Blythewood BAR reopens hearing after owner cites hidden foundation damage; substantial‑hardship request fails

The Town of Blythewood BAR voted to rehear an application for a certificate of appropriateness after the applicant presented newly discovered structural evidence, but later declined to grant the applicant a substantial‑hardship finding that would ease preservation requirements.

Matthew Graham, the applicant (referred to in the record variously as Matthew and Mr. Graham), told the board he discovered a badly deteriorated third of the building at closing and immediately submitted photos and a Palmetto Renovations report documenting rot, termite damage and compromised joists. “And that’s why you received the demolition application that day because that’s when we found out about it,” Graham said while showing crawl‑space photos to the board.

Graham said the inaccessible portion of the building became apparent only when a small inspector gained limited entry and the applicant then arranged a follow‑up inspection the morning of closing. He told the board he had obtained two cost estimates for repairs: his company’s Palmetto Renovations estimate, which he said was lower and more minimal, and a later Mount Valley Foundation proposal from a structural specialist that was several thousand dollars higher. On the cost of moving the structure, Graham said a relocation quote was “almost a million dollars,” while demolition and removal were quoted at roughly $20,000–$25,000.

Board members pressed Graham on why the closing proceeded when the applicant had limited access. Graham said the closing had been scheduled and that confirming evidence arrived only after the formal closing time; he argued he “could not have reasonably known” the full extent of the damage in advance.

Architect and longtime local resident Ralph Walton and consultant Mr. Waller (who identified his professional experience to the board) reviewed the photos and technical plans and offered alternatives. Waller suggested cost reductions by increasing girder sizes to reduce the number of helical piers or permanent floor jacks, and he recommended step‑back monitoring for foundation stair‑step cracking instead of immediately sinking numerous piers in some cases. Waller also offered to provide pro bono consulting to the applicant to refine the scope.

The board also considered jurisdictional and right‑of‑way complications. Members noted that the building’s front facade extends over the property line and into state right‑of‑way, which could affect demolition, relocation or reconstruction plans and might require coordination with the South Carolina Department of Transportation. That complication factors into feasibility and cost decisions, board members said.

Before voting on the hardship request, the BAR entered executive session for legal advice. After the closed session, a board member moved to approve the applicant’s request for a substantial‑hardship determination; the motion was seconded but did not carry. Earlier in the meeting the board had voted 4–2 to grant a rehearing of the certificate of appropriateness application.

The BAR did not adopt a formal remedy at the meeting. The applicant presented documentary material and third‑party cost estimates for the board’s review; board members asked staff to keep the record open for the rehearing and to provide any additional relevant documents. The meeting adjourned without a substantive approval of the hardship request.

A further hearing date or follow‑up was not specified in the record provided to the board during this session.