Charleston City committee reviews Design Review Board process, asks staff for three reform proposals

The Charleston City Community Development Committee on April 16 heard a staff presentation on the Design Review Board’s (DRB) role across the city and asked staff to develop three priority changes to speed redevelopment and clarify demolition review.

City planning staffer Mr. Summerfield told the committee the DRB reviews most commercial corridors outside the main peninsula — including West Ashley, Johns and James Island, Daniel Island and Cainhoy — and that recent ordinance changes put properties in the West Ashley Redevelopment TIF on a staff-level review track to speed redevelopment. “This is all just a reminder of kind of the objectives,” Mr. Summerfield said, summarizing current DRB responsibilities and recent success stories such as major shopping-center redevelopments and updated grocery anchors.

The presentation noted a funded historic-structure survey focused on West Ashley (properties from 1966 and older were surveyed due to budget constraints), with 460 architectural resources surveyed so far and results expected to be presented to the DRB and City Council in late summer or early fall. Staff said they are proposing clearer criteria for what qualifies as a “historic” structure so that properties that do not meet that higher bar can move more quickly through the demolition and redevelopment process.

Committee members repeatedly criticized a blanket 50-year age trigger for demolition review as too blunt for West Ashley’s revitalization goals. One member likened the rule to a one-size-fits-all metric and urged replacing the blanket age test with a targeted list of sites identified by the ongoing survey. Staff and others identified the 50-year benchmark as originating from Secretary of the Interior/National Park Service guidance used for National Register consideration, but said local criteria could refine how that trigger is applied.

The committee also discussed the DRB’s goals of balancing aesthetic and historic preservation with incentives for reinvestment. Members suggested procedural changes — including fewer review stages or clearer, form-based zoning standards for redevelopment corridors — to reduce unpredictability and soft costs that slow projects. The mayor urged staff to “challenge staff with maybe perhaps three modifications” that could be piloted to expedite the process and signal commitment to West Ashley revitalization; staff agreed to prepare options for the committee in the summer.

During the meeting the committee approved the prior meeting’s minutes by voice vote after a motion and second; the verbal vote was recorded as “ayes” with no names or counts provided for mover, seconder or tally.

Public commenters raised related concerns. Anthony G. Bryant, who identified himself as president of A. G. Bryant Group, Inc., urged attention to how redevelopment and proposed fees could affect low-income African American residents and made broader claims about federal program rules and local impacts. Jerome Harris urged the committee to hold more deliberation on proposed MUWH3 amendments and to allow broader public comment before the April 27 council meeting. Thomas Orth submitted a written statement for the record but did not speak live.

The committee did not take formal action on DRB policy changes at the April 16 meeting. Staff committed to return with a short list of recommended modifications and with survey results later in the summer; the committee will consider the proposals and next steps at a future meeting.