Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Today's meeting was noticed in compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. This commission acts in review and recommending capacity for comprehensive plan amendments, text amendments to the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance, resonings, and plan developments. The commission has decision-making authority on road name change requests, public project reviews, appeals of administrative decisions on final plats and subdivision matters, as well as other matters pursuant to chapter 29, title 6, section 6-29-340 of the code of laws of South Carolina as amended. If you wish to speak at today's meeting, you should have signed up to the sheets outside the door. I'm Cindy Floyd. I'm chair of the commission. To my right, Pete Pelotus, Luke Morris, Gary Lasain, and Adam McConnell. And to my left, David Kent, Warwick Jones, and Susan Cox. Also seated to my right is Commission Attorney Mark Bell. And seated to my left, Andrew Andrea White, interim director of zoning and planning. Okay, please to introduce the staff. So today we've got Lynn Carile and Mare Miller who will be presenting some of the cases to you. Nikki Grimble, Tamara Avery, and Stephanie Ando. In order to get a good recording of the meeting for the minutes, please speak loudly and clearly into your microphones and please do not talk over one another. The first item on the agenda is approval of the annual business meeting minutes and the planning commission meetings from March 9th, 2026. Is there a motion and a second?

Move to approve. Second. Call the role, please. Commissioner Lain, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones, I. Commissioner Kent, I. Commissioner McConnell, I. Commissioner Morris, hi. Vice Chair Palados. Imped up today. Commissioner Cox. The eyes have it.

The next item on the agenda is case ACP-2-26-0000127 and ZRES-2-26-0000172. A request to reszone tax map numbers 350-01-0000-110 1824 LC Drive and a.12 acre portion of tax map number 3500 01 00014 1829 Belgrade Avenue from the job center district to the light commercial district residential office zoning district and the Dupont WAPU area overlay zoning district.

All right, Mr. Carile. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, this comp plan amendment and resoning request is for 1824 LC Drive and at 0.12 acre portion of 1829 Belgrade Avenue in the St. Andrews area. for the zoning history. In 1994, the subject properties were zoned RS8 and then RSL in 2001, which became low density residential R4 in 2006. In 2016, the Dupont WAU area overlay zoning district was created and the properties were zoned job center district in the overlay. The overlay has three commercial districts with the light commercial district having three designations. Uh the subject properties are looking to be downzoned from the job center uh zoning district to like commercial residential office in order to match the zoning of the adjacent property 1818 LC drive which has the same owner. Uh matching the zoning of these parcels will enable a subdivision to compi combine the properties to be completed. Here's the property location within the county. This is the current comprehensive plan map for the overlay district and the Zeldar map for the overlay districts. This is the future land use map of the properties. And for the current zoning, this map shows uh for the subject properties, 1824 LC has frontage on LC Drive and the 0.12 acre portion of 1829 Belgrade is to the east. Uh both are vacant while the remainder of 1829 Belgrade has a single family residence. The adjacent property to the north has a pest control business while the property to the east has a hair salon.

The subject properties are in flood zone X. This is the aerial view to the north and to the south. Here are photos of the subject properties and photos of the adjacent properties. This is a comparison of land uses between the current job center zoning district and the requested residential office zoning district. The uses in bold are only allowed in the district that they fall under. These are the comp plan amendment approval criteria of which one needs to be met. This is the applicant's response to criterion D. And for the staff recommendation considering the compatibility of the comprehensive plan amendment with the comprehensive plan and future land use of the subject properties, the approval criteria may have been met. Therefore, staff recommends approval. And this in the following slides are the staff response to the approval criteria for the resoning request. And for the staff recommendation, uh the approval criteria may have been met. Therefore, staff recommends approval. No comments were received for this request and the requests were noticed as required. And this completes the presentation.

Thank you. Um are there questions from for staff from the commission members? I have one. How long ago did the um WAU It was uh 2016 was when the overlay district was adopted. Okay, that's 10 years. Okay. All right. No questions from anybody. All right. We'll now hear public comments. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes. Please state your name and address before giving your comments.

We just have one speaker, Adrien Williams. I am I am actually uh my name is Adrien Williams. I'm with Atlantic South. We're actually the applicant for the owner uh standing on their behalf. So I think if M Carlile presented it as clearly as it could be presented the owner wants to develop the prop re uh I'm sorry he wants to improve the uh existing daycare that he has. And in order to do that, he's going to have to build the new facility and he wants to utilize the property he already owns uh to do that. So that's why we're here requesting the need for the reszoning of those properties that again he already owns and and uh maintains.

Any questions for the applicant? None. Thank you. Call the RO. I move to be approved. Second. Oh, yeah. Commissioner Leain. I, Chair Floyd, I, Commissioner Jones. Hi, Commissioner Kent. Hi, Commissioner McConnell. I, Commissioner Morris, I, Vice Chair Palados, I, Commissioner Cox,

the eyes have it. County Council will hear this request at their public hearing May 12th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers and again at their May 21st, 2026 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 pm. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at county council's discretion. Um the next item on the agenda is proposed amendments to the zoning land development regulations ordinance. Miss Miller. Hey, good afternoon. So, as stated, we have some amendments to the zoning and land developments regulations ordinance. So, in September of 2025, county council directed staff to explore amending the ZLDR to incorporate infrastructure um considerations to the approval criteria for reszoning and related applications, requesting higher density intensity than permitted in an existing zoning district. And then in December of 2025, the planning commission voted to establish a subcommittee to address the council directive. The following proposed amendments are in response to the council's directive. Um there are also some clarifications to the approval criteria, traffic impact study requirements, and letters of coordination requirements for plan development applications and also clarifications to the laps of approval provisions for site plan review approvals and preliminary plat approvals. So we'll start with the infrastructure criteria and these are um proposed amendments that were recommended for approval by the subcommittee. So the first proposed amendment is to add an approval criterion to the comprehensive plan approval criteria to address transportation and storm water management infrastructure for applications that propose changing to a more intense future land use category. The next amendment would be to the ZLDR text amendments approval criteria. Um

adding a criterion to address transportation, storm water management, infrastructure for applications that propose changing the zoning district designation of a property to a more intense zoning designation. So the proposed is the same for the zoning map amendment to add that criterion. same one for transportation and storm water to for um changing the application um for application changing the district to a more intense zoning designation. Now the next amendment proposes to clarify and expand the approval criteria for plan developments by adding criteria that addresses compatibility with the surrounding areas and infrastructure. This update will align with the approval criteria that is in place for resonings and related application types. Then the next is plan development guidelines. So these proposed following proposed amendments are going to be for the traffic impact study requirements um and the letters of coordination. So, first this amendment clarifies that the traffic impact study requirements for plan developments is required for all PD applications that meet the thresholds outlined in article 9.6 of the ZLDR as well as for any applications proposing development that has an intensity greater than what is permitted by the existing zoning district. Each um traffic impact study must include recommended on-site improvements and the corresponding construction timelines and letters of coordination from the appropriate transportation and public work agencies are also required. This amendment will for the letters of coordination clarifies that letters of coordination are required for plan development applications from appropriate entities such as um transportation and public work agencies um storm water division, water and sewer, Charleston County school district emergency services and Carta. But we are also asking that the at the applicant's

request the zoning and planning director may wave the letters of coordination from CCSD emergency services and Carta if the applicant submits documentation demonstrating their attempts to obtain the letters. And then for the last set of amendments being proposed is the lapse of approval. So for site plan review approvals, this amendment clarifies that a site plan review approval will expire and become void two years after the approval date unless a zoning permit has been issued or construction or development has begun and has not been suspended or abandoned for more than two years. you they will applicants will be able to have up to five one-year extensions of the site plan review approval um granted if construction or development has not yet commenced but it is being diligently pursued. They must provide documentation demonstrating their pursuit and submit extension requests at least 15 days um prior to the expiration of the original site plan review approval or any previously granted um approval extensions. These changes are proposed in accordance with the Charleston County vested rights ordinance 1393. And then for the laps of approval for preliminary plat approvals, um this amendment is going to currently you have um for preliminary plat approvals, they expire after two years if a final plat for the subdivision or any of its phases has not been approved. This amendment is going to um clarify that they can have up to five one-year extensions and may be granted may be granted if the applicant is diligently pursuing the final plat approval. The applicant must provide documentation and submit extension requests at least 15 days before the expiration of the preliminary plat approval or the plenary plat approval extension. And this is also in accordance with the Charleston County

vested rights ordinance 1393. Public input received was 39 comments in support for the infrastructure criteria, one in opposition and three general comments. Plan development guidelines had six comments in support, one in opposition and two general comments. And the laps of approval had three comments in support and one comment in opposition. And these amend these proposed amendments were noticed as required. That's it.

Thank you. Um any commission any um excuse me any questions for Miss Miller? Um so I'm pretty sure you said that the uh zoning designation uh intensity will be determined by the planning director. Um and that'll be case by case I guess.

Yeah, it will be determined depends on what zoning district they're reszoning to. Um because the last case was actually interesting. It seemed like a good litmus test like how would this be done? And looking at the two zoning categories, the easiest way you could say that they were downzoning is it was going from 12 dwelling units per acre to four. Uh, but I could look at some of the uses in what we just approved the residential office like K through2 schools that you could argue well that might be more intense. Um, is there somewhere in the ZLDR on how these are organized in the ZLDR that like I could look at and say, "Okay, this seems like the intensity like this is the level of intensity or is it kind of every every single one is a um determination by the planning director?"

Every single one would be a determination by the planning director because you're exactly right. at a K through2 school might be allowed in a district but if you look at this property they're not going to be able to develop that it's too small. So I mean factors like that would weigh and so I think it's very situational. Okay. Um so based on like the property size essentially is what you're saying. Okay. Yeah. Um All right. Thanks. Anybody else? Well, go ahead. Uh, Adam,

this kind of goes to my point about a lot of these regulations that that they are become project specific in a way and that each individual project once you actually have a project in front of you is more easily evaluated rather than just by the general use. And so for me, I can't I won't be supporting these whenever these come up for vote because I believe that our current regulations for storm water for instance um are sufficient and I believe that the traffic studies are project dependent and so to evaluate these things in a black box without any information about the development is uh foolhardy adds red tape uh to an already arduous and risky process and I think it puts more of a burden on staff than is currently necessary. So, I will be not supporting this when it comes to us.

I agree with Adam. I I think we're just putting a layer there that isn't needed and it's hard to make a decision without full without full information. So, I'll be voting against it. Um, unless there's a direct question, I've been informed that we need to have a motion. So, somebody want to move one way or the other on this. as well. Okay, you left out that stuff. Okay. Um, we need comments from the public. So, who signed up the John Slogar?

Good afternoon. John's logo, 5528 Frisco, representing the John's Island Task Force. Um, for those of you who are considering voting for this, I appreciate it because it really is something that's very much needed relative to uh the county and how it's been growing over the last decade or two. But I did want to say, I'm not sure if you saw the letter that John's Island Task Force submitted, but there's actually four little changes we like to see in there. Um, and one of them is uh relative to the plan development. uh the uh comp plan talks about and I'll read it out here. If the uh if it's situated at the outer edge of the urban suburban area um then there should be a transitional area consisting of lower density uses to gradually progress into the adjacent rural areas. I think that's something that should be in there. It's in the comp plan right now. It simply has not been codified in the um uh zoning in the ZLDR. Uh if you remember Botox Village was a perfect example of that where right on the urban growth boundary. they wanted to have a high density um uh industrial development. So adding those words would be great. Um the other thing is if you've ever looked at the traffic impact studies in terms of what it says um there there you know that basically only requires you to look at the traffic right in your neighborhood. And of course we know that hasn't worked. We can all see that. And so, um, uh, we recommend that that you include a, uh, one of the requirements in the the, um, traffic study, you include a regional assessment, which basically means you've got to go to BCD COG and tell them to give you their, um, level of service, um, reports for that area. By the way, that's there's no burden on that at all. You simply send an email and they send it back to you. I've done it many of times, so it's no there's no burden there. Uh, and a couple of other things. Uh if you read that you'll see that um if the development is on an SC DOT right away, which almost all developments are, then the um the director of public works can say you don't need a traffic study. Well, that's doesn't seem very

reasonable. That could basically mean the director of public works could say no one needs a traffic study for all intents and purposes. And the final one is um one of the mitigations is that uh they could install traffic signals. I think we should simply say traffic signals or roundabouts depending upon which one makes most sense. So those relatively small changes. There's four of them. So you don't have your letter in front of you. I'm sure staff can give it to you. Thank you very much. Dylan Maguire. Sorry. Okay.

Thank you. So yeah, my name is Dylan McGuire. I'm here on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League uh regarding the ZLDR proposed amendments. Uh we've also submitted comments online, but I'm here to provide strong support in person. Uh so yeah, we're a nonprofit environmental organization to protect the coast and its environmental quality and community of the coastal plane. And again, we are in strong support of this. So for the transportation piece, uh growth pressures across the county, particularly in unincorporated areas with limited road networks, make infrastructure adequacy a necessary threshold for upzonings, uh not a procedural formality. Um we encourage the county to interpret traffic impact study requirements to capture cumulative corridor level impacts, not just the uh site generated trip counts alone. And then for the storm water components, uh the reasonzoning and comprehensive plan amendment stage is when development intensity ceilings are set. So waiting until site plan review to evaluate storm water adequacy is too late uh to shape outcomes at the wershed scale. Uh so also in regards to the 4259820, we support the clarifying coordination letter requirement but urge caution on the proposed waiver authority as it applies to Carta. Um early coordination with transit is precisely the kind of planning that produces better development outcomes and giving Carta the opportunity to flag service implications and shape site design. So, we encourage you to either exclude Carta from the waiver provision um entirely or require a documented finding that the proposed development generates no meaningful transit uh demand before a waiver can be granted. Uh ultimately, we thank you for giving us the opportunity. Uh and again, we want you to strengthen

the county's land use framework to account for infrastructure capacity, cumulative impacts, and long-term community resilience. Thank you. Susan, do you have a question for? Yeah. Could you repeat your comment about the timing of the storm water review? I'm not sure. Yeah. Thank you.

So, um, essentially we're saying that the resoning and comprehensive plan amendment stage is when development intensity ceilings are set. um waiting until site plan review to evaluate the storm water adequacy is then too late to shape the outcomes at the watershed level. Uh so these amendments that are being suggested correctly address that. Yeah. Do you have any comments on that Andrea

that you know there's a storm water manual that has to be met and that you know I think I think what I understand Mr. McGuire to say that he the Coastal Conservation League is glad that we're we're doing some sort of addressing even though it's got to be in a general sense at the resoning stage. Um even though we don't know the use, but of course once we do know the use and they're going through site plan review, then we'll be able to be sight specific about it and evaluate it based on the storm water manual requirements. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I will say I'm pitch hitting on a different department. So, if you guys want to get too granular, I can, you know, get with the team and get back with more specific responses. Otherwise, it's going to be a it depends and I'll get back to you. But just wanted to give you that disclaimer.

Just for may I speak? Just for the record in subcommittee, I asked the storm water department directly, what would the implications of this be on your department? They've responded that there every response would be the same that they would write a letter that said provided that you uh abide by the storm water handbook then we would approve this resoning. So that's how they would approach every single one because they can't truly evaluate that system without understanding what the project is. There's no other enforcement within the mechanations of the county in order to to make a good justification for that. So, I just want to let you know, let this body know that that was the response from the storm water division at the county at the time.

Basically, it's a it's a solution in search of a problem that they can't solve until you have something actually to evaluate in front of you. Anybody else? Okay. Can we have a motion? Move to approve. Is there a second? Do you want to do it as is or do you want to take into account any of the suggestions that have been made? Um, honestly, I would say asis unless there's a good argument otherwise.

Okay. voted against the feeling still in what has been proposed and that I can say that I understand what I do understanding this information from the entities back to the staff of the county. So I think that's lessen the burden bureaucracy which I think I would approve of a lot is confusing to me I think that I think you've gone as far as you can clarify and Somebody said, you know, there's a lot of qualifications that could be made, but it have to be on each individual project and proposition. Not withstanding all of that, I would vote for it.

Susan,

um, I agree. I think that that some information provided to county council is better than no information provided to county council and that is what they ask us to do. I if traffic studies indeed only look at the one outlet from any upzoned area then I agree that there that's insufficient because it's not necessarily there that the tra traffic problems arise and I would be in favor of some um as John suggested going to the BCD cog to say okay what's going to be the impact at the next cluster uh because we know we have them all over the place um and my understanding of what county council was looking for was information as to how this was going to affect all of it, but we all know that traffic is the largest problem that we're experiencing because of overdevelopment. So, um I I would vote in favor, but would like it a whole lot better if we added an additional

proposing an amendment. Yes, let me do that. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, with with that um just staff would ask to hold off because chapter nine was never part of these amendments to begin with. So, we'd be happy to look at that in the future if planning commission directed us to. But for the purposes of these amendments, adding in something that we haven't that isn't part of them right now, okay, would make it difficult. But we would be happy to if if if you all directed us to go look at those, we would could certainly look at article 9.6, which is traffic studies. Yeah.

Yeah. Um, I just think that and again if a traffic study only looks at the main ingress egress of a upzoned parcel, it's not going to tell us what we need to know. I don't think it's going to tell council what they're seeking to know. in principle. I'd like to ask how easy is it going to be for the Carter or whatever to be able to answer that question uh within a reasonable amount of time would it not entail a large study perhaps a study that would take time study are you talking about the traffic study the traffic study okay we're I think what we're we're going to pass that

is asking us to do is to hold off on that till a later date is that correct and plus did you mention Carta because I'm I'm thinking more not the Carter bit But just overall traffic study. That was my concern. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Yeah. So, I I agree with a lot of what Commissioner McConnell stated. Um, at the same time, we were tasked by county council to draft something along these lines and it would be difficult to, you know, take on that task and just come back with uh nothing

nothing that we're not going to do it. Um I I thought this was a reasonable compromise from where it was earlier in that for general um upzonings. It it does take that burden off of the applicant. Hopefully keeps that process moving along the same timeline as it would have before these changes where staff now does that research versus sending them out for the letters of coordination. I also think on the plan development front um allowing the director some leeway in waving out of some of that burden for the agencies that don't respond um is also helpful. Um I don't know just trying to find a middle ground that helps keep things moving uh gives county council what they need without adding more layers of red tape. I do realize it is a lot more burden on staff, but I'm just not sure what other way there is around that. Um, so

Luke,

um, I'm going to echo a lot of what Pete said, so I won't repeat it, but because I'm not necessarily in favor of this attempt. It seems like the tail wagging the dog. So, we're going to say, "Hey, developer or, you know, property owner that wants to change this zoning." We're going to make it more of a question mark, more of a gray area, potentially take longer. Um, all because we can't figure out our infrastructure issues. Now, take that. I think that um ultimately and it's a shame that it puts more onus on staff. Um I do think there's an a possibility that this could either disincentivize zoning or upzonings and PDs in the county which could push people into incorporating into municipalities which may not be bad. I don't know.

Um but we need to kind of and I I think there's ultimately better ways to skin this out. I've said it before where the county takes more of a county mindset than a municipality mindset and how infrastructure is developed and planned holistically. Um I understand that there's things at the state level and funding mechanisms and stuff like that that make that hard. Um but at the end of the day, just like Pete said, I think that county council wants this and it is what it is. You can give someone a world's worth of information. It's only as good as like how much effort you're willing to put into reading all of it. Um, and at the end of the day, if they end up getting a massive package with a ton of information, um, and they don't read it, it doesn't really matter. Um, so I'm kind of at the point of approve it, send it on. I think that it's rather um, uh, harmless currently just because people do have other routes. If they do want to up the zone, they can go into a municipality more than likely. Um, that's kind of my two cents on that. It does make me think so I can't help myself but to think of like how could we do this better um because we see reszoning requests all the time just like we did previously where the there's this tedious distinction between zoning categories of different uses and we talk about intense intensity of uses from one zoning category to another. It kind of seems difficult for a property owner that may just want to do a daycare that what if that was seen as an upzoning. Um, but we're here wanting to help them into that. What if there was some way in the ZLDR that we showed an intensity difference between different zoning categories and better align those uses within them? Almost to the point like let's say you have a zoning category that's down here in terms of intensity of use and then you have this zoning category up here that we've determined as a higher intensity of use. This

higher one just adds more uses that you could use in addition to these if you were to upzone. Just kind of like a food for thought. I don't know how reasonable that is. The ZLDR is really complex, not just in the base zoning districts, but the overlays that we have and agreements that we have with different municipalities, but kind of where is where my mind goes on it. Ultimately, I just uh wanted to make the motion for approval to kind of move it along and then we can look for better ways to skin the cat. Anybody else? All right, call the role. Commissioner Leain. Nay. Chair Floyd. I.

Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Commissioner McConnell? Commissioner Morris. Hi, Vice Chair Palato. I Commissioner Cox.

The count is uh five eyes, three nazs. The motion passes. Okay. County Council will hear this request at their public hearing May 12th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers and again at their May 21st, 2026 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 p.m. The request must then undergo three readings um for approval at council's discretion. Next item on the agenda is a major subdivision preliminary plat report. Hello. So this month we had a preliminary plat. It's the project is the Belvadier at Stoneo Preserve. It is located at TMS number 24900000013 zero 03 and 005. It's off Chisum Road. So if you're coming over the Stono like you're going towards John's Island, you take a right on Chisum. Um the zoning district, it's a PD. It is originally Buckland Plantation PD 152. The Highland acreage is 102 acres. Um, the property is located off of Chisum Road on John's Island adjacent to Grimmel Creek and the Stono River. The subdivision will consist of 28 lots and several HOA areas. The parcel does have wetlands and Department of Environmental Service critical line and many grand trees. The property is a planned development and will consist of many conservation areas, walking trails, docks, and largesiz lots. And um the lots will be serviced by public water and septic systems. And the access to the property will be a

50-foot private ride ofway off of Chisum Road. And the preliminary plat that was submitted in your package is a six- page plat, but you can see the layout of the the lots. Any questions? Okay. Apparently not. Thank you. Okay, we don't do anything.

I just have a question in general on your sub on our subdivision regulations. Do you require subdivisions to have stubouts to adjacent parcels or because it's a PDD they wrote that out of there? Is that is that how that came about? So we we do have it in the regular ZLDR that if there undeveloped parallel that you would provide, right? So this is a PDD. So that was not in that PD. They took that criteria home. Okay.

And the other road that it it goes up against is Belvadier Road. And those residents when this PD came through were adamant that they not use that section of Belvadier. It's the old gravel section. Um so that was part of the deal. Anybody else? Luke. Um, well, since Adam asked that, made me think, are there any county requirements? I know like if it were on a state coming out to a state road, they would have you align it to like an a a entryway if it was across the street from it to make an intersection. That is that a county requirement or is that just a conversation?

Well, we do require information with So they would look at the vision alignment and could there be connectivity. But if there was if it was not coming out onto a state road like if it was coming out on a county road it would be our public works department.

Okay. And they would probably have that requirement. Okay. Cool. Anybody else? The last item on the agenda is the chair's remarks. So, um, we don't have any applications for the May meeting. So, um, I thought it would be a good idea for the, um, staff to just send out a link because we, most of us need at least another half an hour of continuing ed. So, instead of having a meeting, we can get an email with a link in it and we can promise to watch it. Does that work for everybody? Yes, ma'am.

Okay. All right. So, there's no meeting There's no meeting in May. All right. There are no further business. This meeting of Charleston County Planning Commission stands adjourned.