Owners contest proposed contributing designation for Hitchcock stables; commission recommends non-contributing

A contested application to designate the Bostwick Hitchcock Stables as a contributing historic structure drew a large public turnout on Jan. 14 in Aiken. After more than an hour of testimony from preservation advocates and property owners, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application as contributing and to recommend that City Council classify the stables as non-contributing.

The property, owned by Charlie and Tara Bostwick (525 Lawrence St.), was the subject of competing public arguments. Supporters including Luis Ronaldini, John Davis and preservation advocates said the stables were overlooked in previous surveys and are architecturally significant; Ronaldini urged the commission to correct a prior omission and designate the structure contributing. “Federal law requires every state and municipality to preserve historic assets…there’s no question that this error should have been corrected earlier,” Ronaldini told the commission.

The property owners and other speakers opposed the citizen-initiated designation, saying the application circumvented the owners’ rights and raised procedural concerns. Tara and Charlie Bostwick said the family has owned the stables for decades and objected to a designation filed without the owners’ prior notification. Tara Bostwick requested that the commission consider the property owner’s preservation plan and cited repeated historic surveys that did not list the stables as contributing in the past.

Other speakers included Britney Kisner (who opposed the application and described procedural concerns), Pat Cunningham (who said the owners were not notified in a timely way), and several preservation proponents who argued for correcting a survey omission and for the economic and cultural value of preservation. The applicant’s supporters said designation would allow review under the city’s design guidelines; opponents said it would impose burdens and lower marketability.

Commission debate touched on process, property rights and precedent. Commissioners expressed sympathy for both the owners and preservationists, but concluded the record and property history counseled against imposing a contributing designation over the owners’ objections. Commissioner Mason moved to deny the contributing designation and recommend non-contributing; the motion passed and was seconded. The chair explained that the recommendation will go to City Council with the commission’s rationale.

Why it matters: A contributing designation would change the design-review requirements for the property and could affect eligibility for certain grants. Owners argued that a non-contributing designation better preserves property rights while allowing the owners’ preservation plan to proceed.

What’s next: The commission’s recommendation will be included in the City Council packet for a final decision. The owners and preservation groups may pursue additional reviews or appeals based on the council action.