Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission tables 34 Tabby Shell COFA over mismatched details
Summary
The commission tabled a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed two‑story house at 34 Tabby Shell after staff and commissioners found elevations, wall sections and parts lists did not match; the applicant was directed to seek a focused HPRC review and to revise drawings before resubmitting.
The Beaufort County Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 8 voted to table a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed two‑story home and carriage house at 34 Tabby Shell, citing multiple discrepancies between elevations and construction details that made the submission impossible to approve as presented. The commission’s staff review noted missing material specifications, unclear wall sections and a lack of a parts-and-pieces schedule that would allow the commission to confirm the proposal’s compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance.
At a presentation to the commission, a staff member summarized the remaining issues: "All of the review criteria appear to have been met except for the items that I'm about to go over," and then listed the items the applicant needs to add or clarify, including the tabby stucco type, a door schedule, bracket details for a carriage‑house eyebrow roof, standing‑seam metal and gutter specs, and tree‑canopy calculations. Commissioners repeatedly pointed to mismatches between the wall sections and the elevations and to missing callouts for band boards, column bases and trim.
Preston Glover of Sea Island Construction Group, the applicant’s representative, told the commission the team "thought we have addressed all of them" and that contractors typically scale from elevations; he agreed to provide the requested details. One participant said the project team had already spent design fees and expressed frustration about review delays: "We've spent, I mean, $7,000 with our architect," a representative said.
The chair and several commissioners recommended the applicant request a follow‑up review by the Historic Preservation Review Committee (HPRC) so members could walk through outstanding items in detail. Commissioners voted to table the COFA and requested the applicant pursue a special HPRC consultation and resubmit by the February packet deadline so the item could be on the March agenda.
What happens next: The applicant was advised to arrange an HPRC meeting to resolve detail‑level issues and to return with revised, fully annotated plans; the submission was tabled rather than denied.
