The decision came at the end of a lengthy meeting which included a presentation of the subdivision plan by Robert Lackey of Robert H. Lackey Surveying Inc., on behalf of current Sarsfield owners Robert and Sharon Kurschner.

The couple could not be reached for comment regarding the proposal or the commission`s actions Tuesday. The commission`s ruling could be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court if the Kurschners wish to pursue the decision.

Lackey told the commission that the plan conforms to city regulations and emphasized that the Kurschners aren`t asking for any new infrastructure to be installed. But commission member Ronnie Bradley, expertly citing specific city ordinances, disagreed with Lackey`s assertion. He said he opposed the plan based on Sarsfield`s historical significance and the regulations it would violate.

Bradley referred to several parts of Section 156 of the city code that governs subdivisions.

One segment states that a site analysis be performed and ``be made of characteristics of the subdivision site: such as site context; geology and soil; topography; ecology; existing vegetation, structures, and road networks; visual features; and past and present use of the site.``

Bradley said the site context, visual features and past and present use verbiage led him to conclude that the commission`s decision had to be based on what Sarsfield is and how it should be maintained.

``When I pass the entrance on Chesnut, I look up that driveway to see the house. That`s what I think of when I think of Sarsfield, and we would lose that view with these lots,`` said Bradley. ``I remember when we lost the Court Inn. Sarsfield belongs to more than just the owners. This plan would destroy the historical sense of the property.``

Another passage of the code states that specific areas shall be preserved to the extent consistent with the reasonable utilization of the site, including ``Historically significant structures and sites, as listed on federal, state, and/or local lists of historic places.``

Bradley also said he understood that Sarsfield was registered as a historic property on the local, state and national level. Lackey acknowledged that but still argued in favor of his clients` plan.

``Respectfully, the whole city is historical, and yet other properties have been subdivided. Sarsfield belongs to the land owners, and they should be able to do what they want with it,`` said Lackey.

Bradley countered by citing another component of the city code which, simply put, allows the commission to impose higher standards and more restrictive regulations, whether they be through other parts of the city code or through any other applicable law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation.

In effect, Bradley explained, since Sarsfield is listed on the local, state and federal historic registries, the commission`s decision to deny the plan could be based on as restrictive grounds as it could find.

Although the room at Camden City Hall was packed with concerned citizens, only two asked to be added to the agenda to speak out against the Sarsfield plan: Steve Smith, a local architect, and Sally Williamson, owner of Horsebranch Hall. Williamson deferred her time on the agenda to Elizabeth Ehrenclou Shaw, who once lived at Sarsfield and who was one of the owners who signed the deed when the Kurschners bought the property in the late 1980s.

Smith opened his presentation by reading a letter from the South Carolina State Archives to Camden Mayor Mary Y. Clark

``I hope you will consider deferring judgment on this until another meeting,`` Smith said. ``The potential and real threat that the historic district could lose its national registry status would be devastating.``

Shaw echoed Smith`s request, adding there had been no public notice of the subdivision request.

``I believe that`s required by state law,`` said Shaw.

City Building Official John Burns said there is no local requirement to do so, and state law makes such notices optional on the local level. Lackey added he believed the state law only covered situations where a zoning change or variances is requested.

But Shaw was undaunted.

``These actions will have a bearing on Camden`s future,`` she argued. ``When the Ehrenclous owned the property, they certainly saw it as a community asset. They only sold the property out of financial need and had assurances from the Kurschners that Sarsfield would be restored and preserved.``

Shaw said the Kurschners had stated their intent when they purchased Sarsfield to live there and restore it, never mentioning plans to subdivide the property.

In addition to citing some of the same city ordinances as Bradley, Shaw also said the plan would produce lots smaller than others nearby, including her own.

``The plan indicates frontages of 94 feet which contrasts with neighboring properties,`` said Shaw, referring to area lots with frontages ranging from 150 to 300 feet wide.

Like Smith, Shaw urged the commission to deny the request but, failing that, to delay taking action.

``I spoke to Mrs. Kurschner in December, and she assured me there was no intent to sell the lots, but that the plan was being drawn up for future use. So, there`s no rush to approve this,`` said Shaw.

Shaw also touched on the property`s historic value, mentioning the fact that Sarsfield was the last home Mary Boykin Chesnut lived in before she died.

Commission member Jim Burns made the motion to deny the request, with Bradley assisting him in citing the necessary ordinances.

One of the ordinances initially used in Bradley`s argument dealt with a prohibition against creating new lots with double frontages.

``If we do this, then Sarsfield would in effect become a new lot with frontages on Sarsfield and Lakeview instead of the one it has now on Chesnut,`` Bradley explained.

However, he dropped this part of the argument when Lackey pointed out that an 11th lot could be created to force the Kurschners into having just one frontage on Lakeview Avenue.

Jim Burns` motion was seconded, and the vote to deny the Sarsfield subdivision plan was unanimous among commission members Burns, Bradley, Joanna Craig, Laurie Funderburk, Lee Hutchins and Bill Ligon. Commissioner Bill Chivers, as chairman, does not cast a vote.

After the vote, Camden resident Marty Daniels said of the commission, ``They were valiant.``