►
From YouTube: Aiken Design Review Board Meeting: September 5, 2017
Description
Watch the livestream of the Aiken Design Review Board Meeting, September 5, 2017
A
A
B
B
B
C
D
B
B
And
we
already
know
that
it
is
part
of
the
survey
as
a
historic
property,
so
that
certainly
qualifies
and
and
of
course
we
have-
we
have
a
lot
of
information,
that's
been
submitted
and
we've
all
toured
the
property
I
believe
all
of
us
have
I'll
go
ahead
then,
and
ask
the
architect
a
representative
of
the
African.
If
he
would
come
forward
and
we'll
see
if
we
have
any
other
questions.
F
I
think
we
pretty
much
covered
everything
I
understand
the
sensitivity
about
you,
know,
sort
of
defining
this
and
and
we've
done
everything
in
good
faith,
and
you
know
really
responding
to
the
package
that
you
know
the
state
initiated
and
so
forth.
So
we
do
understand.
You
know
the
issue
about
the
garage,
but
it
was
really
intended
to
and
it
had
been
a
real
sticking
point
in
the
sale
of
the
house,
so
he's
not
doing
it
necessary
for
resale
value.
But
you
know
really
just
for
his
own
cars.
F
He
has
had
problems
with
people
damaging
the
cars
and
so
forth,
and
he
is,
is
a
good
reference
for
whoever's
interested
in
the
security-camera
type
things
because
he's
actually
initiated
one
of
those
and
anxious
to
sort
of
get
some
of
this
done.
But
we
appreciate
your
sensitivity
to
the
issue
and
we're
trying
to
really
respond
to
the
parameters
of
the
package.
F
G
G
F
F
F
B
F
Also
for
the
packages
I
apologize
I'm,
not
sure
that
special
tax
assessment,
for
you
know
that
designation,
it's
all
should
it
ever
be
removed.
It's
you
know
one
of
the
other
items
in
the
in
the
description
or
this
I
don't
want
to
call
it
this
this
package
or
whatever
you
you
know
the
state's
package.
They
also
request
that
anything
that's
done
be
as
reversible
as
possible.
F
D
Mr.
chair
I
think
mr.
law
brought
something
up.
That
would
be
worth
noting
just
for
the
record:
the
difference
between
the
COA
process
and
this
process,
so
with
this
certificate
of
appropriateness
process,
the
approvals
that
were
issued
for
this
or
whether
the
work
was
being
proposed
at
that
time
is
consistent
with
our
design
guidelines,
but
as
being
pretty
certified
here
is
that
the
proposed
work
under
this
is
is
consistent
with
the
eligible
rehabilitation
section
of
this
or
tax
credit
coordinates.
So
that
would
be
the
difference.
I.
B
G
F
Right
now,
mr.
Mullins
is
actually
having
problems
with
the
garage
and,
in
addition
to
that,
he's
had
problems
with
his
cars
on
the
street,
and
so
it's
it's
a
critical
path
issue
for
him
in
terms
of
in
the
language
of
the
tax
abatement
or
tax
freeze
of
using
the
house
he's
been
up
a
lot
of
nights
at
3:00
or
4:00
in
the
morning.
You.
E
B
Very
it's
a
very
visible
and
accessible
garage
that
I
Drive
by
a
couple
times
a
week
and
it
could
attract
and
it's
the
floor
below
the
living
level,
maybe
two
floors
below
where
you
would
be
sleeping
yeah,
so
I
can
see
how.
Even
if
you
didn't
do
an
extension
of
the
garage,
you
would
maybe
want
to
have
an
additional
wall,
a
privacy
wall
or
something
I'm.
Just
looking
at
this
particular
right.
F
Appreciate
that
I
think
when
we
read
this,
we
were
just
in
in
terms
of
him
using
the
house,
the
language,
the
language
that,
when
they
wrote
this,
that
they
used
was
the
usability
of
it.
But
I
think
you
know
you
make
a
good
point.
You
know
for
him,
it's
it's
a
matter
of
using
the
house
and
he
loves
the
house.
He
loves
being
in
the
area,
but
he's
really
had
some.
He
just
needs
me.
H
H
F
B
B
A
H
B
B
Is
also
somebody
might
might
not
want
to
live
there
if,
if
that
was
gonna,
be
there
I
mean
we
we
have.
We
have
approved
the
addition.
We
for
practical
purposes,
it's
cracked,
so
he
can
live
there,
but
I
guess
I'm,
saying
that
we
also
don't
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
we're
staying
in
the
way
of
making
historic
property,
usable
and
practical.
The
way
we
live
now
and
we
have
two
and
three
vehicles.
A
lot
of
people
have
three
vehicles
with
you
know:
families
and
often
they're
larger
than
a
1936
Ford.
Well,.
H
F
E
C
It's
some
a
little
bit
less
of
ambiguity
but
more
inclined
towards
flexibility.
The
purpose
of
this
particular
ordinance
really
is
to
encourage
restoration
of
historic
properties,
not
necessarily
full
protection
or
preservation
its
to
promote
community
development
and
redevelopment
to
also
encourage
sound
community
planning
and
then
also
to
promote
the
general
health
safety
and
welfare
of
the
community.
So
I
would
just
you
know,
then.
A
Reading
this
closely
section
D
2,
which
is
I,
think
the
one
that's
causing
us
difficulty.
It
seems
to
apply
to
things
attached
directly
to
the
that's
what
it
says,
but
directly
attached
the
historic
building
which
are
necessary
to
make
the
building
usable
so
I,
guess
in
this
case
this
building
is
not
attached
directly
to
them.
So
it
may
not
apply
well.
F
A
A
B
That
our
board
could
play
a
role
in
encouraging
new
owners
of
old
properties
to
upgrade
and
make
them
liveable
and
bring
them
up
to
date
and,
in
this
case
even
address
some
unsightly
and
insecure
parts
of
it
and,
of
course,
we've
already
approved
that
in
terms
of
design
and
appropriateness.
Now
it's
a
matter
of
utilizing
the
tax
credit
and
again
I
think
our
our
boy.
It's
a
to
me.
It
serve
a
privilege
to
be
allowed
to
to
assist
in
this
balancing
of
taxing
people
increasing
their
taxes
when
they,
when
they
invest.
B
We
don't
want
to
have
people
say
well,
wait
a
minute.
I,
don't
want
to
put
that
much
money
in
it
because
I'll
be
penalized.
You
know
my
tax
is
going
to
go
up
twice,
so
it's
a
that's
why
the
program
came
about
so
I
think
to
understand
where
y'all
are
coming
from
looking
at
it
legally.
No,
but
just
the
purpose
about
this
purpose
of
this
is
he's
right.
So.
H
F
F
Once
to
the
minimum,
which
I'm
not
doing
at
the
moment,
but
I
will
say,
this
I
have
a
responsibility
to
my
client,
which
is
my
premiere
responsibility,
I'm,
very
careful
commenting
on
anything
that
I
haven't
read
so
I
was
aware
of
it.
I
didn't,
say
anything
at
the
time.
I
wanted
to
read
it
because
I
was
concerned
that
the
improvements
we
were
making
would
not
necessarily
qualify.
F
B
B
They
had
a
bunch
of
little
rooms
if
you'll
remember
and
we
had
to
allow
them
to
gut.
We
wouldn't
have
allowed
them
to
get
the
conservatory
and
the
living
room
and
the
dining
room
secondary
our
tertiary
was
spaces,
and
we
we
were
very
flexible
there
because
and
I
think
it
was
a
60
was
a
win-win
by
allowing
them
some
latitude
and
saying
no
we're
not
going
to
make
you
live
like
they
did
in
the
30s,
and
you
know
have
a
service
pantry
and
a
little
tiny
kitchen
and
people.
We
want
people
to
use
these
houses.
E
B
We
do
we,
we
have
a
little
more
I,
think
a
little
more
flexibility
and
that's
why
they
that's
why
they
need
us
up
here
rather
than
just
a
book
of
Book
of
right.
So
we
and-
and
we
may
may
just
differ,
but
I've
I've
said
my
my
spiel,
for
you
know:
does
it
does
it?
Does
it
detract
or
I
think
we
would
have
a
problem?
There,
we've
already
kind
of
decided
it?
No
it
it
might
be
something
triggered
yeah
and
then
are
we
going
to
include
that
in
in
the
usability
clause?
B
F
B
F
B
Not
suggesting
this
is
a
good
solution,
I'm
suggesting
that
that
that
might
not
be
an
ideal
solution
to
gut
the
current
garage
and
make
it
usable.
So
what
so,
it
would
qualify,
so
you
work
would
qualify.
You
know,
you've
bent
the
design
another
way
to
fit
the
tax
credits
which,
in
you
know
in
the
interest
of
the
house
of
the
historic
house,
but
that's
that's
probably
should
have
to
do-
would
be
to
make
either
one
wider
garage
where.
F
B
B
B
B
A
B
You
would
come
back
up
Jeff,
that
is
correct.
We've
proved
some
up
went
even
further.
Along
than
that
right.
This
really
is
different.
Like
somebody
pointed
out,
this
is
not
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
which
you
already
have
right.
You
can
go,
get
a
building
permit,
assuming
everything
else.
This
has
to
do
with
how
how
much
of
the
investment
qualifies
so
that
that's
on
our
table.
Now,
that's
a
motion
consecutive
and
the
statement
was
made.
It
wouldn't
affect
your
schedule,
so
I'm
just
want
to
make
sure
you
you're
hearing.
Yes.