Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers Grantham Homes settlement after public preservation concerns
Summary
Council deferred action on a proposed settlement in Grantham Homes LLC v. Charleston County after public commenters and council members urged more time to consider historic preservation implications and a pending appeal to the planning commission decision was referenced.
Public commenters and council members urged Charleston County Council to delay action on a proposed settlement with Grantham Homes LLC, which opponents say would undermine a recent Historic Preservation Commission decision.
Filippo Ravalico of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project urged council to "deny or at least defer the vote on the proposed settlement, with Grant and Holmes," saying the settlement would undermine the county’s recently revised preservation ordinance and comprehensive plan. "Accepting or condoning bad and biased legal advice is not good government," Ravalico said, and asked the council not to approve the settlement.
Vice Chair Kobrowski said the area in question — described in public comments as part of the 10 Mile historic settlement communities — deserves preservation similar to the city’s historic areas south of Calhoun and Broad. "I would urge the other council members to consider that what's at stake in 10 mile in the historic settlement communities is just as worthy of protection," Kobrowski said, and asked council to respect the decisions of appointed commissions.
At least one council member asked procedural questions about whether there were two separate legal challenges in play — an appeal of a Planning Commission denial and a separate subdivision approval — and whether approving the settlement would affect the other proceeding. Council members said the matters are separate but related and that they needed more information before approving a settlement.
Council then voted to defer the matter until the next council meeting. The motion to defer was moved and seconded on the record and the chair called for a voice vote; the item was deferred. The transcript does not record the names of the mover and the seconder in the public record excerpts provided.
The transcript includes references to a pending appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and to the county’s newly revised preservation ordinance and comprehensive plan. Council did not vote to approve the settlement at this meeting.
