Historic Preservation Commission tables four Blue Crab COA applications for further design and coordination
Loading...
Summary
The commission tabled COA requests for four related Blue Crab lots (2, 4, 6 and 8) after extended debate over materials, shutters, massing, and procedural conditions; staff and applicant were asked to resolve conditions with HARB/Tabby Roads before returning.
The Beaufort County Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 7 tabled four related COA HD applications for Blue Crab lots (2, 4, 6 and 8) to allow staff, the applicant and the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB)/Tabby Roads to resolve material, shutter and streetscape issues.
Staff presented the four applications together because they share an applicant, developer and similar design elements. The filings propose detached single‑family residences fronting a pedestrian walkway (Bader's Walk) with attached carriage houses accessed internally; main‑house footprints range roughly from 3,741 to 3,846 square feet with carriage houses of roughly 880–933 square feet, and each lot includes a rear pool and brick fencing.
Staff said many conditions are consistent across the four lots, including limiting wall cladding to two materials, providing porch balustrades, moving handrails within reach, clarifying window and door materials, specifying gutter details and ensuring compliance with Tabby Roads and HARB rules for shutters and water tables. Staff also highlighted the need to revisit tree mitigation and the landscape plan.
Multiple commissioners expressed concerns about massing and the number of different cladding materials. One commissioner summarized the concern: "I don't think it fits the vernacular of Bluffton and the whole intent of the master plan," and several others said the schemes risk overpowering adjacent townhomes unless further adjustments are made. Applicant representatives (Court Atkins Group) said some HARB comments were already incorporated and that many of staff's conditions are acceptable, while noting that some conditions arrived late in the packet review.
Kevin Eichert, director of growth management, explained why the submissions were processed as "additional building types": the Tabby Roads development predates the town's UDO and has established lot setbacks that do not match the UDO's center‑hall building type parameters, so the additional building type route provides a practical review path without repeated variance requests.
Given the volume and at times subjective nature of outstanding conditions (especially shutters and the mix of materials), commissioners debated whether to proceed with conditional approvals or table the items so staff and the applicant can provide clearer, consolidated responses and any necessary documentation from HARB. Several commissioners and staff recommended tabling to avoid issuing approvals with conflicting or incomplete conditions.
The commission subsequently voted to table each lot individually: 2 Blue Crab, 4 Blue Crab, 6 Blue Crab and 8 Blue Crab were each tabled by voice vote so the applicant and staff can address the listed conditions and return with clarified materials and HARB coordination.
Staff said the applicant may face tight deadlines for the next packet cycle but agreed to work with staff and HARB to resolve the outstanding items; staff also said building permits and stormwater approvals will still be required individually for each lot before any clearing or construction.
The tabled items will return to the commission after staff and the applicant submit revised plans and any required HARB documentation.
