Commission discusses switching to historic property names in Old Town Bluffton

The Historic Preservation Commission on Aug. 5 discussed a staff proposal to update the Old Town Bluffton contributing-resources map so that each entry uses its historic name rather than a street address or a common name. Glenn, a town staff member presenting the survey results, told commissioners the change is intended to improve long-term consistency and align the town's list with National Register practice.

"Any building structure, site, object, feature, or open space as designated by town council that adds to the historic associations, architectural qualities, or archeological values that relate to the documented significance of the Old Town Bluffton Historic District," Glenn said, defining what the town considers a contributing resource. He later noted the exhibit with redlines will be sent to council: "We will be taking this to town council, Tuesday next week, for their adoption." (Glenn).

Staff reviewed specific examples commissioners should expect to see in the updated list. Some names will remain unchanged — staff cited the Church of the Cross as an example — while others would be relabeled to reflect original owners or historically recorded names. The proposal includes renaming the locally known “Fripp House” to the historic "James L. Pope House" and treating houses no longer extant as sites (for example, the Sarah Riley Hooks cottage would be listed as the "site of the Sarah Riley Hooks Cottage").

Commissioners raised practical questions about owners' consent and sign replacement. Staff said the Bluffton Historic Foundation plans to replace oval marker signs and that the town has compared the foundation's suggestions with the new survey data; staff also acknowledged two scrivener's errors in the packet that will be corrected before it goes to council. Glenn told the commission most property owners had been contacted and "most of them have" indicated they were fine with proposed name changes, though some owners have not yet replied.

Because this was a discussion item under Article 2 of the UDO, staff clarified that the commission was not making a formal recommendation at the meeting; the exhibit will go to council for its decision. The commission heard no public comment on the item during the meeting.