Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

so so Thank you.

Good evening. I would like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order, and I have asked for Ms. Gore to provide the invocation and for Mr. Sanders to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America.

Please bow your heads. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us here tonight safely. Lord, give us more discernment as we go through these requests, and just take everyone home safe after the meeting. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

the meeting will proceed as follows i will read the items into record staff will present an overview of each item the commission will ask staff any questions it may have the applicant will then be called upon to speak to his or her request for a period of up to four minutes and any citizen present who would like to speak will have the same opportunity I think that... County Council will have the final decision-making authority on rezoning items, so please follow items of interest through to County Council. The Planning Department can provide you with dates for upcoming Land Use Committee and County Council meetings. Unruly and disrespectful conduct will not be tolerated. Attendees demonstrating unruly and disrespectful conduct will be escorted out of the meeting. Let's see here. Are there any updates to the agenda?

No, ma'am.

Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the June 23rd, 2026 meeting? So moved. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. Next on the list is a consideration, is a deferral OF AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE OFFICIAL ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MAP OF BERKELEY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA IN REGARD TO KAYLIN THOMAS SHEALEY FOR TMS NUMBER 196-00-00-G. plus or minus 1.75 acres located on Stallion Lane in the vicinity of Moncks Corner from the manufactured residential R2 district to the general commercial GC district and council district six. Next on the agenda, we have a request for rezoning. It's an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina in regard to Charles F. Cannington for TMS number 121-00-00-011 plus or minus five acres located on Highway 6 in the vicinity of Moncks Corner from the Agricultural Flex 1 District to Rural Neighborhood Commercial RNC District in Council District 6.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So the applicant is seeking to rezone the parcel from Flex 1 to RNC to establish a golf cart business. The application was originally for General Commercial, or GC, but the applicant changed their request to maximize compatibility with the surrounding area. The applicant was notified by staff that outdoor storage is prohibited and sales area is limited to one acre in the RNC district, to which the applicant assented. So the surrounding area is all Flex 1 with a variety of non-residential uses. Of course, here are the distinctives between Flex 1 and RNC. Here is a picture of the subject property. And here is an eastbound view of Highway 6. That's Berkeley Propane there. And then a view across Highway 6, which is Berkeley Elementary School. So staff finds that the request conforms to the comprehensive plan and in particular, the suburban community's future land use designation. Of course, here is that map showing that it's in that designation. And as a result of that conformance, staff recommends approval. And upon denial, the applicant would continue to be held to Flex 1 standards, and if approved, the applicant would be held to RNC standards and would be able to pursue development review. And that concludes my presentation.

Any questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here? Would you please come forward and state your name and address?

Charles Cannington, 103 Penn Court, Moncks Corner.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

No, ma'am.

Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

We have a motion by Ms. Moore, a second by?

Excuse me, Madam Chair. Yes. Public comment.

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. I apologize. Is there anyone here in the auditorium that would like to speak for or against this request? All right, hearing none, we have our motion by Ms. Moore, our second by Ms. Hoover. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? The motion carries.

That's it.

Yes, sir. All right. Next on the agenda, we have a request for rezoning and ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina in regard to Joe T. Newell for TMS number 242-02-00-001. plus or minus 1.43 acres located in Wisteria Street in the vicinity of Ladson from the manufactured residential R2 district to the agricultural Flex 1 district in Council District 4.

Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. The applicant is seeking to rezone from R2 to Flex 1. The applicant stated their intent to utilize the flexible density standards that the Flex 1 zoning district offers. So the applicant, the parcel is surrounded by R2 to the north, south, and east, and R3 to the west. This is a mobile home park and single family manufactured residential. So of course the parcel falls within the neighborhood mixed use future land use designation. Here's a notation of that. Of course the main distinctives between R2 and Flex 1 with the purposes of this application being that Flex 1 allows for multiple dwelling units on parcels in half acre increments. So this is the subject property. Here is a view across Wisteria Street from the subject property and a view eastbound view of Wisteria Street from the subject property. So staff finds that the request conforms with the comprehensive plan with this request as well. And in particular, the neighborhood mixed use future land use designation. And as a result, staff recommends approval. So again, upon denial, the applicant would be held to R2 standards, and upon approval, would be held to Flex 1 standards. And that concludes my presentation.

Any questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant in here? You can come on up. If you'll please state your name and address for the record.

His ex-wife, but I plan to put a small tiny home on the property in the back, so that's what I'm trying to do.

Any questions for the applicant? Anyone in the audience here to speak for or against the application? Hearing none, do I have a motion? I have a motion by Ms. Hoover and a second by Ms. Gore. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Your motion carries. Thank you. All right, next we have an ordinance to modify the official zoning and development standards map of Berkeley County, South Carolina. In regard to Rancholada Holdings LLC on behalf of David Riley and Riley Family Revocable Trust for TMS number 271-00-02-008 plus or minus 4.30 acres located on Clements Ferry Road and That lane. In the vicinity of Wando from the multi-section manufactured residential R1MM District 2 General Commercial GC District and Council District 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yep, the applicant is intending to develop a parcel with 40 townhome dwelling units to be individually owned through a horizontal property regime. The applicant's intent is to accommodate a modest residential development consistent with other properties in the area. The parcel is served by a SEDOT section of Clements Ferry Road through coordination with the engineering department, a traffic impact analysis, is not required based on the intended use. The subject is located approximate to the Mark Clark Expressway I-526. Land to the east is mostly zoned within Berkeley County while the land to the west is marshland and primarily zoned within the city of Charleston. The subject parcel is surrounded by General Commercial to the north, R1MM to the south and east, and also to the west. The planning department did engage with the city of Charleston to find out if they had any other projects coming through the pipeline that might be similar uses or commercial uses located in the vicinity of 526. And they advised that they are expecting a 210-unit multi-story, multi-family residential mixed-use development is proposed at approximately 2800 Clements Ferry Road, and a three-story plus or minus 70-unit townhome development is proposed for the parcel located near 2815 Clements Ferry Road. Currently, there's an existing easement that gives the rear lot access to Clements Ferry Road, and the applicant is going to coordinate with the landowner to move that easement so that they still can maintain access. This is the proposed concept plan. And where I have it circled, they're showing a hammerhead type turnaround for the IFC requirement. That would just need to be coordinated through approval with the local fire marshal. These are the distinctions between R1MM and GC. The minimum lot size for this development would be half an acre, which they exceed. I believe it's about four acres. Some of the photos of the property. Northbound on Clements Ferry Road and the intersection of Thomas Island Drive. And the existing future land use map of the neighborhood mixed use designation. The subject property is located within the neighborhood mixed use. Staff find the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood mixed use contains a mix of neighborhoods and stand-alone businesses and a mix of housing densities and types. Staff does find that the request aligns with the comprehensive future land use designation. should the rezoning be approved, they would be held to the GC standards. If it were to be denied, they would be held to the R1MM standards. Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Madam Chair, I do have a question. It looked like on this conceptual master plan that they're going to have to fill in some wetlands.

I would... advise the applicant to speak to that.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Yes, ma'am. If the change in zoning is not approved, what would be the amount of home dwelling units that would be allowed under the current zoning? They're planning on doing 40. What would be the allowable amount under the

Previous zoning. So they would only be able to do one primary residential unit. So this would be considered, if this rezoning gets approved, they would have to submit a preliminary, well, they would have to submit just a site plan because this would be considered just a single site development to be then each unit to be divided for single ownership.

Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here? If you'll please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, my name's Anthony Sissel. I'm a planner and architect representing the development team at 30 Stocker Drive, Charleston, 29407, the address. And I'd like to say first and foremost, thank you to the staff who have advised us numerous points along the way with this submission. It's been a great process and we really appreciate all of the advice they've given us, changes we've made to understand the GC zoning and then to align the site with that zoning. And Lauren in particular has been incredibly helpful for months now really with this process. We appreciate that. The I really just confirming what what staff described that you know we've looked carefully at the alignment of this with the comprehensive plan as a Neighborhood mixed-use Center and the the existing GC zoning to the north of us Abutting the property and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have I I will say I am relatively familiar with this area because I'm actually working on one of those Charleston projects, the other townhome project that Lauren mentioned. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

All right, any questions for the applicant?

I do have the question about the wetlands, filling in the wetlands. On page 77 in our packet, it's a plan that looks like this. And it looks like a lot of really faint lines. And whenever I got my magnifying glass out and looked at it, I could see that it said wetland fill. And then I noticed a whole lot of lines. So I'm curious about that.

Right, so there is sort of a jagged, it's essentially kind of a ditch of wetlands that kind of runs through part of the site. The intention is to fill part of that under a national wetland permit. And I can't speak super specific because I haven't done the engineering on it. but our engineers have chased that down and assured me that it conforms with the National Wetland Permit process.

You don't know if this is an isolated wetland or if it's part of a bigger system?

I am not sure. I can find that out for you, but I'm not sure. I do know that there is drainage from Clements Ferry Road that is part of that process. We will be accommodating that as well.

Honestly, I'm a little concerned about that aspect of it. I would like some more answers on the wetlands that are potentially being filled.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I may have missed it. Is this property an ex-flood zone or AAE?

This is an AE flood zone, and it's actually a coastal AE flood zone, so the intention with the building themselves is that these would be raised, park under buildings, because we would have to conform to even more strict floodplain standards on that ground plane.

Right, so it'll be raised?

Yeah, correct.

Ms. Moore, did you have a question?

Yes, ma'am. In addition to this project, you mentioned you were working on an additional project as well, building more housing units in this area. And have you all considered the actual flood mitigation that would be necessary for how much impervious surface is going to be added to an already flood prone area?

Yes, our engineering team has been very dialed into that.

And can you expand on that? What are your flood mitigation efforts to?

I can't expand on that in great detail. We do have to conform with all of the national standards and the county standards for stormwater management and the floodplain management. So the intent is to conform with all the applicable standards. And I think the key, just from doing a lot of projects in the low country, the key to those standards is that we have to manage it on site. We can't let our water leave our site, essentially, without conforming to those management standards. So the intention is essentially to not impact the surrounding properties. That's part of the requirements.

One last question. I noticed that with the proposed hammerhead turnaround, is there enough room in there for emergency vehicles to get down there and get turned around and get out of there, like a fire truck?

Correct, yeah. That is the size for a fire truck apparatus, yeah.

Ms. Hoover, I know you have another question.

I really am worried about the, or curious and concerned and want to make sure about those wetlands. And I'm not comfortable myself, I can't speak for anyone else, going forward without information on those wetlands being filled. Is there any chance that you would consider deferring so that you could come back to us next month and give us that information?

I mean, if that's the board's decision, that's what we'll conform to. I mean, I think our general stance is that we are conforming to the wetland requirements and standards. So I understand the concern. I'm not the owner. I'm here representing someone else.

The owner didn't know that we were going to be asking those questions, obviously.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this request? Hearing none, do I have a motion?

I'd like to make the motion that we defer for one month so that the applicant can come back with the answers to the questions that Ms. Moore and Ms. Gore and I had.

Second.

I have a motion to defer from Ms. Hoover. I have a second by Mr. Blackwell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion has been deferred. If you will just get with Allison and she can give you all the instructions or with staff and they can give you all. Thank you. All right. Moving on to departmental updates. Are there any departmental updates?

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just to thank all of you for wrapping up your CE credits for the year. And I think that we are finished for the year. I'm getting a nod of approval. So yes, thank you all.

Before we adjourn, I have a question for staff, and it's not about a particular item that we looked at tonight, but I noticed that traffic impact analysis would be necessary for the one acre for the golf, the rural neighborhood commercial, where the gentleman was gonna sell golf carts, but it's not required for the 4.3 acres that will have 40 houses, 40 town homes on it. Why is that? Which one would have more impact? It seems to me that the condominiums would have a lot more impact than somebody selling golf carts on an acre. And I know that that's following the ordinances, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Might be something we need to tweak.

The trip generation, the trip generations are from a manual that gets published every couple of years. I can't really, I'm not an expert on it. That's really the purview of the engineering department. But I do know that that's where those numbers come from. I can't speak to why. But we can certainly get that information for you before the next planning commission meeting.

Thank you. And I just kind of like to piggyback off of Ms. Hoover. We've got the 40 townhomes coming to that area. We've got 210 other potential. homes coming there and then i believe in your presentation you said 370 more i think it was plus or minus 70. oh 70 not 370. okay that's a big difference i heard 370 so i'll make that correction on my notes but um that's just a i i agree that a traffic study would be important when you're having that many homes coming into And that little area is just, I live on Clements Ferry, so it's a small little area, it's a little tiny jaunt to get onto 526 there. So creating that chaos down during high peak traffic times, I think warrants some further information looking into.

Agree, because it's right on top of 526, that area, and it's already waiting time. Traffic is already backed up already without those units there. It's a mess. I agree completely.

And that light there coming off of 526 to Clements Ferry, we already have traffic that has to get over into the emergency lane or the side lanes there just to turn... right onto Clements Ferry Road. So depending on where the turn in and turn out for these complexes are going to be is critical, I think, to a traffic examination.

And as we're doing some updates, various updates to the ordinances, that might be something that we want to look at.

I just want to mention one thing. I don't think a TIA is required with the first rezoning. So if that's something that's mentioned in the staff report, we'll address that. As Jim mentioned, the applicability of the TIA is based on trip gen. And so we'll go back and verify, but it's not my understanding that a TIA is required for the small-scale commercial business.

I'm pretty sure that I saw that in the summary, but maybe I'm wrong.

But with that explanation... if they're going to come back for zoning, are they going to come back as building A, B, C, D, and so forth, which wouldn't trigger a traffic study?

um no i will say the ordinance precludes piece mailing and also though there's strip gen metrics the county engineer has the or his or her designee has the ability to require a traffic study if it is determined that there will be cumulative traffic impacts so even if explicit trip gen thresholds are not met the county engineer or designee has the ability to require a TIA, either a tier one or a tier two, if there is a finding that there could be cumulative traffic impacts or that the use will contribute to cumulative traffic impacts. So there is a little bit of discretion there. And honestly, when the engineering department provided us with the tier determination, it was before we found out about what's proposed in the city. So what we'll do is we'll follow back up with them and make sure they're aware of everything that's contemplated along the corridor because it may warrant study based on the cumulative impacts that I just mentioned.

And City of Charleston may have already started or initiated that with these other developments, but it's just worth the question when it comes to the community out there and the livability and transportation to and from work and schools.

Great feedback, great questions. Thank you.

And what I saw in the packet that made me think that a TIA was going to be required was on page 29 of the packet under staff recommendation approval in the second paragraph. Maybe I read it quickly and didn't catch it correctly.

All right, well, I think that we have our departmental updates. I think we have our closing remarks that were far greater than what we anticipated. So do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. All right, we have a motion by Ms. Hoover to adjourn. Do I have a second? I have a second by Mr. Blackwell. Good night, everyone. This was nice. Thank you.

Thank you.