2026-10-22 - Committee on Community Development

00:00Last meeting went a little bit long

00:02and my name is uh Councilman McBride.

00:04I'm standing in for Councilman Appel who

00:06couldn't be here today uh chairing this

00:08committee.

00:10We have a quorum. We have uh the mayor,

00:12Councilman Delesandro, Council Pokei,

00:16and I think that's it. Is there anyone

00:17online dialed in?

00:21>> Okay, it's just us four

00:25and we'll start with an invitation.

00:27Anyone want to do the invocation? Go

00:28ahead. Well, thank you. I Let's take a

00:30moment for silent reflection, please.

00:38>> Amen.

00:41>> And the first item is public

00:43participation. Any uh public com public

00:46comments signed up?

00:48>> There was one comment submitted online

00:50and two people signed up to speak in

00:52person.

00:53The online comments stated,

00:57Hannah Lowry submitted a comment

00:58regarding 52 Cooper Street, stating that

01:00it was criminal and racially

01:02discriminatory that the city allowed

01:03this to happen. History, the

01:05neighborhood, and the African-American

01:06community should be respected and

01:08appreciated. Developers were being

01:09allowed to destroy neighborhoods.

01:12As far as public comment in person, Lisa

01:15Jones is the first name signed up on the

01:17sheet.

01:19>> Okay. And uh just and I meant to

01:22coordinate ahead of time. So you're you

01:24you're going to give the presentation.

01:26That's later. Got it. Okay. Go ahead.

01:28Come on up. Give you two minutes.

01:35Before she get going, I just want you

01:37know seeing I am online but I am 3:30.

01:45>> I will interpret the best I can. You're

01:47broken. Councilman Seekings, but

01:49Councilman Seekings has joined us uh

01:50online. Your audio is a little bit

01:52broken, just so you know. Okay, go

01:54ahead.

01:55>> Okay, great. Uh good afternoon, chair,

01:57members of the committee. Mayor, on

01:59behalf of Historic Charleston

02:01Foundation, I want to thank you for the

02:03time and attention you're giving to the

02:05issue of demolition by neglect. I should

02:07back up and say I'm Lisa Jones with

02:08Historic Charleston Foundation.

02:11It's demolition by neglect is not a new

02:14issue, but the Emit Abbott Memorial

02:16Chapel at 52 Cooper Street is a renewed

02:19call to action. Watching a historic

02:21building deteriorate to the point of

02:23collapse left residents, preservation

02:26advocates, neighbors, and property

02:27owners feeling powerless and asking

02:30difficult questions. How did we get

02:32here? What tools were available? What

02:35could be done to prevent it from

02:36happening again? Importantly, these were

02:39questions being asked not only by the

02:41public, by the city as well. So, we want

02:43to thank you and the mayor for putting

02:46this on the agenda and allowing us the

02:48opportunity to participate in advancing

02:50solutions to this problem. Historic

02:53Charleston Foundation, Preservation

02:55Society of Charleston, and Save Our

02:57Structures Charleston have worked

02:58together to develop recommendations that

03:01will be presented to you later by Julie

03:04O' Connor. And thank you for that

03:06opportunity. These recommendations are

03:08aimed at identifying problems earlier,

03:11strengthening enforcement tools, and

03:14creating a more coordinated, proactive

03:16approach to protecting historic

03:18properties. We view this effort as an

03:21ongoing partnership with you. And we

03:24think it'll benefit everyone. We look

03:26forward to continuing to work together

03:28with city staff, this committee, and

03:30city council to develop and implement

03:32meaningful

03:34uh policy changes. Thank you for your

03:37consideration and your commitment to

03:39this collaborative effort to protect our

03:41shared history.

03:44>> Thank you for that. Any other uh anyone

03:46else signed up? That's it.

03:48>> Kevin Eber.

03:52>> Uh thanks for taking the matter up. Um

03:55thanks for very much for taking the

03:57matter up and I've been working with my

03:59friends here the last few days on what

04:01you're going to hear about later this

04:02afternoon. Um, Councilman uh Dellesandro

04:06shared some minutes from a city council

04:10meeting 30 years ago where this exact

04:14same topic and the same problems, the

04:18same roadblocks were mentioned. It's

04:20been going on so long. And what you're

04:23going to hear in just a minute from

04:25Julius is that there are so many easy

04:27solutions. And I really hope the city

04:29will not just kind of punt for more

04:31study and surveys and reflection. There

04:34are so many easy options to actually do

04:37something concrete. I hope that the

04:40council will take advantage of that.

04:45Anyone

04:50else in the list?

04:53>> That was off.

04:54>> Okay.

04:57Yep. Go ahead.

05:01>> Sorry. Sign up. Um Brian Turner,

05:04Preservation Society of Charleston. I

05:06want to echo my colleagues and this is a

05:09really important collaboration. We're

05:11very appreciative that you all have

05:13decided to focus on this really critical

05:15issue and I don't want to spend time

05:18rehashing or reiterating any of the

05:20things but just group grouping

05:21thematically you know Charleston is

05:24starting from a position of great

05:25strength with this issue. We have

05:27historic assets that other towns in

05:29America would dream of. Um we also have

05:32a a community of contractors and

05:34architects who are extraordinary and who

05:37do amazing work. And so we have the

05:39resources here and we also have the

05:41legal tools in place and several of the

05:43recommendations you'll hear about are

05:45really reforms that we can do to

05:46existing tools to strengthen and and

05:49improve them. Um but more broadly I

05:53think we have to think about where we've

05:54come in 30 years and what are the what

05:56are the core problems. Um demolition by

06:00neglect is not you know a a a singular

06:03issue that you can attribute to one or

06:05another behavior. There's a there's a

06:07it's a very multi-dimensional

06:10um problem and some of our most

06:12vulnerable populations are living in

06:14substandard housing and that is an issue

06:17that preservationists care about and I

06:19want to just make sure that that's

06:20emphasized that this is an issue where

06:23we can express our humanity uh for those

06:25people as well as our concern for the

06:27cherished places that really define our

06:30communities. And so we're bringing

06:31forward recommendations that I think

06:33haven't been thought of as as much

06:36before like the ideas of title clearance

06:39um deconstruction and salvage ordinance

06:41that will help us you know better

06:43understand that that this is not a 0 to

06:4560 problem where it's either demolition

06:48or complete preservation that oftent

06:50times that there's important materials

06:52and components of of homes and buildings

06:55that we want to make sure um stay

06:57upright. And I think the 52 Cooper issue

06:59really motiv motivated and cat catalyzed

07:03this meeting because what the community

07:05saw there was

07:08a lot of material that was really

07:09carelessly and recklessly lost um

07:14despite a real push and I think that

07:16there was a real effort um being made

07:18and for the contractor to salvage some

07:21of those materials and it it's really

07:23sad and we we want to make sure we don't

07:25see that again and I I encourage you all

07:28to think of this strategy really

07:29comprehensively in terms of policy

07:32solutions. Thank you.

07:36>> Okay, ma'am. Would you like to just make

07:38some comments? Two minutes.

07:44>> Hello, my name's Alexis Wright Singleton

07:46and I'm the president of ECDC, the East

07:49Side Community Development Corporation,

07:52and also the Neighborhood Association.

07:55what happened at 52 Cooper Street. Um

08:01there are no happy words. There aren't

08:04even civil words. Um the community is

08:10devastated. Even though that was a

08:12church that wasn't in use for many

08:14years, there are many people who

08:16attended not only on the east side but

08:19all over the Charleston Peninsula.

08:22And

08:24uh

08:26it's very sad and people are looking for

08:31who to blame. And we know that the

08:35church was in a dilapitated

08:37um state as are a lot of the structures

08:42on the east side.

08:44Um there are structures on the east side

08:46that actually belong to people who they

08:49can't they can't rectify themselves.

08:52Um like our Philip Simmons home. Um I

08:58could go down a list of properties on

09:00the east side that are historic.

09:03Um we're currently working with um um

09:07the ACA. We're having an ACA done on the

09:12east side so that people will recognize

09:16more um firmly that the east side is

09:19just it's it's almost all historic. Um

09:25even the project housing was built 100

09:28years ago.

09:30Um, and yeah, we have people who are not

09:35uh or who are of low wealth, but we

09:38they're people. They're our neighbors,

09:41and they deserve to live in better

09:44housing than they have. And then we have

09:47our millionaires.

09:49The one thing that's really really um

09:52bothering, sorry.

09:57Yeah.

09:57>> Thank you for the comments.

10:00All right. Um, next item is approval of

10:04minutes. September 17th, minutes.

10:10>> Moved and seconded. Any comments? All in

10:13favor say I.

10:17>> Okay. And nothing for old business. So,

10:19new business. Um, would somebody care to

10:22make a motion to move up item Roman

10:24numeral four to the first item to get

10:27that knocked out? Second.

10:30>> Any discussion? All in favor say I.

10:32>> I.

10:33>> Okay. So, we're moving up uh item four,

10:35which is update on the 52 Cooper Street

10:37and process improvements. And I've

10:40invited uh historical uh society to give

10:43a presentation. First, the city will

10:44give a presentation followed by

10:46historical society.

10:54>> Got that one there. Perfect. Uh thank

10:56you for allowing us some time to talk

10:58about obviously what is a a very

11:00important topic. Uh my name is Dave

11:02Pentton. I'm section chief planning

11:04permitting engineering u in my third

11:06week. So very nice to to meet everyone

11:09so far and dive into an issue of

11:11importance like this. Certainly we've

11:12heard uh you know from from some members

11:15of the public this evening or this

11:16afternoon. uh and certainly want to

11:18underscore the importance of of this

11:20issue and our acknowledgement of uh you

11:23know the loss of the community but also

11:25provide this as an opportunity for us to

11:27do uh some self-reflection and some

11:29growth and look at some opportunities

11:30for improvement. Uh and that's where

11:32we're going to focus on this afternoon.

11:34Uh so we want to talk a little bit about

11:36some of the things that we've learned

11:37and that we want to uh break into two

11:39different categories for some immediate

11:41action uh which is about a 1 to

11:44threemonth time frame of things that we

11:46can begin to do and get in place within

11:48that time frame and then some items that

11:50we put into a bucket that's about a 6

11:52to9 month time frame. Uh if we can get

11:54some of those things done sooner than

11:55that great but we want to make sure we

11:57just lay out some some good expectations

11:59uh about what some of those things will

12:02take in terms of time. Uh so just want

12:04to get started quickly on on these. Uh

12:07the first topic that we want to talk

12:09about is certainly develop clear

12:11procedures and guidance uh for these

12:13situations and better formalize the

12:15existing coordination we have between

12:16our relevant city staff that deal with

12:18these uh situations for things like site

12:22visits, remedies, actions. Make sure

12:23everybody is you know working together,

12:25working from the same sheet of music to

12:27to understand the situation and be able

12:29to uh you know have good coordination

12:31between everyone. Uh we also want to

12:33suggest to reconvene uh the demolition

12:36by neglect task force uh include

12:38representation from our preservation

12:39groups and neighborhoods with that and

12:41really charge them with a deliverable

12:44for recommendations and actionable

12:46items. Uh we also want to better connect

12:49property owners with resources that can

12:50provide some guidance and assistance uh

12:52for historic building maintenance,

12:54stabilization, rehabilitation, and

12:56preservation. and also with that provide

12:59things that have clear language and

13:01guidance on when licensed structural

13:03engineers are required, when permits are

13:05needed, and which types of permits, and

13:07really establish a good point of contact

13:09to better assist property owners uh with

13:11those processes. Uh the second item that

13:14we want to to work through and work on

13:16improving is coordination and data

13:18sharing. uh refine and regularly update

13:22our database of at risk building and

13:24also integrate that into our permitting

13:25systems that when one of those

13:27properties comes up, it does, you know,

13:28have a flag on it that we can can

13:31identify. Uh also categorize, score,

13:33prioritize properties by conditions,

13:35historic significance, ownership and

13:37safety risk. uh better collaborate and

13:40share that information with preservation

13:42organizations, neighborhoods, uh other

13:44stakeholder groups and also add

13:46representation from preser preservation

13:48groups to the livability review board.

13:53Next topic is to improve communication

13:55and notification procedures. When we

13:57have these notice of violation letters,

13:59we certainly want to notify key staff,

14:01identify council members and other key

14:02stakeholders in the community like our

14:04preservation groups, abing property

14:06owners, uh neighborhood leaders, uh when

14:09those when that demolition is required

14:10for public safety purposes. Also

14:13establish a required posting period for

14:15those placards for demolition uh and

14:17include a plan for the owner to salvage

14:19and preserve historic materials. Uh and

14:22then one of the final ones we have in

14:24this immediate action category. Uh we do

14:27have a partnership with Bloomberg uh to

14:29address vacant and at risk historic

14:31buildings and we want to continue to

14:33work with them. That's something that's

14:34just getting underway. Uh so we want to

14:36continue that coordination and

14:37collaboration, see what comes out of

14:38that and take any uh action that we can

14:41as a result of some of those

14:42conversations in collaboration with

14:44Bloomberg. So that's the immediate

14:47action items for the one to threemonth

14:49category. Uh we'll jump into the nearer

14:51term items which we put into a six to

14:54ninemonth time frame. Uh and the first

14:56one we want to do strengthen enforcement

14:58and oversight. This is something we can

15:00also begin to do within that 1 to

15:02threemonth frame. But just understanding

15:04that there are some things that may take

15:05a little bit more time like amendments

15:07to city codes uh you know frequency of

15:10citations things like that that we may

15:11need to get additional input on uh and

15:14guidance on. So it may stretch into

15:16those time frames. But some of the

15:17things like we' mentioned amend city

15:19codes to classify buildings that are

15:20left boarded, neglected or vacant uh in

15:22violation for more than 6 months as a

15:24public nuisance. Uh amend city codes to

15:27strengthen accountability uh but also

15:29take into consideration ownership

15:31circumstances uh which would include

15:32developers, individually owned

15:34properties, heirs properties, hardship

15:36cases. Uh so try to maybe build in a

15:38little more nuance to to some of that.

15:40Uh expand monitoring enforcement to

15:42include historic commercial and civic

15:44properties. also increase the monitoring

15:46for the frequency of at risk buildings

15:48and then as I mentioned earlier pursue

15:50more frequent citations in instances of

15:52willful neglect.

15:54also want to explore some opportunities

15:56for different funding sources. Uh study

15:58whether fines that we collect from

16:00violations can be used for stabilization

16:02and preservation uh for these

16:04prioritized at risk buildings uh

16:06particularly in hardship cases uh rather

16:08than going into the city's general fund

16:10and also work with our partners and

16:12preservation groups uh maybe to identify

16:14other funding sources that can be used

16:16uh for similar outcomes. And then

16:18finally, uh, we want to again advance

16:21and implement any recommendations we get

16:23from the negle demolition by neglect

16:25task force, anything that comes out of

16:27the collaboration with Bloomberg as

16:28well. Uh, but really again work with

16:30that partnership uh, when we reconvene

16:32that task force to uh, you know, take

16:35some of those recommendations and see

16:37how we can advance those forward. Uh

16:39again, all of this to try to put

16:41together a more meaningful process, uh

16:43one that has better notification, better

16:45oversight, uh better coordination and

16:47collaboration uh with all of our

16:48partners in the community on this topic.

16:50Uh and that's our presentation on this

16:53item for happy to take any questions,

17:01Mr.

17:01>> Chairman. U Thank you. We haven't had a

17:04chance to meet yet. So, hi.

17:06Yeah, I think we met maybe virtually.

17:08>> Sure. I was I think on Zoom when you

17:11were introduced uh the uh obviously very

17:15interested in the um funding sources

17:18piece because a number of the

17:19residential property owners that uh

17:22particularly as was referenced by Miss

17:24Wright Singleton are of moderate means.

17:26And uh the challenge though and I don't

17:29know what thought you might have to it

17:31and if there's not an answer right now

17:32maybe we can just put a a pin pin in it

17:35for future consideration but it seems to

17:37me that the scale and cost particularly

17:40with respect to stabilization um is

17:42pretty extensive. Um I remember when we

17:44spoke about the preservation of the um

17:47house that's in front of the Philip

17:48Simmons cottage and that was going to be

17:50you know maybe almost $200,000 at least

17:52between 100,000

17:54stabilization only um circumstance. So,

17:58when we talk about fines and some of the

18:00funding sources, um, from your

18:02experience or just just you maybe even

18:04shooting from the hip, how might we, uh,

18:07get over the, um, potential landmine

18:10staring in front of us that the amount

18:11of money from the public purse may not

18:14be sufficient to not only uh, address

18:17the individual um, costs associated with

18:20stabilization or other needs uh, to get

18:22past the neglect point of it, but then

18:24also then the scale that's required for

18:26the number of uh parcels that we're

18:28talking about. Um I just want us to

18:30maybe factor that in our planning from

18:32the beginning.

18:34>> That's what I may look to see if anybody

18:36has any immediate thoughts on otherwise

18:38we can certainly put a pin in, get back

18:39with you and talk through that a little

18:41bit on our side, but creativity is

18:43definitely going to be needed in that

18:44regard for sure. So, [clears throat]

18:46this is an idea for consideration and I

18:49have not uh full disclosure talked with

18:52staff about this, but um so we'll see

18:54how this goes. But uh

18:58east side is part of the Cooper River

19:00Bridge TIFF and there is money in the

19:01Cooper River Bridge TIFF and there's

19:03money that can be used for affordable

19:05housing and that is something that we're

19:07looking at uh as part of project 3500.

19:10Project 3500 is not just uh new

19:13construction but opportunities for

19:16renovations of uh old buildings. And so

19:21one idea that I have is that uh if

19:26legally permissible and we'll have to

19:28work with staff on that. I see Julia

19:30nodding her head back there. Um I'm sure

19:33Amy's having a p panic attack somewhere.

19:36uh is that we could put potentially some

19:38money into a fund, a matching um grant

19:43fund of some sort that we could work

19:45with the preservation groups on to uh

19:48get their donors to contribute

19:51uh for the restoration of abandoned

19:55properties. Now, it's going to take a

19:56lot of legal work to figure out how we

19:58can get clarity on title to do this sort

20:01of thing. Um, we don't want to be using

20:03imminent domain on situations like that.

20:06But, um, if there are no clear uh uh if

20:10there's no clear title on it, it is

20:12something that we could potentially do.

20:14Um, but set it up in like a revolving

20:17fund where we could renovate a building.

20:20uh make sure it is deemed and this would

20:23be a requirement for using tip funds

20:26uh deed restricted for affordability

20:29metrics and then potentially resell it

20:32and use that as a rolling fund to do

20:35other properties again within the Copa

20:37River Bridge TIF district i.e. the east

20:39side. So that's an idea but as we've

20:43discussed there's no silver bullet on

20:44something like this. Um, we'll have to

20:47look at see u the feasibility of

20:50something like that, but I think we'll

20:52have to get very creative.

20:54>> Chairman,

20:55>> and thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, and since

20:56Miss Wright Singleton is here, I'll go

20:58ahead and channel what I know she's

21:00thinking and she would say if she had

21:01the mic right now. Um, but then the east

21:03side community, particularly with

21:04respect to the east side leadership, I

21:06think that uh they would ask and they

21:08would ask me to ask through them right

21:10now. um that we continue to make

21:12progress on scheduling what we've been

21:14discussing to provide um an update and

21:16orientation as to the Cooper River tiff

21:18district. Um I receive a lot of

21:20questions about that and I know Miss Ry

21:22Singleton in particular um would be

21:24interested in learning all the ins and

21:26outs of that um as it was referenced. Uh

21:29so I uh on on behalf of that community,

21:32on behalf of her since she's president,

21:33I'll just put that on the record now.

21:34And I know we've been talking about

21:36scheduling and that as a matter of fact

21:37had made progress about scheduling until

21:39the unfortunate uh event that occurred

21:42at 52 Cooper Street that kind of threw

21:43all of our calendars off. But I'll just

21:45put that on the record and I I know

21:47she's grateful um as I see her not

21:49smiling at me in the audience that I

21:51said that.

21:55Okay. Hey, I'd like to go ahead and uh

21:57offer uh there's a presentation um joint

21:59presentation by historical Charleston

22:01Foundation Preservation Society. Uh I

22:04can give you 10 minutes if you can get

22:05through in 10 minutes just for the sake

22:07of time.

22:07>> Yes. And do you are you gonna flip the

22:11slides or should I tell you?

22:13>> I mean yeah we can

22:14>> or I Oh yeah. Or you can grab that amp.

22:26Good afternoon. My name is Julie O'

22:28Connor and I am speaking on behalf of

22:30Save Our Structures Charleston, Historic

22:32Charleston Foundation, and the

22:34Preservation Society of Charleston. I

22:36want to thank council members for

22:37allowing us to take time today to

22:39present our recommendations.

22:41The city has the opportunity to send a

22:43strong message to property owners and

22:44developers affirming that Charleston's

22:46character-defining historic buildings

22:48and irreplaceable community assets are

22:50essential to protecting the city's

22:52heritage. These buildings on the screen

22:55represent a fraction of the buildings

22:56that are endangered due to demolition by

22:59neglect. We've been working together

23:01over the past weeks to make

23:02recommendations that will provide policy

23:04solutions to prevent demolition by

23:05neglect and strengthen accountability

23:08when the loss of significant historic

23:09resources occur. One issue we have

23:13identified is in the language that

23:14authorizes the chief building official

23:16to order a building to be demolished

23:18circumventing the bar and public notice

23:20process. While this is an important

23:22public safety authority in emergency

23:24cases, it should not be used in cases of

23:27demolition by neglect. The city code

23:29should be amended to specify that the

23:31building official may bypass the B only

23:33after he or she certifies a sudden and

23:36unforeseeable change in the building's

23:38condition caused, for instance, by a

23:41fire or lightning strike or similar. The

23:43building official should also consult

23:45with an independent engineer to confirm

23:47the applicant's claims. In cases where

23:50this structural failure is due to

23:51long-term neglect, the building would be

23:53placed on the next BAR agenda, exceeding

23:56the cap on the agenda if necessary in

23:58order to expedite the process.

24:00Regardless of the circumstance, public

24:02notice must be included.

24:05Additionally, there is currently

24:06language in the code regarding the BU

24:08building officials ability to order

24:10demolition or stabilization. Oop, did I

24:12do something? That is tied um

24:15exclusively to financial considerations.

24:18However, in evaluating demolition

24:21requests, the BAR must determine and

24:24balance, and I quote, the historic,

24:28architectural, and aesthetic features of

24:30such structure, the nature and character

24:32of the surrounding area, the historic or

24:34culturally important use of such

24:36structure, and the importance to the

24:38city. The BAR standard should be added

24:41to the code for the building official as

24:43well.

24:44Outside the old city district, B only

24:47has jurisdiction over demolition, but

24:49not what replaces a demolished

24:51structure. Of course, the expansion of

24:53the B's jurisdiction to more of the

24:55upper peninsula would be our preference.

24:57But in the meantime, in cases of

24:59demolition by neglect, the parcel should

25:01be automatically added to the old city

25:03district so that the BAR can guide the

25:06reconstruction through the established

25:08process. These are two such examples of

25:11demolition by neglect resulting in

25:12complete demolition and the

25:14inappropriate structures that replaced

25:16them.

25:20When the bar or building official

25:22approves or orders demolition,

25:24salvageable historic material is

25:26needlessly lost. Adopting a

25:28deconstruction and salvage ordinance

25:30would require and incentivize the

25:32careful dismantling of buildings

25:34approved for demolition. Communities

25:36across the country have comparable and

25:38successful programs. A pre-demolition

25:41salvage assessment would be an important

25:43first step.

25:45One challenge that comes up quite often

25:46in demolition by neglect cases is the

25:48heirs property issue. Without clear

25:51title, even eager owners cannot get

25:53financing, tax credits, or even help

25:56from nonprofit organizations. The

25:58Charleston School of Law is working on

26:00creating a legal clinic in cooperation

26:03with Center for Heirs Property, which

26:05would train law students to help owners

26:07clear title and move forward with

26:09preservation.

26:11The city's preservation ordinance

26:13provides avenues by which the city can

26:15prevent demolition by neglect by

26:16stepping stepping in and stabilizing a

26:19structure and securing a lean on the

26:21property. The survey performed and

26:23updated by SOS Charleston is an existing

26:27resource the city can use to identify

26:30the most endangered buildings. Closer

26:33coordination between the planning

26:35department and the livability, excuse

26:37me, the livability department would

26:39consolidate the staffing resources to

26:42allow for better enforcement in the

26:44field. Demolition by neglect has been a

26:47problem in Charleston for many decades

26:49and will not be solved easily.

26:52These homes are a few examples of some

26:54of the many endangered structures

26:56structures we are fighting to save.

26:58Historic Charleston Foundation,

26:59Preservation Society of Charleston, and

27:01Save Our Structures Charleston

27:03appreciate this committee's willingness

27:05to work with us and the residents of

27:06Charleston to take active steps to

27:09improve the problem. We appreciate your

27:11consideration of these recommendations

27:13and we are dedicated to continuing to

27:15work with all of you on this important

27:17issue. Thank you.

27:21Thank you very much for that.

27:24And as you said, the partnership uh

27:26between you and the city is uh already

27:28showing some fruit. So it's good news. I

27:30think we'll continue on down a good

27:32path. Any any comments for anybody on

27:34presentation?

27:35>> Well, I I like this idea that um uh Mr.

27:39Eberly has presented to me with the uh

27:42clearing of the errors titles that um

27:44that's that's one piece of this. if we

27:47can help clear up the titles. Um, and it

27:51seems like for um a small investment

27:54from the city, uh, that could go a long

27:57way to helping some of this problem. Um,

28:02it it just seems like

28:05it it's very complicated with a lot of

28:09these properties. Uh, I mean, you take

28:12um

28:14a lot of it boils down to how do you get

28:18the ear the current owner of the

28:19property to want to restore it um in a

28:24timely manner. Um, I mean,

28:28we can get the force stabilization and

28:32then it's just propped up for however

28:34many years until

28:37uh the owner decides they either want to

28:39sell it or fix it up at that point. Um,

28:42that's frustrating. It's frustrating to

28:46just tear it down completely. Um, I it's

28:52just very complex. I I don't really know

28:54what the answer is, but um definitely

28:57clearing helping to clear the the errors

29:00component of that would would get us a

29:02step closer to it.

29:05Um [sighs]

29:07neglig negligent owners is is what I

29:11keep going back to. And if there was a

29:14way to

29:16um

29:19make people more aware of what they're

29:22buying when they're buying property in

29:25the historic district of Charleston and

29:28that it's uh it it's not up for

29:31demolition that you are going to be

29:36required to renovate the property in a

29:39historical manner. I I don't know how

29:41you do that, but um I mean negligent

29:44owners is what I keep going back to.

29:52>> Any other comments? Go ahead.

29:53>> I I I have a question. Um and maybe this

29:56I don't know if it's appropriate from

29:57the audience or the presentation. Um to

29:59what extent are your recommendations in

30:01um informed by uh lessons learned in

30:04other jurisdictions? I know Charleston

30:05is unique um uh in so many ways and

30:08special and wonderful and the best place

30:10in the world. Uh but um is there any

30:13lessons that have been acquired from how

30:17um uh other places have uh uh confronted

30:21these challenges and um particularly

30:23with respect to the balancing of the

30:25interest of the property owner um who

30:28may not be able to afford um the

30:30requirements that government um or

30:33public safety require.

30:35Absolutely. We've all done a lot of

30:37research on other municipalities and we

30:39can certainly put together something for

30:41you about that. Some great ideas are

30:44that you sort of punish the um willful

30:48uh people who are, you know, trying to

30:50get these buildings to fall down so that

30:52they can develop the proper to a higher

30:54or better use and using those funds to

30:56help people that are not doing it

30:59willfully and just can't afford things.

31:01Um this we as we I discussed earlier the

31:04salvage um ordinance is is utilized

31:08across the country in various

31:10municipalities. A lot of these ideas are

31:12being implemented. And if I may respond

31:15to Councilman Delisandre's question um

31:18if we do stabilize these houses and

31:20don't let them continue to neglect to be

31:23neglected then the incentive for them to

31:25fall down is removed. um and because

31:28they won't fall down and um then at that

31:31moment maybe somebody would sell it

31:33instead of hanging on to it hoping that

31:35it'll fall down. So I think there's a

31:36lot of benefits to the things that we

31:38suggested and certainly research from

31:40other municipalities.

31:42>> If I may ask a follow-up question, have

31:44you encountered um any general um uh

31:48standard for how you uh determine what's

31:51willful and what's not? uh because that

31:53immediately makes me nervous um to

31:56divine intent um in that context. Uh I

31:59know this might be something that you

32:00have to work on, but just based on what

32:02you might be aware of, is there any um

32:04general pointers on how they make those

32:06distinctions?

32:07>> Well, I mean, we certainly do research

32:08on ownership and do research and that's

32:11the first, you know, sort of part of

32:14that. Um and you know, certainly

32:16sometimes it's obvious and sometimes

32:18it's not. So, we would certainly never

32:21just assume that somebody is being

32:22willful, but um and again, there's other

32:25municipalities that have utilized that

32:27type of strategy and we can certainly

32:29look at their methods.

32:34>> Mr. Mayor,

32:36>> um [clears throat] thank you. And uh one

32:39comment I do have I in this instance on

32:42Cooper Street, [clears throat] I do want

32:45to discuss

32:48the liabilities that the city has

32:51because and I'm curious from uh

32:55preservation groups. I mean, you your

32:56your

32:58first point up there is an is an

33:01interesting one, and I'm not a lawyer,

33:04but this is some a legal question that

33:06we'll need to look into in more detail

33:08because

33:10uh a lot of heat came on our city's

33:13staff, I think, unfairly,

33:16because we got a report

33:19from a licensed structural engineer that

33:23said that building was in imminent

33:25danger. danger of collapse.

33:28So we have

33:32a responsibility

33:34to respond to that.

33:37And if that building, God forbid, did

33:40collapse and somebody was injured, I can

33:43promise you that we would be served

33:46papers

33:47for a lot of money and rightfully so.

33:52So when there's condemnation and people

33:56calling for the staff to be fired

33:58because

34:00uh they made that decision based on

34:04uh a licensed engineers's professional

34:06opinion.

34:07I do take exception to that. And so that

34:11is a disconnect that we're going to have

34:14to be able to work through

34:17realistically.

34:19And so I'm not sure what the solution is

34:22there. I like the ideas that you're

34:24talking about in point one, but I also

34:28have to represent the city and our

34:32responsibility,

34:34fiduciary responsibility, but also most

34:36importantly public safety

34:37responsibility.

34:39So that's a complex component. the

34:43lawyers in the room uh would be better

34:46uh charged with helping to figure out

34:49how to potentially thread that needle,

34:51but that is something that will not be

34:54an easy fix. And I do just want to be on

34:57record for saying I think city staff,

35:01despite how tragic it was that that

35:03building came down, I think city staff

35:06did the right thing and I think they

35:08were unfairly condemned

35:11uh for this unfortunate situation.

35:17>> Yeah. And I agree. I I I think if it

35:20gets

35:23when a report is issued and it's

35:24presented to the staff, they have to

35:26look at it objectively whether it's I

35:30mean they they look at the science of

35:32it. Um again I point at the owner of uh

35:37that particular property who

35:41could have with enough effort restored

35:44that property had they chosen to. um you

35:48know they they

35:50uh allowed it to get to the condition

35:53that it was in and um

35:58they they should not have been stewards

36:00of that property. They they should have

36:01let it go and let somebody else take

36:03care of it and renovate it.

36:07>> All right. Any final comments?

36:09Good. All right.

36:11We'll move on. Good presentation. Thank

36:13you for coming to present. And good

36:15presentation. Thank you for that. Look

36:17like we're leaning in to solve this

36:18problem. Moving on to uh under new

36:21business item one, approval of a

36:25resolution certifying property located

36:26at 347 Ashley Avenue and 448 Race Street

36:30as an abandoned building site pursuant

36:32to South Carolina abandon.

36:33>> For approval

36:36>> second.

36:38>> All right. Any comments?

36:42All in favor say I.

36:43>> I.

36:44>> I.

36:45>> Okay. Okay. No. Item number two,

36:48authorization to delegitimize CHDO home

36:51set aside funds for the program years

36:522019 to 2024.

36:54>> Move for approval.

36:56>> Second.

36:58>> Any comments? All right. All in favor

37:00say I.

37:01>> I.

37:02>> No.

37:05And item three, update um by the

37:09planning.

37:13Is that a different one? Update by the

37:15planning pres No, that's the same one,

37:17right? We just did that. Okay. Update.

37:19Update by planning preservation staff

37:20regarding proposed amendments to update

37:23existing administrative and review fees,

37:25etc.

37:28>> That's hilarious.

37:30>> Uh, Chairman McBride, can you hear me?

37:33>> Yes. Go ahead.

37:38>> Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear us?

37:40>> Yes. Yes. I apologize.

37:43last minute thing. I had to take my son

37:45to the doctor. So, I'm in a very

37:48concrete building here. Um, so just real

37:50quick,

37:53give the CD committee a heads up that as

37:55a part of uh the budget ad hoc

37:57presentation for the planning

37:58department. Um I had in

38:02just a nominal update um this year or

38:05requesting a nominal update this year to

38:07our fee schedules

38:11reflects the COLA that was received uh

38:14by staff over the LA since 2019. Um

38:20uh is is still well under um our current

38:24labor calculations to complete the the

38:26task.

38:29Um I'm not sure if you were able to see

38:31any of the slides, but we do have uh

38:34four items

38:38um have um that we provide service for,

38:41but we don't have individual fees that

38:44we would be

38:47um provide a new fee for. Um and that

38:55for our conditional use verification

38:58letters. Um a site plan that is not

39:01related to a variance or

39:04so a site plan review um that uh we need

39:08to document. Um we have the con

39:14that presently was um packaged elsewhere

39:16but has since been drawn out to its own

39:19thing. And then finally, we

39:23under the plat review committee, the

39:25final subdivision plat for four lots or

39:27less um out of just the straight uh

39:32fee for that smaller uh subdivision plat

39:37uh versus the standard um per lot

39:41for uh uh presently for subdivision

39:44plats. And so that would be it. This is

39:46just a cursory item to update you all.

39:50uh a heads up about um uh some briefing

39:54material that I'll be sending out and uh

39:56offering related

39:59that are coming forward to council

40:00including uh the short-term rental

40:02amendment that was at planning

40:04commission last evening um as well as

40:08um survey data uh that we would be

40:11asking council uh to take up in

40:13November. And with that that

40:17I apologize for not being able to be

40:18there in person uh today.

40:21>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Somefield.

40:23Just your your audio was going in and

40:25out, but I think we got the gist of it

40:26and we did see the slides. So, thank you

40:28for that.

40:30Any comments on that agenda item?

40:34>> Only point is Thank you, um, Robert, and

40:38hope your son's okay. Um the the idea

40:42here is not we're not just trying to

40:44ding people on this. I mean we we need

40:46to cover our costs and actually state

40:49law doesn't allow us to charge more than

40:51what our direct costs are. So all we're

40:54trying to do is keep up. Um and a lot of

40:57these fees have never been haven't been

40:59touched for years. Inflation's picked

41:02up. So we're really just trying to

41:04rightsize it. Um and and that's the the

41:07exercise we've gone through here.

41:11Okay. Any uh final comments from anybody

41:13in the committee? If not,

41:17um public comments are done, ma'am. But

41:20uh

41:23Okay. All right. All right. We'll stand

41:26a journ. Thanks.