Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic preservation panel defers rear‑addition plan at 1083 Gastonville Road
Summary
The Charleston County Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to defer a proposed rear addition at 1083 Gastonville Road after staff and neighbors raised concerns the design increases the house’s depth and is incompatible with the 10 Mile Community Historic District’s traditional street‑facing proportions.
The Charleston County Historic Preservation Commission on Nov. 19 unanimously deferred a request for a certificate of historic appropriateness for a rear addition at 1083 Gastonville Road, citing staff findings that the proposal increases the home’s depth and does not sufficiently mitigate impacts to the 10 Mile Community Historic District.
Staff presenter Emily told the commission the application proposes a new primary suite and a redesigned screened porch that would raise the home’s total heated area to 3,041 square feet and increase building depth. "The proposed rear addition would increase the depth of the home, making it even more deep than it is wide," Emily said, and noted the commission must apply the section 21‑5(h)(3) standards that guide compatibility determinations in districts without identified contributing resources.
Members of the public and neighbors had submitted seven opposition comments, staff said, largely arguing the addition’s massing departs from the district’s historic bungalow and ranch‑style patterns that emphasize street‑facing width rather than depth. An applicant representative, identified by staff as Paul Setti, told the commission his client, Grantham Homes, believes the new work "is very much in sync with the surroundings and low profile to the building itself" and argued the addition would not harm the property’s historic value.
Commissioners asked technical questions about Charleston County zoning setbacks and whether accessory structures are permitted within side setbacks. Staff confirmed the red buffer shading on the plans reflects Charleston County setback requirements and said accessory structures can be sited within side setbacks in some circumstances.
A commissioner moved to defer to allow the applicant to explore alternative designs that would reduce the increase in depth; another commissioner seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Staff told the panel that if the commission were to approve a future plan, recommended conditions would include demolition or relocation of the existing manufactured housing unit and that all major changes be processed under section 21‑5(m) of the historic preservation ordinance.
The commission’s decision is final; anyone with a substantial interest in the outcome may appeal to the Circuit Court of Charleston County within 30 calendar days.
