Sarsfield plan sets up ‘crisis’

Historical preservationists in Camden are lashing out at a second attempt by the owners of the historic Sarsfield home to split the property into residential lots.

The proposal will come before the Camden Planning Commission on Tuesday for a vote. Several concerned residents plan to speak out against it.

Some say the situation brings Camden to a crossroads in dealing with historical preservation.

“This is kind of a crisis moment,” said Clarence Mahoney, a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission.

Sarsfield was the home of Civil War diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut, who edited “A Diary From Dixie” while living there in the late 1800s.

Current Sarsfield owners Robert and Sharon Kurschner want to divide the property to allow for seven additional lots for homes. Five of those lots would be in front of Sarsfield, two behind it.

Mahoney, who plans to speak at Tuesday’s meeting, said he respects owners’ rights to do what they want with their property.

But, “if it’s a significant historic property, (the owner) is more of a steward than he is a developer,” Mahoney said. “If you had a mandatory ordinance that was balanced, then I don’t think you’d have these controversies and everybody would feel a lot more comfortable.”

Camden City Councilman Nick Lampshire said if the Sarsfield plan is approved, it will set a precedent that could affect other historic properties in the city, allowing developers to build homes in front of them.

“Anything that would take away from the enormous economic impact that history has in this city would not be appropriate,” Lampshire said. Preservation “is something we need to develop, not something we need to discourage.”

The Kurschners submitted a plan in 2002 to divide the property into 10 lots for new homes, leaving two acres surrounding the historic residence.

The proposal was rejected by the planning commission, which cited a city code that calls for preservation of historically significant structures and sites in subdivision designs.

The Kurschners appealed that decision to circuit court. Their attorney, William Tetterton, argued that the home and two surrounding acres would be protected in the design.

The Kurschners lost the appeal last year on a technicality. The city had not been notified of the appeal by the clerk of court’s office within the required 30 days. But the judge indicated he would have upheld the planning commission’s decision.

The couple resubmitted the plan in February, with a change to eight lots instead of 10. But they withdrew the plan a week before a planning commission meeting in March.

A more detailed plan, submitted in May, includes seven lots instead of eight and more specifics on topography and infrastructure.

A petition against the Sarsfield plan is circulating around Camden, Mahoney said, and Chesnut descendants have started a letter-writing campaign.

Robert Kurschner declined to comment, referring questions to his attorney. Tetterton was out of town and could not be reached.

Sarah Davis, chairwoman of the Historic Landmarks Commission, said there is no basis for the planning commission to change its 2002 decision — despite changes to the plan.

“The law has not changed since they ruled on the law the first time,” she said. “And the law is written to protect property with historic integrity from subdivision. ... The historic integrity of the property hasn’t changed.”

She said if the subdivision of Sarsfield is approved, that law would be rendered “virtually useless.”

If that happened, “I don’t (see) how you would defend other (historic) properties,” she said.

Mahoney agreed: “It’s pretty clear that this is kind of a watershed or turning point case.”

Reach Rupon at (803) 771-8622 or krupon@thestate.com.