'M LOOKING DIRECTLY AT IT, RIGHT? YOU'RE SHOWING HORIZONTAL SIDING ON THE RENDERING AND TWO WINDOWS FAR, RIGHT? OH, YES MA'AM.

YES.

UM, I WILL VERIFY ON THAT.

UM, WITH THE ARCHITECT IS, I MEAN, IS THAT, CAN THAT BE A CONTINGENCY ASPECT WHERE FOR STAFF REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THAT, UM, OF WHAT IT IS? DO WE HAVE A PREFERENCE ON ONE OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT'S BOARD OF BATTEN OR SIDING? I THINK YOU JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING PUT UP.

SO HERE AND RIGHT HERE IS WHERE IT DIFFERENT HERE AND HERE SIGN.

I CAN CONFIRM THAT.

I DON'T WANNA MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ON BASE OF THE ARCHITECT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BREAK UP THAT MATERIAL.

I'M ASSUMING IT'S THE BOARD AND BATTEN, BUT I WILL DEFINITELY VERIFY ON THAT.

IT JUST SEEMS TO BE CLEAR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR, UM, BUT I DON'T THINK NONE OF THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN'T MAKE QUICK CHANGES ON OR ADJUSTMENTS.

UH, JUST OH, I, OKAY.

WITHOUT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION.

UH, COMMISSIONER SCHUL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START? UH, AS LONG AS THEY CLARIFY WHAT SETTING IT'S GONNA BE, WHERE IT'S GONNA BE.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE REAR ELEVATION? PARDON? REAR ELEVATION, YES.

ALL RIGHT.

I, I THOUGHT I WAS SEEING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

UM, MAYBE IT'S, OH, THAT, THAT'S ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IT'S SHOWING STUCCO ON THE CHIMNEY AND BRICK ON THE GO TO THE SIDE.

I JUST, THE THE, THE ONE GARAGE PART ON, IF YOU GO TO THE FRONT ELEVATION IS HORIZONTAL.

YEAH, IT'S HORIZONTAL AND IT'S OUTSIDE CORNER.

IT'S SWITCHING TO BOARD AND BATTEN OVER THERE ON THE SIDE ELEVATION.

MM-HMM MM-HMM, .

YEAH, RIGHT HERE.

AND THEN YOU GO THE FRONT AND THEN THAT, THAT SIDE ON THE FAR LEFT, THE BOARD AND BATTEN IS SWITCHING IN THIS CORNER.

ALRIGHT.

ON THE INSIDE CORNER.

GOTCHA.

THAT'S YEAH.

AND THEN SLIPPING ON INSIDE CORNER THERE.

THAT WORKS.

PERFECT.

I'M OKAY IF THAT GETS CLARIFIED AT STAFF LEVEL, I'D BE FINE WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON'T MIND THE MIX OF THE TWO MATERIALS, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR.

AND YOU DON'T MIND THE TWO MIXES EITHER, EITHER WAY.

WHICH OTHER, WHICH EITHER MATERIAL IT IS.

IT DOES APPEAR TO BE A LOT OF THE BOARD AND BAT AND ACROSS THE BACK, BUT THAT'S NOT MY, IT'S UP.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST PERSONAL TASTE.

MR. HESS.

GOOD.

MR. WONDER, MR. FRAZIER MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AND TO ADD THE, UH, CLARIFICATION ON THE SIGHTING IN THAT ONE AREA.

SO IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT MOTION CORRECTLY, IT WAS APPROVED FOR STAFF CONDITIONS WITH THE CLARIFICATION OF DECIDING MATERIALS BY STAFF.

I'LL SECOND A, YOU SECONDED? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ALL OPPOSED? UH, THE, UH, SORRY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE,

[2. Certificate of Appropriateness: A request by William R. Court of Court Atkins Group on behalf of the owner, William Gary Roe Residential Property Trust, acting on behalf of prospective owners, Chris and Christine Murphy, for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness-HD to relocate and partially demolish the Contributing Resource known as the Tyson-Derst Cottage, located at 113 Bridge Street, in the Old Town Bluffton Historic District and zoned Riverfront Edge-HD. (COFA-04-24-019080)(Staff - Glen Umberger)]

UH, VOTE HAS PASSED.

MOVING ON TO OUR SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UH, A REQUEST BY WILLIAM COURT ON, UH, COURT ATKINS GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, WILLIAM GARY ROWE, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST, ACTING ON BEHALF OF PROSPECTIVE OWNERS, CHRIS AND CHRISTINE MURPHY FOR APPROVAL OF A-C-O-A-H-D TO RELOCATE AND PARTIALLY DEMOLISH THE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE KNOWN AS THE TYSON DURST COTTAGE LOCATED AT ONE 13 RIDGE STREET.

SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACH CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE THAT IS KNOWN AS THE TYSON DURST COTTAGE.

UH, MY NAME IS CHARLOTTE MOORE.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT KNOW ME, UH, GLENN UMBERGER, THE TOWN'S PRESERVATIONIST WHO PREPARE THE REPORT WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING, SO I AM PRESENTING ON HIS BEHALF.

AND KEVIN EKER THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS KATIE PETERSON , UH, MAY ALSO CHIME IN, UH, IN THIS PRESENTATION AS WELL.

I THINK THAT SURPRIS KATIE, UM, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

UH, SO AGAIN, UH, AS JUST STATED, UH, THE PETITION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF, UH, UH, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL OF A KOFA TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION IMPARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A 22, UH, HUNDRED

[00:45:01]

AND WE WILL MAKE THE CORRECTION WITH THE, UH, THE CORRECT SPELLING.

UH, THIS IS LOCATED AT ONE 13 BRIDGE IN THE OLD TOWN BLUFFTON HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND IT IS ZONED RIVERFRONT EDGE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

THE SLIDE THAT YOU SEE HERE SHOWS THE PROPERTY, UH, ON WEST BRIDGE STREET, AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S A VERY LONG LOT THAT EXTENDS FROM BRIDGE TO THE MAY RIVER.

UM, THE YELLOW DOT REPRESENTS WHERE THE COTTAGE IS LOCATED.

THIS IS WITHIN BOTH A LOCAL AND NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT FIRST WAS IN A NATIONAL REGISTERED DISTRICT BACK IN 1996.

IT WAS NOT DESIGNATED NATIONALLY THOUGH AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

IN 2007, THE TOWN, UH, CREATED THE OLD TOWN BLUFFTON HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, UH, THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE WAS TAKEN AS CONTRIBUTING TO THE OLD TOWN B LUPTON HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE OUR DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.

THE ZONING, AS I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, IS RIVERFRONT EDGE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S THAT BROWN COLOR.

AND, UH, THE, THE HOUSE, AGAIN IS IN YELLOW, AND YOU CAN SEE, UH, CONSISTENTLY ALONG THE RIVER THAT THERE ARE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE, ARE CLOSE TO THE BLUFF OVERLOOKING THE MAY RIVER.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THE RIVER FRONT EDGE DISTRICT, UM, REALLY IS TO HAVE THE HOMES, UH, THE, THE FRONT OF THE HOMES RATHER THAN FACING ON BRIDGE REALLY PRESENT, UH, THEIR, THEIR FRONT TO THE MAY RIVER.

AND, UH, SO FROM BRIDGE STREET, YOU WOULD SEE THESE VERY TYPICALLY LONG DRIVEWAYS AND NOT BE ABLE TO FULLY SEE THE HOME FROM BRIDGE.

UH, THE REQUIREMENTS HERE, UH, SHOW BOTH THE CARRIAGE HOUSE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, IN THE RIVERFRONT EDGE ZONING AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL BUILDING TYPE.

ALTHOUGH WE TECHNICALLY, UH, ALTHOUGH THE OFFICIAL NAME IS TYSON DURS COTTAGE FOR ZONING PURPOSES, THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING OR HOUSE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING TYPE, UH, THAT YOU SEE HERE.

SO IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, UM, ALTHOUGH IT IS LOCATED PARTIALLY WITHIN THE, UH, UH, THE OCRM CRITICAL LINE.

AND THEN THE CARRIAGE HOUSES, THERE ARE TWO, UM, WHICH ARE PERMITTED, BUT ONE OF THE CARRIAGE HOUSES IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN IS PERMITTED BY THE CURRENT ZONING.

AND HERE IS THE PROPERTY, UH, BRIDGE STREET.

AND THE, THE DIRECTION NORTH IS ACTUALLY TO THE RIGHT.

UH, TO FIT THIS ON THE PAGE, WE HAD TO TURN IT, UH, SO HERE IS BRIDGE AND HERE IS THE MAY RIVER.

HERE IS THE, UH, TYSON DURST STRUCTURE, AND IT'S, AGAIN, OVER A LITTLE BIT OVER 2200 SQUARE FEET.

HISTORICALLY, IT WAS ABOUT 1,315 FEET.

ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THERE ARE TWO CARRIAGE HOUSES.

ONE IS ACCESSORY DWELLING, AND ACCORDING TO TAX RECORDS, IT'S, UH, 1,564 SQUARE FEET.

SO IT IS A NON-CONFORMING, UH, IN RESPECT TO SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A CARRIAGE HOUSE IS 800 SQUARE FEET.

AND THEN THE SECOND CARRIAGE HOUSE IS A SHED.

SO AGAIN, WE HAVE A FORM-BASED CODE.

THIS IS ABOUT BUILDING FORM.

WHEN YOU HEAR SHED REFERRED TO AS CARRIAGE HOUSE, IT'S ABOUT THE FORM AND NOT THE ACTUAL USE.

SO THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THIS PHOTO OF THE HOME FROM 1975.

UH, THE, UH, INFORMATION, UH, INDICATES THAT IT WAS BUILT APPROXIMATELY 1939.

UM, THERE HAD BEEN LATER ALTERATIONS, WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE OCCURRED MOSTLY BETWEEN THE MID NINETIES THROUGH THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, AND THOSE ARE THE ALTERATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE.

AND, UM, IT APPEARS TO RESTORE OR RETURN BUILDING, UM, IF NOT COMPLETELY, TO LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT.

UH, EXCUSE ME, YES, THAT PHOTO WAS THE ORIGINAL COTTAGE BEFORE ANYTHING WAS CHANGED.

SO THIS IS 1975 THE APPLICANT PROVIDED.

THERE, THERE IS AN EXHIBIT IN THERE INDICATING WHAT CHANGE IS OR NEW.

SO I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR CERTAIN THAT IT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE THAT IN 1939.

UM, BUT I'M, I'M SURE MR. COURT WILL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT, UH, THE FRONT ELEVATION AGAIN TOWARDS THE MAY RIVER.

UM, THIS LOOKS OF COURSE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS PHOTO.

UM, THIS IS THE FRONT FACING, UH, ELEVATION OF THE HOME.

AND THEN THIS IS THE ELEVATION THAT FACES BRIDGE STREET, BUT THAT IS NOT VISIBLE BECAUSE IT SITS SO FAR BACK FROM THE ROAD.

SO, AS I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO RELOCATE THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AND PARTIALLY DEMOLISH THE LATER

[00:50:01]

ALTERATIONS THAT WERE MADE.

SO THERE ARE, UH, REVIEW CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO APPLY IN OUR, UM, REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION THIS EVENING.

AND, UH, YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR THAT THE TOWN PREVIOUS OR FAIRLY RECENTLY, APRIL 8TH, UM, EXCUSE ME, APRIL 9TH, APPROVED SOME, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WITH REGARDS TO DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED ON APRIL 8TH PRIOR TO THOSE CHANGES BEING MADE.

SO WE ARE APPLYING THE OLDER CRITERIA IN OUR REVIEW THIS EVENING.

UM, SO I WANNA GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA THAT, UM, THAT STAFF EITHER HAD CONCERNS WITH OR WE FELT WE NEEDED MORE INFORMATION.

THE OTHER ONES THAT DON'T APPLY, I'M, I'M GONNA LEAVE THOSE OUTTA THE PRESENTATION, BUT THEY DO APPEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT.

SO THE, UH, FIRST CRITERION RELATES TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND GUIDELINES.

THERE ARE 10 OF THOSE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ABOUT 4, 5, 6, MAYBE I HAVE ABOUT CERTAIN I'VE ALREADY FORGOTTEN, UM, THAT I WANNA GO THROUGH.

SO THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO, UM, THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING AND OF ITS SITE AND ENVIRONMENT.

AND THERE IS A CONCERN BY STAFF THAT RELOCATING THE STRUCTURE BASICALLY REMOVES THE BUILDING FROM ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT AND ITS CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.

UM, SO THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO RELOCATING THE BUILDING TO, UH, TO WHERE WHEREVER THAT MAY BE PROPOSED.

UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER, UH, UH, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, UM, WE FELT THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET OR THEY APPEAR TO BE MET, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.

SO NUMBER TWO, UH, THE REMOVAL OF HISTORIC MATERIALS OR ALTERATION OF FEATURES AND SPACES THAT CHARACTERIZE THE PROPERTIES SHALL BE AVOIDED AND WE NEED FOR THE REPLACEMENT MATERIALS TO BE IDENTIFIED.

UM, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED.

UH, NUMBER THREE, EACH PROPERTY SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AS A PHYSICAL RECORD OF ITS TIME PLACED IN USE.

CHANGES THAT CREATE A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT BE UNDERTAKEN.

UM, IT APPEARS THAT THE STANDARD HAS BEEN MET, BUT AGAIN, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NECESSARY.

AND THEN FOR THE FINAL TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR INTERIOR'S, UH, STANDARDS, UM, UH, FEATURES, FINISHES, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES OR EXAMPLES OF CRAFTMANSHIP THAT CHARACTERIZE A HISTORIC PROPERTY SHALL BE PRESERVED.

AGAIN, WE NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THESE VARIOUS ELEMENTS, INCLUDING WINDOWS, SHUTTERS, AND DOORS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD.

UM, DETERIORATED HISTORIC FEATURES SHALL BE REPAIRED RATHER THAN REPLACED, AND WE WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ANYTHING, UM, UH, RELATING TO THIS PARTICULAR CRITERION.

SO CONTINUING ON WITH THE UDO REVIEW CRITERIA, AND THESE ARE NOT SECRETARY OF STANDARDS CRITERIA, UM, CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPAL SET FORTH IN THE OLD TOWN MASTER PLAN STAFF BELIEVES THAT, UH, THAT THE PLAN TO RELOCATE, UM, IS INCONSISTENT, UH, AS PROPOSED BECAUSE THE, UH, TAKING, AGAIN, TAKING IT OUT THE, THE BUILDING OUT OF ITS, UH, ORIGINAL LOCATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PLAN, AND IT DOES NOT ENHANCE OR PROTECT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR C AND THE APPLICATION MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE FIVE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OLD TOWN BLUFFTON, THE EXISTING SITE CONFORMS TO THE, UH, RIVERFRONT EDGE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

UM, BUT I MENTIONED SOME INCONSISTENCIES THERE, UM, THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING, BUT THEN WE THROW IN THE RELOCATION OF THE BUILDING AND THEN SOME OTHER THINGS BEGIN TO HAPPEN.

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT, UH, IN JUST A MOMENT.

SO IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT RELOCATION WILL AFFECT, UM, WILL CREATE SOME DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE, UH, REVIEWED WITH DIFFERING DIFFERING APPLICATIONS AND DIFFERING BOARDS.

SO AGAIN, I'LL BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.

UM, THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING'S, HISTORIC CHARACTER AND ARCHITECTURE.

UM, AGAIN, IT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH REGARDS TO REHABILITATING AND REMOVING THOSE, UH, MORE, UH, RECENT ALTERATIONS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

BUT WE ALSO NEED, UH, MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

AND AGAIN, THE CONCERN IS THAT RELOCATION TAKES THE BUILDING OUT OF ITS ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

CONTINUING ON WITH OUR REVIEW CRITERIA, AND THERE'S, THERE'S QUITE A FEW, UM, THE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL AESTHETIC FEATURES OF THE RESOURCE, INCLUDING

[00:55:01]

THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT, THE ALTERATION OR REMOVAL WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

UM, AND I'M SORRY, I'M BEING A BIT REPETITIVE HERE.

SOME OF THESE CRITERIA ARE KIND OF REPETITIVE, BUT, UM, RELOCATING A RIVERFRONT BUILDING COTTAGE AWAY FROM ITS RIVERFRONT LOCATION, UH, WOULD SEEM, UH, UH, INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE WELFARE OF BOTH OUR NATIONAL AND LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

UH, G FOR APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH EITHER IN WHOLE OR APART.

UM, THERE ARE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HAS TO CONSIDER, AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED ONE, THE HISTORICAL OWNERSHIP AND HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF PROVIDING PHOTOS.

UM, THE MASTER SITE FILES FROM THE STATE, UH, UH, SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION FROM PREVIOUS OWNERS THAT WE HAVE THAT.

AND, UH, THE INFORMATION PROVIDES CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, UM, THAT THE DEMOLITION OF ITS STRUCTURE IS NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY.

UM, AGAIN, THIS IS A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, AND SO THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A, A, ANY KIND OF THREAT TO EITHER PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT'S JUST REMOVING THOSE, UM, MORE RECENT FEATURES FROM THE BUILDING.

UM, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED OR, OR, UH, SHOWN THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION.

UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A FULL DEMOLITION.

SO, UM, ONLY, ONLY, AGAIN, THOSE MORE RECENT FEATURES, THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION IS A RESULT OF THE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS OF THIS SECTION WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF ALL REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OR RETURN ON THE PROPERTY.

AND AS INDICATED IN THE, UH, CONDITIONS REPORT PROVIDED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, THIS BUILDING IS STILL USABLE.

UM, IT MAY BE, UH, OVER 80 YEARS OLD AND IT MAY NEED A LITTLE HELP LIKE ALL OLDER BUILDINGS DO, BUT IT IS STILL USABLE, UH, UH, GOING FORWARD.

AND FOR OUR FINAL REVIEW CRITERIA, H THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATIONS MANUAL.

IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE MANUAL.

UM, BUT IT APPEARS THAT GOING FORWARD THAT THERE WERE GONNA BE, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, SOME ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THIS SITE TO BE, OR FOR THE BUILDING TO BE MOVED TO A A SITE SPECIFIC LOCATION, WE WOULD NEED A, AN ANOTHER COFA AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED AND THAT WOULD, UH, USE THE UDO STANDARDS THAT WERE ADOPTED BY TOWN COUNCIL ON APRIL 9TH.

IF THE RELOCATION IS APPROVED, THEN THERE IS THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS TO REHABILITATE THE BUILDING, AND THAT REQUIRES A SEPARATE KOFA AS WELL.

AND THREE HERE POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT IF IT IS MOVED, THAT IT WILL, WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5 15 5 E, FOR EXAMPLE.

NO MORE THAN TWO CARRIAGE HOUSES ARE PERMITTED WITHIN A RIVERFRONT EDGE DISTRICT.

AND SECTION FIVE POINT 15.8 F, THE MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT COULD BE NO MORE THAN 800 SQUARE FEET.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A VARIANCE WOULD BE, UH, NECESSARY FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, UM, PRIOR TO ANY COFA APPROVAL OF A RELOCATION AND THE REHABILITATION OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO AGAIN, THERE ARE KIND OF MULTIPLE STEPS HERE, DEPENDING ON HOW THE APPLICANT WOULD MOVE FORWARD.

UM, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND THAT WOULD, UH, THEN REQUIRE REZONING, UH, TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.

UM, SO THAT STEP WOULD REQUIRE PLANNING, COMMISSION REVIEW AND, UH, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL.

AND ONE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW, THE, THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE OCRM LINE AND ANY NEW BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 150 FEET FROM THAT PARTICULAR LINE.

AND THAT IS A STATE REQUIREMENT.

UM, YOU HEARD EARLIER FROM HISTORIC BLUFFTON FOUNDATION, UH, THEIR CONCERN IS THAT THE RESTORATION IS GREAT.

UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME CONCERNS THERE ABOUT, UM, THE LOSS OF THE PROPERTY BEING ABLE TO THE HOUSE TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

AND THEY'VE INDICATED THAT IN THE LETTER WHICH YOU HAVE AS AN EXHIBIT.

SO AS YOU MAY HAVE READ IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE ARE, UH, FIVE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET AND THEY ARE INDICATED HERE.

UH, THE FIRST ONE BEING, AND I'M NOT GONNA READ THE SECTION NUMBERS.

UH, SO THE FIRST ONE, UH, ANY MATERIALS WHICH REQUIRE REPLACEMENT FOLLOWING RELOCATION IF APPROVED TONIGHT AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION WOULD NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED IN A BUILDING PERMIT DRAWING FOR COMPLIANCE SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.

THE

[01:00:01]

SECOND ONE, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THAT WINDOWS SHUTTERS AND DOORS COMPLY, UH, WITH THIS PARTICULAR STANDARD, THREE 18.3 A FIVE.

UH, NUMBER THREE, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THAT THE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF DETERIORATED HISTORIC FEATURES COMPLY, UH, WITH THE UDO STANDARD NUMBER FOUR.

UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO, UM, UH, BE CLEAR ABOUT THE REASON REQUESTING THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AS WELL AS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION IS NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE ANY THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, AND THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES AS WELL AS, UM, UH, DENYING THE APPLICATION THAT IT WOULD CAUSE AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR LACK OF RETURN OF USE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN FILING NUMBER FIVE, UM, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ANY FUTURE SUBDIVISION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RIVERFRONT EDGE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR ALL THOSE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT I MENTIONED, THE APPLICATIONS AND THE VARIOUS REVIEWS WOULD THEN KICK IN.

SO THE ACTIONS THAT YOU CAN TAKE TONIGHT, YOU CAN ONLY TAKE ONE.

UM, AND THEY ARE LISTED HERE, IT'S APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, APPROVE IT WITH AMENDMENTS OR DENY THE APPLICATION.

AND, UM, HERE'S A POTENTIAL MOTION I THINK TO HELP YOU OUT.

I KNOW THIS IS, WE'VE GOT TWO ITEMS HERE, AGAIN, PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION.

AND, UH, WE'VE STATED HERE A MOTION ON THIS APPLICATION IS TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIED A PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION IF YOU APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.

THE KOFA, UM, UH, A, A KOFA FOR THE NEW PLACEMENT OR RELOCATION IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND MOVEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND SO YOUR MOTION TONIGHT SHALL ALSO BE CLEAR THAT IT DOES OR DOES NOT MEET THE REVIEW CRITERIA THAT I PREVIOUSLY INDICATED IN SECTION THREE 18.3 OF THE UDO.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I'M NOT CLEAR WHERE THEY WANNA RELOCATE IT.

DO THEY WANNA MOVE IT WHERE THE EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE IS NOW, IN WHICH CASE IT'S 1300 STREET, WHICH IS BIGGER THAN THE 800 ALLOWED, OR WHERE THEY, WHERE DO THEY WANNA MOVE IT TO? THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TONIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A COPA FOR THE ACTUAL RELOCATION, UM, POTENTIALLY IS ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY.

AND IF IT'S ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, THEN THAT CREATES SOME OTHER CONDITIONS, ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.

SO IT, IT, GOING FORWARD, WHAT HAPPENS? DEPENDS ON WHERE THAT BUILDING WOULD BE RELOCATED.

SO IF THEY, IF THEY MOVE IT TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF THEY ADD CARRIAGE HOUSES, IT NEEDS TO BE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE STREET.

TECHNIC, IF YOU'RE WALKING ON THE STREET, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT TWO CARRIAGE HOUSES THAN POTENTIALLY THE HOUSE THAT WAS THEN THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS MOVED.

IT DEPENDS, WELL, I GUESS IT WOULD DEPEND WHERE I'M, I'M KIND OF HAVING DIFFICULTY ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.

SO LET ME GO, LET ME ACTUALLY GO BACK TO A PREVIOUS, THIS MIGHT HELP, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M, WE DID DISCUSS THIS AT THE HPRC MEETING THAT BECAUSE THE RIVER IS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, IF THE HOUSE, IF THE HOUSE WERE RELOCATED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CURRENT CARRIAGE HOUSES, THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VVA REQUEST.

SO IF THE HOUSE WERE TO BE MOVED IN FRONT OF THE CARRIAGE HOUSES, THEN IT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD AND THE RIVERFRONT EDGE ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE THE FRONT, WHAT WE THINK OF AS THE FRONT IS REALLY REAR.

BUT WHERE IS THE, UH, 150 FOOT SETBACK THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO? THE OCRM LINE IS, COMES ROUGHLY THROUGH THE HOUSE.

IT'S NOT SHOWN ON THIS PARTICULAR, UH, UH, SURVEY.

UM, SO POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IT'S THE, THE FRONT SETBACK LINE IS 150 FEET FROM THE OCRM LINE.

SO THE OCRM LINE IS ACTUALLY THE DASH LINE CLOSER TO WHERE THE MAY RIVER IS, AND THEN THERE'S A SETBACK LINE OF A HUNDRED.

SO IT, SO HERE'S THE OCRM LINE EXCUSE RIGHT BACK.

IT'S THE DARK, THE DARK LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE WATER, THE DOCK.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

THE EDGE OF THE HATCHING RIGHT HERE.

RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PIER.

PARDON ME.

SO THAT'S, IT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THE SETBACK LINE? YES.

NEW STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE BEHIND THAT.

SO THE NEW, ANY

[01:05:01]

THEY DO.

AND ALSO IF THEY MOVE, IT, IT, THE NEW HOUSE THAT THEY PUT IT WHERE THE EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE IS, IT'S TOO BIG ACCORDING TO WHAT CARRIAGE HOUSES ARE DESIGNATED 800 SQUARE FEET.

AND THIS IS ALREADY 1300 SQUARE FEET.

BUT THE, THE PART THAT'S CONSIDERED, EXCUSE ME, HISTORIC IS 1300 SQUARE FEET.

SO IF YOU TOOK THAT AND MOVED IT AND TRIED TO REPLACE WHAT'S THERE, IT'D HAVE TO BE TAKEN OFF THE SETBACK AND IT'S ALSO TOO BIG.

AND WHAT'S THE REASONING FOR THEM NOT WANTING TO DO THE REHAB WHERE IT'S LOCATED? I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UH, AND, AND THE, UH, ONLY THING WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE TONIGHT IS THE RELOCATION AND THE DEMOLITION THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

OF THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT.

THE, THE NEW LOCATION WOULD BE A SEPARATE APPLICATION THAT WOULD COME LATER? YES.

SO YOU'RE ASKING US TO SAY, YES, YOU CAN RELOCATE IT BUT NOT TURN US WHERE, AND THAT, THAT'S ALWAYS A TWO STEP OR TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE UDO MM-HMM.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MM.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO PRESENT? I'M OKAY.

I'LL JUST DO BREAK.

AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE AS PART OF THE LOCAL, UM, HISTORIC DISTRICT.

I'M PAPER BOX.

UM, I'M A LAWYER AND I LIVE AT 56 .

I REPRESENT THE ROADS, BUT I DON'T HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS 'CAUSE I'M NOT BEING PAID TONIGHT.

UM, WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS SITUATION IS YOU HAVE A HISTORIC BUILDING OR PARTS OF IT THAT HAVE A MUCH LARGER STRUCTURE AROUND IT.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT.

IT'S NOT DOING ANYBODY ANY GOOD UNLESS YOU SNEAK IN THE ATTIC AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT IT.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ALL HISTORIC PARTS OF THAT HOUSE ARE STILL THERE AFTER THE REMODEL UNTIL WE PULL DOWN, UM, THE, UH, THE DRYWALL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS NOT HISTORIC.

UM, THE PROPERTY COULD SIT THERE AND IT COULD ROT, OR THEY COULD COME IN AND THEY COULD MOVE IT AND IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN COULD CELEBRATE THAT PEOPLE COULD SEE, UM, THAT PEOPLE COULD TOUCH.

YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, EVENTS THERE A FEW TIMES A YEAR.

YES, MA'AM.

WHERE ARE THEY GONNA MOVE IT? WELL, I THINK THAT YOU CAN APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO TOWN, UM, STAFF APPROVAL.

I THINK THOSE ARE DETAILS THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY MATTER WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GONNA BUY THIS PROPERTY, OTHERWISE IT'S GONNA SIT THERE VACANT.

AND YOU COULD REALISTICALLY HAVE SOMEBODY IN FRONT OF YOU ASKING TO PARE IT DOWN LATER ON.

NOBODY IS REALLY CLEAR AS TO WHAT PARTS OF THIS HOUSE ARE HISTORIC.

SO IF Y'ALL ARE DECLINED TO, TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAYBE SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE WITH A FEW MEMBERS OF YOURSELVES OR A FEW MEMBERS OF STAFF, MAYBE MR. LAROU AND THE APPLICANTS.

AND LET'S WORK THROUGH SOME DETAILS.

AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK, THEN IT DOESN'T WORK.

BUT AT LEAST EVERYBODY GETS TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.

YOU CAN ALSO GO LOOK AT IT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

BUT I I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S A BIG PROJECT.

IT'S EXTREMELY UNIQUE.

UM, I KNOW I'VE NEVER BEEN BEFORE Y'ALL BEFORE, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A HISTORIC PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN'T SEE.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UH, WHAT, WHAT MAKES IT, UH, SPECIFICALLY THIS HOUSE HISTORIC? UH, I MEAN, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK TODAY, LIKE THAT'S, WHAT IS IT? LIKE, IS THAT, THAT MAKES IT, UM, ON THE NATIONAL? I, I JUST, WHY IS IT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTRY? WHAT, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS? I JUST, ATION NUMBER ONE IS, UM, AND I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET AN OPINION FROM MR. LAB BRUCE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF YOU MOVE IT ON THE SITE, IT WILL NOT, UM, AFFECT ITS NATIONAL REGISTRY OR ITS STATUS, UM, FROM THERE.

SO IF, IF YOU, THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A STAFF.

STAFF HAS AN INTERPRETATION AS TO, UH, WHETHER THAT WILL, PARDON ME, WASN'T, WASN'T PREPPING MR. BOX.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

UM, I WAS SITTING BACK JUST RELAXING AND LISTENING.

BUT, UH, FOR THOSE OF Y'ALL WHO HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE MYSELF TO BEFORE, MY NAME IS RICHARDSON BRUCE.

I'M WITH FINGER MILL AT BROOKSON LA BRUCE ON HILTON HEAD.

I'M HERE ON, ON Y'ALL'S BEHALF TO SERVE COUNSEL FOR THE HBC TO ADDRESS ANY LEGAL ISSUES THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

UM, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IS WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE APPLICATION WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THIS BEING A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AS PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTRY? I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE WELL AWARE OF WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT Y'ALL LIVE, UM, AT LEAST ONE DAY, IF NOT MULTIPLE DAYS, UH, EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

UH, BUT FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT AND THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT A PROPERTY CAN BE DESIGNATED AS CONTRIBUTING A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE IN BLACKTON.

ONE OF THEM IS IT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED

[01:10:01]

UH, ANOTHER WAY IS IN THIS CASE WHERE IT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW VERY, VERY FEW PROPERTIES IN BLUFFTON LIKE CHURCH OF CROSS AND, UH, CAMPBELL AND CHAPEL, AND A HANDFUL OF OTHERS THAT ARE INDEPENDENTLY RECOGNIZED AS HISTORIC, UH, HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND ARE INDEPENDENTLY PROTECTED.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS PROPERTY AND THIS COTTAGE IN PARTICULAR IS NOT INDEPENDENTLY PROTECTED AS ONE OF THOSE, BUT RATHER IS PROTECTED AS PART OF A, A NATIONAL AND THE LOCAL CONTRIBUTING AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THOSE TWO DESIGNATIONS.

UM, UNDER SHORT PRESERVATION STANDARDS, AS STAFF HAS, UH, HAS SPOKEN ABOUT, AND AS I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WILL EXPRESS THEIR OPINION ON IT, WHETHER RELOCATION, AUTOMAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE THOSE PROTECTIONS OR AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE THE CONTRIBUTING NATURE OF IT IS A, A DECISION FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE.

UH, WE HAVE OTHER, WE HAVE OTHER CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN RELOCATED ON SITE AT OTHER LOCATIONS.

THE JOINER HOUSE BEING ONE OF THEM THAT HAS BEEN STILL RECOGNIZED AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE FOR THE LOCAL DISTRICT BY THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.

AND SO IT CAN, I BELIEVE WHAT MR. VOX IS ALLUDING TO IS THE FACT THAT Y'ALL CAN CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE IT AS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE LOCALLY, EVEN IF IT IS RELOCATED ON SITE.

UH, BUT THAT IS ULTIMATELY A DECISION FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE.

AND I THINK IT CAN BE AGREED WITH MINE AS A POTENTIAL BUYERS THAT THEY WILL NOT COME BACK.

AND I THINK THEY CAN PROBABLY DO A DEED RESTRICTION WHERE NO SUBSEQUENT OWNER COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR IT TO BE REMOVED, AS I UNDERSTAND IS AN ISSUE WITH ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

SO, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY THE, THE ONLY THING THAT I UNDERSTAND IS, IS HISTORIC ABOUT THIS IS THE INTERNAL WALLS.

EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN REHABBED AND NOBODY REALLY HAS A GOOD IDEA FOR IT.

IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE IT USED TO.

NOTHING AT ALL.

NOTHING ON THE OUTSIDE IS YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT'S HISTORIC UNTIL YOU GET IN THE ATTIC.

SO, BUT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A HISTORIC PROPERTY.

YES, MA'AM.

BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS IT UNTIL WE PULL DOWN THE MODERN DAY CONSTRUCTION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HISTORIC BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY REMODELED IT IN THE NINETIES.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.

SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HISTORIC AND WHAT'S NOT UNTIL WE GET INTO THE BARE BONES.

I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING 'CAUSE YOU'RE ASKING TO MOVE THIS HISTORIC HOME, BUT NOT TELLING US WHERE I THINK THEY'VE GOT A LARGER PRESENTATION.

IF WE COULD HOLD OUR QUESTIONS UNTIL MR. COURT HAS HAD A CHANCE TO PRESENT THIS CASE.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME'S WILLIAM COURT WITH COURT ATKINS GROUP HERE IN BLUFFTON.

UM, HAPPY TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, WITH, AND I'M HAPPY TO, UH, STAY AS LONG AS NEEDED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL.

I WANT, I WANT YOU TO GUYS HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT THE OWNER AND THE, UH, POTENTIAL FUTURE OWNER AND APPLICANT WANT TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY.

UH, THEY HAVE AFFORDED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A A WHAT I THINK IS A REALLY GOOD TEAM AROUND THIS.

UH, WE'VE DONE A HECK OF A LOT OF RESEARCH, SO I'M GONNA, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE AS MUCH OF IT AS I CAN.

WE HAVE SUBMITTED, UH, A BUNCH OF EXHIBITS, NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESENTED YET BY STAFF.

SO, UM, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH ANY OF THEM AND TRY TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE WE WOULD POTENTIALLY MOVE IT AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE WITH TOWN STAFF REGARDING THAT.

UM, WILL GUCCIO DID, UH, A GREAT AMOUNT OF WORK TALKING TO PRIOR FAMILY MEMBERS.

WE DID, HE DID A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH.

WE'VE UNCOVERED SLIDES.

UM, I I WE WOULDN'T BE WHERE WE ARE WITHOUT HIM.

UM, SO I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT.

UH, WE HAD A GREAT TEAM FROM SHERLOCK ENGINEERING, UH, WHO HAS BEEN ALL OVER THAT STRUCTURE, UH, IN ADDITION TO, UH, THREE OR FOUR MEMBERS OF MY TEAM.

UH, SO I THINK I'LL BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S UNDER THE WALLS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WHAT IS A DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OR WHAT WAS A DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF THE STRUCTURE.

UM, WE ALSO HAD ATLAS SURVEYING COME IN.

WE'VE DONE COMPLETE UPDATED SURVEYS.

THERE ARE, UM, AS TOWN STAFF MENTIONED, THERE ARE THREE STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY, UH, ONE OF WHICH IS DEEMED A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

UM, AND, AND THAT IS THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THE TYSON DURST, UH, COTTAGE.

UM, AND THE TWO OTHER STRUCTURES, UM, HA ARE ARE NOT PART OF THAT HISTORICAL EQUATION.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR RELOCATION, THOSE TWO STRUCTURES ARE ON THE TABLE TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO CREATE COMPLIANCE.

UM, SO I, I THINK HOPEFULLY, UH, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS TONIGHT, I CAN TRY AND ANSWER ANYTHING THAT COMES UP AND, AND

[01:15:01]

PULL EVERYTHING TOGETHER FOR YOU.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION.

UH, IT WAS NOT UNTIL KIND OF OUR SECOND MEETING WITH TOWN THAT WE REALIZED THAT WE NEEDED TO GO THROUGH THIS IN A TWO STEP PROCESS.

UH, IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO COME UP AND ASK YOU, UM, TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTIALLY DEMOLISH THE NON-CONTRIBUTING COMPONENTS, CONSIDER REHABILITATION AND RELOCATION WHEN WE'RE NOT REALLY FOCUSING ON WHERE WE WOULD PUT IT, RIGHT.

BUT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO MAKE THAT AS THE SECOND COPA APPLICATION, ASSUMING WE MAKE IT TO THIS STEP.

SO IN PREPARATION FOR THAT AND HOPEFUL ANTICIPATION OF THAT, I HAVE INCLUDED AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE KNOW TODAY ABOUT WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THAT STRUCTURE ON THIS SITE.

UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT IN DIAGRAMMATIC FORM.

THE SHORT ANSWER OF THAT IS GONNA BE, IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET FORWARD ON THE SAME SITE WITH THE EXACT SAME ORIENTATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE WATER, JUST NOT THE SAME DISTANCE.

UM, THAT WILL REQUIRE, AS, AS TOWN STAFF HAS ALLUDED, UH, IT'S GONNA REQUIRE SOME CONVERSATIONS FURTHER ONGOING WITH THE TOWN.

IT MAY REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

UM, IT COULD ALSO REQUIRE, UH, OR ANOTHER OPTION MIGHT BE FOR US TO GO TO A LOT SEPARATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS BUILDING TO EXIST ON ITS OWN LOT.

AND, UH, AND THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE SIZE VARIANCE TO CONSIDER.

THERE ARE GONNA BE CHALLENGES WITH ALL OF THOSE.

I THINK THERE ARE CHALLENGES THAT ARE WORTH WORKING THROUGH WITH TOWN STAFF OR, UH, WITH ZONING.

UM, IT'S JUST, UH, WE WANT TO KIND OF GET THROUGH THIS FIRST PHASE AND UNDERSTAND WHETHER YOU AS A BOARD AS HPC ARE WILLING TO GET BEHIND A PROJECT THAT THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS US TO TAKE WHAT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN NAME ONLY, UM, BECAUSE OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO IT, IT OVER TIME AND POTENTIALLY BRING THAT BACK INTO A SITUATION WHERE ALBEIT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LOCATION, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO REHABILITATE THE STRUCTURE INTO ITS ORIGINAL, AT LEAST FROM OUR DOCUMENTATION SHAPE, SCALE PROPORTION, DISTINCTIVE HISTORIC FEATURES, ET CETERA.

UM, AND, AND MAKE IT AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE THERE.

THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THIS AT THE TOWN.

UH, CERTAINLY THERE ARE GOOD PRECEDENTS AND THERE ARE NOT SO GOOD PRECEDENTS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RELOCATION OF A STRUCTURE THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

AND I, I APPRECIATE TOWN STAFF'S CONCERNS AND THEIR COMMENTS, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, MR. JONES' CONCERNS AND HIS COMMENTS.

BUT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH EMPHASIS IN THOSE COMMENTS ON SITE LOCATION AS A DETERMINING FACTOR OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND NOT ON THE DISTINGUISHING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND ELEMENTS THAT ARE THE REASON THAT THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY PUT ON THE SURVEY AND CONSIDERED TO CONTINUING STRUCTURE TO BEGIN WITH.

THOSE ELEMENTS ARE NOT IN PLACE.

SO IF WE, THERE'S A BALANCING ACT HERE WHEN WE THINK ABOUT MEETING THE SECRETARY, THE INTERIOR'S REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TOWN STAFF AND, AND IN THEIR FULL COMMENTS, THEY GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE 10 CRITERIA FOR, UM, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION.

THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE THAT TOWN STAFF HAS IS WITH ITEM ONE, WHICH I BELIEVE IN, I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S MISREADING THE INTENT.

UM, IT IS ALSO USING LANGUAGE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THAT IS OUTDATED IN, THAT IS MY BELIEF.

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE 1997 VERSION OF THIS CRITERIA, NOT THE 2017 VERSION.

THE REASON THAT IS RELEVANT IS THAT THE 2017 VERSION SAYS THAT THE FIRST ITEM IS A PROPERTY WILL BE USED AS ITS HISTORIC, AS IT WAS HISTORICALLY, OR BE GIVEN A NEW USE THAT REQUIRES MINIMAL CHANGE TO ITS DISTINCTIVE, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT WORD.

MATERIAL FEATURES, SPACES, OR SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS.

IT DOES NOT FOCUS ON SITE AND ENVIRONMENT AT AS, AS SOLE CRITERIA AS THIS.

THE COMMENTS AND THE FINDING WOULD, WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS IS THAT IT WILL BE USED AS IT WAS HISTORICALLY AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

I AGREE THAT IT NEEDS TO FOCUS ON DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AND ONE CAN CONSIDER SITE AS A PART OF THAT.

BUT WHEN WE GET INTO

[01:20:01]

THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, OF THE FOUR TREATMENTS THAT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR ALLOWS FOR WORK ON THIS, ONLY REHABILITATION ALLOWS FOR ALTERATIONS, UH, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ADDITION, RIGHT? SO WE WE'RE, WE'RE FOCUSING ON REHABILITATION, NOT RESTORATION OR PRESERVATION THAT IS IMPORTANT AS PART OF THIS.

AND WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY THOSE FORMS AND MATERIALS AND FEATURES THAT ARE IMPORTANT AND HISTORICALLY RELEVANT.

BUT ALTERATION IN ITSELF DOES ALLOW UNDER THEIR GUIDELINES, RIGHT, FOR, AND IT SAYS SPECIFIC ALTERATIONS MAY INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE SITE OR SETTING.

SO IT, WE, AND, AND POUND OF BLUFFTON HAS PRECEDENT FOR THIS.

AGAIN, SOME GOOD, SOME NOT SO GOOD, BUT THE GRAVES COTTAGE WAS PAINSTAKINGLY REHABILITATED.

UM, AND IT IS NOT IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION.

THE CARSON COTTAGE IS NOT IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION.

THEY'RE VERY SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLES OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE RELEVANCE TO BLUFF IN'S HISTORIC FABRIC RIGHT NOW.

UM, THERE ARE ALSO NOT GREAT EXAMPLES OF THAT, RIGHT? BUT I THINK IF DONE CORRECTLY, IF WE SPEND THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TIME WITH THE RIGHT TEAM, WE CAN TAKE, WE CAN UNCOVER WHAT WAS THERE, AGAIN, WITH A RELOCATION.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT COMES WITH ITS CHALLENGES, UH, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN RESTORE AND WE CAN BRING BACK THE ORIGINAL 1,315 FOOT SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE IN ITS PLACE.

UM, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT WILL SHOW KIND OF WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO THAT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK THROUGH ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS.

I I JUST WANNA REITERATE THAT NOTHING THAT WE DO, OR NOTHING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO AS PART OF THIS REHABILITATION PROJECT, THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THOSE ITEMS AND THE POTENTIAL RELOCATION OF IT NEEDS TO JEOPARDIZE ITS STANDING AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.

I THINK WE CAN ONLY ENHANCE THAT AT THIS POINT.

RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE HAVE IS A STRUCTURE THAT IS ON PLACE ON THAT PROPERTY THAT IF YOU WERE TO FILL OUT THE SOUTH CAROLINA SITE SURVEY RIGHT NOW AND HAND IT IN AND TRY TO ADD IT AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, IT COULD NOT BE DONE.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY ON THE EXTERIOR OF THAT PROPERTY THAT IS HISTORICAL IN NATURE INTO ITS EXISTING CONTESTS.

SO I'VE GOT PLENTY OF PHOTOGRAPHY HERE.

WE'VE GOT FRONT AND REAR PHOTOS OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RESTORE.

UM, WE'VE GOT GREAT FAMILY PHOTOS, WE'VE GOT ORIGINAL SLIDES.

UH, I DO HAVE SOME, I JUST DON'T KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH THE WRONG STUFF HERE.

UH, WE'VE GOT A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE CAN PULL UP AND ASSIST.

WHAT'S THAT TAB NUMBER ONE HERE TO LEFT.

SO ANYTHING YOU NEED, UH, ANY OF YOUR EXHIBITS, YOU CAN CLICK ON IT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UM, I, I WANNA BE RESPECTFUL EVERYONE'S TIME.

I'LL GO THROUGH THESE REAL QUICK AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO JUST RE AS, AS QUESTIONS COME UP, I'LL, I'LL BRING THEM BACK UP IF YOU LIKE.

UM, THE, THE FIRST, UH, WITH, UH, I'LL GIVE WILL GCIO SOME CREDIT ON THIS ONE.

WE'VE GOT A, WE, WE WENT THROUGH SORT OF AN EXHAUSTIVE, UM, KIND OF YEARLY, UM, COMPILATION OF THE HISTORY.

THERE IS A, A KIND OF A STRIKING LINE RIGHT HERE AT ABOUT 1996.

UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT, I BELIEVE MADE IN STAFF THAT THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL 1996.

IT WAS INDEED INCLUDED IN THE 1996.

UH, IT IS LISTED AS BUILDING NUMBER FIVE.

IT IS REFERRED TO THOUGH AS THE AUSTIN COTTAGE, UH, ON THAT.

SO IT IS PART OF THAT 1996, UM, DESIGNATION.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN 1994 WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS SURVEYED, UM, AND THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETE, THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE INCLUDED.

THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT FRONT OF THIS HOUSE IS CLEARLY, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE PHOTOS THAT WE HAVE UNCOVERED FROM BACK FROM 1975 AND 77.

UM, ALL OF WHICH ARE, ARE BASICALLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

UH, THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE THAT SEEMS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FILING THAT TOOK PLACE IN 94.

UM, HOW DO I BACK UP? THIRD, THIRD TAB.

UM, I, I WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT PIECES WERE DONE WITH EACH APPLICATION, BUT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE SURVEY, UM, AND AFTER THE STRUCTURE WAS PLACED, UM, ON THAT HISTORIC LIST, UH, THE, THE ROWS PERIODICALLY, UH, ADDED ONTO OR ADJUSTED OR CHANGED THE BUILDING.

UM, WE'VE GOT A SERIES OF BUILDING PERMITS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE THAT WE'VE UNCOVERED.

THIS IS BASICALLY FROM A PERIOD OF TIME FROM UM, 19, UM, 99 TO 2006.

THIS IS WHEN MOST OF THE WORK WAS DONE.

[01:25:01]

UH, YOU KNOW, THEY FILED FOR PERMITS.

THEY, THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY HERE.

IT WAS JUST THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE IN BLUFFED IN RIGHT NOW.

UH, THAT MIGHT HAVE KEPT THAT FROM HAPPENING.

REALLY QUICK QUESTION.

THESE WERE PERMITS JUST TO ADD ON, NOT FOR DEMO, RIGHT? IT WOULDN'T BE CLEAR NECESSARILY, LIKE WE DON'T GET THAT INFORMATION THERE.

THERE'S NO, IT, THERE'S NO NOTION OF DEMO.

UH, I'VE NOT SEEN ANYTHING RELATED TO DEMO.

BUT WHAT YOU HAVE ARE BASICALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, RE-ROOFING, NEW ROOFING, NEW WALLS, WHATEVER, UH, A WHOLE NEW MASTER SUITE, A WING, THAT SORT OF THING.

UM, SO YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET THAT FROM THIS.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT LATER.

UM, WE'VE GOT LETTERS AND FAMILY PHOTOS OBVIOUSLY IN HERE OF, UM, THE STRUCTURE AS IT EXISTED ON THE SITE.

UM, THIS WOULD BE BACK, UM, ROUGHLY IN THE SEVENTIES.

UM, THERE WE GOT SOME SUPPORTING LETTERS FROM THE ROSE AND THE AUSTINS.

UH, THIS IS PROBABLY GONNA BE THE, THE, I'M GONNA TRY TO GET THESE ALL IN THE SAME, UH, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY, BUT WE CAN COME BACK TO THEM.

THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS A SINGLE FORM GABLE WITH TWO ADDITION GABLES THAT ARE WHAT WE'LL CALL THE REAR, BUT ACTUALLY THE STREET SIDE.

UH, THIS IS THE WATER SIDE.

UH, THESE ARE EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY PLACED, UM, WITH EACH BAY OF A SCREEN PORCH THAT ARE PERFECTLY CENTERED.

UH, THERE ARE BASICALLY A 14 FOOT DEEP PORCH.

UH, THE SPACING OF THAT IS ROUGHLY 25 INCHES ON CENTER.

SO THESE ARE KIND OF, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPORTIONS AND SPACING OF THE SCREEN PORCH THERE AND THE RAFTER TAIL SPACING, UM, YOU'LL SEE HOW THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED.

THE, UM, TWO GABLE ELEMENTS THAT ARE AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE.

UH, NOTICE THIS ROOF FORM HERE.

THERE WERE TWO FOREFOOT APPENDAGES THAT WERE BUILT AT SOME POINT THAT ARE CONSIDERED HISTORIC.

SO THIS WOULD'VE BEEN SOMETIME BETWEEN 39 AND AND 77, LET'S SAY.

UM, SO THOSE HAD, THOSE HAVE CLEARLY BEEN ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL MASS.

THERE ARE SOME DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS LIKE THE DIAMOND GABLE LOUVERS, UM, AND THE SHUTTERS.

THE SHUTTERS HERE, THIS IS THE, WHAT WE'LL CALL THE STREET SIDE ELEVATION.

THESE TWO GABLES AT SOME POINT WERE ADDED, BUT THEY ARE CONSIDERED HISTORICAL ELEMENTS AND THEY ARE NOTED AS DISTINGUISHING FEATURES IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA SURVEY IN 1994.

UM, PROPO, PROBABLY SOME SORT OF AN INFILL IN BETWEEN OF THOSE THAT TOOK PLACE.

UH, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT BASICALLY WE HAD ONE CONSISTENT, ONE CONSISTENT GABLE, AND THAT THESE TWO SIDE GABLES ACTUALLY EXTENDED PAST ABOUT FOUR FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.

WINDOWS WERE INTENTIONALLY ASYMMETRICAL.

UH, WE HAD A SECONDARY CHIMNEY THAT WAS ON THE FACE, UH, THE FRONT FACE OF ONE OF THE GABLES.

UM, AND THEN AGAIN, SOME OTHER CONTEXT PHOTO HERE IN THE NEW STRUCTURE THAT, OR IN THE STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS TODAY, THE ROOF IS 100% COMPLETELY REBUILT.

SO THE EXISTING ROOF NO LONGER REMAINS.

IT'S NOT EVEN PRESENT IN THE ATTIC.

UM, THE GABLE FORM BREAKS NOW OVER THE PORCH.

IT IS NO LONGER A CONSISTENT ROOF FORM.

THE DORMERS, UH, DECORATIVE IN NATURE WERE ALSO ADDED.

THE REAR OF THE PORCH, WHICH ROUGHLY GOES THE WIDTH OF THE SCREEN PORCH, IS, UH, NOW COMPLETELY NEW IN ITS, UM, CONSTRUCTION.

ALL OF THE RAFTER TAILS HAVE BEEN, OBVIOUSLY ARE NO LONGER THERE, BUT WE NOW HAVE A CLOSED SOFFIT.

THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS STRUCTURE DID NOT EXIST BEFORE.

THAT IS THE NEW MASTER SUITE.

UH, THE TWO FOUR FOOT GABLES.

THIS WALL EXISTS, THAT IS AN ORIGINAL EXTERIOR WALL.

THE ROOF FORM, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN BEEN COMPLETELY ROTATED WHEN THE FRONT PORCH WAS ADDED.

WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED, SHUTTERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED IN THAT CASE ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THE TWO GABLES ARE NOW GONE.

UH, A NEW FRONT GABLE HAS BEEN ADDED, UH, AND AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL SMALLER DORMERS.

THE EXISTING CHIMNEY IS STILL THERE.

SO THAT CHIMNEY RIGHT THERE USED TO BE ALMOST COMPLETELY EXPOSED OUT OF THE ROOF.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEW WIDER ROOF THAT HAS BEEN ADDED, YOU SEE LESS OF THAT CHIMNEY.

BUT THAT CHIMNEY IS ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING HISTORIC ELEMENTS THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY.

FRONT PORCH IS OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY NEW, AS IS A CARPORT AND

[01:30:01]

A NEW SIDE ENTRANCE INTO A NEW WING OF THE HOUSE.

UM, SO ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE ESSENTIALLY HAVE WRAPPED, ENCLOSED, RECOVERED, UM, ADDED TO SOME OF, THERE ARE SOME NOW EXISTING WALLS THAT ARE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

BUT THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF THE, THE, UH, STATE OF EXISTING CURRENT AFFAIRS.

WHEN WE GO, UM, WE HAVE THE, THE PROPERTY SURVEY, WHICH THE STAFF HAS SHOWN.

UH, WE HAVE STARTED TO MEASURE AND DIAGRAM ALL OF THE, UM, EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALLS TO TRY TO UNCOVER EXISTING CONDITIONS.

WE'VE BEEN IN THE ROOF AND THE ATTIC TO TRY TO ASCERTAIN, UM, WHERE, WHERE THINGS ARE.

WE'VE ALSO BEEN UNDER THAT HOUSE AND WE'VE GOT A FULL STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF THOSE ITEMS. UH, STAFF NOTED THE STRUCTURE IS NOT REALLY IN QUESTION, BUT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BASICALLY, UH, CREATED THIS REPORT TO HELP VALIDATE THE FACT THAT WE DO BELIEVE THAT DEMOLITION IN TOTAL, IN ORDER TO REHABILITATE THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.

WE, IT IS THROUGH THIS REPORT, SEEMS CLEAR THAT WE CAN PEEL AWAY THE PIECES THAT ARE NON-CONTRIBUTING, UH, AND THAT WE CAN, AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AS THE SECOND KOFA, BUT WE BELIEVE STRUCTURALLY WE CAN LIFT THIS THING AND MOVE IT FORWARD ON THE SITE MUCH THE WAY WE DID THE GRAVES COTTAGE.

UM, SO THIS IS NOT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THE COMPLETE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING.

IT IS, UM, WE ARE GONNA, ANYTHING THAT WE CAN PULL TOGETHER THAT IS HISTORIC AS THESE SMALL PIECES COME OFF, UM, WE'LL WE'LL STAY AND WE WILL LIFT AND MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE HOPE, UH, OR THE GOAL.

UM, HERE WE HAVE NOTED, UM, AND THIS WILL BE MAYBE, UH, MOST RELEVANT, UH, I'M GONNA ZOOM IN RIGHT HERE OF THE TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT THAT IS THERE.

THE, THE DARKER GRAY COMPONENT IS THE, WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE EXACT KIND OF DIMENSIONS OF THE 1977, WE'LL CALL IT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

UM, THE, THE TWO GABLES ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE, OR THE STREET SIDE OF THE HOUSE BUMPED OUT FOUR FEET.

WE CAN ASCERTAIN THAT DIMENSION, UM, VISUALLY, AND WE CAN, WE CAN CAPTURE IT AT LEAST ON ONE SIDE IN REAL LIFE.

UH, THE PORCH, UH, IS A 40 FOOT SIX WIDE PORCH.

UH, THAT, THAT DOES PRESCRIBE TO THE BASE BASING FROM THE PHOTOS THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO TRY TO, TO DO OUR BEST TO MEASURE.

UM, THE REMAINDER OF THIS STRUCTURE AND THE NEW FRONT PORCH ARE BASICALLY, UM, UH, UH, WOULD, WOULD BE THE AREAS THAT WE PROPOSE TO, TO REMOVE.

UM, WITH THAT, WE HAVE SUGGESTED AND, AND KIND OF MET WITH TOWN ON A COUPLE OCCASIONS THAT IT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING NOTION.

THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT OAK HERE.

IF, IF WE COULD PULL THAT HOUSE FORWARD, THE SAME EXACT ORIENTATION AND POSITION AS IT CURRENTLY SITS ON THE MAY, UH, BUT JUST PULLED FORWARD, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS OF THE SECOND CO TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS TO OUTLINE THE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE NOTED IN THE STAFF CONDITIONS.

UM, ALL OF THAT HAS, IS YET TO BE DONE.

WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK.

UM, BUT TONIGHT WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THE CAPABILITY TO BEGIN THAT PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND THE PREPARATION FOR A RELOCATION AND THE APPROVAL TO RELOCATE, UM, BY PLACING THIS BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT IS WITH, IN THIS LOCATION, IT IS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ORDER TO BE COMPLIANT, WE COULDN'T HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WE'LL CALL IT FORWARD OF THAT ON THE WATER SIDE.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DEMOLISH THE NON-CONTRIBUTING SHED AND, AND THE, UH, THE GARAGE ELEMENT.

UM, SO, AND, AND THEN YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY EITHER ONE OF, MAYBE ONE OF TWO OPTIONS.

YOU WOULD EITHER NEED A VARIANCE TO SAY THE 800 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT OR 1200 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL STRUCTURE OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.

WE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO CONSIDER THIS STRUCTURE AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO A NEW BUILDING, A NEW HOME.

UM, THAT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL REQUEST, UM, TO A BOARD OF A VARIANCE, UH, TO, TO MAINTAIN A HISTORIC AND AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

UH, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT A POTENTIAL, UH, LOT SEPARATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW THAT TO SIT, UH, IF WE'RE EVER MORE ON ITS OWN LOT.

UM, AND, AND THERE ARE, AGAIN,

[01:35:01]

I, THERE ARE GONNA BE HURDLES TO GET THROUGH ON THIS.

THAT'S WHY I THINK THE PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS SEPARATION OF THE COFA IS, UM, WE, WE, I'LL HANDLE ONE THING AT A TIME.

UM, HANK GOT SOME ADDED PHOTOS HERE TOO.

TO THE EXTENT, UH, THE ENTIRETY OF THE ATTIC HAS BEEN COMPLETELY REBUILT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE ABLE TO LOCATE, UM, THE AREAS THAT ARE NEW VERSUS THE AREAS THAT ARE, UM, ORIGINAL TO THE, UH, 1,315 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT BASED ON SOME OF THE CEILING, UH, JOISTS THAT ARE UNDER HERE.

UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF NEW WORK AS WELL.

UM, BUT THE ENTIRETY OF THAT UPPER FLOOR FROM BASICALLY FROM THE CEILING UP HAS BEEN COMPLETELY REBUILT.

UM, AND REFRAMED AS HAS MOST OF THE EXTERIOR SIDING, ALL OF THE SOFFIT SPACE, THE TRIM, WINDOWS, DOORS, ET CETERA.

SO THAT'S, I THINK, WHERE WE'RE GETTING BACK TO A LOT OF THESE COMMENTS ABOUT HEARING THAT THIS IS NOTHING LIKE WHAT WE BUILT OR THIS IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PHOTOS, UM, THAT WE'RE ACCOMPANYING THE, THE, UM, HISTORIC SURVEY WORK THAT WAS DONE IN 1994.

SORRY FOR ALL THE LONG-WINDED NESS.

UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR WHAT, HOW, HOW CAN I HELP? NOBODY ANSWERED CARLY'S QUESTION.

WHY DO YOU WANNA MOVE IT? THE OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT IN ORDER TO BASICALLY RESTORE IT ON ITS OWN RATHER THAN TRY TO FURTHER, I, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WRONG WORD FURTHER COMPLICATE WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.

UH, IT ALLOWS IT TO LIVE AND EXIST.

THIS WOULD BE TAKING MORE OF A RESTORATION APPROACH, RIGHT? CAPTURING A SNAPSHOT IN TIME.

LET'S BRING IT BACK TO WHAT WE WORK, BRING IT BACK AND LEAVE IT THERE.

WELL, WE, AND BUILD AROUND IT LIKE EVERYBODY HAS OVER THE PAST DECADES.

SO I THINK YOU'D FIRST, YOU'D HAVE TO FIND WHAT WAS THERE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, RIGHT? SO THE, THE REALITY IS IT'S A, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT.

IT'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT, UM, I, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE THAT WOULD SAY, LET'S RENOVATE A 1300 SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE AND, AND PAY THIS FOR THIS LOT AND LEAVE IT WHERE IT'S, AND, AND, AND HONOR AND RESPECT THAT AND, AND NOT DO ANYTHING FURTHER.

RIGHT? SO THAT'S, I I THINK THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY.

IT CREATES, IT TAKES AWAY THE ECONOMIC PRESSURE OF A DESIRE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO COME IN AND SAY, IF I'M WILLING TO BUY THIS, I WANT TO FORCE EVERYBODY'S HANDS TO SAY, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING LEFT HERE.

UH, WHY AREN'T WE JUST TEARING IT DOWN? UM, BECAUSE THERE REALLY IS NOTHING ON THE EXTERIOR THAT IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS STRUCTURE.

DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST UNDERNEATH EVERYTHING? SO WE HAVE, YES.

WELL, I MEAN, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY.

IF YOU'RE DOING A VISUAL EXTERIOR, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE'RE, WHEN, IF WE WERE, AGAIN, THIS IS WHY I SAID IF YOU WERE TO GO IN WITH A SURVEY FORM, RIGHT? I MEAN, I CAN LOOK AT IT AND SEE THAT THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S SO MUCH BUILT ON THAT YOU DON'T, BUT WHAT'S UNDERNEATH IT? THERE, THERE ARE EXISTING WALLS UNDERNEATH THIS STRIP THAT, THAT WE INTEND TO AGAIN, MAINTAIN, PICK UP, MOVE FORWARD.

BUT WE WILL HAVE TO, THE, THE WINDOWS ARE NOT WHERE THEY WERE, RIGHT? THAT THE DOOR IS NOT, THE DOORS WERE NOT WHERE THEY WERE.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PORCH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IT WAS.

THERE IS NO ROOF LEFT.

SO WE ARE STILL GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY REBUILDING PORTIONS OF THIS, BUT THERE IS NO REASON THAT THE, THE, THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE CAN'T BE MAINTAINED.

YOU KIND OF ANSWER MY QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT TREE AND THEN YOU'RE BASICALLY GONNA TAKE IT DOWN PIECE BY PIECE AND REBUILD IT? NO.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

NOT AT ALL.

DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WITH THIS TREE? I, I JUST CAN'T WRAP MY HEAD AROUND.

ARE YOU GONNA MOVE HOUSE AROUND THE TREE? YEAH.

THAT, THAT TREE IS NOT THAT SIGNIFICANT THAT WE CAN'T WORK AROUND IT.

THIS, THIS LOT IS, SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT TREE AND THEN IT HAD LIKE A BIG CIRCLE AROUND IT.

I HAVE A CIR YEAH.

I PUT A CIRCLE AROUND IT.

YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA STAY OFF THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE WITH CONSTRUCTION.

BUT I, I, I MEAN, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO OUT THERE WITH YOU GUYS.

WE, WE CAN MOVE A, A 40 FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE AROUND THAT TREE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM.

SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING A RIVER COTTAGE AND TAKING IT OFF THE RIVER, OFF THE RIVER.

YOU ARE TAKING UR AND I, I'M NOT GONNA SUGARCOAT THIS GUYS.

WE ARE WITH CONTEXT.

IF THAT IS OUR ONLY CRITERIA WITH CONTEXT, IT WILL NOT BE THE PRIMARY.

WHEN, WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, AND I, THERE'S FULL TRUTH, THE GOAL FOR THIS IS TO CREATE TO, TO REHABILITATE THIS STRUCTURE SO THAT IT CAN BE ENJOYED AND CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WITH HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE IN THE TOWN

[01:40:01]

OF BLUFFTON.

IT HAS A DIFFERENT CONTEXT WITH RELATION TO THE RIVER, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NEW HOUSE BEHIND IT AT SOME POINT.

THAT THAT'S HOW THIS WOULD WORK.

UM, IF YOU LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS, IF YOU SAY IT CANNOT, CANNOT EVER BE MOVED, THEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO CONVEY WHICH PIECES OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE ARE RELEVANT FOR SAVING, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXTERIOR DISTINGUISHING FEATURE THAT IS REMAINING ON THIS.

SO YOU JUST SAID THAT EXTERIOR WALL ARE STILL THERE AND STILL YOU CAN STILL FIND THEM INSIDE, INSIDE OF THE SIDING, INSIDE OF THE NEW ROOF FORM, ALL OF THAT STUFF.

SO YES AND NO.

THERE IS NO, I THINK WE CAN PULL STRUCTURE FORWARD AND DO A GOOD JOB OF IDENTIFYING AND MEETING THE CRITERIA OF THE 10 CRITERIA FOR, UH, REHABILITATION.

BUT IF, IF, IF YOU SAID, LOOK, WE WANT TO BUILD A WITHIN OUR RIGHT, WHATEVER, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RIVER FRONT HOME, WE'RE GOING TO WORK AROUND THIS THING.

YOU, YOU HAVE ENGULFED THIS JUST LIKE THEY ALREADY HAVE.

WE'RE NOT.

AND, AND THEN IT IS AGAIN, STILL A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND NAME ONLY.

NO ONE CAN EVER LOOK AT THIS THING AGAIN AND IDENTIFY ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT OF THOSE 1977 PHOTOS OR 1994 PHOTOS.

DIDN'T, CAN YOU, UH, IN THE ONE, UH, OVERHEAD, YOU, YOU SHOWED US WHERE THE AD ADDITIONS WERE, SO YOU KIND OF PRETTY MUCH TOLD US WHERE THE, THE STRUCTURE WAS.

OFF THE NEW STUFF.

SEPARATIONS ARE DIFFERENT.

SO THE PORCH IS STILL EXISTING, IT'S JUST THE SCREEN.

YEP.

THE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE PORCH WALL AND ROOF ARE NOT EXISTENT.

AND SO, YEAH.

IS THE FOOTPRINT THERE? THE PORCH IS THE SAME SIZE.

IT IS NOT THE SAME PORCH DON'T THAT, BUT IT IS SAME 14 FOOT THAT IT WAS, IT'S NOT THE SAME ON CENTER WITH THE RAPTOR TAILS ABOVE.

IT IS JUST NOW BIGGER SCREEN PORCHES IN A DIFFERENT DOOR.

IT JUST APPEARS UNDERNEATH THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

BUT THE SCREEN PORCH ITSELF IS THE SAME.

THE, NO, THE SCREEN PORCH IS NOT THE SAME.

IT'S NOT THE SAME SIZE.

IT IS THE SAME SIZE.

IT IS NOT THE PORCH.

BUT LIKE, AGAIN, I, THAT'S THIS, THAT'S, I I CAN SAY THE ROOF IS THE SAME SIZE.

IT'S NOT THE ROOF.

THE ROOF WAS BUILT IN THE TWO THOUSANDS.

SO THE, THE CONTEXT OF THIS IS NOT JUST THE FOOTPRINT AND THE FOOTPRINT IS NOT THE SAME.

I, I'LL HAPPILY WALK YOU ALL THROUGH IT, BUT THIS IS, THAT, THAT'S WHY WE HAD ENGINEERS OUT THERE.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE BEEN OUT THERE IN AND OUT AND SIDEWAYS IS I, I WISH WE WEREN'T NECESSARILY IN A SITUATION WHERE A A A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE BASICALLY DOES NOT RESEMBLE ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN 1994.

BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

UM, SO OUR, THE FOOTPRINT STILL LOOKS LIKE IT'S STILL THERE ACCORDING TO WHAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW.

WELL, WHETHER THE WINDOWS HAVE MOVED OR THE, LET ME REITERATE THE ENTIRETY OF THE FRONT OF THAT HOUSE NEEDS THAT, ALL OF THAT STUFF RIGHT THERE THAT IS, IS XED OUT, IS, IS COMING OFF.

IT'S NOT RIGHT.

WE KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE FRONT LINE OF THE FOUNDATION IS.

I CANNOT TELL YOU WHETHER THE WALL, WHERE THE CURRENT DOOR AND WINDOWS ARE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY REBUILT OR NOT.

I JUST KNOW ABOUT WHERE THAT FOUNDATION LINE IS.

AND I KNOW FROM PHOTOS AND PIECING THIS TOGETHER, THAT THIS CORNER RIGHT HERE UP AT THE TOP LEFT IS THAT SAME FOUR FOOT INDENTION THAT APPEARS TO BE THE RIGHT SIDE EDGE OF THE GABLE IN 1977.

ALTHOUGH THE ROOF IS COMPLETELY GONE, THE WINDOWS ARE DIFFERENT, THE SHUTTERS ARE GONE, THE SIDING HAS BEEN REPLACED.

AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER AT THIS STAGE, WHETHER THE WALL IS ORIGINAL OR IT ISN'T.

I JUST KNOW THAT FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SEEN SOME CEILING WORK IN THERE AND WE'VE SEEN SOME FOUNDATION WORK THAT WOULD SAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN ADDED ONTO OVER TIME.

BUT THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY SOME, YOU KNOW, THAT I THINK THAT THIS FOOTPRINT IS RIGHT HERE.

I I DO BELIEVE THAT.

OF WITH, AGAIN, INTERNALLY WITH THE MURPHY'S, LEMME ZOOM BACK OUT HERE.

UM, I JUST SO THAT PORCH IS JUST DIFFERENT SCREEN DIVISIONS? NO, NO.

IT IS NOT JUST THE SCREEN DIVISIONS.

I, AND I, I'M SORRY.

I DON'T WANT IT, IT IS EVERY, IT IS NEARLY EVERY STRUCTURAL ELEMENT OF THAT PORCH, INCLUDING ITS ROOF, ITS CEILING, EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.

THE ROOF OFF THE, WHAT STUDIES DID YOU GUYS DO TO, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST STUDY ADDING ONTO THE STRUCTURE, LIKE BASICALLY REHABIL REHABILITATING IT IN PLACE AND DOING A THOUGHTFUL ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE IN PLACE? WE HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED THAT AT ALL.

WE, WE STUDIED THE LIKELIHOOD

[01:45:01]

THAT STRUCTURE IS SITTING ABOUT DEAD MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? WE CAN LOOK AT, WE, WE LOOKED AT, OKAY, WHAT DO WE, WHAT'S A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT? WHAT'S A 3000 SQUARE FOOT LIKE COMPARED TO 1300? WHAT DOES THAT MASSING LOOK LIKE? I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TELL THE MURPHYS THERE IS A PATH TOWARDS PRESENTING, AND MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING HERE TODAY, BUT WHAT'S THE PATH TOWARDS PRESENTING SOMETHING TO AN HPC BOARD THAT SAYS, I AM IN KEEPING WITH THE 10 STANDARDS OF REHABILITATION AND, AND KEEPING ANY SORT OF DISTINGUISHING FEATURES WHEN WE CAN'T IDENTIFY WHAT THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES THAT ARE REMAINING ARE.

RIGHT? SO ARE WE ASKING TO RENOVATE A TWO THOU, YOU KNOW, A HOUSE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY AGAIN, AS SOMEONE SAID MORE ACCURATELY, A 2000 ERROR HOUSE.

UM, AND IS THAT ANY MORE CONSISTENT? AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE, THE STANDARDS FOR THE INTERIOR, IT, THOSE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ANY, YOU KNOW, MINIMIZING THE, THE CHANGE TO DISTINCTIVE MATERIAL FEATURES, SPACES, AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS, THOSE ELEMENTS ARE NOT HERE.

WE'RE IN A BIT OF A UNIQUE SITUATION.

I THINK THAT'S WHY MR. VOX SAID THIS IS A BIT OF A GRAY AREA.

I I, I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO SORT OF PULL THIS THING BACK TOGETHER IN MORE OF A RESTORATIVE FASHION TO SAY, OKAY, WHEN SOMEONE LOOKS AT THAT, WHEN SOMEONE WALKS IN, THAT WHEN SOMEONE OCCUPIES THAT SPACE OR SEES IT FROM THE STREET, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO IN 1994 AND IN 1977.

AND IF THERE ARE PROTECTIONS THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE AS A GROUP THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE, WE, WE CANNOT ALLOW FULL DEMOLITION, OR WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS OR WHATEVER, OR WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT EVER EXPANDING THAT FOOTPRINT.

I THINK THE FUTURE OWNERS WOULD BE ON BOARD WITH ALLOWING THIS THING TO EXIST AS THE ORIGINAL 1,315 SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST NOT IN THAT LOCATION.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT THE RIVER COTTAGE ANY LONGER.

YEAH, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE RIVER COTTAGE ANY LONGER RIGHT NOW, GUYS.

IT'S IS, LOOK, I, I GUESS UNLESS I'M READING IT WRONG, I SEE A FOOTPRINT.

I KNOW YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THAT'S WHAT, WHAT IT WAS, BUT YOU'RE SHOWING A FOOTPRINT WHERE THE FOUR FOOT OFF OFFSET, MAYBE THAT INTERIOR WALL IS NOW GONE BECAUSE THEY BUMPED OUT AND ADDED TO THE FRONT.

BUT IT, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, THAT IT'S STILL THERE.

THERE IS, BUT THEY ADDED TO 100% ZERO OF ANYTHING ABOVE THE CEILING LINE OF THIS HOUSE THAT EXISTS ON THIS PHOTO.

THERE IS 100% ZERO OF THAT ENTIRETY, RIGHT, OF THAT STRUCTURE BESIDES IS THE SAME.

SURE.

IT'S JUST ALTERATIONS THAT BEEN MADE TO IT IN, IN NOW? NO, IT, IT HAS BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED.

UH, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

THAT ROOF DIDN'T GET ALTERED.

IT IS NOT THERE WHEN YOU GO UP INTO THAT ATTIC.

IT IS COMPLETE NEW FRAMING.

RIGHT? WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THIS HOUSE AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW, OR THE REAR, I'LL SAY YOU WILL, YOU, YOU CANNOT POINT ME TO ANY ONE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT ON THAT PAGE SHORT OF THE CHIMNEY THAT IS VISIBLE TO THE EYE THAT EXISTS.

THAT WAS THERE IN 1994.

THOSE WINDOWS ARE NOT THERE.

THOSE DOORS WERE NOT THERE.

THEY WEREN'T IN THOSE LOCATIONS.

THE FRONT PORCH IS NOT THERE.

THE SIDING IS DIFFERENT, THE ROOF IS DIFFERENT.

THE COLUMNS NEVER EXISTED.

THERE WAS NO PORCH, NONE OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THAT PORCH WAS THERE.

SOMEWHERE INSIDE OF THERE, THERE IS SOME FOUNDATION, AND WE HAVE UNCOVERED IT, BUT THIS HOUSE DID NOT EXIST IN 1994.

AND THIS IS NOT RENOVATION STUFF.

THIS IS FULL ON RECREATION, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE LEFT HAND WING IN THIS HOUSE.

IT'S, THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.

THEY, THEY APPLIED FOR THE PERMITS.

BUT THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T THE, THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS LISTED IN 1994.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, BEGIN OUR COMMISSION, UH, DISCUSSION.

UM, I, I, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, AND I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY TO INTERJECT, UH, AND INTERRUPT HERE.

IF, IF, IF I MAY JUST HAVE A MATTER

[01:50:01]

OF PRIVILEGE, ONE MOMENT JUST TO ADDRESS TWO THINGS, TWO OR THREE THINGS THAT I HEARD DURING THE PRESENT THAT I HOPE WILL, UM, ASSIST Y'ALL WITH YOUR, UH, YOUR DECISION MAKING.

SO, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS ON THE HBC THAT I BELIEVE WERE NOT MEMBERS AT THE, THE LAST TIME WE CONSIDERED RELOCATION, UH, CO HDI WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR, OR WHAT THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR, UH, JURISDICTION IS HERE TONIGHT.

SO, UH, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS, OR SOME OF THE RESPONSES HAD TO DO WITH THE CONTRIBUTING NATURE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS STILL RETAIN THAT ESSENTIAL ESSENCE THAT IS THAT CONTRIBUTING NATURE.

UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THOSE ARE THINGS TO CONSIDER AS FAR AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR CRITERIA THAT'S LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A STRUCTURE IS CONTRIBUTING IS VESTED WITHIN TOWN COUNCIL, NOT HPC.

SO UNDER THE CODE, UH, THE UDF, THE TOWN CODE, THAT IS CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

AND EVEN WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TODAY IS STILL CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING.

UH, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO APPLICATION TO REMOVE THAT CONTRIBUTING STATUS AS OF YET.

SO YOUR CRITERIA IS WHETHER TO CONSIDER THIS, THIS RELOCATION, UH, WITHOUT THOUGHT OR ANY SORT OF, UM, CONFIRMED AREA WHERE IT WILL BE RELOCATED TO.

IT'S UNUSUAL.

THAT'S, THAT IS UNUSUAL.

AND PART OF IT ALSO MAKES SENSE IN THIS APPLICATION.

THIS IS A SOMEWHAT COMPLEX APPLICATION THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE MULTIPLE, UH, CARRIAGE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, HOW HE CAN MOVE IT ONTO THE PROPERTY WHILE NOT CREATING, UM, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL ZONING COMPLICATIONS UNDER, UH, OUR FORM-BASED CODE.

AND I THINK STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR OPINIONS AS TO THAT.

AND FINALLY, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ADDRESS IS, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT THE EXPANSION OR THE, UH, WHY NOT DOING IT IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY THAT WAS TOUCHED ON BY STAFF, IS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY A NON-CONTRIBUTING OR NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT IS BUILT WITHIN THAT OCR SETBACK.

SO THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ALSO FROM THE ZONING PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT SORT OF ADDITIONS THEY CAN DO, UH, IN PARTICULAR AS THEY MOVE TOWARD THE RIVERFRONT.

SO THEY MAY BE ABLE TO, AND I WOULD DEFER TO, TO STAFF ON A, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UDO AS TO WHETHER THEY COULD DO ANY SORT OF RENOVATIONS OUT TOWARD RIDGE STREET, BUT CERTAINLY ANYWHERE WHERE THEY ARE ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK, WHICH WAS AGAIN, PUT IN PLACE AFTER THE, THE COTT WAS BUILT, UH, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD BE LIMITED.

UH, YOUR, AGAIN, YOUR, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY HERE IS TO APPLY THE FACTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD THEM TONIGHT FROM STAFF, FROM THE APPLICANT.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE INTENTIONS HERE TONIGHT ARE GENUINE.

AND, UH, THESE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE BEEN MEMBERS FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

UM, AND YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE SAS INTERPRETATION OF THE UDA AND, UH, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS.

YOU NEED TO APPLY THOSE FACTS, THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE HEARD, THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, UH, TO THE CRITERIA AND MAKE A DECISION.

YOUR DECISIONS ARE TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR TO DENY, UH, IF YOU NEED ANY HELP WITH MOTION, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE MY SERVICES.

UH, AS MUCH ADVICE AS Y'ALL CAN GIVE ME ON THAT WOULD BE GREAT AS WELL.

AND, UM, I'M HERE IF ANYTHING'S NEEDED.

UH, AND FOR STAFF, A QUICK QUESTION.

UH, THE SETBACKS WOULD BE OPEN TO A VZA APPLICATION AS WELL, CORRECT? ARE THEY NOT? YES.

SHOULD IF, IF THEY WERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT 150 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

UH, WE CAN OPEN UP TO, UH, COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

UM, WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO, UH, OPEN DISCUSSION? OH, I MEAN, I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION.

I I THINK WE SHOULD DO SOME DISCUSSION FIRST.

, RIGHT? GO FOR IT.

I, I'M UNDERSTANDING THE FACT THAT AS IT EXISTS, IT'S NOT THE CONTRIBUTING THAT WE SEE, BUT WE ALSO ARE TAKING A RIVERFRONT COTTAGE AND MOVING IT OFF THE RIVERFRONT.

SO EVEN IF IT LOOKS LIKE THE RIVER FRONT COTTAGE, IT'S NOT ON THE RIVER.

ALLOW COTTAGES TO BE MOVED OFF OF THAT WATERFRONT, THEN THE WATERFRONT BECOMES ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO I STRUGGLE WITH THAT.

I WOULD AGREE.

AND I THINK THAT THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S PART OF A LARGER HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, LOCATED ON THE WATERFRONT AND THE WATERFRONT IS AN IMPORTANT FEATURE TO THAT.

AND COTTAGES, SEVERAL COTTAGES ON THE WATERFRONT ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT, UM, DISTRICT.

AND I THINK THE FIELD OF LUCK IN THE FIELD OF LUPTON.

AND IF WE WERE TO

[01:55:01]

I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THAT.

'CAUSE THEN AT THAT POINT, WE'RE CHANGING THE COMPLETE MAKEUP OF WHAT BLUFF AND TRULY IS.

UM, I WOULD, I, YOU KNOW, KIND GOING THROUGH STAFF'S FINDINGS, I TENDED TO AGREE WITH THEIR FINDINGS IN, UH, ONE A ONE, UM, WHICH WAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MOVING IT OFF OF THE, THE BLUFF.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S ON THE SAME PROPERTY, IT'S STILL FACING THE RIVER, BUT BEING UP ON THAT BLUFF AND BEING 300, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 400 FEET AWAY FROM IT, ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

UH, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THEM ON, UH, 0.2, WHICH WAS LARGELY THE SAME THAT, UM, YEAH, IT WAS THAT THE OLD TOWN MASTER PLAN SUPPORTS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE MOVING, CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES OFF OF THE RIVERFRONT.

UM, AND THAT AND 0.4, WHICH WAS VERY SIMILAR, AND WHERE ARE WE THERE, 0.5, UM, WHICH WAS THAT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE WATERFRONT LOCATION WAS IMPORTANT TO THE STRUCTURE, UM, AND 0.6 AND SEVEN AS WELL.

UM, I, AND PARTICULARLY ON 0.7, I, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE SAID THEY DIDN'T REALLY STUDY OTHER, UM, ALTERNATIVES.

AND I FIND IT HARD TO APPROVE RELOCATION AS KIND OF A FIRST SOLUTION.

UM, I ALSO THOUGHT THAT THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED KIND OF SOME ONE TWO THREES IN THEIR RESPONSI OF, OF WHAT I SAW WERE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE.

UM, AND I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT LIKELY PR LIKELY PRESSURE FOR FUTURE ALTERATION IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMICS OF THE SITUATION, IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE.

UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT TO REHABILITATE, BUT I, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO SORT OF PEG THE RELOCATION TO THE REHABILITATION THAT'S RETURNING EVERYTHING TO ITS ORIGINAL SCALE MASS AND PROPORTION.

UM, AND THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

I THINK IT MAKES IT HARD FOR ME TO SEE A WAY TO SUPPORTING THE RELOCATION.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN.

COULD, COULD I ASK A, MAYBE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT? WOULD THAT BE, IS THAT OKAY? SURE.

UM, IF, IF, UH, IF THE COMMITTEE WERE TO DECIDE THAT THE POSITION OF THE STRUCTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE, THE TRYING TO, TO, TO SORT OF CONTAIN THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT OF THE, THE COTTAGE AND, AND PUT IT FORWARD ON THE PROPERTY, LET'S SAY, UM, IS THERE A, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS IT? IT, COULD WE GET SOME, PERHAPS COULD THE CLIENT, COULD THE, COULD THE POTENTIAL BUYER GET SOME PERHAPS FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEE, UM, ON UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT ANYTHING IN THE EXTERIOR THAT WAS SORT OF CONSISTENT WITH WHAT SAY 1994 SURVEY? UM, HOW DID, HOW WOULD THE COMMITTEE SEE A, A POTENTIAL FUTURE RENOVATION? I MEAN, WHEN WE BRING SOMETHING BEFORE HPC, TYPICALLY THERE IS A GREAT, UM, UH, WHEN IT'S RELATED TO A RENOVATION PROJECT ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A, THERE'S A CONSISTENT DESIRE TO SORT OF LEAVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HISTORIC ALONE.

LIKE WE, WE WE'RE MAKING CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT'S NEW AND WHAT'S OLD.

IN THIS CASE, THAT LINE HAS ALREADY BEEN BLURRED OR OBLITERATED.

SO HOW, HOW WOULD A RENOVATION PROPOSAL LOOK TO, TO YOU AS THE BOARD? IS THAT JUST, IS IT A MUCH MORE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF, OR, OR IS IS, WOULD ANYBODY PHYSICALLY SAY, HEY, THAT'S THAT RIGHT THERE NEEDS TO STAY.

AND I THINK THAT'S A DIFFICULT, I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF OUR PURVIEW AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, IT'S ON THE LIST.

SO WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT THAT'S HISTORIC.

IT'S ON THE LIST, BUT IF YOUR INTENTION WAS TO TAKE IT DOWN TO A SMALLER COTTAGE, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD, AND PARTICULARLY THAT YOU'RE AGAINST THE PARK, THAT YOU GOT SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROBABLY SOME VARIANCES ON THE SETBACKS.

AND SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO WELL WOULD BE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING YOU NEED

[02:00:01]

A, A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE IN ORDER TO EVEN BUILD AROUND IT BECAUSE IT'S SETTING OVER THE SETBACK.

SURE.

UM, BUT, BUT THE, I THINK WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IS THAT, THAT THAT, THAT THE POSITION, THE LOOK OF THIS RIGHT NOW IS NOT WHAT'S MAKING IT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

IT IS SIMPLY THAT IT'S BEEN PLACED ON THE LIST.

PART OF LOCATION IS OF LOCATIONS CERTAINLY YEAH.

IS AN IMPORTANT PART.

BUT THE ADDITIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN SAY 1996 AND 2010 ARE NOT PART OF IT.

THE FOOTPRINT IS STILL THERE.

EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SITTING HERE SAYING, OH, WELL THE CHIMNEY IS HERE, BUT THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THAT'S A PART OF THE HOME.

THE FOOTPRINT IS STILL THERE.

I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK FAVORABLY UPON IF YOU WERE SUGGESTING RENOVATIONS TO THE NON HISTORIC PART, LIKE A DE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A NON HISTORIC PART THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO SOME RENOVATION.

I GUESS THE WHOLE IDEA OF IT BEING A RIVER COTTAGE IS BEING ON THE RIVER.

SO EVEN IF YOU FULLY REHABILITATED IT UP OFF THE STREET, IT'S NO LONGER A RIVER COTTAGE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S A HOUSE ON BRIDGE STREET.

YOU ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WON'T MAKE SENSE IN ITS ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S NOT MOVING TO GET RID OF THE OLD, THE NEW STUFF AND SLIDE IT A LITTLE BIT SO YOU CAN STILL HAVE ROOM TO MAKE A VIEW FOR YOURSELF.

THAT'S NOT UP TO US TO DO ALL THAT FOR THEM, MARK.

I UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S, WELL, I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING BECAUSE I, I THINK LIKE FROM THE, FROM THE CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE, IF, IF THE GOAL IS OF, IF THE, THE POSITION OF HPC WAS THAT THING NEEDS, THAT NEEDS TO STAY PRETTY MUCH AS IT IS IN ITS 2000 FORM.

UM, THE ADDITIONS NEED TO STAY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL THAN, UM, BECAUSE MOST OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

WE WOULD HAVE MORE LENIENCY TO TO, TO BUILD AROUND IT.

THAT'S, THAT THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT POSITIONS.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS, AND, UH, WE CAN ALL GO THROUGH.

BUT I, LIKE, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION PORTION OF THIS PERSONALLY, IS REALLY JUST THE RELOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT CONCERNS ME.

I THINK THAT THE OVERALL GOAL OF REHABILITATING THE STRUCTURE IS IF YOU, THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT'S THERE YEAH.

IS VERY NICE AND, AND WOULD BE IMPORTANT.

BUT, UH, THE RELOCATION AND IT, I JUST REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THAT PIECE.

ESPECIALLY, I MEAN, JUST RELOCATING OFF THE WATERFRONT.

WHEN THE HISTORIC REGISTERED DISTRICT IS SO FOCUSED ON THE WATERFRONT NATURE OF OUR TOWN AND, AND WE'RE ALSO OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW UDO AND WHAT THEIR SUGGESTIONS ARE AND WHAT THEIR RULES ARE.

SO THAT'S SUPPOSED TO GUIDE US IN OUR OPINION, NOT OPINIONS, OUR DECISIONS AS WELL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I KNOW I TALKED A LOT.

DID ANYBODY ELSE WANNA HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO ADD? NO, I THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF IN AGREEMENT.

IS THERE A TIMING DIFFERENCE THAT WOULD COME UP AGAIN IF WE WERE TO RE STUDY A NEW PROPOSAL? ARE WE SO SHORT OF AN APPLICATION FEE IS THERE, I HAVE TO DIVERT STAFF.

UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FINAL STAFF REMARKS? SURE.

OR WOULD THE APPLICATION APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE ANY FINAL REMARKS? OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR A MOTION.

UH, SO WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY THIS, RIGHT? IF THAT'S THE MOTION YOU WANT.

UH, WELL, YEAH.

I MEAN, CAN I SEE THE, UH, THE GO BACK TO THAT ONE THING I DIDN'T EXACTLY.

IS THAT, UM, IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

I, YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS IT.

THIS, THIS IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ORDERING ON THIS.

ABSOLUTELY.

REAL QUICK, JUST, I'M SORRY.

MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A, A MOTION IF QUESTION.

I'M SORRY.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

IF, IF A DENIAL IS ISSUED, ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO COME BACK WITH A NEW APPLICATION THE SAME OR IS IT, DO WE HAVE ANY LIMITATIONS TO THAT? YES, YOU CAN ONLY, YEAH, ANNEXATIONS AND REZONINGS HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS ON WHEN YOU CAN BRING THEM BACK AFTER DENIAL.

BUT, UH, REQUEST FOR CO HD AND FOR RELOCATION, THINGS LIKE THAT, I BELIEVE THERE'S NO TIME LIMITATION.

THERE'S NO REASON TO REQUEST A TABLE.

THERE'S NO, THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO TAKE, UH, WOULD REQUEST A TABLE IS TO AVOID MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, PAYMENT OF A REA PAYING YOUR APPLICATION FEE AGAIN AND GETTING BACK INTO THE START OF THE LINE, HAVING TO START THE PROCESS OVER WITH A NEW APPLICATION.

SO YOU, UH, BUT BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS ONE, IT IS REALLY A JUDGMENT CALL FOR YOU ALL.

[02:05:02]

I'M GONNA JUST SPEAK INTO THE MIC SO THAT I GET CAUGHT.

BUT, UM, THE TIMING OF IT, IT, A NEW APPLICATION WOULD GO TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMITTEE PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.

HOWEVER, IF THE SCOPE OF WORK IS DRASTICALLY CHANGING FROM THAT, WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT, UM, IT WOULD BE IN THE APPLICANT'S BEST INTEREST IN, IN MY OPINION, AS WELL AS HOPEFULLY OTHER STAFF'S OPINION TO GO TO HPRC.

WHETHER IT WAS A TABLED APPLICATION OR A DENIED APPLICATION, AS THAT IS THE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT IS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE FULL COMMISSION.

SO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THAT AND GIVING YOU COMMENTS SO THAT YOU'RE PREPARED TO COME BEFORE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, I'M BASING THAT WE'RE HOPEFULLY TALKING INTO THIS, UM, WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE HPC THAT IS, IS ABLE TO BE SUPPORTED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY STAFF BECAUSE THE HPRC OR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT MONDAY MEETING, THEY DO A BULK OF THE, UM, A BULK OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AGAINST THE ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE SETTING AN APPLICATION THAT HAS TO WAIT A MONTH TO GO BEFORE THE HPC UP FOR SUCCESS.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

KIND OF.

SORRY I HAVEN'T SPOKE JAMES.

I, UH, THE ONE THING THAT I HEARD, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT MADE SENSE OR NOT, WAS TO STUDY THE POTENTIAL OF RESTORATION AND ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS TO THE FOOTPRINT THAT'S THERE.

LIKE IS THERE A POTENTIAL TO ADD A, A HOUSE? YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE A, A 1300 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AT $4,000 A SQUARE FOOT PROBABLY DOESN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE FOR MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IS THERE A, I HEARD SOME QUESTIONS.

COULD THERE BE A STUDY OF ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS AROUND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT? 'CAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT REALLY REMAINS.

UM, AND REMOVAL OF THE STUFF THAT HAS NO APPLICATION AT ALL TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD STILL BE ON THERE AND HAVE SOME EXPRESSION OF THE OLD HOUSE.

'CAUSE THE REALITY IS IF WE CAME IN FOR A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, WE GET ASKED TO DEMO THE ENTIRE THING OTHER THAN A COUPLE LITTLE WALLS.

'CAUSE THERE'S NOTHING LEFT OF OF IT.

BUT WE COULD COME IN AND STUDY THE OPTION OF REBUILDING THE PORCH TO LOOK LIKE IT THAT, OOPS, SORRY.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ATTACHED TO A BIGGER HOUSE IN THE BACKGROUND.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO TABLE THIS FOR FUTURE SO THAT WE COULD STUDY THAT AND THEN COME BACK AND, AND AS A SEPARATE COFA APPLICATION OR IF IT JUST MADE SENSE THAT WE'LL JUST LET THIS THING DIE, WE'LL START A NEW PROCESS, REVIEW THAT WITH STAFF AND THEN IF WE ALL COLLECTIVELY AGREE THAT THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

'CAUSE THE NEW PROPOSED COTTAGE DOESN'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THE OLD PRO POST COTTAGE ANYWAY.

UM, THEN MAYBE THE RELOCATION TO HAVE IT LOOK LIKE THE OLD ONE MAKES MORE SENSE.

I DON'T KNOW.

YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY TO ME.

ARE YOU THINKING LIKE, WELL WE'LL MAKE THE PORCH LOOK ORIGINAL AND WE'LL JUST STICK IT ON SOMETHING NEW? OR ARE YOU THINKING LIKE, RESTORE WHAT WAS THERE AND THEN ADD ON TO IT? THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF ASKING WHAT WE, WE COULD STUDY.

LIKE I, I THINK THERE'S LACK OF INFORMATION, BUT THE REALITY IS IF WE PUT AN ADDITION ON THE, ON WHAT'S THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, IT WON'T LOOK LIKE BACK OF THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY DID ANYWAY.

UM, NOW BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARDS, BUILDING IT, 'CAUSE THE FRONT IS OF WATER, BUILDING IT ON THE BACK IS THE PROPER THING TO DO.

UM, BUT WE ALL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHATEVER WOULD BE PROPOSED TO DO THAT, IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK LIKE THE 1994 PHOTOS EITHER.

UM, I WOULD STILL GIVE THE RIVERFRONT COTTAGE ON THE RIVER SIDE.

IT CAN STILL MAINTAIN THAT LOOK THAT WAS THERE AND THE BRIDGE STREET VIEW WOULD, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY BE DIFFERENT.

BUT I GUESS OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS A RIVER COTTAGE IS THE RIVERVIEW OR MINE AND THEN A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RIVER HOUSES STILL RIVER COTTAGE AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

TO COUNCIL AND HAVE IT REMOVED IT FROM CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

NOT A, NOT A BRAND NEW 5,000 SQUARE FEET HOME.

IF IT WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PARTICULAR THING THERE.

LIKE THIS PARTICULAR IS NOT GONNA MOVE INTO A 1300 SQUARE FOOT AT, AT THE COST OF THE PROPERTY'S A $4,000 A SQUARE FOOT ENDEAVOR, UM, JUST TO BUY AND DOESN'T INCLUDE THE RENOVATIONS.

AND SO THE REALITY IS, AND AND I THINK THE INTENTIONS ARE PURE, THERE'S A CASE TO BE MADE TO GO

[02:10:01]

'CAUSE THERE'S NOTHING CONTRIBUTING LEFT.

UM, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CLIENT WANTED TO DO BECAUSE THEY HAVE A, A, A HEART TO BLUFF IN AND WOULD LIKE TO RESTORE WHAT WAS THERE.

UM, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE.

THAT'S JUST THE REALITY OF IT.

BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RESTORE IT, MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE HISTORIC COTTAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, BUT THE, UM, THAT, THAT'S THE CONUNDRUM IN THE GRAY AREA.

'CAUSE THE REALITY IS THERE'S A STRONG CASE TO SAY, HERE'S THE SURVEY, HERE'S THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

NOTHING REMAINS.

WE WANT IT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE LIST HAS TO SAY, HUH, WHAT KEVIN HAS TO SAY.

OH, HEY, UH, KEVIN EKER, UH, DIRECTOR OF, UH, GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

UM, SO FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT THIS EVENING, THE APPLICATION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS FOR A PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND A RELOCATION.

SO THAT APPLICATION ITSELF IS, IS WHAT YOU NEED TO VOTE ON.

IF IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH THAT THERE IS SOME, UH, POTENTIAL FOR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS MOVING FORWARD.

UM, SO FROM A A, A PROCESS STANDPOINT, A DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE THIS EVENING ON THOSE TWO, UM, THE, THE TWO ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.

UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WORKING WITH THE APPLICANTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST MEETINGS WITH STAFF, UM, WITH, UH, NOT WITH THE ENTIRE GROUP, NOT A QUORUM OF THE, UM, HPC, BUT MAYBE SOME INDIVIDUALS, UH, TO GET SOME FEEDBACK AS THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A NEW APPLICATION.

AND THAT POTENTIAL NEW APPLICATION COULD BE THE A PARTIAL DE DEMOLITION AND, UM, ADDITION, UH, TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

I, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN ANYONE'S MOUTH, BUT THAT'S, THAT'D BE A POSSIBILITY.

BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NEW APPLICATION.

SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY PROCESS WISE WITH YOU.

THAT'S NOT, WE COULD SAY YES, WE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE AGREE WITH THE DEMOLITION DEMOLITION, BUT NO TO MOVING IT, UH, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ALL OR NOTHING.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU'RE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE APPLICATION IS SET UP IS THAT THAT PARTIAL DEMOLITION, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AS TO, UM, IT WITHOUT THAT RELOCATION, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SAY, WELL WHAT, WHAT IS GOING TO BE THERE WHEN YOU DO THAT? DEMOLITION? THANK YOU.

MM-HMM, , HOW IS THAT JUST OUTTA HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE, UH, WITH THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A, A COMPLETELY NEW APPLICATION, BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT.

WE CAN'T DO THE ADDITION AS A COMPLETELY NEW APPLICATION.

YOU CAN DO AN ADDITION AS A COMPLETELY NEW APPLICATION.

YES.

BUT, SO WE CAN'T, BUT WE CAN'T, CAN'T BLAME GAIN CLARITY ON THE ABILITY TO PARTIALLY DEMOLISH.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE GONNA PARTIALLY DEMOLISH AND THEN COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO TO REHABILITATE IT.

AND YOU THAT WAS TOLD, WE WERE TOLD THAT NEEDED TO BE A SECOND COBRA.

AND THEN CAME BACK WITH A, UH, COFA HD TO GET THE ADDITIONS BUILT ON, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK HOW YOU WOULD, HOW YOU COULD DO THE CONDITION OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION WITHOUT ANY SORT OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE REHABILITATION EFFORTS ARE GONNA BE, WHAT THE ADDITION, YOU KNOW, THE ADDITIONS ARE GONNA BE.

WELL, BUT YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS AND WHY IT WAS PUT AND WHY WE HAVE THIS COMPLICATED PROCESS, UM, IT IT IS NOT JUST TO KEEP EVERYBODY CONFUSED IN HERE AND MAKE IT, UH, MAKE IT TOUGHER FOR PEOPLE TO FIGURE IT OUT.

BUT I THINK THE IDEA IS WHEN YOU GO THROUGH, UM, WHEN YOU GET THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION APPROVAL, IT'S GOING TO BE CONDITIONED UPON A COFA HD BEING APPROVED TO SHOW WHAT THE REHABILITATION STEPS ARE GOING TO BE AS WELL AS THE RELOCATION.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE THAT CONDITION UNTIL THE APPRO, YOU GET AN APPROVAL AS CONDITIONED UPON FUTURE APPROVALS, RIGHT? SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE STEPS ON THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION UNTIL YOU GET THE APPROVALS ON THE RELOCATION AND THE, UH, REHABILITATION EFFORTS.

AND PART OF THAT ISSUE IS THAT YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE, I GUESS, UM, THE IDEA THERE WOULD BE THEN TO PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING TO SPEND THE PRO SPEND THE MONEY UPFRONT ON THE SECOND APPLICATIONS WHEN THIS ONE IS STILL CONDITIONAL.

OBJECTION.

I THINK THAT WAS THE IDEA.

I AGREE WITH WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

UH, I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS WHY WOULDN'T THAT SAME LOGIC APPLY TO, CAN WE GET THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION APPROVAL NOW AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE SECOND FOR THE ADDITION IN PLACE? WHY DOES IT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE MOVE? AND THIS IS ALSO HELPING US NOT SPEND MONEY UNNECESSARILY.

I THINK IT WOULD BE CONDITIONED UPON IT, IT WOULD BE, I THINK FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT CONDITION WOULD BE, UH, MUCH, MUCH MORE OPEN THAN THIS VERY NARROW PATH THAT Y'ALL HAD SET FORTH ABOUT WHAT YOUR PLAN WAS OR WHAT YOUR DESIRE WOULD BE.

SO IF YOU'RE DOING, IF YOU'D COME BACK AFTER GETTING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION APPROVED WITHOUT THE RELOCATION

[02:15:01]

AND THAT'S WHY WHEN IT WAS CONDITIONED UPON THE RELOCATION MADE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE.

WHEN YOU'RE DOING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION KOFA HD, NORMALLY WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IS WHAT THE REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS ARE.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THIS CASE THAT THE, AND I I, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT Y'ALL BEEN VERY, I THINK VERY CLEAR ON THIS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT BEEN A BOAT YET.

UH, THE RELOCATION DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S GONNA BE, UH, THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT THE MOMENT.

SO WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE WITH THE PARCEL DEMOLITION IS THAT SAME APPLICATION AT THE SAME TIME FOR WHAT THE REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS ARE.

WHEN YOU ADD THE RELOCATION ELEMENT INTO IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE IT BIFURCATED THE PROCESS IF IT'S ULTIMATELY THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN.

AND I'M STAFF CAN FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IF WE WERE TO COME BACK AND JUST WANNA BE CLEAR SO WE DON'T MAKE CAUGHT ON THIS AGAIN, UH, WE CAN COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL OR WORK WITH STAFF TO PARTIALLY DEMOLISH AND RENOVATE OR REHABILITATE, HAVE NOT BE AN ADDITION PARTIALLY DEMOLISHING AND ADD TO THE STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT GOING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO THEN BE TOLD, SORRY, WE GOTTA SPLIT THAT IN TWO AND WE'RE YOU'RE GONNA COME BACK AGAIN.

I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT.

THAT IS A, THAT'S A STAFF QUESTION.

AND MAN, I SAY ONE LAST THING.

THIS IS, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS Y'ALL'S MEETING AND WE HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM WHAT Y'ALL'S Y'ALL'S ROLE IS HERE AND WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF, OUTSIDE OF YOU.

UM, IF Y'ALL ARE FINE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE'RE THINGS ARE MOVING IN A DIRECTION FOR, UH, A RESOLUTION HERE THAT, THAT IT'S FINE.

IT'S UP TO YOU.

THIS IS YOUR MEETING.

UM, AND FOR STAFF, UH, GENERALLY WHEN WE HAVE A HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THERE ARE NON HISTORIC ELEMENTS, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DEMOLITION OF THOSE NON HISTORIC ELEMENTS IS OKAY.

IS THAT GENERALLY THERE'S SOMETHING FOLLOWING IT, SAYING WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO ONCE IT'S DONE.

THAT'S A, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

BUT, UM, FOR EACH ONE OF THEM, UM, AND I, I GUESS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOST RECENT QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE TO, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF IT WERE TO BE DENIED AND IT CAME BACK AND THE REQUEST WAS FOR A PARTIAL DEMOLITION IN ADDITION, THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE BE ONE KOFA.

MM-HMM.

, RIGHT? WE HAVE, RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE KOFA THAT HAS BOTH THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION REQUEST.

SO THIS WOULD BE ONE KOFA OF TAKEOFF, NEW AND NEWER, RIGHT.

AND THEN IT'S ONE MOTION YES.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE SORT OF DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT WE PLAN TO DO, RIGHT? THAT THERE'S NO, IT IS A ONE SHOT.

I, I THINK NOT TO, NOT TO MUDDY THE WATERS, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFERENT PATH THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO NOW, IS THAT, THAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED IN, UH, IN RELATION TO THE SETBACKS THAT ARE APPLIED NOW, VERSUS HOW WHEN THE, THE, THE BUILDING WAS STRUCK, UH, WAS CONSTRUCTED.

SO THERE MAY BE ELEMENTS OF THAT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH, UH, IN ORDER TO, UM, TO, TO MOVE IT FORWARD.

AND THERE MAY BE VARIANCE ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT I DO NOT KNOW AT THIS TIME, IF THAT'S THE CASE, DEPENDING ON WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.

SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN ADD ON, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT MAKING A STRUCTURE MORE NON-CONFORMING, I THINK WE ARE READY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT YOU HAVE A DECISION ON WITHDRAWING OR PROCEEDING WITH THAT.

TAKE YOUR, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE IS ANY TIME CHANGE REGARDLESS.

OH, HOLD ON.

CAN YOU HOLD FOR JUST ONE SECOND ON CLARIFYING SOMETHING WITH BEFORE I OKAY.

I JUST DON'T JUMP.

YEAH, SORRY.

LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE THEN.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE BILL.

IS THAT YOUR DISCRETION? BUT WAIT, HANG ON ONE SECOND.

YES, VOTE.

BUT WAIT FOR ONE MOMENT.

PLEASE DON'T, DON'T MAKE A MOTION YET.

PLEASE.

IF IT'S, WE CAN WAIT.

[02:20:01]

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, IT DOES.

I'M SORRY.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT INSANE ON PROCESS BEFORE I MOVE FORWARD.

SO STAFF, UM, MS. PETERSON IS WORKING ON A PROPOSED MOTION TO PRESENT, BASED OFF THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED, THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM, I GUESS THE, THE CLARITY THAT THEY NEED ON THE DECISION MAKING UNDER THE, WITH THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

UM, AS YOU KNOW THAT, I THINK AS Y'ALL, MR. COURT AND OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN TO TONIGHT, UH, THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONTRACT TO BE SOLD AND THIS IS PART OF THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.

THEY'RE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT THEY THINK IS APPROPRIATE AND IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

AND THEY'RE, WHAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO IS GIVE THEM THE, WHATEVER Y'ALL'S MOTION IS, GIVES THEM ADEQUATE ASSURANCES, WHICHEVER WAY THEY, THEY CHOOSE TO GO.

I HOPE Y'ALL HOPE Y'ALL DON'T MIND, WE'RE KEEPING YOU A LITTLE BIT LATE.

I THINK WE'RE, IT'S NOT EVEN EIGHT 30 YET, SO I KNOW Y'ALL TECHNICALLY IT IS 9, 9 30 IS THE CUT OFF.

SO WE'VE GOT AN HOUR SET IF WE WANT.

YES, I SURE, I THINK SO.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING AND HEAR ME OUT BEFORE, UM, BEFORE ANY FOLLOW UP.

SO POTENTIALLY I BELIEVE MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS SOME SORT OF COMFORT LEVEL IN THE ABILITY TO REMOVE SOME OF THAT NON HISTORIC MATERIAL FROM THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.

IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE BECAUSE COUNSEL HAS PUT IT ON THE LIST.

SO IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE.

FULL STOP.

THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES THAT THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE WITH THIS IS THE RELOCATION PORTION OF IT RATHER THAN THE REMOVAL OF SOME OF THAT, UM, MORE RECENT WORK TO IT.

SO POTENTIALLY HAVING TWO MOTIONS.

AND I HAVE SOMEWHAT WRITTEN SOMETHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY THERE AND TALKED ABOUT IT WITH, WITH MR. LABUS OVER THERE THAT WOULD CONDITIONALLY APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE TYSON DURT COTTAGE TO THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT CONDITIONED UPON THE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CERTIFICATE OF PURPORT HD TO INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SPECIFIC MEANS AND METHODS AND INFORMATION REGARDING THOSE HISTORIC PORTIONS BE RETAINED TO BE RETAINED.

I'M SORRY.

SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A PARTIAL APPROVAL OF THIS THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE COMFORT THAT SAYS, WHEN I COME BACK IN SIX MONTHS, EVEN IF YOU FIVE HAVE ALL DECIDED THAT YOU'RE ALL MOVING TO TAMPA TOGETHER TO START A COMMUNE, YOU STILL HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO GIVE THEM THE COMFORT OF, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS AND WE SAY THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF WAY THAT YOU COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH REMOVING THAT.

THAT IS NOT SAYING THAT ANYTHING COULD BE PROPOSED.

IT'S SAYING THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF REMOVING THAT NON HISTORIC STUFF FROM THE BACK OF IT, MOSTLY THE BACK OF IT, A LITTLE SIDE OF IT COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE PLACE.

AND IN ADDITION OF SOME KIND, NOT SAYING IT COULD BE 5,500 AND SOMETHING SQUARE FEET, NOT SAYING THAT IT COULDN'T BE, BUT LOOKING AT WHAT THAT IS WOULD ALLOW THAT TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND THEN THE SECOND PORTION OF THAT WOULD BE, I MOVE TO DENY THE REQUEST TO RELOCATE THE TYSON DURST COTTAGE AS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS IN SECTIONS 18 THREE OF THE UDO AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT PRESENTED AT THE 6 5 24 HPC MEETING.

BECAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING.

IF I AM OFF ON THAT UNDERSTANDING, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I WILL GO BACKWARDS.

UM, BUT THAT WOULD GIVE THE POTENTIAL BUYERS TO THE CURRENTLY POTENTIAL BUYERS STILL SOME LEVEL OF COMFORT THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO WITH IT WHILE IT ISN'T MOVING IT TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT.

UM, IT IS ALSO NOT LETTING IT SIT EXACTLY AS IT CURRENTLY IS IN ITS CURRENT STATE EITHER.

DOES THAT MAKE SOME SORT OF SENSE? IT DOES.

RICHARDSON, HAVE I MISSPOKEN? NOT A BIT.

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HD TO INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SPECIFIC MEANS AND METHODS AND INFORMATION REGARDING HISTORIC PORTIONS TO BE RETAINED.

THE COMPUTER IS ONE.

CAN WE SIT THIS? WELL, I CAN'T, LET ME SAY I'M, I MOVE TO, TO APPROVE ACCORDING TO WHAT KATIE HAS JUST READ.

CAN YOU DO THAT? I MOVE, I MOVE AS STATE.

CAN I, CAN I SEE THE MOTION PLEASE? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I WOULDN'T MIND IF YOU REREAD THE FIRST ONE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I MEAN, I, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION.

UH, I MOVE TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE TYSON DURST COTTAGE TO HISTORIC FOOTPRINT CONDITIONS UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED

[02:25:01]

UH, UM, ARE WE DOING THIS AS TWO MOTIONS? AND THEN JUST ONE.

JUST ONE.

AND ALSO MOVE TO DENY THE REQUEST TO RELOCATE THE TYSON DURST COTTAGE AS THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION THREE 18.3 OF THE UDO AS OUTLINED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT PRESENTED AT THE 6 5 20 24 HPC MEETING.

SECOND, UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I FEEL THAT THERE'S STILL MORE INFORMATION FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE TO, UH, WHAT PART, WHAT PART IN PARTICULAR ARE, SO WE'RE IT'S BASICALLY WITH THEM COMING AND NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THEY TRULY WANT TO DO WITH THIS.

SO I GO AHEAD.

THE INTENT OF THE MOTION IS TO, UH, CONTINUALLY APPROVE THE PARTIAL DEMOLITIONS THAT WERE NOT, UH, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME IN WITH AN APPLICATION THAT WE APPROVE BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANY OF THAT DEMOLITION.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO US TO BE ABLE TO DO ANY OF THE DEMOLITION.

THIS ISN'T A CARTE BLANCHE TO GO DO WHATEVER THEY WOULD LIKE TO.

SO IT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO COMMIT TO A PROJECT THAT COULD INCLUDE REHABILITATING IT BACK TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, UH, AND COMMIT SOME RESOURCES TO THAT WITHOUT, UH, WHERE IT RELOCATED.

WE WE'RE SAYING NO, THAT CAN'T, RIGHT? YEAH, WE ARE, YEAH, THAT'S THE SECOND PART IS TO DENY THE RELOCATION AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ THE MOTION, UH, BUT THE INTENT BEHIND THAT WOULD BE THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANY OF THE DEMOLITION WORK.

YOU OKAY? GO AHEAD.

SECOND, YOUR MOTION.

UH, WE HAD ALREADY SECONDED IT, UM, AND WE'VE ALREADY DONE DISCUSS, SO NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

UH, WE'LL, UH, VOTE.

SO THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED? A AYE.

UH, THE, UH, MOTION HAS PASSED.

UH, AND SO

[3. Change July 2024 Meeting Date. (Staff) Town of Bluffton, SC Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Agenda June 05, 2024]

THANK YOU FOR COMING.

UH, WE ARE MOVING ON TO THE STAFF REPORT, I BELIEVE.

UM, THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A CONSIDERATION OF MOVING THE MEETING DATE TO JULY 10TH RATHER THAN JULY 3RD, UM, TO ENSURE WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE A QUORUM AND THAT APPLICANTS ARE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING AS WELL FOR ANYONE WHO'S TRAVELING SURROUNDING THE JULY 4TH HOLIDAY.

SO, UM, WE'RE JUST RECOMMENDING IT MOVES ONE WEEK FORWARD, WHICH WOULD BE JULY 10TH AT 6:00 PM SAME TIME, SAME PLACE, DIFFERENT DAY.