Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local board urges members to submit comments on draft Section 106 rule; counsel cautions about official advocacy
Summary
Board members expressed concern that an Advisory Council draft rule would narrow what qualifies as historic property and reduce adverse-effect review; members encouraged letters to the Advisory Council while county counsel advised caution about taking an official county position until the rule language is published.
Board members raised alarms about a draft proposed rule from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that, as presented, would narrow protections under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by limiting the definition of "historic" largely to geographically compact buildings and excluding some landscapes and sacred places. The board chair summarized the change as a draft that "weakens the regulations that support historic preservation" and urged members and interested citizens to submit comments directly to the Advisory Council.
A county staff attorney cautioned that while individuals may submit letters in their personal capacity, the board does not have authority to speak on behalf of St. Johns County without first reviewing the published rule language and assessing implications for the county’s certified-local-government status. Members cited local examples — the Castillo (fort grounds), Bridge of Lions, and beachfront historic properties — as places that could be affected if landscapes and settings lose protection. The chair offered a template for individuals but recommended personalized letters to the Advisory Council once the rule is published in the Federal Register (public comment period expected once formal notice appears).
