This concerns the Feb. 4, 2009, Times article, discussing the appeal from the ARB denial of our request to use HardiePlank siding at 116 Cannon St. Mr. Coppola's remarks, and the ARB's decision, reveal some serious problems affecting the Georgetown ARB.

Mr. Coppola was quoted as saying that: "...the ARB doesn't have the authority to rule whether a home is contributing or non-contributing. Neither can the State Historic Preservation Office."

Mr. Coppola, the newly elected chairman of the ARB, apparently does not understand this issue any better than his predecessor, Joseph Cave, or the remainder of the board. At the Dec. 17 special meeting to make a final decision on our reconsidered application, Mr. Coppola similarly stated that: "...the [1999-2000j survey says it's a contributing building in the Historic District. We can't look at it any other way...And the City is the only one who can change that...We can't change that. The State Office of Historic Preservation can't change that. Nobody can change that but the City themselves..."

As we were able to learn through about a 10-minute telephone conversation with Elizabeth Johnson, deputy director of the State Historic Preservation Office, the SHPO has final authority to determine whether a building is "contributing" or "non-contributing" to the Georgetown Historic District. Once the SHPO determines that a property is "not contributing," that property is immediately de-listed in the National Register, as of the date of the SHPO's determination. Ms. Johnson was kind enough to document this in writing, and a copy of her letter to our attorney is attached.

Why were Mr. Coppola, and the rest of the board members, not aware of this fact? Why did none of them bother to try to find out? Why did Sabrina Morris, Georgetown's director of development, and the liaison between the ARB and City Council, not know or learn this for them? At the City's request, Ms. Morris supposedly researched the use of HardiePlank in other Historic Districts across the state, both for City Council and the ARB. She informed the ARB on Dec. 8 that none of them allowed HardiePlank on anything but additions and new construction, not on "Historical" homes. There is no such thing as a "Historical" building in cultural resource terminology; a structure is either "contributing" or "non-contributing" to the Historic District.

At the conclusion of the Dec. 17 "meeting", Mr. Coppola summed up the board's mindset as follows: "I think it's evident in our guidelines what we need to do. We're looking at this building as historic contributing. The guidelines are very specific about what needs to happen to a historic contributing building:" Again, there is no such terminology as an "historic contributing" or "historic non-contributing" structure. A building is either "contributing" or "non-contributing."

Criteria

The various criteria for determining whether a building is "contributing" or "non-contributing," were explained at length to the ARB by our expert witness, John Laurens, at the Dec. 8, 2008, meeting. Mr. Laurens was previously the staff architect for SHPO for five years, and is CEO of "Historic Preservation Consultants, LLC," the architectural firm in Charleston who was hired by the City to conduct its cultural resource survey in 1999-2000. This survey is the document which resulted in 116 Cannon St. being listed as a "contributing" structure by SHPO and the National Register. Although Mr. Lauren's presentation meandered, regrettably, between facts and issues pertaining to 116 Cannon St., and other properties in Georgetown, Charleston and other Historic Districts, he did manage to fully explain to the Board many of the diverse criteria considered when deciding whether a building is "contributing" or "non-contributing."

Significantly, Mr. Laurens made it clear that in Georgetown, because of its long history of asbestos siding use, and the steel mill particulate problem, siding is not a determinative factor in deciding whether a structure is "contributing" or "non-contributing." There are many homes in Georgetown with vinyl, aluminum, asbestos shingles, and HardiePlank, some of which are listed as "contributing."

Mr. Laurens also made it abundantly clear that his firm had made a mistake when they included 116 Cannon St. as a contributing structure during the 1999-2000 survey. He fully explained why and how this mistake had occurred. Mr. Laurens also presented a letter that had been issued by Andrew Chandler, who works under Ms. Johnson at the SHPO. This letter said: "In short, the house [116 Cannon St.] does not contribute to the district now, but presumably did when the rehabilitation work began." Remember, once the SHPO makes the decision that a structure does not contribute, it is immediately de-listed as a contributing structure in the National Register. Mr. Chandler's "presumption" appears to have resulted from the fact that he did not have many of the surveys and photographs Mr. Laurens had reviewed due to time constraints prior to the Dec. 8, 2008 meeting.

Misconstrued

Mr. Coppola's other comments in the Times article, that an applicant can not apply for a renovation permit, and then claim the property is actually "new", indicates to me that Mr. Coppola deliberately misconstrued our argument and has little, if any, experience in the renovation of old homes like this. You never know what you are going to get into until you start. This house had been built out of scrap material in the beginning, had sustained several fires, suffered from extensive water damage and rot -- as a result of which all of the roof rafters were broken. We hauled off 18 truckloads of useless and rotted building materials. We had to virtually rebuild the house from the ground up, and inside out. Tearing it down and starting over would have been much easier and less expensive, but we would have been prohibited from rebuilding on this small lot under current setback requirements. Our argument was simply that, because HardiePlank is readily accepted for new construction, the Board could easily consider 116 Cannon St. a "new" house. Since appearance and compatibility with the surrounding structures are the prime considerations for application of HardiePlank on new houses, we know that the Board understands, from past approvals, that HardiePlank is virtually indistinguishable from wood in its appearance.

Personal bias

The ARB members are substantially unqualified and uneducated about their responsibilities. When personal bias, prejudice, and a "will to win" attitude are added to this deficit, the Board's decisions become not only arbitrary and unlawful, but counter-productive. The ARB is typically obstructive, rather than helpful or cooperative, in efforts to rehabilitate homes in the Historic District. The ARB has not updated its records since the 1999-2000 survey, as both the SHPO and Mr. Laurens have previously encouraged it to do. As a result of this, many homes that could and should be listed as "contributing", are not. Thus, the Board's consideration of rehabilitation requests for such homes may, and probably will, result in those homes becoming "non-contributing", as historically significant construction fabrics and features are eliminated and replaced. In the present case, many of the features which may have rendered 116 Cannon St. a "contributing" structure (but actually not, as most of them had been changed and "modernized" prior to the 1999-2000 survey) were approved by the ARB. This includes its approval of the new roof (without the crumbling and dilapidated chimney caps), new windows (which replaced windows that had been installed in the 1970s), a new front porch design (which replaced another re-design which occurred in the 1970s or '80s). If we were to use wood lap-siding, as the Board is demanding, 116 Cannon St. would still not be a "contributing" structure.

The Georgetown City ordinances require certain qualifications of the ARB's members. It does not appear that many of the Board members qualify. It also seems clear that this Board is not interested in being educated about the job it is supposed to be doing. Were it not for the Board members' personal enmity toward my wife and/or me, their lack of qualifications for the position they hold, and their continuing ignorance about the proper way to make decisions on applications, we would not be embroiled in this expensive and distressing litigation.

Steve and Jean Rothrock

Georgetown