Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends countywide historic-preservation ordinance back to committee after intense public pushback
Summary
After hours of public comment warning of unintended takings, notice and opt-in problems, Beaufort County Council voted to return a proposed countywide historic-preservation ordinance to the Natural Resources Committee for further work.
Beaufort County Council voted on June 22 to return a draft historic-preservation ordinance to the Natural Resources Committee after a lengthy public hearing in which residents, preservation professionals and developers urged major revisions.
Speakers raised concerns that the draft ordinance allowed involuntary local historic designation without property-owner consent, lacked clear opt-in or opt-out procedures, and might expose the county to takings and other legal challenges. Eric Berman (speaker 11), who said he serves on a municipal historic review board and runs a local development firm, told the council the ordinance as drafted risked displacing long-time residents and would impose costly material and maintenance requirements on working-class homeowners. “If the county moves forward with a preservation program, a strict voluntary opt-in provision is the only way to protect our citizens' rights,” he said.
Felice LaMarca (speaker 10) and others asked for specific legal analyses of takings and due-process risk, a clarified owner-notice mechanism, a required property-owner signature for individual designation, and a quantified cost-benefit comparison of CLG (Certified Local Government) eligibility versus ongoing administrative and litigation expenses. Planning staff said the county’s ordinance has existed in some form for decades and staff had recommended updates to align with state guidance and CLG eligibility, but acknowledged additional questions and materials were raised at the meeting.
Council members debated whether the ordinance needed more work, and ultimately voted to send it back to Natural Resources so staff can provide more information and consider the technical changes requested by commenters.
What happens next: The ordinance will return to the Natural Resources Committee for rework and more detailed staff responses to legal, procedural and notification questions; council indicated it expects additional documentation before reconsidering any second-reading action.
