A wood-panel swap fuels Charterhouse’s patio appeal

A switch from synthetic screening to wood is at the center of Charterhouse Cigar and Barrel’s patio appeal—and a disagreement over what Fort Mill’s historic-district approval actually required.⁠[1]

The appeal, concerning the business at 235 and 237 Main Street, was listed for the town’s Oct. 19 Board of Zoning Appeals hearing as Case #2026-455.⁠[1]

In a July 16 violation letter, town staff said a May 28 inspection found that the patio’s materials, colors and overall layout did not match the Historic Review Board’s April 14 approval. The letter directed the business to bring the site into conformance within 21 calendar days or seek approval to modify the original plan.⁠[1]

Charterhouse’s appeal argues that the signed certificate contains just one written condition—a 48-inch maximum screening height—and says that condition was met. Its attorney, Trey Nantz, argued in May correspondence that wood slats had replaced synthetic infill within the same freestanding metal-framed panels. He said the product images were illustrations, not binding specifications, and that wood followed board members’ preference for natural materials.⁠[1]

Assistant Town Manager Chris Pettit took the opposite view. “So what you submitted with your application is what it should look like, just shorter,” he wrote May 19. He said the wood screening needed another Historic Review Board approval unless the business restored what had been approved.⁠[1]

The certificate and meeting minutes supply different levels of detail. The signed certificate lists only the screening-height condition. But the April 14 motion, approved 4–2, specified screening “as proposed” and installation “per the drawings as submitted including the stone and brick.” The minutes also record Cody King saying he would explore wood during the project’s next phase after a board member raised that option.⁠[1]

The appeal asks the zoning board to reverse the July 16 determination and declare the current first-phase installation compliant. The reviewed agenda packet establishes the appeal and its scheduled Oct. 19 hearing—not what the board decided that night.⁠[1]