Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses Bailey bill implementation, 227 N. Memorial historic‑preservation assessment
Summary
Council members debated whether county action under the Bailey bill requires a separate county historic preservation commission or can defer to the city's committee; applicant Scott Lockwood described a proposed rehabilitation of 227 North Memorial and said the project exceeds the 50% improvement threshold.
Council discussion on May 6 centered on how Colleton County should implement the so‑called Bailey bill historic‑preservation assessment process and on a pending project at 227 North Memorial in Walterboro.
A council member said the draft ordinance contains references that appear to apply to municipalities (Title 5) rather than counties (Title 4) and questioned whether the county must establish its own historic preservation commission to administer assessments. The member noted the county’s authority is codified under Title 4 and referenced Section 4‑9‑195 in the state code as part of the inquiry. The council member requested legal review and clarifications before third reading and suggested the county may need a separate committee or an agreed process to defer to city determinations.
Applicant Scott Lockwood, who identified himself as the project applicant for 227 North Memorial, told the council the building was formerly Dr. Ackerman’s office (built circa 1910) and is in Walterboro’s historic district. Lockwood said the city’s historic preservation committee and the Walterboro City Council had already approved the project; he said the planned rehabilitation would involve investment “about 6 to 7 times the purchase price” and that the project exceeds the Bailey bill’s 50% minimum improvement threshold. He said the planned expenditures are roughly $354,000.
Council members and residents discussed practical questions that remain to be resolved by county staff and counsel: which statutory sections should be cited in the county ordinance, whether the county can or should defer to the city’s historic preservation committee for determinations that fall within the municipal historic district, which entity performs building inspections and expenditure verifications, and what the county application form and workflow should look like when a developer applies for the assessment freeze.
No final county decision or vote on a county historic preservation commission was recorded at the meeting; a council member said staff would seek clarifications and likely discuss details in a later session before third reading. The council also indicated it may place related items on a partial executive-session agenda and continue working with legal counsel to make statutory references consistent with county authority.
