[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:02]
NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY, UM, ON MONDAY, MAY 4TH, 2026 TO ORDER.
AND IF YOU WOULD RISE WITH ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, APPRECIATE THAT.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC ATION UNDER GOD.
INVISIBLE LI JUSTICE, JUSTICE FOR, HEY, UM, A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.
EVERYTHING HAS BEEN, UH, SENT OUT AND NOTIFIED, AND YES, SIR, IT HAS.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
THE CHAIR WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS OUTLINED.THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
OH, I'M SORRY TO, TO ANNOUNCE THAT.
UM, UM, YOU HAVE AT, AT THIS MEETING WE HAVE TODAY, UM, UH, THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE IN PERSON, AND WE HAVE ONE, UM, ON ZOOM.
MR. MCKELLEN, UM, WELCOME BACK.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL THE SIXTH, 2026.IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOTION AND SECONDED BY MR. DAWSON.
AND, AND MR. PASSMAN, THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
IT IS UNANIMOUS WITH MR. MCALLEN'S.
UM, WE'RE DOWN TO, UH, THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS BODY, UM, ON TOPICS, UH, ON ANY TOPICS TO COME FORWARD.
AT THIS TIME, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WE ASK THAT YOU, UM, BE RESPECTFUL TO EVERYONE IN THE ROOM.
UH, WE ASK THAT YOU BE RESPECTFUL TO, UM, THE CHAIR IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE YOU SHOULD BE ADDRESSING THE CHAIR.
AND THAT, UM, UM, IF WE HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP AT THIS TIME, NO.
UM,
OH, IS THERE AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, COMING FORWARD? NOBODY, I THINK THERE WAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE AT THIS TIME, UH, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR MAKING A REPORT.
I THINK THAT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
[7.a. An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code (CDC): Table 3.1.60 (Consolidated Use Table), Table 3.2.40. H (T2R Allowed Uses), and Division 4.1 (Specific to Use) (FISCAL IMPACT: ) - Robert Merchant, AICP, Beaufort County Planning and Zoning Department]
TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.UM, AND THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR AN AUDIENCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
TABLE 3.1 0.6, WHICH IS CONSOLIDATING USE TABLE, TABLE, TABLE 3.2 0.4, UM, H-T-R-H-T TWO R, ALLOWED USE AND VISION 4.1 SPECIAL USE.
UM, SO THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT.
UM, MR. PASSMAN AND MRS. TABER SECOND.
IT, UM, AT THIS TIME WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. MERCHANT AT THIS TIME.
WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, WE WERE APPROACHED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS BY THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY TO PLAN FOR FUTURE SCHOOL SITES.
AND CURRENTLY IN T TWO RURAL, WHICH MAKES UP A, YOU KNOW, PRETTY GOOD PORTION OF THE COUNTY SCHOOLS ARE NOT AT PERMITTED USE.
UM, AND SO WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING WAS A POSSIBLE, UH, TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CODE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A PATH FORWARD TO ALLOW FOR SCHOOLS IN RURAL AREAS.
WE WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BACK AND FORTH TO DETERMINE, UH, HOW TO ADD THAT TO THE T TWO RURAL DISTRICT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE A USE TABLE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S USES THAT ARE PERMITTED, AND THAT BASICALLY MEANS IF YOU MEET THE STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, OF THE DISTRICT AND OF THE CODES, THEN THAT USE IS PERMITTED.
IF, UM, IT'S CONDITIONAL, THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S A SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE HAS AN ADDITIONAL SET OF STANDARDS FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE IN THAT DISTRICT.
IF THOSE ARE FOLLOWED, AND THAT'S ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S PERMITTED, UM, TO THE NEXT LEVEL UP.
AND THIS IS FOR USES THAT WERE, ARE LIKELY TO HAVE A GREATER IMPACT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ALL AREAS WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED A SPECIAL USE.
[00:05:01]
THAT IS, IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GENERAL CRITERIA FOR WHAT A SPECIAL, WHAT CONSTITUTES A SPECIAL USE, THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO, TO SHOW FOR THAT USE.UH, AND THEN IT GOES BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
AND SO THAT BOARD HAS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE.
UH, WE DETERMINE KIND OF WORKING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALSO, UM, THROUGH INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IF THEY WERE TO ALLOW SCHOOLS IN RURAL, THAT THE BEST APPROACH WOULD BE TO HAVE IT A SPECIAL USE.
AND WHAT THAT WOULD ALLOW IS THAT THE SCHOOL, AND IT DOES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROS AND CONS, BUT IT, IT ALLOWS FOR, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY TODAY AND 10 YEARS FROM NOW THEY DE DECIDE TO DEVELOP A SCHOOL, THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC PROCESS.
SO WHEN IT GOES TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AT THAT POINT, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE NOTIFIED.
IT'LL BE IN THE PAPER AND PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THAT BOARD AND, AND MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IN ADDITION, WHAT THIS, UM, THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES SOME SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT WOULD REQUIRE IF THERE IS A SCHOOL LOCATED IN T TWO RURAL, THAT THEY'D BE WITHIN 500 FEET OF EXISTING SEWER, WHICH IS A BIG THING IN OUR RURAL AREA BECAUSE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESTRICTS THE EXTENSION OF SEWER, UH, IN, IN RURAL AREAS.
IT'S ALSO, I IMPORT IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE THREE ALREADY THREE SCHOOL SITES IN RURAL AREA, IN AREA ZONE T TWO RURAL, UM, OKT ELEMENTARY, SHANKLIN, AND, UM, WHALE BRANCH, EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL.
UM, SO THOSE THREE SITES ARE NON-CONFORMING.
SO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD, WOULD ALLOW, IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND INTO THE FUTURE, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GO BEYOND THE 15% OR THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN, YOU KNOW, FOR NON-CONFORMING USES IN THE CODE.
SO, UM, SO STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THEM.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS STILL MEETS THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
AND, UM, ALSO I WILL MENTION THAT WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
WOULD THEY LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? HAPPY TO ANSWER.
UM, ANY QUESTION, MR. PASSMAN? YES, I, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE DO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
FIRST, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE OR CODE OF ORDINANCE.
IT IS REQUIRED BY CHANGE CONDITIONS.
IT DOES A ADDRESS, A DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR WOULD IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY AMONG THE USES AND ENSURE EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COUNTY.
IT WOULD RESULT IN A LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
IS PROPERTY MOTION AND SECOND, UH, BEFORE THE, UM, THIS WENT BEFORE THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION AND UH, THEY VOTED, UM, 7 5 2.
WAS IT FIVE TWO? YEAH, I THINK IT WAS FIVE TO TWO.
FIVE TWO, UM, UM, FOR APPROVAL.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, SARAH? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS IF THAT'S OKAY.
DOES THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE ANY PROPERTY IN MIND AT THIS POINT? IS THAT WHY WE'RE CHANGING THIS? UM, WELL, I THINK THEY COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, ROBERT OTTING, UH, CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
UM, YES, SPECIFICALLY, WE DO HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN MIND.
UH, AT THIS TIME IT'S WHAT WE CALL, UH, THE CHERRY POINT PROPERTY ACROSS CHERRY POINT FROM MOCA TI ELEMENTARY.
THERE'S ABOUT 70 ACRES THAT WE HAVE IN MIND.
IF YOU REMEMBER, UH, THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT TO YOU AND, AND FORM A DEV, A DEVELOPER, AND A LOT OF THE, UM, COMMENTS FROM THE, UH, AUDIENCE WHERE THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PURCHASING THAT PIECE.
AND SO THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND HOW SOON DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE SCHOOL THERE? SO, UH, ANYTHING? FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS.
UM, I CAN TELL YOU AT A MINIMAL IT WOULD BE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OUT.
[00:10:01]
SPECIFIC SCHOOL AT THIS TIME IN MIND FOR THAT PROPERTY.UM, WE'RE LOOKING FOR POSSIBILITIES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND EVEN WE COULDN'T DO IT IN LESS THAN FIVE YEARS RIGHT NOW.
SO FIVE TO 10 YEAR TIMELINE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NO PROBLEMS. ROB, I HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
I THINK YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO ANSWER.
SO HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE NORMAL ZONING FOR T TWO TO A SPECIAL GRANT FOR SPECIAL USE FOR SCHOOLS? HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE NORMAL ZONING? IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ANY OTHER USES IN THE DISTRICT.
IT BASICALLY MEANS THAT IN THE USE TABLE, SCHOOLS WOULD BE LISTED WITH AN S, MEANING THERE'S SPECIAL USE, SO, OH, OKAY.
SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO BUILD, I MEAN, SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD THEN LOOK, IT WOULD HAVE A REFERENCE TO THE SECTION IN ARTICLE FOUR THAT HAS THE STANDARDS FOR, UM, FOR THE, THE DISTANCE FROM SEWER AND THERE'S SOME TIA REQUIREMENTS.
AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO DIRECT YOU TO ARTICLE SEVEN, WHICH HAS THE SPECIAL USE STANDARDS IN THAT.
SO IF THE SCHOOL'S ALLOWED TO THE SPECIAL USE ZONING, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DECIDE TO SELL THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD THAT DOES, DOES THAT CONVEY WITH IT? WELL, THE SPECIAL USE, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHERE IT USED TO BE.
IT WOULD HAVE TO, WELL, THE SPECIAL USE IS SPECIFIC TO THE, THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
SO IF THEY BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY TODAY, THEY WOULDN'T BE SEEKING THE SPECIAL USE TILL, TILL THEY WERE READY TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
SO, UH, AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF RISK FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
'CAUSE THE SPECIAL USE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, ZBOA COULD TURN IT DOWN.
I MEAN, THERE'S ALWAYS THAT RISK.
YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE TIMES THEY'RE DOING THINGS LIKE ADDING CONDITIONS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE IMPACTS OF THE SITE.
BUT WHEN, IF THEY WERE SEEKING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED A SPECIAL USE, IT WOULD ONLY BE SPECIFIC TO THAT SITE PLAN.
SO IF THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE AND THEY WANTED TO BUILD A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCHOOL, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND GET ANOTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, UM, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND IS UNANIMOUS.
UM, THEN ROB, ROB, YOU CAN STAY RIGHT THERE.
YOU GUYS CAN GO
OH, YOU WANT? OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
[7.b. An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code (CDC): Division 5.10 (Historic Preservation), Section 7.2.120 (Certificate Of Appropriateness), Section 7.3.80 (Historic Designation), Section 7.4.50 (Public Hearing Scheduling and Notice), and Section 7.5.40 (Historic Preservation Review Board (Hprb)). (FISCAL IMPACT: ) - Robert Merchant, AICP, Beaufort County Planning and Zoning Department]
UM, SEVEN D UH, AN AUDIENCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, THE HISTORIC, UM, CODE DIVISION FIVE POINT 10, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UM, THE SECTION 7.2 0.1 20, UH, CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATENESS AND SECTION 7.3 0.8 HISTORICAL DESIGNATION AND SECTION 7.4 POINT 50 PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE AND NOTICE.AND SECTION SEVEN, 1.4 7.5 0.4, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, UH, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PUT THAT ON THE TABLE.
AND THE PROPERTY MOTION IS SECONDED, UH, AT THIS TIME.
AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THIS IS THE KIND OF ROUND TWO FOR THIS, THIS, UM, PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
UH, WE BROUGHT FORWARD SOMETHING LAST SPRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE IN SEPTEMBER, GOT FIRST AND SECOND READING.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT, SOME CONCERNS AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE WERE BROUGHT UP.
AND THE STAFF, WE DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO TAKE TIME TO LOOK AT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WORK WITH THE, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WORK WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, AND DETERMINE THE BEST COURSE FORWARD AND, AND, YOU KNOW, INCORPORATING THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE.
WE'VE, WE'VE REDRAFTED UH, THE LIST OF AMENDMENTS COMING FORWARD.
THESE HAVE BEEN VETTED WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
WE DID MEET WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAD, WHO, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT UP CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, THIS DISTRICT.
THIS ALSO RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MARCH MEETING.
[00:15:01]
WE ARE.IT WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR, UM, APRIL, UH, I THINK IT'S APRIL 6TH MEETING, AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO RECOMMEND THIS TO COUNCIL.
I WANTED TO START OUT JUST AS, UM, KIND OF SOME BACKGROUND HERE THAT BEAUFORT COUNTY HAS HAD A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FOR THE LAST 36 YEARS.
WE ADOPTED ONE WHEN THE COUNTY ADOPTED ITS FIRST ZONING ORDINANCE IN 1990.
AND THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE HAD A LIST OF IDENTIFIED HISTORIC SITES IN IT THAT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ORDINANCE.
IN THE LATE NINETIES, THE COUNTY UNDERWENT A HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY OR ABOVE GROUND SURVEY.
AND IN 1999 WHEN WE ADOPTED THE, THE, THE SECOND BEAUFORT COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, IT WAS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE SITES THAT WERE IN THAT ABOVE GROUND SURVEY.
SO IT WENT FROM A HANDFUL OF, UH, NATIONAL REGISTER SITES TO THE ABOVE GROUND SURVEY.
AND THAT PARTICULAR FORM OF THE ORDINANCES HAS CONTINUED TO THIS DAY.
IT, IT WAS READOPTED IN OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE, THE, UM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND, UM, AND SO BASICALLY I KINDA LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF HOW THAT'S BEEN ENFORCED.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE KIND OF PIONEERS IN COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA FOR, UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
CHARLESTON HAS THE OLDEST ORDINANCE, I THINK IT'S, HAS, HAS HAD ITS A HUNDRED YEAR ANNIVERSARY.
UM, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO STATE THAT THIS IS, THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT NEARLY AS RIGOROUS AND EXTENSIVE AS THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, THE CITY OF BEAUFORT, OR THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON, BECAUSE THIS ONLY APPLIES TO UNINCORPORATED BEAUFORT COUNTY.
AND THERE ARE SCATTERED 38 SITES AROUND THE COUNTY THAT ARE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A, YOU KNOW, A COMPARISON WHERE SOME OF THESE OTHER DISTRICTS HAVE HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE, THE, YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEARS OF, OF ENFORCING THIS ORDINANCE, IT'S BASICALLY BEEN MORE COLLABORATIVE THAN CONFRONTATIONAL.
YOU KNOW, THAT WE'VE, UM, MOST OF THESE SITES ARE KNOWN HISTORIC SITES ARE OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
AND, YOU KNOW, SO SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE BLOCKER STORE ON ST.
HELENA, THAT'S THE LOW COUNTRY SIDE, OR YOU KNOW, THAT WAS AN OLD COUNTRY STORE.
THAT WAS A NON-CONFORMING USE.
WE WORKED WITH THE OWNER AND ALSO WITH OPEN LAND TRUST WHO BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, UM, TO, TO DEVELOP THAT SITE.
UM, FIRST UNION, AFRICAN BAPTIST CHURCH ON DUSKY, THEY BUILT A FELLOWSHIP HALL, UM, UH, FORT FREMONT HISTORY CENTER.
MANY OF YOU'VE BEEN OUT TO FORT FREMONT.
THAT MODERN BUILDING NEXT TO THE RUINS, YOU KNOW, WAS SOMETHING THAT WENT THROUGH THAT BOARD.
PENN CENTER, WE'VE DONE A VE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THERE, BRICK BAPTIST.
SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF AN, UH, AN IDEA OF SOME OF THE PROJECTS.
IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A RUNNING JOKE OF ANYONE WHO STAFFS THAT BOARD IS THAT THEY MEET MAYBE ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT NEARLY THE VOLUME THAT SOME OF THESE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE.
SO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT BACKGROUND THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE.
WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, ENFORCING IT.
IT'S NOT TO THE LE YOU KNOW, YOU HEAR ABOUT DRAMA THAT GOES ON IN THE CITY OF BEAUFORT AND DISAGREEMENTS.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT SAME DYNAMIC HERE.
AND WITH THAT, UM, WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED, BECAUSE WE ARE UPDATING OUR ABOVE GROUND HISTORIC, UH, INVENTORY, WHICH IS MORE THAN 20 YEARS OLD, IS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE FEDERAL, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE, UM, THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALSO IN OUR STATE, UH, CODE REGULATION THAT IT'S CALLED CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
AND IT LET, IT'S SETS OUT GUIDELINES FOR HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD THEY, UM, HAVE AN ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, THAT REGULATES HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT, THAT THEY SHOULD FOLLOW.
AND WE LEARNED THAT WE WERE LACKING IN A FEW AREAS.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT IN OUR CODES CURRENTLY, WE TALK ABOUT OUR ABOVE GROUND HISTORIC SURVEY.
WE TALK ABOUT NATIONAL REGISTER SITES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OFFICIAL LOCAL INVENTORY.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED IS THAT WE, AND I SAY WE, BUT REALLY AS COUNTY COUNCIL DESIGNATES WHAT STRUCTURES ARE IN THAT INVENTORY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY
[00:20:01]
HAVEN'T DONE THE RIGHT WAY, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG DIFFERENCES IN WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU TODAY.ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT ONCE, IF THIS IS ADOPTED, WE'RE ON COMPLETE RESET AND, AND YOU KNOW, SO THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE IN PLACE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO STRUCTURES IN THAT LOCAL INVENTORY.
SO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE WORKING WITH OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD TO COME WITH, COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, SO MOST LIKELY THOSE WOULD INCLUDE OUR 38 NATIONAL REGISTER SITES, SO SITES THAT ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC.
AND THEN FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD WORK, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BOARD AND, AND DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER ADDITIONAL PROJECTS SHOULD COME FORWARD.
SO THAT'S JUST SOME BACKGROUND.
UH, THE ORDINANCE, UM, IT'S, IT'S COMPLICATED AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT COVERS A LOT OF THINGS, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE ANY TEMPLATE ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF TOUCH ALL THE BASES.
I WILL MENTION THAT WE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES FROM THE LAST TIME.
UM, SOME REALLY GOOD CATCHES WERE, THERE WAS LANGUAGE ABOUT INTERIORS OF BUILDINGS.
WE HAVE NEVER REGULATED INTERIORS OF BUILDINGS.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING APPROPRIATE FOR, YOU KNOW, A NATIONAL PARK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, RESTORING A, A, A STRUCTURE.
BUT I DON'T THINK COUNCIL WANTS TO GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
UM, THERE WE CLEARED UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT DEALT WITH, UM, BUILDING CODES SO THAT WE WERE MAKING SURE THAT WE REFERENCED THE SPECIFIC BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND NOT DUPLICATING LANGUAGE IN THE CODE.
THAT COULD LEAD TO SOME CONFUSION.
WE'VE, UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE SET UP.
UH, BUT ALL OF THIS WAS, WE KIND OF WORKED WITH THE LIST OF COMMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US AND WITH THE STATE, WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
AND I, WITH THAT, RATHER THAN GO LINE BY LINE WITH THE ORDINANCE, I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ADDRESS QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
NO, UM, APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
UM, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE, UH, THE LANGUAGE THAT'S NECESSARY FOR A, UH, CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? YES.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO APPLY FOR, UM, UH, ANY KIND OF FEDERAL FUNDS, UM, WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
AND, AND ACTUALLY THAT'S HOW WE FIRST FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, IS WE WERE LOOKING AT SOME GRANT OPPORTUNITIES TO REALIZE THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
NUMBER ONE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOLD'S OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE CODE OF ORDINANCE.
IT IS REQUIRED BY CHANGE CONDITIONS.
IT DOES ADDRESS A DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
OR IT WOULD IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY AMONG USES AND ENSURE EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COUNTY.
IT WOULD RESULT IN A LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AND IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I'LL SECOND IT.
HE'S BEEN PULLED MOTION AND, AND, AND SECONDED, UH, WITH THE CONDITION THAT MR. PASSMAN HAS OUTLINED.
UM, ANY QUESTION, THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
AND THAT EXHAUSTED OUR AGENDA.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT'S GOOD FOR THE CAUSE AT THIS TIME? IF NOT, WE ADJOURN.