Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation panel denies request to keep unapproved full‑light doors at 36 4th Street
Summary
The Historic Preservation Commission denied an amended Certificate of Appropriateness request for 36 4th Street after staff said several installed doors did not meet the Old Town Bluffton vernacular; the commission asked staff to work with the applicant on an acceptable garage-door replacement and kept the two originally approved door designs in place.
The Historic Preservation Commission voted by voice to deny an amended Certificate of Appropriateness for 36 4th Street after staff told the panel that several installed doors and a new opening were inconsistent with the Old Town Bluffton vernacular and the Unified Development Ordinance.
Staff member Charlotte told the commission that an inspection found full‑light doors with inset blinds and nontraditional rubber stops that differ from the half‑panel doors originally approved, saying, "It's not indicative of the vernacular of Old Town." Charlotte also said the UDO administrator approved the new opening but did not approve the door style itself.
The applicant, identified in the transcript as Jamie (the transcript spells the surname both "Ducho" and earlier as "Gucio"), said the owners had purchased full‑light doors and that a building‑department reviewer had indicated the garage area might require an additional operable door for ingress and egress. The applicant offered to "add SDLs to make it look...make those two look alike," and said they could present cut sheets or adjust the finish color so the doors would appear uniform.
Commissioners raised concerns about materials and historic appropriateness, noting that permitted door finishes under the UDO are wood, birch, or metal‑clad and that the installed details appeared to be composite and modern. One commissioner said the six‑panel door with visible glass and nonhistoric hardware was "extremely foreign to the house," and others pressed that two doors previously approved by the COA should remain the approved designs.
After discussion, a commissioner moved "to deny the application as submitted by the applicant," a second was recorded, and the commission approved the motion by voice. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally; the chair announced that the motion had passed and that the application was denied. Commissioners directed staff to work with the applicant on an acceptable garage‑door option and said staff could administratively approve a garage‑door design that meets the guidance provided.
The commission's decision leaves the two originally approved door designs in place; the applicant may return with revised cut sheets or seek staff approval for a garage door that complies with the UDO and the commission's guidance.
The commission moved on to a brief monthly update after the vote.
