Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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, rezonings and plan developments. The Commission has decision-making authority on road name change requests, public project reviews, appeals administrative decisions on final plats and subdivision matters, as well as other matters pursuant to Chapter 29, Title VI, 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 filled out the sign-in sheet by the door. I'm Cindy Floyd. I'm the chair of the Planning Commission. To my right is Pete Pelotas, Luke Morris, Gary Lesane, Adam McConnell. And to my left, David Kent, Warwick Jones, Logan Davis, and Susan Cox. Also seated to my right, Commission Attorney Mark Bell. And to my left, Andrea White, Interim Director of Zoning and Planning. Would you introduce the staff?

Sure. We have our deputy county administrator, Walt Smalls, here, as well as our interim deputy director, Nikki Grimble, Marshae Miller, Stephanie Ondo, Riley Hayes from our department, and then we have two interns here with us today, Ayush Bansad and Emma Herron.

Okay. I'll remind you, 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 the approval of the Planning Commission workshop minutes and meeting minutes from June 17, 2026. Is there a motion and a second?

Move to approve.

Please call the roll.

Commissioner Davis?

Aye.

Commissioner Lesane?

Aye.

Chair Floyd? Aye. Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Kent?

Abstain.

Commissioner McConnell?

Aye.

Commissioner Morris?

Aye.

Vice Chair Palados?

Aye.

Commissioner Cox? Aye.

The ayes have it. The next item on the agenda is case ZRES-06-26-0013, a request to rezone tax map number 282-00-00-067 at 3033 Old Pond Road from the rural residential zoning district to the rural agricultural zoning district. Ms. Miller, would you please present the case?

All right. So as stated, this is a request to rezone the parcel located at 3033 Old Pond Road from Rural Residential Zoning District to the Rural Agricultural Zoning District. This parcel is located on Johns Island. So prior to the adoption of the ZLDR in 2001, the parcel was zoned rural residential and it has maintained that zoning. The No Zoning Map Amendment applications have been submitted prior to this request. And in April of 2026, the applicant met with staff to discuss their intent to relocate an existing dairy farm to the property, a cosmetic production facility, established cosmetic production company, and established agritourism activities. Since agritourism is not an allowed use within a rural residential zoning district, a rezoning request would be required. In January of 2026, County Council approved agritourism as a conditional agricultural accessory use within our ag zoning districts. Under ZLDR Article 6.9, agritourism may be established in the AG-15, AG-10, and AG-8 zoning districts, and by special exception approval in the AGR zoning district. Now, according to the 2025 SCDOT traffic count, station number 675, which is located west of the subject parcel on Old Pond Road, it identifies 3,400 average annual daily trips. And Old Pond Road is classified as a two-lane major collector urban road, maintained by SCDOT with a design capacity of 10,880 T's. and with a level of service. Level of service measures a driver's experience on a road and intersections based on the speed and number of cars using the road. This is the future land use of the parcel and the designation is rural residential. The subject parcel is currently zoned rural residential and contains an existing single family residence. Adjacent and surrounding parcels are also zoned rural residential, and they contain single family residences, mobile homes, or they remain vacant. The subject parcel contains areas designated by FEMA in the shaded X and AE flood zones. And this is an aerial view of the parcel. These are photos of the subject property. And these are photos of the adjacent properties to the north of the subject property. These are photos of properties directly across Old Pond Road. And then these are photos of adjacent properties to the west and east of the subject property. Now, this slide shows the comparison of allowed land uses in the current rural residential zoning and the requested AG-8 zoning district. Uses with a C are allowed with conditions. Uses with a S require special exception approval by the BZA. And the uses in bold are only allowed in the zoning district, which it is listed under. Agritourism, as stated previously, is allowed as an accessory use in the requested AG-8 zoning district. If the rezoning is approved, all uses within AG-8 zoning would be allowed on the property. Here we have the approval criteria. And staff recommends, well, because this request would reduce the density allowed in the subject property from one dwelling per three acres to one dwelling per eight acres, the requested zoning district would also allow for different uses than allowed on the surrounding properties. And because of that, staff finds the approval criteria has not been met and recommends disapproval. 61 comments in support, 27 comments in opposition were received for the request. And this request was noticed as required. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Does the Commission have any questions for Ms. Miller? Luke?

Actually, perfect slide. So is there an easement agreement, I would assume, to access this property from Old Town?

So there is an easement to access, and the applicants did provide an agreement with their application.

Okay, because I know there are more public uses. I don't know what the rules are around that. I guess there is an agreement already in place if that were to happen.

Now, they would still have, they have to still go through site plan review if they were approved, but they do have an easement agreement now. If that entails with the use they are going to propose, you know, is allowed. That's going to be determined then.

Okay.

Yeah. So is staff's position based on the use of agritourism under the rezone?

So per the comprehensive plan, the future land use designation is rural residential. And when rezoning the AGA, that doesn't meet the rural residential future land use designation. So that's where we... Now, we... Disapproved there. But then also, so the surrounding properties are all zoned rural residential versus the AGA zoning, and there are uses within that AGA zoning that would not be allowed on the surrounding properties if it were to be rezoned to AGA.

So it's partially based on use, is what you're saying? Because there has been successful rezonings from AGR residential... To AG-8. Yes. 3555 Boehicket Road, which everything around that was residential as well. But they down zone essentially to AG-8.

It was agricultural residential, so it was AGR. They were surrounded by AGR parcels and also AG-8 parcels. In this particular area, all of the parcels are rural residential, and there aren't any AG-8 parcels in this area. Okay.

The land mass on that is what, 10 acres? Yes. Yes. And the other adjacent kind of average, what's the smallest lot size adjacent to it?

I'm not sure the smallest, but you can take a look.

OK. About an acre, it looks like.

I would say, let's see. Which essentially means that they could, could they subdivide the same property into 10 lots?

No.

No.

It's one dwelling unit per eight acres.

I think you're thinking AGR. This is RR3. RR3, so it's one per three acres?

Yeah. Okay, so it would be three parcels that it could be subdivided to.

Not really.

Or no?

No, because this parcel, it depends on the parent track. So... And I'm not sure exactly how large the parent track was or how many parcels have been subdivided from the parent track, but it would depend on what's left from the parent track.

Got it. Thanks.

Mr. Pelotas?

Can you zoom out on that so we can get an idea of where that sits in relation to the UGB and how far inside or outside of it it is?

Okay. So the UGB, you can't really see it, but it's this dotted, it's kind of like a dash yellow line right here.

Okay.

And then, so it's right here, and then the parcel is here.

So it falls outside of it?

So it is outside the UGB, that's correct.

Anybody else? Okay, can we hear from the applicant? We've got Missy Farco.

Hi, I'm Missy Farqu. I'm currently the owner and operator of the Godery at Kiowa River and now the Godery Charleston. I would like to thank you all and I would also like to thank both my people who are supporting and opposition, so thank you. Do I just speak for two minutes at this point? Did I run my clock? Like so many of you, we are exhausted by the traffic, the rapid growth, and the changes that have just transformed John's Island. That is exactly why we are asking to reduce, not increase, the development potential of this property. Our goal is to preserve this land as farmland and protect its rural character for generations to come. I understand that some of our neighbors have concerns, and I respect that. I also recognize that agriculture zoning cannot prevent every bad actor from misusing this property. Unfortunately, no zoning ordinance can guarantee that. What I ask is that you evaluate this application based on who we are, our track record, and what we are actually proposing. For the past eight years, the Godery has proudly partnered with Kiowa River and the Dunlin Hotel to operate their farm experience for guests. We are grateful for that relationship, and we remain committed to helping make that experience successful. It has allowed thousands of people to connect with agriculture in a meaningful way, but this property is different. This is our home. It is where we want to build quieter, working farms centered on agriculture, not large-scale tourism. Our focus will be caring for our animals, producing grade A milk and artisan cheese, and creating soaps and lotions our customers have come to love. Moving these agricultural operations here will also allow us to better protect the health of our herd and maintain the high standards required of a licensed dairy. From a financial standpoint, it would be much more profitable for us to leave the property-zoned rural residential, use the residential development rights that already exist, and walk away. But that has never been our vision. Our vision is to preserve the land, protect open space, continue farming, and make Old Pond Road the place where we raise our family, care for our animals, and grow old together. We respectfully ask you to judge us by our history of stewardship, our commitment to agriculture, and our desire to preserve, not develop this property. We hope that you help us ensure that this place of John's Island remains a working farm for generations to come. Thank you.

Thank you. Ray Farku.

Thank you. I don't know how I can follow that. So we understand that change suggests uncertainty, and we understand that the residents of Johns Island have undergone significant change over the past five and 10 years. Every acre preserved in agriculture is an acre that is less likely to become a future subdivision. We've heard the concerns of our neighbors, and we've heard the concerns raised through the Johns Island Council. I'd like to address three of those concerns related to the size of our farming operation, the amount of traffic, and the development rights. allowed under the new zoning. You've heard from the department today that down zoning opens up opportunities to have landscaping and horticultural services, outdoor recreation and entertainment, outdoor shooting ranges, communication towers, commercial stables, RV parks, extended home rentals, and agricultural sales. We assure you we have no intention of pursuing any of these uses, and any of these uses would require proper process, including site plan review. Under the current zoning of RR, we are allowed to do all of the things we intend to do, with the exception of sharing this joy with other people through our educational tours. At the end of the day, regardless of the outcome of this meeting, we are bringing our herd of goat, we are bringing our dairy, and we are building a modest barn to support our farming operations, all allowed under either designation. As far as traffic is concerned, any agritourism will occur off cycle of peak traffic. The volume of visitors to the farm has been overstated. We are not mimicking the scale currently at Kiowa River. This application is unique because it's not asking for more development rights, it is asking for fewer. We are voluntarily requesting a zoning classification designed to preserve agricultural land. Our goal is to keep this property in farming, produce products made from what we grow and raise here, and offer limited educational experiences that support agriculture.

Thank you. Amy Chico.

Hi, I'm Amy Chica with HLA representing the Falcos. As some of the things that they've already stated, the property, they can do what they want underneath our zoning, but they're looking for their agritourism that is only allowed in the agricultural zoning. And so the thing that I would like to address is the approval criteria that the county staff recommended. So looking at the comprehensive plan, The agricultural tourism and the agricultural based support and business is constantly repeated over and over again in the comp plan. You know, section 31.3, land use elements, encourage low density development, maintain rural and agricultural orientated commercial uses in different patterns. You know, future land use recommendations, promoting agricultural business, agricultural tourism. Economic development elements, mission, safeguard and improve the local business climate. I'm not reading you everything, just the ones that hit the highlights. The economic development element strategies and timeframes continue to encourage agricultural tourism, ecotourism, other employment opportunities in the rural area. It also then continues to, you know, in rural preservation, further efforts the county can explore to build past success include continuing to explore ways through zoning to encourage and allow rural and agricultural businesses to prosper through farm and agriculture-related activities, such as expanding agriculture and agricultural uses in districts, allow niche farming, agritourism, and agroentertainment uses. And then it continues on, there's a playbook of economic development where it states, again, that, you know, uses those retreats in agro-tourism. And so the idea that it is not part of the comprehensive plan or does not fit into the comprehensive plan, I feel like that is not truly the case. And so in looking and asking for what they want to do, the agro-tourism is just another...

Thank you. Stuart Rumpf.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having us, and thank you for your time. I come as a resident of Sunnyboy Lane. I've lived there my whole life. Sunnyboy was my grandfather. He owned Riverside Farms. It's an adjacent property to the subject property. My concerns are as follows. The staff has already said it didn't meet the criteria. I would disagree. It does not meet under Section A. It does not meet under Section B. It's not like, kind, and compatible to the properties that are adjacent and surround it. I would also say it does not correct any zoning map issues, and it will in fact make changes via the character and conditions of the subject properties that it is adjacent to and across the creek from. When it comes to a precedence, I worry that whether this change in zoning will then in fact have a precedence that moves forward to like-kind properties also within the subject area. We have many letters of support. Unfortunately, many were not able to be on the website prior to the expiration of the time frame. But in fact, we know that there are several people that I have letters for that are against this as well. When I worry about property values and the possibility of all of the things that can happen with this status, my biggest concerns are will we have a problem moving forward? This from the front is not about Ray and Missy. There seem to be lovely people. I have been to the Goatery. I recognize what they do is a great service to the community. It brings a lot of fun. However, if they sell this property and they have this status, it adversely affects the possibility of our peaceful enjoyment of our property, which is adjacent. One of the biggest concerns that I have and one of the concerns that Joe has, Boykin, is that he doesn't want future development. If they kept the 15 acres as they were, then they would be able to have houses, five, versus if we have a storefront, if we have future development, if we have a winery, if we have a farmer's market, if we have outdoor recreation and entertainment. Kennels, commercial towers, if somebody decides that they can't afford this property moving forward, all of those adversely affect the neighbors. And we're not saying that this is anything other than concern moving forward for what our property values may be and how we enjoy our peaceful enjoyment of our own property. One of the things that I think that this commission should really give thought to is this is a rural environment. This is on a very secondary road whose data, as stated in a meeting that we had earlier last week, Friday, the data is incorrect. There is way more traffic that is going up and down this road. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Adam Cantrell.

Greetings, Planning Commission. My name is Adam Cantrell. I'm also a resident of Sunnyboy Lane, which is part of the residential community around the corner from Old Pond. I think what makes Johns Island unique and special is the ability to come to a rural area, specifically this neighborhood, and build your dream house with your goats and your chickens and your cows and do whatever you want, as it's currently zoned in RR. A lot of the neighbors have chickens. A lot of the neighbors have goats. The issue is you're trying to change a community that's established with our rural residents with lots of acres to an AGA, which is a business, and allows them to operate a tourism in the middle of our neighborhood. That's one point. The second point is, in addition to the agritourism, there's a lot of other options, including the the campgrounds, the outdoor shooting ranges, the cell towers, the landscaping services, just allowing this to be changed to Ag 8 transforms the future of this property regardless if their goat, you know, yoga works out or not with the way they're working on their farm. And I just think that it should be really, clear that this is the neighborhood that they're moving into. These are the residents who are concerned. This is what they're affecting their quality of life and what they're planning on a neighborhood. And I just think if we're welcome for them to come and build their house and have their animals, it would negatively impact the quality of life of everybody who lives in the neighborhood and everybody who lives in the surrounding neighborhoods and the safety of that street to have a tourism opportunity dropped in the middle of rural Johns Island. So I appreciate your concern for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Brandon Allen.

Thank you, Board. My name is Brandon Allen. I live at 2979 Old Pond Road. I share a property line with the proposed change rezoning property. I'm also a Charleston County deputy who's responsible for work in Johns Island. We're talking about the community guys. Everybody on this side of the room is within one mile radius as a code throw flies. The support for the other side of the room, Sullivan's Island, Kiowa, Mount Pleasant, nobody in the community. All right. As someone whose job it is to patrol our roads every day, I can tell you that Old Pond Road is already heavily traveled. Bringing multiple commercial and retail businesses to Old Pond Road will only increase traffic to the point that it deteriorates the quality of life, creates unnecessary danger to our residential community, and threatens the investment of families that have been here for over generations. I support keeping John's eye on rural. That's why I voted for Joe Boykin, because he promised to preserve rural character of this island. Bringing commercial development into our community has many of the same impacts as residential overdevelopment. Both increase traffic, both increase noise, both reduce our enjoyment of our homes, both chip away at the rural character that makes this community special. This is not an attack on Ray and Missy or their goatery. This is about preserving our way of life and our residential community It is our response to a proposal that brings commercial retail business into a community that has made it clear it does not want it. Thank you for your time.

Elizabeth Allen.

Can I take your time?

Is that allowed? No, thank you. Worth an ask.

Allison Hudgens.

Hello, Alison Hudgens. I live on Sunnyboy Lane for about 22 years with a few properties. And thank you for listening to us today. One of the concerns that I would like to raise, which has been brought up, but it's about the future zoning changes. So if this is allowed on this property, we're concerned about the other properties in the area that it might also happen to. And right now, we're a rural area. There's one house per three. But that's not everyone around there. There are neighborhoods close by that have two to three houses per acre. So it may not be adjacent to this property, but they're very close, and they would also be affected. And so there are other properties that are 10 acres. 10 acres is not a lot of property. There are properties around us that are over 50 acres, over 100 acres. If all of those properties are allowed to do that, we're no longer rural. We no longer have a neighborhood. So that's what I'm concerned about. What will happen in the future if this is allowed? Does it pave the way? I think I have a minute left. Thank you.

Ernestine Scott.

Good afternoon, each and every one. My name is Ernestine Scott, and my daughter, Dr. Tariqa Brown, will be speaking on my behalf.

I also have a letter that I would like to present to the council. Nikki, can you get that?

Thank you. All right.

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about the change in zoning on Old Pond Road. As stated, my name is Dr. Tarika Brown, and this is my mother, Ernestine Scott, and this is also my friend, Dr. Kimberly Laborde. My mother has resided at 3007 Old Pond Road for over 50 years. This is our family home. Our forever home. My mother desires to spend whatever time she has left in peace, having a good quality of life. Changing the zoning would impact my mother in the following ways. Increased traffic, older, and actually a decrease in her property value depending on what actually takes place at this property. She has earned the right to reside in her residence, her forever home that she built over 50 years ago. She deserves to have the right to remain there in peace and have an excellent quality of life. I know a lot of times we talk about data and numbers, but there are people behind those data. and that in those numbers so i ask for you to consider that as you review this um review this proposal to change the zoning at and on old pond road thank you so much thank you

Mindy Herbert, you didn't speak or you didn't check whether or not you wanted to speak, so I didn't know. Nope, you're good. Okay. Also, Clarence Richardson, did you want to speak? Is there a Clarence Richardson in here?

Yes.

Did you want to speak, sir? Yes. Okay. Please come up.

You're up.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Clarence Waring Richardson, councilman that my respect goes out to you as well.

As a retired Sergeant Major in ISIS Marine Corps, I'm back in the area.

And I have property on Old Pond Road. And as a little boy, yeah, I know what goats smell like. and what they look like. But with that property in itself, I want to maintain it as residential. And someone said I'm on the wrong side of the room. But I sit where I want to sit. But as a blinded veteran in itself, like I said, is that I'm back home, and I want that resident to maintain as a good, pleasant area to sit on the porch and enjoy the good southern breeze. And I ask you to consider, again, a veteran coming back and enjoying the Lowcountry. And like in Walter Burrell, they say Walter Burrell is the front porch of the Lowcountry. I want to feel like all upon rollers the front porch of the low country. Consider that, please. Thank you.

A couple of folks wrote, if needed, whether or not I'll just go ahead and call your names and let us know if you want to speak. Brian McGinnis.

Thank you for your time. So my current concern would be with the traffic involved with whatever happens moving forward.

Can you tell us your address, please?

I'm sorry?

Your address.

2972 Old Pond Road, about four driveways up from the proposed property. My current concern is traffic, and then future concerns would be if they decide to move on, if somebody does buy this, what they could do with the property. I'd like to express my concerns. My primary concern is the increased noise and traffic the project will bring to our area. My family has two young children, two and five. We've already experienced significant noise from the events at wedding venues in the close proximity. It was within a mile away. On many evenings, we can clearly hear the music, not only the lyrics, but we can hear everything inside the home from the partying. Getting two kids to sleep sometimes is difficult. also with that the potential traffic issues we've had two vehicles in the last two years drive through our fence we've had to work through around with the kids playing in the yard whatnot but i'm more concerned of just like you know the details of what their scope of their project is and what they do moving forward to help protect our community thank you beth kerouac

Beth Carawack, 759 Sunny Boy Lane. Sorry, getting worked up. I'm a mom. I have two young boys that live on Sunny Boy. And wow, sorry guys, getting it together. My main concern is traffic. And if it does go to an event space, I work in hospitality. Alcohol on Old Pond Road, those two things do not go together. If that is an event space, everyone in that community is going to be put in danger. We already have issues with tractor trailers, people speeding down Old Pond. We don't know what... you know, the new business there will also bring. But I do know, because I am in hospitality, that A, we can hear the noise from River House way down the road. I work events. Like, I work in the bar business, so I know what goes on. It's not a quick setup, and it's not a quick breakdown. I have two kids. I can hear everything. My kids don't sleep well. So if we have an event space across the road, that starts set up at 8 and ends the event at 10, I know that's not going to get broken down until midnight, 1 AM. I don't want to hear that. I like to walk out of my backyard, look at the stars, and thank God that John's Island looks like that. I just want you guys to take into effect, like, there's families, like, young families. We moved out here with the dream of, like, showing our kids the ropes of living off the land, not having to worry about them getting run off the road by a drunk driver, you know, listening to the same party music three nights a week from wedding bands, the same ones over and over again. I don't mean to get upset, but I'm just really passionate that, you know, we keep Johns Island and the area that is our neighborhood and home the same. So, thank you.

Robert Kimbrough.

Yes, Robbie Kimbrough. I am a resident of Sunny Lane, Sunny Boy Lane as well. I'd like to echo the sentiments of my my neighbors as well. I wanted to bring up the fact that I'm sorry, ma'am, I didn't get your name, but representative from the planning office, she actually made a comment about the zoning and what we were looking at right now and that part of the reason that they chose to disapprove or recommend disapproving this is because of other properties in the area that there was nothing else already zoned so that alludes to the precedent that it sets and those properties that are not this one we're talking about but if it were to receive this designation how many of these other properties would be able and more likely to get the same designation which would be completely detrimental to the rural residential area that we live in. I also wanted to just bring to your attention, I actually went on and looked at all of the names of the people who supported and spoke, you know, against this on the public comment. Of the 61, I was able to find addresses for 59 of them. Two of them I couldn't find. I found five individuals in support who live within five miles of this. Many of them were from out of state. Many of them don't live in Charleston County. They're friends. The vast majority of people live out at Kewa River Estates, which moved in there knowing that the goatery was already there and it was something that they supported. Outside of that, I think there are even more people that live in Mount Pleasant. They're about 75% of the names on here all live in Mount Pleasant. So most of the people who are in support of this do not live in this community and will not see any of the repercussions of what would happen if this were changed to an AG-8. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lori Librand? Lori Librand, Kim Kimbrough, Kurt Kameon, Kamea?

Is there a Kurt?

Maybe, yes. Sorry.

Hi, I'm retired, been living here for five years. Can you tell us your address, please? 1823 Crab Orchard Road. So I don't live right near these properties. I'm a resident of Johns Island. I've heard the stories of historical development here and mistakes that have been made. I have some background in business and finance, and one of the things that struck me in doing some research in just the last few days is how the zoning is structured and i think the big issue really the fundamental issue here is what robbie alluded to and that is once you allow one party to get an ag08 in what is a residential area you are potentially opening up the floodgates how are you going to say no to the next person who comes along honestly It's a fundamental flaw in how the zoning is structured. You can't do anything about it today, but you can recognize the fact that if you say yes, you are going to potentially and likely encourage other people to seek the same designations, and I think it's going to be hard for you to say no. So that's my fresh opinion. I've come from out of state, Atlanta for 20 years, New York and Connecticut for 20 years. Love the area. Hate the traffic. But Atlanta actually was worse. But I think that's just the fundamental issue here. It's precedent. And it needs to be in everybody's main focus. Thank you.

Thank you. Marianne Goolsbee? Marianne? No? Caroline Goolsbee? No? All right, Jacqueline Berger, Jackie Berger?

Hi, thank you. I'm Jackie Berger. I'm the executive director of Low Country Local First, and I live on James Island, which is not John's Island, but I have seen the changes in this community and the loss of agricultural land. Low Country Local First is a nonprofit organization. We've been here for nearly 20 years, dedicated to building a more resilient local economy. by supporting local businesses, sustainable agriculture, and stewardship of the low country's natural and cultural resources. I'm here today to support the rezone request from rural residential to agricultural. John's Island has been recognized for its rich agricultural heritage. I'm going to go off my script here. Once agricultural land is gone, it's gone. And so subdividing it into parcels where there are new houses, I know that there are people in this community who are raising chickens and raising goats, and that's a beautiful thing to do for your family and for your community. And I know that Missy and Ray, if I were going to pick two people that I would want to be my neighbors, those are the people that I would want to be my neighbors. And they are about the community and they are about protecting the land. And if they want to have a viable agricultural business, not just raising animals and gardening, but having a viable agricultural business, this is a step that they need to take. And when they're talking about agricultural tourism, agritourism, they're not talking about agricultural Disneyland. They're talking about taking the next generation and exposing them to the importance of agriculture, which is critically important for us, not just now, but in the future. We need farmers in this community. We need people to take care of the land and to preserve it and to grow our food and to take care of us. And so I think it's incredibly important that they're trying to introduce the next generation of farmers to the land and to take care of us. And I think it's important for them to be able to have a business venture, however small, in order to make a viable go of this.

Thank you. And our last speaker is Joshua Baker.

Good afternoon.

Excuse me. Good afternoon. I'm Josh Baker. I also live on Sunnyboy. It's 720 Sunnyboy Lane. I don't want to necessarily waste everybody's time because some of these issues have kind of already been brought up. But I did want to highlight, I think a couple haven't, is this property is also 15 acres on 700 feet of Tidal Creek. And so we're establishing farming, which involves the use of, you know, I imagine herbicides and pesticides. That creek dumps into our creeks. Our children play there and get in the creek and so on and so forth. It's also the site of what's coming, which is a county park there. And then it dumps into the stono. So I don't know the finality of that, but I would expect at least like an environmental survey would be something to consider for that. I think these people have honest intentions, but I do think it's going to have a very direct harm to the people around them, especially their home values. And these four properties that are adjacent, this street, you know, it's a long rural residential street, but it could hurt these people pretty bad as far as knocking their home equities down. If they've taken a balance against those loans or something like that, they can easily be underwater. It's going to be very hard for people around them to resell their homes. Let's see here. This seems to me is kind of a creep. When I say that, I mean the urban growth boundary creep. This is moving commercialization farther across the line. And while we might be in an honest intention under the idea of agriculture, I do still believe that the commercialization of that land, which is real residential, is what that is. there's a couple comments uh that said and i'm gonna kind of just feedback some of these things uh we would like to live there and grow old there us too uh that's why we're there and so we would like for our land to stay the way it is without business coming in and um you know hurting that force uh they're saying these are not preserved they're all you know rr3 predominantly um I just want to kind of finish this by saying that we kind of want what all southerners want these days, which is to be left alone. We can't seem to do what's going on with the introduction of commercialism here. So thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Any questions, comments by members of the commission? Warwick?

number of questions, but I think they've been good.

Okay, well, if you don't want to go now, Susan's ready to go.

Yeah, I don't know if this is a question for applicants.

Put on your mic, Susan. Is your mic on?

Sorry, I'm usually so loud, people never have a problem hearing me. I don't know if this is a question for these guys or a question for our discussion or staff, but this gentleman just mentioned a waterway, and that was one of my questions. What watershed is this in, and where is the closest creek, and where does it go? Being in the low country and having lots of creeks, that's always an issue.

Yeah, I can't speak to the watershed it's in, but Marsha, can you pull up the map? This does not touch the waterway. It's separated by a parcel from it. So can you show them on the map, Marsha, where that is?

There's a drainage ditch that touches into Simmons Creek. If you can turn off the zoning, Marsha.

It's pretty big, but they call it a creek.

yeah so there's the subject property and can you point to the creek marche that's behind it so yeah yeah yeah where does it end up going marche that i can see now that what looks like a canal drainage easement or ditch We don't have any sort of development they did on there other than single family detached residential would have to go through site plan review and stormwater review it and make sure it meets all the requirements of the stormwater manual for the county.

Okay. Thank you.

Ready now?

Can I ask the applicant?

How many goats do you plan for this property? And what buildings will you be planning? And what would be the size of the parking lot?

I may ask you to repeat all the questions because I couldn't hear very well, but I'll start with the first one. Currently, we would have 40 to 60 goats on site. I apologize, what was the second question?

What structures do you plan?

We currently have a small home that exists there now. We would hope to put up something for the goats as far as a barn or some sort of barn feature for them. We would also add a barn onto the front pasture of which we're declaring as what we like to declare as Ag Aid. There would be a working barn for me to make my handmade soaps. and the only, I'm sorry?

The parking lot?

There is already a parking area built there as well, but there's no parking lot at this point.

So what would be your plan for parking? How many acres or whatever would you take for parking?

Right now, we're waiting to figure out what our...

I'll let you go ahead. Okay.

I think they're pulling up something for us. Can I answer the next question when the parking lot comes up, please?

Well, there wasn't, but I've got another one anyhow. Okay, go ahead. So 40 to 60 goats is quite a number. Are they going to all be sustained on your property?

Yes, but we do rotate them. We'll continue the operation at Kiowa River. We're in conversation with a third potential property to move them on. But yes, we would estimate to have 40 to 60 on property.

So in a... So you couldn't support 40 or 60 animals on your property if you couldn't rotate. You'd have to supplement whatever they forage.

Yes, we do supplement. And we do have ways of feeding them outside of just the forage on the land. And I know somebody just mentioned other animals. We have talked about bringing... some chickens on site, and we do have other animals at Kiowa River, but right now our main focus is the goats. We are a regenerative farm. I know somebody mentioned chemicals. We are 100% regenerative. I'm 100% certified and studied in regenerative, and that's why we use the other animals in conjunction with each other to work together to help reduce pesticides and herbicide management.

You said earlier something about being a licensed dairy or somebody in your process. Yes, ma'am. What does that entail?

I'm a grade A dairy. It requires a lot. We're probably the heavily most restricted business in the United States. We have onsite DHEC agents that come on quite often because I do sell in raw milk. We have to go through extensive controls from the state. We have to have our milk tested very often. We are endlessly hammered by paperwork by DHEC and the Department of Agriculture. And we are also chewed up alive by the media as well with the theory of raw milk. But we also have a creamery on site too where we make pasteurized cheese, which is pretty much my number one specialty. I try to stay out of the politics of it. So now we more focus on cheese as well, which is pasteurized.

Do you have to maintain a certain number of goats in order to? Yes, ma'am. What number would that be?

For us to fulfill, if the environment was more conducive than it was this year, we would hope that 60 goats would help us acquire 80 gallons of milk every three days.

You're talking about the dry weather that we've been having this year?

Yes, ma'am. The heat and the weather. We've decided to close our dairy operation this year to preserve the health of our animals. Okay.

Maybe I'm just going too far. But for my own interest, do you hand milk or do you machine milk?

No, sir. That's a good question. When we talk about buildings, which I invite everybody to come take a look at at Kiowa River, we are going to bring our two 50-foot shipping containers that we've had outfitted. It's a very efficient, ergonomic setup that we have. One is a milking parlor where we actually put them up on the stands. It is extremely what you would call very technologically advanced. We developed it during COVID in hopes to help other people start their own homesteads. And then the secondary is an approved DHEC regulated kitchen for the creamery operations. And they have to be separated based on the law.

Can you tell us the appeal of this property in particular versus one that already may be available on the island that has an AGA zoning?

Yes, sir. Ag-8 was an interesting thing. We have been looking for property since 2019. We've been up against multiple things. We've been up against development. And as much as I appreciate the conservation, and I do not want to condemn the conservation approach, but a lot of the land trust and stuff are going after agriculture land as well, which I think is a better use for it anyway. But we seem to be chasing a ghost here trying to find land. My husband and I, at the price point that they're looking at, you're talking about anything over $800 to $1 million. We don't make enough milk, and nor will we ever. And most of the land that is currently on John's Island is about 100 feet across. And about six miles long. And that is not conducive for the operation that we have. And about every parcel that we looked on River Road, and if it was anything of consequence of land, the value was well over $2.5 million. Even at the ag level.

Okay. Mr. Hussain.

Thank you. I'm going to have a question for staff as well, but I do have a couple of questions for you. It looks like there's many conditional uses under the current zoning, such as stable boarding, driving range, golf course, country club, winery, animal production, and farmer's market. all which seem to be fairly intensive uses as well under that current use. So I'm feeling that the divide may be somewhat based on the would-if aspect with some of the outliers of having cell towers and things like that come along. And that would be fairly disruptive to anybody living in the community. My question being, and I'm just putting this out there, is there an opportunity to create some sort of covenants and restrictions that you would apply to your property that would give that guarantee to your neighbors that even in the event that you were to sell this down the line, they're not going to be faced with someone else coming in and doing the things that they're concerned about?

yes we would be willing to look into that we would be willing our our job is um we're family first neighbor second I think y'all could understand that compassion um but we'd be willing to look at other options that could work together that would make everyone I think come come to the table um so yes

That seems like a good bridge. And I make this statement just due to the fact that, you know, you can have stables with horses and, you know, just like goats, you know, horses may smell and, you know, animal production, all of these things can take place as a conditional use today. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there.

Thank you.

Okay, Luke.

I just want to confirm that with staff that they could do literally everything they want to except for, right now, except for have the agro-tourism aspect.

That is correct. I'm sorry.

Yeah.

And may I take a few minutes, not even a second, just to explain. I don't know if there's something we can do to write in the amount of people. I know I'm on a, the reason I can have the tourism at the level that I do currently at Kiowa River is due to an ARB that we, a contingency with Kiowa River to maintain that agriculture. And so we work in conjunction with them to do any special events and stuff like that. So I don't know if there's a contingency because I love agritourism. I am people tired. I've been doing this for 10 years, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I just want to be able to hold a class to teach soap occasionally, because it is an income-producing piece of it, but I have no intentions, which I know intentions are not the law, but I have no intentions of having bus fulls of kids coming to here. I have multiple operations everywhere on other sites that I would utilize that, and to be honest, from a security standpoint, we are already dealing with too many people issues on our current So I don't know if there's some way that we can agree to facilitate that as well.

I just want to clarify my earlier response. Based on what we've heard from them, I think a lot of what they can do is until we actually see them come in for site plan review and write their letter of intent, we won't know for sure.

And I know somebody talked about events. I am never going to get in the business of brides or any of that. I have an ARB.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. You have to address us if you want to say something. Okay. All right. Anybody else?

I respect the staff's recommendation. My question is, as we move forward, regardless of how this vote goes, do we think we have a sort of a directive from council and a mandate through the comprehensive plan that we need to be supportive of agritourism? have we calibrated our policies adequately in this case so that it doesn't open the door to these more extensive uses when really we're talking about teaching a class on soap making, right? And so is there an opportunity, regardless of how this vote goes, for us to reevaluate what that may look like? I wasn't here when the initial zoning gradations were proposed back in the day when AG-8 was, you know, formed, but I'm just curious if we've looked at alternatives for that. I'm just going to throw that out. We don't have to resolve that today.

Yeah, the alternative would be to do a plan development where they could lay out exactly what they want to do and limit those uses and include the uses that they're talking about.

Not a fan of plant developments, but is there a way for us to calibrate the sort of they're able to do all of these agricultural type uses in rural residential except for this one small component that doesn't open it up to large-scale commercialization or Yeah, but we can't we can't make our decisions based upon any covenants restrictions in a private party. Correct.

So does allow putt-putt golf to

Yeah, driving ranges and so forth, right? And so those are the types of other uses that I think that opens up some of those questions. And so are we doing enough to support agribusiness and agritourism within the areas we're allowing agricultural uses to occur besides just the agriculturally zoned properties? Those agricultural uses are allowable on residential zoned property, correct?

Some of them, and some of them are subject to conditions, and some of them have acreage limitations. So the agritourism is a new addition to our ordinance. In the last year, it went through this process and was adopted by council. There is a limitation of having, you have to be in one of our ag districts. In AGR, it has to be special exception. There is a limitation of five acres. It also has to be designated as bona fide agricultural getting the special preferential AG assessment from the assessor's office in order to even get your foot in the door to do agritourism as an accessory use because of the things that it could result in traffic wise and you know people coming to the farm and those kinds of things not that it's a bad thing it's just it might be different for a residential community and that's why we limited it to the the AG districts. And even in AGR, which AGR is a very similar district to the RR district in terms of lot size and dimensions, 30,000 square foot minimum lot size in both districts. And so that's why even in AGR, it does require a special exception approval.

Quick question, please, for staff. So under the current zoning, the RR, rural residential, if they were to put a winery out there, would that allow them to have people come to the winery, or would it just be for production? That's not an RR, is it? It's a conditional use.

That's conditional, yeah. Yeah, let me look. I don't know off the top of my head, but I can certainly find that out for you. Let's see.

I think we're trying to wrap this up, Neil. I know, but I'm sorry. You had your chance.

So for one, the conditions are you have to get a special exception if you have less than five acres. You have to get your ABL license. Following uses and activities are allowed pursuant to the requirement. Let's see. You can do on-site premises sale of wine and promotional items such as wine consumption. They've got daily tour. Special events have to comply with the special events use requirements. So that means you can do five temporary special events per year, and then depending on, if you want to go beyond that, depending on what district you're in, you'd have to meet whatever other requirements, which may mean you have to rezone, or it could mean special exception if you meet the list of conditions that are in Article 6.7 for special events. So even wineries have to comply with those special events requirements. based on the zoning districts.

Okay.

I guess following up on that, Andrea, with their zoning, the current zoning in RR, what kind of special events could they do?

Well, in all of our zoning districts, you get five temporary special events per year that you can do. Of course, you have to come in and you have to show us your site plan and where you're doing the parking and meet all the requirements. If you want to go beyond that in RR, let me look and I can tell you. If you're in RR, you're limited to 500 guest capacity.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Yeah, yeah. You're limited to a daily attendance of 500 people in RR. I'm looking for the portion that talks about if you want to go beyond the five per year that everyone gets.

Let's see.

And then there are some limits if you want to go for special exception to get up to 25. And if you can't meet those conditions or you want to go beyond the 25, now you're looking at a rezoning.

OK. Thank you.

Yeah. OK. Okay, Susan, I think we need to start wrapping this up.

I agree with Adam. I dislike PDs, excuse me, plan developments, but what would be the pros and cons of that approach? Would they be able to limit? Again, I don't like all these other uses in AG-8 either, but would there be a way to limit the use of the land under AG-8 if they did a PD?

Yes. Well, they wouldn't have to. If they did a PD, they wouldn't have to do the, I mean, that is the reason.

It's zone zoning, yeah. Yes, it is zone zoning.

All right. We ready to move? Has anybody got a motion?

I move that we accept the recommendation of the staff to refuse the application, but suggest, as staff and others have said, that the applicant should consider a PD to limit future development or better define its operation. And I think that there would probably be a better chance of success.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

OK. So we have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah, just, you know, it's unusual in that it's a down zoning in the sense of the number of dwelling units per acre, but then the allowed uses that come with that down zoning make it an up zoning. And the concern is it's certainly not an indictment on the goatery or the goat business. I love the concept. I love what you guys do at Kiowa River. But the zoning stays with the land. I hope you all own it forever, but eventually somebody else will own it. And it opens up all of these other uses. I think I'm on the same page with everyone else here. I'm not a huge fan of the PD, but something like a PD would at least give you the opportunities to narrow the scope of what you want to do and also try to take that to your neighbors and find some guardrails that may make it work. Or the other avenue may be combining the agritourism with the special event rules that are already on the books under current zoning. I did like what Adam was speaking to, is maybe there's room for expansion, a tiered expansion of the agribusiness. And that would be outside of what we're voting on here today. overall it's the other allowed uses that go with the zoning because again we can't vote on what this current project is supposed to be but the zoning that's going to be attached to this land moving forward on the motion to disapprove Commissioner Davis aye Commissioner Lisane aye

Chair Floyd? Aye. Commissioner Jones? Aye. Commissioner Kent?

Aye.

Commissioner McConnell?

Aye.

Commissioner Morris?

Aye.

Vice Chair Palatos?

Aye.

Commissioner Cox? Aye. The motion passes.

It's disapproved, 9-0. Yes, disapproved. All right. I don't like it, though. County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on August 25th, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. in Council Chambers, and again at their September 3rd, 2026 Planning and Public Works Committee meeting at 5 p.m. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at Council's discretion. The next item on the agenda is the proposed amendments to the Zoning, Land, and Development Regulations Ordinance. Ms. Miller?

All right. So we have some amendments to the short-term rental regulations, which are intended to clarify application requirements regarding bedrooms and designated sleeping areas and establish corresponding parking requirements. This First Amendment is going to clarify that when an applicant is submitting a STRP zoning permit application, they must identify the maximum number of bedrooms in all areas that will be designated sleeping areas for guests within the short-term rental property. A designated sleeping area is proposed to be defined as any room, space, or portion of a dwelling that is represented, furnished, intended to be offered, or used for overnight sleeping, whether it meets the bedroom definition under the adopted building code or appears as a bedroom on approved plans. This next amendment is to the parking requirements for STRPs. One parking space would be required per permitted bedroom and designated area used for sleeping, in addition to any other required parking requirements, as defined by short-term rental chapter 6. No public input was received for these amendments, and the amendments were notified as required. And that's it.

Questions, comments? So were people actually having more bedrooms than they were advertising, or they were advertising more bedrooms than they were telling us?

So what we've seen at the Board of Zoning Appeals especially, when folks are asking for an extended home rental, that's when they have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. And what they'll do is they'll come in with a three-bedroom house, but they'll have the number of people who could stay there, maximum number of people at like, 11, 18, something, that you wouldn't be able to sleep in that room. And of course, the board says, OK, well, where are these people all staying? And they're like, well, we have a living room with a pull-out couch and that kind of thing. And then the board gets concerned because parking is really how we've always controlled the number of people who can be in the short-term rentals. It's not like we go out on a Saturday night and see how many people are there or anything like that. So that's really our only way. You have to be able to park it on site. It's always been... You have to meet the parking requirement for the use, which for single-family detached is two, and then one per bedroom. So what's happening is people are able to say, I've got this three-bedroom house. I only have to have five parking spaces, but I've got 11, 15, 18, whatever people staying here. So it's been a big concern for the Board of Zoning Appeals. So we've also had concerns from our building department. It doesn't really comply with the building code if you've got people sleeping in rooms that are not designated as bedrooms, technically. So that's one threshold. The other threshold is 11 or more people. And then the other threshold is five or more bedrooms. So once you trip those thresholds, then you're looking at something maybe different in the building code. So we've started sending people to building services before they come in to apply so they know those limitations and where the building code may make them sprinkle the house or do something else when they go that high. So when they come in with their application, they actually have that knowledge up front. So we want to control the parking factor and make sure it matches with the number of guests and the number of rooms being used, whether they're bedrooms or not, and then make sure that the building code requirements are known up front for the applicants before they get into the application process.

Luke?

I have a couple of questions. So first, regarding building code, well, I guess let me back up. How would, let's say this passes, how would that be enforced? It's an annual application, right?

Well, this is when they first come to us. And they say, I've got whatever number of bedrooms and this many guests. And we've already, honestly, started doing this, sending them to building services so that they know before they get into the process what's going to be required when they get to the point, if they get through BZA. We've always sent them over for a building safety. And the point of that was to check if any other things needed to be done to be building code compliant based on the number of bedrooms and the number of guests.

And I know this is a little out of the purview, but I guess from a building code perspective, they're putting them into the commercial building code for transient residential occupancy.

I think once they trip that threshold, they are some of these thresholds, but I am no expert in that area.

I just don't know how it worked on that back end. And I know that's a little... I hate parking minimums, so it's hard for me to put a guess on this one, but I do understand the concern because I can imagine a house in a neighborhood and there's like 12 cars that pop up randomly.

To sleep on the futon.

Yeah, to sleep on the futon. So, and I just don't know off the top of my head, does the county have a maximum number of nights that short-term rentals can be used? Or once it's approved, it's good to go?

So if it's a limited home rental, it has to be owner-occupied. So you've got to have the 4% assessment. And then you're limited to 72 nights per year. Once you go to extended, and that's only certain zoning districts these are allowed. And that's the one that's allowed in most of our districts. Really just in our suburban area districts is where the extended home rental is allowed. And that's the one that can be non-owner occupied. And you can go up to 144 nights per year. But you do have to get Board of Zoning Appeals approval. So your neighbors are notified. It goes through the special exception process. And the board doesn't have to give you 144. They could limit you to something less than that. It's just to get over that 72 days. And then our third category is commercial guest house. That's only allowed in our non-residential districts. And that is basically a house that can be used as a hotel 365 days a year. It can be used. But that's non-residential districts only. Okay.

I think that's good for me. Okay.

Okay.

Do we have any situations like downtown Charleston where you have limited driveways and you leave space for parking where they're allowed to park on the street with that?

We require all on-site parking, all street parking. It can't be on the street.

OK.

Anybody else?

OK. Got a motion.

I don't allow any on-street parking.

All of our requirements in our ordinance have always been we're not set up like the city. We don't have a lot of on-street parking spaces set up. So for us, it's really a way to limit what can go on inside of that, especially for short-term rentals. You've got to park everybody on site. Otherwise... They might be parking up and down the street. And a lot of our streets aren't public. They might be private streets in the county that might have other regulations that we're not privy to that might restrict parking. But all of our regulations have always been on site. You have to be able to park it on the site, whether it's residential or commercial. We have some limited off-site allowances, but those are for non-residential uses.

I'm thinking of someone, and I know a lot of it's the city of Charleston, but the neighborhoods that are set up now with a lot of street parking versus you barely can get one car in the driveway, but they have designated street parking cut out. But I think that applies more so to the city-approved neighborhoods. Okay.

Anybody want to make a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Want to do the roll call?

On the motion to approve, Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Lesane? Aye. Chair Floyd?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Kent?

Aye.

Commissioner McConnell?

Aye.

Commissioner Morris?

Aye.

Vice Chair Pilatos?

Aye.

Commissioner Cox? Aye. The motion passes 8-1. Okay.

Good to know. County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on August 25th, 2026 at 6.30 PM in council chambers and again at their September 3rd, 2026 Planning and Public Works Committee meeting at 5 PM. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council's discretions. Okay. Is there any further business? Okay. If there's no further business, the meeting of Charleston County Planning Commission stands adjourned. The Planning Commission will hold its next regularly scheduled meeting on August 10th, 2026, beginning at 2 p.m. in Council Chambers. Meeting adjourned.