Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances voluntary BAR purview amendment after mixed public comment; one dissent noted
Summary
City council took items 4–9 together and advanced the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) voluntary purview amendment (item 5) to second and third readings; preservation groups and neighborhood presidents urged the change, one public speaker criticized advocacy groups, and Council member Bowden recorded a ‘nay’ on the final voice vote.
Charleston City Council on Oct. 28 advanced an amendment to the Board of Architectural Review process that would allow applicants to opt into BAR purview when seeking demolition approval, giving the BAR the option to review proposed follow‑on alterations as part of demolition applications.
City staff and council members described the amendment as voluntary and intended to give BAR members more context when considering partial demolitions so they may better assess what will replace removed fabric. Mr. Morgan summarized multiple items on the public‑hearing calendar and described the BAR amendment as developed with neighborhood input from Wagner Terrace, Hampton Park Terrace and North Central.
Public comment reflected a split. Jeffrey Stass urged skepticism, calling some advocacy groups ‘‘pay for play’’ and arguing that voluntary language may be voluntary in name only; Lisa Jones, director of advocacy at the Historic Charleston Foundation, called the amendment "100% voluntary" and said it helps the BAR and neighbors visualize proposed changes without adding regulation. Several neighborhood presidents, including Steven Rosenberg and Kevin Eberly, voiced support and said the amendment was a local, grassroots compromise.
Council debated the measure and emphasized its voluntary character; a motion was made to take items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 for second reading and to move item 5 forward for second and third reading. The transcript records a voice vote carrying with ‘‘all eyes but one’’ and a recorded note that Council member Bowden voted nay on item 5.
The council framed the amendment as a tool for better information, not as a new compulsory power; staff and advocates said it would not change the requirements for applicants who choose not to opt in.
Next steps recorded in the meeting are procedural: advancing the item for subsequent readings so council may finalize or refine the amendment at a later meeting.
