Historic preservation commission denies amended door designs for 36 War Street, directs staff on garage door approval

The Beaufort County Historic Preservation Commission voted to deny an amended Certificate of Appropriateness application for 36 War Street after staff reported that several doors had been installed that did not match the originally approved designs.

Charlotte, a historic preservation staff member, told the commission that an inspection found "a couple of doors had been installed that were not approved on the original plan." She said the UDO administrator had approved only a new opening on one elevation and had not approved the door type. Staff also said the installed full-light doors with inset blinds and the way the glass is held in place are inconsistent with the Old Town vernacular and the Unified Development Ordinance review criteria.

Jamie, representing Kingfisher Construction and the property owners, said the owners "did purchase the full light doors" and explained the builder had installed a door in the garage area after a conversation with the building department about ingress and egress needs. Jamie offered a mitigation: "We can add SDLs to make those two look alike," referring to simulated divided lights that could make the new doors appear more like the approved half-panel design.

Commission members raised concerns chiefly about materials and details. Several commissioners described the metal framing, rubber stops and inset blind hardware as "very modern" and not part of the historic district's traditional door vocabulary; one commissioner called a six-panel door with glass "extremely foreign to the house." Staff noted that criterion 2 of the UDO review — compatibility with Old Town vernacular — was not met by the current installations, while other application criteria were either met or not applicable.

After deliberation, the chair moved to deny the application as submitted. The motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor; the motion passed and the application was denied as submitted. Commissioners instructed staff to provide concrete guidance so staff could administratively approve a solid, non-glass garage-side door (for example a solid six-panel design) if the owners prefer no glass for security reasons, and they indicated that the two other doors should match the designs already approved in the original Certificate of Appropriateness.

The commission's action does not prohibit the owners from returning with revised door proposals. Staff said that if applicants submit an alternate that meets the commission's guidance, staff may be authorized to approve the garage door administratively; alternatives for the two other doors should be returned to the commission for review if they differ from the approved plans.

The decision followed questions about which elements had previously been administratively approved: staff reiterated that only the opening was administratively approved by the UDO administrator, not the door styles. The record also reflects inconsistent abbreviations in the transcript between "COFA" and "COA"; this report uses the common local-government term Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and notes where the transcript used a different abbreviation.

Next procedural steps: the applicant may revise and resubmit door designs consistent with the commission's guidance, and staff will be available to vet a garage-side solid door design that conforms to the UDO and the commission's direction before installation.