City council rams through bill allowing it to dodge its own design board

The fox apparently isn’t guarding all of the henhouses off peninsular Charleston.

Thanks to some creative, surprise legislation by Charleston City Council, the city has a new level of authority over its own building projects anywhere off the peninsula. Unlike projects by private developers, the city no longer — at least for now — has to get the nod from its own Design Review Board on its own building projects. Some describe what’s happening as a sneaky proposal, apparently pushed by Mayor William Cogswell who sets council’s agenda, rushed through with little prior notice.

At the Feb. 10 council meeting, members unanimously approved the first reading of a bill that allows city-led projects to circumvent the design review process that other developers are subject to. And in a twist, the ordinance was written in such a way to take effect immediately — before the traditional second and third readings.

“All of the peninsula is completely covered by a massive level of design review,” West Ashley Realtor Charlie Smith told the Charleston City Paper. “But as soon as you cross the bridge, all you have is the DRB.”

The Design Review Board (DRB) is a city-council-appointed group of volunteer citizen professionals that reviews development proposals that can change neighborhoods.

Smith said a different group, the now-defunct West Ashley Revitalization Commission (WARC), and other local advocates have been fighting for years to get more design control across the non-peninsular areas of Charleston to better preserve historic homes and landscapes.

But Charleston City Councilman Ross Appel said the review board’s subjective critiques can slow down critical developments.

“There’s an increasing acknowledgement that our current practices for design review are time-consuming, unpredictable and subjective,” he said this week in an interview. “It’s one thing when that is being applied to traditional private development, but it’s another when it’s being applied to the city itself.”

Advocates pushing back

Charleston Preservation Society advocate Anna-Catherine Alexander spoke out against the bill at the Feb. 10 meeting.

“We do not feel that we have seen or heard adequate justification for such a big change at this time,” she said. “We have seen no real examples where city projects have been slowed down by this process, and we fundamentally believe that design review has served the public interest in Charleston for years.

“To exempt the city from its own process for its own purpose undermines itself … and it sends a concerning message about the city’s faith in its own appointed commissions.”

The bill received only two public comments at the Feb. 10 meeting — and no discussion from council. The city of Charleston first introduced the bill at a Feb. 5 Community Development Committee meeting, where it also garnered little attention. It is unclear if any individual is pushing the bill, but it would be unlikely to get on the agenda to be considered without Cogswell’s support.

Wording concerns advocates

The bill includes a single line that has advocates even more concerned: “Pending Ordinance Doctrine applies to this first reading.”

“Under [the Pending Ordinance Doctrine], we would follow the language as passed by council during the first reading,” city spokesperson Deja Knight McMillan told the Charleston City Paper. “If the language is modified or the bill fails, we would complete the process for any projects submitted within the window created between first reading and the amendment or denial as under the first read language.”

This means that as of its proposal’s first reading on Feb. 10, the bill is now in effect — even without a second reading to make the bill official law. Any projects that begin under this bill’s wording would be allowed to be completed under it, even if the ordinance fails or is amended later.

Several opponents now say that the language of the bill appears intentionally vague to keep people from raising eyebrows, while Smith said that the bottom line is the city wanted more control over West Ashley development.

“It’s all interconnected,” Smith said. “Cogswell, from the time that he was sworn in, canceled every single WARC meeting. He’s done it long enough that everybody’s terms expired, so we have no voice whatsoever, and now they’re taking this away from us, too.”

Change of plans

Appel isn’t the only one who noticed the DRB’s subjective nature. Former WARC member Kenneth Marolda said the WARC had been pushing for more robust design guidelines and more objective standards for review.

“There was just too much left to arbitrary chance or preference of the committee members,” he said. “There was no source of standardization, so you ended up with decisions that were unpredictable. The way we were supposed to tackle that was by creating design guidelines to expedite the planning process.”

But the city’s move to expedite it for themselves is a complete reversal of the WARC’s recommendations, he added.

Some say the bill appears to stem from a city-led project to build a new fire station in the West Ashley Circle across Glenn McConnell Parkway from the Walmart. The project was denied by the DRB for being “overdesigned,” and too “grandiose,” Appel said, adding that the board felt it didn’t fit West Ashley’s character.

“This would be the nicest fire station anywhere,” Appel said. “It’s not just some half-assed ugly building. … It just goes to show how subjective this stuff can be, and we’re not just going to let this board delay critical infrastructure projects. At a certain point, we have to trust the mayor and his entire team to do good things.”

It should be noted that even if the Design Review Board says no to a project, city council can override its decisions.

But the bill’s opponents aren’t certain that’s good enough.

“There is an element of faith and trust that the city is going to build something that’s nice, so we shouldn’t fight it,” Marolda said. “There is no mechanism in the law to codify that elements related to the character of the surrounding area will be considered and incorporated into whatever project we’re talking about.”

An uncertain future

Members of the Charleston Planning Commission heard public comments and held discussion about the bill at its Feb. 18 meeting. Several people expressed concern and confusion at its quick passage. It is not typical for the commission to only hear of a bill after its first reading, and even less so for it to have already taken effect.

“The Planning Commission was shocked and concerned that they were hearing about this for the first time and action had already been taken without substantive discussion,” Alexander said.

Ultimately, the commission recommended against passing the bill. But it may be too late. The bill’s second reading was deferred from the Feb. 24 council meeting, and council is expected to take it back up March 24, instead, giving the city more than a month to begin projects under the Pending Ordinance Doctrine.

“I don’t know what the hell they’re up to, but this is about the sneakiest thing I’ve seen them do in a while,” Smith said.