2026-09-17 - Committee on Community Development

00:00All

00:07right. And I think we're ready to begin

00:09when you are.

00:10>> Great. Great. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

00:12Um, good afternoon. I would like to call

00:15to order the September 17th, 2026 uh

00:18City of Charleston Community Development

00:20Committee uh meeting to order. Um,

00:24let's start it off with an invocation.

00:26Um, Councilman Seekings, do you mind

00:29leading us off?

00:30>> I don't mind, Mr. Chairman. I think um,

00:32sort of with all the noise in the

00:33background, maybe a moment of silence

00:35and quiet reflection would be

00:36appropriate today. So, I'd ask for that.

00:38Thank you.

00:51>> Thank you.

00:53>> All right. Thank you. Um, first item up

00:56on our agenda is public participation. I

00:58understand we've got a um caller on the

01:01line that uh is interested in speaking

01:04and um happy to hear from you and uh

01:08let's uh try to stay under about a

01:10minute and a half if that works.

01:13>> All right, the first speaker we have is

01:16Anthony G. Bryant and you can unmute

01:19yourself by pressing star six. The time

01:21is a minute and a half.

01:25the the first amendment doesn't matter

01:27if it's a minute and a half or two

01:29hours. Uh you shouldn't deem my speech

01:32and anybody else speech to be a

01:33nuisance. uh based upon my letter being

01:36open was an application to to recusal of

01:39a federal judge was open at at my

01:41address and and the the process of that

01:44opening that mail would be the US postal

01:46service US attorney uh uh sled would

01:49then be the state attorney general and

01:52the county would then be the solicitor

01:54and then it'll be you it'll be the city

01:56of Charleston. Now again, I disagree

01:58with the 320,000 square feet you got

02:02from you got six acres from the county,

02:03two acres from uh from a group at $18

02:06million. And the question becomes, how

02:08are you going to do any affordable

02:09housing at 18 million on a sale? How

02:12much usable square footage because the

02:14acre is 40,000 square feet or more. How

02:17are you going to take 80,000 square feet

02:20and take that down? And secondly, noette

02:23came at $5 million on the 10th district

02:27of the Funk Noiseette project. How will

02:29Union peer development bring that back

02:30to the table? Opposition is important. I

02:33don't think you should use police

02:34department or whatever you think you're

02:36going to use to undermine Anthony G

02:38Bryant free speech. That's not going to

02:40happen. I don't think since the 1993

02:42before the internet, before social

02:44media, I can disagree against everybody

02:46in the room. That's my right as a

02:47citizen to disagree with you and I

02:50should be able to do that without any

02:51interference from anyone. Law

02:53enforcement should not be used by by

02:55anybody. You only got 11,000 lawyers in

02:57South Carolina with access to e filing.

03:003 million citizens pay for it. So

03:03[clears throat] So how how is it how is

03:05it your your your commitment to to to

03:08this this issue absent of interference?

03:11Have a nice day.

03:13>> All right. And those were all the

03:15speakers that we have, Mr. Chairman. And

03:16Mr. Bryant also submitted a comment that

03:19was sent to the committee in full.

03:24>> All right, moving along. Uh, next item

03:26up is approval of our August 20th, 2026

03:29U meeting minutes. Can I entertain a

03:30motion to approve?

03:33>> So move.

03:34>> Second.

03:35>> Okay, moved and properly seconded. Any

03:37discussion? Hearing none. All in favor

03:40of approving the minutes, please say I.

03:42>> I.

03:43>> I.

03:44>> Any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have

03:46it. Um, we have no old business today

03:50and we have one new item under new

03:52business and we're getting a

03:54presentation by planning and

03:55preservation staff on ongoing

03:58architectural survey uh efforts both for

04:01the peninsula and West Ashley. Uh, and

04:04we're going to get a update on a

04:06timeline um about where we're heading on

04:08this very important effort. So, uh,

04:10without further ado, I think I saw um

04:13Mr. Somefield's um screen up a moment

04:17ago and um assuming you're running point

04:21on this, sir. Happy to hear from you.

04:22>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I've uh Mr.

04:25Mayor, I've changed my glasses, so

04:26hopefully these aren't as uh laser beamy

04:29as my glasses from yesterday.

04:31>> Good. Looked good, Mike.

04:34>> They were hip. I mean, they were really

04:35They were captivating. Th

04:37>> Those glasses are amazing. I I don't

04:39know. Uh for those of you who spend time

04:41on a computer all day, those glasses,

04:44they're prescription. So, not only do

04:46they have my prescription, but they also

04:48help with computer and they're just

04:49awesome. Uh Mr. Chairman, if you don't

04:52mind, I'm going to share my screen. I do

04:55have a just a couple slides on this. Um

04:58I know you all have a lot of other stuff

05:00going on. Um and so

05:05hopefully y'all can see my screen.

05:11Yes.

05:14>> Yes, we can see it now.

05:15>> Okay, perfect. Um, all right. So, uh, as

05:18hopefully, uh, members of council, uh,

05:20do recall, as a part of, um, budget

05:24activity that, uh, the, um, council

05:26approved, uh, in, uh, both 24 and and

05:32for or for budget year FY25 and 26, it

05:38was originally approved. Um there were

05:40funds allocated for us to um do a update

05:46to the um historic architectural survey

05:49for uh the peninsula. This was again

05:52meant to fill in gaps. This was not a

05:55new survey. It was not a whole new area.

05:57Um but it was really to help us fill in

05:59some gaps because prior surveys uh

06:02including the survey in 73 and 85

06:06um uh which the one in 80 85 is uh you

06:10know that's essentially the most recent

06:13survey. um they did not rate um they

06:17sampled they did not uh actually survey

06:19uh all the properties within the

06:21historic district. And so a lot of our

06:23ratings are using our current

06:25categorization

06:27um are in some ways anecdotal because

06:31they apply uh it based on the reviews uh

06:34of a few properties on a block. Uh they

06:37then rated essentially uh that block. So

06:40this work on the on the peninsula um was

06:43we we categorized it kind of as general

06:45survey work. Um it's was uh conducted

06:48south of Line Street. Uh this is the

06:50area known as the old and historic and

06:52old city districts um to fill in those

06:55gaps from those uh uh previously

06:58undocumented properties. Um the survey

07:01information is extremely important to

07:03the city because as we know we're known

07:05for um our protection of our historic

07:10assets such that they maintain use

07:14because again we remain a living city.

07:16We're not taking buildings and putting

07:18them in museums. We we want these

07:20buildings to be lived in and business to

07:22be conducted from them. Um and so with

07:25that means that we need to understand

07:28you know what are the the significant

07:30parts of the buildings or which

07:32buildings are most significant um and

07:35require maybe that extra amount of

07:38attention when improvements are

07:39proposed. as these buildings have gone

07:42through life cycles in many cases of you

07:46know going from a residence to a

07:47business to a apartment building back to

07:52uh a business to maybe a couple

07:54businesses. So, um the surveying and

07:57having accurate survey information is

07:59super important um to just the identity

08:02of our historic districts, but also to

08:04help our board of architectural review

08:06and staff um and uh property owners and

08:11potential future property owners really

08:13kind of understand

08:15um the the nature of their property as

08:18it relates to the larger context of the

08:20historic district. um and uh kind of

08:24community expectations around the main

08:26uh maintaining that historic asset. Um

08:29fieldwork did begin um in uh summer of

08:3225. Um and we did receive our final

08:36survey report uh earlier this year in

08:39February of 26. Uh both uh boards of

08:42architecture, the board of architecture

08:44review small and large um have approved

08:47the data. So there was survey data and

08:50then there was a report with some

08:52recommendations and other things. Um for

08:56our purposes the most important element

08:58of this is the data because the data can

09:01then feed into the existing surveys um

09:04that we have to help us have a more

09:06complete picture of our historic

09:09resources.

09:10um as a part of the filling in the gaps

09:14and uh this work uh 15 uh almost 1,600

09:18historic resources or or properties uh

09:21were surveyed. Uh 1330 of those were uh

09:26residential in nature. Um 759

09:30are recommended as eligible for the

09:32National Registry of Historic Places

09:35either individually as a part of an

09:37existing district. Um and then New South

09:41which was our consultant um used both

09:43federal and state standards as well as

09:46the city's um kind of unique uh rating

09:49system which I talked a little bit about

09:52uh yesterday as a part of a budget

09:54proposal for um a future um uh project

10:00that we would we believe is important

10:01and we should be doing. That said, we

10:04also believe getting this information

10:05into our current inventory is important

10:08uh based on the current uh one through

10:10four ranking system that the city has.

10:12Um based on that criteria that has

10:15existed since 1979,

10:18um 775

10:20additional resources have been ranked in

10:23that most uh sensitive, most critical uh

10:26category of of um of one and two. Um, so

10:31that that's actually a pretty

10:33substantial number of properties that

10:35previously have not been rated or ranked

10:38um that um kind of got past our previous

10:42surveying efforts. Um and so what we're

10:44requesting to do and and part of the

10:46reason why I wanted to provide this

10:47update to the CD committee is in October

10:51we are going to be going to the planning

10:53commission with a code amendment um

10:56that's really procedural in nature

10:58because the survey is adopted presently

11:02by um as a individually listed item in

11:06the zoning ordinance and it just

11:08basically itemizes

11:10and references the the data set. Um, and

11:14so we have to amend the zoning ordinance

11:16to include this new data set for us to

11:19then actually incorporate it, publish it

11:21out for the public's use. Um, including

11:24the Army Corps of Engineers who need

11:26this data as a part of their uh, work

11:28with the um, battery extension project.

11:32Um, and so uh, we will be going to

11:34planning commission as I said in

11:36October. that will put this before city

11:38council um in November uh for their

11:42consideration to up uh adopt update the

11:46ordinance um to reflect the new data as

11:49well as uh uh we're working with legal

11:52on the possibility of a more expedited

11:55process that would still have council um

11:58maybe by resolution approve the

12:00incorporation of additional um data sets

12:02in the future um so it doesn't require a

12:05text amendment every time. Uh we want to

12:08update um a a data set uh with this

12:11information but still also have council

12:14involved in uh kind of formalizing that

12:17process. I also wanted to update you as

12:19a part of their work. We had gotten some

12:21grant money. Uh because one of the other

12:24things that was clear in some of the um

12:27sampling that had been done in prior

12:28surveys is that a lot of uh residential

12:33housing that had been um owned, built,

12:37uh lived in historically um utilized by

12:41members of our African-American

12:43community um generationally had not been

12:46included in the inventory. Um so as a

12:50part of our uh phase one fieldwork uh or

12:53as a part of our fieldwork uh we

12:55actually had separately identified a

12:58number of historic uh resources that uh

13:02were um

13:04indicated as having uh a strong

13:06connection u with the African-American

13:09history within our city. That work was

13:11done in early 26. Um we have received a

13:14a draft report that was sent to Shipo.

13:17They are the ones who um uh gave us the

13:19money for this work. Um and we

13:22anticipate that uh based on Shipo's

13:24review uh we will get that final report

13:27here uh within the next couple of months

13:29here at the end of 26. Um they were able

13:32to survey 796

13:34uh historic resources on the peninsula.

13:36These are all properties that are south

13:38of Mount Pleasant Street. Um again, uh

13:41New South used the same methodology that

13:43they use with all the surveying that

13:45they did as a part of this work. Um

13:48including uh addressing federal and

13:50state evaluation standards as well as

13:53putting everything uh through and

13:55listing it uh as a part of the city of

13:58Charleston's existing one through four

14:00ranking system. Um this would be an

14:02additional data set beyond um the the

14:06one I was talking about that'll go the

14:07planning commission next month. um that

14:10would be coming uh once we get the final

14:12report um and the final data set after

14:15uh Shipo has signed off on that work.

14:17And so that is uh another element of all

14:20of this, another reason why we're hoping

14:22to adjusted and allow a resolution to

14:25update the data um instead of having to

14:27do yet another text amendment to do this

14:30uh at the end of the year.

14:33Finally, acknowledging that the

14:35peninsula is not the only um area where

14:38we have historic resources in the city

14:41of Charleston. We all know this. We know

14:42we have amazing communities uh

14:45throughout um the city of Charleston's

14:47reach, whether we're talking um the

14:50settlement communities up uh off of Jack

14:52Primus, up on Canhoy, um obviously

14:55Mville, Ashleyville, and West Ashley. Um

14:58all the history that exists on John's

15:00and James Island. So, as part of our

15:03ongoing uh preservation efforts, we have

15:05been um working to address uh historic

15:10acknowledgement of historic resources so

15:12that we have data so we're making more

15:14informed decisions when there are

15:16questions about uh demolition on

15:18Savannah Highway or something like that.

15:21Um and so we did uh receive some money

15:23that we were able to utilize to begin

15:25some work in West Ashley um in

15:27surveying. That field work was conducted

15:29earlier this summer. Um we uh do expect

15:32that by the end of this month we will

15:34have the draft report uh from uh the

15:37consultant which again New South was uh

15:40the consultant for this work. Um they

15:43are uh truly uh amazingly reputable um

15:49consultant in this field and uh they've

15:51just been extremely responsive to our

15:53RFP process. Um, and so we do anticipate

15:57that we will receive their final report

15:58once the city has gotten that draft and

16:00and had the normal back and forth with

16:02them um by the end of this year, early

16:05next year at the latest. Um, based on

16:09the preliminary information that we

16:11have, um, we anticipate that there were

16:14555 historic resources that have been

16:17identified and evaluated. These are only

16:19within the design review uh, corridor.

16:23So, this does not go into um the

16:25historic neighborhoods like Burns Down

16:27or uh Old Windmir or South Windir and

16:31some of the other Mville Ashleyville uh

16:33into the actual neighborhoods. I think

16:35that we're working with the preservation

16:38society and the historic Charleston

16:39Foundation um on some character uh

16:42neighborhood character appraisals to at

16:44least start um identifying those

16:47resources and the character for uh those

16:49neighbors. But in this effort, we did

16:52limit because we had limited resources

16:54um the scope to just the uh design

16:56review board corridor. Um of these

16:59resources that were surveyed, it has

17:01been identified at least preliminarily

17:03that 74 of them would be recommended as

17:06eligible for national historic uh or

17:09national registry of historic places. Um

17:12and then same system that has been used

17:16um for all of our other surveying.

17:19Again, New South used both uh state and

17:22federal evaluation criteria as well as

17:25then uh putting all of that through the

17:27city's classification system which is a

17:30one through four ranking. Again, this is

17:32an area that we previously have not

17:34looked at in this uh with this critical

17:37eye. And through this process, they did

17:39identify approximately 75 resources um

17:42that would be considered rank one and

17:45two. And again, these are um historic

17:48resources that are deemed the most

17:50sensitive, the most important um

17:53resources from a architectural

17:57standpoint uh for the city. I I do make

18:00that distinction about the architectural

18:03standpoint because our ranking system

18:06really is geared um almost exclusively

18:10to the architectural significance of a

18:13building through really the

18:16architecture. And when we think historic

18:18significance instead of necessarily just

18:21architectural significance, one of the

18:23things we're hoping to do just kind of

18:25as a sales pitch for um uh the the

18:29project that I I uh

18:33uh brought before the budget ad hoc

18:35committee yesterday is we do want to

18:38reook at our city of Charleston

18:40criteria. Um, one of the things that we

18:43we are aware of is one, it is extremely

18:47architecturally focused, which

18:49admittedly makes a lot of sense. Um,

18:51that that be a significant part, but we

18:53know in Charleston it's also the

18:55cultural aspect um of our our resources

18:59that are important and evaluating

19:02a a um a property um to take into

19:07account legacy property owners. And so

19:09while it may be a very significantly

19:12um uh architecture and that may rate it

19:16in a one um by being able to go back and

19:19re-evaluate our criteria and include

19:22some community input on the

19:23establishment of that uh criteria and

19:26and work with the community to establish

19:28that. We also think that there's a human

19:31element to this and a cultural element.

19:33And so maybe it's a one architecturally,

19:36but due to some other factors um like a

19:40legacy homeowner

19:42um uh owning the property and

19:45maintaining the property, maybe that for

19:48brings it down to an effective level of

19:51some other number that maybe doesn't

19:53hold it as stringently to some of our um

19:57standards in terms of uh one for one

20:00replacement. Maybe it provides some more

20:02options uh based on that being that are

20:05similar to um other categories of

20:08buildings to provide some relief, some

20:11options, some alternatives

20:14um based on some additional criteria

20:17other than just uh the the architectural

20:21significance

20:22um when we're we're evaluating these

20:24properties. So, all of that's a part of

20:26a conversation for another day and a

20:27larger effort. But I do want to just um

20:31in part make that plug for that budget

20:33request, but also just acknowledge that

20:36there's work to be done here. Whether we

20:38take that up in 27 um or we continue to

20:42um just keep that in our um our you know

20:47uh back pocket is as something we need

20:50to to work on um in the future. Uh but

20:54there you have it. So with that, Mr.

20:56Chairman, that's all I had. I did I am

20:58prepared to ask any qu or answer any

21:00questions but I did want to just uh

21:02because we will be bringing this to

21:04planning commission for the peninsula

21:08uh survey information uh not the

21:11African-American survey and not the west

21:13ashley survey at this time. Uh but I did

21:16want to give you all a heads up on that

21:17especially since many of the members of

21:20the CD committee um are council members

21:23who represent folks on the peninsula. um

21:26give you all a heads up about that

21:27before uh planning commission next

21:29month.

21:32>> Wonderful, Mr.

21:32>> Chairman.

21:33>> Yes, sir. Thank you um Mr. Somefield and

21:36for you and your entire team um on on

21:39this effort. Uh it's a very it's a lot

21:41of hard work, but it's good work that I

21:43think is going to help us make some um

21:46very informed uh policy decisions on a

21:49variety of these issues uh moving

21:51forward. Uh Councilman uh Poke K, I see

21:54you got your hands up.

21:56Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just

21:57had two questions. I'll go ahead and

21:59answer both of them. Uh the first is um

22:03I was just curious in in lay person's

22:06terms if I were to explain to a resident

22:08or a property owner exactly how this

22:11data finds its way to um their lives

22:15when they navigate city um approval

22:19processes. If there are a couple of

22:20examples that could make me conversant

22:23on how this data influences the process

22:27specifically, that would be helpful. And

22:29the second one is related to the

22:31African-American um uh survey, but I

22:34think you can answer this one. I noticed

22:36that the line was sort of around, you

22:40know, like maybe a little south of

22:42Fishburn Street, but the survey went up

22:44to Mount Pleasant Street. So, I just

22:46wanted to confirm the relationship

22:48between the part that um is subject to

22:51this conversation and then the broader

22:54um uh uh body of uh of property surveyed

22:58um as far north as uh Mount Pleasant

23:01Street.

23:03>> Yeah. So, for the I'll start with the

23:06second question first if that's okay.

23:08Um, so for the African-American Historic

23:10Resource Survey, so this was the first

23:14kind of phase of this work based on the

23:17grant funding that was available. So um

23:20I I want to be clear that we are not

23:23suggesting that this is an

23:24all-incclusive

23:26um uh list. um the it is the peninsula

23:31and it is so it's everything in the

23:34let's see um maybe I can share again so

23:38that we can see the map.

23:51So it would be so the area of um kind of

23:56the area that they would have been

23:57looking at would have been um and again

24:01an exhaustive area but in general we

24:03would be looking at the uh old and

24:06historic district um actually pass

24:09street because uh Mount Pleasant is

24:13well it's hard to see because this map

24:15doesn't include um uh

24:18really the street name up that far, But

24:21so it would be looking at uh um and I

24:25guess in a way you could argue that this

24:27this survey was in some efforts

24:29sampling, but it would have been looking

24:31at properties that have known

24:33African-American

24:36um

24:37ties south of Mount Pleasant Street on

24:41the peninsula. Um and

24:47and at this time they had surveyed um

24:50for this initial phase of work based on

24:52the funding that we had available uh

24:54they were able to survey uh just under

24:56800 uh properties. um as a part of their

25:01report, I believe they are recommending

25:04um a a deeper dive into some of the um

25:10anecdotal uh information they received

25:12when they were doing some of the

25:13outreach uh related to this project. Um

25:16but I do not have that draft yet. Um and

25:19so u or I have not seen that draft. I

25:23apologize. We have seen a draft that is

25:25under review at Shipo, but I have

25:27personally not uh not seen it. So, I

25:30cannot say exactly what that uh

25:33recommendation

25:34was. Well, I guess what my question

25:36really was is if a property is north of

25:39the area that's uh indicated that's more

25:43in the southern tip of the peninsula

25:45that's covered by or was surveyed in the

25:48separate um process that evaluated um uh

25:52significant areas to African-American

25:55community that that those don't the line

25:58is more still the line that we see on

26:00the screen right now. off the line. If a

26:02property was surveyed via the separate

26:04grant north of this line, that doesn't

26:07necessarily mean it's going to be

26:08included in the um expansion of the um

26:13properties to be considered by way of

26:15the council action upcoming.

26:18>> Correct. Yeah. No. Yes. Absolutely. So,

26:21yes. anything that is not not covered

26:25within the uh 1585 the

26:291585 historic resources that were

26:32evaluated as a part of the the general

26:35effort would not be included and so

26:37nothing between Line Street and Mount

26:39Pleasant would be included

26:42um

26:44in that at all certainly because they

26:46they were south of line. Uh but if there

26:49were specific properties that they went

26:51back and took a look at um that were

26:54south of line um even those might be in

26:58that African-American survey data set um

27:02but not in the um the the kind of the

27:06gap analysis survey that was being done

27:09uh by um New South or the the rest of um

27:13the old and historic district.

27:16>> That makes sense. Thank you.

27:18>> And then as far as how does this work

27:20for

27:22uh you know the the non the non-planners

27:27essentially what this means is our our

27:29CR our categorization

27:33directly translates to the level of of

27:37scrutiny or review that occurs or

27:39additional scrutiny or review that

27:41occurs for different um improvements.

27:45So, if you're a category one, that means

27:49essentially one or two to be perfectly

27:51honest. That means just about anything

27:53you want to do that's going to affect

27:54the outside of your um your building, uh

28:00including other elements of your

28:01property, such as um a fence or um a

28:06wall post, um your gate even. I mean,

28:10all of those elements. I mean, you look

28:12at the um the

28:16um God, I'm so horrible at names. The

28:18the Philip Simmons um iron work. So like

28:21if you have a Philip Simmons uh gate

28:25that is going to be something on and

28:26you're on a category one that is

28:28something if you wanted to adjust that

28:30that you're going to have to go through

28:33the the board of architectural review

28:36um to demonstrate why uh you need to

28:40remove that that gate and why you can't

28:42repair that gate um or why it's it's not

28:45um repable so that we are not losing um

28:49you know what uh arguably is a again

28:52another strongly known characteristic of

28:56um Charleston uh historic uh um uh

29:01building materials. That said, if you're

29:04a three or four, well, you may only you

29:07may only have to deal with bar um the

29:10board if you're doing something massive

29:13like you're changing you want to change

29:15your you have a a a metal roof and you

29:18want to go to an asphalt shingled roof.

29:21So, you know, you're in the district and

29:23the predominant um historical roof

29:27element is the the metal roof. Um, but

29:30for whatever reason, often cost in these

29:33things, but you're in a three or four

29:35and you want to go from your metal roof

29:37to a asphalt shingled roof, that may

29:40require you to go to the board. Um, like

29:43someone who's in a category 1 or two.

29:45Um, but most other things that you're

29:47doing on your property may not require

29:49anything more than uh review by our

29:52preservation team during your building

29:54permit. Um, while you may have something

29:57like changing out your windows, um, that

30:00may actually require, uh, our board of

30:02architectural review or preservation

30:04staff to review that window exchange to

30:08make sure that, um, the character of the

30:11district is not being um, uh, degraded

30:16essentially with that change, but not

30:18necessarily have to go to the board for

30:20something like that. So, there may be a

30:22kind of a half step extra beyond just

30:25submitting for um a permit. Like someone

30:29who lives out on John's Island and wants

30:31to change out their windows or wants to

30:33change their roof, they would just

30:35submit through the building permit

30:36process. So, we may have another half to

30:40full step depending on how special from

30:43a historical standpoint your building

30:44is.

30:48Sorry. I know. I I tend to be a little

30:50more technical sometimes, so I'm not

30:52sure layman's as you're hoping.

30:55>> Very helpful. I appreciate. Thank you.

31:00>> All right. Ve, very helpful. Um,

31:03>> can I can I ask something, Mr. Chairman?

31:06>> Of course. Uh,

31:09>> yes, sir.

31:11Um, just trying to wrap my head around

31:13everything that that fantastic

31:15presentation.

31:16Um, so [sighs] maybe I'm not

31:20understanding correctly, but right now

31:23uh every every property is kind of on

31:26the the same scored category and are we

31:31are we moving towards a one through four

31:34system? Is that what what's being

31:37presented?

31:38>> No. So, we have an existing system

31:40that's been in place for uh uh just over

31:4450 years um that is a one through four

31:48system. So, every property that's

31:50previously been surveyed is listed as

31:53one through four. The problem is, part

31:56of the problem with that is is we have

31:58districts, historic districts,

32:01um where we're using um our our

32:07uh preservation ordinance to evaluate

32:11where those properties may not have been

32:13actually surveyed. And so the

32:17the categorization that we kind of

32:18review them under is informed by maybe

32:21what the neighboring property is or one

32:23property that's on the block kind of

32:25helps inform the nature of of what the

32:29expectation is uh for those properties.

32:31So the existing system is a one through

32:34four system that that's already how we

32:36evaluate it. What what would be coming

32:39to council in November would be approval

32:43to add a new data set to our survey

32:46data, our existing survey data to add

32:48these additional uh just under 16 uh00

32:53uh properties into our survey data. So

32:56that we now again instead of using

33:01I I still want to call them objective

33:03criteria but objective criteria at the

33:06staff level on a sometimes oneonone

33:09basis when uh people are coming in to

33:12ask questions about making modifications

33:14to their historic property. Um, we will

33:17now have the the data evaluated by a

33:21third party that provided the

33:24categorization designation for these

33:26properties to be able to use um for

33:29owners to know exactly what uh their

33:32their properties um categorization is

33:36and therefore where it would fall on

33:38that scale of um review if you would uh

33:42if they proposed to make modifications.

33:44Uh but it's really updating our data so

33:48that we are making more um informed uh

33:52decisions and recommendations uh to the

33:54public and uh advising our board when

33:57they're making decisions uh as it

34:00relates to uh folks that that are

34:02requesting to make changes to their to

34:04their property if they're in the uh old

34:06uh city and old historic district. So,

34:09so right now if uh if I go to the bar

34:12and try to get a permit, it's kind of um

34:15incumbent on me to show do the research

34:20on my own property, but um now you guys

34:24will have internal data to help guide

34:28>> in part. Yes. I mean, obviously, it's

34:30it's always important for as the

34:32property owner, if you're proposing to

34:34do a project that you have a good handle

34:36on the the history of your project, and

34:38we have some amazing uh design

34:40professionals in our community that are

34:42really, really, really good at that. Um,

34:45but yes, with this new data set, we will

34:49have those additional uh 1,300 plus

34:51homeowners or residential property

34:54owners who will now know definitively

34:57what their categorization is before they

35:00even begin any kind of project. They

35:02won't need to consult with a

35:04preservation staff or preservation

35:06architect out in the community. they

35:08will be able to look that data up and

35:10know what their um what their

35:14categorization is, but also, you know,

35:16they'll be able to look at the the

35:17property card and see what was what were

35:20those elements of their their their

35:22property, their building that were

35:24examined that led to that

35:26categorization. Because again, it's a

35:28data set where the the surveyors did a

35:31really good job of documenting the the

35:34why are they recommending a particular

35:36categorization and how it met our

35:39criteria.

35:40>> That seems uh seems like this could be

35:42very helpful to everybody.

35:45>> That is the hope, sir.

35:48>> Good questions. Good questions. Um,

35:51anybody uh else from the committee have

35:53anything they want to uh bring forward?

35:59Um,

36:00all right. I'm sorry I'm driving. I

36:02can't see it. Uh, everybody on the

36:04screen, but if anybody wants to say

36:06something, feel free to jump in. Um, but

36:11uh, Mr. summer, I you know, it it occurs

36:13to me, you know, um this sort of

36:16exercise is may have some different

36:20uh you know, implications downtown

36:22versus West Ashley. Whereas, you know,

36:25as you just described, um it'll sort of

36:28help shore up an existing regulatory

36:31framework that I think for the most part

36:34works very very very well in the um core

36:38historic districts of of Charleston. But

36:41out in West Ashley, for example, you

36:43know, tell me what you think about this.

36:46Um it would seem to me that having the

36:49data under our belt um in terms of what

36:52are the true genuine historic assets in

36:55West Ashley that may help inform some

36:58policy changes in in connection with

37:01maybe how the DRB approaches things like

37:04demolition review. Whereas perhaps we

37:06could move away from sort of a blanket

37:0950-year rule uh over to something a

37:13little bit more targeted where we are a

37:16little bit more forgiving on um

37:19structures that are over 50 years old

37:20that have no you know real historic uh

37:24or architectural value.

37:27But we have this data

37:30um where we can actually turn up the

37:33protection on the items in West Ashley

37:36that that that this survey has flagged.

37:39Is is that sort of where we anticipate

37:42this going in West Ashley or

37:44>> you just wanted to get your reaction to

37:46that?

37:47>> Yeah, so that's that's absolutely the

37:49goal. Uh Mr. chairman is that again uh

37:53one of the things that uh the mayor has

37:56has underscored and underscored since

37:59he's come into office with staff is we

38:02need to make really good datainformed

38:04decisions. Um data that has been vetted

38:08through the community and is not just

38:10something that you know we we you know

38:13pulled off of some federal website or

38:15something. And so that's that's where I

38:17think we are headed. I think also just

38:20to preview next month at community

38:22development we will be bringing back

38:24those um improvements that you had

38:26requested uh regarding the DRB and

38:29demolition

38:30um uh criteria as part of that and then

38:34that data that we will have on West

38:36Ashley will go handinhand I think with

38:39some of that recommendation again making

38:41that a much more objective evaluation

38:45and a lot less um because

38:49maybe some folks had feelings which are

38:52completely legitimate. But for a

38:54decision-m perspective, um having really

38:57good data to to determine when it's

39:00appropriate to, like you said, turn the

39:03protection up to 11 and when it's

39:05appropriate to dial that back down to

39:07two or three.

39:09>> Right. Right. I like what I'm hearing.

39:12Um this this is great work and um you

39:16know I think what the downtown and West

39:18Ashley efforts have in common and of

39:21course you know there's a lot of

39:22differences between downtown and and

39:24West Ashley but what what what this has

39:26in common is just like you said we're

39:28getting more accurate informed data to

39:32make better decisions. And I think

39:34that's what this is all about. That's

39:37what we're uh that's we get that's what

39:39we don't get paid the big bucks to do in

39:41this role is to try to make good

39:42decisions based on um the best possible

39:45data that we can to strike the right

39:48balance. And you know, the the balance

39:50of downtown may not be the same as the

39:52balance in West Ashley. And

39:54>> heck, you know, there's different parts

39:56of downtown that have different balances

39:58struck. And and I just think the more

40:00data we have, the more um like you said,

40:03objective information we have,

40:05>> the better we can do our jobs and give

40:08the tools to our boards, be it the BAR

40:10or the DRB, to um you know, make make

40:14the best decisions possible. And I think

40:16that that's just continuing to improve

40:18our processes for desired outcomes. And

40:22um just want to appre send my

40:24appreciation to you and your staff for

40:26this hard work.

40:27>> Thank you.

40:28>> Great.

40:29>> All right.

40:31>> Good deal. Any further comments,

40:32questions from anybody?

40:37>> Good deal.

40:38>> All right. I think we uh we'll call it a

40:40wraps. Uh we've had some lengthy CD

40:43committee meetings of late. this one

40:45maybe returns a little bit uh to the

40:47median here. So, I think we all deserve

40:49it. Um, thanks again for everybody. Um,

40:52and look forward to seeing y'all uh next

40:54week at council and we'll keep pushing

40:57forward. There

```*